Is there a difference??
John Ritchson
Frank wrote:
> 2. Magic bullet I own/have access to 4 6.5 M/C's
> I reload, and I have lite loaded, and over loaded. I have fired at
> targets( gelatin) at ranges of 10 yrds, and out to 400 yds, and All my
> bullets were expanded all to shit. I can not duplicate the magic, nor
> can I make any of my bullets do what the magic bullet did( hover, change
> course, etc etc.
> Screw all the other facts, if any body can prove the magic bullet to me,
> I will belive, and don't get Arlen Spector to prove it. I have been
> reloading for 32 years. I do the 1000 yds shoots, and I was a sniper in
> the Corps. Show me the proof.
Greetings and semper fi,
I am gratified to see another shooter that has actually attempted to
reproduce the magic bullet and found it to be a myth propagated by
Arlen Spector(lawyer),varified by Drs.Lattimer(urologist),and Alverez-
(jet mechanic) and supported by numerous apologists,none of whom
seem to have any credentials at all in the field of weapons and ball-
istics.
Actually if you fire a 6.5 FMJ into a barrel of water you should
come up with a pretty good example of the Stretcher-Bullet.Also
if you look at a 8x10" blow-up of WC Exhibit CE-399 you will find
that it is clearly a 6-groove bullet which is interesting seeing as
how all Carcano rifles were made with 4-groove barrels.Even better,
is to compare this with the bullet depicted in the 8x10" blow-up
identified as HSCA Exhibit CE-399,which is clearly a different bullet
with 4-grooves.
I would refer you to my article posted to alt.conspiracy.jfk titled,
>>Evidence Revisited<<
Regards,
John Ritchson(SSGT.499th TC USATC HG US Army,Class of 69)
(Master-Machinest,Gun-Smith,Ballistician, )
(and Survivor of the US Foreign-Policy )
(Experiment in SE Asia.[11bravo7,RVN 70-71])
***********************************************************
Not even the strength of mighty armys can match the power
of a single Idea who's time has come.(Victor Hugo)
***********************************************************
Tracy Riddle
Thanks, Frank and John, for further confirming what should be obvious to
all: that CE399 was fired into water or something similar. Anyone who
believes that this bullet smashed bones and went through two bodies
needs to pull themselves into the real world.
Tracy
Ben Holmes
Frank (ar...@galaxynet.com) wrote:
> Screw all the other facts, if any body can prove the magic bullet to me,
> I will belive, and don't get Arlen Spector to prove it. I have been
> reloading for 32 years. I do the 1000 yds shoots, and I was a sniper in
> the Corps. Show me the proof.
Ahh! But don't you know... that if *anyone* pulling a trigger could get
that round to do the things it did (SBT), it had to be a former Marine?!
(Even if he did have more than his fair share of Maggie's...)
It's obviously fortunate for the WC to have been able to list LHO as a
Marine... everyone KNOWS that Marines know rifles inside out!
Semper Fi!
Howard Rogers
Tracy Riddle wrote in message <345E29...@tfb.com>...
[Snip]
>Thanks, Frank and John, for further confirming what should be obvious to
>all: that CE399 was fired into water or something similar. Anyone who
>believes that this bullet smashed bones and went through two bodies
>needs to pull themselves into the real world.
>
>Tracy
You know, this is a source of constant amazement to me. How in the hell
can we still be arguing over what a bullet looks like after hitting two men
versus what it looks like after hitting a barrel of water, 30+ years
on???!!!!
We have numerous shooters on this group. Can they please *do* the water
experiment, and post the results as graphics?
Why are such verifiable things still a matter of dispute??
Regards
HJR
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>From: "Howard Rogers" <Howa...@msn.com>
>Date: Mon, Nov 3, 1997 23:44 EST
>Message-id: <63m97s$dgs$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>
>
>
>You know, this is a source of constant amazement to me. How in the hell
>can we still be arguing over what a bullet looks like after hitting two men
>versus what it looks like after hitting a barrel of water, 30+ years
>on???!!!!
>
>We have numerous shooters on this group. Can they please *do* the water
>experiment, and post the results as graphics?
>
>Why are such verifiable things still a matter of dispute??
>
>Regards
>HJR
Hello Howard,
It wouldn't make any difference if 20 of us with M-C 's fired them
into a barrel of water and recovered the bullets, then took pictures of those
bullets and posted them. In six months or a year the same old tied questions
would start surfacing again.
I have several bullets that I recovered from the bottom of the water barrel.
They all look very much like the HSCA CE 399.
While shooting into the barrel one of my shots hit the soft brass end of my
garden hose which I had forgot to remove from the barrel. The bullet of
course was in the bottom of the barrel and it was badly deformed. The point
being that if a FMJ bullet was that badly deformed by striking a soft, light
gauge, brass hose fitting It is impossible for me to accept that a similar
bullet hit a hard human rib and remained undamaged.
The lners can talk til they are blue from lack of air, and nobody will ever
convince me that CE 399 was the bullet that hit Conally's rib.
Walt Cakebread
jack white
NOT TO MENTION HIS WRIST, ONE THE HARDEST BONES IN THE BODY.
>
> Walt Cakebread
>
>
Steve Keating
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> John Ritchson wrote:
> >
> > Frank wrote:
> >
> > > 2. Magic bullet I own/have access to 4 6.5 M/C's
> > > I reload, and I have lite loaded, and over loaded. I have fired at
> > > targets( gelatin) at ranges of 10 yrds, and out to 400 yds, and All my
> > > bullets were expanded all to shit. I can not duplicate the magic, nor
> > > can I make any of my bullets do what the magic bullet did( hover, change
> > > course, etc etc.
> > > I will belive, and don't get Arlen Spector to prove it. I have been
> > > reloading for 32 years. I do the 1000 yds shoots, and I was a sniper in
> > > the Corps. Show me the proof.
> >
> > I am gratified to see another shooter that has actually attempted to
> > reproduce the magic bullet and found it to be a myth propagated by
> > Arlen Spector(lawyer),varified by Drs.Lattimer(urologist),and Alverez-
> > (jet mechanic) and supported by numerous apologists,none of whom
> > seem to have any credentials at all in the field of weapons and ball-
> > istics.
> >
> > Actually if you fire a 6.5 FMJ into a barrel of water you should
> > come up with a pretty good example of the Stretcher-Bullet.Also
> > if you look at a 8x10" blow-up of WC Exhibit CE-399 you will find
> > that it is clearly a 6-groove bullet which is interesting seeing as
> > how all Carcano rifles were made with 4-groove barrels.Even better,
> > is to compare this with the bullet depicted in the 8x10" blow-up
> > identified as HSCA Exhibit CE-399,which is clearly a different bullet
> > with 4-grooves.
> >
> > I would refer you to my article posted to alt.conspiracy.jfk titled,
> > >>Evidence Revisited<<
> >
>
> all: that CE399 was fired into water or something similar. Anyone who
> believes that this bullet smashed bones and went through two bodies
> needs to pull themselves into the real world.
If that is a world of paranoia, govt haters, and the evil entity under
every bed, I say no thanks, Tracy. My real world says that CE399 was
unlikely but not anywhere near impossible. That one bullet *had* to have
gone through both men according to the physical and visual evidence that
we have available. Have you seen the Meyers model that traces CE399
backwards through JBC's wounds? To be as badly flattened as 399 was, it
had to strike hard bone while traveling sideways. You can believe in
water tank shots and ball peen hammers all you wish, but we expect you
to support your assertions with evidence.
Steve K.
>
> Tracy
Tracy Riddle
Joe Durnavich wrote:
>
> Steve Keating writes:
>
> >Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, Frank and John, for further confirming what should be obvious to
> >> all: that CE399 was fired into water or something similar. Anyone who
> >> believes that this bullet smashed bones and went through two bodies
> >> needs to pull themselves into the real world.
> >
> >If that is a world of paranoia, govt haters, and the evil entity under
> >every bed, I say no thanks, Tracy. My real world says that CE399 was
> >unlikely but not anywhere near impossible. That one bullet *had* to have
> >gone through both men according to the physical and visual evidence that
> >we have available. Have you seen the Meyers model that traces CE399
> >backwards through JBC's wounds? To be as badly flattened as 399 was, it
> >had to strike hard bone while traveling sideways. You can believe in
> >water tank shots and ball peen hammers all you wish, but we expect you
> >to support your assertions with evidence.
>
> is, I'm sure a clever enough conspirator can come up with a way to get
> it that damaged. Lattimer developed a great technique for faking the
> stretcher bullet: Fire it through a hunk of fresh pork, then through
> a rib bone encased in pork, and then through a radius bone.
>
> Once again, Tracy's conspirators have the either the most amazing
> foresight or the most amazing luck possible. They happen to plant an
> oddly flattened bullet,
It's no more oddly-flattened than any other round fired from a Carcano;
look at Henry Hurt's test bullet.
> on Connally's stretcher nonetheless, that
> perfectly explains the non-headshot wounds on JFK and JBC.
I'm sure the bullet was never intended to account for all of their
non-fatal wounds - it originally wasn't, after all. At the autopsy, it
was thought to have fallen out of the shallow back wound. Then, before
the development of the SBT, CE399 was considered to have only caused
Connally's wounds.
> And,
> fortunately, the doctors don't pull an intact bullet out of Connally
> which would blow the whole scheme open.
And from where were they supposed to have removed a bullet? His torso
and wrist wounds were transiting wounds. Only the thigh wound was
non-transiting, but either you or Joel told me it was too shallow to
have retained the bullet for more than a few seconds.
> If it was just this one instance, you could say, "Oh, well, dumb
> luck!" But this is coming off the really big break of getting Oswald
> to visit Marina before the weekend and then to carry a long package to
> work the following morning.
>
There you go again, changing the subject.
Tracy
Steve Keating
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Frank wrote:
> >
> > What is the difference between," the conspiracy book spin" and the
> > "warren commission spin"????
> > both raise more questions then they answer.
> > Now I don't know if O did it or not, I don't know if the was a
> > conspiracy. What I do know is 2 items
> > 1. the claim that no recordes/transcripts were keep while interviewing
> > O. Last year my dog barked at a women as she walked past my house, and
> > she called the cops, before he was done he had 4 pages of note's , and I
> > wasn't accused of killing the President.
>
> I totally agree. We're told that the Dallas police didn't own a tape
> recorder. Even if that were true, didn't ANYBODY in Dallas have a tape
> recorder to lend them? And in the WR (p197) there's a floor plan of the
> police department which shows a "Recording Room," right across the hall
> from "Homicide-Robbery."
> And what about a stenographer? Don't tell me they didn't have any of
> those in Dallas!
There is no use bitching about that now, Tracy. In 63, it was not part
of their procedure to record interrogations, period. Like it or not. We
have what we have.
Steve K.
>
> Tracy
Steve Keating
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
> >Date: Mon, Nov 3, 1997 22:20 EST
> >Message-id: <63m49v$bfk$1...@news.rain.org>
> >
> >Frank (ar...@galaxynet.com) wrote:
> >> Screw all the other facts, if any body can prove the magic bullet to me,
> >> I will belive, and don't get Arlen Spector to prove it. I have been
> >> reloading for 32 years. I do the 1000 yds shoots, and I was a sniper in
> >> the Corps. Show me the proof.
> >
> >that round to do the things it did (SBT), it had to be a former Marine?!
> >(Even if he did have more than his fair share of Maggie's...)
> >
> >It's obviously fortunate for the WC to have been able to list LHO as a
> >Marine... everyone KNOWS that Marines know rifles inside out!
> >
> >Semper Fi!
> >
> exactly right in your assessment. The authorities did make a concerted effort
> to demonstrate that LHO was a Marine with great skill with a rifle. Oswald's
> shooting skills have been shown to be sub par for a Marine, but they managed
> to make him look like Gunny Hathcock.
You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the record
is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines. But
he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that he
made in DP on 11/22/63.
Steve K.
>
> Walt Cakebread
PISite
Steve and Walt, pardon me for interrupting your exchange:
Walt Cakebread wrote:
>> Hello Ben the tone of your post is light hearted and humorous but you are
>> exactly right in your assessment. The authorities did make a concerted
>effort
>> to demonstrate that LHO was a Marine with great skill with a rifle.
>Oswald's
>> shooting skills have been shown to be sub par for a Marine, but they
>managed
>> to make him look like Gunny Hathcock.
>
>You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the record
>is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines. But
>he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that he
>made in DP on 11/22/63.
>
>Steve K.
>>
>> Walt Cakebread
I realize that I don't participate in the discussions much, so forgive me for
asking for what may appear to be a dumb question:
I am of the impression that there was difficulty duplicating Oswald's
shooting. I am further of the impression that shooters better than Oswald had
difficulty duplicating the shooting, and that the term "lucky" is used to
describe Oswald's shooting.
Regarding the use of the term "relatively easy" I would like to see both of
yours and Mr. Cakebreads rubuttal to your comments on why Oswalds shooting is
described by this term.
Appreciate your time any comments you may wish to share.
Mike Mathews
Eric Chomko
Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote:
[...]
: You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the record
: is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines. But
: he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that he
: made in DP on 11/22/63.
To call the shots alledgedly made by LHO easy is absurd. A moving target
away at that distance IS NO easy. I doubt if LHO could have made the shot
from the knoll. THAT shot took a much better marksaman than LHO.
Eric
Tracy Riddle
PISite wrote:
>
> Steve and Walt, pardon me for interrupting your exchange:
>
> Walt Cakebread wrote:
>
> >> Hello Ben the tone of your post is light hearted and humorous but you are
> >> exactly right in your assessment. The authorities did make a concerted
> >effort
> >> to demonstrate that LHO was a Marine with great skill with a rifle.
> >Oswald's
> >> shooting skills have been shown to be sub par for a Marine, but they
> >managed
> >> to make him look like Gunny Hathcock.
> >
>
> >is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines. But
> >he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that he
> >made in DP on 11/22/63.
> >
> >>
> >> Walt Cakebread
>
> I realize that I don't participate in the discussions much, so forgive me for
> asking for what may appear to be a dumb question:
> I am of the impression that there was difficulty duplicating Oswald's
> shooting. I am further of the impression that shooters better than Oswald had
> difficulty duplicating the shooting, and that the term "lucky" is used to
> describe Oswald's shooting.
You're absolutely right, but the lone-nutters don't like to be confused
with facts.
Tracy
Tony Pitman
WCAKE wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
> >From: bnho...@rain.org (Ben Holmes)
> >Date: Mon, Nov 3, 1997 22:20 EST
> >Message-id: <63m49v$bfk$1...@news.rain.org>
> >
> >Frank (ar...@galaxynet.com) wrote:
> >> Screw all the other facts, if any body can prove the magic bullet
> to me,
> >> I will belive, and don't get Arlen Spector to prove it. I have been
>
> >> reloading for 32 years. I do the 1000 yds shoots, and I was a
> sniper in
> >> the Corps. Show me the proof.
> >
> >Ahh! But don't you know... that if *anyone* pulling a trigger could
> get
> >that round to do the things it did (SBT), it had to be a former
> Marine?!
> >(Even if he did have more than his fair share of Maggie's...)
> >
> >It's obviously fortunate for the WC to have been able to list LHO as
> a
> >Marine... everyone KNOWS that Marines know rifles inside out!
> >
> >Semper Fi!
> >
> Hello Ben the tone of your post is light hearted and humorous but you
> are
> exactly right in your assessment. The authorities did make a
> concerted effort
> to demonstrate that LHO was a Marine with great skill with a rifle.
> Oswald's
> shooting skills have been shown to be sub par for a Marine, but
> they managed
> to make him look like Gunny Hathcock.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Who the hell is this Gunny Hathcock? I hope he's the Freudian send
up that he sounds like.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>Date: Fri, Nov 7, 1997 00:40 EST
>Message-id: <63u9jh$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>
>Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
>: Steve Keating wrote:
>: >
>
>: Anyone who doubts the official solution is paranoid, a government hater,
>: and a believer in evil entities? Steve, I would love to be able to trust
>: the government and have faith in official pronouncements, but at some
>: point you have to grow up and realize that the real world is not the way
>: it's portrayed in high school civics books.
>
>
>Tracy, when are you going to catch on to the fact that not all the liars in
the world are in government. Some write conspiracy books. And some make
movies.
>
>Your priding yourself on not believing the government, while accepting tons of
nonsense from conspiracy books, isn't impressive.
>
>.John
>
>
>
Hey maggot, I doubt that Tracy is getting much of his information from "
conspiracy books". If you read his posts you'll know that he posts info from
the volumes, FBI memos and documents, and many other OFFICAL sources.
He then evaluates and considers the info he finds. He doesn't merely repeat the
Warren Commission's bizarre decree like a lunatic parrot.
Walt Cakebread
Steve Keating
Tracy Riddle wrote:
It will take some research to find out. The word "recording" could mean
most anything. It doesn't necessarily mean tape recording. The point is
that tape recording was not procedure in the DPD in 63. Even Hosty
points that out in his book.
Steve K.
>
> Tracy
Steve Keating
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Keating wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > >
> > > all: that CE399 was fired into water or something similar. Anyone who
> > > believes that this bullet smashed bones and went through two bodies
> > > needs to pull themselves into the real world.
> >
> > If that is a world of paranoia, govt haters, and the evil entity under
> > every bed, I say no thanks, Tracy.
>
> and a believer in evil entities? Steve, I would love to be able to trust
> the government and have faith in official pronouncements, but at some
> point you have to grow up and realize that the real world is not the way
> it's portrayed in high school civics books.
This is where you miss the boat, Tracy. Sometimes it is, and sometimes
it is not. My reality is not black and white as yours seems to be.
Sometimes the govt gets it right, and does the right thing, and
sometimes they screw up. But reality is inbetween. That is how I view
this case. The govt was somewhat inept, they made mistakes as did the
DPD, PMH docs, autopsy docs, SS, FBI, who have you. And there was a mild
coverup of some of the minor facts. They were human, for Pete's sake.
People screw up like it or not. It still appears that the WC got the
final conclusion right. If you want to understand this case, you have to
understand human nature and the politics and fear that was in the
atmosphere in 63. This is simply not a black and white case, nor can it
be viewed in such a way.
>
> > My real world says that CE399 was
> > unlikely but not anywhere near impossible. That one bullet *had* to have
> > gone through both men according to the physical and visual evidence that
> > we have available.
>
> The physical and visual evidence was twisted and contorted by Arlen
> Specter (who is not a ballistics expert) so the WC could maintain the
> one assassin/three shots, two hits scenario. If it had been necessary,
> Specter would have found some way to make CE399 account for the head
> shot as well.
Do you believe everything you read in buff books? Specter was smart
enough to see that the physical evidence pointed only in the direction
of the SBT. I submit that he was actually ahead of his time on this
issue. One whole bullet recovered with no others impacted anywhere else
in the car or the two men leads you to it right away. Why are the buff
books so afraid to show that JFK and JBC *were* perfectly aligned for
the SBT. Look at page 7 of TKOAP and judge with your own eyes. Is this
the view that the buff books show you, or do they play the zig-zag
bullet stops in mid air nonsense? Yes, its a retorical question. We both
know the answer.
>
> > Have you seen the Meyers model that traces CE399
> > backwards through JBC's wounds?
>
> No model can perfectly simulate the exact positions of JFK and Connally
> at the time of the shooting; the photographic evidence isn't precise
> enough for that. Even the lone-nutters can't agree exactly when the SBT
> shot happened, and as it likely occured behind the freeway sign, you
> can't possibly know how Connally was positioned.
You did not answer the question. Have you seen the model? Dale's logic
is sound in terms of estimating the position of the men while behind the
sign based upon their movements before and after the sign. Their body
positions would not move that much for this short period. Meyers is not
simply a LN that tried to prove the SBT. He worked backwards from JBC's
wounds. I submit that the photographic evidence that Dale used *is*
precise enough if the computer model and correct logic have been applied
to a precise map of DP. This is what Dale did.
>
> > To be as badly flattened as 399 was, it
> > had to strike hard bone while traveling sideways.
>
> But amazingly, the lands and grooves on the side of the bullet are not
> disfigured in any way.
I'm not so sure, but I am not an expert in that field so I will defer.
>
> > You can believe in
> > water tank shots and ball peen hammers all you wish, but we expect you
> > to support your assertions with evidence.
> >
>
> Ball peen hammers? When have I ever talked about them? And as for
> assertions without evidence - well, that's what you lone-nutters are
> best at.
You may not have, Tracy, but you infer that you don't think CE399 caused
the wounds in both men. If it was planted then the inference is that the
bullet was fabricated by such means as I mentioned. CE399 was matched to
LHO's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. If it did not cause
the SBT, then it was fired into water or cotton and then flattened on
one side. Ask yourself this, why would conspirators do that? And why
plant it at PMH? It makes no logical sense at all.
Steve K.
>
> Tracy
Tracy Riddle
> >Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
> >From: John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com>
> >Date: Fri, Nov 7, 1997 00:40 EST
> >Message-id: <63u9jh$j...@nntp02.primenet.com>
> >
> >Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
> >: Steve Keating wrote:
> >: >
> >
> >: and a believer in evil entities? Steve, I would love to be able to trust
> >: the government and have faith in official pronouncements, but at some
> >: point you have to grow up and realize that the real world is not the way
> >: it's portrayed in high school civics books.
> >
> >
> the world are in government. Some write conspiracy books. And some make
> movies.
> >
> Your priding yourself on not believing the government, while accepting tons of
> nonsense from conspiracy books, isn't impressive.
> >
> >.John
Actually, there is a great deal of stuff in the conspiracy books I don't
believe. I don't automatically believe ANYBODY; I have to convince
myself first.
I wish the government was telling the truth, John. I would like nothing
better than to trust them and have faith in what they say. I used to
consider myself a mainstream liberal who believed that government could
help solve problems. I'd still like to believe in that, but it's like
continuing to date a woman who constantly lies to you. No matter how
gorgeous she is, she's still a liar. And our government is the same way.
Tracy
Michael Beck
On 5 Nov 1997 19:58:54 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>: You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the record
>: is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines. But
>: he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that he
>: made in DP on 11/22/63.
>
>To call the shots alledgedly made by LHO easy is absurd. A moving target
>away at that distance IS NO easy. I doubt if LHO could have made the shot
>from the knoll. THAT shot took a much better marksaman than LHO.
>
>Eric
>
Eric. Do you have *any* experience with firearms?
Eric Chomko
Michael Beck <Michae...@att.net> wrote:
Yes, I do. At 13 I went from Marksman, Pro-Marksman, SS Bar 1 to Bar 6 in
a 4 month period. Marksman and Sharpshooter, IMO, are not difficult to
obtain. The expert levels are another story.
I'm convinced that I am a better shot than LHO was.
Eric
Michael Beck
Was your shooting at 13 with .22 rimfires or with large caliber
centerfire rifles (like Oswald qualified with)? Shooting with those
popguns vs. shooting a 30.06 is a different ballgame. Also, did you
fire at targets with open sights at ranges up to 500 yards? Oswald
did, and qualified.
Michael Beck
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 14:50:29 -0700, John Ritchson
<jo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings and semper fi,
do or die? ho hah?
> I am gratified to see another shooter that has actually attempted to
>reproduce the magic bullet and found it to be a myth propagated by
>Arlen Spector(lawyer),varified by Drs.Lattimer(urologist),and Alverez-
>(jet mechanic) and supported by numerous apologists,none of whom
>seem to have any credentials at all in the field of weapons and ball-
>istics.
Your credentials don't add up to practical knowledge. Nearly all
people who own grocery stores are not botanists or biologists. Owning
a gun store doesn't make one a forensic expert.
>
> Actually if you fire a 6.5 FMJ into a barrel of water you should
>come up with a pretty good example of the Stretcher-Bullet.Also
>if you look at a 8x10" blow-up of WC Exhibit CE-399 you will find
>that it is clearly a 6-groove bullet which is interesting seeing as
>how all Carcano rifles were made with 4-groove barrels.Even better,
>is to compare this with the bullet depicted in the 8x10" blow-up
>identified as HSCA Exhibit CE-399,which is clearly a different bullet
>with 4-grooves.
Wrong again. Perhaps it was a "wildcat" 6.5mm round that has those
characteristics?
>
> I would refer you to my article posted to alt.conspiracy.jfk titled,
>>>Evidence Revisited<<
>
Eric Chomko
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Michael Beck <Michae...@att.net> wrote:
[...]
: >: Eric. Do you have *any* experience with firearms?
: >
: >Yes, I do. At 13 I went from Marksman, Pro-Marksman, SS Bar 1 to Bar 6 in
: >a 4 month period. Marksman and Sharpshooter, IMO, are not difficult to
: >obtain. The expert levels are another story.
: >
: >I'm convinced that I am a better shot than LHO was.
: >
: >Eric
: Was your shooting at 13 with .22 rimfires or with large caliber
: centerfire rifles (like Oswald qualified with)? Shooting with those
: popguns vs. shooting a 30.06 is a different ballgame. Also, did you
: fire at targets with open sights at ranges up to 500 yards? Oswald
: did, and qualified.
.22 rifle..you know pretty close to a Mannlicher Carcano (what's that a
.27 caliber?). No scope and not nearly 500 yards. And who fires a rifle
with open sights at 500 yards?
Eric
Rock4Brain
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1997 12:58 EST
>Message-id: <346a4af5...@snews.zippo.com>
>>Michael Beck <Michae...@att.net> wrote:
>>: On 5 Nov 1997 19:58:54 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>
>>: >Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote:
[...]
>>: >
>>: >: You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the record
is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines.
>But
>>: >: he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that
>he
>>: >: made in DP on 11/22/63.
>>: >
>>: >To call the shots alledgedly made by LHO easy is absurd. A moving target
>>: >away at that distance IS NO easy. I doubt if LHO could have made the shot
>>: >from the knoll. THAT shot took a much better marksaman than LHO.
>>: >
>>: >Eric
>>: >
>>: Eric. Do you have *any* experience with firearms?
>>
>>Yes, I do. At 13 I went from Marksman, Pro-Marksman, SS Bar 1 to Bar 6 in
>>a 4 month period. Marksman and Sharpshooter, IMO, are not difficult to
>>obtain. The expert levels are another story.
>>
>>I'm convinced that I am a better shot than LHO was.
>>
>>Eric
>
>Was your shooting at 13 with .22 rimfires or with large caliber
>centerfire rifles (like Oswald qualified with)? Shooting with those
>popguns vs. shooting a 30.06 is a different ballgame. Also, did you
>fire at targets with open sights at ranges up to 500 yards? Oswald
>did, and qualified.
>
Wait a second...am I reading you correctly....you're saying that Oswald is
known to have qualifed at up to 500 yards with open sights...?
I'm not questioning you one way or the other, I honestly have not heard any
range figures before on Oswalds distance when qualifiying. I was of the
opinion that he was on a standard military firing course. Can you point me in
the direction of where I can read more on his shooting?
Steve Keating
Eric Chomko wrote:
>
> Michael Beck <Michae...@att.net> wrote:
> : On 5 Nov 1997 19:58:54 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
> : >Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote:
> : >[...]
> : >
> : >: You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the record
> : >: is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines. But
> : >: he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy shots that he
> : >: made in DP on 11/22/63.
> : >
> : >To call the shots alledgedly made by LHO easy is absurd. A moving target
> : >away at that distance IS NO easy. I doubt if LHO could have made the shot
> : >from the knoll. THAT shot took a much better marksaman than LHO.
> : >
> : >Eric
> : >
> : Eric. Do you have *any* experience with firearms?
>
> Yes, I do. At 13 I went from Marksman, Pro-Marksman, SS Bar 1 to Bar 6 in
> a 4 month period. Marksman and Sharpshooter, IMO, are not difficult to
> obtain. The expert levels are another story.
>
> I'm convinced that I am a better shot than LHO was.
It certainly sounds like it, Eric. Now let's get down to the brass
tacks. Do you think you could have made the shots that LHO alegedly made
firing from a range of 58 and 89 yards at a straight away slow moving
target with a rifle propped up on boxes using either a scope or the iron
sights? We know the type of MC weapon that LHO purportedly used. For the
purpose of the question, let us assume that the rifle iron sights and
scope were in alignment at the time. As we know no specific timeframe
for the shooting, let's use the two most commonly bandied about figures
of 5.6 seconds and 8.5 seconds. Assume an early first shot miss of the
limo. I accept the fact that you are an above average (excellent) shot
and I request your honest opinion as to the feat attributed to LHO
without any consideration of buff or LN politics or posturing. IOW, an
acknowledgement by you, me, or anyone else that we could or could not
make the shots will in no way change the facts of what did happen on
11/22. I just want your honest opinion as a shooter as to the difficulty
of the purported shots.
Steve K.
>
> Eric
Steve Keating
Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Keating wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Thanks, Frank and John, for further confirming what should be obvious to
> > > > > all: that CE399 was fired into water or something similar. Anyone who
> > > > > believes that this bullet smashed bones and went through two bodies
> > > > > needs to pull themselves into the real world.
> > > >
> > > > If that is a world of paranoia, govt haters, and the evil entity under
> > > > every bed, I say no thanks, Tracy.
> > >
> > > and a believer in evil entities? Steve, I would love to be able to trust
> > > the government and have faith in official pronouncements, but at some
> > > point you have to grow up and realize that the real world is not the way
> > > it's portrayed in high school civics books.
> >
> > it is not. My reality is not black and white as yours seems to be.
>
> usually pretty easy to tell when they're lying because they're so bad at
> it. And the WC is a good example of it.
Who are you trying to kid here Tracy? If you think its all a big lie
then why has it not been exposed in 34 years? The WC conclusion still
stands like it or not. Unless you can prove it wrong or prove an
alternate theory, your just in the bitchin club.
>
> > Sometimes the govt gets it right, and does the right thing, and
> > sometimes they screw up.
>
> I notice that you didn't say that the government ever does anything
> purposely wrong or illegal. Do you think that every bit of government
> wrongdoing is just an innocent screwup?
Certainly not. Watergate is a perfect example. I have indicated this
before. There are extremes on both sides.
>
> > But reality is inbetween. That is how I view
> > this case. The govt was somewhat inept, they made mistakes as did the
> > DPD, PMH docs, autopsy docs, SS, FBI, who have you. And there was a mild
> > coverup of some of the minor facts. They were human, for Pete's sake.
> > People screw up like it or not.
>
> The problems with this case cannot be explained by innocent screwups.
> Occasional human errors are perfectly understandable and to be expected,
> but that explanation simply doesn't fit the facts here.
The point is that it might. You have not posted any evidence of criminal
acts by the govt officaial related to the JFK case, nor has anyone else.
>
> > It still appears that the WC got the
> > final conclusion right. If you want to understand this case, you have to
> > understand human nature and the politics and fear that was in the
> > atmosphere in 63. This is simply not a black and white case, nor can it
> > be viewed in such a way.
>
> I understand the political situation perfectly. I believe that most of
> the people in the government and media did not want to find any
> conspiracy (foreign or domestic, right- or left-wing). Liberals and
> moderates assumed that Oswald was really the gunman, and a genuine
> Marxist, and they were afraid to look beyond him because they assumed
> they would only find a communist conspiracy. This would result in a
> terrible new Red Scare at home and maybe even a war with Russia. So
> Oswald was portrayed not as a Commie killer, but as a lone psycho. One
> of my favorite quotes from that time was that Oswald acted in his own
> "lunatic loneliness" (NYT 12/13/1963).
Why do you fell that LHO *had* to be a patsy or a conspirator? Is it so
hard for you to believe that he may well have simply been a nut as the
evidence indicates? Believe me, there are plenty of walking time bombs
out there as we speak.
> In those more trusting times, few were able to accept the idea that
> Oswald had been framed, and those that did were not willing to open up
> that Pandora's Box.
Why would someone want to accept an idea that there is no evidence for?
Besides, I submit that there would be no way to frame LHO to the extent
that you indicate without him knowing about it. This includes making
sure that he was not seen by anyone during the shooting. There is just
no practical way. Think about it.
>
> > >
> > > > My real world says that CE399 was
> > > > unlikely but not anywhere near impossible. That one bullet *had* to have
> > > > gone through both men according to the physical and visual evidence that
> > > > we have available.
> > >
> > > The physical and visual evidence was twisted and contorted by Arlen
> > > Specter (who is not a ballistics expert) so the WC could maintain the
> > > one assassin/three shots, two hits scenario. If it had been necessary,
> > > Specter would have found some way to make CE399 account for the head
> > > shot as well.
> >
> > Do you believe everything you read in buff books? Specter was smart
> > enough to see that the physical evidence pointed only in the direction
> > of the SBT. I submit that he was actually ahead of his time on this
> > issue.
>
> He was ahead of his time all right. And he was rewarded for his efforts
> with a rapid climb up the political ladder.
>
> > One whole bullet recovered with no others impacted anywhere else
> > in the car or the two men leads you to it right away. Why are the buff
> > books so afraid to show that JFK and JBC *were* perfectly aligned for
> > the SBT. Look at page 7 of TKOAP and judge with your own eyes. Is this
> > the view that the buff books show you, or do they play the zig-zag
> > bullet stops in mid air nonsense? Yes, its a retorical question. We both
> > know the answer.
>
> All of the lone-nutter diagrams I've seen showing the alignment of JFK
> and JBC always portray Connally sitting far below Kennedy's level. But
> photos of the motorcade show that the tops of their heads were basically
> level with each other. Connally's seat was a bit lower, but he was also
> taller than JFK.
I have seen *no* photos that show them at the same level. Look at page 9
of TKOAP. You can clearly see that JFK is 7-11 inches higher. I also
disagree about the height of the men based upon the photos in TKOAP, but
if you have exact specs, please post them. The men *were* aligned both
laterally and vertically for the shot.
>
> > >
> > > > Have you seen the Meyers model that traces CE399
> > > > backwards through JBC's wounds?
> > >
> > > No model can perfectly simulate the exact positions of JFK and Connally
> > > at the time of the shooting; the photographic evidence isn't precise
> > > enough for that. Even the lone-nutters can't agree exactly when the SBT
> > > shot happened, and as it likely occured behind the freeway sign, you
> > > can't possibly know how Connally was positioned.
> >
> > You did not answer the question. Have you seen the model? Dale's logic
> > is sound in terms of estimating the position of the men while behind the
> > sign based upon their movements before and after the sign. Their body
> > positions would not move that much for this short period. Meyers is not
> > simply a LN that tried to prove the SBT. He worked backwards from JBC's
> > wounds. I submit that the photographic evidence that Dale used *is*
> > precise enough if the computer model and correct logic have been applied
> > to a precise map of DP. This is what Dale did.
>
> No, I haven't seen his model. Is it available on the web somewhere?
Sure, parts of it is. The entire video can be ordered. Visit Dale's page
at www.jfkfiles.com. Just remember, Dale did not start with a
preconceived notion of trajectory. He worked backwards from JBC's
wounds.
>
> > >
> > > > To be as badly flattened as 399 was, it
> > > > had to strike hard bone while traveling sideways.
> > >
> > > But amazingly, the lands and grooves on the side of the bullet are not
> > > disfigured in any way.
> >
> > I'm not so sure, but I am not an expert in that field so I will defer.
>
> All the photos I've seen of it show intact lands and grooves.
I am not disputing what the photos appear to show. Just look at the
Meyers model and see if you can determine if the bullet that hit JBC
could have missed JFK.
>
> > >
> > > > You can believe in
> > > > water tank shots and ball peen hammers all you wish, but we expect you
> > > > to support your assertions with evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ball peen hammers? When have I ever talked about them? And as for
> > > assertions without evidence - well, that's what you lone-nutters are
> > > best at.
> >
> > You may not have, Tracy, but you infer that you don't think CE399 caused
> > the wounds in both men. If it was planted then the inference is that the
> > bullet was fabricated by such means as I mentioned. CE399 was matched to
> > LHO's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. If it did not cause
> > the SBT, then it was fired into water or cotton and then flattened on
> > one side. Ask yourself this, why would conspirators do that? And why
> > plant it at PMH? It makes no logical sense at all.
>
> Steve, I've already told you that the flattening is a product of the
> bullet having been fired out of a rifle; look at Henry Hurt's test
> bullet. It has the same flattening effect. I don't exactly know why it
> does that - perhaps it has something to do with the explosive force
> squeezing the base of the bullet.
I don't think flattening is inherent in bullets fired from a rifle.
Richson and Cakebread probably won't support you on that. They believe
that CE399 was flattened by a ballpeen hammer. If Hurt has a bullet that
was flattened as bad as CE399 then it is an anomaly. It may show that it
simply was possible but implausible. That is the same thing as saying
that CE399 was possible no matter how implausible. Sure, CE399 probably
would have been damaged to a greater extent under *most* circumstances.
The issue is, was it possible. The answer is yes. And that is what
matters. The evidence shows that CE399 is the culprit regardless of what
bullets do 9 out of 10 times.
Steve K.
t
>
> Tracy
Daeron
Steve Keating wrote:
> I accept the fact that you are an above average (excellent) shot
> and I request your honest opinion as to the feat attributed to LHO
> without any consideration of buff or LN politics or posturing.
I consider myself a fairly good shot, and have used an assortment of
weapons for practice, including .22s and shotguns. There is no freaking
way I could have made the three shots attributed to Oswald. Not then,
not now.
> IOW, an
> acknowledgement by you, me, or anyone else that we could or could not
> make the shots will in no way change the facts of what did happen on
> 11/22.
I agree - and what *did* happen is that at least three teams ambushed
our 35th President on 22 November, 1963, and set up an innocent patsy
(Lee Harvey Oswald) to take the blame. There is no way Oswald did
anything then - and there is no way any amount of fancy foot-dancing (in
print) will change that fact now.
--
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
Tracy Riddle
> > Steve Keating wrote:
> > >
> > > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > > >
>
> Who are you trying to kid here Tracy? If you think its all a big lie
> then why has it not been exposed in 34 years? The WC conclusion still
> stands like it or not.
Still stands with whom? With the same people who have defended it since
1964? It doesn't stand with the overwhelming majority of the American
people. And in other countries, it's almost impossible to find a
lone-nutter. Just because Gerald Ford and Dan Rather still believe the
WC, that doesn't make it true. Remember that Rather was the one who told
us that JFK's head went violently forward after the head shot. But we
can trust him, right?
> Unless you can prove it wrong or prove an
> alternate theory, your just in the bitchin club.
The Warren Report has been proven wrong by numerous researchers over the
decades, but you don't seem to think their work counts for anything
unless it's given the stamp of approval by the media or the government.
> > > Sometimes the govt gets it right, and does the right thing, and
> > > sometimes they screw up.
> >
> > I notice that you didn't say that the government ever does anything
> > purposely wrong or illegal. Do you think that every bit of government
> > wrongdoing is just an innocent screwup?
>
> Certainly not. Watergate is a perfect example. I have indicated this
> before. There are extremes on both sides.
> >
> > > But reality is inbetween. That is how I view
> > > this case. The govt was somewhat inept, they made mistakes as did the
> > > DPD, PMH docs, autopsy docs, SS, FBI, who have you. And there was a mild
> > > coverup of some of the minor facts. They were human, for Pete's sake.
> > > People screw up like it or not.
> >
> > The problems with this case cannot be explained by innocent screwups.
> > Occasional human errors are perfectly understandable and to be expected,
> > but that explanation simply doesn't fit the facts here.
>
> The point is that it might. You have not posted any evidence of criminal
> acts by the govt officaial related to the JFK case, nor has anyone else.
It depends on how you define a criminal act. Were the CIA and FBI
breaking the law when they lied to the WC and withheld evidence from
them? When Hoover deliberately steered the FBI investigation away from
looking into any conspiracy? I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know; maybe if
you wrap it in the cloak of "national security" everything is cool.
> >
> > > It still appears that the WC got the
> > > final conclusion right. If you want to understand this case, you have to
> > > understand human nature and the politics and fear that was in the
> > > atmosphere in 63. This is simply not a black and white case, nor can it
> > > be viewed in such a way.
> >
> > I understand the political situation perfectly. I believe that most of
> > the people in the government and media did not want to find any
> > conspiracy (foreign or domestic, right- or left-wing). Liberals and
> > moderates assumed that Oswald was really the gunman, and a genuine
> > Marxist, and they were afraid to look beyond him because they assumed
> > they would only find a communist conspiracy. This would result in a
> > terrible new Red Scare at home and maybe even a war with Russia. So
> > Oswald was portrayed not as a Commie killer, but as a lone psycho. One
> > of my favorite quotes from that time was that Oswald acted in his own
> > "lunatic loneliness" (NYT 12/13/1963).
>
> Why do you fell that LHO *had* to be a patsy or a conspirator? Is it so
> hard for you to believe that he may well have simply been a nut as the
> evidence indicates? Believe me, there are plenty of walking time bombs
> out there as we speak.
If there weren't a million and one problems with the physical evidence
against Oswald, and if he had a motive and was known to harbor anti-JFK
views, and was a decent shot, then I could accept that he was the
gunman. In fact, before I began studying this case in detail, I assumed
Oswald was the gunman (or one of them). But there are so many
unbelievable elements here: Oswald didn't drive, so he would have had to
carry his rifle on the bus or on foot to go practice with it; no
rifle-cleaning equipment or spare ammo or empty ammo boxes were found in
his belongings; and numerous other problems you should be well aware of
by now.
> > In those more trusting times, few were able to accept the idea that
> > Oswald had been framed, and those that did were not willing to open up
> > that Pandora's Box.
>
> Why would someone want to accept an idea that there is no evidence for?
> Besides, I submit that there would be no way to frame LHO to the extent
> that you indicate without him knowing about it. This includes making
> sure that he was not seen by anyone during the shooting. There is just
> no practical way. Think about it.
I don't have all the answers to where Oswald fit into the assassination
plot. I just know, as Jesse Curry later admitted, "The physical evidence
and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F.
Kennedy was assassinated." Curry also told interviewer Tom Johnson, "We
don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
hand." It *is* possible to frame someone, Steve. Ever heard of Alfred
Dreyfus?
In TKOAP, on the page before the Foreword, you can see a photo that
shows Connally just a couple of inches below JFK's level. He is
certainly not 7 to 11 inches lower (do you realize that 11 inches is
nearly a foot?) As for their heights, somewhere I read that JFK was 6'
1" or 2", and Connally was 6' 3".
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Have you seen the Meyers model that traces CE399
> > > > > backwards through JBC's wounds?
> > > >
> > > > No model can perfectly simulate the exact positions of JFK and Connally
> > > > at the time of the shooting; the photographic evidence isn't precise
> > > > enough for that. Even the lone-nutters can't agree exactly when the SBT
> > > > shot happened, and as it likely occured behind the freeway sign, you
> > > > can't possibly know how Connally was positioned.
> > >
> > > You did not answer the question. Have you seen the model? Dale's logic
> > > is sound in terms of estimating the position of the men while behind the
> > > sign based upon their movements before and after the sign. Their body
> > > positions would not move that much for this short period. Meyers is not
> > > simply a LN that tried to prove the SBT. He worked backwards from JBC's
> > > wounds. I submit that the photographic evidence that Dale used *is*
> > > precise enough if the computer model and correct logic have been applied
> > > to a precise map of DP. This is what Dale did.
> >
> > No, I haven't seen his model. Is it available on the web somewhere?
>
> Sure, parts of it is. The entire video can be ordered. Visit Dale's page
> at www.jfkfiles.com. Just remember, Dale did not start with a
> preconceived notion of trajectory. He worked backwards from JBC's
> wounds.
OK, I have seen his site before. His depiction of the SBT shows the
trajectory entering JFK's neck (above the shoulder), though the autopsy
photo clearly shows the wound below the shoulder. Also, I notice that he
didn't bother to depict the bullet exiting Connally's chest and somehow
entering the top of Connally's wrist. Most depictions of the SBT don't
bother to explain that.
> > > >
> > > > > To be as badly flattened as 399 was, it
> > > > > had to strike hard bone while traveling sideways.
> > > >
> > > > But amazingly, the lands and grooves on the side of the bullet are not
> > > > disfigured in any way.
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure, but I am not an expert in that field so I will defer.
> >
> > All the photos I've seen of it show intact lands and grooves.
>
> I am not disputing what the photos appear to show. Just look at the
> Meyers model and see if you can determine if the bullet that hit JBC
> could have missed JFK.
You're switching the issue. You're saying that the side of CE399 smashed
bones but came out with its lands and grooves intact.
Fine, Steve, believe whatever you want. There's really no point in us
going around and around on this anymore.
Tracy
Ben Holmes
Rock4Brain (rock4...@aol.com) wrote:
> Wait a second...am I reading you correctly....you're saying that Oswald is
> known to have qualifed at up to 500 yards with open sights...?
>
> I'm not questioning you one way or the other, I honestly have not heard
> any range figures before on Oswalds distance when qualifiying. I was of
> the opinion that he was on a standard military firing course. Can you
> point me in the direction of where I can read more on his shooting?
The standard Marine Corps test of shooting skill is performed annually in
a one week period (normally following a previous week of 'snapping in')...
and consists of firing 50 rounds in offhand, sitting, kneeling, and prone
positions, both slow fire and rapid fire... from the 200, 300, and 500
yard lines... this data is accurate as of when I left the Corps in 1986,
and I'm under the impression that it hasn't changed both after I left, and
was in effect while LHO was a Marine. And any other Marines out there
will agree with me when I say, LHO was a *lousy* shot. I'd die of
embarrassment if *I'd* ever fired a 191. I've hit *that* score on the
200 + 300 yard line, with the shots at the 500 still left!
I left the Corps with a 10th award Expert badge, and thought I was a
fairly decent shooter... until I got the chance to fire with the Marine
Corps Rifle Team for a few months... *THOSE* guys were awesome... can you
believe that most of them were pausing after -every- shot to look in a
scope at their target....during *rapid fire*?!! I routinely fired between
238-242 out of 250, and I was eaten alive at the few competitive matches I
competed in. LHO a good shot? Tell me another good joke!!!
I've read somewhere that the average person given a few hours of firing
and instruction can fire a 190... (Minimum acceptable score), I wouldn't
doubt it. Most Marines do better than that the first time they fire in
boot camp. (As LHO did in boot camp, hitting a 212... he sure didn't
improve any!)
Eric Chomko
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote:
[...]
: > : Eric. Do you have *any* experience with firearms?
: >
: > Yes, I do. At 13 I went from Marksman, Pro-Marksman, SS Bar 1 to Bar 6 in
: > a 4 month period. Marksman and Sharpshooter, IMO, are not difficult to
: > obtain. The expert levels are another story.
: >
: > I'm convinced that I am a better shot than LHO was.
: It certainly sounds like it, Eric. Now let's get down to the brass
: tacks. Do you think you could have made the shots that LHO alegedly made
: firing from a range of 58 and 89 yards at a straight away slow moving
: target with a rifle propped up on boxes using either a scope or the iron
: sights? We know the type of MC weapon that LHO purportedly used. For the
Given about 15 seconds between shots, maybe.
: purpose of the question, let us assume that the rifle iron sights and
: scope were in alignment at the time. As we know no specific timeframe
: for the shooting, let's use the two most commonly bandied about figures
: of 5.6 seconds and 8.5 seconds. Assume an early first shot miss of the
: limo. I accept the fact that you are an above average (excellent) shot
: and I request your honest opinion as to the feat attributed to LHO
: without any consideration of buff or LN politics or posturing. IOW, an
: acknowledgement by you, me, or anyone else that we could or could not
: make the shots will in no way change the facts of what did happen on
: 11/22. I just want your honest opinion as a shooter as to the difficulty
: of the purported shots.
You are taling about a bolt action rifle that HAD problems with the
sights. Someone did post the FBI shot recreation with Oswald's rifle. The
results were terrible. In short, no FBI rifle expert could recreate the
feat, And we're talking no time constraint. Relaxed shooting on stationary
targets! The rifle was THAT bad.
Eric
: Steve K.
: >
: > Eric
Michael Beck
Robert Donahue hit the target three times (Oswald hit twice) in less
time than six seconds.
Oswald hit twice and missed once in over 8 seconds.
Michael Beck
On 13 Nov 1997 15:15:04 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>Organization: IDT Internet Services
>Distribution:
>
>Michael Beck <Michae...@att.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>: Robert Donahue hit the target three times (Oswald hit twice) in less
>: time than six seconds.
>
>: Oswald hit twice and missed once in over 8 seconds.
>
>What target, what range and what rifle? Was it a bolt action like a MC? Or
>semi-automatic (which BTW, any real assassin would have used over bolt
>action) like an M-1 Gurran?
Donahue used a MC rifle identical to Oswald's. FYI, the M1 is the
Garand
>Why, Beck, do you think LHO used a bolt action and NOT a semi-automatic?
Because he was poor. The only firearms that he could afford were
cheap military (or police) surplus. When he bought the Carcano, he
surely wasn't considering shooting JFK. I believe he made that
decision 1-2 days before the assassination.
>
>Eric
Tracy Riddle
Steve Keating wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
<snipping to save bandwidth>
> > Still stands with whom?
>
> The WC is one of two govt conclusions which are based upon
> investigations. The other, of course, is the HSCA. Both conclusions
> state that LHO alone fired the shots that killed the president on
> 11/22/63. Its in the books, and it still stands until someone can
> disprove it or prove conspiracy to murder the president. IOW, Whitewash,
> Best Evidence, Mortal Error, ...etc. do not stand. The WCR and HSCA are
> the U.S. govt conclusions that *do* stand.
Steve, you seem to be one of the last people around who still believes
that whatever the government says is "truth" and whatever it disagrees
with must be false.
> > Just because Gerald Ford and Dan Rather still believe the
> > WC, that doesn't make it true. Remember that Rather was the one who told
> > us that JFK's head went violently forward after the head shot. But we
> > can trust him, right?
>
> Rather made a mistake. Many were made in the early reporting. He knows
> what he did in the early part of his career.
How could anyone who isn't totally blind make such a mistake? He claims
to have seen the almost unnoticeable forward-movement of JFK's head
(which JFK could have done himself - he was still alive at that point)
but completely missed the violent backward movement. If his powers of
observation are that bad, he shouldn't be a reporter.
> > The Warren Report has been proven wrong by numerous researchers over the
> > decades, but you don't seem to think their work counts for anything
> > unless it's given the stamp of approval by the media or the government.
>
> Wrong, Tracy. It has *not* been proven wrong, or we would have a
> replacement conclusion.
By whom? The government and the media?
> The WR said that LHO alone killed JFK. The HSCA
> confirmed that. The WR did not preclude a conspiracy, they simply stated
> that they had no evidence of one. Please be specific about which
> "researchers over the decades" have proved the WR wrong.
Weisberg, Meagher, Roffman and many others have proven that the WC's own
evidence does not match its conclusions.
> > It depends on how you define a criminal act. Were the CIA and FBI
> > breaking the law when they lied to the WC and withheld evidence from
> > them?
>
> Not necessarily. Their actions may have been illadvised (in hindsight)
> but that does not make them criminal.
>
> When Hoover deliberately steered the FBI investigation away from
> > looking into any conspiracy?
>
> Can you prove that. Hoover is not a fan of mine either, but you will
> need to support your assertion with evidence, not speculation. You are
> accusing Hoover and the FBI of illegal acts. Some evidence is in order.
If you've read the bios on Hoover and the more well-documented books by
WC critics, you wouldn't be so unaware of Hoover's dishonesty.
> I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know; maybe if
> > you wrap it in the cloak of "national security" everything is cool.
>
> Not cool at all. If Hoover or the FBI was guilty of any criminal acts it
> is very serious. But it needs to be proven, not simply asserted by buffs
> "over the decades." You think I am just a hardass LNer that won't accept
> the buff book version of the "truth." That is not it. I am saying that
> if you or others want to damn and disparrage someone's name and
> reputation such as the CIA/SS/FBI/DPD/Autopsy docs, then you better have
> some *real and solid* evidence, not just assertions. And this evidence
> should stand up in court if necessary.
Oh, it would stand up in court, alright. Harold Weisberg repeatedly
dragged the FBI into court in his FOIA suits, and kept meeting with
stonewalling, changing stories and outright lies from the Bureau. His
files alone are proof of their dishonesty.
> > > Why do you fell that LHO *had* to be a patsy or a conspirator? Is it so
> > > hard for you to believe that he may well have simply been a nut as the
> > > evidence indicates? Believe me, there are plenty of walking time bombs
> > > out there as we speak.
> >
> > If there weren't a million and one problems with the physical evidence
> > against Oswald, and if he had a motive and was known to harbor anti-JFK
> > views, and was a decent shot, then I could accept that he was the
> > gunman. In fact, before I began studying this case in detail, I assumed
> > Oswald was the gunman (or one of them). But there are so many
> > unbelievable elements here: Oswald didn't drive, so he would have had to
> > carry his rifle on the bus or on foot to go practice with it; no
> > rifle-cleaning equipment or spare ammo or empty ammo boxes were found in
> > his belongings; and numerous other problems you should be well aware of
> > by now.
>
> I hear you Tracy, and I know you are struggling with this stuff. The
> physical evidence is not perfect. It is strong circumstantial evidence.
No, it's not even that. There is so much monkey business going on with
the physical evidence that any decent lawyer should have been able to
get it thrown out of court.
> The evidence you cite is very weak and questionable. You can't
> reasonably deduct that LHO was not an average to good shot because he
> did not drive a car.
Did you read my sentence? I said that Oswald didn't have a car and so he
would have had to carry it on foot or on the bus to practice with it. Do
you really think he did that?
> You
> are trying to talk your way out of the idea that LHO *could* have done
> it. Knowing John Hinckley's history and being from the same state as he
> was, I can think up plenty of reasons why he might not be capable of
> shooting Reagan. Why he should not have been able to get to DC to even
> be in a position to shoot at Ronnie. But guess what? None of these
> things overcome the solid evidence that shows that he did.
You're comparing apples and oranges, here. Did Hinckley shoot Reagan
with a rifle? No, he shot him with a handgun in full view of everyone.
> The question
> is not what 100 weak reasons I can come up with to show that LHO could
> not have done it, but if I look honestly at the situation, *could* he
> have done it, and does the preponderance of the physical evidence
> indicate that he did? Do some critical, honest, thinking for yourself
> forgetting about what the WC, buff books, Rather, Cronkite, or Ford has
> said. Could LHO have done it? Did there *have* to be a conspiracy to
> murder JFK?
> > I don't have all the answers to where Oswald fit into the assassination
> > plot. I just know, as Jesse Curry later admitted, "The physical evidence
> > and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the
> > sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F.
> > Kennedy was assassinated." Curry also told interviewer Tom Johnson, "We
> > don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
>
> Not absolute proof, no. We have strong circumstantial evidence that he
> did. I can live with that. Why can't you?
If we really had strong circumstantial evidence that hadn't been
tampered with, if he had had a motive and had *ever* been heard making a
verifiable anti-JFK statement (or writing one in his diary), then I
could accept it.
> > Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his
> > hand." It *is* possible to frame someone, Steve. Ever heard of Alfred
> > Dreyfus?
>
> No. Tell me about him.
Dreyfus was a Jewish officer in the French military in the 1890s who was
accused of being a spy by his superiors. Evidence to support this was
fabricated, and the attempt to frame him - which involved people high up
in the military and the government - eventually unraveled when author
Emile Zola investigated the matter.
> I could argue that Brennen put LHO in the
> building with a rifle in hand, but do you *have* to have a direct
> eyewitness for every aspect of a case.
You could bring up Brennan (not Brennen) but you wouldn't if you're
smart, because his testimony is full of problems for the lone-nutters.
The HSCA didn't even rely on Brennan's ID.
> > In TKOAP, on the page before the Foreword, you can see a photo that
> > shows Connally just a couple of inches below JFK's level. He is
> > certainly not 7 to 11 inches lower (do you realize that 11 inches is
> > nearly a foot?) As for their heights, somewhere I read that JFK was 6'
> > 1" or 2", and Connally was 6' 3".
>
> I will accept your height figures for now. But look on page 7 of TKOAP.
> What is your honest accounting of the height diff between the men?
Connally is sitting lower that JFK, but not almost a foot lower.
> > OK, I have seen his site before. His depiction of the SBT shows the
> > trajectory entering JFK's neck (above the shoulder), though the autopsy
> > photo clearly shows the wound below the shoulder. Also, I notice that he
> > didn't bother to depict the bullet exiting Connally's chest and somehow
> > entering the top of Connally's wrist. Most depictions of the SBT don't
> > bother to explain that.
>
> Remember, Tracy, Dale did not place the trajectory through JFK with
> respect to any known data such as the back wound photo. He worked
> backwards from JBC's wounds and let the computer model project the
> trajectory backwards. In the model, it *does* look to us that the
> back/neck wound in JFK is too high.
Well, then it's hardly a valid computer model, is it? Garbage in,
garbage out.
> Now you tell me. After I wrote all of the above. Tracy, I also found it
> hard to accept that a lone nut with an inexpensive rifle could blow away
> my president so quickly.
I don't have any psychological reason for believing in a conspiracy. I
wasn't even alive when JFK was president, nor do I think that everything
would be right with the world if he had lived. If the evidence was solid
in favor of the WC, then I would be on your side, Steve. You don't see
me trying to argue that Guiteau didn't shoot Garfield, do you?
Tracy
Steve Keating
WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
> >Date: Tue, Nov 11, 1997 16:32 EST
> >Message-id: <3468CE...@lucent.com>
> Tracy wrote:
> >> No, I've never said that the government always lies. In fact, it's
> >> usually pretty easy to tell when they're lying because they're so bad at
> it. And the WC is a good example of it.
> >
> then why has it not been exposed in 34 years?
>
> bird brain like yourself should be able to see that the main reason the Big
> Lie has stood all these years is because, we the people don't want the truth
> ..... 90% ( latest polls ) of us know that the W.C. decree is a lie but we are
> unprepared to accept the truth we want an acceptable easy to swallow truth not
> the bitter truth.
Is it really that much more bitter to say that three guys killed JFK as
opposed to one. What difference would it have made. JFK would not be any
more dead would he? The FBI/SS was helpless to stop this murder
regardless of how many assassins you put on it. What is sad is that
LHO's task was markedly simple. JFK could easily have been killed from
any window along the motorcade route. And almost anybody with basic
shooting skills and the proper determination could have done it. Had the
WC found evidence of a conspiracy there would have been no real downside
to reporting on it. They knew that they could not keep anything like
that a secret for long even if they wished to. Would it have shown
Hoover to be any more inept that he already was? I don't think so. There
were too many witnesses and film footage. You could not cover up two,
three, or nine guns being fired as Penn Jones insists. It just did not
happen.
....... That we've allowed insane gangsters to murder our
> president and get away with it.
I did not allow that Walt, did you? But I'm glad you put up this "insane
gangsters" stuff Walt. I will add it to the list next to the blimp man
and the ice bullet dude.
Steve K.
>
> Walt Cakebread
Eric Chomko
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: On 13 Nov 1997 15:15:04 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[...]
: Donahue used a MC rifle identical to Oswald's. FYI, the M1 is the
: Garand
Thank you for the spelling correction.
: >Why, Beck, do you think LHO used a bolt action and NOT a semi-automatic?
: Because he was poor. The only firearms that he could afford were
: cheap military (or police) surplus. When he bought the Carcano, he
: surely wasn't considering shooting JFK. I believe he made that
: decision 1-2 days before the assassination.
A poor man with a poor rifle makes SUCH a shot? Even more incredible that
I had origianlly thought.
What evidence do you have that he ever fired that rifle? I mean prior to
what you and the other lone nutters claim that he did on 11/22/63?
Eric
: >
: >Eric
Tony Pitman
Steve Keating wrote:
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > Steve Keating wrote:
> > >
> > > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > > >
Tracy,
I recall hearing of the statement by the man who said he
installed recording gear in a small room or closet adjacent to Fritz's
office and that the project was kept confidential at Fritz's insistance.
Whereabouts in relation to Fritz's office is the recording room ? IOW
is his office pat of Homicide/Robbery ?
Tony
Tony Pitman
Rock4Brain wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
> >From: Michae...@att.net (Michael Beck)
> >Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1997 12:58 EST
> >Message-id: <346a4af5...@snews.zippo.com>
> >
> >On 10 Nov 1997 15:32:49 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
> >>Michael Beck <Michae...@att.net> wrote:
> >>: On 5 Nov 1997 19:58:54 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> >>
> >>: >Steve Keating <jkea...@lucent.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >>: >
> >>: >: You can try to wish his skills away all you like, Walt, but the
> record
> is clear. LHO qualified as marksman and sharpshooter in the Marines.
>
> >But
> >>: >: he did not even need these skills for the realatively easy
> shots that
> >he
> >>: >: made in DP on 11/22/63.
> >>: >
> >>: >To call the shots alledgedly made by LHO easy is absurd. A moving
> target
> >>: >away at that distance IS NO easy. I doubt if LHO could have made
> the shot
> >>: >from the knoll. THAT shot took a much better marksaman than LHO.
> >>: >
> >>: >Eric
> >>: >
> >>: Eric. Do you have *any* experience with firearms?
> >>
> >>Yes, I do. At 13 I went from Marksman, Pro-Marksman, SS Bar 1 to Bar
> 6 in
> >>a 4 month period. Marksman and Sharpshooter, IMO, are not difficult
> to
> >>obtain. The expert levels are another story.
> >>
> >>I'm convinced that I am a better shot than LHO was.
> >>
> >>Eric
> >
> >Was your shooting at 13 with .22 rimfires or with large caliber
> >centerfire rifles (like Oswald qualified with)? Shooting with those
> >popguns vs. shooting a 30.06 is a different ballgame. Also, did you
> >fire at targets with open sights at ranges up to 500 yards? Oswald
> >did, and qualified.
> >
> Wait a second...am I reading you correctly....you're saying that
> Oswald is
> known to have qualifed at up to 500 yards with open sights...?
>
> I'm not questioning you one way or the other, I honestly have not
> heard any
> range figures before on Oswalds distance when qualifiying. I was of
> the
> opinion that he was on a standard military firing course. Can you
> point me in
> the direction of where I can read more on his shooting?
No, he's talking out the back of his neck. He, somehow, managed the
minimum qualifying standard to stay in the Marines and that is all. The
500 yard open sight statement should tell you how much he knows about
marksmanship.
Tony
Michael Beck
His wife testified that he tried to kill General Walker. The
ballistics were not conclusive but the police *did* find photographs
of Walker's house among Oswald's effects.
>: >
>: >Eric
Eric Chomko
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
: His wife testified that he tried to kill General Walker. The
: ballistics were not conclusive but the police *did* find photographs
: of Walker's house among Oswald's effects.
Did she see him take the gun?
Was there any evidence from Walker's house that LHO's MC was used? Or did
the WC go out on a limb to have LHO implicted in the Walker incident?
Eric
P.S. It makes more sense that LHO would want to shoot Walker rather than
JFK (motive). But it makes even LESS sense that he would want to shoot
both.
Michael Beck
You don't appreciate how far Oswald was "out there" politically. He
didn't really fit into the mainstream "conservative" vs. "liberal"
debate. He was a radical leftist. He saw both Walker and JFK as
representing the "corrupt" American system. JFK's moves against
Castro surely infuriated Oswald. But still, I believe his act was
contemplated for only a few days and was the act of a man at the end
of his rope.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>Date: Fri, Nov 14, 1997 21:54 EST
>Message-id: <346d0e64...@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 14 Nov 1997 22:27:05 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>>Organization: IDT Internet Services
>>Distribution:
>>
>>Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>: His wife testified that he tried to kill General Walker. The
>>: ballistics were not conclusive but the police *did* find photographs of
Walker's house among Oswald's effects.
If she testified that Lee had tried to KILL Walker,.......In a normal court of
law, her statement would not have been allowed because
even if she had witnessed him actually fire the gun ( which she didn't ) she
could not know that he intended to "kill" him.
>>Did she see him take the gun?
>>
>>Was there any evidence from Walker's house that LHO's MC was used? Or did the
WC go out on a limb to have LHO implicted in the Walker incident?
>>
>>Eric
>>
>>P.S. It makes more sense that LHO would want to shoot Walker rather than JFK
(motive). But it makes even LESS sense that he would want to shoot
>>both.
>>
>You don't appreciate how far Oswald was "out there" politically. He didn't
really fit into the mainstream "conservative" vs. "liberal"
>debate. He was a radical leftist. He saw both Walker and JFK as
>representing the "corrupt" American system. JFK's moves against Castro surely
infuriated Oswald. But still, I believe his act was contemplated for only a
few days and was the act of a man at the end of his rope.
>
>
Mikey your just making this up to fit with your portrait of Oswald. I'd
suggest that you read Flashback by Ron Lewis,.... Lee by Robert Oswald,
.....Marina and Lee by Prisilla Mc Millan ......and a Mother in History by
M. Oswald, for more realistic portrait of Lee Oswald.
Walt Cakebread
Steve Keating
Eric Chomko wrote:
>
> Organization: IDT Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
> Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
> : His wife testified that he tried to kill General Walker. The
> : ballistics were not conclusive but the police *did* find photographs
> : of Walker's house among Oswald's effects.
>
No. According to Marina, he left the house with it earlier in the
evening.
>
> Was there any evidence from Walker's house that LHO's MC was used? Or did
> the WC go out on a limb to have LHO implicted in the Walker incident?
It wasn't much of a limb. LHO had pictures of Walker's house and car in
one of his cute files. He seemed to fancy himself as a slueth of sorts.
Marina clearly stated that LHO came home and said that he tried to kill
Walker but missed. LHO even told George DeM. I would have loved to have
been there when DeM laughed at LHO for missing such an easy sounding
shot. LHO was steamed.
>
> Eric
>
> P.S. It makes more sense that LHO would want to shoot Walker rather than
> JFK (motive). But it makes even LESS sense that he would want to shoot
> both.
I don't know why you say that, Eric. We don't know what LHO's motive
was. But of course he did have one. He took it to his grave. The fact is
that you just can't try to analyze why an unstable nut does things like
this. You are trying to make sense of something in your own mind that
was looked at differently in LHO's head. IOW, what you and I would do or
not do has absolutely no bearing on what LHO did in fact do. An unstable
mind that has been driven to violent action is an irrational mind that
does not see left or right wing. They see an end, an opportunity, or a
final solution to the miserable, pittiful, state in which they find
themselves.
Steve K.
Eric Chomko
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: On 14 Nov 1997 22:27:05 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[...]
: >
: >P.S. It makes more sense that LHO would want to shoot Walker rather than
: >JFK (motive). But it makes even LESS sense that he would want to shoot
: >both.
: >
: You don't appreciate how far Oswald was "out there" politically. He
: didn't really fit into the mainstream "conservative" vs. "liberal"
: debate. He was a radical leftist. He saw both Walker and JFK as
: representing the "corrupt" American system. JFK's moves against
: Castro surely infuriated Oswald. But still, I believe his act was
: contemplated for only a few days and was the act of a man at the end
: of his rope.
You lone nutters always focus too much on what a dead man believed or was
rather than how he became dead. Too much LHO profile and not enough of why
Ruby shot Oswald.
Tell me your theory on that Mike?
Eric
Michael Beck
On 15 Nov 1997 20:43:59 GMT, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>>From: Michae...@worldnet.att.net (Michael Beck)
>>Date: Fri, Nov 14, 1997 21:54 EST
>>Message-id: <346d0e64...@snews.zippo.com>
>>
>>On 14 Nov 1997 22:27:05 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>
>>>Organization: IDT Internet Services
>>>Distribution:
>>>
>>>Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>: His wife testified that he tried to kill General Walker. The
>>>: ballistics were not conclusive but the police *did* find photographs of
> Walker's house among Oswald's effects.
>
>If she testified that Lee had tried to KILL Walker,.......In a normal court of
> law, her statement would not have been allowed because
>even if she had witnessed him actually fire the gun ( which she didn't ) she
> could not know that he intended to "kill" him.
>
>>>Did she see him take the gun?
>>>
>>>Was there any evidence from Walker's house that LHO's MC was used? Or did the
> WC go out on a limb to have LHO implicted in the Walker incident?
>>>
>>>Eric
>>>
>>>P.S. It makes more sense that LHO would want to shoot Walker rather than JFK
> (motive). But it makes even LESS sense that he would want to shoot
>>>both.
>>>
>>You don't appreciate how far Oswald was "out there" politically. He didn't
> really fit into the mainstream "conservative" vs. "liberal"
>>debate. He was a radical leftist. He saw both Walker and JFK as
>>representing the "corrupt" American system. JFK's moves against Castro surely
> infuriated Oswald. But still, I believe his act was contemplated for only a
> few days and was the act of a man at the end of his rope.
>>
>>
>Mikey your just making this up to fit with your portrait of Oswald. I'd
> suggest that you read Flashback by Ron Lewis,.... Lee by Robert Oswald,
> .....Marina and Lee by Prisilla Mc Millan ......and a Mother in History by
> M. Oswald, for more realistic portrait of Lee Oswald.
>
>Walt Cakebread
I've read "Marina and Lee" and "Lee". What's your point? What *is* a
more realistic portrait of Oswald's politics?
Barb Junkkarinen
>
>Organization: IDT Internet Services
>Distribution:
>
>Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>: On 14 Nov 1997 22:27:05 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>: >
>: >P.S. It makes more sense that LHO would want to shoot Walker rather
than
>: >JFK (motive). But it makes even LESS sense that he would want to
shoot
>: >both.
>: >
>: You don't appreciate how far Oswald was "out there" politically. He
>: didn't really fit into the mainstream "conservative" vs. "liberal"
>: debate. He was a radical leftist. He saw both Walker and JFK as
>: representing the "corrupt" American system. JFK's moves against
>: Castro surely infuriated Oswald. But still, I believe his act was
>: contemplated for only a few days and was the act of a man at the end
>: of his rope.
>
>You lone nutters always focus too much on what a dead man believed or
was
>rather than how he became dead. Too much LHO profile and not enough of
why
>Ruby shot Oswald.
>
>Tell me your theory on that Mike?
>
>Eric
Mike's theory? Cute, Eric......haven't you read Case Closed?<g>
Barb :-)
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 15:03 EST
>Message-id: <64njho$r...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>
>
>
>: Marina clearly stated that LHO came home and said that he tried to kill
Walker but missed. LHO even told George DeM. I would have loved to have been
there when DeM laughed at LHO for missing such an easy sounding shot.
LHO was steamed.
Hey Parrot you really should attempt to educate yourself just alittle about the
facts of the case.
There were at least three people that Lee told about the Walker shooting. He
told TWO of those people that he had NOT intended to hit General Walker, and
the shooting was only a ruse.
He was NOT "steamed" he was scared .... after firing the shot he realized what
a foolish thing he had done because if the bullet had actually hit Walker he
might have faced a murder charge.
Get your head out and do a little research, and quit squawking like a lunatic
Parrot.
Walt Cakebread
Michael Beck
On 16 Nov 1997 20:43:14 GMT, bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
wrote:
Real cute yourself.
Have you figured out how a bullet could rise from JFK's neck and
escape the car yet????
Michael Beck
On 16 Nov 1997 23:25:05 GMT, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>Get your head out and do a little research, and quit squawking like a lunatic
> Parrot.
>
>Walt Cakebread
It seems that squawking like a lunatic is your unique area of
expertise Wally.
Michael Beck
On 16 Nov 1997 23:13:14 GMT, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>
>>He saw both Walker and JFK as representing the "corrupt" American system.
>
>Insane ... That's the most descriptive word I can find for your statement
> Mikey. There is not a SHRED of evidence anywhere that he had any malice
> toward JFK.... NOT A SHRED !!
>
>Making statements like this simply crazy, Mikey.
>
>Walt Cakebread
Wally,
You are assuming that Oswald's crime was "personal" and that he
directed his hate at JFK, the individual.
Frankly, I don't believe that he did. Assassinating the president was
a *political* act, I believe, in Oswald's mind. He hated both the USA
and USSR since he failed within both. He saw Cuba as an idealized
Marxist state and was infatuated with Castro (a lisa wanna be?). The
JFK administration was openly hostile toward Cuba and nearly went to
war with the USSR over it. Kennedy's pronouncements made it clear to
Oswald that his administration advocated the overthrow of the Castro
regime. *That* would certainly piss off Oswald.
Michael Paine has testified that Oswald promoted the view that
violence was the only true way to political reform (there's your
motive).
Oswald owned a 6.5mm Carcano rifle (there's your means).
And he worked at the TSBD, which was right next to JFK's motorcade
route (there's your opportunity).
It seems that Oswald didn't really empathize with any one person. He
was a loner and had trouble understanding others. He was totally self
absorbed. I don't think that he even considered the personal side of
shooting at JFK; either the potential injury to JFK, his wife, or
anyone else in that car. I don't think he really cared about anything
else than his potential "glory".
George Lamm, Jr.
>
> You are assuming that Oswald's crime was "personal" and that he
> directed his hate at JFK, the individual.
>
> Frankly, I don't believe that he did. Assassinating the president was
> a *political* act, I believe, in Oswald's mind. He hated both the USA
> and USSR since he failed within both. He saw Cuba as an idealized
> Marxist state and was infatuated with Castro (a lisa wanna be?). The
> JFK administration was openly hostile toward Cuba and nearly went to
> war with the USSR over it. Kennedy's pronouncements made it clear to
> Oswald that his administration advocated the overthrow of the Castro
> regime. *That* would certainly piss off Oswald.
>
> Michael Paine has testified that Oswald promoted the view that
> violence was the only true way to political reform (there's your
> motive).
>
> Oswald owned a 6.5mm Carcano rifle (there's your means).
>
> And he worked at the TSBD, which was right next to JFK's motorcade
> route (there's your opportunity).
>
> It seems that Oswald didn't really empathize with any one person. He
> was a loner and had trouble understanding others. He was totally self
> absorbed. I don't think that he even considered the personal side of
> shooting at JFK; either the potential injury to JFK, his wife, or
> anyone else in that car. I don't think he really cared about anything
> else than his potential "glory".
Michael...
How bout this LHO was a dedicate double agent for both the US and the
USSR and both countries wanted to get him into Cuba to keep tabs on
Castro... just a thought... later... george
John McAdams
Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: Organization: IDT Internet Services
: Distribution:
: : Michael Paine has testified that Oswald promoted the view that
: : violence was the only true way to political reform (there's your
: : motive).
: Prove to me that neither of the Paines were spooks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I love this!
Paine's testimony is inconvenient. Eric wants to say he is a spook, but
he has no evidence. So he just *posits* that he is, and demands that
somebody prove him wrong.
Right, prove a negative.
It's proof by assertion!
.John
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>Date: Wed, Nov 19, 1997 01:05 EST
>Message-id: <64tvid$3...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>Paine's testimony is inconvenient. Eric wants to say he is a spook, but
>he has no evidence.
Eric, I don't have the 26 volumes so I can't post verbatim, but you can find
the evidence the perfesser says you don't have in Ruth Paines testimony in
the volumes. Find it and shove it up his nose.
If you'll read Ruth Paines testimony you'll find that she says that she called
the FBI several times to give them infoemation about the Oswald's and she also
called to ask for Shanklin's advice.
She called the FBI to report that she had a copy of the letter the LHO sent to
the Russian Embassy. She called to report that LHO was working at the TSBD
and there are other instances in which she reveals that she WAS an informer (
spook)
After the assassination, when a Lonnie Hudkins, Houston reporter called and
wanted to know if he could come to her home and talk to her about a story he
was working on, she replied that he could. As soon as she hung up the phone
she called Shanklin ( SAC Dallas FBI ) and asked him what story she should
tell Hudkins.
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>From: John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com>
>Date: Wed, Nov 19, 1997 01:05 EST
>Message-id: <64tvid$3...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>
>: Organization: IDT Internet Services
>: Distribution:
>
>
>: : Michael Paine has testified that Oswald promoted the view that
>: : violence was the only true way to political reform (there's your
>: : motive).
>
>: Prove to me that neither of the Paines were spooks.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I love this!
>
>somebody prove him wrong.
>
>Right, prove a negative.
>
>It's proof by assertion!
>
>.John
>
>
Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Is there a difference??
>Date: Mon, Nov 17, 1997 08:46 EST
>Message-id: <347248ee...@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 16 Nov 1997 23:13:14 GMT, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>He saw both Walker and JFK as representing the "corrupt" American system.
>>
>>Insane ... That's the most descriptive word I can find for your statement
>> Mikey. There is not a SHRED of evidence anywhere that he had any malice
>> toward JFK.... NOT A SHRED !!
>>
>>Making statements like this simply crazy, Mikey.
>>
>>Walt Cakebread
>
>Wally,
>
>directed his hate at JFK, the individual.
>
>Frankly, I don't believe that he did. Assassinating the president was
>a *political* act, I believe, in Oswald's mind. He hated both the USA
>and USSR since he failed within both. He saw Cuba as an idealized
>Marxist state and was infatuated with Castro (a lisa wanna be?). The
>JFK administration was openly hostile toward Cuba and nearly went to
>war with the USSR over it. Kennedy's pronouncements made it clear to
>Oswald that his administration advocated the overthrow of the Castro
>regime. *That* would certainly piss off Oswald.
>
>violence was the only true way to political reform (there's your
>motive).
No I don't think so Mikey, You must ask yourself : Who is Mike Paine, and
could he have an ulterior motive for saying something about a man that he
hardly knew.
>
>Oswald owned a 6.5mm Carcano rifle (there's your means).
Oswald ownership of a rifle like the one that was planted in the TSBD is
compelling evidence that he was framed .
>
>And he worked at the TSBD, which was right next to JFK's motorcade route
(there's your opportunity).
No I don't think so Mikey, The fact that he worked at the TSBD simply means
that the conspirators placed him in a location where they could frame him.
The map that was recovered from Oswald's room had several "X's" on it that
were places where Oswald allegedly applied for employment. Many of those X's
were at sites along the projected motorcade route. Oswald as a private citizen
would have had no way of knowing the route of the motorcade.
>It seems that Oswald didn't really empathize with any one person. He was a
loner and had trouble understanding others. He was totally self absorbed. I
don't think that he even considered the personal side of shooting at JFK;
either the potential injury to JFK, his wife, or anyone else in that car. I
don't think he really cared about anything else than his potential "glory".
>
According to the writings of a man who claimed he was / is a CIA agent who knew
LHO very well, and worked with him in N.O. your statement is wrong. The CIA
agent said the Oswald he knew was most definitely NOT a loner.
>
>
Walt Cakebread
Eric Chomko
Organization: IDT Internet Services
Distribution:
John McAdams <jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:
: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: : Organization: IDT Internet Services
: : Distribution:
: : : Michael Paine has testified that Oswald promoted the view that
: : : violence was the only true way to political reform (there's your
: : : motive).
: : Prove to me that neither of the Paines were spooks.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, like LHO's tax record of 1963, their's is still classified, right?
Isn't that one hot piece of research material missing from the NA? Perhaps
the next time I go there, that is what I will look for.
What did they do for a living in 1963, .John?
: I love this!
: Paine's testimony is inconvenient. Eric wants to say he is a spook, but
^^
(they are) Ruth too, not just Michael.
: he has no evidence. So he just *posits* that he is, and demands that
: somebody prove him wrong.
And the way they "took in" Marina. Did they even charge her rent? I sure
as heck know that if I moved to the former Soviet Union and someone took
me in as easily as Marina was taken in by the Paine's; that the odds of
those nice folks being spooks would certainly be high on the list.
I mean why would the Paine's be so nice to the wife of a Marxist, and
she being from Russia? Surely, Hoover had the Paine's under surveillance
as possible communist subversives?! Yet, MP's testimony is strong on the
WC.
: Right, prove a negative.
: It's proof by assertion!
Educated guess. The CIA loves to use husband and wife teams as their
agents. Surely, even YOU know this .John?
Eric
P.S.
McAdams and his ilk will only admit, about spookdom, what has been proven,
as in the Church hearings, HSCA, etc. But the fact that all we know about
spooks CANNOT possibly be that little and have them function in the manner
in which they should, implies that there is more. (If we knew 100%, then
it wouldn't be intelligence now would it?). I refer to it as the iceberg
analogy. 10% of an iceberg can be seen. This is what McAdams is willing to
admit to. An additional 90% HAS to exist in order for the iceberg
(organization) not to topple over. This is the part that McAdams refuses
to acknowledge. Even discuss.
Yeah, .John, I love this "spook,spook" stuff too.
John McAdams
: McAdams and his ilk will only admit, about spookdom, what has been proven,
: as in the Church hearings, HSCA, etc. But the fact that all we know about
: spooks CANNOT possibly be that little and have them function in the manner
: in which they should, implies that there is more. (If we knew 100%, then
: it wouldn't be intelligence now would it?). I refer to it as the iceberg
: analogy. 10% of an iceberg can be seen. This is what McAdams is willing to
: admit to. An additional 90% HAS to exist in order for the iceberg
: (organization) not to topple over. This is the part that McAdams refuses
: to acknowledge. Even discuss.
: Yeah, .John, I love this "spook,spook" stuff too.
Translation: since we don't know the name of every spook, Eric is simply
allowed to assert any person he doesn't like is a spook, and NO EVIDENCE
IS NECESSARY.
I love the logic here!
Ol' Joe McCarthy would feel right at home. Well . . . he might not be
happy among the left-wingers. But he would sure like the logic.
.John