live camera from 6 - i know you've probably seen it, but...

[David Von Pein]

You put an enormous amount of effort into your "hobby", Dave.

Indeed I do.

And, btw, so do you.

[Kenneth Drew]

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridges.

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.

These are simple yes or no questions.

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

You put an enormous amount of effort into your "hobby", Dave.

Indeed I do.

And, btw, so do you.

But Dave is an old 'retired' guy that has unlimited time to devote to hobbies.

[David Von Pein]

Besides that, with a rifle sticking out blazing away, why didn't any of the cameras taking photo's of the assassination get a picture of that rifle sticking out the window.

So, what are you saying, Kenneth? Are you saying that NO rifle was sticking out of that window at all on Nov. 22 (even though 4 witnesses said they saw a gun in that window)?

I could just as easily turn the tables and ask the CTers this....

Since CTers are positive that a gunman was "blazing away" (as Ken put it) from the Grassy Knoll, why didn't any of the photographers get a picture of the gun or the gunman on the Knoll?

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

You put an enormous amount of effort into your "hobby", Dave.

Indeed I do.

And, btw, so do you.

Nothing even remotely close to the effort you apply. And my budget is a fraction of yours.

Not only that, your side won the case back in 1964. You're like a man that wins a $50 million settlement in court, and spends the next 50 years re-fighting the case. Kinda pointless, Dave.

[David Von Pein]

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridges.

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.

These are simple yes or no questions.

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate.

So I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right, Ken?

[Robert Prudhomme]

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridges.

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.

These are simple yes or no questions.

1. I have read that before and, while it is a possibility, it has never been confirmed.

2. I believed this a while back until someone posted an extreme close up of the "unfired" cartridge. What looks like a bullet in the cartridge is not.

3. While Frazier did mention the barrel of the rifle had been eroded, either by oxidation from rust or by great numbers of cartridges fired in it, he does not specifically say there was rust present in the barrel when he examined it. He describes how one bullet can remove an accumulation of rust, but this is only to explain how difficult it is to examine a clean but eroded barrel, and determine how that erosion took place.

[Kenneth Drew]

I started looking at the pipes about 2005 : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=17adbdbc86f57360fd7c9740d7818da5&showtopic=5308&hl=pipes#entry43841and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?

here is a quote from Hemming on that comment that you linked to above: Moreover, I mentioned that when Stone had rented the "6th Floor Museum" for 3 hours of our use, I had pointed out to Bob Groden that: with the bottom of the window-sill just 7+ inches above the floor, that a shooter [with LHO's upper torso measurements] would have great difficulty "hunching-down" so as to shoot through the window -- which only opened to the half-way point. I further pointed out that the FBI re-enactment photos show that the man holding the rifle is practically a midget, which you can verify with comparative measurement of the M/Carcano versus his upper torso.

[Kenneth Drew]

Besides that, with a rifle sticking out blazing away, why didn't any of the cameras taking photo's of the assassination get a picture of that rifle sticking out the window.

So, what are you saying, Kenneth? Are you saying that NO rifle was sticking out of that window at all on Nov. 22 (even though 4 witnesses said they saw a gun in that window)?

I could just as easily turn the tables and ask the CTers this....

Since CTers are positive that a gunman was "blazing away" (as Ken put it) from the Grassy Knoll, why didn't any of the photographers get a picture of the gun or the gunman on the Knoll?

Actually, they did. You've seen the Moorman Photo. Your turn.

[David Von Pein]

You put an enormous amount of effort into your "hobby", Dave.

Indeed I do.

And, btw, so do you.

Nothing even remotely close to the effort you apply. And my budget is a fraction of yours.

Oh, good. So you DO think I'm employed by someone who provides me with boatloads of cash to post on Internet forums.

Thanks for confirming that.

Not only that, your side won the case back in 1964. You're like a man that wins a $50 million settlement in court, and spends the next 50 years re-fighting the case. Kinda pointless, Dave.

It's not pointless as long as there are conspiracy theorists in the world who have no ability to properly determine the facts in the JFK case.

I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists can be a useful and worthwhile hobby. Wouldn't you agree? (No, you probably wouldn't.)

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridges.

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.

These are simple yes or no questions.

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate.

So I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right, Ken?

Depends, it's when you're trying to answer a question with 'bobs and weaves' instead of facts. But I do understand that necessity since you have no facts on your side. As in this case. If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes' did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes. Is that the answers you gave?

[Ray Mitcham]

I started looking at the pipes about 2005: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=17adbdbc86f57360fd7c9740d7818da5&showtopic=5308&hl=pipes#entry43841 and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF.

It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest".

Two stints here at the EF?? What, are you here on assignment or something?

It means he's been a member here on two different occasions.

Definition of stint

1. A length of time spent in a particular way, especially doing a job or fulfilling a duty: a two-year stint in the military.

[Kenneth Drew]

You put an enormous amount of effort into your "hobby", Dave.

Indeed I do.

And, btw, so do you.

Nothing even remotely close to the effort you apply. And my budget is a fraction of yours.

Oh, good. So you DO think I'm employed by someone who provides me with boatloads of cash to post on Internet forums.

Thanks for confirming that.

Not only that, your side won the case back in 1964. You're like a man that wins a $50 million settlement in court, and spends the next 50 years re-fighting the case. Kinda pointless, Dave.

It's not pointless as long as there are people like you in the world who have no ability to properly determine the facts in the JFK case.

I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists can be a useful and worthwhile hobby. Wouldn't you agree? (No, you probably wouldn't.)

I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists Tell us all about one myth or fantasy you've knocked out. I sure don't know of any. And you certainly can't quote any 'fact' you've used, only myths and fantasies. And I have no objective to prove anything about the assassination except that a person with common sense can't possibly believe the Warren Commission version. Now, if you don't have common sense, or reasoning ability, you can believe it. barely

[Kenneth Drew]

I started looking at the pipes about 2005: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5308&hl=pipes#entry43841 and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF.

It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest".

Two stints here at the EF?? What, are you here on assignment or something?

It means he's been a member here on two different occasions.

Definition of stint

1. A length of time spent in a particular way, especially doing a job or fulfilling a duty: a two-year stint in the military.

I don't think anyone would pay someone, such as DVP for doing what he does. It has to be a hobby. Well, except I can't understand why he says he doesn't have the freedom to believe what he would like to believe. Or something like that. See below for his quote.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[David Von Pein]

If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes'. Did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes.

Is that the answers you gave?

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave?

The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words...

"True or false".

So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE.

At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics.

The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie

And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.)

So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking).

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein