Robert Prudhomme

Dave!! You're still here! LOL don't you have anything better to do on a Friday night?

Do you leave your computer long enough to empty your bowels and bladder or have you got something else rigged up for that, just so you don't miss some evil CT trying to post something malicious?

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' !!

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

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.

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?

I like it when Truly is asked if Oswald could have fired the shots and got to where he met Baker and Truly in time, less than two minutes, and Truly says "if he was fast. The roof is low and the stairs have few steps," so the low roof and few steps worked in Oswald's favor. Boy was he lucky the roof was low and there were so few steps.

As if Roy Truly's opinion on this point makes any difference whatsoever. We know for a fact that a human being (with two working legs) can definitely get from the sixth-floor sniper's perch down to the second-floor lunchroom in less than 80 seconds -- and that time was achieved by Secret Service agent John J. Howlett while not even running or trotting or walking very fast. Howlett did it in just 78 seconds while walking at a "normal walking pace" [WR; Page 152]. And "Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run" [WR; Pg. 152].

I wonder why so many conspiracy believers just totally ignore the Howlett test runs that are detailed on Page 152 of the Warren Commission Report? I suppose everything that's written on that page is nothing but a great-big lie too. Is that what the CTers believe?

DVP's JFK Archives / Reconstructing The Steps Of A Presidential Assassin

How long did it take Oswald to wipe the fingerprints off the rifle and the three spent cartridges?

I don't suppose Hosty/Bookhout got Oswald's signature verifying that report, did they? A report written in the 3rd party is not evidence, Dave.

I could write a report about you, claiming you admitted to all kinds of things. Would that make them true?

Well, I'm so sorry Bob, but all anyone can muster are the "hearsay" reports of the FBI agents, Captain Fritz, and Postal Inspector Holmes. Not many other people were present when Oswald was talking. I would have delivered a tape recorder to Captain Fritz myself, but unfortunately I was a bit young and didn't get out of my baby crib too much back in '63. Sorry (again).

But why on Earth would you think Marrion Baker and Roy Truly were lying about seeing Oswald on the second floor? (Or do you think they were?)

Plus, I find it very interesting to see the conspiracy theorists doubting the legitimacy of the Baker/Truly/Oswald 2nd-floor encounter....because most of the time the CTers enjoy utilizing that encounter to try and verify their inaccurate belief that Oswald couldn't have been the sixth-floor assassin. I.E., Oswald couldn't [possibly have travelled down those four flights of stairs so fast. Ergo, he must be innocent.

Which way do the CTers want to go with it? ~shrug~

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

As usual.

Devil's Advocate Argument: Truly changed his mind about Oswald's being a suspect because of the combination of Oswald's being seen on the second floor so soon after the assassination and the fact that Oswald left the TSBD so quickly after that.

Comments?

--Tommy

Good point, Thomas. This method of deduction would also have ensnared Mrs. Reid, Eddie Piper and Jack Dougherty for simply being in odd locations so soon after the assassination. I'm sure there were also employees that were outside the TSBD at the time of the assassination and unaccounted for at the time the APB went out for Oswald.

"Willens’ book reveals how the commission conducted its work, and also how the team learned a decade later that both the FBI and CIA had lied to them on critical matters. The book acknowledges some of the commission’s mistakes (leading to still-thriving conspiracy theories) and the report was subjected to four major investigations. Its title, and emphasis, stems from a 1965 comment from U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who said to critics of the commission he chaired, “History will prove us right.”"

So, one of the senior staffers on the WC admits in his book that the CIA and FBI lied to the WC on critical matters?

What do the Bobbsey Twins have to say about that, I wonder?

[When] did Oswald say he encountered Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor?

In the Hosty/Bookhout report, which details their interrogation of Oswald on November 22

[WR; Page 613]. And in another of FBI agent Bookhout's reports, which also details Oswald's statements [WR; Page 619]. Oswald didn't mention the encounter with Baker in the first report

linked above, but he does in the second one. But he says he was on the second floor in each instance.

I don't suppose Hosty/Bookhout got Oswald's signature verifying that report, did they? A report written in the 3rd party is not evidence, Dave.

I could write a report about you, claiming you admitted to all kinds of things. Would that make them true?

"And, of course, any sensible person would have to believe an encounter took place on the second floor involving Oswald, Baker, and Truly -- because ALL THREE of those people (including the murderer himself, Mr. Oswald) confirmed that the encounter took place. So Alfred Goldberg's input on this matter amounts to NOTHING. Nada. So why even bring him up at all? Just to muddy the very clear waters surrounding the obviously true second-floor lunchroom encounter?"

Wen did Oswald say he encountered Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor?

Baker claimed he was at the head of the stairs on the 2nd floor when he spotted Oswald through the window of the door opening into the vestibule. If the door had been "you know, closing and almost shut at that time" the first oddity is that Truly, well ahead of Baker, did not see a half shut door in the process of closing, or Lee Harvey Oswald going through the vestibule door prior to it automatically closing, as the vestibule is so small, LHO could not have been in there for more than a couple of seconds.

The second oddity is that a person standing at the head of the stairs, as Baker claimed to be when he got a glimpse of LHO, cannot see the lunch room door by looking through the window on the upper part of the vestibule door. The lunch room door would be to the left of his line of sight when viewed from the head of the stairs. However, if Baker took a couple of steps toward the vestibule door, his view of the lunch room door, be it open or closed, improves dramatically, allowing him to see LHO standing twenty feet into the lunchroom.

The question is not how LHO managed to get twenty feet into the lunch room, be it through an open or closed lunch room door, the question is how did LHO manage to CLOSE the lunch room door and THEN proceed twenty feet into the lunch room, without being seen closing the door OR dashing into the lunch room by Baker?

Remember, Baker has seen movement in the vestibule, is focused on that spot and is quickly closing in on it. He only has to cover a fraction of the distance LHO covers before he has a wide open view of the lunch room door and LHO. Why did he not see LHO closing the door and walking twenty feet into the lunch room?

Whether Oswald had descended from the 6th floor and entered the lunch room vestibule via the door from the NW stairwell, or ascended from the 1st floor and entered the same lunch room vestibule via the other door from the 2nd floor offices, there is something that still bothers me. From inside the vestibule, there is a third door Oswald had to pass through to actually be in the lunch room.

We know from Baker's WC testimony that Baker claims to have spotted Oswald just inside the first door, leading from the NW stairwell to the vestibule. Baker immediately went to that door, across a space of only twenty feet, and then saw Oswald had magically teleported to INSIDE the lunch room.

Assuming the actual lunch room door was closed, how did Oswald get through this door and into the lunch room, covering approximately the same distance as Baker from the stairwell to the vestibule door, WITHOUT having Baker see him open and close the lunch room door? Baker's WC testimony is quite obscure on this point, and the WC lawyer makes no point in pursuing the issue.

Heck, even if the lunchroom door was open, how did Oswald close this door and get twenty feet into the lunch room without Baker seeing the door close? Remember, Baker's view of the lunch room door would improve dramatically with every step he took from the stairwell.

Well, Baker actually doesn't say a word about Oswald in this statement! He just saw 'a man' standing in the lunchroom. And Truly was apparently not in the vicinity either ('I saw noone else in the vicinity of the lunch room at the time'). It may suggest that Baker is uncomfortable with the whole story and is deliberately vague.

Bjørn Gjerde

Yes, just "a man".

Well spotted, Bjorn.

The main body of Baker's 23 Sep 64 statement--

--reads to me like a very early text, as though it has been lifted straight out of a late-November 63 statement drafted for or by Baker.

No mention of Oswald's name.

No mention of Truly's.

The hesitancy between second and third floor, as though this statement is being delicately harmonised with Baker's disastrous 11/22 affidavit statement ("third or fourth floor").

And, of course, "drinking a coke".

No wonder certain bits had to be crossed out in September 64 before the thing got filed for typing.

This statement was pre-written for Baker by an FBI agent, wasn't it? It is clearly not in Baker's handwriting. Compere the capital "B's" written by Baker to the ones in the report.

Robert Frazier didn't lie at all. That's just your interpretation of his testimony, Robert. And nothing more than that. Which is always the case with the conspiracy-happy crowd. I'm accustomed to it.

From the Warren Commission testimony of Special Agent Robert A. Frazier, FBI:

"Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket."

SA Frazier is basically denying the existence of steel jacketed bullets and bullets jacketed in compounds that bare a strong resemblance to steel (ie. zinc, nickel, cupro-nickel). As SA Frazier was considered to be an expert in the field of firearms, one would expect him to be aware of bullets that are clad in steel or alloys easily mistaken for steel.

Do you think he just happened to forget about these hundreds of millions of bullets when responding to Eisenberg or do you think he lied?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8mm_Mauser_stripper_clip,_1941_Turkish_military_production.JPG

http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=A308Ger

So, Bob P., you must think Commission Exhibit No. 1 (in Oswald's own Russian handwriting) is a fake too, right? You DO realize that CE1 pretty much seals the deal on Oswald's guilt in the Walker shooting, don't you?

Or maybe you think Oswald wrote this detailed list of "What To Do If I'm Arrested" instructions for Marina because he planned to steal a loaf of bread and a Dr. Pepper from the Piggly-Wiggly on the corner?

Dave

Changing the subject is not an acceptable way of answering a question.

All this tells me, and everyone else reading these posts, is that you have very good reasons to not want to discuss the Walker shooting and the "copper" jacketed and "steel" jacketed bullets, and how SA Frazier of the FBI lied in his testimony to the WC.

I see you have the forum staked out for the day, on this thread. It must be nice not to have to work and be able to spend your waking hours on an internet forum.

Now, seriously, Dave, you seem to be avoiding discussion on the Walker shooting and steel and copper jacketed bullets.

There seems to be a mysterious lack of films and photos from Dealey Plaza that day, considering how many cameras were present.

BTW, have you figured it out yet, or do I have to tell you?

Dave

You're so busy chasing your tail, you can't slow down long enough to see that there is a way for both of us, the DPD detectives and General Walker to be dealing in truth, AND still have Oswald being the one who took a pot shot at Walker.

Unfortunately, the FBI were in such a big rush to get some more dirt on Oswald, they didn't stop long enough to figure out they already had everything they needed.

Would you like to know the connection the FBI missed or does it scare you too much?

Strange indeed, Sean. His trip with Lovelady to the railroad yards that he testified about to the WC was never mentioned in his first day statement. Instead, he at that time only claimed he went across the street, met Gloria Calvery, went immediately back inside the TSBD, phoned his wife and was then instructed (by Truly??) to guard the elevators on the 1st floor.

Is this how Vicki Adams came to see Shelley and Lovelady by the elevators on the 1st floor on her way out the rear door? Doesn't this still make things a bit difficult, considering Truly would have been on his way upstairs with Baker by the time Shelley arrived at the elevators, and Miss Adams should have met Baker/Truly on the stairs?

If it was not Truly who instructed Shelley to guard the elevators, then who?

"Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket."

Dave, Dave, Dave, why do you persist in embarrassing yourself here? Look at the above question from Eisenberg; would a firearms expert not answer truthfully by saying it could have been a silvery coloured cupro-nickel or zinc jacketed bullet that could easily be mistaken for a steel jacketed bullet?

And is Frazier not denying the very existence of steel jacketed bullets, when an FBI firearms "expert" would be expected to know this very basic piece of knowledge, that millions upon millions of rifle bullets have been made with steel jackets?

If this is not LYING UNDER OATH, what, then, do you call it?

The rest of your post is drivel, designed to distract the unwary reader from the very real fact that FBI SA Frazier lied under oath to a WC lawyer when questioned about steel jacketed bullets.

I would not doubt that CE 573 had striations on it matching the barrel of Oswald's alleged rifle, considering the fact it was likely fired from this same rifle shortly after it was decided to hang the Walker shooting on Oswald as well as JFK and Tippit, just in case there was any question he was a murdering little psychopath.

Why do you think General Walker argued so adamantly that CE 573 was NOT the bullet removed from his home? Ever consider that he may have been right?

Just answer the question, Davey. You quoted Frazier about steel jacketed bullets and I proved him completely wrong; hence, no hijacking took place.

In case you've forgotten what we were discussing, would you like for me to post everything again?

Davey, you're ignoring the question. Would you like me to re-post it for you?

"Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket."

So, Davey, it was not difficult at all for this country boy to prove SA Frazier, the FBI firearms "expert", completely wrong in his answer to WC lawyer Eisenberg.

There are not only steel jacketed bullets, there are bullets jacketed in compounds that look just like steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8mm_Mauser_stripper_clip,_1941_Turkish_military_production.JPG

Tell me, do you think Frazier was completely unqualified to hold the position of firearms "expert" within the FBI, or did he purposely mislead the WC lawyer about the existence of steel jacketed bullets?

And, of course, now that I've made a fool of Dave regarding CE 573, he simply ignores the post.

CE573 IS the "Walker bullet", despite anyone's "steel jacketed" references to that bullet.

You can't provide any proof at all that CE573 is a "planted" bullet of some kind. Just like no CTer on Earth has ever proven that CE399 is a plant either (try as they might to do so).

You can scream "The rotten evil cops & Feds planted evidence" till the cows come home. But one thing you'll never be able to do is to PROVE that ANY evidence connected with the assassination of John Kennedy was faked, manipulated, manufactured, switched, or planted.

But I'm sure that the mere possibility of such evidence tampering is more than enough to meet the flimsy requirements of Mr. Robert Prudhomme.

Davey

As SA Frazier lied under oath about steel jacketed bullets, in the pursuit of the "Oswald did it alone" campaign, surely you do not think the FBI would be above switching a "copper" jacketed bullet, recently fired from Oswald's alleged rifle, for the original Walker bullet described by DPD detectives as "steel" jacketed?

General Edwin Walker saw the bullet the detectives removed from his home. When he saw a photo of CE 573, he immediately recognized it was not the bullet removed from his home.

Who do you think we should believe here, a lying FBI agent or two detectives and an ex-military man? Hint: I'll bet Walker got to see just a "few" bullets in his career.