Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Let's Review.....
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Walt
Jan 30, 2013, 8:11:07 PM1/30/13
to
I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
Kennedy .....
I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
see
how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
cycle.
B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
target
by at least two feet.
C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
practice with the rifle.
D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
Kennedy .....
I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
see
how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
cycle.
B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
target
by at least two feet.
C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
practice with the rifle.
D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
Jason Burke
Jan 30, 2013, 8:26:22 PM1/30/13
to
On 1/30/2013 5:11 PM, Walt wrote:
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> cycle.
>
Proven to be nonsense, Wally.
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> cycle.
>
>
> B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> target
> by at least two feet.
>
miss. How do you explain that the bullets came from that gun, Wally?
>
> C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
> practice with the rifle.
>
>
> D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
>
Walt
Jan 30, 2013, 9:09:07 PM1/30/13
to
On Jan 30, 7:26 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/30/2013 5:11 PM, Walt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > Kennedy .....
>
> > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > see
> > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > cycle.
>
> Proven to be nonsense, Wally.
>
>
>
> > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > target
> > by at least two feet.
>
> Gee, maybe he didn't use the scope. Maybe he adjusted after the first
> miss. How do you explain that the bullets came from that gun, Wally?
Gee.....Maybe you don't know anything about firing a rifle. A person
> On 1/30/2013 5:11 PM, Walt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > Kennedy .....
>
> > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > see
> > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > cycle.
>
> Proven to be nonsense, Wally.
>
>
>
> > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > target
> > by at least two feet.
>
> Gee, maybe he didn't use the scope. Maybe he adjusted after the first
> miss. How do you explain that the bullets came from that gun, Wally?
who is familar with firing a eifle would know that a shooter can't
know where his shots are hitting unless he has an observer telling him
where his bullet hit.
And even if the FBI balistics man wasn't lying .... We don't know
WHEN those bullets were fired. The magic bullet has the appearance
of a bullet that had been fired into a bullet trap, recovered, and
planted at Parkland.
>
>
> > C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
> > practice with the rifle.
>
> Damn lucky, wasn't he, Wally? Who shot at Walker?
window as part of a ruse to fool Castro's agents into accepting him as
a bonafide communist revolutionary.
>
>
>
> > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
>
> He only needed three, Wally.
Are you serious?? I gotta tell you.....99% of the people who read
>
>
> > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
>
> He only needed three, Wally.
your suggestion will think that you're crazy as a loon.
Walt
Jan 30, 2013, 9:22:06 PM1/30/13
to
can't know where his shots are hitting unless he has an observer
telling him where his bullet hit.
That is unless the shooter has fired the rifle many many times. A
telling him where his bullet hit.
person who has fired a rifle dozens of times knows approximately where
the bullet will hit, but there's NO WAY in hell that a person who
isn't intimately familar with a rifle can know where the bullet will
hit the first time he fires the rifle. And he will need an observer
to tell him where the bullet hit and how to correct his aim for his
next shot.
David Von Pein
Jan 30, 2013, 9:48:44 PM1/30/13
to
Walt
Jan 30, 2013, 10:42:49 PM1/30/13
to
On Jan 30, 8:48 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-bullets.html
>
> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com
Hey Pea Brain..... I just grabbed a couple of items from your BS site
and posted them here.....
DVP......1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon,
November 22, 1963.
A ) You have not shown any PROOF of ownership. That claim is a lie.
It's true hat Lee DID have possession of a model 91/38 Mannlicher
Carcano with NO sling in April of 1963. There is NO proof that the
rifle found in the TSBD is THAT SAME RIFLE. The evidence seems to
indocate that the rifle found in the TSBD was NOT the same rifle that
Lee had in his possession in April. Surely Oswald's prunts would have
been found somewhere on the rifle if it had been in his possession for
a prolonged period. There were NO prints found that linked him to
the weapon. The FACT that the authorities fabricated evidence and
lied about this point is a very strong indicator that the rifle was
NOT the same rifle Lee was holding in the famous BY photo.
2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the
murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
This a flat out lie..... The bullets that were retrieved from
Tippit's body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that
Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched
Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44
PM).
This is another blatant lie!......Wow!.... Blasting these lies is
like shooting fish in a barrel.....
Howard Brennan gave a sworn written affidavit just an hour after the
shooting.....In that affidavit Brennan described the man he'd seen
with a long barreled rifle as..... Quote..."he was a white man in his
early thirties" LHO was in his early twenties, Brennan also
said....Quote..."The man weighed about 165 to 175 pounds "....LHO
weighed 140 pounds, That's a BIG difference. Brennan also said,
quote.... "He had on light colored clothing".... LHO was wearing DARK
colored clothing. A reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
The closing sentence of Howard brennan's sworn affidavt
says....Quote...." I believe that I could identify this man if I ever
saw him again.".... Brennan saw LHO in a police line up just a
couple of hours later and he told the police the man he'd seen with
the hunting rifle was NOT in that line up.
Thank you for lying...... It makes it so easy to refute your lies with
facts.
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-bullets.html
>
> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com
Hey Pea Brain..... I just grabbed a couple of items from your BS site
and posted them here.....
DVP......1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon,
November 22, 1963.
A ) You have not shown any PROOF of ownership. That claim is a lie.
It's true hat Lee DID have possession of a model 91/38 Mannlicher
Carcano with NO sling in April of 1963. There is NO proof that the
rifle found in the TSBD is THAT SAME RIFLE. The evidence seems to
indocate that the rifle found in the TSBD was NOT the same rifle that
Lee had in his possession in April. Surely Oswald's prunts would have
been found somewhere on the rifle if it had been in his possession for
a prolonged period. There were NO prints found that linked him to
the weapon. The FACT that the authorities fabricated evidence and
lied about this point is a very strong indicator that the rifle was
NOT the same rifle Lee was holding in the famous BY photo.
2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the
murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
This a flat out lie..... The bullets that were retrieved from
Tippit's body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that
Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched
Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44
PM).
This is another blatant lie!......Wow!.... Blasting these lies is
like shooting fish in a barrel.....
Howard Brennan gave a sworn written affidavit just an hour after the
shooting.....In that affidavit Brennan described the man he'd seen
with a long barreled rifle as..... Quote..."he was a white man in his
early thirties" LHO was in his early twenties, Brennan also
said....Quote..."The man weighed about 165 to 175 pounds "....LHO
weighed 140 pounds, That's a BIG difference. Brennan also said,
quote.... "He had on light colored clothing".... LHO was wearing DARK
colored clothing. A reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
The closing sentence of Howard brennan's sworn affidavt
says....Quote...." I believe that I could identify this man if I ever
saw him again.".... Brennan saw LHO in a police line up just a
couple of hours later and he told the police the man he'd seen with
the hunting rifle was NOT in that line up.
Thank you for lying...... It makes it so easy to refute your lies with
facts.
David Von Pein
Jan 31, 2013, 12:13:54 AM1/31/13
to
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
Hey Pea Brain [Walt The Walking Evidence-Mangler means me, DVP, of
course]....I just grabbed a couple of items from your BS site and
posted them here.....
[Walt quotes DVP:]
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the
Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963.
You have not shown any PROOF of ownership. That claim is a lie.
2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the
murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
This a flat out lie. The bullets that were retrieved from Tippit's
body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
[Walt totally ignores the four spent cartridge cases that littered the
ground at Tenth Street and Patton Avenue right after Officer Tippit
was murdered. And those spent cartridges were manually removed from
the Tippit murder weapon by none other than Lee Harvey Oswald himself.
Funny how Walt wants to ignore those proven facts, isn't it? Walt will
merely pretend the bullet shells were planted there, and he'll also
pretend that all the witnesses misidentified the shell-dropper as Lee
H. Oswald. How convenient for the retard named Walter. But, it's par
for the course in the ever-popular "Anybody But Oswald" fantasy world
that Walter resides in.]
[Walt again quotes DVP:]
3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that
Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched
Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44
PM).
This is another blatant lie! Wow! Blasting these lies is like shooting
fish in a barrel.
Howard Brennan gave a sworn written affidavit just an hour after the
long barreled rifle as..... Quote..."he was a white man in his early
thirties" LHO was in his early twenties, Brennan also
said....Quote..."The man weighed about 165 to 175 pounds "....LHO
weighed 140 pounds, That's a BIG difference. Brennan also said,
quote.... "He had on light colored clothing".... LHO was wearing DARK
colored clothing. A reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
The closing sentence of Howard brennan's sworn affidavt
says....Quote...." I believe that I could identify this man if I ever
saw him again.".... Brennan saw LHO in a police line up just a couple
of hours later and he told the police the man he'd seen with the
hunting rifle was NOT in that line up.
Thank you for lying. It makes it so easy to refute your lies with
thirties" LHO was in his early twenties, Brennan also
said....Quote..."The man weighed about 165 to 175 pounds "....LHO
weighed 140 pounds, That's a BIG difference. Brennan also said,
quote.... "He had on light colored clothing".... LHO was wearing DARK
colored clothing. A reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
The closing sentence of Howard brennan's sworn affidavt
says....Quote...." I believe that I could identify this man if I ever
saw him again.".... Brennan saw LHO in a police line up just a couple
of hours later and he told the police the man he'd seen with the
hunting rifle was NOT in that line up.
facts.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I had a feeling I'd get Walt all keyed up again by displaying some
actual facts in the case. And, sure enough, just as certain as snow
falling in Minneapolis in January, Walter was eager to jump in with
both feet in his mouth (as usual).
How many more decades will Walt insist upon misrepresenting and
mangling ALL of the evidence that exists in this case? Is there any
statute of limitations on the retarded theories endlessly spouted by
conspiracy clowns? It seems as though there isn't, as proven by Walt's
daily presence here at The Conspiracy Asylum.
Walt's tired batch of worthless crackpottery should be a good
indication to any newbie to illustrate the absurd lengths to which
certain conspiracy nuts will go in order to promote impossible
conspiracy theories relating to the death of President Kennedy.
And newbies and Asylum veterans alike should also marvel at Walt's
consistent ability to use NO common sense and logical thinking skills
at all when it comes to every part of the JFK murder case. And we need
to also be in awe of his amazing ability to be WRONG about virtually
every single thing he says about the way JFK died. (Walt, however,
likely inherited his "Always Wrong" gene from his fellow conspiracy
kooks who came before him--e.g., Mark Lane, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs,
Jim Garrison, Jim Fetzer, Jim DiEugenio, Oliver Stone, et al.)
But no matter how many years pass, and no matter how many more useless
posts get dropped into this archive of tumbleweeds here at the acj
nuthouse, conspiracy clowns like Walter Cakebread will continue to
exhibit their total inability to logically and reasonably evaluate any
of the evidence associated with JFK's murder, as they perpetually
utter blatant misrepresentations and half-assed theories that have no
basis in fact or reality (or common sense) whatsoever.
For example:
Walt's continual bullshit about how there's no proof that Lee Oswald
ever owned Carcano Rifle C2766, and no proof Oswald ever owned
Revolver V510210, along with Walt's lackluster efforts to completely
change and mangle beyond recognition the testimony of Howard L.
Brennan (see the links below, in which I totally destroy Walt's theory
about Brennan).
SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
MORE ABOUT BRENNAN:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan-part-2.html
-------------------------
It's such a shame that the Internet world has to be populated with so
many people (like Walter C.) who possess no ability whatsoever for
properly assessing evidence in the JFK assassination.
But, like it or not, that's the Internet world we live in right now.
It's an Internet world where people are still claiming, in the year
2013, that Oswald was standing in the Depository doorway. And where
people are still claiming that Bill Greer shot John Kennedy. And it's
a world where one certain kook is still pretending that Howard
Brennan's Warren Commission testimony (in some cryptic fashion which
can only be deciphered by this one certain kook named Walter)
indicates that Brennan saw a gunman on the WEST side of the Book
Depository Building on November 22, 1963, instead of where all
reasoned-thinking individuals know Brennan saw the sniper--the east
end of the TSBD.
It would be so nice if the Internet world were filled with more people
like Jean Davison, Bud, Tim Brennan, Dave Reitzes, John McAdams, and
others like them who have the capacity for sensibly evaluating the
totality of evidence in the JFK case.
It makes me wonder what the world of Internet JFK conspiracy-happy
clowns will look like on the 100th anniversary of Kennedy's death in
2063? Will Walt's grandson be active on this forum, linking to 50-year-
old archived messages written by his silly grandfather? I wouldn't bet
against it.
David Von Pein
January 30-31, 2013
http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Bud
Jan 31, 2013, 5:17:35 AM1/31/13
to
On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be using the
longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers rifles.
> with a rifle that was
> incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> cycle.
Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with
approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch
spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle
could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice
with the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6
is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
> B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> target
> by at least two feet.
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target,
No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in
the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all
three shots.
> C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
> practice with the rifle.
> D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
shootout. It`s surprising he was able to maintain a line of sight long
enough to get three shots.
Walt
Jan 31, 2013, 12:06:18 PM1/31/13
to
Lee Oswald OWNED or possessed the rifle that was found WELL HIDDEN
beneath heavy boxes of books on the sixth floor of the TSBD. It's
true that the TSBD rifle carried the same serial number as the rifle
that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box . .... But that means
NOTHING...It is a very easy task to change the serial number on a
Mannlicher Carcano, simply by replacing the barrel. Replacement
barrels carried no serial number....when the barrel was replaced the
serial number was stamped on the barrel. The person replacing a
barrel could stamp any number he wanted on that barrel. So I'll type
this real slow .... There's no PROOF that Lee Oswald ever so much as
touched the rifle that was found in the TSBD.
and no proof Oswald ever owned
> Revolver V510210, along with Walt's lackluster efforts to completely
> change and mangle beyond recognition the testimony of Howard L.
> Brennan (see the links below, in which I totally destroy Walt's theory
> about Brennan).
>
>
> MORE ABOUT BRENNAN:http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.htmlhttp://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan-part-2.html
Walt
Jan 31, 2013, 12:35:43 PM1/31/13
to
garage, where he very carefully slid the rifle out of the blanket (so
that the blanket looked like the rifle was still there.) He then
disassembled the rifle into 13 separate pieces and the longest of
which was the 35 inch stock. He then placed all of those pieces in a
28 inch long brown paper bag. and headed out into the rain to walk a
couple of blocks to Buell Fraziers house.
You must believe that Oswald was very careful in removing the rifle
from theblanket so as to leave the blanket with an undisturbed
appearance. Why would Oswald care ?? It was his rifle he didn't
have to leave the blanket undistrubed. Rationally he would have
simply have cut the strings, unwrapped the rifle and tossed the
blanket aside. The FACT that the blanket appeared to hold a rifle
indicates that some other person had removed the rifle and wanted to
fool any casual observer into thinking the rifle was still there.
You must believe that Oswald was able to conceal that 35 inch long
ridle in a 28 inch bag.
You must believe that the bag grew from 28 inches to 38 inches between
the time that Linnie Mae Randle saw it and the time the FBI brought it
back to her for identification.
You must believe that Lee Oswald deposited only ONE finger print on
that bag that he handled when putting the rifle into the bag and
taking it out of the bag.
Walt
Jan 31, 2013, 1:21:07 PM1/31/13
to
On Jan 30, 8:48 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-bullets.html
>
> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I had a feeling I'd get Walt all keyed up again by displaying some
actual facts in the case. And, sure enough, just as certain as snow
falling in Minneapolis in January, Walter was eager to jump in with
both feet in his mouth (as usual).
Huh?? Hey Pea brain I initiated this thread.... YOU responded.......
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-bullets.html
>
> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I had a feeling I'd get Walt all keyed up again by displaying some
actual facts in the case. And, sure enough, just as certain as snow
falling in Minneapolis in January, Walter was eager to jump in with
both feet in his mouth (as usual).
Walt
Jan 31, 2013, 1:33:03 PM1/31/13
to
blanket in the papar bag.
You must believe that the rifle was wrapped in that blanket for three
months and only picked up a few fibers from the blanket . Then ALL
of the fibers were deposited in or on that paper bag leaving the rifle
without a single fiber from the blanket on it. The FBI couldn't find
a single blanket fiber on that rifle despite the fact that the rifle's
surfaces were rough enough to snag a tuft from one of Oswald's shirts.
Walt
Jan 31, 2013, 1:46:01 PM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > Kennedy .....
>
> > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > see
> > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
>
> You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> day hunting.
Riiiiiiight!...Joe six pack hunters set out to bag an animal with
> On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > Kennedy .....
>
> > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > see
> > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
>
> You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> day hunting.
their scopes mounted sidewise on their rifles and bag the
trophy...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!!
Walt
Jan 31, 2013, 7:04:44 PM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 11:35 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
improbability.......
10).... You must believe that Lee Oswald was clairvoyant superhuman,
and had the ability to see through brick walls. because according to
the THEORY of the authorities Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at
about 12:25. At 12:25 Harold Norman and Junior Jarman walked by the
1st floor lunchroom and Lee Oswald told his interrogators that he saw
them walk by.
Therefore Lee was superhuman.........and like superman could see
through five floors of wood, steel, and concrete.
Walt
Feb 1, 2013, 12:24:41 PM2/1/13
to
On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
sight long enough to get three shots."
That's an interesting point Dud..... And it shows that you've got
your head in your ass.
Which brings us to another watermelon sized improbability......If you
accept the finding of the WC.
You must believe that Lee Oswald could hit a target that was obscured
by an oak tree.
IF the fatal shots had been fired from the sixth floor window, the
aeffects
Feb 1, 2013, 1:04:38 PM2/1/13
to
Bud
Feb 1, 2013, 3:08:14 PM2/1/13
to
On Jan 31, 1:46 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > > Kennedy .....
>
> > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > > see
> > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
>
> > You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> > day hunting.
>
> Riiiiiiight!...Joe six pack hunters set out to bag an animal with
> their scopes mounted sidewise on their rifles and bag the
> trophy...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!!
There is nothing in evidence that establishes that that scope was
> On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > > Kennedy .....
>
> > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > > see
> > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
>
> > You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> > day hunting.
>
> Riiiiiiight!...Joe six pack hunters set out to bag an animal with
> their scopes mounted sidewise on their rifles and bag the
> trophy...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!!
not aligned properly when Oswald used that rifle to kill Kennedy.
And you are running from the point that hunters make harder shots
than were needed to kill Kennedy every day.
Bud
Feb 1, 2013, 3:08:59 PM2/1/13
to
the time.
Bud
Feb 1, 2013, 3:17:15 PM2/1/13
to
through.
> Which brings us to another watermelon sized improbability......If you
> accept the finding of the WC.
>
> You must believe that Lee Oswald could hit a target that was obscured
> by an oak tree.
always be able to see some part of the limo, and if you knew where
Kennedy was in the limo you could track your target. Like golfers say,
trees are mostly air.
Heres some stills run together that give some idea of what the shot
would be like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc
Walt
Feb 1, 2013, 3:31:09 PM2/1/13
to
On Feb 1, 2:08 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:46 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > > > Kennedy .....
>
> > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > > > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > > > see
> > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
>
> > > You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> > > day hunting.
>
> > Riiiiiiight!...Joe six pack hunters set out to bag an animal with
> > their scopes mounted sidewise on their rifles and bag the
> > trophy...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!!
>
> There is nothing in evidence that establishes that that scope was
> not aligned properly when Oswald used that rifle to kill Kennedy.
Huh??? Are you so ignorant that you don't know that the scope mount
> On Jan 31, 1:46 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 8:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > > > Kennedy .....
>
> > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > > > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > > > see
> > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
>
> > > You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> > > day hunting.
>
> > Riiiiiiight!...Joe six pack hunters set out to bag an animal with
> > their scopes mounted sidewise on their rifles and bag the
> > trophy...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!!
>
> There is nothing in evidence that establishes that that scope was
> not aligned properly when Oswald used that rifle to kill Kennedy.
had to be shimmed just to get the tube of the scope on an axis that
aligned with the rifle barrel?? It had been hastily installed at
kleins and only three of the four screws were installed. It hadn't
even been bore sighted ...... You don't know much about this do you?
>
> And you are running from the point that hunters make harder shots
> than were needed to kill Kennedy every day.
rusty rifle with the scope mounted sidewise.
Walt
Feb 1, 2013, 3:34:08 PM2/1/13
to
Elm street where Jack was shot and the sixth floor window.
timstter
Feb 1, 2013, 4:23:08 PM2/1/13
to
On Jan 31, 12:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> cycle.
>
This is simply a lie. WC shooting expert Specialist Miller hit the
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> cycle.
>
targets in times quicker than Oswald THREE separate times.
> B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> target
> by at least two feet.
>
hit the targets.
> C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
> practice with the rifle.
>
that Oswald used to go off for target practise. You are simply a damn
liar, Walt.
> D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
government agency was backing his self appointed mission.
Simply lying about things won't cover up the facts, Walt. Including
the fact that you're a lying idiot.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Bud
Feb 1, 2013, 4:35:57 PM2/1/13
to
was dead? The question isn`t what shape the scope was when the FBI
examined it, the question is what shape was it in when Oswald used it.
> It had been hastily installed at
> kleins and only three of the four screws were installed.
> It hadn't
> even been bore sighted ......
there is evidence it was bore sighted.
> You don't know much about this do you?
> > And you are running from the point that hunters make harder shots
> > than were needed to kill Kennedy every day.
>
> No need to run ..... No hunter could bag any game with a clunky old
> rusty rifle with the scope mounted sidewise.
who were planning on using them for hunting, don`t you stupid?
Walt
Feb 1, 2013, 5:01:00 PM2/1/13
to
On Feb 1, 3:23 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 12:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > Kennedy .....
>
> > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > see
> > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > cycle.
>
> This is simply a lie. WC shooting expert Specialist Miller hit the
> targets in times quicker than Oswald THREE separate times.
>
> > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > target
> > by at least two feet.
>
> LOL! This is another lie. Using the scope, the WC experts REPEATEDLY
> hit the targets.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!.... I find it hilarious when
> On Jan 31, 12:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> > Kennedy .....
>
> > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> > see
> > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > cycle.
>
> This is simply a lie. WC shooting expert Specialist Miller hit the
> targets in times quicker than Oswald THREE separate times.
>
> > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > target
> > by at least two feet.
>
> LOL! This is another lie. Using the scope, the WC experts REPEATEDLY
> hit the targets.
you expose your ignorance, slug.
99.9% of the readers of this post will spot your lie in a
heartbeat..... because 99.9% of the readers will know that the WC
experts used the rifle AFTER the scope had been repaired and SHIMMED
to make it useful as a sighting device .
Those experts wouldn't have attempted to fire for accuracy with the
scope mounted as it was when the rifle was found.
Watta silly lying dumbass........
>
> > C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
> > practice with the rifle.
>
> LOL! Yet ANOTHER lie by you. Oswald fired at Walker. Marina testified
> that Oswald used to go off for target practise. You are simply a damn
> liar, Walt.
proof ?? It's common knowledge that Marina wouldn't have known if Lee
was practicing with the rifle or playing a piano. In Marina's eyes
if Lee held the rifle up and sighted down the barrel ....He was
practicing with it. Anybody with any experience with a rifle knows
that it's a quantum leap from simply sighting along the barrel, to
actually practicing with a rifle.
I'll bet you that Marina never ever heard that rifle fired..... cuz I
doubt that Oswald fired it more than once.
>
> > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
>
> Oswald was a pauper. So what? Certainly seems to indicate that no
> government agency was backing his self appointed mission.
backing him.......He was being manipulated by renegade former
government agents... Who hated JFK.
And they were they brightest bulbs on the tree either..... They
assumed that they could have a slam dunk case against Oswald by
planting some spent shells and his rifle at the scene. They knew
they had the blessing of J Edgar Hoover. so they weren't too concerned
about anybody asking questions like.... Did Oswald really only have
four bullets? Why were those four bullets from a batch of bullets
that had been made for the CIA?
>
> Simply lying about things won't cover up the facts, Walt. Including
> the fact that you're a lying idiot.
here.....Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....
>
> Informative Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
Walt
Feb 1, 2013, 5:38:04 PM2/1/13
to
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 11:25:48 AM2/2/13
to
On Jan 31, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr.
Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine
actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly
familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the
accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents
who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and
myself.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired
three.
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent
fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds,
and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on
Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds
was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or
if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots,
which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is
Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on
the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target,
No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in
the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all
three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots
No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in
the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all
three shots.
were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and
were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of
the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-
quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots,
4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming
point.
Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4 inches high and
1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a dispersion of about
3/4 of an inch..
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of
three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these
tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine
how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose
accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an
accurate rate of fire.
This is the actual target which I fired.
Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three
holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked
No. 2.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the dispersion on
the two series?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were
approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the
right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These
three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots
landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5
inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
Hey Dud ..... At 25 yards .... The bullets impacted the target about
4 1/2 inches above the aiming point and about 1 1/2 inches to the
right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math for
you. But it doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this beat up
old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. It was firing a 5 inch
spread at only 25 yards. Who knows where the bullets would have
landed at 60 yards?????. This is the way the rifle was when it was
found... NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November.
Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on
the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have
the four targets we fired here.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552,
553, and 554.
Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
through 554, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
doc
Feb 2, 2013, 11:43:45 AM2/2/13
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:17=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> > =A0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side of Kennedy's
head.
>
> That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
> Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
> Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on
> the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have
> the four targets we fired here.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552,
> 553, and 554.
> Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
>
> (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
> through 554, and received in evidence.)
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
>
> >
> > =A0 Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's
> > > practice with the rifle.
> >
> > =A0 You don`t know this.
> On Jan 31, 4:17=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 8:11=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > Committee's "finding" =A0 =A0That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> >
> > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > > hippotomus could swallow. =A0Please feel free to add to the list,
> >
> > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> > > let's see
> > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > =A0 You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this every
> > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be using the
> > longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > with a rifle that was
> > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > > cycle.
> >
> > =A0 You`re lying.
> > longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > with a rifle that was
> > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > > cycle.
> >
> >
> > =A0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with
> > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch
> > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle
> > could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice
> > with the weapon.
> > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6
> > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
> >
> > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > > target
> > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > =A0 You`re lying.
> > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle
> > could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice
> > with the weapon.
> > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6
> > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
> >
> > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > > target
> > > by at least two feet.
> >
Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side of Kennedy's
head.
>
> That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
> Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
> Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on
> the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have
> the four targets we fired here.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552,
> 553, and 554.
> Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
>
> (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
> through 554, and received in evidence.)
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
>
> >
> > target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the
> > right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper,
> > all three shots.
> >
> > > C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat =A0without ANY live fire
> > right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper,
> > all three shots.
> >
> > > practice with the rifle.
> >
> > =A0 You don`t know this.
> >
> > > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
> >
> > =A0 Why would he think he would need more, he wasn`t going there for a
> > > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
> >
Bud
Feb 2, 2013, 11:55:12 AM2/2/13
to
And since theses are test conducted by humans some error can be
introduced there also. I would think the only way to tell for sure
would be to stabilize on a bench with the crosshairs of the scope
lined up on a bullseye and see where the bullet hit. But even then
there is nothing to establish that this is the condition the rifle was
in when Oswald used it to kill Kennedy.
And lastly there is this...
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the
left and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be
no different from taking these targets and putting an
aiming point in the center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would
be the situation you would have--- an aiming point off to the side and
an impact area at the high right corner.
Mr. EISENBERG - If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a
bulls-eye pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you
have taken, to improve your score?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding
how high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low
left, or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would
cause the hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
It`s possible Oswald used the scope, saw his first shot miss high
and to the right and compensated on the fly by aiming low and to the
left.
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 12:03:03 PM2/2/13
to
On Feb 2, 10:43 am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A mans
head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So aiming at the center of a
7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) and with the bullet
impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye completely
ay a mere 25 YARDS.
head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So aiming at the center of a
7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) and with the bullet
impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye completely
ay a mere 25 YARDS.
doc
Feb 2, 2013, 12:08:25 PM2/2/13
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > President=
> > > > e=
> >
> > > > =3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards
> > > > wi=
> > > Hey Dud ..... =A0At 25 yards .... The bullets impacted the target
> > > u=
> p
> > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =A0 It was firing a 5
> > > inc=
> h
> > > spread at only 25 yards. =A0Who knows where the bullets would have
> > > landed at 60 yards?????. =A0 This is the way the rifle was when it
> > > was found... =A0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on
> > > the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have
> > > the four targets we fired here.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551,
> > > 552, 553, and 554.
> > > Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
> >
> > > (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
> > > through 554, and received in evidence.)
> >
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
> >
> > > > =3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's
> r,
> > > > all three shots.
> >
> > > > > C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat =3DA0without ANY live
> > > > fo=
> On Feb 2, 10:43=A0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3DA0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we
> > > > > a=
> >
> > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we
> re
> > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > > > Committee's "finding" =3DA0 =3DA0That Lee Oswald murdered
> > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> > > > > President=
> John
> > > > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only
> > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3DA0Please feel free to add to the
> > > > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only
> > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > =3DA0 You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots than this
> > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > e=
> very
> > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be using
> > > > the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > > > > cycle.
> >
> > > > =3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be using
> > > > the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> > > > > cycle.
> >
> >
> > > > =3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards
> > > > wi=
> th
> > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch
> > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative
> > > > circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable
> > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area
> > > > 4.=
> > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch
> > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative
> > > > circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable
> > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area
> 6
> > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
> >
> > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > > > > target
> > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > > > =3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
> >
> > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> > > > > target
> > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > > about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point and about 1 1/2 inches to
> > > the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math for
> > > you. =A0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this beat
> > > the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math for
> > > u=
> p
> > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =A0 It was firing a 5
> > > inc=
> h
> > > spread at only 25 yards. =A0Who knows where the bullets would have
> > > landed at 60 yards?????. =A0 This is the way the rifle was when it
> > > was found... =A0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> >
> > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side of
> > Kennedy=
> > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side of
> 's
> > head.
>
> Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A mans
> head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So aiming at the center of a
> 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) and with the bullet
> impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
> yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye completely
> ay a mere 25 YARDS.
Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> > head.
>
> Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A mans
> head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So aiming at the center of a
> 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) and with the bullet
> impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
> yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye completely
> ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on
> > > the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have
> > > the four targets we fired here.
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551,
> > > 552, 553, and 554.
> > > Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
> >
> > > (The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
> > > through 554, and received in evidence.)
> >
> > > Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
> >
> > > > target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the
> > > > right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the
> > > > pape=
> > > > right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the
> r,
> > > > all three shots.
> >
> > > > > C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat =3DA0without ANY live
> > > > > fire practice with the rifle.
> >
> > > > =3DA0 You don`t know this.
> >
> >
> > > > > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
> >
> > > > =3DA0 Why would he think he would need more, he wasn`t going there
> > > > > D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
> >
> > > > fo=
> r a
> > > > shootout. It`s surprising he was able to maintain a line of sight
> > > > lon=
> > > > shootout. It`s surprising he was able to maintain a line of sight
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 1:13:24 PM2/2/13
to
My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY
FIVE (25 ) yards. TWENTY FIVE yards..... As I recall the range
from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. based on the
fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9 inch bulls-eye
at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely missed a 24 inch
bulls-eye at 60 yards.
Therefore If Lee Oswald had been firing that rifle from that sixth
floor window. he would probably have been charged with shooting Sam
Holland who was standing on the triple underpass.
doc
Feb 2, 2013, 1:29:03 PM2/2/13
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> > > > > > wrote=
> we
> > > > > > > a=3D
> on
> > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0That Lee Oswald murdered
> > > > > > > President=3D
> > > =A0John
> y
> > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3DA0Please feel free to add to
> > > > > > > t=
> > > > > > than =
> this
> > > > > > e=3D
> >
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25
> > > > > > ya=
> rds
> > > > > > wi=3D
> a
> > > > > > 4.=3D
> > > > > this =
> beat
> > > > > u=3D
> > > p
> > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =3DA0 It was firing
> > > > > a=
> 5
> > > > > inc=3D
> > > h
> > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3DA0Who knows where the bullets would
> > > > > hav=
> e
> > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3DA0 This is the way the rifle was when
> > > > > i=
> t
> > > > > was found... =3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =A0and with the bullet
shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four to five
inches high, one to two inches to the right of the aiming point and landed
within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body would have
placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head at sixty yards. I even
posted the target for you to see. You seem to have ignored it. So, who said
he was aiming at the head?
> On Feb 2, 11:08=A0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 10:43=3DA0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3D3DA0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>
> > > > > > wrote=
> :
> >
> > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items
> > > > > > > that =
> >
> > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items
> we
> > > > > > > a=3D
> > > re
> > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue
> > > > > > > Ribb=
> > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue
> on
> > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0That Lee Oswald murdered
> > > > > > > President=3D
> > > =A0John
> > > > > > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that
> > > > > > > onl=
> >
> > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that
> y
> > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3DA0Please feel free to add to
> > > > > > > t=
> he
> > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the
> > > > > > > be=
> > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the
> st
> > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder shots
> > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > than =
> this
> > > > > > e=3D
> > > very
> > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be
> > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers
> > > > > > rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds
> > > > > > > per cycle.
> >
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be
> > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving soldiers
> > > > > > rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds
> > > > > > > per cycle.
> >
> >
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25
> > > > > > ya=
> rds
> > > > > > wi=3D
> > > th
> > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a
> > > > > > 12-in=
> > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a
> ch
> > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative
> > > > > > circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with
> > > > > > considerabl=
> > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative
> > > > > > circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with
> e
> > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that
> > > > > > are=
> > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that
> a
> > > > > > 4.=3D
> > > 6
> > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I
> > > > > > thin=
> > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I
> k.
> >
> > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed
> > > > > > > the target
> > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> >
> > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed
> > > > > > > the target
> > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> >
> > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm lying.
> >
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say,
> > > > > M=
> > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm lying.
> >
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say,
> r.
> > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to
> > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired,
> > > > > not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also
> > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three
> > > > > agents who participated?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham,
> > > > > and myself.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I
> > > > > fired three.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent
> > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine
> > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking,
> > > > > show=
> > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to
> > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired,
> > > > > not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also
> > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three
> > > > > agents who participated?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham,
> > > > > and myself.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I
> > > > > fired three.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent
> > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine
> > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking,
> n
> > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of
> > > > > seconds was seven.
> > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission,
> > > > > o=
> > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of
> > > > > seconds was seven.
> > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission,
> r
> > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three
> > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham
> > > > > fired, which =
> > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three
> > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham
> is
> > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the
> > > > > shots =
> > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the
> on
> > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's
> > > > > target=
> > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's
> ,
> > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the
> > > > > right, =
> > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the
> in
> > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all
> > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These
> > > > > shot=
> > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all
> > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These
> s
> > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other,
> > > > > an=
> > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other,
> d
> > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right
> > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in
> > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with
> > > > > Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to
> > > > > the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4 inches high
> > > > > a=
> > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right
> > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in
> > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with
> > > > > Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to
> > > > > the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4 inches high
> nd
> > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a dispersion of
> > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series
> > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of
> > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to
> > > > > determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with
> > > > > secondary purpos=
> > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a dispersion of
> > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series
> > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of
> > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to
> > > > > determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with
> e
> > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an
> > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first
> > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series
> > > > > being mark=
> > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an
> > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first
> > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series
> ed
> > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as
> > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550,
> > > > > an=
> > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as
> > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550,
> d
> > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the dispersion
> > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were
> > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to
> > > > > th=
> > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the dispersion
> > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were
> > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to
> e
> > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle.
> > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of
> > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about
> > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > Hey Dud ..... =3DA0At 25 yards .... The bullets impacted the
> > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle.
> > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of
> > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about
> > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > target about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point and about 1 1/2
> > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math for
> > > > > you. =3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to understand that
> > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math for
> > > > > this =
> beat
> > > > > u=3D
> > > p
> > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =3DA0 It was firing
> > > > > a=
> 5
> > > > > inc=3D
> > > h
> > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3DA0Who knows where the bullets would
> > > > > hav=
> e
> > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3DA0 This is the way the rifle was when
> > > > > i=
> t
> > > > > was found... =3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> >
> > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side of
> > > > Kennedy=3D
> > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side of
> > > 's
> > > > head.
> >
> > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A mans
> > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So =A0aiming at the center of
> > > > head.
> >
> > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A mans
> > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =A0and with the bullet
> > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
> > > yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye completely
> > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
>
> Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
>
> My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
> missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY
> FIVE (25 ) yards. TWENTY FIVE yards..... As I recall the range
> from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. based on the
> fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9 inch bulls-eye
> at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely missed a 24 inch
> bulls-eye at 60 yards.
You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified that the three
> > > yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye completely
> > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
>
> Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
>
> My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
> missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY
> FIVE (25 ) yards. TWENTY FIVE yards..... As I recall the range
> from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. based on the
> fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9 inch bulls-eye
> at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely missed a 24 inch
> bulls-eye at 60 yards.
shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four to five
inches high, one to two inches to the right of the aiming point and landed
within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body would have
placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head at sixty yards. I even
posted the target for you to see. You seem to have ignored it. So, who said
he was aiming at the head?
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 2:19:23 PM2/2/13
to
to see the facts?
The range was about 75 yards..... If a gunman had fired that rifle
from the sixth floor window he would have hit an oak tree BUT if that
oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and he
aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed JFK
completely. IF IF IF ......the rifle would have been capable of
hitting the same spot consistently. That rifle was INCAPABLE of
firing a twelve inch group. It scattered the shots everywhere!
Nobody could predict where the bullet would hit when he pulled the
trigger. as I said it was shooting waaaaay high and to the right so
IF IF IF it had been fired that day from that window it's a small
wonder that Sam Holland wasn't shot.
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 6:36:24 PM2/2/13
to
idea is utterly insane.
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 6:52:26 PM2/2/13
to
On Jan 30, 7:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve, with a rifle that was
> I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items that we are
> compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon
> Committee's "finding" That Lee Oswald murdered President John
> Kennedy .....
>
> I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities that only a
> hippotomus could swallow. Please feel free to add to the list, let's
> see
> how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
>
> A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that the best
> incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5 seconds per
> cycle.
>
> cycle.
>
> B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have missed the
> target
> by at least two feet.
>
> target
> by at least two feet.
>
> C) Oswald Performed this remarkable feat without ANY live fire
> practice with the rifle.
>
> practice with the rifle.
>
> D) Oswald set out on this mission with only FOUR cartridges.
I think it's time to look at another watermelon sized
improbability .........
One of the spent shells that was found beneath the sixth floor window
had the neck dented and the primer was dented by the firing pin
striking it more than one time. What this indicates is someone had
used the spent shell to "dry fire" the weapon at least twice and on
the third try to use it it hung up on the lip inside the receiver and
the force being applied by the user caused the dented neck on the
spent shell.
If we are to accept the WC decree then we must believe that Lee Oswald
cycled that shell through the rifle at least twice before he dented
the lip of the shell and made it useless as a practice cartridge.
IOW.... Lee Oswald took time out for practice during the shooting.
doc
Feb 2, 2013, 7:43:53 PM2/2/13
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3D3DA0pm, Walt
> > > > > > > > <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=3D
> > > we
> > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0That Lee Oswald
> > > > > > > > > mu=
> rdered
> > > > > > > > > President=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0John
> > > y
> > > > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3D3DA0Please feel free to
> > > > > > > > > ad=
> d to
> > > > > > > > > t=3D
> e
> > > > > > > > > be=3D
> > > > > > > > shots than =3D
> > > this
> > > > > > > > e=3D3D
> >
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds
> > > > > > > > at=
> 25
> > > > > > > > ya=3D
> > > rds
> > > > > > > > wi=3D3D
> > > a
> > > > > > > > 4.=3D3D
> y,
> > > > > > > M=3D
> n,
> > > > > > > o=3D
> ,
> > > > > > > an=3D
> gh
> > > > > > > a=3D
> ,
> > > > > > > an=3D
> o
> > > > > > > th=3D
> r
> > > > > > > you. =3D3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to understand
> > > > > > > that this =3D
> > > beat
> > > > > > > u=3D3D
> > > > > p
> > > > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =3D3DA0 It was
> > > > > > > fi=
> ring
> > > > > > > a=3D
> > > =A05
> > > > > > > inc=3D3D
> > > > > h
> > > > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3D3DA0Who knows where the bullets
> > > > > > > wou=
> ld
> > > > > > > hav=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3D3DA0 This is the way the rifle
> > > > > > > was =
> when
> > > > > > > i=3D
> > > t
> > > > > > > was found... =3D3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> s
> > > > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So =3DA0aiming at the
> > > > > cente=
> r of
> > > > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =3DA0and with the
> > > > > bull=
> > > t=
> he range
> > > from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. =A0based on
is a fact"? Really, Walt, you want to talk facts, of all people?
>
> The range was about 75 yards..... If a gunman had fired that rifle
> from the sixth floor window he would have hit an oak tree BUT if that
> oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and he
> aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed JFK
> completely. IF IF IF ......the rifle would have been capable of
> hitting the same spot consistently. That rifle was INCAPABLE of
> firing a twelve inch group. It scattered the shots everywhere!
Twelve inch group? Walt, you posted Frazier's testimony where he fired a
two-inch group in 4.8 seconds! Are you calling yourself a liar now?
>
> Nobody could predict where the bullet would hit when he pulled the
> trigger. as I said it was shooting waaaaay high and to the right so
> IF IF IF it had been fired that day from that window it's a small
> wonder that Sam Holland wasn't shot.
"Waaaaay high and to the right"? Five inches high and two inches to the
right, at worst, and still well within the margin to hit Kennedy on the
right side and blow his head open. Oswald was a poor shot since he only hit
his target one time out of three shots if he was aiming for the head and
only once out of three if he was aiming for the body. The third shot missed
Dallas completely. Still, he killed Kennedy deader than you are smart. If
you want to deny that than stop citing an expert's testimony to shore up
your theorized facts and then shooting that same testimony down when it
goes against you. It doesn't speak well for you.
> On Feb 2, 12:29=A0pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 11:08=3DA0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 10:43=3D3DA0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3D3D3DA0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3D3DA0pm, Walt
> > > > > > > > <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=3D
> > > :
> >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items
> > > > > > > > > that =3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable items
> > > we
> > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> > > > > re
> > > > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select
> > > > > > > > > Blue Ribb=3D
> > > > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0That Lee Oswald
> > > > > > > > > mu=
> rdered
> > > > > > > > > President=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0John
> > > > > > > > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities
> > > > > > > > > that onl=3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized improbabilities
> > > y
> > > > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3D3DA0Please feel free to
> > > > > > > > > ad=
> d to
> > > > > > > > > t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that
> > > > > > > > > th=
> > > > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat that
> e
> > > > > > > > > be=3D
> > > st
> > > > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make harder
> > > > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > > > shots than =3D
> > > this
> > > > > > > > e=3D3D
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be
> > > > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving
> > > > > > > > soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5
> > > > > > > > > seconds per cycle.
> >
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d still be
> > > > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving
> > > > > > > > soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5
> > > > > > > > > seconds per cycle.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds
> > > > > > > > at=
> 25
> > > > > > > > ya=3D
> > > rds
> > > > > > > > wi=3D3D
> > > > > th
> > > > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a
> > > > > > > > 12-in=3D
> > > > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a
> > > ch
> > > > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch
> > > > > > > > relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less
> > > > > > > > with considerabl=3D
> > > > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch
> > > > > > > > relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less
> > > e
> > > > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in
> > > > > > > > that are=3D
> > > > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in
> > > a
> > > > > > > > 4.=3D3D
> > > > > 6
> > > > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated,
> > > > > > > > I thin=3D
> > > > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated,
> > > k.
> >
> > > > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have
> > > > > > > > > missed the target
> > > > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have
> > > > > > > > > missed the target
> > > > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm lying.
> >
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you
> > > > > > > sa=
> > > > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm lying.
> >
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you
> y,
> > > > > > > M=3D
> > > r.
> > > > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to
> > > > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be
> > > > > > > fired, not being overly familiar with this particular
> > > > > > > firearm, and als=
> > > > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to
> > > > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be
> > > > > > > fired, not being overly familiar with this particular
> o
> > > > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those
> > > > > > > conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names
> > > > > > > of the three agents who participated?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
> > > > > > > Cunningham, and myself.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three,
> > > > > > > and =
> > > > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those
> > > > > > > conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names
> > > > > > > of the three agents who participated?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
> > > > > > > Cunningham, and myself.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three,
> I
> > > > > > > fired three.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each
> > > > > > > age=
> > > > > > > fired three.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each
> nt
> > > > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine
> > > > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are
> > > > > > > interlocking, show=3D
> > > > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine
> > > > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are
> > > n
> > > > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number
> > > > > > > of seconds was seven.
> > > > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact
> > > > > > > time? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the
> > > > > > > Commissio=
> > > > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number
> > > > > > > of seconds was seven.
> > > > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact
> > > > > > > time? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the
> n,
> > > > > > > o=3D
> > > r
> > > > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three
> > > > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham
> > > > > > > fired, which =3D
> > > > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three
> > > > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham
> > > is
> > > > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the
> > > > > > > shots =3D
> > > > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the
> > > on
> > > > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's
> > > > > > > target=3D
> > > > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's
> > > ,
> > > > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the
> > > > > > > right, =3D
> > > > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the
> > > in
> > > > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper,
> > > > > > > a=
> > > > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper,
> ll
> > > > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots.
> > > > > > > These shot=3D
> > > > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots.
> > > s
> > > > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each
> > > > > > > other=
> > > > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each
> ,
> > > > > > > an=3D
> > > d
> > > > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the
> > > > > > > righ=
> > > > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the
> t
> > > > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were
> > > > > > > landed =
> > > > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were
> in
> > > > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with
> > > > > > > Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch
> > > > > > > to the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4 inches
> > > > > > > hi=
> > > > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with
> > > > > > > Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch
> > > > > > > to the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4 inches
> gh
> > > > > > > a=3D
> > > nd
> > > > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a dispersion
> > > > > > > o=
> > > > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a dispersion
> f
> > > > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two
> > > > > > > serie=
> > > > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two
> s
> > > > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both
> > > > > > > o=
> > > > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both
> f
> > > > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort
> > > > > > > to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily,
> > > > > > > with secondary purpos=3D
> > > > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort
> > > > > > > to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily,
> > > e
> > > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that
> > > > > > > test =
> > > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that
> an
> > > > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first
> > > > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second
> > > > > > > series being mark=3D
> > > > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first
> > > > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second
> > > ed
> > > > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as
> > > > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No.
> > > > > > > 550=
> > > > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as
> > > > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No.
> ,
> > > > > > > an=3D
> > > d
> > > > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the
> > > > > > > dispersio=
> > > > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the
> n
> > > > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were
> > > > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches
> > > > > > > t=
> > > > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were
> > > > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches
> o
> > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle.
> > > > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second
> > > > > > > series =
> > > > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle.
> > > > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second
> of
> > > > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two
> > > > > > > abou=
> > > > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two
> t
> > > > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > Hey Dud ..... =3D3DA0At 25 yards .... The bullets impacted
> > > > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > the target about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point and
> > > > > > > about 1 1/=
> 2
> > > > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math
> > > > > > > fo=
> > > > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the math
> r
> > > > > > > you. =3D3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to understand
> > > > > > > that this =3D
> > > beat
> > > > > > > u=3D3D
> > > > > p
> > > > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =3D3DA0 It was
> > > > > > > fi=
> ring
> > > > > > > a=3D
> > > =A05
> > > > > > > inc=3D3D
> > > > > h
> > > > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3D3DA0Who knows where the bullets
> > > > > > > wou=
> ld
> > > > > > > hav=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3D3DA0 This is the way the rifle
> > > > > > > was =
> when
> > > > > > > i=3D
> > > t
> > > > > > > was found... =3D3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> >
> > > > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > > > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side
> > > > > > of Kennedy=3D3D
> > > > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > > > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right side
> > > > > 's
> > > > > > head.
> >
> > > > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A
> > > > > man=
> > > > > > head.
> >
> > > > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your math......A
> s
> > > > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So =3DA0aiming at the
> > > > > cente=
> r of
> > > > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =3DA0and with the
> > > > > bull=
> et
> > > > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
> > > > > yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye
> > > > > completel=
> > > > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at 25
> > > > > yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye
> y
> > > > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > > > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> >
> > > Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
> >
> > > My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
> > > missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY
> > > FIVE =A0(25 ) yards. =A0 TWENTY FIVE =A0yards..... =A0 =A0As I recall
> > > > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > > > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> >
> > > Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
> >
> > > My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
> > > missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY
> > > t=
> he range
> > > from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. =A0based on
> > > the fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9 inch
> > > bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely missed
> > > a 24 inch bulls-eye at 60 yards.
> >
> > You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified that the
> > thre=
> > > bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely missed
> > > a 24 inch bulls-eye at 60 yards.
> >
> > You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified that the
> e
> > shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four to five
> > inches high, one to two inches to the right of the aiming point and
> > lande=
> > shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four to five
> > inches high, one to two inches to the right of the aiming point and
> d
> > within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body would have
> > placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head at sixty yards. I
> > even posted the target for you to see. You seem to have ignored it. So,
> > who sa=
> > within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body would have
> > placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head at sixty yards. I
> > even posted the target for you to see. You seem to have ignored it. So,
> id
> > he was aiming at the head?
>
> You seem to be very thick skulled doktor ......perhaps you don't want
> to see the facts?
Facts? From the man who said, "Sometimes you have to theorize that a fact
> > he was aiming at the head?
>
> You seem to be very thick skulled doktor ......perhaps you don't want
> to see the facts?
is a fact"? Really, Walt, you want to talk facts, of all people?
>
> The range was about 75 yards..... If a gunman had fired that rifle
> from the sixth floor window he would have hit an oak tree BUT if that
> oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and he
> aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed JFK
> completely. IF IF IF ......the rifle would have been capable of
> hitting the same spot consistently. That rifle was INCAPABLE of
> firing a twelve inch group. It scattered the shots everywhere!
two-inch group in 4.8 seconds! Are you calling yourself a liar now?
>
> Nobody could predict where the bullet would hit when he pulled the
> trigger. as I said it was shooting waaaaay high and to the right so
> IF IF IF it had been fired that day from that window it's a small
> wonder that Sam Holland wasn't shot.
right, at worst, and still well within the margin to hit Kennedy on the
right side and blow his head open. Oswald was a poor shot since he only hit
his target one time out of three shots if he was aiming for the head and
only once out of three if he was aiming for the body. The third shot missed
Dallas completely. Still, he killed Kennedy deader than you are smart. If
you want to deny that than stop citing an expert's testimony to shore up
your theorized facts and then shooting that same testimony down when it
goes against you. It doesn't speak well for you.
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 8:32:25 PM2/2/13
to
the distance the bullet will hit from the aiming point.
Thus if the bullet misses the aiming point by 4 inches at 25 yards
it will miss the aiming point by 20 inches at 100 yards.
doc
Feb 2, 2013, 8:52:59 PM2/2/13
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3D3D3D3DA0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
> > > > > > > > > wrote=
> :
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt
> > > > > > > > > > <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=3D3D
> ms
> > > > > > > > > > > that =3D3D
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0That Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > O=
> swald
> > > > > > > > > > > mu=3D
> > > rdered
> > > > > > > > > > > President=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0John
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3D3D3DA0Please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > free=
> to
> > > > > > > > > > > ad=3D
> > > d to
> > > > > > > > > > > t=3D3D
> t
> > > > > > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > be=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > harder shots than =3D3D
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > e=3D3D3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6
> > > > > > > > > > seco=
> nds
> > > > > > > > > > at=3D
> > > =A025
> > > > > > > > > > ya=3D3D
> > > > > rds
> > > > > > > > > > wi=3D3D3D
> a
> > > > > > > > > > 12-in=3D3D
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > 4.=3D3D3D
> ,
> > > > > > > > > > I thin=3D3D
> u
> > > > > > > > > sa=3D
> > > y,
> > > > > > > > > M=3D3D
> > > n,
> > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> m
> > > > > > > > > fired, which =3D3D
> e
> > > > > > > > > shots =3D3D
> s
> > > > > > > > > target=3D3D
> r,
> > > > > > > > > a=3D
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > an=3D3D
> s
> > > > > > > > > hi=3D
> > > gh
> > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> on
> > > > > > > > > o=3D
> th
> > > > > > > > > o=3D
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > an=3D3D
> es
> > > > > > > > > t=3D
> > > o
> > > > > > > > > th=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > impacte=
> h
> > > > > > > > > fo=3D
> > > r
> > > > > > > > > you. =3D3D3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to
> > > > > > > > > understan=
> d
> > > > > > > > > that this =3D3D
> > > > > beat
> > > > > > > > > u=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > p
> > > > > > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > It =
> was
> > > > > > > > > fi=3D
> > > ring
> > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA05
> > > > > > > > > inc=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > h
> > > > > > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3D3D3DA0Who knows where the
> > > > > > > > > bulle=
> ts
> > > > > > > > > wou=3D
> > > ld
> > > > > > > > > hav=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3D3D3DA0 This is the way the
> > > > > > > > > rifl=
> e
> > > > > > > > > was =3D
> > > when
> > > > > > > > > i=3D3D
> > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > was found... =3D3D3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> e
> > > > > > > > of Kennedy=3D3D3D
> > > s
> > > > > > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So =3D3DA0aiming at
> > > > > > > the cente=3D
> > > r of
> > > > > > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =3D3DA0and with
> > > > > > > th=
> e
> > > > > > > bull=3D
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA=
> 0As I recall
> > > > > t=3D
> > > he range
> > > > > from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. =3DA0based
> > > > > o=
> o,
> > > > who sa=3D
> > > hitting the same spot consistently. =A0 That rifle was INCAPABLE of
projectile strikes high at one distance it will always strike lower at
another. I can provide you with independent verification through basic
physics if you ask. I don't even have to theorize that a fact is a fact, as
you do.
So, you're "twelve inch group" would occur at approximately what distance
from a two-inch group at 25 yards?
You can answer that, can't you? I'll let you.
> Thus if the bullet misses the aiming point by 4 inches at 25 yards
> it will miss the aiming point by 20 inches at 100 yards.
Are you using math which says 4X4=20? I'd like to see how you came up with
20 inches. Can you provide some sort of proof or is this another one of
your "you have to theorize that a fact is a fact"? I think it's the latter,
so prove me wrong.
> On Feb 2, 6:43=A0pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 12:29=3DA0pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 11:08=3D3DA0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 10:43=3D3D3DA0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com>
> > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3D3D3D3DA0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
> > > > > > > > > wrote=
> :
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt
> > > > > > > > > > <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=3D3D
> > > > > :
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable
> > > > > > > > > > > ite=
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the improbable
> ms
> > > > > > > > > > > that =3D3D
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > re
> > > > > > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select
> > > > > > > > > > > Blue Ribb=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's Select
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0That Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > O=
> swald
> > > > > > > > > > > mu=3D
> > > rdered
> > > > > > > > > > > President=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0John
> > > > > > > > > > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized
> > > > > > > > > > > improbabilities that onl=3D3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3D3D3DA0Please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > free=
> to
> > > > > > > > > > > ad=3D
> > > d to
> > > > > > > > > > > t=3D3D
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat
> > > > > > > > > > > tha=
> > > > > > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a feat
> t
> > > > > > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > be=3D3D
> > > > > st
> > > > > > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters make
> > > > > > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > harder shots than =3D3D
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > e=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d
> > > > > > > > > > still =
> > > > > > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d
> be
> > > > > > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving
> > > > > > > > > > soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5
> > > > > > > > > > > seconds per cycle.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > > > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving
> > > > > > > > > > soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than 2.5
> > > > > > > > > > > seconds per cycle.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6
> > > > > > > > > > seco=
> nds
> > > > > > > > > > at=3D
> > > =A025
> > > > > > > > > > ya=3D3D
> > > > > rds
> > > > > > > > > > wi=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > th
> > > > > > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent
> > > > > > > > > > of=
> > > > > > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent
> a
> > > > > > > > > > 12-in=3D3D
> > > > > ch
> > > > > > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch
> > > > > > > > > > relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even
> > > > > > > > > > less with considerabl=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch
> > > > > > > > > > relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds,
> > > > > > > > > > in that are=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds,
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > 4.=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > 6
> > > > > > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be
> > > > > > > > > > operated=
> > > > > > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be
> ,
> > > > > > > > > > I thin=3D3D
> > > > > k.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have
> > > > > > > > > > > missed the target
> > > > > > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would have
> > > > > > > > > > > missed the target
> > > > > > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm
> > > > > > > > > lying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did
> > > > > > > > > yo=
> > > > > > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm
> > > > > > > > > lying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did
> u
> > > > > > > > > sa=3D
> > > y,
> > > > > > > > > M=3D3D
> > > > > r.
> > > > > > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired
> > > > > > > > > t=
> > > > > > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired
> o
> > > > > > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be
> > > > > > > > > fired, not being overly familiar with this particular
> > > > > > > > > firearm, and als=3D
> > > > > > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be
> > > > > > > > > fired, not being overly familiar with this particular
> > > o
> > > > > > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those
> > > > > > > > > conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the
> > > > > > > > > names of the three agents who participated?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
> > > > > > > > > Cunningham, and myself.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired
> > > > > > > > > three, and =3D
> > > > > > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those
> > > > > > > > > conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the
> > > > > > > > > names of the three agents who participated?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
> > > > > > > > > Cunningham, and myself.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired
> > > I
> > > > > > > > > fired three.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which
> > > > > > > > > each age=3D
> > > > > > > > > fired three.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which
> > > nt
> > > > > > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in
> > > > > > > > > ni=
> > > > > > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in
> ne
> > > > > > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are
> > > > > > > > > interlocking, show=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate
> > > > > > > > > number of seconds was seven.
> > > > > > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact
> > > > > > > > > time? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the
> > > > > > > > > Commissio=3D
> > > > > > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate
> > > > > > > > > number of seconds was seven.
> > > > > > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact
> > > > > > > > > time? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the
> > > n,
> > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> > > > > r
> > > > > > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my
> > > > > > > > > thre=
> > > > > > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my
> e
> > > > > > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr.
> > > > > > > > > Cunningha=
> > > > > > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr.
> m
> > > > > > > > > fired, which =3D3D
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of
> > > > > > > > > th=
> > > > > > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of
> e
> > > > > > > > > shots =3D3D
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and
> > > > > > > > > 549=
> > > > > > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and
> ?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in
> > > > > > > > > Killion'=
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in
> s
> > > > > > > > > target=3D3D
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to
> > > > > > > > > the right, =3D3D
> > > > > > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the
> > > > > > > > > pape=
> > > > > > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the
> r,
> > > > > > > > > a=3D
> > > ll
> > > > > > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots.
> > > > > > > > > These shot=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots.
> > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each
> > > > > > > > > other=3D
> > > > > > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > an=3D3D
> > > > > d
> > > > > > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to
> > > > > > > > > the righ=3D
> > > > > > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to
> > > t
> > > > > > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were
> > > > > > > > > landed =3D
> > > > > > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking
> > > > > > > > > with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately
> > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4
> > > > > > > > > inche=
> > > > > > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking
> > > > > > > > > with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately
> > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4
> s
> > > > > > > > > hi=3D
> > > gh
> > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a
> > > > > > > > > dispersi=
> > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a
> on
> > > > > > > > > o=3D
> > > f
> > > > > > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of
> > > > > > > > > tests=
> > > > > > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of
> ?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two
> > > > > > > > > serie=3D
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two
> > > s
> > > > > > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired
> > > > > > > > > bo=
> > > > > > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired
> th
> > > > > > > > > o=3D
> > > f
> > > > > > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an
> > > > > > > > > effor=
> > > > > > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an
> t
> > > > > > > > > to determine how fast the weapon could be fired
> > > > > > > > > primarily, with secondary purpos=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > to determine how fast the weapon could be fired
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that
> > > > > > > > > test =3D
> > > > > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the
> > > > > > > > > firs=
> > > > > > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the
> t
> > > > > > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second
> > > > > > > > > series being mark=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second
> > > > > ed
> > > > > > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this
> > > > > > > > > introduced =
> > > > > > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this
> as
> > > > > > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit
> > > > > > > > > No. 550=3D
> > > > > > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > an=3D3D
> > > > > d
> > > > > > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the
> > > > > > > > > dispersio=3D
> > > > > > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the
> > > n
> > > > > > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots
> > > > > > > > > wer=
> > > > > > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots
> e
> > > > > > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2
> > > > > > > > > inch=
> > > > > > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2
> es
> > > > > > > > > t=3D
> > > o
> > > > > > > > > th=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch
> > > > > > > > > circl=
> > > > > > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch
> e.
> > > > > > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second
> > > > > > > > > series =3D
> > > > > > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other
> > > > > > > > > two abou=3D
> > > > > > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other
> > > t
> > > > > > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Hey Dud ..... =3D3D3DA0At 25 yards .... The bullets
> > > > > > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > > > impacte=
> d
> > > > > > > > > the target about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point and
> > > > > > > > > about 1 1/=3D
> > > > > > > > > the target about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point and
> > > 2
> > > > > > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the
> > > > > > > > > mat=
> > > > > > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do the
> h
> > > > > > > > > fo=3D
> > > r
> > > > > > > > > you. =3D3D3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to
> > > > > > > > > understan=
> d
> > > > > > > > > that this =3D3D
> > > > > beat
> > > > > > > > > u=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > p
> > > > > > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately. =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > It =
> was
> > > > > > > > > fi=3D
> > > ring
> > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA05
> > > > > > > > > inc=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > h
> > > > > > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3D3D3DA0Who knows where the
> > > > > > > > > bulle=
> ts
> > > > > > > > > wou=3D
> > > ld
> > > > > > > > > hav=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3D3D3DA0 This is the way the
> > > > > > > > > rifl=
> e
> > > > > > > > > was =3D
> > > when
> > > > > > > > > i=3D3D
> > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > was found... =3D3D3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it up.
> >
> > > > > > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > > > > > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right
> > > > > > > > sid=
> > > > > > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550.jpg
> >
> > > > > > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the right
> e
> > > > > > > > of Kennedy=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > 's
> > > > > > > > head.
> >
> > > > > > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your
> > > > > > > math......A man=3D
> > > > > > > > head.
> >
> > > > > > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your
> > > s
> > > > > > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So =3D3DA0aiming at
> > > > > > > the cente=3D
> > > r of
> > > > > > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =3D3DA0and with
> > > > > > > th=
> e
> > > > > > > bull=3D
> > > et
> > > > > > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at
> > > > > > > 25 yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye
> > > > > > > completel=3D
> > > > > > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right at
> > > > > > > 25 yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the bullseye
> > > y
> > > > > > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > > > > > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> >
> > > > > Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
> >
> > > > > My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
> > > > > missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere
> > > > > TWENTY FIVE =3DA0(25 ) yards. =3DA0 TWENTY FIVE =3DA0yards.....
> > > > > > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > > > > > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> >
> > > > > Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
> >
> > > > > My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have completely
> > > > > missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA=
> 0As I recall
> > > > > t=3D
> > > he range
> > > > > from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards. =3DA0based
> > > > > o=
> n
> > > > > the fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9 inch
> > > > > bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely
> > > > > miss=
> > > > > the fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9 inch
> > > > > bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have completely
> ed
> > > > > a 24 inch bulls-eye at 60 yards.
> >
> > > > You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified that
> > > > the thre=3D
> > > > > a 24 inch bulls-eye at 60 yards.
> >
> > > > You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified that
> > > e
> > > > shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four to
> > > > five inches high, one to two inches to the right of the aiming
> > > > point and lande=3D
> > > > shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four to
> > > > five inches high, one to two inches to the right of the aiming
> > > d
> > > > within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body would
> > > > have placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head at sixty
> > > > yards. I even posted the target for you to see. You seem to have
> > > > ignored it. S=
> > > > within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body would
> > > > have placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head at sixty
> > > > yards. I even posted the target for you to see. You seem to have
> o,
> > > > who sa=3D
> > > id
> > > > he was aiming at the head?
> >
> > > You seem to be very thick skulled doktor ......perhaps you don't want
> > > to see the facts?
> >
> > Facts? From the man who said, "Sometimes you have to theorize that a
> > fact is a fact"? Really, Walt, you want to talk facts, of all people?
> >
> >
> >
> > > The range was about 75 yards..... =A0 If a gunman had fired that
> > > > he was aiming at the head?
> >
> > > You seem to be very thick skulled doktor ......perhaps you don't want
> > > to see the facts?
> >
> > Facts? From the man who said, "Sometimes you have to theorize that a
> > fact is a fact"? Really, Walt, you want to talk facts, of all people?
> >
> >
> >
> > > rifle from the sixth floor window he would have hit an oak tree
> > > =A0BUT if tha=
> t
> > > oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and he
> > > aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed JFK
> > > completely. =A0 IF IF IF ......the rifle would have been capable of
> > > oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and he
> > > aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed JFK
> > > hitting the same spot consistently. =A0 That rifle was INCAPABLE of
> > > firing a twelve inch group. It scattered the shots everywhere!
> >
> > Twelve inch group? Walt, you posted Frazier's testimony where he fired
> > a two-inch group in 4.8 seconds! Are you calling yourself a liar now?
>
> Duh!..... The farther the bullet travels rom the muzzle the greater
> the distance the bullet will hit from the aiming point.
Ultimately lower, you know. Even bullets are subject to gravity. If a
> >
> > Twelve inch group? Walt, you posted Frazier's testimony where he fired
> > a two-inch group in 4.8 seconds! Are you calling yourself a liar now?
>
> Duh!..... The farther the bullet travels rom the muzzle the greater
> the distance the bullet will hit from the aiming point.
projectile strikes high at one distance it will always strike lower at
another. I can provide you with independent verification through basic
physics if you ask. I don't even have to theorize that a fact is a fact, as
you do.
So, you're "twelve inch group" would occur at approximately what distance
from a two-inch group at 25 yards?
You can answer that, can't you? I'll let you.
> Thus if the bullet misses the aiming point by 4 inches at 25 yards
> it will miss the aiming point by 20 inches at 100 yards.
20 inches. Can you provide some sort of proof or is this another one of
your "you have to theorize that a fact is a fact"? I think it's the latter,
so prove me wrong.
Walt
Feb 2, 2013, 11:01:07 PM2/2/13
to
fairly complicated to calculate where a bullet will strike at 75
yards, that misses the center of the bull by 1 1/2 inches at 25
yards. The factors that must be entered are the muzzle velocity. the
weight of the bullet and the condition of the rifle barrel; etc.
Having plugged the factors into a spread sheet it appears the bullet
would miss the bulls-eye by 8 inches to the right and about 3 inches
high at 75 yards. and this is with a rifle with a perfect barrel
that will fire a 1 inch group.
I don't need to tell you that 8 inchs to the right and 3 inches high
is a MISS ..MISS Maggies Drawers......
The number I used for a miss of 20 inches at 100 yards was just a
WAG.....but it turns out it wasn't far off.
There is two other factors that need to be plugged into the
equation.... The oak tree and the badly worn barrel.
The badly worn barrel would have made it totally impossible to predict
where a bullet would hit .....and the oak tree erases the whole damned
equation!!
doc
Feb 3, 2013, 12:19:43 AM2/3/13
to
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 10:43=3D3D3D3DA0am, doc
> > > > > > > > > <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.c=
> om>
> > > > > > > > > wr=3D
> > > ote:
> > > > > > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, Bud
> > > > > > > > > > > <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote=3D
> > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt
> > > > > > > > > > > > <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=3D3D3D
> > > ms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D3D
> ct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Blue Ribb=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3D3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0Th=
> at Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > O=3D
> > > swald
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mu=3D3D
> > > > > rdered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > President=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0John
> > > > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fee=
> l
> > > > > > > > > > > > > free=3D
> > > =A0to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ad=3D3D
> > > > > d to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > t=3D3D3D
> > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > > > th=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > make harder shots than =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > e=3D3D3D3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4.=
> 6
> > > > > > > > > > > > seco=3D
> > > nds
> > > > > > > > > > > > at=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA025
> > > > > > > > > > > > ya=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > rds
> > > > > > > > > > > > wi=3D3D3D3D
> t
> > > > > > > > > > > > of=3D
> > > =A0a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 12-in=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4.=3D3D3D3D
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I thin=3D3D3D
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > yo=3D
> > > u
> > > > > > > > > > > sa=3D3D
> > > > > y,
> > > > > > > > > > > M=3D3D3D
> ed
> > > > > > > > > > > t=3D
> n
> > > > > > > > > > > ni=3D
> > > > > n,
> > > > > > > > > > > o=3D3D3D
> > > m
> > > > > > > > > > > fired, which =3D3D3D
> f
> > > > > > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > shots =3D3D3D
> > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > target=3D3D3D
> > > r,
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> .
> > > > > > > > > > > These shot=3D3D3D
> ch
> > > > > > > > > > > other=3D3D
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > an=3D3D3D
> > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > hi=3D3D
> > > > > gh
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> wo
> > > > > > > > > > > serie=3D3D
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > bo=3D
> > > th
> > > > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> at
> > > > > > > > > > > test =3D3D
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > an=3D3D3D
> > > es
> > > > > > > > > > > t=3D3D
> > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > > > th=3D3D3D
> .
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Dud ..... =3D3D3D3DA0At 25 yards .... The bullets
> > > > > > > > > > > impacte=3D
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > about 1 1/=3D3D
> > > h
> > > > > > > > > > > fo=3D3D
> > > > > r
> > > > > > > > > > > you. =3D3D3D3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to
> > > > > > > > > > > understan=3D
> > > d
> > > > > > > > > > > that this =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > beat
> > > > > > > > > > > u=3D3D3D3D
> A0
> > > > > > > > > > > It =3D
> > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > fi=3D3D
> > > > > ring
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA05
> > > > > > > > > > > inc=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > h
> > > > > > > > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3D3D3D3DA0Who knows where
> > > > > > > > > > > the bulle=3D
> > > ts
> > > > > > > > > > > wou=3D3D
> > > > > ld
> > > > > > > > > > > hav=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3D3D3D3DA0 This is the way
> > > > > > > > > > > th=
> e
> > > > > > > > > > > rifl=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > was =3D3D
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > i=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > was found... =3D3D3D3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it
> > > > > > > > > > > up.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550
> > > > > > > > > >.j=
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > of Kennedy=3D3D3D3D
> at
> > > > > > > > > the cente=3D3D
> > > > > r of
> > > > > > > > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =3D3D3DA0and
> > > > > > > > > w=
> ith
> > > > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > bull=3D3D
> e
> > > > > > > > > completel=3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0yard=
> s.....
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=3D
> > > 0As I recall
> > > > > > > t=3D3D
> ased
> > > > > > > o=3D
> > > o,
> > > > > > who sa=3D3D
> > > > > capable =
> of
> > > > > hitting the same spot consistently. =3DA0 That rifle was
> > > > > INCAPABLE =
> > > yard=
> > w=
particularly interested on how a group at twenty-five yards managed to get
six inches to the right while dropping two inches in fifty yards.
> On Feb 2, 7:52=A0pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 6:43=3DA0pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 2, 12:29=3D3DA0pm, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 11:08=3D3D3DA0am, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com>
> > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 10:43=3D3D3D3DA0am, doc
> > > > > > > > > <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.c=
> om>
> > > > > > > > > wr=3D
> > > ote:
> > > > > > > > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 4:17=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, Bud
> > > > > > > > > > > <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote=3D
> > > :
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 8:11=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Walt
> > > > > > > > > > > > <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > :
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improbable ite=3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a brief list of all the
> > > ms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > re
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sele=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to believe if we are to accept LBJ's
> ct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Blue Ribb=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Committee's "finding" =3D3D3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0Th=
> at Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > O=3D
> > > swald
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mu=3D3D
> > > > > rdered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > President=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0John
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kennedy .....
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improbabilities that onl=3D3D3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll start with a few watermelon sized
> > > > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a hippotomus could swallow. =3D3D3D3D3DA0Please
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fee=
> l
> > > > > > > > > > > > > free=3D
> > > =A0to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ad=3D3D
> > > > > d to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > t=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feat tha=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list, let's see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how long the list will be by 3 /1 /13
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A) You must accept that Lee Oswald performed a
> > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > > > th=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > st
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0 You`re lying, joe-sixpack hunters
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rifle shots in the U.S. could not achieve,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > make harder shots than =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > e=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d
> > > > > > > > > > > > still =3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > day hunting. If these shots could not be made we`d
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving
> > > > > > > > > > > > soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.5 seconds per cycle.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > > > > > > > > > using the longbow, they wouldn`t even bother giving
> > > > > > > > > > > > soldiers rifles.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with a rifle that was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incapable of cycling the cartridges faster than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.5 seconds per cycle.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0 Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4.=
> 6
> > > > > > > > > > > > seco=3D
> > > nds
> > > > > > > > > > > > at=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA025
> > > > > > > > > > > > ya=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > rds
> > > > > > > > > > > > wi=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > th
> > > > > > > > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > equivalen=
> > > > > > > > > > > > approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the
> t
> > > > > > > > > > > > of=3D
> > > =A0a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 12-in=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ch
> > > > > > > > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6
> > > > > > > > > > > > inches or even less with considerabl=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5
> > > > > > > > > > > > seconds, in that are=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > practice with the weapon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4.=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > 6
> > > > > > > > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > operated=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I thin=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > k.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hav=
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > B) And the scope was mounted so the shots would
> e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the target
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D3DA0 You`re lying.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missed the target
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by at least two feet.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > lying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards,
> > > > > > > > > > > di=
> > > > > > > > > > > Nope I'm telling you the truth....you just WISH I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > lying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards,
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > yo=3D
> > > u
> > > > > > > > > > > sa=3D3D
> > > > > y,
> > > > > > > > > > > M=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > r.
> > > > > > > > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we
> > > > > > > > > > > fir=
> > > > > > > > > > > Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we
> ed
> > > > > > > > > > > t=3D
> > > o
> > > > > > > > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could
> > > > > > > > > > > b=
> > > > > > > > > > > determine actually the speed at which the rifle could
> e
> > > > > > > > > > > fired, not being overly familiar with this particular
> > > > > > > > > > > firearm, and als=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > fired, not being overly familiar with this particular
> > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those
> > > > > > > > > > > conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the
> > > > > > > > > > > names of the three agents who participated?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningham, and myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired
> > > > > > > > > > > three, and =3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those
> > > > > > > > > > > conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the
> > > > > > > > > > > names of the three agents who participated?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningham, and myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > fired three.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within
> > > > > > > > > > > which each age=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > fired three.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within
> > > > > nt
> > > > > > > > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots
> > > > > > > > > > > i=
> > > > > > > > > > > fired the three shots?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots
> n
> > > > > > > > > > > ni=3D
> > > ne
> > > > > > > > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are
> > > > > > > > > > > interlocking, show=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are
> > > > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate
> > > > > > > > > > > number of seconds was seven.
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the
> > > > > > > > > > > exa=
> > > > > > > > > > > on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate
> > > > > > > > > > > number of seconds was seven.
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the
> ct
> > > > > > > > > > > time? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the
> > > > > > > > > > > Commissio=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > time? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the
> > > > > n,
> > > > > > > > > > > o=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > r
> > > > > > > > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for
> > > > > > > > > > > my thre=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr.
> > > > > > > > > > > Cunningha=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > shots, which also were on the target at which Mr.
> > > m
> > > > > > > > > > > fired, which =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion
> > > > > > > > > > > o=
> > > > > > > > > > > Exhibit 548.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion
> f
> > > > > > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > shots =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548
> > > > > > > > > > > and 549=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > the two targets which you have been showing us, 548
> > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in
> > > > > > > > > > > Killion'=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in
> > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > target=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch
> > > > > > > > > > > to the right, =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in
> > > > > > > > > > > the pape=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in
> > > r,
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D
> > > > > ll
> > > > > > > > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three
> > > > > > > > > > > shots=
> > > > > > > > > > > three shots.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three
> .
> > > > > > > > > > > These shot=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of
> > > > > > > > > > > ea=
> > > > > > > > > > > were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of
> ch
> > > > > > > > > > > other=3D3D
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > an=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > d
> > > > > > > > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch
> > > > > > > > > > > to the righ=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch
> > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired
> > > > > > > > > > > were landed =3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them
> > > > > > > > > > > interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high,
> > > > > > > > > > > and approximate=
> > > > > > > > > > > a three- quarter inch circle, two of them
> > > > > > > > > > > interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high,
> ly
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4
> > > > > > > > > > > inche=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Dud.....the rifle was hitting an average of 3 1/4
> > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > hi=3D3D
> > > > > gh
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a
> > > > > > > > > > > dispersi=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 inch to the right at a range of 15 yards, with a
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> > > > > f
> > > > > > > > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of
> > > > > > > > > > > tests=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > about 3/4 of an inch..
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of
> > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was
> > > > > > > > > > > t=
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was
> wo
> > > > > > > > > > > serie=3D3D
> > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I
> > > > > > > > > > > fire=
> > > > > > > > > > > of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > bo=3D
> > > th
> > > > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> > > > > f
> > > > > > > > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an
> > > > > > > > > > > effor=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an
> > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > to determine how fast the weapon could be fired
> > > > > > > > > > > primarily, with secondary purpos=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > to determine how fast the weapon could be fired
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > > > > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in
> > > > > > > > > > > th=
> > > > > > > > > > > accuracy.
> > > > > > > > > > > We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in
> at
> > > > > > > > > > > test =3D3D
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in
> > > > > > > > > > > it=
> > > > > > > > > > > accurate rate of fire.
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the actual target which I fired.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in
> ?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes,
> > > > > > > > > > > the firs=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes,
> > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > second series being mark=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the
> > > > > > > ed
> > > > > > > > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this
> > > > > > > > > > > introduced =3D
> > > > > > > > > > > No. 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission
> > > > > > > > > > > Exhibit No. 550=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > 550. Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > (The document referred to was marked Commission
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > an=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > d
> > > > > > > > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the
> > > > > > > > > > > dispersio=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > received in evidence.)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three
> > > > > > > > > > > shots wer=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > on the two series?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to
> > > > > > > > > > > 2 inch=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to
> > > es
> > > > > > > > > > > t=3D3D
> > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > > > th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch
> > > > > > > > > > > circl=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch
> > > e.
> > > > > > > > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The
> > > > > > > > > > > second series =3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > other two abou=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the
> > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5
> > > > > > > > > > > inches=
> > > > > > > > > > > 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5
> .
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Dud ..... =3D3D3D3DA0At 25 yards .... The bullets
> > > > > > > > > > > impacte=3D
> > > d
> > > > > > > > > > > the target about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point
> > > > > > > > > > > an=
> > > > > > > > > > > the target about 4 1/2 inches above the aiming point
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > about 1 1/=3D3D
> > > > > 2
> > > > > > > > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do
> > > > > > > > > > > the mat=3D
> > > > > > > > > > > inches to the right with a dispersion of 5 inches.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > You can find someone with a functioning brain to do
> > > h
> > > > > > > > > > > fo=3D3D
> > > > > r
> > > > > > > > > > > you. =3D3D3D3DA0 But it doesn't take an Einstein to
> > > > > > > > > > > understan=3D
> > > d
> > > > > > > > > > > that this =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > beat
> > > > > > > > > > > u=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > p
> > > > > > > > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately.
> > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3D=
> > > > > > > > > > > old rifle was incapable of firing accurately.
> A0
> > > > > > > > > > > It =3D
> > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > fi=3D3D
> > > > > ring
> > > > > > > > > > > a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA05
> > > > > > > > > > > inc=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > h
> > > > > > > > > > > spread at only 25 yards. =3D3D3D3DA0Who knows where
> > > > > > > > > > > the bulle=3D
> > > ts
> > > > > > > > > > > wou=3D3D
> > > > > ld
> > > > > > > > > > > hav=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > landed at 60 yards?????. =3D3D3D3DA0 This is the way
> > > > > > > > > > > th=
> e
> > > > > > > > > > > rifl=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > was =3D3D
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > i=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > was found... =3D3D3D3DA0NOT after the FBI tuned it
> > > > > > > > > > > up.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce550
> > > > > > > > > >.j=
> pg
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the
> > > > > > > > > > right sid=3D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Yup, aiming at center mass would have blown off the
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > > of Kennedy=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > 's
> > > > > > > > > > head.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your
> > > > > > > > > math......A man=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > head.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Hey dokter Memgele ....You need to brush up on your
> > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So
> > > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0aiming =
> > > > > > > > > head is about 7 1/2 inches in diameter. So
> at
> > > > > > > > > the cente=3D3D
> > > > > r of
> > > > > > > > > a 7 1/2 inch bullseye, ( 3 1/4 inche radius) =3D3D3DA0and
> > > > > > > > > w=
> ith
> > > > > > > > > th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > > > > > bull=3D3D
> > > > > et
> > > > > > > > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right
> > > > > > > > > a=
> > > > > > > > > impacting 4 1/2 inches high and 1 1/2 inches to the right
> t
> > > > > > > > > 25 yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the
> > > > > > > > > bullsey=
> > > > > > > > > 25 yards ...25 YARDS!.... the bullet would miss the
> e
> > > > > > > > > completel=3D3D
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > > > > > > > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> >
> > > > > > > Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
> >
> > > > > > > My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have
> > > > > > > complete=
> > > > > > > > > ay a mere 25 YARDS.
> >
> > > > > > > > Who said he was aiming at JFK's head?
> >
> > > > > > > Ha,ha.ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!....
> >
> > > > > > > My dear doktor..... The POINT is the bullet would have
> ly
> > > > > > > missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere
> > > > > > > TWENTY FIVE =3D3DA0(25 ) yards. =3D3DA0 TWENTY FIVE
> > > > > > > missed MISSED a 9 inch ( 4 1/2 "radius) bulls-eye at a mere
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0yard=
> s.....
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=3D
> > > 0As I recall
> > > > > > > t=3D3D
> > > > > he range
> > > > > > > from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards.
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0b=
> > > > > > > from the window to the impact area was about 75 yards.
> ased
> > > > > > > o=3D
> > > n
> > > > > > > the fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9
> > > > > > > inch bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have
> > > > > > > completely miss=3D
> > > > > > > the fact that the bullet would have completely missed a 9
> > > > > > > inch bulls-eye at a mere TWENTY FIVE yards it would have
> > > ed
> > > > > > > a 24 inch bulls-eye at 60 yards.
> >
> > > > > > You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified
> > > > > > that the thre=3D3D
> > > > > > > a 24 inch bulls-eye at 60 yards.
> >
> > > > > > You've missed the point of your own post. Frazier testified
> > > > > e
> > > > > > shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four
> > > > > > to five inches high, one to two inches to the right of the
> > > > > > aiming point and lande=3D3D
> > > > > > shots in the first group were fired in 4.8 seconds, were four
> > > > > > to five inches high, one to two inches to the right of the
> > > > > d
> > > > > > within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body
> > > > > > would have placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head
> > > > > > at sixty yards. I even posted the target for you to see. You
> > > > > > seem to have ignored it. S=3D
> > > > > > within a two-inch circle. Aiming at the center of the body
> > > > > > would have placed those shots on the right side of JFK's head
> > > > > > at sixty yards. I even posted the target for you to see. You
> > > o,
> > > > > > who sa=3D3D
> > > > > id
> > > > > > he was aiming at the head?
> >
> > > > > You seem to be very thick skulled doktor ......perhaps you don't
> > > > > wa=
> > > > > > he was aiming at the head?
> >
> > > > > You seem to be very thick skulled doktor ......perhaps you don't
> nt
> > > > > to see the facts?
> >
> > > > Facts? From the man who said, "Sometimes you have to theorize that
> > > > a fact is a fact"? Really, Walt, you want to talk facts, of all
> > > > people?
> >
> > > > > The range was about 75 yards..... =3DA0 If a gunman had fired
> > > > > to see the facts?
> >
> > > > Facts? From the man who said, "Sometimes you have to theorize that
> > > > a fact is a fact"? Really, Walt, you want to talk facts, of all
> > > > people?
> >
> > > > > that rifle from the sixth floor window he would have hit an oak
> > > > > tree =3DA0BUT if tha=3D
> > > t
> > > > > oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and
> > > > > he aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed
> > > > > JFK completely. =3DA0 IF IF IF ......the rifle would have been
> > > > > oak tree hadn't have been between the window and the target and
> > > > > he aimed at the center of JFK back the bullet would have missed
> > > > > capable =
> of
> > > > > hitting the same spot consistently. =3DA0 That rifle was
> > > > > INCAPABLE =
> of
> > > > > firing a twelve inch group. It scattered the shots everywhere!
> >
> > > > Twelve inch group? Walt, you posted Frazier's testimony where he
> > > > fire=
> > > > > firing a twelve inch group. It scattered the shots everywhere!
> >
> > > > Twelve inch group? Walt, you posted Frazier's testimony where he
> d
> > > > a two-inch group in 4.8 seconds! Are you calling yourself a liar
> > > > now?
> >
> > > Duh!..... =A0The farther the bullet travels rom the muzzle the
> > > > a two-inch group in 4.8 seconds! Are you calling yourself a liar
> > > > now?
> >
> > > greater the distance the bullet will hit from the aiming point.
> >
> > Ultimately lower, you know. Even bullets are subject to gravity. If a
> > projectile strikes high at one distance it will always strike lower at
> > another. I can provide you with independent verification through basic
> > physics if you ask. I don't even have to theorize that a fact is a
> > fact, =
> >
> > Ultimately lower, you know. Even bullets are subject to gravity. If a
> > projectile strikes high at one distance it will always strike lower at
> > another. I can provide you with independent verification through basic
> > physics if you ask. I don't even have to theorize that a fact is a
> as
> > you do.
> >
> > So, you're "twelve inch group" would occur at approximately what
> > distance from a two-inch group at 25 yards?
> >
> > You can answer that, can't you? I'll let you.
> >
> > > Thus if the bullet misses the aiming point by 4 =A0inches =A0at 25
> > you do.
> >
> > So, you're "twelve inch group" would occur at approximately what
> > distance from a two-inch group at 25 yards?
> >
> > You can answer that, can't you? I'll let you.
> >
> > > yard=
> s
> > > it will miss the aiming point by 20 inches at 100 yards.
> >
> > Are you using math which says 4X4=3D20? I'd like to see how you came up
> > > it will miss the aiming point by 20 inches at 100 yards.
> >
> > w=
> ith
> > 20 inches. Can you provide some sort of proof or is this another one of
> > your "you have to theorize that a fact is a fact"? I think it's the
> > latte=
> > 20 inches. Can you provide some sort of proof or is this another one of
> > your "you have to theorize that a fact is a fact"? I think it's the
> r,
> > so prove me wrong.
>
> My dear doktor.... it isn't as simple as multipling 4X 4.... It's
> fairly complicated to calculate where a bullet will strike at 75
> yards, that misses the center of the bull by 1 1/2 inches at 25
> yards. The factors that must be entered are the muzzle velocity. the
> weight of the bullet and the condition of the rifle barrel; etc.
> Having plugged the factors into a spread sheet it appears the bullet
> would miss the bulls-eye by 8 inches to the right and about 3 inches
> high at 75 yards. and this is with a rifle with a perfect barrel
> that will fire a 1 inch group.
I want to see that spread sheet, Walt. Post it on the group, now. I'm
> > so prove me wrong.
>
> My dear doktor.... it isn't as simple as multipling 4X 4.... It's
> fairly complicated to calculate where a bullet will strike at 75
> yards, that misses the center of the bull by 1 1/2 inches at 25
> yards. The factors that must be entered are the muzzle velocity. the
> weight of the bullet and the condition of the rifle barrel; etc.
> Having plugged the factors into a spread sheet it appears the bullet
> would miss the bulls-eye by 8 inches to the right and about 3 inches
> high at 75 yards. and this is with a rifle with a perfect barrel
> that will fire a 1 inch group.
particularly interested on how a group at twenty-five yards managed to get
six inches to the right while dropping two inches in fifty yards.
Walt
Feb 3, 2013, 9:43:43 AM2/3/13
to
other, and rest assured only one hand wil be filed.
You apparently failed to read the bottom line of my post ....all the
data on the spread sheet is negated by that damned oak tree that stood
between the muzzle of the rifle and the President's head.
What that means my simple minded doktor is: No rifleman, no matter
how well qualified, can hit a target that has an oak tree between his
position and his target. Is this too difficult for you, herr
doktor?
Walt
Feb 3, 2013, 2:27:08 PM2/3/13
to
On Jan 30, 11:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
>
> Hey Pea Brain [Walt The Walking Evidence-Mangler means me, DVP, of
> course]....I just grabbed a couple of items from your BS site and
> posted them here.....
>
> [Walt quotes DVP:]
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the
> Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963.
>
> [End quote.]
>
> You have not shown any PROOF of ownership. That claim is a lie.
>
> [Walt again quotes DVP:]
>
> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the
> murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> [End quote.]
>
> This a flat out lie. The bullets that were retrieved from Tippit's
> body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
>
> [Walt totally ignores the four spent cartridge cases that littered the
> ground at Tenth Street and Patton Avenue right after Officer Tippit
> was murdered. And those spent cartridges were manually removed from
> the Tippit murder weapon by none other than Lee Harvey Oswald himself.
> Funny how Walt wants to ignore those proven facts, isn't it? Walt will
> merely pretend the bullet shells were planted there, and he'll also
> pretend that all the witnesses misidentified the shell-dropper as Lee
> H. Oswald. How convenient for the retard named Walter. But, it's par
> for the course in the ever-popular "Anybody But Oswald" fantasy world
> that Walter resides in.]
Von Pea Brain would like the reader to believe I ignored evidence
because it's damaging to my argument. I ignore BS for the sake of
brevity. It makes no sense to argue that water flows up hill after it
is demonstrated to flow down grade. It is a FACT the bullets that
were retrieved from Tippit's body COULD NOT be connected with the .38
S&W revolver that Oswald allegedly carried from his room to the
theater. If the bullet's can't be connected to that gun then the case
is nearly non existant. The spent shells have all the appearance of
being fabricated evidence and are worthless as evidence against Oswald
because The PRIMARY officer who took custody of the shells at the
scene could NOT identify the shells that were presented as evidence,
as the SAME shells that he had turned over to the crime lab at the
DPD.
As a matter of FACT...... The shells presented do NOT match the
bullets recovered from Tippit's body. And Von Pea Brain knows it.
>
> [Walt again quotes DVP:]
>
> 3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
> the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
> Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
> before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that
> Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched
> Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44
> PM).
>
> [End quote.]
>
> This is another blatant lie! Wow! Blasting these lies is like shooting
> fish in a barrel.
>
> Howard Brennan gave a sworn written affidavit just an hour after the
> shooting. In that affidavit Brennan described the man he'd seen with a
> long barreled rifle as..... Quote..."he was a white man in his early
> thirties" LHO was in his early twenties, Brennan also
> said....Quote..."The man weighed about 165 to 175 pounds "....LHO
> weighed 140 pounds, That's a BIG difference. Brennan also said,
> quote.... "He had on light colored clothing".... LHO was wearing DARK
> colored clothing. A reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
>
> The closing sentence of Howard brennan's sworn affidavt
> says....Quote...." I believe that I could identify this man if I ever
> saw him again.".... Brennan saw LHO in a police line up just a couple
> of hours later and he told the police the man he'd seen with the
> hunting rifle was NOT in that line up.
>
> Thank you for lying. It makes it so easy to refute your lies with
> facts.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I had a feeling I'd get Walt all keyed up again by displaying some
> actual facts in the case. And, sure enough, just as certain as snow
> falling in Minneapolis in January, Walter was eager to jump in with
> both feet in his mouth (as usual).
>
> How many more decades will Walt insist upon misrepresenting and
> mangling ALL of the evidence that exists in this case? Is there any
> statute of limitations on the retarded theories endlessly spouted by
> conspiracy clowns? It seems as though there isn't, as proven by Walt's
> daily presence here at The Conspiracy Asylum.
>
> Walt's tired batch of worthless crackpottery should be a good
> indication to any newbie to illustrate the absurd lengths to which
> certain conspiracy nuts will go in order to promote impossible
> conspiracy theories relating to the death of President Kennedy.
>
> And newbies and Asylum veterans alike should also marvel at Walt's
> consistent ability to use NO common sense and logical thinking skills
> at all when it comes to every part of the JFK murder case. And we need
> to also be in awe of his amazing ability to be WRONG about virtually
> every single thing he says about the way JFK died. (Walt, however,
> likely inherited his "Always Wrong" gene from his fellow conspiracy
> kooks who came before him--e.g., Mark Lane, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs,
> Jim Garrison, Jim Fetzer, Jim DiEugenio, Oliver Stone, et al.)
>
> But no matter how many years pass, and no matter how many more useless
> posts get dropped into this archive of tumbleweeds here at the acj
> nuthouse, conspiracy clowns like Walter Cakebread will continue to
> exhibit their total inability to logically and reasonably evaluate any
> of the evidence associated with JFK's murder, as they perpetually
> utter blatant misrepresentations and half-assed theories that have no
> basis in fact or reality (or common sense) whatsoever.
>
> For example:
>
> Walt's continual bullshit about how there's no proof that Lee Oswald
> ever owned Carcano Rifle C2766, and no proof Oswald ever owned
> Revolver V510210, along with Walt's lackluster efforts to completely
> change and mangle beyond recognition the testimony of Howard L.
> Brennan (see the links below, in which I totally destroy Walt's theory
> about Brennan).
>
> SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
>
> MORE ABOUT BRENNAN:http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.htmlhttp://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan-part-2.html
>
> -------------------------
>
> It's such a shame that the Internet world has to be populated with so
> many people (like Walter C.) who possess no ability whatsoever for
> properly assessing evidence in the JFK assassination.
>
> But, like it or not, that's the Internet world we live in right now.
> It's an Internet world where people are still claiming, in the year
> 2013, that Oswald was standing in the Depository doorway. And where
> people are still claiming that Bill Greer shot John Kennedy. And it's
> a world where one certain kook is still pretending that Howard
> Brennan's Warren Commission testimony (in some cryptic fashion which
> can only be deciphered by this one certain kook named Walter)
> indicates that Brennan saw a gunman on the WEST side of the Book
> Depository Building on November 22, 1963, instead of where all
> reasoned-thinking individuals know Brennan saw the sniper--the east
> end of the TSBD.
>
> It would be so nice if the Internet world were filled with more people
> like Jean Davison, Bud, Tim Brennan, Dave Reitzes, John McAdams, and
> others like them who have the capacity for sensibly evaluating the
> totality of evidence in the JFK case.
>
> It makes me wonder what the world of Internet JFK conspiracy-happy
> clowns will look like on the 100th anniversary of Kennedy's death in
> 2063? Will Walt's grandson be active on this forum, linking to 50-year-
> old archived messages written by his silly grandfather? I wouldn't bet
> against it.
>
> David Von Pein
> January 30-31, 2013
>
> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
> WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
>
> Hey Pea Brain [Walt The Walking Evidence-Mangler means me, DVP, of
> course]....I just grabbed a couple of items from your BS site and
> posted them here.....
>
> [Walt quotes DVP:]
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the
> Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963.
>
> [End quote.]
>
> You have not shown any PROOF of ownership. That claim is a lie.
>
> [Walt again quotes DVP:]
>
> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the
> murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> [End quote.]
>
> This a flat out lie. The bullets that were retrieved from Tippit's
> body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
>
> [Walt totally ignores the four spent cartridge cases that littered the
> ground at Tenth Street and Patton Avenue right after Officer Tippit
> was murdered. And those spent cartridges were manually removed from
> the Tippit murder weapon by none other than Lee Harvey Oswald himself.
> Funny how Walt wants to ignore those proven facts, isn't it? Walt will
> merely pretend the bullet shells were planted there, and he'll also
> pretend that all the witnesses misidentified the shell-dropper as Lee
> H. Oswald. How convenient for the retard named Walter. But, it's par
> for the course in the ever-popular "Anybody But Oswald" fantasy world
> that Walter resides in.]
Von Pea Brain would like the reader to believe I ignored evidence
because it's damaging to my argument. I ignore BS for the sake of
brevity. It makes no sense to argue that water flows up hill after it
is demonstrated to flow down grade. It is a FACT the bullets that
were retrieved from Tippit's body COULD NOT be connected with the .38
S&W revolver that Oswald allegedly carried from his room to the
theater. If the bullet's can't be connected to that gun then the case
is nearly non existant. The spent shells have all the appearance of
being fabricated evidence and are worthless as evidence against Oswald
because The PRIMARY officer who took custody of the shells at the
scene could NOT identify the shells that were presented as evidence,
as the SAME shells that he had turned over to the crime lab at the
DPD.
As a matter of FACT...... The shells presented do NOT match the
bullets recovered from Tippit's body. And Von Pea Brain knows it.
>
> [Walt again quotes DVP:]
>
> 3.) Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as
> the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. .... And to believe that
> Brennan was "influenced" by TV and newspaper reports showing Oswald
> before Brennan positively identified LHO, we must remember that
> Brennan's INITIAL description of the killer very closely matched
> Oswald, given to police within minutes of the shooting (prior to 12:44
> PM).
>
> [End quote.]
>
> This is another blatant lie! Wow! Blasting these lies is like shooting
> fish in a barrel.
>
> Howard Brennan gave a sworn written affidavit just an hour after the
> shooting. In that affidavit Brennan described the man he'd seen with a
> long barreled rifle as..... Quote..."he was a white man in his early
> thirties" LHO was in his early twenties, Brennan also
> said....Quote..."The man weighed about 165 to 175 pounds "....LHO
> weighed 140 pounds, That's a BIG difference. Brennan also said,
> quote.... "He had on light colored clothing".... LHO was wearing DARK
> colored clothing. A reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
>
> The closing sentence of Howard brennan's sworn affidavt
> says....Quote...." I believe that I could identify this man if I ever
> saw him again.".... Brennan saw LHO in a police line up just a couple
> of hours later and he told the police the man he'd seen with the
> hunting rifle was NOT in that line up.
>
> Thank you for lying. It makes it so easy to refute your lies with
> facts.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I had a feeling I'd get Walt all keyed up again by displaying some
> actual facts in the case. And, sure enough, just as certain as snow
> falling in Minneapolis in January, Walter was eager to jump in with
> both feet in his mouth (as usual).
>
> How many more decades will Walt insist upon misrepresenting and
> mangling ALL of the evidence that exists in this case? Is there any
> statute of limitations on the retarded theories endlessly spouted by
> conspiracy clowns? It seems as though there isn't, as proven by Walt's
> daily presence here at The Conspiracy Asylum.
>
> Walt's tired batch of worthless crackpottery should be a good
> indication to any newbie to illustrate the absurd lengths to which
> certain conspiracy nuts will go in order to promote impossible
> conspiracy theories relating to the death of President Kennedy.
>
> And newbies and Asylum veterans alike should also marvel at Walt's
> consistent ability to use NO common sense and logical thinking skills
> at all when it comes to every part of the JFK murder case. And we need
> to also be in awe of his amazing ability to be WRONG about virtually
> every single thing he says about the way JFK died. (Walt, however,
> likely inherited his "Always Wrong" gene from his fellow conspiracy
> kooks who came before him--e.g., Mark Lane, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs,
> Jim Garrison, Jim Fetzer, Jim DiEugenio, Oliver Stone, et al.)
>
> But no matter how many years pass, and no matter how many more useless
> posts get dropped into this archive of tumbleweeds here at the acj
> nuthouse, conspiracy clowns like Walter Cakebread will continue to
> exhibit their total inability to logically and reasonably evaluate any
> of the evidence associated with JFK's murder, as they perpetually
> utter blatant misrepresentations and half-assed theories that have no
> basis in fact or reality (or common sense) whatsoever.
>
> For example:
>
> Walt's continual bullshit about how there's no proof that Lee Oswald
> ever owned Carcano Rifle C2766, and no proof Oswald ever owned
> Revolver V510210, along with Walt's lackluster efforts to completely
> change and mangle beyond recognition the testimony of Howard L.
> Brennan (see the links below, in which I totally destroy Walt's theory
> about Brennan).
>
> SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
>
> MORE ABOUT BRENNAN:http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.htmlhttp://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan-part-2.html
>
> -------------------------
>
> It's such a shame that the Internet world has to be populated with so
> many people (like Walter C.) who possess no ability whatsoever for
> properly assessing evidence in the JFK assassination.
>
> But, like it or not, that's the Internet world we live in right now.
> It's an Internet world where people are still claiming, in the year
> 2013, that Oswald was standing in the Depository doorway. And where
> people are still claiming that Bill Greer shot John Kennedy. And it's
> a world where one certain kook is still pretending that Howard
> Brennan's Warren Commission testimony (in some cryptic fashion which
> can only be deciphered by this one certain kook named Walter)
> indicates that Brennan saw a gunman on the WEST side of the Book
> Depository Building on November 22, 1963, instead of where all
> reasoned-thinking individuals know Brennan saw the sniper--the east
> end of the TSBD.
>
> It would be so nice if the Internet world were filled with more people
> like Jean Davison, Bud, Tim Brennan, Dave Reitzes, John McAdams, and
> others like them who have the capacity for sensibly evaluating the
> totality of evidence in the JFK case.
>
> It makes me wonder what the world of Internet JFK conspiracy-happy
> clowns will look like on the 100th anniversary of Kennedy's death in
> 2063? Will Walt's grandson be active on this forum, linking to 50-year-
> old archived messages written by his silly grandfather? I wouldn't bet
> against it.
>
> David Von Pein
> January 30-31, 2013
>
> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Bud
Feb 3, 2013, 2:47:45 PM2/3/13
to
with create the unusual characteristics consistent with the bullets in
Tippit`s body.
> If the bullet's can't be connected to that gun then the case
> is nearly non existant.
> The spent shells have all the appearance of
> being fabricated evidence
guilt was fabricated. They also think all the witness testimony that
indicates Oswald`s guilt is lies or coerced. This is what makes them
retards, they are uninterested in the truth, they only want to pretend
Oswald was innocent.
> and are worthless as evidence against Oswald
> because The PRIMARY officer who took custody of the shells at the
> scene could NOT identify the shells that were presented as evidence,
> as the SAME shells that he had turned over to the crime lab at the
> DPD.
cases.
> As a matter of FACT...... The shells presented do NOT match the
> bullets recovered from Tippit's body. And Von Pea Brain knows it.
Oswald`s possession when he was arrested.
>
> > MORE ABOUT BRENNAN:http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.htmlhttp://JF...
Walt
Feb 3, 2013, 3:12:40 PM2/3/13
to
RANGE! What was the range again??
What?...You say the rifle fired five inches high and two inches to the
right at FIFTEEN (15 ) yards??
Are you telling me that just 15 yards from the muzzle of the rifle the
bullet was already off the aiming point by a HUGE amount?? Yer
cranial rectalitis is acting up again...... if you believe that rifle
could hit an 8 inch target at 75 yards....even if it had the
capability to place the bullets in a tight group consistently ( which
it couldn't)
Message has been deleted
Walt
Feb 3, 2013, 3:36:23 PM2/3/13
to
easy to find that the FBI experts are on record as testifying that
marks found on the bullets were similar to the marks found in Oswald's
pistol HOWEVER those characteristics are NOT unusual and perhaps a
thousand other pistols could produce similar marks.
Bud
Feb 3, 2013, 5:16:24 PM2/3/13
to
than 10%? So poor Oswald just got unlucky again? And then at the time
of his arrest he had the same two brands of bullets on his person as
Tippit had in his body. Again, what are the odds? Oswald killed
Tippit, but you retards will never drop this silly game where you
pretend he was innocent.
Walt
Feb 3, 2013, 9:14:49 PM2/3/13
to
the percentage of all .38 cal revolvers it wouldn't be a fair
question. There were thousands of those .38 revolvers manufactured
and possibly half of them had been modified like Oswald's pistol.
They were very popular with criminals because they barrels left no
identifable marks left on the bullets when they were fired.
But it really is irrelevant because the fact remains the bullets COULD
NOT be traced to Oswald's gun...and that's the bottom line.
>
> read more »
Bud
Feb 4, 2013, 12:56:08 AM2/4/13
to
> They were very popular with criminals because they barrels left no
> identifable marks left on the bullets when they were fired.
>
> But it really is irrelevant because the fact remains the bullets COULD
> NOT be traced to Oswald's gun...and that's the bottom line.
Oswald had a good chance to be exonerated if the gun he was carrying
wasn`t the unusual type that fired bullets consistent with the
markings on the bullets found in Tippit`s body. Coupled with the fact
that Oswald was carrying the only two brands of bullets found in
Tippit`s body on his person leads to the inescapable conclusion that
Oswald killed Tippit.
Walt
Feb 4, 2013, 10:05:36 AM2/4/13
to
could NOT NOT be matched to the pistol that Oswald was carrying when
he was arrested. NO MATCH ! That is a FACT...... and you know it,
and yet you lie and claim " It`s a fact that the gun Oswald used to
kill Tippit and was arrested with create the unusual characteristics
consistent with the bullets in Tippit`s body."
That's an absurd statement from a semi functioning brain.
consistent with the bullets in Tippit`s body."
>
> read more »
Bud
Feb 4, 2013, 1:02:23 PM2/4/13
to
fired from a gun. Oswald`s gun fired bullets with the unusual
characteristic of being difficult or impossible to match. This is
consistent with the bullets found in Tippit`s body.
> NO MATCH !
Did the handgun that Oswald was arrested with fire bullets that
could be easily matched?
What you would expect if Oswald was innocent would be that either
the bullets in Tippit`s body to have striations on them that easily
established them as being fired from a different gun than Oswald`s or
Oswald having a gun that made readily and easily determined striations
on the bullets it fired. When you have unusual circumstances with the
bullets in Tippit and a gun in Oswald`s hands that has the
characteristics to produce such bullets it is very incriminating. When
he has the two brands of ammo on him as found in Tippit`s body the
chances of him not being the shooter are quite large.
> That is a FACT...... and you know it,
> and yet you lie and claim " It`s a fact that the gun Oswald used to
> kill Tippit and was arrested with create the unusual characteristics
> consistent with the bullets in Tippit`s body."
>
> That's an absurd statement from a semi functioning brain.
reason. This evidence *should* exonerate Oswald if he were innocent.
If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
it fires and Tippit`s body has the bullets that are fired from the
unusual kind of gun that makes them hard to match he is much helped.
Conversely, if he has the unusual kind of gun and Tippit`s body
contains bullets with normal striations he is also much helped. Oswald
strikes out both ways, the bullets in Tippit`s body are consistent
with the type of bullets his gun shoots, the kinds of bullets that are
difficult to match.
>
> read more »
Walt
Feb 4, 2013, 1:12:18 PM2/4/13
to
Under our laws, the evidence should CONVICT the accused. He doesn't
have to prove he's innocent....the state has to prove he's guilty.
I heard a friend of yours on TV saturday night ...... Geraldo Rivera
said that he thinks police should have the authority to stop and
search anybody they think looks like they might be carrying a gun.
I'll bet you are in complete agreement with him aren't you Dud?
>
> read more »
Bud
Feb 4, 2013, 5:38:11 PM2/4/13
to
looking into this event. Evidence doesn`t have to *prove*, it can also
indicate. And the bullets in Tippit`s body being consistent with
bullets fired from Oswald`s gun is a strong indication that he was the
shooter.
Lets break it down to the four basic possibilities. Oswald has a gun
that make striations on the bullets. Oswald has a gun that doesn`t
make striations on the bullets. The bullets in Tippit`s body were
fired by a gun that causes striations. The bullets in Tippit`s body
were fired by a gun that doesn`t cause striations. That leaves the
following basic combinations...
Gun NS (no striations), Bullets NS (no striations) ... harmful to
the idea that Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit.
Gun S (striations), Bullets NS ... helpful to the idea Oswald was
innocent.
Gun NS, Bullets S ... helpful to the idea that Oswald was innocent.
Gun S, Bullets S ... helpful to the idea that Oswald was innocent,
as the striations could be used to rule out his weapon if he were
innocent.
As you can see, if Oswald were innocent it is very unlikely that the
bullets would be consistent with the kind his gun fires. Even though
guns that don`t make striations are rarer, making bullets without
striations rarer, this rare case is exactly what we have.
> I heard a friend of yours on TV saturday night ...... Geraldo Rivera
> said that he thinks police should have the authority to stop and
> search anybody they think looks like they might be carrying a gun.
>
> I'll bet you are in complete agreement with him aren't you Dud?
And of course you are just being a hypocritical asshole, since you
find all kinds of people guilty of wrongdoing in this case with much
less evidence against them that Oswald has against him.
And holding trial type standards to what can now only be an
investigation to determine what occurred is stupid.
Walt
Feb 5, 2013, 7:24:14 AM2/5/13
to
convict, and execute a man without a trial, if you don't like the
man's haircut, or his religion, or his political beliefs.
But it's against the law to hold your law enforcement men to any
standard. Are you related to Lyndon Johnson?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
> > > it fires and Tippit`s body has the bullets that are fired from the
> > > unusual kind of gun that makes them hard to match he is much helped.
> > > Conversely, if he has the unusual kind of gun and Tippit`s body
> > > contains bullets with normal striations he is also much helped. Oswald
> > > strikes out both ways, the bullets in Tippit`s body are consistent
> > > with the type of bullets his gun shoots, the kinds of bullets that are
> > > difficult to match.
>
> > > > > > They were very popular with criminals because they barrels left no
> > > > > > identifable marks left on the bullets when they were fired.
>
> > > > > > But it really is irrelevant because the fact remains the bullets COULD
> > > > > > NOT be traced to Oswald's gun...and that's the bottom line.
>
> > > > > You show again why you are absolutely unsuited for investigation.
> > > > > Oswald had a good chance to be exonerated if the gun he was carrying
> > > > > wasn`t the unusual type that fired bullets consistent with the
> > > > > markings on the bullets found in Tippit`s body. Coupled with the fact
> > > > > that Oswald was carrying the only two brands of bullets found in
> > > > > Tippit`s body on his person leads to the inescapable conclusion that
> > > > > Oswald killed Tippit.
>
> > > > > > > > > > If the bullet's can't be connected to that gun then the case
> > > > > > > > > > is nearly non existant.
>
> > > > > > > > > <snicker> Dream on, retard.
>
>
> read more »
Ben Holmes
Feb 5, 2013, 9:28:11 AM2/5/13
to
In article <4a7b3abf-6138-46e0...@e18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 4, 4:38=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 1:12=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 4, 12:02=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 4, 10:05=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 3, 11:56=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 3, 9:14=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 3, 4:16=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Feb 3, 3:36=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 1:47=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:27=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 11:13=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.=
>s me, DVP, of
>> > > > > > > > > > > course]....I just grabbed a couple of items from your=
>xth floor of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, Nov=
>that littered the
>> > > > > > > > > > > ground at Tenth Street and Patton Avenue right after =
>Officer Tippit
>> > > > > > > > > > > was murdered. And those spent cartridges were manuall=
>y removed from
>> > > > > > > > > > > the Tippit murder weapon by none other than Lee Harve=
>y Oswald himself.
>> > > > > > > > > > > Funny how Walt wants to ignore those proven facts, is=
>and he'll also
>> > > > > > > > > > > pretend that all the witnesses misidentified the shel=
>l-dropper as Lee
>> > > > > > > > > > > H. Oswald. How convenient for the retard named Walter=
>d evidence
>> > > > > > > > > > because it's damaging to my argument. =A0I ignore BS fo=
>r the sake of
>> > > > > > > > > > brevity. =A0It makes no sense to argue that water flows=
> up hill after it
>> > > > > > > > > > is demonstrated to flow down grade. =A0It is a FACT the=
> bullets that
>> > > > > > > > > > were retrieved from Tippit's body COULD NOT be connecte=
>d with the .38
>> > > > > > > > > > S&W revolver that Oswald allegedly carried from his roo=
>m to the
>> > > > > > > > > > theater.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 It`s a fact that the gun Oswald used to kill Tippit a=
>nd was arrested
>> > > > > > > > > with create the unusual characteristics consistent with t=
>=A0 It's very
>> > > > > > > > easy to find that the FBI experts are on record as testifyi=
>ng that
>> > > > > > > > marks found on the bullets were similar to the marks found =
>in Oswald's
>> > > > > > > > pistol HOWEVER those characteristics are NOT unusual and pe=
>ngs? Less
>> > > > > > > than 10%? So poor Oswald just got unlucky again? And then at =
>the time
>> > > > > > > of his arrest he had the same two brands of bullets on his pe=
>rson as
>> > > > > > > Tippit had in his body. Again, what are the odds? Oswald kill=
>ed
>> > > > > > > Tippit, but you retards will never drop this silly game where=
>actured
>> > > > > > and possibly half of them had been modified like Oswald's pisto=
>l.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Bullshit. Desperate BS.
>n
>> > > > he was arrested.
>>
>> > > =A0 It`s unlikely they could have been matched to any gun, yet they w=
>>
>> > > =A0 Did the handgun that Oswald was arrested with fire bullets that
>> > > could be easily matched?
>>
>> > > =A0 What you would expect if Oswald was innocent would be that either
>> > > > and yet you lie and claim " =A0It`s a fact that the gun Oswald used=
> to
>> > > > kill Tippit and was arrested with create the unusual characteristic=
>>
>> > Under our laws, the evidence should CONVICT the accused. =A0 He doesn't
are *BOTH* "Gun S" and "Gun NS" depending on the caliber being fired through it.
What this kook is doing is the same thing kooks have been doing since the WCR
came out... offering speculation as evidence.
What a kook!!!
>> > I heard a friend of yours on TV saturday night ...... Geraldo Rivera
>> > said that he thinks police should have the authority to stop and
>> > search anybody they think looks like they might be carrying a gun.
>>
>> > I'll bet you are in complete agreement with him aren't you Dud?
>>
>> =A0 I see merit both ways.
>>
>> =A0 And of course you are just being a hypocritical asshole, since you
>e
>> > > difficult to match.
>>
>> > > > > > They were very popular with criminals because they barrels left=
>ion.
>> > > > > Oswald had a good chance to be exonerated if the gun he was carry=
>hat
>> > > > > Oswald killed Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >=A0If the bullet's can't be connected to that gun then t=
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 4, 4:38=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 1:12=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 4, 12:02=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 4, 10:05=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 3, 11:56=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 3, 9:14=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 3, 4:16=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Feb 3, 3:36=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 1:47=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:27=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 30, 11:13=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.=
>com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Pea Brain [Walt The Walking Evidence-Mangler mean=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
>>
>s me, DVP, of
>> > > > > > > > > > > course]....I just grabbed a couple of items from your=
> BS site and
>> > > > > > > > > > > posted them here.....
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [Walt quotes DVP:]
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the si=
>> > > > > > > > > > > posted them here.....
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [Walt quotes DVP:]
>>
>xth floor of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, Nov=
>ember 22, 1963.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [End quote.]
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > You have not shown any PROOF of ownership. That claim=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [End quote.]
>>
> is a lie.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [Walt again quotes DVP:]
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have b=
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [Walt again quotes DVP:]
>>
>een used in the
>> > > > > > > > > > > murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [End quote.]
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > This a flat out lie. The bullets that were retrieved =
>> > > > > > > > > > > murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [End quote.]
>>
>from Tippit's
>> > > > > > > > > > > body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > [Walt totally ignores the four spent cartridge cases =
>> > > > > > > > > > > body could NOT be traced to that pistol.
>>
>that littered the
>> > > > > > > > > > > ground at Tenth Street and Patton Avenue right after =
>Officer Tippit
>> > > > > > > > > > > was murdered. And those spent cartridges were manuall=
>y removed from
>> > > > > > > > > > > the Tippit murder weapon by none other than Lee Harve=
>y Oswald himself.
>> > > > > > > > > > > Funny how Walt wants to ignore those proven facts, is=
>n't it? Walt will
>> > > > > > > > > > > merely pretend the bullet shells were planted there, =
>and he'll also
>> > > > > > > > > > > pretend that all the witnesses misidentified the shel=
>l-dropper as Lee
>> > > > > > > > > > > H. Oswald. How convenient for the retard named Walter=
>. But, it's par
>> > > > > > > > > > > for the course in the ever-popular "Anybody But Oswal=
>d" fantasy world
>> > > > > > > > > > > that Walter resides in.]
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Von Pea Brain would like the reader to believe I ignore=
>> > > > > > > > > > > that Walter resides in.]
>>
>d evidence
>> > > > > > > > > > because it's damaging to my argument. =A0I ignore BS fo=
>r the sake of
>> > > > > > > > > > brevity. =A0It makes no sense to argue that water flows=
> up hill after it
>> > > > > > > > > > is demonstrated to flow down grade. =A0It is a FACT the=
> bullets that
>> > > > > > > > > > were retrieved from Tippit's body COULD NOT be connecte=
>d with the .38
>> > > > > > > > > > S&W revolver that Oswald allegedly carried from his roo=
>m to the
>> > > > > > > > > > theater.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 It`s a fact that the gun Oswald used to kill Tippit a=
>nd was arrested
>> > > > > > > > > with create the unusual characteristics consistent with t=
>he bullets in
>> > > > > > > > > Tippit`s body.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Unusual characteristics??...... =A0 Thank you for lying. =
>> > > > > > > > > Tippit`s body.
>>
>=A0 It's very
>> > > > > > > > easy to find that the FBI experts are on record as testifyi=
>ng that
>> > > > > > > > marks found on the bullets were similar to the marks found =
>in Oswald's
>> > > > > > > > pistol HOWEVER those characteristics are NOT unusual and pe=
>rhaps a
>> > > > > > > > thousand other pistols could produce similar marks.
>>
>> > > > > > > =A0 What percentage of all hand guns would produce such marki=
>> > > > > > > > thousand other pistols could produce similar marks.
>>
>ngs? Less
>> > > > > > > than 10%? So poor Oswald just got unlucky again? And then at =
>the time
>> > > > > > > of his arrest he had the same two brands of bullets on his pe=
>rson as
>> > > > > > > Tippit had in his body. Again, what are the odds? Oswald kill=
>ed
>> > > > > > > Tippit, but you retards will never drop this silly game where=
> you
>> > > > > > > pretend he was innocent.
>>
>> > > > > > Percentage of ALL handguns???? =A0 are you nuts?? =A0 =A0Even i=
>> > > > > > > pretend he was innocent.
>>
>f you asked
>> > > > > > the percentage of all .38 cal revolvers it wouldn't be a fair
>> > > > > > question. =A0 There were thousands of those .38 revolvers manuf=
>> > > > > > the percentage of all .38 cal revolvers it wouldn't be a fair
>actured
>> > > > > > and possibly half of them had been modified like Oswald's pisto=
>l.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Bullshit. Desperate BS.
>>
>> > > > No liar...... I just pointed out that the bullets from Tippits body
>> > > > could NOT NOT be matched to the pistol that Oswald was carrying whe=
>> > > > No liar...... I just pointed out that the bullets from Tippits body
>n
>> > > > he was arrested.
>>
>> > > =A0 It`s unlikely they could have been matched to any gun, yet they w=
>ere
>> > > fired from a gun. Oswald`s gun fired bullets with the unusual
>> > > characteristic of being difficult or impossible to match. This is
>> > > consistent with the bullets found in Tippit`s body.
>>
>> > > >=A0NO MATCH !
>> > > fired from a gun. Oswald`s gun fired bullets with the unusual
>> > > characteristic of being difficult or impossible to match. This is
>> > > consistent with the bullets found in Tippit`s body.
>>
>>
>> > > =A0 Did the handgun that Oswald was arrested with fire bullets that
>> > > could be easily matched?
>>
>> > > =A0 What you would expect if Oswald was innocent would be that either
>> > > the bullets in Tippit`s body to have striations on them that easily
>> > > established them as being fired from a different gun than Oswald`s or
>> > > Oswald having a gun that made readily and easily determined striation=
>> > > established them as being fired from a different gun than Oswald`s or
>s
>> > > on the bullets it fired. When you have unusual circumstances with the
>> > > bullets in Tippit and a gun in Oswald`s hands that has the
>> > > characteristics to produce such bullets it is very incriminating. Whe=
>> > > on the bullets it fired. When you have unusual circumstances with the
>> > > bullets in Tippit and a gun in Oswald`s hands that has the
>n
>> > > he has the two brands of ammo on him as found in Tippit`s body the
>> > > chances of him not being the shooter are quite large.
>>
>> > > >=A0 That is a FACT...... =A0and you know it,
>> > > he has the two brands of ammo on him as found in Tippit`s body the
>> > > chances of him not being the shooter are quite large.
>>
>> > > > and yet you lie and claim " =A0It`s a fact that the gun Oswald used=
> to
>> > > > kill Tippit and was arrested with create the unusual characteristic=
>s
>> > > > consistent with the bullets in Tippit`s body."
>>
>> > > > That's an absurd statement from a semi functioning brain.
>>
>> > > =A0 You just have no aptitude for investigation and no capacity to
>> > > > consistent with the bullets in Tippit`s body."
>>
>> > > > That's an absurd statement from a semi functioning brain.
>>
>> > > reason. This evidence *should* exonerate Oswald if he were innocent.
>>
>> > WRONG!!! =A0WRONG!!....WRONG!!
>>
>>
>> > Under our laws, the evidence should CONVICT the accused. =A0 He doesn't
>> > have to prove he's innocent....the state has to prove he's guilty.
>>
>> =A0 You are just showing once more that you are too stupid to even be
>>
>> looking into this event. Evidence doesn`t have to *prove*, it can also
>> indicate. And the bullets in Tippit`s body being consistent with
>> bullets fired from Oswald`s gun is a strong indication that he was the
>> shooter.
>>
>> Lets break it down to the four basic possibilities. Oswald has a gun
>> that make striations on the bullets. Oswald has a gun that doesn`t
>> make striations on the bullets. The bullets in Tippit`s body were
>> fired by a gun that causes striations. The bullets in Tippit`s body
>> were fired by a gun that doesn`t cause striations. That leaves the
>> following basic combinations...
>>
>> Gun NS (no striations), Bullets NS (no striations) ... harmful to
>> the idea that Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit.
>>
>> Gun S (striations), Bullets NS ... helpful to the idea Oswald was
>> innocent.
>>
>> Gun NS, Bullets S ... helpful to the idea that Oswald was innocent.
>>
>> Gun S, Bullets S ... helpful to the idea that Oswald was innocent,
>> as the striations could be used to rule out his weapon if he were
>> innocent.
>>
>> As you can see, if Oswald were innocent it is very unlikely that the
>> bullets would be consistent with the kind his gun fires. Even though
>> guns that don`t make striations are rarer, making bullets without
>> striations rarer, this rare case is exactly what we have.
This is an argument based on a complete *IGNORANCE* of weaponry. *ALL* weapons
>> indicate. And the bullets in Tippit`s body being consistent with
>> bullets fired from Oswald`s gun is a strong indication that he was the
>> shooter.
>>
>> Lets break it down to the four basic possibilities. Oswald has a gun
>> that make striations on the bullets. Oswald has a gun that doesn`t
>> make striations on the bullets. The bullets in Tippit`s body were
>> fired by a gun that causes striations. The bullets in Tippit`s body
>> were fired by a gun that doesn`t cause striations. That leaves the
>> following basic combinations...
>>
>> Gun NS (no striations), Bullets NS (no striations) ... harmful to
>> the idea that Oswald is innocent of killing Tippit.
>>
>> Gun S (striations), Bullets NS ... helpful to the idea Oswald was
>> innocent.
>>
>> Gun NS, Bullets S ... helpful to the idea that Oswald was innocent.
>>
>> Gun S, Bullets S ... helpful to the idea that Oswald was innocent,
>> as the striations could be used to rule out his weapon if he were
>> innocent.
>>
>> As you can see, if Oswald were innocent it is very unlikely that the
>> bullets would be consistent with the kind his gun fires. Even though
>> guns that don`t make striations are rarer, making bullets without
>> striations rarer, this rare case is exactly what we have.
are *BOTH* "Gun S" and "Gun NS" depending on the caliber being fired through it.
What this kook is doing is the same thing kooks have been doing since the WCR
came out... offering speculation as evidence.
What a kook!!!
>> > I heard a friend of yours on TV saturday night ...... Geraldo Rivera
>> > said that he thinks police should have the authority to stop and
>> > search anybody they think looks like they might be carrying a gun.
>>
>> > I'll bet you are in complete agreement with him aren't you Dud?
>>
>>
>> =A0 And of course you are just being a hypocritical asshole, since you
>> find all kinds of people guilty of wrongdoing in this case with much
>> less evidence against them that Oswald has against him.
>>
>> =A0 And holding trial type standards to what can now only be an
>> less evidence against them that Oswald has against him.
>>
>> investigation to determine what occurred is stupid.
>
>OIC....... In your wonderland world it's fine and dandy to accuse,
>convict, and execute a man without a trial, if you don't like the
>man's haircut, or his religion, or his political beliefs.
>
>But it's against the law to hold your law enforcement men to any
>standard. Are you related to Lyndon Johnson?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
>> > > it fires and Tippit`s body has the bullets that are fired from the
>> > > unusual kind of gun that makes them hard to match he is much helped.
>> > > Conversely, if he has the unusual kind of gun and Tippit`s body
>> > > contains bullets with normal striations he is also much helped. Oswal=
>
>OIC....... In your wonderland world it's fine and dandy to accuse,
>convict, and execute a man without a trial, if you don't like the
>man's haircut, or his religion, or his political beliefs.
>
>But it's against the law to hold your law enforcement men to any
>standard. Are you related to Lyndon Johnson?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
>> > > it fires and Tippit`s body has the bullets that are fired from the
>> > > unusual kind of gun that makes them hard to match he is much helped.
>> > > Conversely, if he has the unusual kind of gun and Tippit`s body
>d
>> > > strikes out both ways, the bullets in Tippit`s body are consistent
>> > > with the type of bullets his gun shoots, the kinds of bullets that ar=
>> > > strikes out both ways, the bullets in Tippit`s body are consistent
>e
>> > > difficult to match.
>>
>> > > > > > They were very popular with criminals because they barrels left=
> no
>> > > > > > identifable marks left on the bullets when they were fired.
>>
>> > > > > > But it really is irrelevant because the fact remains the bullet=
>> > > > > > identifable marks left on the bullets when they were fired.
>>
>s COULD
>> > > > > > NOT be traced to Oswald's gun...and that's the bottom line.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 You show again why you are absolutely unsuited for investigat=
>> > > > > > NOT be traced to Oswald's gun...and that's the bottom line.
>>
>ion.
>> > > > > Oswald had a good chance to be exonerated if the gun he was carry=
>ing
>> > > > > wasn`t the unusual type that fired bullets consistent with the
>> > > > > markings on the bullets found in Tippit`s body. Coupled with the =
>> > > > > wasn`t the unusual type that fired bullets consistent with the
>fact
>> > > > > that Oswald was carrying the only two brands of bullets found in
>> > > > > Tippit`s body on his person leads to the inescapable conclusion t=
>> > > > > that Oswald was carrying the only two brands of bullets found in
>hat
>> > > > > Oswald killed Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >=A0If the bullet's can't be connected to that gun then t=
>he case
>> > > > > > > > > > is nearly non existant.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 <snicker> Dream on, retard.
>> > > > > > > > > > is nearly non existant.
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt
Feb 5, 2013, 11:23:18 AM2/5/13
to
On Feb 5, 8:28 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <4a7b3abf-6138-46e0-8918-3e9dd365a...@e18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
KOOK???......This guy's a full blown babbling idiot!
He's so desperate that he'll resort to babbling utter nonsense. He
knows that the bullets recovered from Tipit's body could NOT be traced
to the weapon that fired them....and more specifically they could NOT
be traced to Lee Oswald's pistol. That is a FACT that was
substantiated by ballistics experts. And yet this babbling imbecile
thinks he can prove that they were fired from oswald's pistol. This
babbler knows that we are on the eve of the 50th anniversary and he's
peain down his leg, for fear of exposure.
>
>
>
> >> > I heard a friend of yours on TV saturday night ...... Geraldo Rivera
> >> > said that he thinks police should have the authority to stop and
> >> > search anybody they think looks like they might be carrying a gun.
>
> >> > I'll bet you are in complete agreement with him aren't you Dud?
>
> >> =A0 I see merit both ways.
>
> >> =A0 And of course you are just being a hypocritical asshole, since you
> >> find all kinds of people guilty of wrongdoing in this case with much
> >> less evidence against them that Oswald has against him.
>
> >> =A0 And holding trial type standards to what can now only be an
> >> investigation to determine what occurred is stupid.
>
> >OIC....... In your wonderland world it's fine and dandy to accuse,
> >convict, and execute a man without a trial, if you don't like the
> >man's haircut, or his religion, or his political beliefs.
>
> >But it's against the law to hold your law enforcement men to any
> >standard. Are you related to Lyndon Johnson?
>
> >> > > If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
> >> > > it fires and
>
> ...
>
> read more »
> In article <4a7b3abf-6138-46e0-8918-3e9dd365a...@e18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
He's so desperate that he'll resort to babbling utter nonsense. He
knows that the bullets recovered from Tipit's body could NOT be traced
to the weapon that fired them....and more specifically they could NOT
be traced to Lee Oswald's pistol. That is a FACT that was
substantiated by ballistics experts. And yet this babbling imbecile
thinks he can prove that they were fired from oswald's pistol. This
babbler knows that we are on the eve of the 50th anniversary and he's
peain down his leg, for fear of exposure.
>
>
>
> >> > I heard a friend of yours on TV saturday night ...... Geraldo Rivera
> >> > said that he thinks police should have the authority to stop and
> >> > search anybody they think looks like they might be carrying a gun.
>
> >> > I'll bet you are in complete agreement with him aren't you Dud?
>
> >> =A0 I see merit both ways.
>
> >> =A0 And of course you are just being a hypocritical asshole, since you
> >> find all kinds of people guilty of wrongdoing in this case with much
> >> less evidence against them that Oswald has against him.
>
> >> =A0 And holding trial type standards to what can now only be an
> >> investigation to determine what occurred is stupid.
>
> >OIC....... In your wonderland world it's fine and dandy to accuse,
> >convict, and execute a man without a trial, if you don't like the
> >man's haircut, or his religion, or his political beliefs.
>
> >But it's against the law to hold your law enforcement men to any
> >standard. Are you related to Lyndon Johnson?
>
> >> > > If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
> >> > > it fires and
>
>
> read more »
Bud
Feb 5, 2013, 1:04:02 PM2/5/13
to
where to start. A) Oswald is dead, so no trial is possible. It`s
stupid to use that standard, the only real standard is to determine
what occurred. If evidence indicates Oswald guilt it is not unfair to
him to consider this evidence. Secondly, you are a hypocritical
asshole for objecting, considering you convict anyone you need in
order to pretend Oswald was innocent.
Just because Oswald happened to get killed before he went to a trial
that was obviously going to yield a guilty verdict does not mean we
can`t determine that he committed the crimes we are considering.
> But it's against the law to hold your law enforcement men to any
> standard. Are you related to Lyndon Johnson?
without a trial.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > If he has an ordinary handgun that produces striations on the bullets
> > > > it fires and Tippit`s body has the bullets that are fired from the
> > > > unusual kind of gun that makes them hard to match he is much helped.
> > > > Conversely, if he has the unusual kind of gun and Tippit`s body
> > > > contains bullets with normal striations he is also much helped. Oswald
> > > > strikes out both ways, the bullets in Tippit`s body are consistent
> > > > with the type of bullets his gun shoots, the kinds of bullets that are
> > > > difficult to match.
>
> > > > > > > They were very popular with criminals because they barrels left no
> > > > > > > identifable marks left on the bullets when they were fired.
>
> > > > > > > But it really is irrelevant because the fact remains the bullets COULD
> > > > > > > NOT be traced to Oswald's gun...and that's the bottom line.
>
> > > > > > You show
>
>
> read more »
0 new messages