These Two Things Prove Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt....
David VP
THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome
was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical
evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
murderer of America's 35th President.
And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
logic and reasoned thinking.
Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation
leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.
I was thinking recently about the following quote by
author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
variety).....
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent
of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
personal "reasonable doubt")......
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
contents of this package to a co-worker.*
* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:
A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination.
B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
a doubt.**
** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
Oswald's guilt.)
Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing
out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
pro-conspiracy arguments become.
David Von Pein
January 2006
David VP
1986 TV Docu-Trial) -----
"There may have been 50 people firing at President Kennedy that day;
but if there were, they all missed....ONLY bullets fired from Oswald's
Carcano rifle hit the President; is that correct?"
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn -- "That's a correct statement; yes."
David VP
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vincent
T. Bugliosi (via his Opening Statement to the jury during the 1986
televised Docu-Trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")
Ben Holmes
Davey-boy, the gutless coward, will snip and run as usual... says my crystal
ball.
In article <1146022460.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT THE EVIDENCE IS SCREAMING
>THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
LOL!!!
The facts, of course, is precisely the opposite. This is why Davey-boy will
snip all day long, and run away from the evidence that he says is 'screaming'
what he thinks it is...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
>book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome
>was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
>into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
>
>The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
>members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
>circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
>which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
>Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
>killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
It also divided the very Commission that created it. Several of the
Commissioners didn't buy the SBT... and without the SBT, you have a conspiracy.
If the Commission couldn't even convince their own members - why do you think
*you* can convince anyone here?
>A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
Yep... a true statement. Even Davey-boy can occasionally spout something
truthful ... by mistake, no doubt.
>I, however, am not a member of that majority.
A secret that you're revealing for the first time?
>Lee Harvey Oswald was
>indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas.
Yet you're too gutless a coward to support that assertion... why is that?
>The physical
>evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
>the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
>murderer of America's 35th President.
Sad to say, that very same evidence tells a different story to most people.
>And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
>case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
>opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
>respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
>totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
>(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
>logic and reasoned thinking.
When you support a conclusion with a lie, then what you are likely to end up
with is a false conclusion.
I've pointed out a number of times now that all of the physical evidence DOES
NOT point to Oswald, or a LN... yet Davey-boy will continue to spout this
factoid.
Gutless coward, aren't you, Davey-boy?
>Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
>(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
>physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
>straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
>Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
>to kill Officer Tippit).
Again, when you have to lie, all you've proven is that you're a liar.
>Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation
>leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
>sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.
Fortunately, the vast majority of American has no 'common sense'. "Common
Sense", to a LNT'er, doesn't mean the same thing as what most people would
imagine it to mean.
>I was thinking recently about the following quote by
>author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
>comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
>variety).....
More likely, of course, is that you're a 'Bug' fan...
Too bad he's going to let you down...
And, as blind as you apparently are, you'll never even realize it.
>"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
>Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
>the tragic shooting all by himself.
No, it isn't. If Bugliosi said this, then he's *already* started lying about
the evidence.
>In fact, you could throw 80 percent
>of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
>more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
>role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
Bugliosi clearly hasn't seen the polls either...
>.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
>above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
>of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
>guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
>conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
>the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
>reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
>personal "reasonable doubt")......
>
>1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
>to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
>Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
>Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
>both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
A statement of questionable validity. Particularly when considering the
frangible round that struck JFK's head...
But don't let the facts stop you... carry on...
>2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
>employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
>of 11/22/63,
Yep... and Mary Jo McCarthy was seen carrying in a large, oddly shaped purse at
7:54 am. I note that you haven't said a *SINGLE THING* about this guilty action
by Mary Jo.
>and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
>contents of this package to a co-worker.*
Oh? Did he now?
>* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
>"curtain rods" based on the following:
>
>A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
>after the assassination.
How do you know? Where did the DPD get the curtain rods that they had?
>B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
>at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
>PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
Nope. The assassination certainly changed things.
>A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
>were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
No, they don't. I notice that you've dropped your silly assertion that LHO's
room didn't need curtain rods.
Looks like your ignorance *can* be cured... you just need to work at it a little
more.
>Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
>but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
LOL!!! Doesn't take much, does it, to convince *you*.
>Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
>circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
>beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
>a doubt.**
Only to a moron. Does it *hurt* to be dumb?
>** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
Oh? Was it there? Can you cite the photograph showing it?
>which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
>co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
>building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd.
With irrefutable testimony that the length was *too short*.
>(With a nicely-incriminating
>"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
>VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
>Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
>important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
>Oswald's guilt.)
Yep... LHO is guilty of carrying a paper bag... :)
What's the penalty for carrying a paper bag these days? Is it life in prison?
Or do you go straight to the electric chair?
(Hmmm... maybe this explains why the grocery stores all seem to have given up on
paper bags, and gone to plastic.... Davey-boy... You've SOLVED THE GROCERY STORE
MYSTERY!!)
>Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
>positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window.
Ah! But *he didn't*. And you *know* he didn't... so why lie about it?
People here know better.
>....
>The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald.
An assertion that you need to *prove*, not merely assert.
>.... The
>fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
>multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST.
Yep... it was a conspiracy folks! Davey-boy asserts that if your fingerprints
were located on the boxes in the SN, you were the assassin. How many people's
prints were found, Davey-boy? I'll give you a clue: More than one...
That proves conspiracy! Thanks... Davey-boy! Now you can close up shop, and
leave...
> .... Oswald having no
>verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
>gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
Actually, he did. And it *was* verified...
>.... Oswald dashing
Dashing???
Why bother to lie, Davey-boy?
>out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
>President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace.
Sounds like you've just indicted Emmett Hudson. Why is that, Davey-boy???
What did Hudson ever do to you?
>.... And
>Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
>the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
Yet you can't cite his "lies" along the proof that they *are* lies... why is
that, Davey-boy?
>But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
Then you've lost, haven't you?
>The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions)
So anyone who asserts that he's not guilty of any crime, and goes to the
theatre, should be immediately arrested... they are, no doubt, guilty of the
murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson.
Your "common sense" is silly...
>tell a reasonable person
No, provably *wrong*.
>that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
>in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
>can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
Of course there is... a CT'er can simply list the *actual* evidence... rather
than lies and misrepresentations.
>The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
>like always.
Oh, there are CT'ers who believe in his guilt. I don't see the evidence for it,
is all...
>But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
Which, of course, *YOU CAN'T*... you continue to snip and duck anytime your
omissions and lies are pointed out.
>(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
>in evidence),
Again, *YOU CAN'T*!!
>the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
>pro-conspiracy arguments become.
How would you know? You can't even rebut them!
>David Von Pein
>January 2006
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
David VP
the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince
any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime."
A C.T. KOOK REPLIED WITH THIS FOOLISH STATEMENT: "Bugliosi clearly
hasn't seen the polls either."
---------------
Davey-boy now replies.........
What Vince said was that there is ample evidence to prove Oswald's sole
guilt to a "reasonable person" (which, of course, there is).
You don't qualify under these "reasonable" conditions, Ben. (Whether
you qualify under the "person" portion of VB's quote is also up for
debate as well. The jury's still out re. that determination.)
And Ben's last silly post only emphasizes (yet again) his inability to
evaluate evidence IN TOTAL. Such as the paper bag evidence. When
isolated, sure, it doesn't mean as much in the JFK murder case as it
does when evaluating what it obviously means when putting all the
pieces TOGETHER (e.g., a bag just like the one he carries into the
building turns up with Oswald's prints on it at just exactly the place
where a killer was shooting from at 12:30....just a mere coincidence I
suppose....Oswald was putting up some curtains there in the SN window I
guess and left the bag there by mistake).
Ben continues to prove my point, post after post --- He is pathetic.
And that status only continues to grow. Nice job.
Let's now view two more Vincent B. quotes, shall we? Ya can't have too
many of those as we all know.......
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just theories
and motives." -- VB
--------------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
VB
Anthony Marsh
Guinn was going along with the silly argument, but in fact Guinn would
not be able to tell the difference between a WCC bullet lead or SMI or
Norma.
Papa Andy
the Brennan "ID" -- what a farce
A
Robert Harris
Since you can't deal with these questions, why don't you pass them on to
Mr. Bugliosi and see if he can do any better, David:-)
1. Why did Clint Hill jump from the followup car, just before the
fatal head wound at 312, and why did he think JFK first reacted at the
same time he leaped?
2. Why did Charles Brehm claim that the President was only "15-20
feet" from him when the first of a series of shots was fired, and that
the limo only travelled "10-12 feet" as three shots were being fired?
3. Why did Bill Greer feel the "concusion" of the second shot as he
was turned to the rear, and then panic and slow the limousine?
4. Why did Kellerman claim to hear the first of "at least" two shots
in a "flurry", as he was turned to the rear?
5. Why did Mrs. Connally think the second shot was fired after she
looked back at JFK, and that she never looked to the rear again, after
hearing that shot?
6. Why did Mrs. Kennedy feel guilty that she allowed Gov. Connally's
shouting to draw her attention away from her husband, so that she
wasn't looking at him (JFK), when the first of two shots was fired?
7. Why did the Warren Commission conclude that "most witnesses" said
the final shots were bunched closely together?
8. Why was it that not even one law enforcement professional testifed
to hearing the first shots being closer together as required by the
Posner and WC theories?
9, Why did SA Hickey, SA Taylor, Hwy Patrolman Wright, and SA Bennett,
all describe hearing two shots *after* events which we can easily see
in the Altgens photo taken at Z255, had not yet happened, when that
photo was snapped?
10. Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that Abraham Zapruder was
startled by a loud noise at precisely, frame 285?
11. Why did every nonvictim in the Presidential limousine, react at
precisely the same instant that Zapruder did - as confirmed by Larry
Sturdevan, John mcadams, Chad Zimmerman, and by this part of the
Zapruder film:
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
In article <1146022520.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT THE EVIDENCE IS SCREAMING
> THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
> book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome
> was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
> into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
>
> The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
> members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
> circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
> which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
> Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
> killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
>
> A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
> I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
> indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical
> evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
> the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
> murderer of America's 35th President.
>
> And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
> case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
> opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
> respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
> totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
> (both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
> logic and reasoned thinking.
>
> Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
> (in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
> physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
> straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
> to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation
> leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
> sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.
>
> I was thinking recently about the following quote by
> author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
> comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
> variety).....
>
> "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
> Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
> the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent
> of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
> more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
> role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
>
> .....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
> above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
> of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
> guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
> conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
> the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
> reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
> personal "reasonable doubt")......
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
> to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
> Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
> Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
> both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
>
> 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
> employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
> of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
> contents of this package to a co-worker.*
>
> * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> "curtain rods" based on the following:
>
> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> after the assassination.
>
> B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
> at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
> PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
>
> A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
> were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
>
> Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
> but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
>
> Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
> circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
> beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
> a doubt.**
>
> ** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
> which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
> co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
> building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
> "right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
> VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
> Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
> important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
> Oswald's guilt.)
>
> Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
> positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
> The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
> fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
> multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
> verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
> gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing
> out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
> President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
> Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
> the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
>
> But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
> The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
> person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
> in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
> can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
>
> The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
> like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
> (and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
> in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
> pro-conspiracy arguments become.
>
Ben Holmes
As usual, Davey-boy the coward has snipped virtually everything.
Run, coward, run...
In article <1146064242.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>VINCE B.: "In fact, you could throw 80% of the evidence against him out
>the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince
>any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime."
>
>A C.T. KOOK REPLIED WITH THIS FOOLISH STATEMENT: "Bugliosi clearly
>hasn't seen the polls either."
True... isn't it? For Bugliosi has either provided a false statement, or he
believes that the vast majority of people are not reasonable.
>---------------
>
>Davey-boy now replies.........
>
>What Vince said was that there is ample evidence to prove Oswald's sole
>guilt to a "reasonable person" (which, of course, there is).
Again, he must not be familiar with the polls.
>You don't qualify under these "reasonable" conditions, Ben. (Whether
>you qualify under the "person" portion of VB's quote is also up for
>debate as well. The jury's still out re. that determination.)
Ad hominem isn't going to get the job done, coward...
>And Ben's last silly post only emphasizes (yet again) his inability to
>evaluate evidence IN TOTAL.
This is your explanation for your cowardice in not answering it???
How silly!!
>Such as the paper bag evidence. When
>isolated, sure, it doesn't mean as much in the JFK murder case as it
>does when evaluating what it obviously means when putting all the
>pieces TOGETHER (e.g., a bag just like the one he carries into the
>building turns up with Oswald's prints on it at just exactly the place
>where a killer was shooting from at 12:30....just a mere coincidence I
>suppose....Oswald was putting up some curtains there in the SN window I
>guess and left the bag there by mistake).
Meaningless drivel... coward, aren't you, Davey-boy? Why couldn't you respond
to my rebuttal of your post?
>Ben continues to prove my point, post after post --- He is pathetic.
>And that status only continues to grow. Nice job.
Davey-boy continues to snip and run... coward, aren't you?
>Let's now view two more Vincent B. quotes, shall we? Ya can't have too
>many of those as we all know.......
>
>"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
>theory.
Ah! So Bugliosi is *ALREADY* providing outright lies! He's not waited until
his book is published..
>And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
It hasn't been.
>More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
>Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
>piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}.
Again, a lie.
But, lawyers aren't famous for their honesty.
>Just theories and motives." -- VB
>
>--------------------
>
>"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
>charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
>invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
>VB
Gil Jesus
Mr. Von Pein: The fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his
prints located on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST.
Response:
Mr. Von Pein, either you don't know your ass from your elbow in regards
to this case, or you're just a pathological liar. I haven't figured out
which yet.
Oswald's fingerprints were not located on the rifle. Period. Partial
Prints WERE found on the trigger guard, but they could not be
identified as Oswald's, or anyone else's for that matter. Partial
prints are just that -- partial prints.
Your second point about Oswald's prints on MULTIPLE BOXES is even more
bizarre, for on November 27, 1963, the FBI recieved from Lt. Day of the
Dallas Police a piece of cardboard (exhibit # 647) cut out from A (not
multiple) box (exhibit # 648). The head of the FBI's Fingerprint
Division, Sebastion Latona, told the Warren Commission that on
cardboard, the print is gone after 24 hours. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p.39)
Latona called the palm print "fresh". (ibid, p.38)
Lee Harvey Oswald was buried Nov. 25, 1963, in East Fort Worth's Rose
Hill Cemetery, two days before the FBI received the box with the palm
print on it.
I would be interested to hear your expert explanation of how Oswald's
palm print was still on the cardboard some 24 hours or more after
(according to one of YOUR side's experts) it should have been gone.
David VP
Gil....you cannot be seriously challenging me by way of merely
semantics, can you? i.e., My saying "Fingerprints" vs. the
more-technically-accurate "Palmprint" (singular).
Do you think Oswald's palmprint was "placed" there by the FBI? But you
must know darn well that J.C. Day "lifted" that print off the rifle on
11/22, right? You just don't think that the print Day recovered was
Oswald's? Everybody's lying (as usual)? ......
J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the
wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting
them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint
palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the
barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring
out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the
chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be
released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the
underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this
area of the gun."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce637.jpg
Mr. BELIN -- "Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a
definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify
the print shown on Commission Commission Exhibit No. 637as being from
the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit
629?"
J.C. DAY -- "Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement
without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to
sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I
would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it is,
but I would have to do some more work on that."
Just seconds earlier, however, Day said this to Belin -- "Your No. 637
is the right palm of Oswald."
But his latter more-ambiguous statement overrides the earlier one, IMO.
But then we have Sebastian Latona's even more-definitive confirmation
as to whose palmprint was taken off the CE139 rifle........
Mr. LATONA -- "The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified
by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald."
>> "I would be interested to hear your expert explanation of how Oswald's palm print was still on the cardboard some 24 hours or more after (according to one of YOUR side's experts) it should have been gone."
Mr. LATONA -- "Undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the
time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could
not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have
developed with the clarity that it did.
Mr. EISENBERG -- "You identified that, I believe, as the right
palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?"
Mr. LATONA -- "That is right."
Given the above analysis by Latona....and given the fact that J.C. Day
dusted the box in question with "powder" and developed the palmprint ON
NOVEMBER 22ND....what more needs to be said?
1.) Lt. Day dusts box for prints on the afternoon of November 22...
2.) A palmprint emerges as a result of this dusting...
3.) Print area of carton is cut out and sent to FBI...
4.) Latona identifies said powdered print as that of LHO...
5.) Latona explains to WC that "between the time that the print was
left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a
time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity
that it did".
Issue closed, unless you've got substantial proof that Latona (and J.C.
Day) are rotten, lying crooks....or that Latona doesn't know an Oswald
palmprint from his own ass.
Also -- Oswald's prints WERE recovered from "multiple" boxes...the
Rolling Readers (rifle rest) box and the palmprint off of the other box
(on the floor). Why do you seem to think just the one LHO print was
discovered, when, in fact, a total of THREE distinct Oswald prints were
found on those 2 boxes....both of the boxes being deep inside the SN.
Was it just a co-inky that 3 of LHO's prints were found at the EXACT
place (the SN window) where a perfect Ozzie look-alike was seen
shooting a long gun at President Kennedy?
Amazing, those plotters were. Absolutely remarkable. They even managed
to get Oswald's prints on two boxes deep within their makeshift
Sniper's Nest. Just lucky to pick out two boxes that had Lee's prints
on 'em I suppose. Or was Oswald aiding in his own "Patsy" status on
November 22, 1963? Because if he was a Patsy, he sure was a handy and
cooperative one, I'll say that.
~heavy sigh~
Ben Holmes
says...
When you need to lie about the evidence to make a point, the point you just made
is that you're a liar.
There was, of course, no such "perfect Ozzie look-alike" seen shooting a "long
gun" at the President.
>Amazing, those plotters were. Absolutely remarkable. They even managed
>to get Oswald's prints on two boxes deep within their makeshift
>Sniper's Nest. Just lucky to pick out two boxes that had Lee's prints
>on 'em I suppose. Or was Oswald aiding in his own "Patsy" status on
>November 22, 1963? Because if he was a Patsy, he sure was a handy and
>cooperative one, I'll say that.
>
>~heavy sigh~
(Heavy laughter...)
David VP
Hey! Lookie folks! Ben-boy got one right for a change! There was,
indeed, no "look-alike" firing from the TSBD. And we all know WHY there
was no such "look-alike", don't we?
chris...@orange.net
LOL!
Chris.
Ben Holmes
says...
Hate to break it to you, but I get things right *all the time*. This is why you
need to snip everything, and are incapable of responding to my posts.
Walt
we?
Yes indeed we do!!..... and here's how we know that there was no Ozzie
look-alike firing a rifle at the president......
Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw fire the rifle out of the WIDE OPEN
west end window was:... about 35 years old ( Lee Oswald was just 24
years old) Brennan said the man weighed about 175 pounds ( Lee Oswald
weighed 135 pounds) Brennan saiod the man was dressed in a light tan
khaki shirt and trousers that were a shade lighter than his shirt. (Lee
Oswald was dressed in a dark reddish brown shirt and dark gray
trousers)
Walt
ducki...@gmail.com
tom...@cox.net
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Ben Holmes
ducki...@gmail.com says...
>Occam's razor. That is all.
the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
> In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
> duckiefl...@gmail.com says...
>
>
> >Occam's razor. That is all.
>
> So give us the credible explanation for the Warren Commission refusing to have
> the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
>
> Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
LYING and claiming that NOT ONE of the WC expert shooters hit the
targets in the head, even once, Holmes?
Afraid to debate the EVIDENCE in this case, Holmes, you hypocritical
MORON?
Sure looks like it.
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!
Gil Jesus
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally.
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the
morning
co-worker.
Let's take these one at a time.
The thing that connects the Depository rifle to the shooting is the
bullet that allegedly fell off a stretcher and was found by an
attendant at Parkland Hospital. The Commission said that CE 399 was
that bullet. But CE 2011 is an FBI interview of the persons who
handled the stretcher bullet and 4 of the 5 persons who handled the
stretcher bullet would not identify CE 399 as that bullet. Only the
last person to handle it, an FBI agent, identified it as the bullet he
received. The significance if it is this : no chain of custody can be
established for this so called evidence and as such, it would have
been thrown out at trial.
There were bullet fragments allegedly found in the limousine, but
because they were not photographed in situ, we cannot be positive
without doubt that the fragments in evidence are the same ones. In
fact, Secret Service Agent Kellerman, who sat in the front seat on the
passenger's side during the shooting, testified that he never saw any
fragments in the limousine.
The FBI claimed that fragments were found on the seat beside driver
William Greer and to the right of front seat passenger Kellerman:
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit 567 was found on the seat right beside
the driver, and Exhibit 569 was found on the floor beside the right
side of the front seat.
Mr. SPECTER. The right side of the front seat, Mr. Dulles, as the
prior testimony shows was occupied by Roy Kellerman and the driver was
William Greer.
( 5 H 67 )
But neither Greer nor Kellerman ever saw any fragments in the limo:
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car
at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
( 2 H 102 )
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullets or fragments of bullets at
rest in the car after the shooting terminated?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't, I left the car at the hospital and I
didn't see it any more until the next day.
( 2 H 122 )
So you have bullet fragments flying around and bouncing all over and
landing next to these guys and they never knew they were there ?
As for # 2, did the witness describe a package long enough to contain
a rifle ? Yes or No ?
You're convicting the guy with a bullet with no chain of custody,
fragments that no one saw and a bag not long enough to carry a rifle.
C'mon now.
Sam McClung
which means the part about oswald bringing anything into the gsbd on
11-22-63 may have been authored by wc attorney liebler or one of the other
warren commission personnel who were illegally altering testimony to fit in
with the oswaldidit lie
besides the potentially illegally altered warren commission testimony, is
there any verifiable evidence whatsoever that buell wesley frazier's
testimony is accurate?
Walt
all we can ask of him. He said that the bag was approximately 27
inches long, and that means it wasn't long enough to conceal the the
36 inch rifle.
timstter
Where do you think you are, the Education Forum?
It has NOTHING to do with Mark Lane lying about the WC experts and
whether they hit the targets in the head or not.
Nothing at all.
David Von Pein
>>> "The part [in B.F. Frazier's testimony] about oswald bringing anything into the [T]sbd on 11-22-63 may have been authored by wc attorney liebler [sic] or one of the other warren commission personnel." <<<
So I guess you want to totally ignore Frazier's signed 11/22/63
affidavit, eh? ....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png
And you want to ignore Frazier's 1986 TV appearance and his 2002
interview with Gary Mack:
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html
timstter
intervention?
It could well be a jolly good idea, friend.
Concerned Regards,
tom...@cox.net
ARE THE Waren Commision's lies a FELONY? ? ?
see>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
> > duckiefl...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > >Occam's razor. That is all.
> >
> > So give us the credible explanation for the Warren Commission refusing
> > the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
> >
> > Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> Why don't YOU give us a credible explanation for Mark Lane blatantly
> LYING and claiming that NOT ONE of the WC expert shooters hit the
> targets in the head, even once, Holmes?
>
> Afraid to debate the EVIDENCE in this case, Holmes, you hypocritical
> MORON?
>
> Sure looks like it.
>
> 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_0
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Saintly Oswald
Gil Jesus
>
> It has NOTHING to do with Mark Lane lying about the WC experts and
> whether they hit the targets in the head or not.
>
> Nothing at all.
>
> Informative Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Maybe you should do the same ?
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's the way these nutters work. They tell you PART of the story,
but they don't tell you the WHOLE story. For example, they'll tell
you that Frazier said that the paper sack found on the 6th floor was
the same TYPE of paper bag he saw, but they don't tell you that he
said that the bag he saw was at least 2 feet long, far too short to
hold the rifle even if it were disassembled.
Mr. BALL. What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right
as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a
package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain
from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package
just roughly about two feet long.
( 2 H 226 )
His sister claimed to have also seen the bag and she said it was 27
inches long.
Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
( 2 H 250 )
So you have two witnesses who claimed to have seen a bag whose length
made it IMPOSSIBLE for it to have contained the rifle. The bag would
have had to have been AT LEAST 34.8 inches long. ( 3 H 395 )
I believe that Oswald brought a bag to work that morning, I believe
that the witnesses saw it, I believe that the witnesses are correct in
their description of the length and I believe that the bag contained
his lunch.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with
him when he left the house on November 22nd?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small
package.
( 1 H 73 )
Frazier claimed that Oswald DIDN'T bring a lunch that one day,
November 22nd. But every other day, when Oswald rode back to Dallas
with him, Frazier said Oswald brought a lunch.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with
you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL. He did?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought
lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch
that day.
Mr. BALL. But every other day he brought a lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER. Right, when he rode with me.
( 2 H 220 )
Now look at Frazier's description of the bag Oswald brought his lunch
in:
Mr. BALL. Would he bring it in a paper sack or what kind of a
container?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; like a little paper sack you get out of a
grocery store, you have seen these little old sacks that you could
buy, sandwich bag, sack.
(ibid,)
....and compare it to his description of the bag he saw:
"....it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or
less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks
you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it
was a package just roughly about two feet long."
( 2 H 226 )
Frazier's description of the bag he saw matches the description of the
bag Oswald brought his lunch in. It matches the description of the bag
Marina said he left with, which contained his lunch.
Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and
it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he
didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his
lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out
of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with
this long package. I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the
building carrying a long package?" He said, "No. I didn't carry
anything but my lunch."
( 4 H 218-219 )
Mr. BALL. He had told Frazier that he had curtain rods in the package?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he denied having curtain rods or any package
other than his lunch.
( 4 H 223 )
Postal Insoector Harry Holmes described Fritz' line of questoning
Oswald on the morning f the 24th:
Mr. HOLMES. Asked him if he brought a sack out when he got in the car
with this young fellow that hauled him and he said, "Yes."
"What was in the sack?"
"Well, my lunch."
"What size sack did you have?"
He said, "Oh, I don't know what size sack. You don't always get a sack
that fits your sandwiches. It might be a big sack."
"Was it a long sack?''
"Well, it could have been"
"What did you do with it?"
"Carried it in my lap."
"You didn't put it over in the back seat?"
"No." He said he wouldn't have done that.
"Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you said you had a long
package which you said was curtain rods you were taking to somebody at
work and you laid it over on the back seat."
He said, "Well, they was just mistaken. That must have been some other
time he picked me up."
That is all he said about it.
( 7 H 305 )
Oswald brought his lunch with him to work that morning. Not a rifle.
Walt
toward Buell Frazier (or whoever that "someone" was ) in his
explanation for what Fritz claimed that "someone" told him that
Frazier had said. ......
Captain Fritz......."Well, someone said the fellow that hauled you
taking to somebody at work and you laid it over on the back seat."
lie. It's a common tactic of liars..... They'll claim that
"SOMEONE" said such and such when in reality they are simply making up
the story.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>In 2006, David Von pein wrote:
>
>1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
>to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
>Connally.
>2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
>employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the
>morning of 11/22/63,
>and Oswald lied about the contents of this package to a
>co-worker.
Sorry, you don't have a *clue* what Oswald said or didn't say. No recording,
remember?
tests, were hidden away and not revealed by the Warren Commission. Perhaps there
was some sort of "National Security" issue... right?
>As for # 2, did the witness describe a package long enough to contain
>a rifle ? Yes or No ?
>
>You're convicting the guy with a bullet with no chain of custody,
>fragments that no one saw and a bag not long enough to carry a rifle.
>
>C'mon now.
JFK - why so many lies about the evidence??? DVP doesn't like to admit that
Bugliosi lied, but the fact is, *EVERYONE* defending the Warren Commission
eventually begins to lie about the evidence.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
>In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
>ducki...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>Occam's razor. That is all.
>
>
>So give us the credible explanation for the Warren Commission refusing to have
>the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
>
>Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
razor to the fact that the Warren Commission refused to take the testimony of
the closest police eyewitness to the murder.
Such cowardice!!!
"Doc" runs...
DVP runs...
"Bud" runs...
Timmy runs...
etc...
Sam McClung
and sign the testimony regarding 11-22-63 as accurately capturing what he
testfied to?
note testimony produced by the warren commision for buell yet not signed by
buell
nor
buell being on tv and not under oath and saying whatever while not under
oath
does not count
seems the answer will be a resounding "NO"
Saintly Oswald
Walt
> In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> >Occam's razor. That is all.
>
> So give us the credible explanation for the Warren Commission refusing to have
> the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
>
> Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
to a problem is probably the right solution.
Didn't he believe that it was unnecessary to apply advanced mathmetics
to prove that 2 +2=4.
So applying ol Wild Bill's razor to pare this down ....... Howard
Brennan DESCRIBED the man he saw.... and that man was NOT Lee
Oswald. Why did LBJ's "Select Blue ribbon Committee" apply all
sorts of complicated inequations in an attempt to prove Lee Oswald
guilty, when they had Howard Brennan's written description right in
front of them????
Jason Burke
> Are Mark Lane's lies a FELONY? ? ?
>
>
> ARE THE Waren Commision's lies a FELONY? ? ?
>
> see>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
timstter
did he, Gil?
That's over two feet long!
What was he having for lunch, a French stick?
Can't you see how STUPID your argument sounds?
Concerned Regards,
Walt
in a large sack???
That's over two feet long!
approximately 27 inches long. Excellent!....So by extension you're
finally admitting that the 36 inch long rifle could not have been in
Lee Oswald's lunch sack. Is that right Timmy?
>
> What was he having for lunch, a French stick?
>
> Can't you see how STUPID your argument sounds?
>
> Concerned 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.
>
timstter
garden slug has hit absolute ROCK BOTTOM with this PATHETIC post.
Oswald was bringing in a two foot plus sub for lunch, was he, Salty
Walty?
LMFAO 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...
Walt
the same basic question...... Why did you have your lunch in a large
bag? Lee answered that he just grabbed whatever was at hand to put
his sandwich in. He said he didn't pay much attention..... He
said..... "Ya know, ya can't always find a bag that is just the right
size for your sandwich".
Lee's answer seems totally resonable to me........Perhaps you detect
something sinister in the FACT that Lee Oswald carried a 27 inch long
paper bag that morning. But the FACT remains he could NOT have
carried a 36 inch long rifle in that 27 inch bag.
> LMFAO 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.
>
Saintly Oswald
size for your sandwich."
tom...@cox.net
> On 12/13/2012 6:07 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > Are Mark Lane's lies a FELONY? ? ?
> >
> >
> > ARE THE Waren Commision's lies a FELONY? ? ?
> >
> > see>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
> >
>
> Is libel a felony?
Whnen followed by official Citation ihere is "NO"LIBEL" ! ! !
tom...@cox.net
Lanny
>
>
>
> the same basic question...... Why did you have your lunch in a large
>
> bag? Lee answered that he just grabbed whatever was at hand to put
>
> his sandwich in. He said he didn't pay much attention..... He
>
> said..... "Ya know, ya can't always find a bag that is just the right
>
> size for your sandwich".
>
>
>
> Lee's answer seems totally resonable to me........Perhaps you detect
>
> something sinister in the FACT that Lee Oswald carried a 27 inch long
>
> paper bag that morning. But the FACT remains he could NOT have
>
> carried a 36 inch long rifle in that 27 inch bag.
>
Yeah. (cough) Sure.
Ben Holmes
says...
Why would you presume that the bag found is the same as the bag that Oswald was
seen with?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
interrogators) Lee Oswald and Buell Wesley Frazier both referred the
large paper sack that Lee carried that morming as.... " just a regular
old grocery sack"..... Neither of them gave any hint that the sack in
question was anything but a large brown paper grocery sack. But you
know that the sack in question is NOT a common grocery sack...... it
was a taped up wrapper more suitable for wrapping books.
Walt
a taped up brown paper wrapper. They all thought that the bag in
question was simply a large gocery sack.
lak...@insightbb.com
Where did he get the sack? Who puts something like that together and for what purpose?
Anyone using a plain over-sized grocery sack would likely roll most of the top down and just carry it in one hand. As it is, we have Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried (his lunch?) in a long sack snuggled in his arm pit and extending straight down his side.
The sinister implication is why he would be carrying a sack in that manner if it had ample excess volume not taken up by his lunch items. Suspicions would only increase if it could be shown that the lunch sack had been apparently constructed in order to hold a long, flat object.
timstter
> In article <kabi1f02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
> >In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
> >duckiefl...@gmail.com says...
> >>Occam's razor. That is all.
>
> >So give us the credible explanation for the Warren Commission refusing to have
> >the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
>
> >Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
>
> I see that no kook has even tried to take up the challenge and apply Occam's
> razor to the fact that the Warren Commission refused to take the testimony of
> the closest police eyewitness to the murder.
>
> Such cowardice!!!
>
> "Doc" runs...
> DVP runs...
> "Bud" runs...
> Timmy runs...
> etc...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
You've already trotted out you lame Officer Chaney theory and it was
debunked ages ago.
Chaney was riding BEHIND the President and he himself confirmed that.
You are nothing but a serial liar and distorter like Lane, Yellow
Pants.
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...
Walt
debunked. A fact is a F-A-C-T! It's not at all hard to prove that
James Chaney was riding ALONGSIDE JFK at the time the first shot
struck JFK. You're desperate to convince others that Chaney wasn't
there at that instant because the "experts" claim that Altgen #5
corrosponds to frame #155 of the Z film. But Chaney's not there in
the Z film..... Why is that??? Could it be that the extant Z film
is a fake? An intelligent person would put the FACTS together and
draw that conclusion.
>
> You are nothing but a serial liar and distorter like Lane, Yellow
> Pants.
>
> 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.
>
Sam McClung
news:51e0890a-8fe5-4328...@googlegroups.com...
> if it had ample excess volume not taken up by his lunch items.
"oswald and the paper bag"
"this is a story about a man who lost his head, so mail order sales of cheap
import rifles competing with connecticut-made colt and smith & wesson
firearms will have to be curtailed, and a new market for colt and s&w
firearms will have to be created in vietnam, and all the patriotic young men
will have to be rounded up like mongrels and fed into the kill zone wearing
green suits and mickey mouse boots, all this for the fuhrer's new world
order! sig heil!"
what they don't tell you is the man who lost his head was cord meyer, who
knew tracy barnes, who knew allen dulles, who knew...on up and down the
line...thugs stood waiting to fuel the cause...the cause being the
preservation of the last plantation...sometimes known as "yale"
let's all sing the whiffenpuff song!
Sam McClung
> "this is a story about a man who lost his head, so mail order sales of
> cheap import rifles competing with connecticut-made colt and smith &
> wesson firearms
and thomas "call me hidell" dodd! and wha't dat former head of the senate's
name? git him in on it too! make him prezdent! this looks like a job for....
DA BOYZ IN DA YALE TOMBS!
(aka cia, aka barnes/bushes/et al.)
Sam McClung
>> fed into the kill zone wearing green suits and mickey mouse boots, all
>> this for the fuhrer's new world order! sig heil!"
the new world order is an equal opportunity killer now, rounding up all the
patriotic young men and women to send to the kill zone in green suits and
mickey mouse boots
going on to the east of you somewhere...
the fuhrer would be so happy if he were still here!
but we can be assured the world will never see another like him?
(har har)
Ben Holmes
lak...@insightbb.com says...
>On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:07:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <cb8e7e75-c0e1-4757...@googlegroups.com>, Lanny
>> says...
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >What is clearly UNREASONABLE to believe is that if the so-called "gunsac=
>k"
>>=20
>> >found in the TSBD contained Oswald's lunch, it means that when faced wit=
>h
>>=20
>> >being unable to find a bag that was "just the right size" for his sandwi=
>ch,
>>=20
>> >he (or persons unknown) constructed a bag out of tape and scissors that =
>was
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >Yeah. (cough) Sure.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Rather large presumption there...
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Why would you presume that the bag found is the same as the bag that Oswa=
>ld was
>>=20
>> seen with?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>>=20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>> Ben Holmes
>>=20
>I said "if." If later questioning could have elicited Oswald's admission th=
>at the paper "sack" found on the sixth floor was the larger than "right siz=
>e" sack containing his lunch, either he or someone would have to account fo=
found.
There's really an *excellent* explanation of that paper sack... you might figure
it out if you take a close look at it.
>Where did he get the sack? Who puts something like that together and for w=
>hat purpose?
That's an easy one. What did the sack *LOOK* like? How was it folded? Where was
it allegedly discovered?
>Anyone using a plain over-sized grocery sack would likely roll most of the =
>top down and just carry it in one hand. As it is, we have Frazier's testimo=
>ny that Oswald carried (his lunch?) in a long sack snuggled in his arm pit =
>
>if it had ample excess volume not taken up by his lunch items. Suspicions =
>would only increase if it could be shown that the lunch sack had been appar=
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Dec 18, 3:57=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <kabi1f02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > >duckiefl...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > >>Occam's razor. That is all.
>>
>> > >the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
>>
>> > >Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
>>
>cam's
>> > razor to the fact that the Warren Commission refused to take the testim=
>> > the closest police eyewitness to the murder.
>>
>> > Such cowardice!!!
>>
>> > "Doc" runs...
>> > DVP runs...
>> > "Bud" runs...
>> > Timmy runs...
>> > etc...
>>
>>
>> You've already trotted out you lame Officer Chaney theory and it was
>> debunked ages ago.
>>
>> Chaney was riding BEHIND the President and he himself confirmed that.
>
>You're liar, and a stupid bastard!........ A FACT can't be
>debunked. A fact is a F-A-C-T! It's not at all hard to prove that
>James Chaney was riding ALONGSIDE JFK at the time the first shot
>struck JFK. You're desperate to convince others that Chaney wasn't
>there at that instant because the "experts" claim that Altgen #5
>corrosponds to frame #155 of the Z film. But Chaney's not there in
>the Z film..... Why is that??? Could it be that the extant Z film
>is a fake? An intelligent person would put the FACTS together and
>draw that conclusion.
a credible explanation for why the closest police eyewitness to the murder
wasn't questioned.
They simply want to nitpick *where* he was, and not answer the question.
One that simply doesn't *HAVE* a good answer that's non-conspiratorial.
>> You are nothing but a serial liar and distorter like Lane, Yellow
>> Pants.
Walt
> In article <3b90793e-aaa3-4237-8ec7-844392669...@uc4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
spew BS is because they're damned elitists who think they are so
superior. A good example is B O Reilly..... There is no way in hell
anybody could ever convince BO that he's been duped. He believes Lee
Oswald murdered JFK and he'll cite the lies of LBJ's "Select Blue
Ribbon committee"
in supporting his belief. When you back one of the elitist cowards
into a corner (like the stark proof that Chaney was alomgside JFK at
the time he was first hit by a bullet ) they'll just kick and wail and
lie......but they wil NEVER admit what their own eyes can see.
tom...@cox.net
> On Dec 18, 3:57=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <kabi1f02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
> >
> > > >In article <29d8039c-dd36-4727...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >duckiefl...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > >>Occam's razor. That is all.
> >
> > > >So give us the credible explanation for the Warren Commission
> > > >the closest police eyewitness to the murder testify.
> >
> > > >Occam's razor does indeed have something to say about it.
> >
> > > I see that no kook has even tried to take up the challenge and apply
> > > razor to the fact that the Warren Commission refused to take the
> > > the closest police eyewitness to the murder.
> >
> > > Such cowardice!!!
> >
> > > "Doc" runs...
> > > DVP runs...
> > > "Bud" runs...
> > > Timmy runs...
> > > etc...
> >
> > > --
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
BY SEPERATE BULLETS.
THAT'S WHY CHANEY WAS NEVER CSLLD TO TESTIFY.
Jason Burke
tom...@cox.net
MAYBE BAKER'S LIES WERE ABOUT HIS LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER WITH OSWAKD.
Jason Burke
tom...@cox.net
Jason Burke
> WHAT BAKER LIED ABOUT WAS OSWALD NOT HAVING A COKE IN HIS HAND.
>
aeffects
...
ya lost the debate with old Tom, dipso. Deal with it. If you want
recognition around here son, you need to shed all the aliases you
wear. Ashamed you're Paul May (aka Jason Burke, Mark Ulrik)?
What-a-clown. You;re not hoping for a nomination as the new president
of the Ben Holmes fan club, are ya toots?
Tom Keske
another for-hire troll, hired as part of some kind
of "Conintelpro" type of project. If you don't mind, would
you please send me privately any information that you
have on this individual, and how you identified him?
He has claimed to be an MIT grad, of which I am
doubtful and trying to investigate.
There is a another vicious troll by the moniker of
"Colonel Edmund J. Burke" who am convinced is being
hired for the sole purpose of destroying newsgroups
and playing agent provocateur with dissident voices
who speak taboo truths. I have found out who this
individual really is, and there is something is very wrong
with the picture. A successful professional, good education,
family man who by rights would never engage in such
activities without being either a total psychopath,
or hired by what he thinks is a "protective" agency,
such as military or intelligence world.
This "for-hire" troll phenomenon really needs to be
investigated with dealt with in some manner.
Tom Keske
"aeffects" wrote in message
news:b2caed66-a95d-401b...@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
Jason Burke
No wonder a moron like you can't figure our one of the most simple
murder cases in history.
Jason Burke
> Hmm... I have suspected that "Jason Burke" is
> another for-hire troll, hired as part of some kind
> of "Conintelpro" type of project. If you don't mind, would
> you please send me privately any information that you
> have on this individual, and how you identified him?
>
> He has claimed to be an MIT grad, of which I am
> doubtful and trying to investigate.
>
alumni records if someone handed them to you.
> There is a another vicious troll by the moniker of
> "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" who am convinced is being
> hired for the sole purpose of destroying newsgroups
> and playing agent provocateur with dissident voices
> who speak taboo truths. I have found out who this
> individual really is, and there is something is very wrong
> with the picture. A successful professional, good education,
> family man who by rights would never engage in such
> activities without being either a total psychopath,
> or hired by what he thinks is a "protective" agency,
> such as military or intelligence world.
>
> This "for-hire" troll phenomenon really needs to be
> investigated with dealt with in some manner.
>
> Tom Keske
>
Never mind, you've answered that already.
Tom Keske
"
< Gosh, you;re ruight retard! The CIA pays me to post.
paths with the CIA and am aware of what they really do
as opposed to what they theoretically do.
< Good luck with that fucktard. I don't think you could even FIND the
< alumni records if someone handed them to you.
fact, one of the indirect ties is the good-twin brother of an evil twin
who had been connected to the intelligence community and
allegedly involved with CIA cocaine trafficking along with
being a general, all-around right-wing asshole as evidenced by his being
a choice of the Bush administration.
Small world. The six degrees of separation would blow your mind.
I will be breathing down your neck.
Jason Burke
>
>
> "
> < Gosh, you;re ruight retard! The CIA pays me to post.
>
> Many a truth told in jest. I have had a lot of criss-crossing
> paths with the CIA and am aware of what they really do
> as opposed to what they theoretically do.
>
> < Good luck with that fucktard. I don't think you could even FIND the <
> alumni records if someone handed them to you.
>
> I do have some contacts at MIT, thank you. As a matter of
> fact, one of the indirect ties is the good-twin brother of an evil twin
> who had been connected to the intelligence community and
> allegedly involved with CIA cocaine trafficking along with
> being a general, all-around right-wing asshole as evidenced by his being
> a choice of the Bush administration.
> Small world. The six degrees of separation would blow your mind.
> I will be breathing down your neck.
>
>
timstter
together and called a press conference?
Go on! Why don't YOU, Walt Cakebread, demonstrate to the world's press
that the Zapruder film is a FAKE because it doesn't match the famous
Altgens photo?
I'll tell you why you DON'T.
Because you're not an INTELLIGENT person, you are entirely STUPID!
You couldn't even cobble together your nine line, AD HOMINEM spouting
reply without making spelling errors!
Your completely STUPID theory about Officer Chaney was shot down on
over a DOZEN grounds here last time you trotted it out.
Your *scoop* for the world press would be up in flames in under five
minutes.
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...
Walt
vision and common sense can clearly see that motorcycle officer James
Chaney IS in fact alongside JFK's Lincoln and looking over his left
shoulder at JFK who is reacting to being shot in the throat. You are
desperate to discredit that photo (Altgen's #5) so it's up to you to
show us how intelligent you are.
Saintly Oswald
In the Altgens photo it looks to me as if Chaney is looking directly to his left, or maybe even slightly behind, when he is looking at the president. This would put him right beside the car where he does not seem to be in the Zapruder film. Camera angles can be deceptive, though, and none of the other photos I see puts him up beside the limo, either.
Walt
> Hmm... I have suspected that "Jason Burke" is
> another for-hire troll, hired as part of some kind
> of "Conintelpro" type of project. If you don't mind, would
> you please send me privately any information that you
> have on this individual, and how you identified him?
>
> He has claimed to be an MIT grad, of which I am
> doubtful and trying to investigate.
>
> There is a another vicious troll by the moniker of
> "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" who am convinced is being
> hired for the sole purpose of destroying newsgroups
> and playing agent provocateur with dissident voices
> who speak taboo truths. I have found out who this
> individual really is, and there is something is very wrong
> with the picture. A successful professional, good education,
> family man who by rights would never engage in such
> activities without being either a total psychopath,
> or hired by what he thinks is a "protective" agency,
> such as military or intelligence world.
>
> This "for-hire" troll phenomenon really needs to be
> investigated with dealt with in some manner.
>
> Tom Keske
for years. The trolls think they are being patriotic and doing good
work for the government. If any of them would HONESTLY evaluate what
they've been hired to do, it might give them pause.....
Jason Burke
job you wouldn't be all paranoid about how other folks actually work for
a living.
Still waiting for my first check from the CIA!
aeffects
moron Paul May (aka Jason Burke aka Mark Ulrik) supports the WCR
conclusions... Figures.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
Jason Burke
Since you're too fucking stupid to figure out that I'm neither Paul May
nor Mark Ulrik, I'm not surprised that you can't figure out one of the
simplest murder cases in history.
timstter
on over a dozen grounds the LAST time you trotted it out, Walt?
You simply NEVER learn.
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...
Walt
"shot down" by lies.
>
> You simply NEVER learn.
>
> 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.
>
timstter
The FACT is you are simply TOO STUPID, not to mention UNEDUCATED, to
make a horse race of *Office Chaney in Altgens proves Z film altered*
OK?
I mean, you can't even SPELL for starters, LOL!
LMFAO 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...
Walt
demonstrating your superior intellect.
I didn't know this was a "horse race'..... I've seen you run away
many times and all I've seen is a horse's ass.
>
> I mean, you can't even SPELL for starters, LOL!
>
> LMFAO 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.
>
aeffects
spent the last 35 years defending WCR conclusions that have been torn
to shreds over that period of time here and elsewhere, in fact
EVERYWHERE... you rolling douche-bag-- So, do get out there and do
something worthwhile, wallpaper a limo say, do something constructive
with your life...
pretending you're NOT Paul May is utter foolishness not to mention
cowardice--then again we've come to expect that of .john mcadams lone
nut fools... carry on toots-e-roll.
Oh yeah for the lurkers: Paul May aka Jason Burke, Mark Ulrik...
bumbling fool, too! ROTFLMFAO
Jason Burke
>
> pretending you're NOT Paul May is utter foolishness not to mention
No surprise there.
> cowardice--then again we've come to expect that of .john mcadams lone
> nut fools... carry on toots-e-roll.
>
> Oh yeah for the lurkers: Paul May aka Jason Burke, Mark Ulrik...
> bumbling fool, too! ROTFLMFAO
>
I've been laughing at your imbecile thoughts for 35 years. I don't gotta
defend the WR. It's basically what happened. Bummer for you, eh?
Even though you morons keep coming up with more and more outlandish
fantasies.
Watch out for splinters, dipshit.
snagssh...@gmail.com
Jason Burke
> Why did JFK's head thrust back, in the opposite direction of Oswalds bullet travelling forward?
>
Vincent T Bugliosi
aeffects
> On Sunday, December 15, 2013 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Jason Burke wrote:
>
>
> > Are you HONESTLY this fucking stupid?
>
>
>
> Aeffects has an IQ that is slightly below room temperature.
aeffects
...
>
> I mean, you can't even SPELL for starters, LOL!
>
>
Keep coming back, Chubbs!
tom...@cox.net
=== ALL OF THOSE FAT ASSHOLES HAVE A LOTTA PRESSURE ON THEIR TITS CAUSING
MUCH DIDCOMFORT ! ! !
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Jason Burke
Do you ENJOY pissing into the wind, shithead?
50+ years and you still have nothing.
Know why? 'Cause there IS nothing.
How's that ass doing? Might want to take some of the splinters out. They
seem to be affects-ing your "brain".
Walt
> CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT THE EVIDENCE IS SCREAMING
> THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
This one thing proves that you're FOS!....
The one thing that proves that you're a liar, is "Tom Dillard's photo" as seen on page 66 of the Warren Report. That photo was taken DURING the shooting and there is NOBODY firing a rifle from the imaginary "Sniper's nest window"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
> book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome
> was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
> into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
>
> The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
> members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
> circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
> which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
> Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
> killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
>
> A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
> I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
> indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical
> evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
> the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
> murderer of America's 35th President.
>
> And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
> case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
> opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
> respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
> totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
> (both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
> logic and reasoned thinking.
>
> Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
> (in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
> physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
> straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
> to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation
> leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
> sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.
>
> I was thinking recently about the following quote by
> author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
> comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
> variety).....
>
> "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
> Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
> the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent
> of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
> more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
> role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
>
> .....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
> above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
> of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
> guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
> conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
> the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
> reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
> personal "reasonable doubt")......
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
> to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
> Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
> Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
> both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
>
> 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
> employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
> of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
> contents of this package to a co-worker.*
>
> * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> "curtain rods" based on the following:
>
> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> after the assassination.
>
> B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
> at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
> PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
>
> A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
> were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
>
> Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
> but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
>
> Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
> circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
> beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
> a doubt.**
>
> ** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
> which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
> co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
> building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
> "right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
> VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
> Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
> important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
> Oswald's guilt.)
>
> Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
> positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
> The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
> fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
> multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
> verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
> gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing
> out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
> President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
> Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
> the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
>
> But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
> The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
> person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
> in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
> can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
>
> The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
> like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
> (and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
> in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
> pro-conspiracy arguments become.
>
> David Von Pein
> January 2006
cclark112263
lho was framed....
int'l bankers, etc. master-minded the whole thing.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:34:20 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT THE EVIDENCE IS SCREAMING
> THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
>
Baron Wrangle
BW
billy...@gmail.com
Ben Holmes
billy...@gmail.com says...
>
>Well said, Mr. Von Pein.
tom...@cox.net
==== ME VON PAIN (IN THE ASS) NEVER HAD THE GUTS TO DEBATE A SINGLE PIECE
OF OFFICIAL EVIDENCE OR, TESTIMONY
TELL ME BILLYBOB; DO YOU HAVE THE WARREN COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES ? OR, THE
HSCA VOLUMES ? OR, THE CHURCH COMMITTEE VOLUMES ? OR, THE ROCKEFELLER
VOLUMES ? ? ?
DO YOU HAVE THA WHOLE WEEK'S NEWSPAPERS FROM DALLAS WITH THE ORIGINAL
REPORTS / ? ? ?
===========================================================================
==
Jason Burke
And you probably got lost at about five when you tried to read Ten
Apples up on Top.
tom...@cox.net
==== YOUR FAMILY MUST BE VARY DISCUSTED WITH YOY WHEN SOMEONE AS DUMB AS
"I" CAN BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU WITH OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY ! ! !
===========================================================================
======
Jason Burke
Nice job, Rossfuck. No spelling errors! Did nurse-mommy help you?
Oh:
Yawn. I don't run from the chronically stupid. I just choose not to
waste my time with them, well except for their humor qualities. Like
what, you ask? Well, you, Rossturd.
Now go piss and shit on yourself again. Have nurse-mommy help you clean
it up. And don't eat any this time.
Oh, yeah:
School question, Shitley?
Freeway question, Shitley?
Mailman question, Shitley?
Sausage stuffing question, Shitley?
I see lots of nice Megan's law folks in your lovely little
highway-adjacent palace. You friends with any of them? Probably most of
them, huh?
Oh, and you never answered the question about Ellen / the POS Lincoln /
the fleet arriving in town.
tom...@cox.net
===== EASY TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY IN
THE 26 VOLUMES ! !
FBI AGENT ROBERT TESTIFIED THAT THAT RIFLE WAS "NOT" FIRED THAT DAY
SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/more__testimony_of_robert_a.htm
FBI AGENT TESTIFIED THAT THE SCOPE WAS TOTALLY WORTHLESS ! ! !
SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/simmons_volume_iii.htm
===========================================================================
=====> >>> .....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of
==== THEN, DEBATING ME ON OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY SHOPIECE OF CAKE FOR
YOU. UNLES YOU'RE TOO STUPID OR, CHICKENSHIT ! ! !
===========================================================================
tom...@cox.net
= BOTH BUELL FRAZIER AND HIS SISTER SAID THE PACKAGE WAS 27 1/2 INCHES LONG
! !
===========================================================================
======
> >>>>> "curtain rods" based on the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book
> >>>>> Depository after the assassination.
===== WRONG AGAIN ! ! SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/curtauin_rods.htm
===========================================================================
==
> >>>>> roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home
> >>>>> just prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
===== YOU HAVE "NO" PRTOOF OF THAT CLAIM ! ! !
===========================================================================
====
> >>>>> rods" were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
===========================================================================
=====
> >>>>> Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in
> >>>>> evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
> >>>>> circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven
> >>>>> not beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any
> >>>>> SPECK of a doubt.**
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S
> >>>>> NEST;
===== NO PAPER BAG IN EVIDENCE EXCEPT THE ONE THAT THE DPD MADE ! !
THERE ARE PROBABLY NONE OF YOUR PRINTS WHERE YOU WORK !
===========================================================================
===== which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag
> >>>>> Depository building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a
> >>>>> nicely-incriminating "right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered
> >>>>> by the police in the VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY
> >>>>> with the precise way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his
> >>>>> right hand! That's a very important point, IMO, and is
> >>>>> undeniably-strong physical evidence of Oswald's guilt.)
===== SHIPPING CLERK DOUGHERTY SAID OSWALD HAD "NOTHING" IN HIS HANDS WHEN
HE ENTERED THE BACK DOOR ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====
> >>>>> Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
> >>>>> positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window.
==== BRENNAN NEEDED "IMMUNITY" FROM THE HSCA ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====
===========================================================================
=====
==== YOU'LL NEVER HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR, THE GUTS TO DEBATE THE OFFICIAL
EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY WITH ME YOU CHICKENSHIT DUMMY ! ! !
===========================================================================
======