CE-139 NOT FIRED ON 11/22/63
tomnln
Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington ?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it
then?
Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept
it temporarily in the laboratory.
It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned
again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been
either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since
then.
Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said
that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in
good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the
corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had
been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds
is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the
same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
XXXXXXX
Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the
rifle? Magnification, country of origin?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing
crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood
California ," and
395
Gil Jesus
There is NO EVIDENCE that either the rifle or CE 399 was fired in
Dealey Plaza.
Just like there is NO evidence that the rifle was in the Paine garage
on the 21st.
Just like there is NO evidence that Oswald took his "paper sack" with
him to Irving on the 21st.
Just like there is NO evidence that he took the rifle with him to work
on the 22nd.
Just like there is NO evidence that he carried the rifle into the
building.
Just like there is NO evidence that he loaded the rifle.
Just like there is NO evidence that he operated the bolt handle of the
rifle.
bigdog
Rossley and Chico once again demonstrate a collective stupidity that
is unrivaled by any other two human beings on the planet earth. They
take the position that because the condition of the rifle does not
provide evidence that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63, this proves
that it was not fired on 11/22/63. Since I have no training in dealing
with the mentally retarded, I will not even attempt to explain to
these two assholes how ridiculously illogical that position is.
However, we do have evidence other than the rifle itself that provides
the evidence that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63. We have the
fragmented bullet recovered from the limo and CE-399 recovered from
Parkland. Now do you suppose either of these dimwits can offer an
explaination for just how that fragmented bullet ended up in JFK's
limo if it was not fired on 11/22/63. Maybe Oswald took a taxi to Ft.
Worth the evening of 11/21/63, snuck into the garage and fired a shot
into JFK's limo while nobody was looking.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e0601ff-2520-4529...@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
bigdog wrote;
Rossley and Chico once again demonstrate a collective stupidity that
is unrivaled by any other two human beings on the planet earth. They
take the position that because the condition of the rifle does not
provide evidence that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63, this proves
that it was not fired on 11/22/63. Since I have no training in dealing
with the mentally retarded, I will not even attempt to explain to
these two assholes how ridiculously illogical that position is.
However, we do have evidence other than the rifle itself that provides
the evidence that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63. We have the
fragmented bullet recovered from the limo and CE-399 recovered from
Parkland. Now do you suppose either of these dimwits can offer an
explaination for just how that fragmented bullet ended up in JFK's
limo if it was not fired on 11/22/63. Maybe Oswald took a taxi to Ft.
Worth the evening of 11/21/63, snuck into the garage and fired a shot
into JFK's limo while nobody was looking.
I write;
I "LOVE" it when bigdog IMPEACHES her own witnesses.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/fbi_frazier.htm
ps;
Bullets are NOT dated as to WHEN they were fired ! ! !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
> However, we do have evidence other than the rifle itself that provides
> the evidence that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63.
Explain how "evidence other than the rifle" trumps evidence FROM the
rifle.
>We have the fragmented bullet recovered from the limo
You have PHYSICAL or SCIENTIFIC evidence that those FRAGMENTS were in
the limo?
Let's see it.
>and CE-399 recovered from Parkland.
And how exactly does that prove that CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza ?
Steve
If the limo fragments were NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 and if CE
399 was NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 then please provide YOUR
evidence as to how they got in the limousine and on the Parkland
stretcher Tomlinson found CE 399 on. You are harping on evidence--
let's see YOUR'S pal and then we will weigh which scenerio is most
likely to have occurred in the absense on evidence.
Good luck.
tomnln
FRAZIER FBI VOLUME III
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER Page 395
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! How dumb is this jerk?
His rifle was found, covered with his fingerprints, near a sniper's
den he'd built of boxes, covered with his fingerprints.
His rifle was matched to the recovered bullets.
Case Closed, Baldilocks.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
Steve-o-reno son...... your blessed with the WCR, get off your ass and
show us your stuff.... Your whining is getting old shithead.....
Convince us the WCR is the way to go......
> Good luck.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back to my original challenge. Please produce your evidence that
shows that the bullet fragments and CE 399 did NOT come from Oswald
and ONLY Oswald's rifle. You demanded for evidence from the WC
defenders but when the tables are turned you predictably have NO
eivdence to support your view of planted evidence do you.
We on the other hand have Oswald's rifle firing ALL bullets and
fragements found that day. There is NO evidence the bullets that
injured and killed its intended victims came from any other rifle is
there? We have that rifle with oswald's and ONLY Oswald's prints on
it, it has Oswald's shirt fibers in the butt plate, it is found on the
floor where Oswald was located and where his clipboard was found, it
was the same rifle Oswald purchased and was in possession of.
And what do you have in the way of evidence?
hmmmm.....nothing.
Gil Jesus
>
> If the limo fragments were NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 and if CE
> 399 was NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 then please provide YOUR
> evidence as to how they got in the limousine and on the Parkland
> stretcher Tomlinson found CE 399 on. �You are harping on evidence--
> let's see YOUR'S pal and then we will weigh which scenerio is most
> likely to have occurred in the absense on evidence.
>
> Good luck.-
---------------------------------------------------------
You trolls keep begging us to "prove Oswald innocent", but in America,
it's called "innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.
That means the burden of proof is on YOUR side.
The limousine was a CRIME SCENE.
You keep asserting that there were bullet fragments in the limousine,
but you can't provide the crimes scene photographs of them.
Then you keep saying that Tomlinson found CE 399 on Governor
Connally's stretcher, which Tomlinson says he did NOT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA68-rlXVIY
Stop spreading disinformation and lies you can't prove.
Gil Jesus
>
> > > If the limo fragments were NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 and if CE
> > > 399 was NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 then please provide YOUR
> > > evidence as to how they got in the limousine and on the Parkland
> > > stretcher Tomlinson found CE 399 on. �>
> Back to my original challenge. �Please produce your evidence that
> shows that the bullet fragments and CE 399 did NOT come from Oswald
> and ONLY Oswald's rifle. �
Sorry, Stevie, your "original challenege" was not that the fragments
and bullet came from Oswald's rifle, but how they got in the limousine
and at Parkland.
A comparison of your two posts above shows that you're trying to
change the subject.
Nice try.
>You demanded for evidence from the WC
> defenders but when the tables are turned you predictably have NO
> eivdence to support your view of planted evidence do you.
We demand evidence because that's what you NEED to convict Oswald. The
burden of proof is on YOUR side.
> We on the other hand have Oswald's rifle firing ALL bullets and
> fragements found that day. �There is NO evidence the bullets that
> injured and killed its intended victims came from any other rifle is
> there? �
Is that proof that the rifle was fired by Oswald ?
>We have that rifle with oswald's and ONLY Oswald's prints on it,
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it
included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no
prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
( 4 H 23 )
>it has Oswald's shirt fibers in the butt plate,
Mr. STOMBAUGH. We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt
to the exclusion of all other shirts."
( 4 H 88)
>it is found on the floor where Oswald was located
Let's see your proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of
the shooting.
>it was the same rifle Oswald purchased
Was it ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBro
>and was in possession of.
Show us your proof that the rifle was in the Paine garage on November
21st.
Looks like you got some more studying of the testimony in the 26
volumes to do Stevie.
Good luck.
Gil Jesus
> Quite right. And you seem to think (for some odd reason) that Oswald's
> guilt has NOT been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"...when, of
> course, Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders has been
> proven way, way beyond any reasonable doubt.
If that were true David, there would be no need for your running all
over the internet trying to convince people.
David Von Pein
>>> "You trolls [aka: reasoned-thinking individuals known as "LNers"] keep begging us to "prove Oswald innocent", but in America, it's called "innocent until PROVEN GUILTY". That means the burden of proof is on YOUR side." <<<
Quite right. And you seem to think (for some odd reason) that Oswald's
guilt has NOT been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"...when, of
course, Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders has been
proven way, way beyond any reasonable doubt.
Sure, Oswald didn't have his "day in court" (thanks to Mr. Ruby), but
that doesn't mean the evidence against the defendant named Oswald
suddenly has vanished. It's still there--the whole mile-high pile. And
no CTer can even begin to prove that ANY of that evidence is "faked"
and/or "planted".
>>> "The limousine was a CRIME SCENE. You keep asserting that there were bullet fragments in the limousine, but you can't provide the crimes scene photographs of them." <<<
You surely don't want to go down the path marked: "The authorities
planted CE567 and CE569"....do you Gil?
There's no official photo of Tomlinson finding CE399 on a stretcher
either. Does that mean that CE399 never existed at all?
There's no crime scene photo of the four Tippit bullet shells lying on
the ground on Tenth Street either. Does that mean we have to toss
those four shells in the toilet too?
>>> "Then you keep saying that Tomlinson found CE 399 on Governor Connally's stretcher, which Tomlinson says he did NOT." <<<
Tomlinson seemed quite unsure about the stretchers (per his WC
testimony). But CTers like to forget his uncertainty regarding the
stretchers from his '64 WC session. He was quite unsure which
stretcher he removed from the elevator that day.
But one thing's quite obvious -- Tomlinson found a bullet from
Oswald's rifle on a stretcher at Parkland on 11/22/63. And the only
way that that bullet from LHO's gun could have gotten into that
hospital and onto that stretcher where Tomlinson found it on that day
is by dropping out of the body of John B. Connally. Nothing could be
more obvious.
Plus -- If the bullet was really a "pointy"-tipped bullet (as many
CTers believe), don't those same conspiracists wonder how such a
POINTY bullet could have remained POINTY after crashing through John
Connally's chest and wrist?
I.E.,
Shouldn't those conspiracy theorists be asking themselves this
question:
IF THIS "POINTY" BULLET (WHICH IS THE ACTUAL BULLET THAT CAUSED
GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S WOUNDS) REMAINED IN ONE UNFRAGMENTED PIECE (WITH
ITS NOSE TOTALLY INTACT AFTER CAUSING CONNALLY'S INJURIES), THEN WHY
IN THE WORLD COULDN'T CE399 END UP IN A SIMILAR UNFRAGMENTED CONDITION
AFTER MAKING THE SAME JOURNEY THROUGH GOVERNOR CONNALLY?
REPRISE:
>>> "Then you keep saying that Tomlinson found CE 399 on Governor Connally's stretcher, which Tomlinson says he did NOT." <<<
What other reasonable choice is there? You think he found the bullet
on a stretcher occupied by the young boy named Ronnie Fuller, is that
it Gil?
IOW -- The goofball bullet-planter (Ruby?) decided to "plant" the
bullet on the wrong stretcher?
>>> "Stop spreading disinformation and lies you can't prove." <<<
Somebody make Mr. Pot/Kettle (that's Gil) stop! Please! My bladder!
robc...@netscape.com
> On May 10, 6:40 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > However, we do have evidence other than the rifle itself that provides
> > > the evidence that the rifle was fired on 11/22/63.
>
> > Explain how "evidence other than the rifle" trumps evidence FROM the
> > rifle.
>
> > >We have the fragmented bullet recovered from the limo
>
> > You have PHYSICAL or SCIENTIFIC evidence that those FRAGMENTS were in
> > the limo?
>
> > Let's see it.
>
> > >and CE-399 recovered from Parkland.
>
> > And how exactly does that prove that CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza ?
>
> If the limo fragments were NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 and if CE
> 399 was NOT fired from the MC on 11/22/63 then please provide YOUR
> evidence as to how they got in the limousine and on the Parkland
> stretcher Tomlinson found CE 399 on.
We don't know they were found in the limo, do we? All we have is the
word of the SS and FBI for this. By the way, they were found like
12-14 hours AFTER the limo was cleaned and sent to Washington D.C.
thus there was NO chain of evidence for them. This means they would
have been barred from a court of law.
As for CE399, you better read what Tomlinson has said as he has made
it clear CE399 was NOT the bullet he found at PH. I again ask, how can
you teach a class on this topic when you seem to know nothing about
it?
> You are harping on evidence--
> let's see YOUR'S pal and then we will weigh which scenerio is most
> likely to have occurred in the absense on evidence.
It DOESN'T work that way Steve-O, perhaps you should sit in on some
law classes at your school (IF your Community College has a law school
that is) to learn the DEFENSE doesn't have to prove anything but
rather simply create a reasonable doubt.
> Good luck.
NO luck needed as your side has FAILED miserably for 45 years to prove
a single claim you have made regarding LHO's involvement in the JFK
assassination.
robc...@netscape.com
> On May 11, 8:45 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Excellent point Tom.
>
> > There is NO EVIDENCE that either the rifle or CE 399 was fired in
> > Dealey Plaza.
>
> > Just like there is NO evidence that the rifle was in the Paine garage
> > on the 21st.
>
> > Just like there is NO evidence that Oswald took his "paper sack" with
> > him to Irving on the 21st.
>
> > Just like there is NO evidence that he took the rifle with him to work
> > on the 22nd.
>
> > Just like there is NO evidence that he carried the rifle into the
> > building.
>
> > Just like there is NO evidence that he loaded the rifle.
>
> > Just like there is NO evidence that he operated the bolt handle of the
> > rifle.
>
> LOL! How dumb is this jerk?
>
> His rifle was found, covered with his fingerprints, near a sniper's
> den he'd built of boxes, covered with his fingerprints.
Dumpster needs to learn this case as well. There were NO prints on
the rifle that could be linked to LHO UNTIL a palmprint was allegedly
found and presented on the 29th of November! This palmprint is highly
suspect since the FBI's main man said he saw no palmprint and he SAW
NO INDICATION OF A LIFT as Day claimed he did.
The SN was NOT built UNTIL after the shooting in case you are clueless
about this case, and it would appear so Dumpster you are, so what is
your point? Why ONLY two prints of LHO's on 25 boxes when he
supposedly moved them all by himself? I like how Dumpster equates two
prints on two boxes (out of like 23-25 boxes) as "covering them all
with fingerprints", huh?
What a liar.
> His rifle was matched to the recovered bullets.
Where is the evidence for LHO's purchase of CE139 again?
> Case Closed, Baldilocks.
The ONLY theory closed is the Lone gunman as even a 2 year old knows
that is a fairy-tale of epic proportions.
Isn't it funny how Dumpster insults someone than ends his messas with
"regards"??? LOL!
Oh Dumpster, eat some s**t and swallow it.
Regards,
Robert
LOL!!!
robc...@netscape.com
You have it BACKWARDS Steve-O as our judicial system does NOT work
this way! YOU are accusing him of this crime so you have to PROVE he
did it by producing evidence/testimony showing he did. NOW, where is
YOUR evidence that the bullet fragments were actually in the limo
immediately following the shooting? Where is your evidence LHO
ordered CE139? Where is your evidence Tomlinson found CE399 at PH?
We are all waiting for you to produce this evidence for us (perhaps
your class is watching too).
> You demanded for evidence from the WC
> defenders but when the tables are turned you predictably have NO
> eivdence to support your view of planted evidence do you.
The WC, and its defenders, are the prosecution thus the burden of
proof is on YOUR side, NOT ours.
Now if we make a claim we should be able to back it up as well, that
is why most of the CTers on here make very few claims since the burden
of proof is then on us.
> We on the other hand have Oswald's rifle firing ALL bullets and
> fragements found that day.
You keep saying this but where is the evidence showing LHO ordered
CE139 again? Where is the evidence showing LHO fired CE139 on
11/22/63 at 12:30 PM (CST) again? Claims with NO evidence are
worthless Steve-O.
> There is NO evidence the bullets that
> injured and killed its intended victims came from any other rifle is
> there?
There is NO evidence the same said bullets came from CE139 either, but
that doesn't stop you from claiming they did! How come?
> We have that rifle with oswald's and ONLY Oswald's prints on
> it,
Are you talking about the alleged palm print produced a WEEK AFTER the
assassination? The same one Latona did NOT see when he examined the
rifle the night of the assassination? Why did LHO only leave an
alleged palm print when he was handling the rifle (assembling it to
according to the WC), loading the rifle and shooting the rilfe
according to the WC?
> it has Oswald's shirt fibers in the butt plate,
Unfortunately for you it has the WRONG shirt fibers on the butt plate
as LHO did NOT wear the shirt they claim the fibers matched in the
moring to work as he had changed shirts at the boarding house.
> it is found on the
> floor where Oswald was located and where his clipboard was found, it
> was the same rifle Oswald purchased and was in possession of.
Can you prove he purchased CE139 and took possession of it? I doubt
it since we have been waiting 45 years to no avail so far for this
proof. This is the key piece to the whole investigation and the WC
couldn't even prove this one claim.
> And what do you have in the way of evidence?
Probably more than you, but that is NOT saying much since you seem to
have none really.
> hmmmm.....nothing.
See? Even Steve agrees he has nothing.
Steve
Gil, Gil, Gil, you moron.
1. This isn't a trial you idiot. There are NO RULES governing
"innocent until proven guilty" you big dumbbell. Did you REALLY think
this forum was a court trial and we were under the rules of the legal
system? Do you REALLY see yourself as a lawyer? Didn't ever occur to
you that there is no jury, no judge, and no court building? This is
historical research and there is a big difference you idiot. If you
are under the impression that Internet forums are a legal court of law
then you are more stupid than people give you credit for being.
2. Since WHEN are photographs required to prove that an event
occurred? I am left to assume that if you went to bed at night with
clear skies and exposed grass and streets and then woke up in the
moring to see the ground blanketed with snow you wouldn't believe it
had snowed unless someone was up all night videotaping the snowfall.
You would be too dumb to figure out what happened between event "A"
and event "Z". This is why you are considered an idiot by so many
people. You are unable to connect the dots between two events. The
police have been solving crimes and catching bad guys for thousands of
years without photographs being taken along every step of the way. If
you wre a better-read operson you would know that. Please outline for
us how the police EVER caught any guilty people in the days prior to
photography? In YOUR mind this was an impossible feat to accomplish
since nothing can apparently be believed or proven unless there is a
photograph taken of the event occurring. Do you have photographs of
your parents having sex the time you were conceived? Then how do you
know you aren't adopted? Huh? Huh?
3. Even IF photographs did emerge of the fragments lying under the
left front jump seat and even IF a hospital security camera was
discovered to have photographed Tomlinson finding CE 399 on the
Connally stretcher, then you (in typical CT kook fashion) would simply
claim that the videos and photographs were altered wouldn't you? I
mean let's be honest here for a change Gilly. You don't accept the
autopsy photographs do you? THEY were taken during the autopsy yet
you don't accept them, why should serious scholars ever go to the
trouble of producing ANY photos for you. Marina admitted she took the
backyard photos of Oswald and you don't accept them do you? The
Zapruder flim shows an exit wound to the right front portion of
Kennedy's head and NO rear damage and you don't accept those
photographs do you? The x-rays don't show any damage to the left side
of the president's head and you don't believe them do you? You talk
out of both sides of your mouth--from one side you demand photographic
evidence and out of the other side of your mouth you claim (without
ANY scientific evidence) that all incriminating photographs are fake.
You have managed to delude yourself to the point that NO EVIDENCE is
good enough for you unless it clears Oswald. And in 45 years there is
still NO evidence that does that.
4. When I challenged YOU to produce evidence that the fragments and
CE 399 had been planted you predicatably side-stepped that challenge
because you know that is an argument you cannot win. So it IS ironic
that YOU were screaming for photographic evidence of the discovery of
the fragments and CE 399 (which is totally unnecessary given the other
evidence that eliminates any nefarious planting of evidence,) and yet
when asked to provide ANY evidence of them being planted you skulk
away muttering that you don't have to produce evidence for your crazy
theories only we do.
How predicatable. Conspirqacy nuts are referred to as NUTS for a
reason.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apparently Robcap us also under the delusion that he is a lawyer in a
court of law and that historical research is bound by the same
guidelines that a legal preceeding is. Geuss what Robbie--it aint.
You need to read more and get out of the fantasy world of a
courtroom. This is historical research and NO WHERE is the axiom
"innocent until proven guilty" in force here. That explains why you
are so deluded in this case--you have NO INTEREST in finding out who
killed Kennedy--NONE. All you are busily engage in is showing Oswald
didn't do it. THat is why you could never make it as an historian,
you don't understand research and evidence. My previous comments for
Gil the Idiot apply equally to you. If you reject the official
version of events (cf. the SS and FBI located the portions of the
third shot bullet) then you have to offer an alternative version that
fits with the evidence. It is not enough to stand on the sidelines
with your arms folded wagging your head and clicking your thick tongue
and say, "Well it didn't happen THAT way." You have to offer the
alternative solution to the problem and provide your evidence. For
this is what educated scholars already KNOW:
1. One bullet was found at Parkland hospital whose metallic
composition matched the fragments removed from Connally's wrist, and
whose grooves matched Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other
weapons on the planet. YOU claim that bullet was planted--please
elaborate with your accompaning evidence. We'll wait.
2. Fragments were found on the floor of the limousine beneath the
jumpseat on the left side. YOU question this. Please provide your
alternative evidence to support YOUR theory.
3. Please provide your evidence as to what happened to the REAL
bullets that caused the damage to both Kennedy and Connally. We'll
all wait.
If you are going to reject the most plausible and most evidence-
supported scenerio then you had better have a more plausible and more
evidence-supported alternate scenerio.
Of course you don't. That's what makes you a conspiracy NUT. You
have NO alternate explanation that can be backed with evidence because
there is none.
robc...@netscape.com
Apparently our "teacher" Steve is under the impression murder cases
are solved on the INTERNET!!!! I ask you Steve in all sincerity,
where do we try someone for murder? A court of law or on the
internet????
Of course all LNers don't want to deal with this in the sense of a
courtroom because all of their so-called evidence would have been
thrown out in the vast majority of times.
> Geuss what Robbie--it aint.
Of course NOT, but guess what Steve-O??? There is NO statute of
limitations on murder and that is the ONLY place this case can be
resolved once and for all. Of course your side stands NO chance of
winning that is why LHO was killed in the first place.
> You need to read more and get out of the fantasy world of a
> courtroom.
LOL!! One of our most hollowed institutions (the envy of most of the
world) is a fantasy land to Steve-O!! Meanwhile this guy believes in
magic bullets, moving bullet wounds (post-mortem by the way), echoes,
and many more crazy things!
> This is historical research and NO WHERE is the axiom
> "innocent until proven guilty" in force here.
I got news for you Steve-O -- this is a very OPEN murder case! Why
do you lie and act like it has been solved already?
> That explains why you
> are so deluded in this case--you have NO INTEREST in finding out who
> killed Kennedy--NONE.
LOL!!! I would think I have far greater interest in who was actually
involved in the killing of our 35th President than you do! YOU lie
and claim it was LHO with NO supporting evidence.
> All you are busily engage in is showing Oswald
> didn't do it.
Another lie. The vast majority of CTers are interested in showing
only one thing -- and that is the evidence presented by the WC, HSCA,
Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission does NOT show LHO was
involved in the shooting aspect of the case. Sure, he could have been
involved in the conspiracy, but given his inability with weapons it is
highly doubtful he was given a role that required him shooting
someone. The act of killing is very hard, and not everyone can do it,
so to say a man who never killed anyone all of a sudden ups and kills
two in one day with NO evidence to support that claim is a bit much to
me. All the evidence in this case shows one thing -- it was a
conspiracy!
> THat is why you could never make it as an historian,
> you don't understand research and evidence.
LOL!! This from a guy who doesn't even know the evidence in this case
yet we are to believe he is researching it and teaching about it.
LOL!!!
> My previous comments for
> Gil the Idiot apply equally to you. If you reject the official
> version of events (cf. the SS and FBI located the portions of the
> third shot bullet) then you have to offer an alternative version that
> fits with the evidence.
Show me where it says that?? Does a defense attorney have to provide
an alternate version of the crime to free his client?? Of course NOT
Steve-O ( thought I would give you the answer since you seem to be
ignorant of our judicial system like all LNers) so why do I have to
provide an alternate theory unless I want to? The answer of course is
I don't have to, I just have to show your evidence doesn't show what
you claim to be true. In this case this was accomplished by 1965.
> It is not enough to stand on the sidelines
> with your arms folded wagging your head and clicking your thick tongue
> and say, "Well it didn't happen THAT way." You have to offer the
> alternative solution to the problem and provide your evidence. For
> this is what educated scholars already KNOW:
NO we don't! In case you have been under a rock many CTers have
offered althernative theories over the last 40 plus years by the way,
but all the CTers on here don't have to unless they want to. I
understand your desperation to get the focus off of the crappy
evidence you side has, but hey, we don't have to offer up any other
theories unless we want to.
> 1. One bullet was found at Parkland hospital whose metallic
> composition matched the fragments removed from Connally's wrist, and
> whose grooves matched Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other
> weapons on the planet. YOU claim that bullet was planted--please
> elaborate with your accompaning evidence. We'll wait.
Where have I said it was planted??? I love this lame attack by all
LNers as it makes the CTer sound wacky. I have said the three main
witnesses who saw and touched the bullet on 11/22/63 at PH have ALL
SAID THAT CE399 IS NOT THE BULLET THEY SAW AND TOUCHED. Now, why are
you blaming me?
> 2. Fragments were found on the floor of the limousine beneath the
> jumpseat on the left side. YOU question this. Please provide your
> alternative evidence to support YOUR theory.
Why?? First you have to show the fragments were discovered on the
floor of the limousine! See, you have major issues as they were NOT
"found" for 12-14 hours after the assassination and the limo had been
somewhat cleaned and moved to D.C. by then. The limo was a crime
scene and should have been inspected immediately after it got to PH,
but it was NOT, thus you have NO chain of custody for those
fragments. This means they are worthless in a court of law. See??
This is why Steve-O and his ilk want to try the case on the internet
instead of a court of law.
> 3. Please provide your evidence as to what happened to the REAL
> bullets that caused the damage to both Kennedy and Connally. We'll
> all wait.
Don't have to, all I have to do is show the bullet and fragments put
forth as official "evidence" are NOT the ones that did the damage and
this was shown to be the case 44 years ago.
> If you are going to reject the most plausible and most evidence-
> supported scenerio then you had better have a more plausible and more
> evidence-supported alternate scenerio.
LOL!! IF your theory was so "evidence-supported" why are we still
discussing this 45 years later? YOUR evidence only proves one thing
and that is a conspiracy killed JFK.
> Of course you don't. That's what makes you a conspiracy NUT. You
> have NO alternate explanation that can be backed with evidence because
> there is none.
Of course I do, but unlike you and the WC, I don't go around claiming
things without solid proof and evidence so I keep my theories to
myself. Trying to make others disucss their theories is NOT going to
make the WC's theory any more valid.
Steve
Robbie has proven my points EXACTLY. Conspiracy nuts don't have an
alternate scenerio that fits with the known evidence, THAT IS exactly
why they love pretending this is a courtroom and not scholarly
historical research. As long as the deluded conspiracy crazies can
remain convinced that they are lawyers and that they are in some sort
of imaginary courtroom arguing a case before an imaginary jury they
don't have to provide any explanation for their lack of evidence. Now
it makes more sense to me why conspiracy nutties always talk of a
courtroom. And contrary to crazy Robbie's claims I know the evidence
in this case VERY WELL, the difference between him and me is that I
understand the logical difficulties with planting evidence and framing
an innocent person. Such a frame has to account for all of the
evidence and in the case of an alleged Oswald frame-up it doesn't. In
fact NO conspiracy writer has EVER written a frame-up scenerio that
matches with all of the known evidence. NEVER, EVER. And why? They
can't do it. They are more than willing to take the "guilty" hat off
of Oswald's head but they are too aware of the problems with trying to
place it on anyone else's head. If they did they would be laughed out
of their imaginary courtroom. EVERY single some conspiracy nut makes
the mistake of naming a murderer their claims go down in flames. The
Corsican Connection in TMWKK was shot out of the water within days of
its initial airing on the BBC. You don't hear much of the Corsican
Connection any more do you old Robbie. The Roscoe White connection
didn't go too far did it pal? The Charles Harrelson plot is not
brought up too often is it old Robbie? The James Files angle didn't
get too far much to Wim Dankkbar's sorrow did it. This is what haunts
the conspiracy crazies night and day. They cannot produce bullets
(they don't have any) they cannot produce bullet fragments (they don't
have any) they cannot produce a murder weapon (they don't have one)
they cannot produce fingerprints linking THEIR alleged gunman to the
murder (since there was no such gunman) they are forced to believe in
altered films, doctored photographs, and tampered with evidence
because they cannot produce any of their own. Of course there is no
evidence of any of the evidence tampering they love to harp on is
there. REAL experts don't believe the backyard photographs have been
altered (Marins herself admits to taking them--there goes that theory)
The altered Zapruder film theory has no respected photographic experts
supporting that latest attempt to lie to the American public. The
alleged "research" of the conspiracy nuts is a comical tragedy that
only those OUTSIDE the conspiracy asylum can appreciate. Within the
fantasy fun house of the conspiracy mental institution it is believed
that altering photographs is easy, altering motion pictures is easy,
believing the FBI and the SS, and the CIA all were involved in an
elaborate plot to murder the president is easy, because within the nut
house inhabited by the conspiracy crazies evidence doesn't have to be
produced. All you have to do is wag your head and say, "Nope, nope,
nope. It didn't happen the way the WC and the RC and the CC and the
HSCA said it did. It didn't happen THAT way." And when asked to
clearly explain how it REALLY happened, all the conspiracy nuts can do
is to produce a stupid grin and softly admit, "Well....I dunno. But I
KNOW it didn't happen THAT way." Well all right then what evidence do
you have of multiple gunman? "Uhhh....none." What evidence do you
have that a different bullet was found at Parkland Hospital?
"Uhhh...evidence? None. Oh wait...I DO have the confused
recollections of a maintenance worker, does THAT count as evidence?"
What evidence do you have of another rifle used in the assassination?
"Uhhhh.....none. We ain't got no rifle." What photographic evidence
have you discovered that shows multiple gunmen firing at Kennedy?
"Uhhhh....well we've got a blurred blob on a Polaroid black and white
photograph that might be a person. Of course no wounds on Kennedy
match that direction, and no footprints were found back there, and
computer analysis doesn't support our beliefs, and the head is too
small to be a person actually standing right behind the fence, and no
shells were found there, and no witnesses saw anyone before or after
with a rifle, but that is the best we've got. Does a blurred shadow
count as good evidence?"
You conspiracy nuts are a joke to real historians. The ONLY people
that give ANY credence to your "work" is other conspiracy crazies who
are as dumb as you are.
Steve
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robbie has proven my points EXACTLY. Conspiracy nuts don't have an
robc...@netscape.com
So Steve-O considers himself a real historian, huh? What is your area
of expertise Stevie??
YOU can ramble all you want, we all know murders are closed in a
courtroom, NOT the Internet or in history books. Most accounts of
history is nothing by what is accepted by those in charge, NOT what
really happened.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, and a courtroom DOES find out the truth? So you are convinced
that the police officers never beat Rodney King? Remember they were
found NOT GUILTY by the jury. And you are convinced that O.J. SImpson
never murdered anyone?
I understand if you choose to not respond to these illustrations. I
realize you are in a corner.
robc...@netscape.com
No one is saying our court system is infallible, but it is better than
what most countries in the history of the world have had. YOU are
getting off track as usual, the point is there is NO evidence that
would have convicted LHO in the same way in a court as the WC
convicted him and pronounced him guilty.
> I understand if you choose to not respond to these illustrations. I
> realize you are in a corner.
I never raised the issue of the court never convicted an innocent
person or setting a guilty person free, YOU did. This is how our
court system works, you have to take the good with the bad. The point
is (the one you keep running from) is that there is NO way you could
have convicted LHO with the evidence presented without making it
perfectly clear the court was rigged.
YOU lose. Next?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
If a jury were found that understood evidence such as fingerprints,
clothing fibers, eyewitness testimony, neutron activation, bullet
markings matching to rifles, chronology, coincidence, and photography
then there is NO doubt that Oswald would have been found guilty. If a
competent attorney such as Vicent Bugliosi been in charge it would
have been the state of Texas and not Jack Ruby that would have put
Oswald to death. And THEN what you have to argue about, a corrupt
jury? A lawyer that was paid off by the government? A judge that was
buddies with Lyndon Johnson's nephew? It wouldn't matter the
conspiracy nuts would simply move on to the next "conspiracy of the
month." Nothing ever changes.
But as I've pointed out ad naseum this forum is NOT a court of law.
We are not trying Oswald based on American jurisprudence, this is an
historical debate not a legal trial. Not being forced to operate
within the confines of a trial scenerio we can ask with all due
propriety what the conspiracy nuts have as an alternate explanation
for the evidence. If you deny that the FBI and the SS service found
the bullet fragments and if that appears the most likely explanation
for the fragments being found, then YOU have to p rovide an alternate
scenerio. You clearly have NO evidence of the FBI or the SS planting
evidence and it is not enough to say that you "have a sneaking
suspicion" or that your "trick elbow is acting up again." You have to
PROVE your claim within the historical research community. Since you
are NOT in a court of law you can't hide behind the lame excuse, "Well
you see....ummm....uhhh....we really don't have to give an alternate
theory. We just have to say your's isn't right." Sorry but it isn't
that easy pal. You are not dealing with other conspiracy nuts that
nod in agreement with every wacky theory you can hatch. Now you are
talking to people that actually demand proof for your silly, child-
like claims. If you can't prove it, don't say it.
If you don't believe it was Oswald firing the MC from the SE corner
window you have to show that he was somewhere else. In 45 years of
attempts this still hasn't worked for the conspiracy community. There
still still is NO credible evidence (other than Oswald's own words)
that he was NOT on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
If you don't believe that Oswald brought his rifle in to work that
morning then it is up to YOU to explain why Oswald didn't bring his
lunch and what really was in the paper bag found only a few feet from
the sniper's nest. And why was this bag unwrapped there of all
places. And why were Oswald's palm and finger print found on it and
NO ONE elses? YOU have to provide an alternate explanation that fits
with the evidence.
Now you can see why so many ridiculous conspiracy theories have been
floated over the years and why EVERY ONE has sunk in embarassing
fashion time and time again. The theories don't jibe with the
evidence known to exist.
bigdog
> Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
>
> Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington ?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it
> then?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept
> it temporarily in the laboratory.
>
> It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned
> again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been
> either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since
> then.
>
> Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said
> that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in
> good shape?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the
> corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
> corrosion or wear.
>
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
>
> Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had
> been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
> you found it?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds
> is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
> allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the
> same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
> XXXXXXX
>
> Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the telescopic sight on the
> rifle? Magnification, country of origin?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER. It is a four-power telescopic sight employing
> crosshairs in it as a sighting device, in the interior of the scope.
>
> It is stamped "Optics Ordnance Incorporated, Hollywood
> California ," and
>
> 395
Let's get this discussion back to the the original premise. Rossley's
title for this thread is "CE-139 NOT FIRED ON 11/22/63". He is not
claiming there is no evidence the rifle was fired on 11/22/63. He is
flatly stating the rifle was NOT fired on 11/22/63. Can our resident
retards Rossley or Chico or anyone else point to anything in the above
transcript which states the rifle was NOT fired on 11/22/63. Frazier's
testimony simply says that the rifle by itself does not provide
evidence that it was fired on the date of the assassination. He does
not say it could not have been fired on 11/22/63. Rossley, being
dumber than your average box of rocks, takes that as definitive proof
the rifle could not have been fired on 11/22/63. Chico, being even
stupider than Rossley, chimes in supporting Rossley's interpretation
of this testimony. Are their any CTs other than these two dipshits who
concur with Rossley's interpretation? Is there anyone who disputes the
fact that Rossley and Chico are the two stupidest fucks on planet
earth. The only debate is which one is #1 and which one is #2. Nobody
else is even close enough to claim the #3 spot.
PS. Rossley, how are you coming with getting back on Anton Batey's
show? Does he even take your phone calls?
Sam Brown
Fantastic post Steve.
Gil Jesus
>
> 1. �One bullet was found at Parkland hospital whose metallic
> composition matched the fragments removed from Connally's wrist, and
> whose grooves matched Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other
> weapons on the planet. �YOU claim that bullet was planted--please
> elaborate with your accompaning evidence. �We'll wait.
>
> 2. �Fragments were found on the floor of the limousine beneath the
> jumpseat on the left side. �YOU question this. �Please provide your
> alternative evidence to support YOUR theory.
>
> 3. �Please provide your evidence as to what happened to the REAL
> bullets that caused the damage to both Kennedy and Connally. �We'll
> all wait.
>
> If you are going to reject the most plausible and most evidence-
> supported scenerio then you had better have a more plausible and more
> evidence-supported alternate scenerio.
This idiot thinks we have a burden to prove Oswald innocent, while he
a. changes the subject
b. refuses to provide evidence for his assertions and
c. ignores the testimony of his own witnesses.
He tries to compensate for his own shortcomings by throwing up the
old "prove otherwise" "smokescreen".
Then when you show him the evidence, he ignores it and resorts to
childish name-calling.
Ignore this stupid sh*t.
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
You big dummy. You don't have to prove Oswald is innocent you idiot,
you have to provide actual evidence that someone ELSE is. That is
where dummies like you come up short. You don't have ANY such
evidence. Therefore by deductive logic, if the evidence against
Oswald remains unchallenged with compellilng evidence pointing to
someone else then the status is Oswald's guilt remains secure. How
dumb are you Gilly-Wiper? It is not quite as easy as you think it is
to defend Oswald. It is not enough to simply wag your head and say,
"Nope, nope, nope it didn't happen that way." You have to produce
conflicting evidence to support YOUR position you big idiot.
I always wondered when I first entered this site why everyone called
you names like idiot, moron, dumbell, and imbecel. Now after seeing
you galatic level of stupidity it makes perfect sense. You are simply
confused most of the time.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bff4e987-d11d-4171...@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
bigdog wrote;
Let's get this discussion back to the the original premise. Rossley's
title for this thread is "CE-139 NOT FIRED ON 11/22/63". He is not
claiming there is no evidence the rifle was fired on 11/22/63. He is
flatly stating the rifle was NOT fired on 11/22/63. Can our resident
retards Rossley or Chico or anyone else point to anything in the above
transcript which states the rifle was NOT fired on 11/22/63. Frazier's
testimony simply says that the rifle by itself does not provide
evidence that it was fired on the date of the assassination. He does
not say it could not have been fired on 11/22/63. Rossley, being
dumber than your average box of rocks, takes that as definitive proof
the rifle could not have been fired on 11/22/63. Chico, being even
stupider than Rossley, chimes in supporting Rossley's interpretation
of this testimony. Are their any CTs other than these two dipshits who
concur with Rossley's interpretation? Is there anyone who disputes the
fact that Rossley and Chico are the two stupidest fucks on planet
earth. The only debate is which one is #1 and which one is #2. Nobody
else is even close enough to claim the #3 spot.
PS. Rossley, how are you coming with getting back on Anton Batey's
show? Does he even take your phone calls?
I write;
SEE ABOVE>>> Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn,
the
corners were worn, and the interior of the
surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
SEE ABOVE>>> Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of
rounds
is not an indication of the condition of
the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that
rust and wear the barrel to the
same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just
fired through a clean barrel.
If you don't understand what's above, I don't think Anton Batey wants you on
his radio show.
I'm Begging Anton to call you & invite you to do the debate with me on his
radio show.
Matter of fact, he e-mailed me just last week.
He may be concerned with you "Polluting" his Air Time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
was unable to penetrate your cement head. What Frazier is saying is he
found no conclusive evidence whether the rifle had been fired or not
on 11/22/63. He doesn't say it had not been fired. That is the
illogical conclusion you leaped to because you are too dimwitted to
understand basic logic.
> I'm Begging Anton to call you & invite you to do the debate with me on his
> radio show.
>
> Matter of fact, he e-mailed me just last week.
>
> He may be concerned with you "Polluting" his Air Time.
I think his bigger concern would be you drooling all over his
equipment again. It's a pity you have lost all credibility with him.
Neither I nor any other LN will get another chance to give you a
serious beat down on the air. McAdams took it easy on you. I wouldn't
be so kind. McAdams won by decision. I would go for the knockout.
robc...@netscape.com
> On May 11, 4:01 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> If a jury were found that understood evidence such as fingerprints,
What fingerprints??? That is what I was asking about? YOU have an
alleged palm print with NO chain of custody. In a court IF you have
NO chain of custody you have NO evidence. Period.
How can a man assemble a rifle, load a rifle, and shoot a rifle and
leave NO fingerprints on a weapon when he did NOT wear gloves???
> clothing fibers,
The clothing fibers are for the WRONG shirt as LHO wore a different
one in the morning to work.
> eyewitness testimony,
What eyewitness testimony are you refering to??? NO one could ID LHO
as the shooter.
> neutron activation,
This was recently found to be a fraud, but of course all of us NOT
called LNers already knew this.
> bullet
> markings matching to rifles,
So what, as the rifle they allegedly match to CANNOT be linked to LHO
in anyway!
> chronology, coincidence, and photography
> then there is NO doubt that Oswald would have been found guilty.
LOL!! ONLY with a bunch of sellouts like you on the jury!!
> If a
> competent attorney such as Vicent Bugliosi been in charge it would
> have been the state of Texas and not Jack Ruby that would have put
> Oswald to death.
YOU are soooo full of it your eyes must be brown. I guess you have
NOT read the accounts of 4 of the WC members who did NOT believe LHO
acted alone, huh? Or Johnson's beliefs?? He only created the WC and
he did NOT believe them. How about the lawyers working for them? Many
of them had grave reservations too, but I wonder why IF you are
correct???
> And THEN what you have to argue about, a corrupt
> jury? A lawyer that was paid off by the government? A judge that was
> buddies with Lyndon Johnson's nephew? It wouldn't matter the
> conspiracy nuts would simply move on to the next "conspiracy of the
> month." Nothing ever changes.
NO it doesn't. YOU had NO evidence linking LHO to the crimes in 1964
and you have NONE now in 2009. It is the same old lies on your part,
just by someone "new" I guess.
> But as I've pointed out ad naseum this forum is NOT a court of law.
Of course not simpleton, but as I and other CTers have pointed out to
you and countless other LNers there is NO statute of limitations on
murder, thus, it can still be tried in a court of law.
> We are not trying Oswald based on American jurisprudence, this is an
> historical debate not a legal trial.
ONLY to dishonest folks like you as there was NEVER a trial against
LHO in the first place and that doesn't stop you from proclaiming him
guilty as IF he was found to be in a court of law.
> Not being forced to operate
> within the confines of a trial scenerio we can ask with all due
> propriety what the conspiracy nuts have as an alternate explanation
> for the evidence.
Sorry, this is your take on things, NOT mine.
> If you deny that the FBI and the SS service found
> the bullet fragments and if that appears the most likely explanation
> for the fragments being found, then YOU have to p rovide an alternate
> scenerio.
Sorry, but I DO NOT have to do that as the evidence put forth is
highly suspect and that is all that matters.
>You clearly have NO evidence of the FBI or the SS planting
> evidence and it is not enough to say that you "have a sneaking
> suspicion" or that your "trick elbow is acting up again."
I don't need any evidence of them planting anything as they have taken
care of that problem for me by having NO chain of custody for the
fragments thus making them worthless in a court of law.
> You have to
> PROVE your claim within the historical research community.
NO I don't. I just have to disprove the official version and that has
been done for 44 years already.
> Since you
> are NOT in a court of law you can't hide behind the lame excuse, "Well
> you see....ummm....uhhh....we really don't have to give an alternate
> theory. We just have to say your's isn't right."
Sorry you DON'T get to set the rules here, you have been here for a
month?
> Sorry but it isn't
> that easy pal. You are not dealing with other conspiracy nuts that
> nod in agreement with every wacky theory you can hatch. Now you are
> talking to people that actually demand proof for your silly, child-
> like claims. If you can't prove it, don't say it.
You are right, I am NOT dealing with other CTers who know the case and
evidence, I'm dealing with a sellout who doesn't have a clue about the
case or evidence. Therefore, it is very easy to deal with you!
> If you don't believe it was Oswald firing the MC from the SE corner
> window you have to show that he was somewhere else.
This has already been done clueless, in fact, there are more witnesses
for him being elswhere then there are for him being in the SE sixth
floor window of the TSBD. Of course this is NOT tough since there is
NOT one witness placing him at that window.
> In 45 years of
> attempts this still hasn't worked for the conspiracy community. There
> still still is NO credible evidence (other than Oswald's own words)
> that he was NOT on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
YOU are a liar. The HSCA and ARRB have realesed a ton of evidence
showing it was a conpiracy as have many CT researchers over the
years.
> If you don't believe that Oswald brought his rifle in to work that
> morning then it is up to YOU to explain why Oswald didn't bring his
> lunch and what really was in the paper bag found only a few feet from
> the sniper's nest.
Sorry Steve-O but this is not going to work. The claim was made he
brought it to work and then the WC failed to show us one piece of
evidence or one witness who could say he did. I'm NOT into disproving
negatives.
> And why was this bag unwrapped there of all
> places. And why were Oswald's palm and finger print found on it and
> NO ONE elses? YOU have to provide an alternate explanation that fits
> with the evidence.
LOL!! His prints were found on two spots on the entire bag when he was
supposed to be putting it down and picking it up. The funny thing is
the prints do NOT match one of the two witnesses who allegedly saw him
with the bag as they described him carrying it by the TOP of the bag,
yet NO prints were there! LOL!!
> Now you can see why so many ridiculous conspiracy theories have been
> floated over the years and why EVERY ONE has sunk in embarassing
> fashion time and time again. The theories don't jibe with the
> evidence known to exist.
NO CTer theory can ever equal the SBT for insanity, and many are way
more valid than the government's version.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:388b8737-73c2-4cf6...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;
I think his bigger concern would be you drooling all over his
equipment again. It's a pity you have lost all credibility with him.
Neither I nor any other LN will get another chance to give you a
serious beat down on the air. McAdams took it easy on you. I wouldn't
be so kind. McAdams won by decision. I would go for the knockout.
How long have you Suffered from Dyslexia????
McAdams was So Embarressed with the Baeting I gave him, that he refused to
put the debate on his website.
I put the debate on my website>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------