Oswald's Coke

[Ken Davies]

Magic bullets and rifles don't need to be wiped down, Robert. Also, we are supposed to believe everything Oswald "allegedly" said that "supports" the loner theory, but ignore everything that he "allegedly" said that goes against it. Why should we believe the first allegation of Oswald saying that he dealt with Baker/Truly, but disbelieve the allegation that Oswald said that he did not own a rifle?

Why should we accept the truth of the contents of the alleged first statement, but not accept the truth of the contents of the second? On what basis are these decisions to be made?

[David Von Pein]

No Dave, just because you can run from the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest to the Second Floor Lunchroom in a minute and a half doesn't mean Oswald did it, it only means he could have done it.

It's nice of you to at least admit that part of it, Bill. Because most CTers refuse to even acknowledge that Oswald COULD have done it (time-wise). They seem to like to embrace the idea that NOBODY (no matter how swift their feet) could have gone from the sixth floor to the second floor in 90 seconds or less--despite Page 152 of the Warren Report staring them in the face every day. Richard Belzer, in his 2012 book "Dead Wrong", is a perfect example: Amazon.com / DVP Review.

Do you really think that after killing the president, the murderer would stop for a coke? Escape in the Getaway Bus? Give up his Getaway Cab to an old lady?

Most definitely. Oswald did all of those things. So, yes.

And how would you expect Oswald to escape from the murder scene anyway? Was he supposed to put on his Superman cape and soar out of the Sniper's Nest window? He didn't have a car and he couldn't drive (very well). And I doubt he'd want to ask Wesley Frazier for a ride home at 12:33 PM after having just shot at the President. So, what's left?

I don't know if Lee Harvey Oswald shot at Walker or killed Tippit, but I know he wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper.

Then you're skeptical about a lot of proven facts, Bill. Because Oswald shot at Walker and killed Tippit beyond all reasonable doubt. And he was the sixth-floor assassin too. So you're 0-for-3 today.

And I don't know who the Sixth Floor Sniper was but I suspect he too was an employee of the TSBD or a cop and knew that there was no hurry to leave the scene, as he wouldn't be considered a suspect since Ozzie the Rabbit had been set loose and everyone would follow him.

Yeah, why follow the evidence trail (which ALL leads to Oswald, of course) when you can just as easily pretend a Dallas cop or another non-Oswald Depository worker murdered President Kennedy?

What was the point of even collecting ANY evidence in this case, Bill? Guys like you will just ignore every last speck of it anyway.

You conspiracy theorists are unbelievable (as always).

(And another "unbelievable" thing is that William Kelly gets mad when he's called a "conspiracy theorist". But just take a look at the last quote from Bill I just cited above. If that's not a "conspiracy theory", then please tell me what would qualify as one?)

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Just as I thought, Dave, YOU GOT NOTHIN'!

I've got a whole lot more than you, that's for sure.

I've got every bullet, every shell, every gun, all of Oswald's prints, the paper bag, all of Oswald's known lies, and all of the Tippit witnesses (who all said it was Oswald, save Clemons).

What hard evidence do you have to support conspiracy? (Your imagination and a stack of pro-conspiracy books don't count as "hard evidence", btw.)

[William Kelly]

"What was the point of even collecting ANY evidence in the case, Bill? Gus like you will just ignore every last speck of it anyway. Unbelievable (as always)

What is it with you guys - DVP, DR, John McAdams - you can't discuss the evidence at all without calling other people names - CTs, Buffs, "guys like you."

Well guys like me will try to keep an open mind, evaluate the evidence and make up our own minds, thank you.

And I'd like to evaluate the Oswald's Coke bottle, the one that he was on the way to getting when Baker and Truly interrupted him, the one MRs. Reid saw him - cool and calm, slowly walking past her desk in the Second Floor office, the one that apparently subsequently disappeared.

BK

Edited September 27, 2013 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

Well guys like me will try to keep an open mind, evaluate the evidence and make up our own minds, thank you.

LOL. Yeah, you've made up your mind to IGNORE the huge pile of "LHO Was Here" evidence that's scattered all over the sixth floor. That's what you've done. Why do you do that, William? You don't REALLY believe ALL of that evidence (rifle, 3 shells, paper bag, prints) was planted or faked, do you? If not, then it's pretty clear who the killer probably is, right?

And I'd like to evaluate Oswald's Coke bottle, the one that he was on the way to getting when Baker and Truly interrupted him, the one Mrs. Reid saw him - cool and calm, slowly walking past her desk in the Second Floor office, the one that apparently subsequently disappeared.

Why in the world are you harping on Oswald's Coke bottle, Bill? Oswald probably took that bottle of Coke with him out the door of the Depository when he left at approximately 12:33 PM. And he very likely disposed of it somewhere along Elm Street as he walked several blocks east of the TSBD prior to getting on McWatters' bus. Why is that scenario out of the realm of reasonable theories?

Therefore, why would you even expect to be able to recover such an item like his Coca-Cola bottle? I find nothing suspicious at all in the fact that Oswald's Coke bottle was never found. It means nothing. In fact, I'd have been surprised if Oswald's Coke bottle HAD been recovered, considering he had just purchased it from the lunchroom soda machine and was headed toward the front stairs with it when he was seen by Mrs. Robert Reid. I think he took it with him out of the building. Why wouldn't he have done that? (Yes, I suppose technically the purchaser of a bottled beverage back in those days was supposed to put the empty bottle in a crate so it could be retrieved by the Coke man the next time he filled the machine. But do you really think Oswald cared about that at that particular time on November 22nd? I kind of doubt he did.)

And I think it's quite humorous to hear Bill Kelly go on and on about stuff that was never found (like this meaningless Coca-Cola bottle of Lee Oswald's), but Bill seems to want to pay very little attention to a whole lot of "Oswald" evidence that WAS found right there where the President's killer was located in the Book Depository Building.

IOW--To many CTers, what isn't in evidence is always much more important and "case breaking" than the mountain of stuff that is on the evidence table in the JFK case.

Funny, isn't it? (I think it is anyway.)

What is it with you guys - DVP, DR, John McAdams - you can't discuss the evidence at all without calling other people names - CTs, Buffs, "guys like you."

Geesh, now the innocuous term "guys like you" is suddenly an insult to Mr. Kelly's tender sensibilities. Talk about having thin skin.

If I were to gripe about all the things I have been called by CTers in the last few years on the Internet, I'd never get anything done but write posts complaining about the awful way I've been treated by "guys like you".

I wasn't being abusive or hateful toward you there, Bill. Must I walk on eggshells whenever I'm in your midst?

And please take note of the nearly identical words Bill Kelly used in his last post to describe the likes of myself, David Reitzes, and John McAdams -- "You guys".

So I guess "you guys" is okay, but "guys like you" is way out of bounds. (Hilarious.)

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Why should we believe the first allegation of Oswald saying that he dealt with Baker/Truly, but disbelieve the allegation that Oswald said that he did not own a rifle?

Why should we accept the truth of the contents of the alleged first statement, but not accept the truth of the contents of the second? On what basis are these decisions to be made?

I guess Ken D. totally ignored this post which answers that question.

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

What is it with you guys - DVP, DR, John McAdams - you can't discuss the evidence at all without calling other people names - CTs, Buffs, "guys like you."

Geesh, now the innocuous term "guys like you" is suddenly an insult to Mr. Kelly's tender sensibilities. Talk about having thin skin.

NO DAVE, I ACTUALLY HAVE A PRETTY THICK SKIN AND A SENSE OF HUMOR, BUT I AM SERIOUS ABOUT YOU, REITZES AND MCADAMS LUMPING EVERYBODY IN ONE BIG BASKET AND CALLING THEM CONSPIRACY THEORISTS OR BUFFS OR 'GUYS LIKE YOU." WHY DON'T YOU JUST SCREW THOSE OTHER PEOPLE AND DEAL WITH ME? WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE ONE POST WITHOUT USING SAYING CONSPIRACY THEORIST? JEAN DAVISON DOESN'T DO IT, JUST YOU AND MCADAMS, AND REITZES IS PICKING UP YOUR BAD MANNERS WHEN HE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE LADY.

If I were to gripe about all the things I have been called by CTers in the last few years on the Internet, I'd never get anything done but write posts complaining about the awful way I've been treated by "guys like you".

I TREAT YOU BETTER THAN YOU DESERVE AND GIVE YOU THE TIME OF DAY, WHEN JOHN JUDGE SAYS TO IGNORE YOU BECAUSE ITS LIKE GETTING INTO A PISSING CONTEST WITH SKUNKS

I wasn't being abusive or hateful toward you there, Bill. Must I walk on eggshells whenever I'm in your midst?

NO DAVE, JUST DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH EVERYONE ELSE YOU DON'T LIKE AND KEEP CALLING ME A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A THEORY TO PROMOTE -

And please take note of the nearly-identical words Bill Kelly used in his last post to describe the likes of myself, David Reitzes, and John McAdams -- "You guys".

So I guess "you guys" is okay, but "guys like you" is way out of bounds. (Hilarious.)

YEA, YOU GUYS GET IT? OR DO I HAVE TO TEACH YOU MANNERS?

AND i DON'T DISCARD THE EVIDENCE THAT IMPLICATES OSWALD, I JUST RECOGNIZE IT FOR WHAT IT IS, AND NONE OF IT PROVES HE WAS IN THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW WITH A RIFLE IN HIS HAND WHEN JFK CAME BY.

AND THE COKE BOTTLE IS SIGNIFICANT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND - YOU SAY OSWALD LEFT THE TSBD BY THE FRONT DOOR AT 12:33 PM AFTER DESCENDING THE FRONT STAIRS HAVING PASSED MRS REID IN THE OFFICE? THAT'S WHAT THE WARREN REPORT SAYS TOO - THAT'S WHAT GOLDBERG WROTE - BUT WHAT ABOUT BUELL WESLEY FRAZER - HE SAYS HE SAW OSWALD WALKING UP HOUSTON AT THAT SAME TIME - HAVING EXITED THE BACK LOADING DOCK, WITHOUT COKE IN HAND, AND WALK ACROSS HOUSTON AND THEN ELM?

WHICH WAY DID HE LEAVE? AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COKE? DID HE LEAVE IT IN THE TRASH CAN UNDER THE FRONT STEPS WHERE HE WAS SEEN? OR DID HE LEAVE IT IN THE WAREHOUSE OUT BACK BEFORE EXITING THAT WAY?

NOW DAVE, DON'T TELL ME WHAT A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BELIEVES, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THAT, I WANT TO KNOW WHICH WAY OSWALD LEFT THE BUILDING.

[David Von Pein]

YEA, YOU GUYS GET IT? OR DO I HAVE TO TEACH YOU MANNERS?

You need to grow a thicker skin, I'll tell you that. And turning on the "ALL CAPS" key certainly doesn't help your weak arguments at all either, Bill. (Am I allowed to complain about Bill SCREAMING AT ME through this tidal wave of needless capital letters?)

AND I DON'T DISCARD THE EVIDENCE THAT IMPLICATES OSWALD, I JUST RECOGNIZE IT FOR WHAT IT IS, AND NONE OF IT PROVES HE WAS IN THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW WITH A RIFLE IN HIS HAND WHEN JFK CAME BY.

But it sure points in that direction, wouldn't you agree Bill?

And, of course, you also have to call Howard Brennan a xxxx too. Don't forget that.

AND THE COKE BOTTLE IS SIGNIFICANT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND.

Why? And what possible evidentiary value would it have had even if it had been found? We know he DID have a Coke after the shooting. Reid verifies that fact.

Do you think maybe some "nitrates" could have been detected on the soda bottle, Bill?

BUT WHAT ABOUT BUELL WESLEY FRAZER - HE SAYS HE SAW OSWALD WALKING UP HOUSTON AT THAT SAME TIME - HAVING EXITED THE BACK LOADING DOCK, WITHOUT COKE IN HAND, AND WALK ACROSS HOUSTON AND THEN ELM?

Frazier came up with that story (AFAIK) for the first time in the 2002 interview with Gary Mack below:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/178017

But what did Buell say in his affidavit on the very day of the assassination? Here's what he said:

"I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today." -- B.W. Frazier; 11/22/63

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png

NOW DAVE, DON'T TELL ME WHAT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BELIEVES, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THAT, I WANT TO KNOW WHICH WAY OSWALD LEFT THE BUILDING.

Well, we've got Robert MacNeil and/or Pierce Allman to possibly give us a clue on that, Bill. One of those two men (and possibly even both of them) probably ran into Oswald right after the shooting. And I believe I'm correct in saying that both of those men (MacNeil & Allman) were near the front entrance of the Depository when the alleged encounter(s) with Oswald took place.

BILL KELLY SAID:

>>> "JUST DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH EVERYONE ELSE YOU DON'T LIKE AND KEEP CALLING ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A THEORY TO PROMOTE." <<<

You're promoting the unreasonable theory that Oswald didn't even fire a single shot at President Kennedy. And therefore that makes you one of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists I often refer to in my Internet posts. Based on your posts, you are indeed a member of that strange club. Why not face it? That's where the "guys like you" comes from.

REPRISE:

BILL KELLY SAID:

>>> "I DON'T HAVE A THEORY TO PROMOTE." <<<

Yeah, right Bill. That must be why you said this just two hours ago:

"I don't know who the Sixth Floor Sniper was but I suspect he too was an employee of the TSBD or a cop and knew that there was no hurry to leave the scene, as he wouldn't be considered a suspect since Ozzie the Rabbit had been set loose and everyone would follow him." -- William Kelly; 9/27/13

If the above isn't a "theory to promote", then what is it?

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

...

>>> "JUST DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH EVERYONE ELSE YOU DON'T LIKE AND KEEP CALLING ME A CONSPIRACY THEORISTS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A THEORY TO PROMOTE." <<<

You're promoting the unreasonable theory that Oswald didn't even fire a single shot at President Kennedy. And therefore that makes you one of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists I often refer to in my Internet posts. Based on your posts, you are indeed a member of that strange club. Why not face it? That's where the "guys like you" comes from.

you nutter-WCR-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome wannabes are certainly running scared! Why? Or, are you auditioning for a simple writing gig, AGAIN! What's with the nutter-machismo?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now that you've run off at the mouth for a page or so, Dave, can you answer my question: How long do you think it took Oswald to wipe his prints from the rifle and the three spent cartridges?

And here is a REALLY good one for you to mull over this weekend, how did Oswald get his fingerprints off of the live cartridge that was still in the rifle's chamber when the rifle was handed to Fritz?

[David Von Pein]

How long do you think it took Oswald to wipe his prints from the rifle and the three spent cartridges?

Why don't you prove to the world that every object that is touched by human hands MUST leave identifiable fingerprints behind. Can you do that?

And while you're at it, answer this too:

How long did it take your band of "real assassins" (the make-believe non-LHO killers you think were framing Patsy Oswald) to wipe THEIR prints off that rifle and those three cartridge cases? After all, those shells didn't just GROW there in the Sniper's Nest by themselves, did they? So your make-believe plotters must have touched them, right? (Just pretend they were all wearing gloves, Bob. It's all a fantasy anyway. So the glove thing should help you.)

And here is a REALLY good one for you to mull over this weekend, how did Oswald get his fingerprints off of the live cartridge that was still in the rifle's chamber when the rifle was handed to Fritz?

I guess those make-believe "plotters with gloves" are up to their old tricks again, huh?

Now, tell us how the plotters managed to plant Oswald's prints on the paper bag (CE142)? (Those guys were good, weren't they?)

BTW, I think it's quite possible (even likely) that Oswald wiped off as many prints as he could from the rifle using his brown shirt. Hence, the fresh fibers matching that shirt getting wedged into the rifle. He then put the shirt on as he fled down the stairs to the lunchroom. Hence, a possible reason why Officer Baker thought Oswald's brown shirt was a "jacket". It was untucked on top of his white T-shirt. Marrion Baker said it was "hanging out".

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

How long do you think it took Oswald to wipe his prints from the rifle and the three spent cartridges?

Why don't you prove to the world that every object that is touched by human hands MUST leave identifiable fingerprints behind. Can you do that?

And while you're at it, answer this too:

How long did it take your band of "real assassins" (the make-believe non-LHO killers you think were framing Patsy Oswald) to wipe THEIR prints off that rifle and those three cartridge cases? After all, those shells didn't just GROW there in the Sniper's Nest by themselves, did they? So your make-believe plotters must have touched them, right? (Just pretend they were all wearing gloves, Bob. It's all a fantasy anyway. So the glove thing should help you.)

And here is a REALLY good one for you to mull over this weekend, how did Oswald get his fingerprints off of the live cartridge that was still in the rifle's chamber when the rifle was handed to Fritz?

I guess those make-believe "plotters with gloves" are up to their old tricks again, huh?

Now, tell us how the plotters managed to plant Oswald's prints on the paper bag (CE142)? (Those guys were good, weren't they?)

BTW, I think it's quite possible (even likely) that Oswald wiped off as many prints as he could from the rifle using his brown shirt. Hence, the fresh fibers matching that shirt getting wedged into the rifle. He then put the shirt on as he fled down the stairs to the lunchroom. Hence, a possible reason why Officer Baker thought Oswald's brown shirt was a "jacket". It was untucked on top of his white T-shirt. Marrion Baker said it was "hanging out".

As I said, Dave, you got NOTHIN'!!

And the live cartridge in the rifle? You forgot that one, Dave. How did he get his prints off of that cartridge if he never ejected it from the chamber?

Take your time, Dave, I've got all weekend.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

You can have your live cartridge, Bob. I don't need it. I've got all this stuff to solve the case with (I'll bet you wish you had this much stuff)....http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

I love the mindset of the Internet CTers. A case in which ALL of the physical evidence points to Lee Oswald as the assassin is turned upside-down by the CTers, to the point where some silly person actually said this to me (twice) today:

"As I said, Dave, you got NOTHIN'!!"

I love it!

Edited September 28, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Do you do anything beside sitting at a computer 24/7 spewing garbage, Dave?

[Robert Prudhomme]

P.S. Don't get mad just because you don't have an answer to the live cartridge question, Dave. As I said, you got NOTHIN' !!