Walker's Publicity Stunt
Walt
24th division, by President Kennedy, on the very same day that many
of his fellow old Army officers were actively engaged in helping the
Cuban exiles attempt to land a military force at Bay Of Pigs, Cuba.
On April 17 1961 Kennedy relieved Walker of his command of the 24th
division in Germany.
Is it a mere coincidence that JFK fired Walker on the very day that
the Cuban exiles were landing on the beaches at Baha de Cochinos??
Obviously JFK's mind would have been preoccupied with the CIA's
operation at BOP, so it seems strange that JFK would have cashiered
Walker on that particular day.
It is a known fact that Walker hated Castro and staged a publicity
campaign in an attempt to foment the public into bringing pressure on
JFK to order a military assualt against Cuba.
We now know that many of Walker's fellow old war hawks from WWII were
actively involved in the BOP fiasco. So one has to wonder if Walker
also wasn't deeply involved in the BOP fiasco, and if that is the true
reason that JFK cashiered him. ???
After being cashiered Walker started a publicity campaign which was
primarily a denouncement of "those damned Kennedy's" and JFK's
delivering the US into the hands of the communists after the Cuban
Missle crisis in 1962. Walker was a nazi nut who stubbornly kept up a
campaign against the Kennedy's. He was filled with hatred for JFK and
never missed an opportunity to speak out against him.
On the evening of April 10 1963 a bullet ripped through a window sash
in a room at the rear of Walker's residence on Turtle Creek Blvd in
Dallas. The bullet traversed the room and penetrated a wall on the
opposite side of the room. When investigators tracked the trajectory
of that bullet through the room they found that the bullet would have
gone right through Walker's head if he had been sitting at the desk
that was sitting diagonally across a corner of the room. When walker
testified before the Warren Commission he quoted one of the
investigators as saying..." He ( the sniper) could not have missed
you" after the investigator had tacked that bullet's flight. Or in
other words If Walker had been sitting at that desk at the time the
shot was fired the bullet would have gone through his head and killed
him. But walker wasn't hit.... And that's a strong indication that he
wasn't sitting at that desk at the time.
There were reports of Walker receiving a couple of "CUTS" on his
right forearm at the time and those "CUTS" were attributed by Walker
to flying debris from the bullet. There is good reason to doubt that
those "cuts" were made by slivers from the bullet as Walker claimed.
The major reason to doubt Walker's story is because the bullet was a
FULL METAL JACKETED military bullet. It had hit only soft cedar
window sash prior to penetrating the plastered wall on the opposite
side of the room. It is very unlikely that the soft wood of the
window sash would have stripped off any of the much harder and
mallable copper jacket of the bullet. That bullet was completely
intact and nearly pristine when it emerged from the window sash.
Furthermore ....Any tiny piece of debris that would have been carried
along the bullet's track would have had very little weight or
energy. Any tiny piece of debris would have lost it's velocity in
just a couple of feet ( because the soft cedar would have offered very
little resistance to the bullet and therefore it also would not have
picked up muck energy from the bullet ) Even if the debris would
have gathered enough energy from the bullet to fly clear across the
room it would not have had the energy to create "cuts" on Walker's
arm. And finally ... If by some fluke of physics those tiny pieces
of debris could have hit Walker's arm, they would have cause
PENETRATING wounds not "CUTS".
It's pretty clear that Walker staged the whole shooting incident to
make it appear that the communists lead by JFK, were taking over and
they were willing to shoot anybody who spoke out against them.
It was common knowledge that Oswald was a turncoat Marine who had
defected to Russia and returned to Ft Worth Texas in the spring of
1962. Oswald had created a dossier for himself that made him appear
to be a bonafide communist revolutionary, though in reality he had
"defected" to the USSR as an intelligence agent for the U.S. State
Department.
He was brought in from the cold by JFK when JFK learned of his daring
mission to the USSR from Oswald's mother who had visited Washington DC
seeking help from JFK in locating her son who had disappeared behind
the Iron Curtain. JFK needed agents on the ground in Cuba after the
Missle Crisis and Oswald was asked if he'd accept a mission to Cuba.
Oswald accepted, and started embellishing his dossier to make himself
more believable to Castro's agents. He created a photo of himself
holding a couple of communist newspapers and armed with a Mannlicher
Carcano and a pistol, he staged street demonstrations in support of
Castro's revolution and handed out literature proclaiming "Hands off
Cuba".
One of the first plots to help Oswald build his dossier was a silly
plot to make it appear that he had tried to kill ex-general Walker.
The plot was two fold.... Walker would gain a lot of free publicity
and a huge boost in public awareness by a communist trying to kill
him, and Oswald would add credibility to his dossier by being the
communist radical who had tried to kill Walker.
It's unknown who orchestrated the two fold plot..... but the most
likely person for that role is George De Morhenschildt. George was
the person who first called Walker to Oswald's attention and told him
that Walker was a nazi ...so George is probably the person who
orchestrted the shooting incident that had Oswald fire a bullet
through walker's window in the staged publicity stunt..
YoHarvey
Sure sounds sinister to me....(cough)
Gil Jesus
evidence that Walker was wounded by a bullet or anything else. There's
no medical evidence that Walker was wounded in the shooting. There's
no video evidence of Walker having been wounded.
The only source of this story is.........well..........Walker.
The guy who was committed to a mental institution for 30 days
observation by the Kennedys.
That in itself should tell you why the nuts love him.
robcap...@netscape.com
There is also NO evidence showing LHO was the guy shooting at Walker,
but that DOESN'T STOP some CTers and LNers on here from positing it
was him. Hmmm.
Let's hope with the New Year folks will learn how to provide proof and
evidence for their OPINIONS! That is all that is required in a murder
case.
Walt
Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
that he had been hit buy flying debris. Since the word "cuts" is used
to describe those wounds, I'm inclined to believe that they were self
inflicted by a razor blade, because any flying depris would have
caused PENETRATING wounds.
Walt
> evidence that Walker was wounded by a bullet or anything else. There's
> no medical evidence that Walker was wounded in the shooting. There's
> no video evidence of Walker having been wounded.
I talked to a homocide detective who told me it would have been
routine for any competant investigator to photograph the wounds for
the record. ( It would be required in court if the case had reached a
trial for the accused) He told me that the police cannot force a
citizen to seek medical attention, but any injury MUST be documented
by photographs of the injury. Makes sense to me.
Gil Jesus
>
> Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter �said that
> Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. �I believe the
> reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> that he had been hit buy flying debris. �
I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
Walt
Yes!....And this nutcase called a newspaper reporter in Germany less
than 18 hours after JFK was murdered only a couple of miles from
Walker's house, and told that reporter that Oswald was the stinkin
little commie bastard who had tried to shoot him back in April.
robcap...@netscape.com
This same nutcase said it was NOT LHO who fired at him, and this is
what the EVIDENCE shows, so he was NOT totally "off his rocker". IT
is true however that RFK wanted him in a pysch ward for life after the
Ole Miss incident, but he had many powerful friends who made sure he
got out.
Walt
NIGHT ATTACK
Walker Target Of Sniper Blast
By WARREN BOSWORTH
Staff Writer
Former Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker vowed Thursday he is speeding up his
anti-Communist crusade after narrowly missing death from a shoot-to-
kill sniper's gun blast at his Turtle Creek home.
A mysterious assassin armed with a powerful rifle attempted to murder
the contoversial former Army commander Wednesday night. A neighborhood
youngster later told police he saw several men jump into a car and
speed away from the area of the Walker home, but police were uncertain
whether these men were linked to the assassination
attempt. Police were virtually without clues to the gunman's
identity.
Gen. Walker was struck in the right forearm by flying slivers of glass
and metal as the slug slammed through a window casing , skimmed his
head and then plowed through a wall. The bullet missed his head by
less than an inch.
"I was in here alone working over my income taxes when somebody out
there tried to kill me," the general said.
Immediately after the shooting the general raced to the second floor
of his home at 4011 Turtle Creek, grabbed a pistol and searched for
the man who had tried to take his life. Minutes later he telephoned
police and reported the shooting. Refusing medical attention for his
wounds, the general resumed working on his income tax forms before
investigators arrived.
"Whoever shot at the general was playing for keeps." Detective D. E.
McElroy said. "The sniper wasn't trying to scare him. He was shooting
to kill." The bullet that missed the general tore a hole the size of a
golf ball in the wall beside him. The bullet then chewed through nine
more inches of the wall before coming out on the other side in an
adjoining room.
"The Kennedy's say there's no internal threat to our freedom," the
general said with a laugh.
Front page item, Dallas Times Herald, Thursday, 11 April, 1963.
"The Kennedy's say there's no internal threat to our freedom," the
general said with a laugh.
Translation.... This is John Kennedy's fault..... He's allowing
communist traitors to roam free, shoot at patriotic Americans.
Question..... How did Walker know that the sniper was a communist??
Walt
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> > I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
> > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
> This same nutcase said it was NOT LHO who fired at him,
Duh...Stupid Bastard..... Walker knew that he'd be asked by the WC how
he knew the sniper had been Oswald,so he claimed that he didn't know
that Oswald had fired the bullet through his window. If he had
said ..."I know Oswald was the stinking little commie bastard who had
tried to shoot me"... They would have been forced to ask him how he
knew that.... Ya dig??
and this is
> what the EVIDENCE shows, so he was NOT totally "off his rocker". IT
> is true however that RFK wanted him in a pysch ward for life after the
> Ole Miss incident, but he had many powerful friends who made sure he
> got out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 5 Jan, 12:18, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 10:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> > > I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
> > > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> > > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> > > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> > > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> > > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> > > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
> > This same nutcase said it was NOT LHO who fired at him,
>
> Duh...Stupid Bastard..... Walker knew that he'd be asked by the WC how
> he knew the sniper had been Oswald,so he claimed that he didn't know
> that Oswald had fired the bullet through his window. If he had
> said ..."I know Oswald was the stinking little commie bastard who had
> tried to shoot me"... They would have been forced to ask him how he
> knew that.... Ya dig??
New Year, same old diatribe. Do you have PROOF or EVIDENCE in the New
Year Walt that LHO fired at Gen. Walker? Blaming LHO was easy since
the organization Walker was involved in was fighting COMMUNISM! IT
was never proven LHO was a Commie though, in fact, the evidence points
to him "masquerading" as one for his intelligence assignments.
Perhaps you should learn who else the JBS group was fighting to learn
more.
Please list any evidence you have showing LHO fired at Walker, if NOT,
we will all have to ignore you.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gilly,
But what about the WC testimony of Robert Surrey? He was there and
pulled the metal slivers out of Walker's arm with tweezers. Looks like
you forgot him, Gilly. Now you'll have to amend your stupid argument
further, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
robcap...@netscape.com
Just curious, is this the SAME Robert Surrey who played bridge
regularly with James Hosty???
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Timmy,
How many times did Robert Surrey take the Fifth Amendment in his
testimony before the Warren Commission ?
This is your WITNESS ?
Gil Jesus
> > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
> Hi Gilly,
>
> But what about the WC testimony of Robert Surrey? He was there and
> pulled the metal slivers out of Walker's arm with tweezers. Looks like
> you forgot him, Gilly. Now you'll have to amend your stupid argument
> further, LOL!
Can you produce those slivers as evidence Timmy ? Where are they ?
Walt
> On Jan 6, 5:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> > I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
> > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
> Hi Gilly,
>
> But what about the WC testimony of Robert Surrey? He was there and
> pulled the metal slivers out of Walker's arm with tweezers.
Hey, wasn't this Robert Surrey guy the guy who printed up the "Wanted
For Treason" handbills thar were distributed in Dallas On the morning
that they blew JFK's brains out in the streets of Dallas?? And
wasn't he a lackey for the brave and heroic General Walker? .....
Yes of course he was.. So what would you expect him to say?.....
"Oh, no I never pulled any metal slivers out of my Generals arm....in
fact those wounds looked like cuts from a razor blade to me"
Looks like
> you forgot him, Gilly. Now you'll have to amend your stupid argument
> further, LOL!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good point, Gil.... Oh, BTW.... A few days ago you posted an
interesting question ....If Oswald was so hell bent on killing Walker
why didn't he just wait ouside of Walker's house and use his pistol to
kill Walker at close range, instead of attempting an ineffective sneak
attack. The LNer's would have us believe that Oswald didn't hesitate
for a second to use his pistol in shooting JD Tippit...... So your
point that Oswald could easily have killed Walker if that was his
intention, is bolstered by the LNer's theory that Oswald shot
Tippit. The FACT that Oswald DID NOT kill Walker when he had ample
opportunity is proof that he never INTENDED to kill Walker.
Walt
wrote:
Reportedly...the one and only...THE Robert Surrey..... the best little
lackey Walker ever had.
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Say, Gilly, Surrey took the fifth in relation to the printing of
a pamphlet about Kennedy, didn't he? Nothing to do with the incident
under discussion, Gilly.
BTW, Surrey's testimony makes a mockery of your recent statement:
QUOTE ON:
All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
QUOTE OFF
Doesn't it Gilly? Not to mention the police report and the newspaper
report that corroborate him.
Got one single source for your stupid theory that Walker inflicted his
own wounds, Gilly?
Gil Jesus
> Hey, wasn't this Robert Surrey guy the guy who printed up the "Wanted
> For Treason" handbills thar were distributed in Dallas On the morning
> that they blew JFK's brains out in the streets of Dallas?? � �And
> wasn't he a lackey for the brave and heroic General Walker? � .....
> Yes of course he was.. So what would you expect him to say?.....
In his Warren Commission testimony, Surrey invoked his right to refuse
to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment 20 TIMES !!!!
You read his testimony and it sounds like the testimony of a Mafia don
before the McClellan Commission.
And this is a witness who has CREDIBILITY !!!!!
ROFLMAO
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Walt,
Say, so so far we have the following people, apart from Walker, who
say that Walker was wounded.
DPD Officers Tucker and Norvell, who wrote it up in their report.
Dallas Times Herald reporter Warren Bosworth, who attended the scene.
Walker aide Robert Surrey, who was on the scene that night and says he
pulled the metal slivers from Walker's arm.
And you have how many people stating that Walker injured himself?
You and Gilly, is that it?
LOL, that ain't evidence, Walt, that is garbage!
tims...@gmail.com
And you, Gilly, what do you have to support your contention that
Walker inflicted the wounds himself?
The theory of your friend Walt?
Is that it?
Give us a bit of EVIDENCE, Gilly! Produce a WITNESS who was there, on
the night, and saw Walker wielding a razor blade! Go on Gilly, you
crackerjack researcher you, LOL!
We're all waiting, Gilly.
LMFAO Regards,
Gil Jesus
posted. Here they are:
The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of whether a witness wants to
testify here. He is subpenaed to testify, and he must testify unless
he has a privilege.
Mr. SURREY. I believe that my answers would tend to incriminate me
under the fifth amendment.
Representative BOGGS. Who printed it?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. And do you know a Robert G. Krause?
Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Was he not formerly employed by Johnson Printing Co.?
Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer for the same reason.
Mr. JENNER. Yes; do you know of a company, a printing company,
Lettercraft Printing Co.?
Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer--same reason.
The CHAIRMAN. For the reason it would tend to incriminate you?
Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Did you not prepare, the copy for Commission Exhibit No.
996?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the same reason; that it would tend
to incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. And, in turn, turn that copy over to Robert G. Krause, of
the Lettercraft Printing Co. for reproduction?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer, same reason.
(Commission Exhibit No. 996 is the "Wanted for Treason" handbill.)
Mr. JENNER. Exhibiting again Exhibit No.--Commission Exhibit No. 996
you, you will notice a front and profile view of President Kennedy.
Did you bring to Robert Krause photographs of which this is a
reproduction?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. In fact, did you not bring to Robert G. Krause two slick
paper magazine photographs of President Kennedy and request and engage
him to make photographs of the slick paper magazine photos for the
purpose of reproduction?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason.
Mr. JENNER. And did you not pay Robert G. Krause and his wife for
printing some 5,000 to 10,000 of these handbills, of which Commission
Exhibit No. 996 is a copy?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mrs. Clifford Mercer, Dorothy Mercer?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mr. Clifford Mercer?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason.
Mr. JENNER. Do you know of a photoengraving company in Dallas, 2027
Young Street, Monks Bros.?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Do you know J. T. Monk or J. T. Monk, Jr.?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer, same grounds.
Mr. JENNER. Did you have one of the workmen, printing workmen, at
Johnson Printing Co., set type for the copy which appears on
Commission Exhibit No. 996?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. And thereafter, after that type was set, have photographs
made of that type?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason.
Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mr. Bernard Weissman?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Have you had any business relations with a man by the name
of Bernard Weissman?
Mr. SURREY. If this is in your opinion still part of the other--
concerning these leaflets, then I will plead the fifth amendment.
Representative BOGGS. Was anyone associated with you in the
publication of this leaflet?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
The CHAIRMAN. Did General Walker have anything to do with it?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me but, no.
Mr. JENNER. Are these lines on Exhibit No. 996 Ludlow productions?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Does your recollection serve you to name those who
operated the Ludlow machines any time during the first 22 days of
November 1963? If so, name them.
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. Are you able to name any of the linotype operators who
were employed during the first 22 days of November 1963?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may incriminate me.
Mr. JENNER. From whom was the paper purchased on which appears the
imprinting on the exhibit identified here as Commission Exhibit No.
996.
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the same grounds.
Mr. JENNER. Did you see another reproduction of Commission Exhibit No.
996 at any time from the 1st of November 1963 to and including the 22d
of November 1963?
Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.
WOW, NOW THERE'S A HORSE WE CAN ALL BET ON !!!!!
How could anyone doubt HIM ?
Walt
This is slightly off the subject..BUT...I'm curious why a piss
producing kidney from Sydney, would have such an avid interest in
supporting Hoover's big lie??
Gil Jesus
> This is slightly off the subject..BUT...I'm curious why a piss
> producing kidney from Sydney, would have such an avid interest in
> supporting Hoover's big lie??-
Why Walt, I'm surprised at you. An Aussie who puts up such a fuss over
supporting Hoover's lie, one who has such a passionate interest in the
death of a foreign leader ....how can you question that ?
It's like your and my interest in the assassination of Swedish Prime
Minister Olof Palme in 1986.
Oh wait...we're not interested in that.
In the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Nevermind".
Walt
> Surrey invoked the Fifth Amentment 25 TIMES, not 20 as I previously
> posted. Here they are:
>
> The CHAIRMAN. It is not a question of whether a witness wants to
> testify here. He is subpenaed to testify, and he must testify unless
> he has a privilege.
Gil, .... I believe that Robert Surrey was one of the few witnesses
who had to be subpenaed before he would appear before the Warren
Commission, ( Most witnesses were simply invited by mail to testify
before the WC) and he may have the singular distinction of being the
ONLY one who took the fifth amendment in refusing to answer the
questions put to him. Now why would a fine up-standing citizen with
nothing to hide in regard to the murder of President Kennedy refuse to
help LBJ's venerated, hand picked, blue ribbon committee, get to the
truth about the murder????
justm...@gmail.com
Hey Tim,
Don't you love the way Chico avoided your question entirely? Walt did
for that matter too. Instead Chico posts a slew of crap trying to
discredit Surrey and change the subject away from your questions to
both he and Walt. That means one thing, neither of them have a shred
of evidence that Walker inflicted his own wounds. What a shocker huh?
LMAO
Gil Jesus
> nothing to hide in regard to the murder of President Kennedy refuse to
> help LBJ's venerated, hand picked, blue ribbon committee, get to the
> truth about the murder????
You're right. In an investgation where everything was on the "up-and-
up", he'd have no reason to hide behind the fifth.
The truth is the truth and his 25 invocations of the fifth amendment
indicates that he was not about to answer questions truthfully.
My question is : what crime was it that he felt he had to be protected
from incriminating himself ?
Was it a crime to print handbills ?
The only questions he WOULD answer were the ones he knew Walker would
back him up on---regarding the shooting.
He's not a very credible witness.
Walt
Hmmmm..... Since you seem to want to get in on the asskickin.... Let
me ask you a couple of questions.......
Can you explain how soft cedar wood can be used to slice slivers of
copper from a piece of copper??
Now a piece of copper probably could be used to carve a sliver of
cedar from a piece of cedar but I doubt that you can verify any way
that the soft wood could sliver the mallable metal..... Can You??
And secondly.....Can you explain how a tiny little but of debris from
the window sash could have had enough weight and energy eighteen feet
back from the window, to cause "cuts" on Walker's arm?? Even if the
tiny bits of wood and glass would have had enough weight and energy to
fly about eighteen feet across the room, wouldn't they have made tiny
little PENETRATING holes in the skin ??
. What a shocker huh?
> LMAO- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Hey Tim,
> Don't you love the way Chico avoided your question entirely? Walt did
> for that matter too. Instead Chico posts a slew of crap trying to
> discredit Surrey and change the subject away from your questions to
> both he and Walt. That means one thing, neither of them have a shred
> of evidence that Walker inflicted his own wounds. What a shocker huh?
> LMAO-
Every time you can't prove something, you think you can turn it around
by challenging us to prove the opposite...........but the burden of
proof is on YOUR side.........
I asked you for medical documents corroborating his wounds
You couldn't produce them
I asked you for photographs of his wounds
You couldn't produce them
I asked you to show us the bullet "slivers" removed from Walker's arm
You couldn't produce them
It's the same old BS........ I ask for the evidence and you can't
produce it.
WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS
tomnln
Unsubstantiated Claims.
Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:276d5ae6-8d22-40d4...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> I see that Wally World is STILL "Agreeing" with the Warren Commission
> Unsubstantiated Claims.
>
> Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker ! ! !
Hey old queer..... Your ignorance is excusable.... Your old shriveled
brain just isn't up to handling simple facts, and evaluating them.
Please continue to try to deny the piles of evidence that reveal that
Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting. I enjoy watching you make
a bigger fool of yourself.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Sam Brown
Hi Walt,
Can you give a cite as to the type of wood Walkers window was made?
Thankyou.
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Ask any cabinet maker..... Window sashes in the olds days were made
of cedar becuse it was an ideal wood for window sashes. It was ideal
because it is impervious to moisture so it wouldn't expand and
contract with weather changes. Therefore it would cause the window to
"stick" in wet weather nor rattle in dry windy weather. Colored
photos of the raw wood in the bullet hole show that the wood is a fine
grained red colored wood. It appears to be cedar.
>
> Now a piece of copper probably could be used to carve a sliver of
> cedar from a piece of cedar but I doubt that you can verify any way
> that the soft wood could sliver the mallable metal..... Can You??
>
> And secondly.....Can you explain how a tiny little but of debris from
> the window sash could have had enough weight and energy eighteen feet
> back from the window, to cause "cuts" on Walker's arm?? Even if the
> tiny bits of wood and glass would have had enough weight and energy to
> fly about eighteen feet across the room, wouldn't they have made tiny
> little PENETRATING holes in the skin ??
>
> . What a shocker huh?
>
>
>
> > LMAO- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Sam Brown
Ok thanks Walt. You are guessing. Again. Right?
Walt
An educated guess and an educated eye..... Do you wish to debate the
point further?
Sam Brown
No. What's to debate? You have again built a theory around unfounded
speculation. You claim to know how a bullet would react to hitting his
particular window, without knowing from what type of wood the window was
constructed. It's typical, fuzzy, conspiranoid thinking. Par for the course.
Walt
Awwww.... I'm disapointed, I wanted to point out that the way the
wood splintered when it was penetrated by the bullet is an indication
of a soft fine grained wood ..... But I guess I won't get to make that
point now......
Sam Brown
Got a cite for that Walt?
Walt
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 10:35 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jan, 12:18, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 10:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > > > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > > > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > > > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > > > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> > > > I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
> > > > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> > > > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> > > > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> > > > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> > > > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> > > > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
> > > This same nutcase said it was NOT LHO who fired at him,
>
> > Duh...Stupid Bastard..... Walker knew that he'd be asked by the WC how
> > he knew the sniper had been Oswald,so he claimed that he didn't know
> > that Oswald had fired the bullet through his window. If he had
> > said ..."I know Oswald was the stinking little commie bastard who had
> > tried to shoot me"... They would have been forced to ask him how he
> > knew that.... Ya dig??
>
> Year Walt that LHO fired at Gen. Walker? Blaming LHO was easy since
> the organization Walker was involved in was fighting COMMUNISM! IT
> was never proven LHO was a Commie though, in fact, the evidence points
> to him "masquerading" as one for his intelligence assignments.
>
> Perhaps you should learn who else the JBS group was fighting to learn
> more.
>
> Please list any evidence you have showing LHO fired at Walker, if NOT,
> we will all have to ignore you.
To ignore me,..... you have to be ignorant.
Walt
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 11:43 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 5:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> > > I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
> > > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> > > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> > > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> > > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> > > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> > > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
>
> > But what about the WC testimony of Robert Surrey? He was there and
> > you forgot him, Gilly. Now you'll have to amend your stupid argument
> > further, LOL!
>
> regularly with James Hosty???
Yes, I believe it's that same person..... And I've often wondered if
that 57 Chevy sitting in Walker's driveway belonged to James Hosty?
Someone obliterated that license plate after Marina gave them that
photo. She gave it to the FBI so it's logical that it was an FBI agent
who defaced the photo. WHY?? Would an FBI agent want to conceal
who owned that car from any viewer. Incidentally the photo with the
obliterated License plate is NOT NOT the photo that was photographed
among Oswald's belongings. Oswald must have produced at least two
copies of that photo and Marina concealed the one that had been In
Oswald's scrap book by folding it and hiding it in her shoe. The
photo that has the License plate obliterated has a crease on it
showing that it had been folded.
Coondog
>
Why was Walker relieved of his command? Being a nut has never been a
reason to bust a General. I’ve known several that was nuts.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
tomnln
ADD this one to Wally's Bullshit List without Citations.
LIST OF WALLY's LIES
Just as his Unsubstantiated Lyin Bastard Claims below.
(Notice Wally's been RUNNIN from his own words for Months)
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40" Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal" signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film shows.
Wally is a WCR SHILL ! ! !
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:a70ed534-d37a-48fb...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
tims...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Just,
I do note that indeed! Pitiful, would be the word, for the way these
two characters, Gilly and Walt, try to obfuscate proceedings and shoot
the messenger.
They both demanded evidence that Walker was wounded. So far myself,
Bud, Mark and others have come up with verifiable cites that now
number around ten in this matter!
The only <snicker> *evidence* Gilly has that Walker self-inflicted his
wounds appears to by *my friend Walt thinks that he did so I'm gonna
think that too.*
Totally pathetic...
tims...@gmail.com
> On Jan 5, 2:43 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 5:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> > > I haven't seen any pictures of him with a band-aid yet, but I agree
> > > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> > > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> > > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> > > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> > > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> > > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
>
> > But what about the WC testimony of Robert Surrey? He was there and
> > pulled the metal slivers out of Walker's arm with tweezers. Looks like
> > you forgot him, Gilly. Now you'll have to amend your stupid argument
> > further, LOL!
>
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> How many times did Robert Surrey take the Fifth Amendment in his
> testimony before the Warren Commission ?
>
> This is your WITNESS ?
Hey! Gilly! Do you even have ONE witness to your scenario that Walker
self-injured?
Half a witness would do, Gilly. Got one?
No, I don't mean Walt, Gilly.
He's a halfwit mate, not half a witness, LOL!
Sam Brown
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d443233f-f07b-40cb...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Hi Just,
Totally pathetic...
Regards,
Hi Tim and Just
Walt and Gil are both guilty of inventing the most ridiculous scenarios out
of thin air, thankfully there are plenty of LN'ers that are more than
willing to point out their continual bullshit.
KUTGW.
Gil Jesus
You contended that Walker was wounded by Oswald.
I asked you for medical proof of this.
You failed to provide it.
I asked you for photographic proof of this.
You failed to provide it.
I asked you for video proof of this.
You failed to provide it.
I asked you to show us the metal slivers that were removed from his
arm.
You failed to provide them.
And you can't understand why I'm skeptical ?
You've only been able to provide ONE source for the police report and
the newspaper article and that source was Walker.
You've paraded out Robert Surrey as a "witness" to Walker's wounds, a
man who declined to tell the truth to the Commission 25 times during
his testimony.
Sorry, Timmy, I'm not buying it until I see REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
muc...@gmail.com
> Timmy:
>
> You contended that Walker was wounded by Oswald.
>
> I asked you for medical proof of this.
>
> You failed to provide it.
>
> I asked you for photographic proof of this.
>
> You failed to provide it.
>
> I asked you for video proof of this.
>
> You failed to provide it.
>
> I asked you to show us the metal slivers that were removed from his
> arm.
>
> You failed to provide them.
>
> And you can't understand why I'm skeptical ?
>
> You've only been able to provide ONE source for the police report and
> the newspaper article and that source was Walker.
Perhaps you should've taken the Fifth on this one.
> You've paraded out Robert Surrey as a "witness" to Walker's wounds, a
> man who declined to tell the truth to the Commission 25 times during
> his testimony.
Which makes him about 50 times more honest than you.
> Sorry, Timmy, I'm not buying it until I see REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
In case you agree with Walt that the attempt on Walker's life was a
publicity stunt, then perhaps you can explain how that notion jibes
with the apparent *lack* of any dramatic images of an obviously
wounded general ever reaching the public eye(?)
Walt
Hello Bill, I agree..... Being a bit nutty isn't grounds for
cashiering a general. Hell if the movie Patton is an accurate
portrayal of general Patton then the best generals are the ones who
are real "looney tunes."
The fact that JFK cashiered Walker on the very day that the CIA and a
bunch of old washed up war hawks were landing a military force at BOP
suggests that Walker was probably illegally involved in the
operation. And just because he was in command of a division stationed
in Germany does not mean he was actually in Germany at the time that
JFK fired him. I'm not sure but I believe Walker's firing preceded
the firing of general Cabell. JFK fired both of them and they both
returned to Dallas where JFK was murdered about 2 1/2 years later.
Walt
Thank you for the question...... Although it was addressed to Gil, I
'd like to answer it.
I suspect the reason that the Walker shooting incident never made the
headlines as Walker had hoped it would, was because a bigger news
event happened on that day...... OR the DPD Detectives suspected that
the shooting was a hoax. They knew that if Walker had been sitting
in that chair behind his desk the bullet would have passed right
through his head. His head was only inches from the wall and
therefore it was highly unlikely that Walker simply moved his head out
of the flight path. Walker himself testified that one of the cops
told him...."he couldn't have missed"... The detective told Walker
this after he had Walker sit in the chair and he verified the flight
of the bullet by lining up the bullet holes. The newspaper stories
following the incident are pretty short, indicating that the editors
didn't think it was a big story.
Walt
A halfwit I may be..... And aren't you embarrassed to have your ass
kicked (intellectually) by a "halfwit".
Timmy ol chum**.... It's pretty clear that you can only regurgitate
the nonsense presented by the Warren Commission, because you lack the
intellect to see through the bullshit. One doesn't have to have the
IQ of a genius to see that the Warren Commission was nothing but a
"rubber stamp" "blue ribbon committee" hand picked by Lyin Bastard
Johnson, and J Edna Hoover. They were selected because Hoover had
files on them that showed the "skeletons in their closets". In
addition to being susceptible to blackmail, they were told that they
should rubber stamp Hoover's proclaimation, and let sleeping dogs
lie. They were lead to believe that US intelligence knew that the
Soviets were behind the plot but to confront them openly would trigger
a nuclear war. They were told to just go along with Hoover's
proclaimation and the CIA would take care of the perpetrators. Oswald
was dead.... He was a perfect patsy, just let the stupid peasants
believe that he was just a lone nut and don't rock the boat.
** fish bait
justm...@gmail.com
ROFLMAO you mean he lacks the imagination to create scenerios that
didn't happen like you do Walt? You and Chico deserve each other, only
read and post what suits your fairy tale LOL
You're both pathetic.
robcap...@netscape.com
> I see that Wally World is STILL "Agreeing" with the Warren Commission
> Unsubstantiated Claims.
>
> Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
He also ignores the issue of LHO being seen an numerous meetings were
Gen. Walker spoke AFTER this attempted shooting. Don't you think they
would have arrested him if Walker thought, or the police thought LHO
was guilty of the shooting? LHO also had Walker's address AND phone
number in his notebook. One such meeting was to raise money for the
DRE, a fervent ANTI-CASTRO goup so it makes one wonder why LHO would
attend if he was so PRO Castro.
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Wow, isn't this nice? Why all this hate INSTEAD of simple evidence
and proof showing LHO fired at Walker?
Walt
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 1:56 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I see that Wally World is STILL "Agreeing" with the Warren Commission
> > Unsubstantiated Claims.
>
> > Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker ! ! !
>
> > SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> He also ignores the issue of LHO being seen an numerous meetings were
> Gen. Walker spoke AFTER this attempted shooting. Don't you think they
> would have arrested him if Walker thought, or the police thought LHO
> was guilty of the shooting?
Why can't you think?? Walker was one of the planners of the hoax
that was supposed to appear that a commie had taken a shot at him.
Oswald fird the bullet through the window and Walker wasn't even in
the room at the time. It was planned that Marina ( an unwitting
participant in the plot) would call the police ( through Ruth paine)
and report that her husband was missing and had left an alarming note
for her. After firing the bullet throught the window Walker waited a
few minutes to allow Oswald to "escape" and hide the rifle under a
brush pile alongside some railroad tracks about two blocks from
walker's house. Walker knew the whole thing was a Hoax....He had
helped plan it. So why would he wory even if he knew that Oswald was
in the audience at one of his speeches???
Walt
Oswald DIDN'T fire at Walker....he merely fired a bullet through a
window of an empty room.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 6 Jan, 11:59, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 1:56 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > I see that Wally World is STILL "Agreeing" with the Warren Commission
> > > Unsubstantiated Claims.
>
> > > Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker ! ! !
>
> > > SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> > He also ignores the issue of LHO being seen an numerous meetings were
> > Gen. Walker spoke AFTER this attempted shooting. Don't you think they
> > would have arrested him if Walker thought, or the police thought LHO
> > was guilty of the shooting?
>
> Why can't you think??
I do, that is why I know you are full of crap!
> Walker was one of the planners of the hoax
> that was supposed to appear that a commie had taken a shot at him.
Prove this for us, I have only asked like fifty times. The whole
"commie" thing wasn't really in play for LHO in April 1963 as he had
married a probable KGB agent (at least her uncle was one) and had
returned to the US with NO problems and got a job at a highly
sensitive military/intelligence location. The summer in New Orleans
is when they began to shape him as a real "commie" AFTER his attempt
to join the anti-Castro group was sniffed out for what it was -- a
plant.
> Oswald fird the bullet through the window and Walker wasn't even in
> the room at the time.
You are as bad as the WC as you keep claiming LHO fired the shot but
NEVER show us any proof he did. Is this how investigations are
solved?
> It was planned that Marina ( an unwitting
> participant in the plot) would call the police ( through Ruth paine)
> and report that her husband was missing and had left an alarming note
> for her.
I don't even know where you get this stuff, I am beginning to believe
you write crime mysteries for a living and have converted this into a
"non-fiction" book.
> After firing the bullet throught the window Walker waited a
> few minutes to allow Oswald to "escape" and hide the rifle under a
> brush pile alongside some railroad tracks about two blocks from
> walker's house.
Your theory is TOTALLY AT ODDS with the ONLY witness who saw two men
and neither looked anything like LHO! They both entered SEPERATE cars
and drove off, he did NOT see anyone burying a rifle, in fact, he saw
something was handed to a third man, a dark complected man, who put it
into his car.
> Walker knew the whole thing was a Hoax....He had
> helped plan it. So why would he wory even if he knew that Oswald was
> in the audience at one of his speeches???
I can believe the whole thing was planned, but there is NO evidence
LHO fired at Walker, period. I believe Duff when he said he was
involved and would to another "staged" shooting for $5,000 again.
You simply have FAILED to produce any evidence or proof LHO fired at
Walker, and the simple reason is because there is NONE! Why you
continue to say he did makes real CTers shiver, and it illuminates for
us the fact you are either very misguided or an out-and-out liar. I
really do hate to use the word liar, but I don't know what else to say
when someone continually fails to prove what they claim, and keeps on
claiming it like it is FACT!
robcap...@netscape.com
IF only you had proof, but alas, you DON'T! The bullet used was a
steel-jacketed one (you know, the type the military used) and was
fired from a HIGH-POWERED rifle, something the Carcano could NEVER be
confused with. Newspaper accounts also described the bullet as being
a .3006 caliber, something the Carcano could NEVER fire.
You are lying for some reason if NOT to make the WC look good, perhaps
you will tells why one day.
Walt
I've read several of the short articles about the walker incident ,
and I've never seen the caliber of the bullet mentioned in any of
them. Can you provide a link that verifies that a cop was super smart
and could identify a .30 caliber bullet as having been fired from a
rifle chambered to fire a 30.06 cartridge?? How did he determine
that the .30 caliber bullet was fired from a 30.06 and not a 300
winchester, or a 308 winchester, or a 300 savage or a 7.5 Schmit
Rubin (to name only a few rifles that fire exactly the same bullet as
a 30.06. )
Why don't you go learn some basics before you try to present any of
your assinine counter points. The stupid argument that you present
about, what constitutes a "high powered" rifle is just plain stupid.
it's true that some Large caliber rifles are higher powered than
others.... But they are all, collectively, referred to as "high
powered rifles, It makes no difference whether it is a 30.30
Winchester or a 300 Winchseter magnum or a 6.5mm Mannlicher
Carcano.... they are are all high powered rifles.
>
> You are lying for some reason if NOT to make the WC look good, perhaps
> you will tells why one day.- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Walt,
Say, If you're kicking my butt, intellectually or otherwise, how come
you've caved in and now accept that the bullet that hit Walker's house
came from the west, from the alley?
This after trotting out, time after time, your misinterpretation that
the bullet came from the north and hit a window behind Walker.
Walt, far from kicking anyone's butt, it's apparent that you don't
know your way well enough around the WC volumes to support the
arguments you are making, so you fall back on your own made up
scenarios.
That's no way to research Walt, LOL!
tims...@gmail.com
> On Jan 5, 2:43 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
>
> > Hi Gilly,
>
> > But what about the WC testimony of Robert Surrey? He was there and
> > pulled the metal slivers out of Walker's arm with tweezers. Looks like
> > you forgot him, Gilly. Now you'll have to amend your stupid argument
> > further, LOL!
>
Surrey said they were lost, Gilly. Why don't you read the evidence
sometime?
robcap...@netscape.com
Why get sidetracked? The point is the reporters were told it "looked
like" a .3006, which is a world away from a 6.5mm, wouldn't you say?
Why didn't they say it "looked like" a 6.5mm if it was? You have the
problem of the DPD report saying it was "steel-jacketed" and fired
from a HIGH-POWERED rifle too, but I know you'll just keep skipping
those issues.
> Why don't you go learn some basics before you try to present any of
> your assinine counter points.
I know the basics, and there is NO way a ballistic person would
confuse a 6.5mm and a .3006 caliber. That is like saying an
experienced cop confused revolver ammo and automatic ammo!! Oh, wait,
they want us to BELIEVE that one too!!!
> The stupid argument that you present
> about, what constitutes a "high powered" rifle is just plain stupid.
The military and NRA would disagree with you as they would be NO low,
medium and high velocity/powered if it were "stupid" to quote you.
The plain fact is a "high-powered" rifle was used just like one was
used to kill JFK according to his death certificate.
> it's true that some Large caliber rifles are higher powered than
> others....
You are lying through you teeth as they use a "fps" standard to guage
rifles. The Carcano was a "medium" at best.
> But they are all, collectively, referred to as "high
> powered rifles,
You are lying, they are NOT all refered to as "high powered" as they
are NOT all high powered to begin with. Why lie about something so
basic? Why must LHO be the shooter in your mind when ALL THE EVIDENCE
AVAILABLE SHOWS HE WASN'T?
> It makes no difference whether it is a 30.30
> Winchester or a 300 Winchseter magnum or a 6.5mm Mannlicher
> Carcano.... they are are all high powered rifles.
You are a liar, and a bad one. Any expert, something I'm beginning to
see you are NOT, will tell you a Carcano is a low-to-medium velocity"
weapon at best. You are full of crap, but we already knew that. Why
not show us some cites that classify the Carcano as a high powered
rifle?
> > You are lying for some reason if NOT to make the WC look good, perhaps
> > you will tells why one day.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
I believe if you'll read the police report the Detective described the
bullet as ..."of UNKNOWN caliber...That tells me that it was a bullet
that he was NOT familiar with ..like the very very common 30 caliber
bullet. Ifthe bullet had been a .30 caliber bullet he very probably
would have recognized it as such. Because .30 calber bullets are as
common as fleas on a mongrel mutt.
Why don't you take a friendly word of advise...... Go away and LEARN
the basics......THEN come back to the NG and present INTELLIGENT
arguments.
> Why didn't they say it "looked like" a 6.5mm if it was?
Because He simply didn't recognize that rather rare caliber....So he
didn't know what it was.
You have the
> problem of the DPD report saying it was "steel-jacketed" and fired
> from a HIGH-POWERED rifle too,
Absolutely, I have a problem with anybody proposing that a sniper
would go to assassinate a person using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition. Do
you realize that STEEL JACKETED bullets are not very lethal when
compared to a soft nosed hunting bullet??? A steel jacketed bullet
could just fly right through a targeted victim and do very little
damage. They are not DESIGNED to be lethal....they are designed to
stop a vehicle by disabling the engine.
but I know you'll just keep skipping
> those issues.
I've never skipeed that issue...I've posted this same information many
many times.
>
> > Why don't you go learn some basics before you try to present any of
> > your assinine counter points.
>
> I know the basics, and there is NO way a ballistic person would
> confuse a 6.5mm and a .3006 caliber. That is like saying an
> experienced cop confused revolver ammo and automatic ammo!! Oh, wait,
> they want us to BELIEVE that one too!!!
>
> > The stupid argument that you present
> > about, what constitutes a "high powered" rifle is just plain stupid.
>
> The military and NRA would disagree with you as they would be NO low,
> medium and high velocity/powered if it were "stupid" to quote you.
> The plain fact is a "high-powered" rifle was used just like one was
> used to kill JFK according to his death certificate.
>
> > it's true that some Large caliber rifles are higher powered than
> > others....
>
> You are lying through you teeth as they use a "fps" standard to guage
> rifles. The Carcano was a "medium" at best.
fps...MEANS FEET PER SECOND.... That's VELOCITY, or speed ..NOT
POWER!!
Power is the product of ENERGY plus VELOCITY.... POWER is derived
from the size and weight of the projectile times the velocity of that
projectile. Example would you prefer to get hit in the chest by a 1 /
16 of an ounce BB pellet flying at 500 fps or would you prefer to be
hit by a 16 pound bowling ball flying at 500 fps?? It's very obvious
which projectile has the most POWER ( energy) The BB would sting a
little, but the bowling ball would kill you.
>
> > But they are all, collectively, referred to as "high
> > powered rifles,
>
> You are lying, they are NOT all refered to as "high powered" as they
> are NOT all high powered to begin with.
Generally speaking....any rifle that uses a CENTER FIRE cartridge is a
"high powered" rifle, regardless of caliber.
Why lie about something so
> basic? Why must LHO be the shooter in your mind when ALL THE EVIDENCE
> AVAILABLE SHOWS HE WASN'T?
>
> > It makes no difference whether it is a 30.30
> > Winchester or a 300 Winchseter magnum or a 6.5mm Mannlicher
> > Carcano.... they are are all high powered rifles.
>
> You are a liar, and a bad one. Any expert, something I'm beginning to
> see you are NOT, will tell you a Carcano is a low-to-medium velocity"
> weapon at best. You are full of crap, but we already knew that. Why
> not show us some cites that classify the Carcano as a high powered
> rifle?
>
Hey Rob... GO AWAY and LEARN ....then perhaps you won't appear to be
a COMPLETE idiot..
Walt
Establishing FACTS...Is equated to "caving in"??.... Are you related
to Tomnln? He has the same basic outlook.... If a person asks for
information from Tom ...He calls that "kissin his ass", and now you're
following in his footsteps, by saying that establishing FACTS is the
same "caving in".
I expect the next response from you will include an allusion to some
sort of aberant, and perverted sexual behavior.
>
> This after trotting out, time after time, your misinterpretation that
> the bullet came from the north and hit a window behind Walker.
>
> Walt, far from kicking anyone's butt, it's apparent that you don't
> know your way well enough around the WC volumes to support the
> arguments you are making, so you fall back on your own made up
> scenarios.
>
> That's no way to research Walt, LOL!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
robcap...@netscape.com
Funny how he is willing to "accept" the DPD report here, but when it
mentions "steel-jacketed" it has to be wrong! This guy is a trip. I
never said the DPD report mentioned a caliber did I? I said local
news stories mentioned it being a .3006 caliber bullet. You are
guessing, speculating, lying, whatever you want to call it, as you
have NO IDEA why he put unknown caliber, you couldn't unless you were
there. To say he was NOT familiar with it is something you CAN'T
prove, can you? .30 caliber bullets are common, that is why they found
some in DP after the shooting.
> Why don't you take a friendly word of advise...... Go away and LEARN
> the basics......THEN come back to the NG and present INTELLIGENT
> arguments.
LOL!!! This LNer is a trip, isn't he? He uses whatever works at the
moment and lies through his teeth about everything, but I need to go
away and learn the case. Why can't Walt give us proof LHO fired at
Walker like he insist (the same claim the WC made by the way)? Why
does he NEVER back up his OWN words?
> > Why didn't they say it "looked like" a 6.5mm if it was?
>
> Because He simply didn't recognize that rather rare caliber....So he
> didn't know what it was.
Walt is speculating again, because unless he WAS THE DETECTIVE, how in
the world would he know?
> You have the
> > problem of the DPD report saying it was "steel-jacketed" and fired
> > from a HIGH-POWERED rifle too,
>
> Absolutely, I have a problem with anybody proposing that a sniper
> would go to assassinate a person using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition. Do
> you realize that STEEL JACKETED bullets are not very lethal when
> compared to a soft nosed hunting bullet???
OF course I do, but we have agreed the whole thing was a "staged"
attempt to begin with. They were NOT trying to kill him idiot, that
is why he may NOT have even been in the room.
> A steel jacketed bullet
> could just fly right through a targeted victim and do very little
> damage. They are not DESIGNED to be lethal....they are designed to
> stop a vehicle by disabling the engine.
Who said they were actually trying to kill Walker in the first place?
What better ammo to use for a "staged" attempt?
> but I know you'll just keep skipping
> > those issues.
>
> I've never skipeed that issue...I've posted this same information many
> many times.
Yes, and it is a crap and lies.
> > > Why don't you go learn some basics before you try to present any of
> > > your assinine counter points.
>
> > I know the basics, and there is NO way a ballistic person would
> > confuse a 6.5mm and a .3006 caliber. That is like saying an
> > experienced cop confused revolver ammo and automatic ammo!! Oh, wait,
> > they want us to BELIEVE that one too!!!
>
> > > The stupid argument that you present
> > > about, what constitutes a "high powered" rifle is just plain stupid.
>
> > The military and NRA would disagree with you as they would be NO low,
> > medium and high velocity/powered if it were "stupid" to quote you.
> > The plain fact is a "high-powered" rifle was used just like one was
> > used to kill JFK according to his death certificate.
>
> > > it's true that some Large caliber rifles are higher powered than
> > > others....
>
> > You are lying through you teeth as they use a "fps" standard to guage
> > rifles. The Carcano was a "medium" at best.
>
> fps...MEANS FEET PER SECOND.... That's VELOCITY, or speed ..NOT
> POWER!!
Explain for us how power and velocity are different. Doesn't power
generate velocity? Show us cites saying the Carcano was a high-
velocity or high-powered rifle.
> Power is the product of ENERGY plus VELOCITY.... POWER is derived
> from the size and weight of the projectile times the velocity of that
> projectile. Example would you prefer to get hit in the chest by a 1 /
> 16 of an ounce BB pellet flying at 500 fps or would you prefer to be
> hit by a 16 pound bowling ball flying at 500 fps?? It's very obvious
> which projectile has the most POWER ( energy) The BB would sting a
> little, but the bowling ball would kill you.
A rifle CANNOT be high-powered if it is low-to-medium velocity. IF
you want to prove me wrong you will need to show us cites showing this
to be in error. Hee is one from WikiAnswers:
Generally, a "high-powered rifle" is any modern rifle designed to fire
a bullet at high velocity from a hollow cylindrical metal shell by
means of igniting a primer and detonating a smokeless power charge
contained within. Exactly where a "rifle" becomes a "high-powered
rifle" has never been definitively established.
Clearly rifles chambered for the .30/30, the .30/06, the .270
Winchester, and the .308-- which are designed for hunting medium to
big game and/or military use--are high-powered rifles. Even smaller
rounds such as the .243 Winchester, the .222 and the .22 hornet are
generally so classified. Alternatively, .22 rimfires are generally not
considered high-powered rifles, nor are rifles designed to fire
handgun rounds such as the .357 magnum and the .44 magnum.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_high-powered_rifle
It is just common sense, if a rifle produces low-to-medium velocity
like the Carcano it could not be high-powered.
> > > But they are all, collectively, referred to as "high
> > > powered rifles,
>
> > You are lying, they are NOT all refered to as "high powered" as they
> > are NOT all high powered to begin with.
>
> Generally speaking....any rifle that uses a CENTER FIRE cartridge is a
> "high powered" rifle, regardless of caliber.
You are distracting as we all know the Carcano was NOT a rifle that
produced a high-velocity, thus it could NOT be high-powered.
> Why lie about something so
>
> > basic? Why must LHO be the shooter in your mind when ALL THE EVIDENCE
> > AVAILABLE SHOWS HE WASN'T?
>
> > > It makes no difference whether it is a 30.30
> > > Winchester or a 300 Winchseter magnum or a 6.5mm Mannlicher
> > > Carcano.... they are are all high powered rifles.
>
> > You are a liar, and a bad one. Any expert, something I'm beginning to
> > see you are NOT, will tell you a Carcano is a low-to-medium velocity"
> > weapon at best. You are full of crap, but we already knew that. Why
> > not show us some cites that classify the Carcano as a high powered
> > rifle?
>
> Hey Rob... GO AWAY and LEARN ....then perhaps you won't appear to be
> a COMPLETE idiot..
You are the ONLY idiot in this post, and a really bad liar too! Walt
is still up to his old tricks I see. New Year, same old crap. Why
won't he tell us why LHO had to fire at Walker when the evidence and
witness testimony shows otherwise?
tomnln
HERE are some of Walt's LIES>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for
RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never
proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave
the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was
found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had
same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at
him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT
Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting
was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40
minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at
Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You
never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You
never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never
proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never
proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser
on
11/22/63.
Walt
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in messagenews:857c8c2d-d6de-41f8...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Dumb people bite the hand that feeds them.
>
> WCR Shill Wally World bites the Penis that feeds him.
>
> THEN RUNS from his own Lying Stupid Bastard Speculations>>>
Tom, you're probably even more stupid than Rob ( it's hard to evaluate
when intelligence is so low to start with)
In your foggy stupor you imagined that I said something that I never
said, (That CE 139 was / is equipped with dual sling swivels) I have
no idea how you arrived at that absurd idea because it is totally
contrary to my core beliefs.
I'd really like to see the post where you think I said anything like
that... Surely you're not going to show everybody that you're a liar
by refusing provide that post....are you?
>
> HERE are some of Walt's LIES>>>
>
> You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
> You never proved that Walker called Germany.
> You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
> You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
> You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
> You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
> You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
> You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
> jacketed.
> You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
> You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
> You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
> You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
> You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
> 11/22/63.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Wally World wrote;
Tom, you're probably even more stupid than Rob ( it's hard to evaluate
when intelligence is so low to start with)
In your foggy stupor you imagined that I said something that I never
said, (That CE 139 was / is equipped with dual sling swivels) I have
no idea how you arrived at that absurd idea because it is totally
contrary to my core beliefs.
I'd really like to see the post where you think I said anything like
that... Surely you're not going to show everybody that you're a liar
by refusing provide that post....are you?
I write;
I'll answer NO questions for you Wally;
Until you give Citations for your Stupid Lying Speculations.
You've been aske by several of us Numerous times to back up your Repeated
Lies.
HERE are some of Walt's Unsubstantiated Speculations>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> Wally World wrote;
>
> Tom, you're probably even more stupid than Rob ( it's hard to evaluate
> when intelligence is so low to start with)
>
> In your foggy stupor you imagined that I said something that I never
> said, (That CE 139 was / is equipped with dual sling swivels) I have
> no idea how you arrived at that absurd idea because it is totally
> contrary to my core beliefs.
>
> I'd really like to see the post where you think I said anything like
> that... Surely you're not going to show everybody that you're a liar
> by refusing provide that post....are you?
>
> I write;
>
> I'll answer NO questions for you Wally;
It's not important...... Your response speaks for itself. There is
no such post and you know it, so your response is merely confirmation
that you are in fact a liar.
> Until you give Citations for your Stupid Lying Speculations.
>
> You've been aske by several of us Numerous times to back up your Repeated
> Lies.
>
> HERE are some of Walt's Unsubstantiated Speculations>>>
>
> You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
> You never proved that Walker called Germany.
> You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
> You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
> You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
> You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
> You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
> You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
> jacketed.
> You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
> You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
> You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
> You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
> You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
> You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
> 11/22/63.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Rob..... You posted this...".Exactly where a "rifle" becomes a
"high-powered rifle" has never been definitively established." Do you
understand what it means?
The term "high powered rifle" is a rather ambiguous, ill defined
term. Most people who are knowledgable will tell you any rifle or
carbine that is designed to fire a center fire cartridge is a "high
powered rifle".
Go get an education.......
>
> Clearly rifles chambered for the .30/30, the .30/06, the .270
> Winchester, and the .308-- which are designed for hunting medium to
> big game and/or military use--are high-powered rifles. Even smaller
> rounds such as the .243 Winchester, the .222 and the .22 hornet are
> generally so classified. Alternatively, .22 rimfires are generally not
> considered high-powered rifles, nor are rifles designed to ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jan 6, 1:04=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 6 Jan, 14:32, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 6, 11:47=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 6 Jan, 13:14, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > On 6 Jan, 12:00, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jan 5, 2:17=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On 5 Jan, 15:56, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>Commission
>> > > > > > > > Unsubstantiated Claims.
>>
>> > > > > > > > Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker ! ! !
>>
>hriveled
>> > > > > > > brain just isn't up to handling simple facts, and evaluating =
>them.
>> > > > > > > Please continue to try to deny the piles of evidence that rev=
>eal that
>> > > > > > > Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting. I enjoy watching =
>you make
>> > > > > > > a bigger fool of yourself.
>>
>groups.com...
>> > > > > > > > On 5 Jan, 12:18, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netsca=
>pe.com>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 10:02 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>rote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that=
> shows that
>> > > > > > > > > > > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper re=
>porter said that
>> > > > > > > > > > > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I b=
>elieve the
>> > > > > > > > > > > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and t=
>ook Walker's word
>> > > > > > > > > > > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>>
> but I agree
>> > > > > > > > > > that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure=
> what caused
>> > > > > > > > > > Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was infl=
>icted.
>> > > > > > > > > > Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by=
> Walker.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report =
>of the wound
>> > > > > > > > > > via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase =
>Walker.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to cor=
>roborate him.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > This same nutcase said it was NOT LHO who fired at him,
>>
> the WC how
>> > > > > > > > he knew the sniper had been Oswald,so he claimed that he di=
>dn't know
>> > > > > > > > that Oswald had fired the bullet through his window. =A0 If=
> he had
>> > > > > > > > said ..."I know Oswald was the stinking little commie basta=
>rd who had
>> > > > > > > > tried to shoot me"... They would have been forced to ask hi=
>m how he
>> > > > > > > > knew that.... =A0Ya dig??
>>
>> > > > > > Wow, isn't this nice? =A0Why all this hate INSTEAD of simple ev=
>idence
>> > > > > > and proof showing LHO fired at Walker?
>>
>a
>> > > > > window of an empty room.
>>
>a
>> > > > steel-jacketed one (you know, the type the military used) and was
>be
>> > > > confused with. =A0Newspaper accounts also described the bullet as b=
>eing
>> > > > a .3006 caliber, something the Carcano could NEVER fire.
>>
>> > > I've read several of the short articles about the walker incident ,
>> > > and I've never seen the caliber of the bullet mentioned in any of
>art
>> > > and could identify a .30 caliber bullet as having been fired from a
>ne
>> > > that the .30 caliber bullet was fired from a 30.06 and not a 300
>> > > winchester, or a 308 winchester, or a 300 savage or a 7.5 Schmit
> as
>> > > a 30.06. )
>>
>> > Why get sidetracked? =A0The point is the reporters were told it "looked
>> > like" a .3006, which is a world away from a 6.5mm, wouldn't you say?
>>
>> I believe if you'll read the police report the Detective described the
>> bullet as ..."of UNKNOWN caliber...That tells me that it was a bullet
>> that he was NOT familiar with ..like the very very common 30 caliber
>> bullet. Ifthe bullet had been a .30 caliber bullet he very probably
>> common as fleas on a mongrel mutt.
>
>Funny how he is willing to "accept" the DPD report here, but when it
>mentions "steel-jacketed" it has to be wrong! This guy is a trip. I
>never said the DPD report mentioned a caliber did I? I said local
>news stories mentioned it being a .3006 caliber bullet. You are
>guessing, speculating, lying, whatever you want to call it, as you
>have NO IDEA why he put unknown caliber, you couldn't unless you were
>there. To say he was NOT familiar with it is something you CAN'T
>prove, can you? .30 caliber bullets are common, that is why they found
>some in DP after the shooting.
>
>
>> the basics......THEN come back to the NG and present INTELLIGENT
>> arguments.
>
>LOL!!! This LNer is a trip, isn't he? He uses whatever works at the
>moment and lies through his teeth about everything, but I need to go
>away and learn the case. Why can't Walt give us proof LHO fired at
>Walker like he insist (the same claim the WC made by the way)? Why
>does he NEVER back up his OWN words?
>
>
>> > Why didn't they say it "looked like" a 6.5mm if it was?
>>
>> Because He simply didn't recognize that rather rare caliber....So he
>> didn't know what it was.
>
>Walt is speculating again, because unless he WAS THE DETECTIVE, how in
>the world would he know?
>
>
>> You have the
>> > problem of the DPD report saying it was "steel-jacketed" and fired
>> > from a HIGH-POWERED rifle too,
>>
>> Absolutely, I have a problem with anybody proposing that a sniper
>> you realize that STEEL JACKETED bullets are not very lethal when
>> compared to a soft nosed hunting bullet???
>
>OF course I do, but we have agreed the whole thing was a "staged"
>attempt to begin with. They were NOT trying to kill him idiot, that
>is why he may NOT have even been in the room.
>
>> A steel jacketed bullet
>> could just fly right through a targeted victim and do very little
>> stop a vehicle by disabling the engine.
>
>Who said they were actually trying to kill Walker in the first place?
>What better ammo to use for a "staged" attempt?
>
>
>> but I know you'll just keep skipping
>> > those issues.
>>
>> I've never skipeed that issue...I've posted this same information many
>> many times.
>
>Yes, and it is a crap and lies.
>
>
>> > > Why don't you go learn some basics before you try to present any of
>> > > your assinine counter points.
>>
>> > I know the basics, and there is NO way a ballistic person would
>> > experienced cop confused revolver ammo and automatic ammo!! =A0Oh, wait=
>,
>> > they want us to BELIEVE that one too!!!
>>
>> > > The stupid argument that you present
>> > > about, what constitutes a "high powered" rifle is just plain stupid.
>>
>> > The military and NRA would disagree with you as they would be NO low,
>> > medium and high velocity/powered if it were "stupid" to quote you.
>> > The plain fact is a "high-powered" rifle was used just like one was
>> > used to kill JFK according to his death certificate.
>>
>> > > it's true that some Large caliber rifles are higher powered than
>> > > others....
>>
>> > You are lying through you teeth as they use a "fps" standard to guage
>> > rifles. The Carcano was a "medium" at best.
>>
>> fps...MEANS FEET PER SECOND.... That's VELOCITY, or speed ..NOT
>> POWER!!
>
>Explain for us how power and velocity are different.
Just came back from the first Judo class of the new year, so I'll answer this
easy one.
Ask a 20 year old flyweight to throw a left jab at your chin. Presuming any
basic boxing skills, a 20 year old flyweight should be fairly fast... there is
your "velocity".
Now ask a 20 year old *heavyweight* to throw the same left jab. Most
heavyweights *CANNOT* generate the "velocity" or speed of punch that a flyweight
can - presuming the same level of skill.
But who do you suppose would have the more powerful punch?
If "power and velocity" are the same, then you should be just as willing to take
the jab of a heavyweight as you would to take the jab of a flyweight.
Me? I'll settle for the flyweight, and let the heavyweight teach you a lesson
on the difference between power and velocity.
Of course, a great *scientific* example is the light striking you right now at
the fastest speed known to man. My punch is the merest *fraction* of the
velocity of the photons hitting you right now. Anyone care to do the math? The
difference in velocity is HUGE! Care to try standing still for my punch?
>Doesn't power
>generate velocity?
No. Although for a given mass, the more velocity, the more power. For
identical velocity, the more mass, the more power.
This is why in Judo we strive for greater speed - since our body is the weight
it is - and it's nonsensical to gain weight just to be more powerful in our
Judo. But among the same weight Judoka - the faster Judoka develops more power.
This explains why black belts are generally the fastest of all Judo players in
their technique. This goes equally well for all other sports. If the technique
is perfect, the only way to gain more power is to have more speed. Of course, if
your technique isn't perfect, you can gain more power simply by doing your
technique in a scientifically more efficient manner.
>Show us cites saying the Carcano was a high-
>velocity or high-powered rifle.
>
>
>> Power is the product of ENERGY plus VELOCITY.... POWER is derived
>> from the size and weight of the projectile times the velocity of that
>> projectile. Example would you prefer to get hit in the chest by a 1 /
>> 16 of an ounce B pellet flying at 500 fps or would you prefer to be
>> hit by a 16 pound bowling ball flying at 500 fps?? It's very obvious
>> which projectile has the most POWER ( energy) The BB would sting a
>> little, but the bowling ball would kill you.
Excellent example.
>> > You are a liar, and a bad one. =A0Any expert, something I'm beginning t=
>o
>> > see you are NOT, will tell you a Carcano is a low-to-medium velocity"
>> > weapon at best. =A0You are full of crap, but we already knew that. Why
>> > not show us some cites that classify the Carcano as a high powered
>> > rifle?
>>
>> Hey Rob... =A0GO AWAY and LEARN ....then perhaps you won't appear to be
>> a COMPLETE idiot..
>
>You are the ONLY idiot in this post, and a really bad liar too! Walt
>is still up to his old tricks I see. New Year, same old crap. Why
>won't he tell us why LHO had to fire at Walker when the evidence and
>witness testimony shows otherwise?
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Gil Jesus
>
> > Can you produce those slivers as evidence Timmy ? Where are they ?
>
> Surrey said they were lost, Gilly. Why don't you read the evidence
> sometime?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Please tell us where Surrey said they were lost in his testimony.
muc...@gmail.com
Your obsession with small pieces of metal is beginning to worry me,
Gil. What are you going to *do* with those slivers when you find them?
Gil Jesus
>
> Your obsession with small pieces of metal is beginning to worry me,
> Gil. What are you going to *do* with those slivers when you find them?-
It's not about what I'm going to do, it's about what YOU people are
going to do:
Connect them to Walker's wounds
Connect them to CE 573
Connect CE 573 to CE 139 ( the Oswald rifle ) .
Then you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that CE 139 fired CE 573
and wounded Walker.
If you cannot connect all of the above, you cannot PROVE that the
Oswald rifle was fired at and wounded Walker.
Your side is the one that touts that "physical and scientific evidence
trumps witness testimony any day".
Thus far, you people have not provided any PHYSICAL or SCIENTIFIC
evidence that the "slivers" were connected to CE 573 or that CE 573
was fired by CE 139.
The first step in PROVING that Oswald fired at and wounded Walker is
to produce the "slivers".
As far as my request to see the evidence "worrying you", I guess you
SHOULD be worried when someone asks you to see evidence that you
seemingly can't produce.
tims...@gmail.com
> I agree that the Walker shooting was "staged". There's no photogrpahic
> evidence that Walker was wounded by a bullet or anything else. There's
> no medical evidence that Walker was wounded in the shooting. There's
> no video evidence of Walker having been wounded.
>
> The only source of this story is.........well..........Walker.
>
> The guy who was committed to a mental institution for 30 days
> observation by the Kennedys.
>
> That in itself should tell you why the nuts love him.
Looks like you must have missed this, eh Gilly?:
Following item from the *Weather Vane* column of the Dallas Morning
News of Sunday, April 14, 1963 (Section 3, Page3):
QUOTE ON:
. Newsmen who talked with Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker on the night he
was narrowly missed by a sniper were firmly convinced that the
incident was *no publicity gag* after they struggled for 15 minutes in
an attempt to help the former Army commander dig out a piece of
shrapnel from the 3.06 shell which was embedded in his right elbow. A
pair of tweezers finally removed the sliver, about one-half inch long.
QUOTE OFF
Your theories are completely bogus, Gilly.
tims...@gmail.com
> On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gil. I agree that there is no certified document that shows that
> > Walker was injured, however at least one newspaper reporter said that
> > Walker had been "CUT" on the arm in the incident. I believe the
> > reporter probably saw a bandaid on Walker's arm and took Walker's word
> > that he had been hit buy flying debris.
>
> that there's no way that a reporter could know for sure what caused
> Walker's "wound" unless he was present when it was inflicted.
> Therefore, he had to be writing what was told to him by Walker.
>
> So we have the word of nutcase Walker, a police report of the wound
> via nutcase Walker, and a newspaper report via nutcase Walker.
>
> All from one source, nutcase Walker. And nothing to corroborate him.
Well try this on for size then Gilly!
Following item from the *Weather Vane* column of the Dallas Morning
News of Sunday, April 14, 1963 (Section 3, Page3):
QUOTE ON:
. Newsmen who talked with Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker on the night he
was narrowly missed by a sniper were firmly convinced that the
incident was *no publicity gag* after they struggled for 15 minutes in
an attempt to help the former Army commander dig out a piece of
shrapnel from the 3.06 shell which was embedded in his right elbow. A
pair of tweezers finally removed the sliver, about one-half inch long.
QUOTE OFF
It's a shame you didn't do a modicum of research before you blew your
mouth off, eh Gilly?