David G. Healy

I am confused here and seek clarification.

...

Bill Miller

Uh-HUH, sure you are....

Here's an insightful article about the "change" our new president is bringing us:

bloomberg.com

time to change the title of this thread to: Obama: the NEXT President of the United States of America -- Give the whiners something to REALLY whine about...

I'm a bit busy today but I'll destroy your stuff on the ghost writing tomorrow.

A bit over due aren’t we?

I would also like Craig's views on the future of the Republican Party.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13655

I expect Craig is busy selling his Halliburton shares.

No worries about the Republicans John, things swing right and then swing left, then back again and so forth. They will return to power in due course. Its the dims turn to muck things up and I'm sure they will do just that.

as noted during earlier times, I think you're a photog with much talent. I hope that talent finds many clients in far off places such as Georgia and GAWD forbid a place called California. The "dims" and President O'bama are gonna need your taxes (and mine I might add).

Duke, you've touched upon some of the points I've attempted to make over the past several months. From the available evidence, LHO ordered from Klein's and received the model 91/24...which is pretty much incapable of sufficient accuracy to have shot JFK from the TSBD. The Carcano recovered from the TSBD is a model 91/38, which IS perfectly capable of the JFK shooting. But there's simply no evidence--at least publicly available--that Oswald ever had a 91/38 in his possession.

So if we allow that, according to the record, the 91/38 was found in the TSBD [Mauser claims notwithstanding], it had to get there somehow. And it obviously was NOT Oswald's 91/24, so the entire idea of Ozzie bringing it with him on the morning of the 22nd is a pretty hard sell...particularly since we cannot put a 91/38 into Oswald's possession anytine prior to November 22nd.

So how did the 91/38 get inside the TSBD? Truth is, we'll probably never know. Maybe Oswald's assignment that day was to bring in a previously-acquired barrel for a 91/38, and nothing more. That would make him a part of a conspiracy, but not necessarily the triggerman. It would make sense out of the FBI lab's claim of finding Oswald's print on the underside of the barrel of the 91/38, while still allowing Oswald to be telling the truth when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody." It would also make his moves after leaving the TSBD more logical...knowing he might be implicated in the conspiracy, he heads home and picks up his revolver, for example, because he realizes that his life is now in danger...if not from police, then from fellow conspirators who think he may talk. And Oswald doesn't realize HOW screwed he is until he's in police custody and they inform him on Saturday that the serial number on the alleged presidential murder weapon matches a rifle that can be traced to him.

Sure, that's conjecture. But it makes a lot more sense than trying to pass off a 91/38 as the 91/24 that Oswald bought, which the WC tries to do. And if Ozzie's only task is to bring in the rifle barrel, that would leave someone else to deal with the assembly of the rifle, as well as the actual shooting. And if the rifle's action isn't disassembled beyond the removal of the barrel, it's a relatively simple matter to install the barrel and the action into the stock, and no intricate assembly is required. So Ozzie can be on the second floor drinking a Coke and eating lunch, and still have left his print on the underside of the rifle barrel.

And someone else is the shooter. As Tom Purvis has pointed out many times, even in his three shots/three hits/eight second scenario, anyone with average hunting/shooting ability could've made those three under-100-yard shots. It didn't take someone with specialized sniper skills; just an average shooter would do for the task at hand. [Maybe even someone with white powder/dust in his hair...???]

Having Oswald assigned the task of simply bringing in the rifle barrel is a better fit for the facts we know than the idea of him bringing in a complete rifle, one which there's no evidence he ever owned. It explains how he could get to the second floor when Officer Baker bursts in, as he was never on the 6th floor. And it explains the palmprint on the underside of the barrel...as well as giving Oswald a different motive for arming himself after the shooting.

Problem is, there's no evidence beyond the palmprint that Oswald handled the barrel on the 91/38. But if we assume that the palmprint wasn't planted, that it actually was there just as the FBI claims, having Ozzie bring in ONLY the barrel--and not a complete rifle--suddenly makes a lot of the other pieces fit the puzzle.

Mark;

1. Although the available evidence is indicative that LHO ordered a "36" length Carcano Carbine", in which the ad/Order Form demonstrates the Model 91/24 version of this weapon, there is still insufficient evidence to state as absolutely factual, that LHO did not receive a Model 91/38 Short Rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

Therefore, the "Burden of Proof" would have to fall on those who attempt to state as fact that LHO received the Model 91/38 Short Rifle, as there is no absolute proof that anything other than the ordered item was sent to LHO.

2. The "Backyard Photographs" of LHO in which he is holding a rifle, ABSOLUTELY demonstrate that he is holding a "SHORT RIFLE".

However, one can not tell from the photographs whether the weapon which is being held is a Model 38 (7.35mm caliber version) or a Model 91/38 (6.5mm caliber version) of the weapon.

Just as one can not tell if the serial number on the barrel is, or is not C2766.

An additional item which the photograph CAN NOT accomplish is the simple fact that although LHO is most definitely holding a Short Rifle, the photograph can not serve as any form of proof that the weapon being held has any connection to the Carcano Carbine which LHO ordered from Klein's.

This is the "connection" which the WC/FBI have attempted to pass off, and it is a fallacy of logic.

The usage of "association" in attempting to utilize the backyard photo as proof that LHO received this weapon from the order to Klein's, does not withstand the test of many applications of logic. However, it most clearly served the purpose of "association" which it has accomplished.

As a result of the multliple photographs which LHO had taken of himself holding the "Short Rifle", it would almost appear as if he has gone out of his way to present to us sufficient evidence to convince us that the "association" between the weapon being held and the weapon ordered from Klein's, are the one and same weapon.

3. It is most unlikely that LHO carried merely a "rifle barrel" into the TSDB, in which the barrel was later screwed into the receiver for assembly.

Proper seating of the barrel into the receiver would require special equipment which could exert several thousand pounds of torque.

Nevertheless, one must pay compliment to the final demonstrations of "alternative thinking" which this questionable activity has finally brought out.

As I long ago "hinted" at on this forum, any good "Marine" who has ever had to pass the "White Glove Test" would know the simplicity of "hiding" the operating parts of a weapon (receiver & barrel assembly).

As, it was virtually impossible to pass the "White Glove Test" after the weapon had been fired, without taking the weapon apart and sneaking the barrel/receiver assembley into the shower, rolled up in a towel, and thereafter completely scrubbing the weapon down with warm soapy water.

Another "hint" which I have often given, is that of the location of the "Sling Pad" on the leather belt sling.

===============================================================================

The pad is in a position in which the weapon would be carried at an "upside down" version of sling arms, which of course, the USMC also has their own nomenclature.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13354

Post #11

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2533059/USMC-Rif...smanship-Manual

Any good "Marine" should recognize why the pad on a sling is moved closer to the base of the stock than it is to the muzzle of the weapon.

"Weak-Side Sling Arms"

Figure 3-23

aka upside down sling arms.

===============================================================================

4. As we have repeatedly been informed, the Short Rifle is, for all practical purposes, 40 inches in length, and one would certainly have difficulty fitting it into the known "paper bag" and carrying it under one's arm.

Seperately, the stock assembly is approximately 34 and 3/4 inches in length, and the actual barrel/receiver/bolt mechanism (that part which one would want to sneak into the shower) is only 29 inches in length and one can easily carry it draped in the arm.

The WC did not want to pursue the probability that the Model 91/38 Short Rifle which was utilized to shoot JFK was in fact carried to the TSDB on two seperate days/two separate occasions, in two completely distinct and seperate times as this would serve to indicate "Prior" planning to get the weapon into the TSDB and would thus negate the "Lone Nut" theory in which LHO merely had nothing better to do on 11/22/63 and therefore made a single trip to the Paine Home and secured the weapon in a single trip.

5. Lastly! The Carcano Short Rifle has been around the "arms market" for a considerable length of time.

The earliest ad that I am aware of is from the 1959 era in which the 7.35mm versions of the weapoin were being sold extensively.

As I have previously indicated, the Carcano was quite common during the Castro revolution, and there is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that quite possibly, the WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo was in fact manufactured for Castro.

The truly nice thing about the Carcano is it's "interchangeability".

For example:

Say that at some point in time prior to 11/22/63, that I ordered a Carcano Short Rifle from one of the multitudes of dealers from the West Coast to the East Coast, who sold these weapons in the common 7.35mm version. Then, I would most probably also include in with the order, to add in some ammo as well as an ammo clip.

Now of course, were I to desire to do so, I could have my photo taken with this weapon.

At some point in time, assume that I thereafter ordered a "junk" Carbine from Klein's Sporting Goods, which in effect now pointed the finger at a CIA Front weapons dealer.

Unfortunately, to available knowledge, there was no WCC ammo made for the 7.35mm versions of these weapons. However, with the availabily of thousands of these weapons, there would be little difficulty in acquisition of a Short Rifle barrel which either bore the exact same serial number as the weapon received from Kleins, or else a "close proximity" of the serial number which could be further altered to represent the identical number. (assuming the correct connections)

Especially, when one considers the potential thousands of these Short Rifle barrels which were recovered in "War Stocks" which the barrels were for replacement and had never had a serial number stamped into them.

When one owns a 7.35mm version of the Short Rifle, which could have been ordered at any time from the 1950's to the early 1960's, then it is most unlikely that anyone would ever trace that specific order to me, were the weapon to show up on the sixth floor of the TSDB on 11/22/63 with a 6.5mm barrel installed onto the weapon.

Everything about the Carcano weapon points to either establishment of LHO as the "Designated Patsy" (with his cooperation I might add), or a well planned, conceived, and executed covert operation which ultimately resulted in JFK having been shot with a weapon which was a portion of the plan for this operation.

I sincerely hope others are following this enlightening thread... Thanks especially to Duke, Mark and Tom.

DHealy

...

Wim, I will humor you only for a few moments before moving on because I personally don't believe you are interested in knowing this or you would have presented it to some experts on your own before wanting to debate something that you probably know little about.

...

You've been humoring me for 6+ years now. And I know you know nothing of film/photo composition. Despite your kneeling at Robert Groden's feet... Carry on!

David Healy - President

Wild Bill's Fan Club

It is highly significant that McCain won the former Confederate states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee. These were all states that were held by the Democrats before the passing of the 1965 Voting Act. On the other hand, those states that supported Abraham Lincoln in the struggle against slavery voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

One of the most interesting aspects of the polling concerns the views of Hispanics. In the 2004 election 56% of this group voted for Bush. Early surveys suggested that they were unhappy voting for a black man. This is not surprising as recent immigrants often display racist views as they wish to believe that one group is below them on the social ladder. (It is also the reason why the middle-class and the upward socially mobile are usually less racist than the white unskilled working-class.) However, exit polls show that 57% of Hispanics voted for Obama. They clearly saw Obama as someone on their side.

It seems to me that the Republicans have similar problems to that encountered by the Conservative Party in 1997. Like the Republicans, they lost the middle-ground. The problem was that those left tended to hold right-wing views. They therefore elected a right-wing leader and developed policies that were unappealing to the middle-ground. After being beaten in three national elections they accepted their mistake and elected a moderate, David Cameron, as leader. He is now leading the polls and is expected to win the next general election.

Like the Conservatives in the UK in 1997 the elected Republicans tend to be on the right. Moderate Republicans, such as Chris Shays of Connecticut, lost their seats.

The Republicans also have the Sarah Palin problem. She was clearly popular with the right-wing forces in the US but was a complete turn-off for moderate voters. She is an ambitious politician and is bound to want to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. If she manages this, she will become another Barry Goldwater and will guarrantee a Democrat win.

the future of the GOP (Republican Party), as it currently exists? In one, short word **FINI**

Everything sourced, much of it new - in summary, the most extensively and best researched thread on the alleged "Muchmore" WNEW-TV debut yet offered by anyone. It thus exposes as false and baseless the various claims advanced for it by Mack, Thompson, and, of course, you.

No wonder you hate it.

Paul

Actually Paul ... I like you looking like a boob. I like it that people can see that you have made no contacts to validate your claim. I will like it more when the Museum gets to archiving the newspaper that Mack cited from and then see what other comments you have to make at that time. At that time all that you didn't do will be made clear.

Bill Miller

still dancing and acting the 6th Floor Museum Shill, I see.... you look lovely scambling though AND, not to mention, attempting intelligence... KUTGW-Bill-o

is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

The law has always presumed that an official record is real, until PROVEN otherwise.

Translated for rayspeak: He does not have a real certificate of birth.

And why not his medical record,

Even a blind man can see that his health is just fine, but thank you for asking. How about you ask a life insurance underwriter whether he would sell him a life policy WITHOUT a medical exam? then ask the same question about Magoo.

Translated from rayspeak: ZerOBAMA is above the requests of the electorate and none of your business. How dare you ask.

his student record etc.

His student record speaks for itself. He was an outstanding student.

Translated from rayspeak: His records are not "available and none of you business. How dare you ask.

Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Actually, Craig, when you put it that way, I guess the only thing I know for certain is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I"m going to feel quite sorry for you come Nov. 5 when ZerooO is NOT the president. It will be one hell of a koolaid hangover.

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

No, not at all. I'll be able to say, Thank you Vice President -elect Palin.

C'mon Craig.... The Shrub blew it with Iraq, the GOPer's will be paying for years and years. --AND--

Obama's birth certificate is all over the web, time for the GOP's Gofer's to get agofer'in, where's the beef, son? Or is this just 'nother GOP nocturnal emi**ion...

"all over the web" now there is somthing to brag about. Of course if its "on the web" it must be true eh dave? Oswald did it is "all over the web". So can we count you in that camp as well now? Of course its not the GOP pushing this, but rather a dyed in the wool dim...imagine that.

Kool-aid? Hell son, we're you in Jonestown too? I was there 3 days after the mass suicide. You GOP gofers sure like that Kool-aid term. Shame on you for having no appreciation for that tragedy -- then again, it was nearly ALL black casualties, makes no difference right?

I'm so happy for you. But your presence gives you no more or less appreciation than many others dave. People are people. RACE really means nothing in the long haul. But how wonderful for you, to bring RACISM into the discussion. It is however a step up from the gutter for you, at least you didn't call anyone a nazi this time...

"RACE really means nothing in the long haul." Ahh, when they (non-whites) get to heaven that's their reward? RACISM isn't a word to run from, son -- confront it.... Concerning this election its displayed day in and day out. How many blacks or browns do you see in a McCain and/or Sweet Sarah's rally. Few to NONE.... great job, GOPer racist reich-wingers. GOPer fear is palpable this cycle.

is the 'certificate" in the public record even real?

The law has always presumed that an official record is real, until PROVEN otherwise.

Translated for rayspeak: He does not have a real certificate of birth.

And why not his medical record,

Even a blind man can see that his health is just fine, but thank you for asking. How about you ask a life insurance underwriter whether he would sell him a life policy WITHOUT a medical exam? then ask the same question about Magoo.

Translated from rayspeak: ZerOBAMA is above the requests of the electorate and none of your business. How dare you ask.

his student record etc.

His student record speaks for itself. He was an outstanding student.

Translated from rayspeak: His records are not "available and none of you business. How dare you ask.

Do you really know ANYTHING about him?

Actually, Craig, when you put it that way, I guess the only thing I know for certain is that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I"m going to feel quite sorry for you come Nov. 5 when ZerooO is NOT the president. It will be one hell of a koolaid hangover.

Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it?

No, not at all. I'll be able to say, Thank you Vice President -elect Palin.

C'mon Craig.... The Shrub blew it with Iraq, the GOPer's will be paying for years and years. --AND--

Obama's birth certificate is all over the web, time for the GOP's Gofer's to get agofer'in, where's the beef, son? Or is this just 'nother GOP nocturnal emi**ion...

Kool-aid? Hell son, we're you in Jonestown too? I was there 3 days after the mass suicide. You GOP gofers sure like that Kool-aid term. Shame on you for having no appreciation for that tragedy -- then again, it was nearly ALL black casualties, makes no difference right?

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP

DOWN

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

October

29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional

crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and

prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is "a natural born Citizen"

of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must

step down as the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United

States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the

Electoral College meets.

[...]

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in

Arms...

He can be reached at:

13877 Napa Drive

Manassas,

Virginia 20112.

isn't Obama a (Constitutional) Law Professor? Vieira is another whack job, Jack! They're clogging up sewer drains everywhere these days.... The reich-wing racists can't stand the thought of a black President...

...

To any truly interested parties:

...

Bill Miller

"interested parties" ROTFLMFAO! We're not sure why you endlessly speak for Gary Mack? You STILL shilling for Gary and the 6th Floor Museum? If so, you're agenda, please?

btw, in Group designator, right under your name and photo, you have Group: JFK, appears the rest of us have Group: Members. What's that all about? Just curious!

...

It's not a matter of one assassin or three,

Actually! That is the primary problem which plagues the event. In fact, there are those who have it up to about six shooters.

Then of course we have the "body snatchers"/aka wound alterations specialists included as well.

...

KISS!

Keep It Simple Stupid!

Gotta love that phrase.....

Anyway, an issue that deserves a little review: we have the NPIC (belonging to one of the alphabet agencies) reviewing a first generation dupe or, the alleged in-camera original the Zapruder Film, the very same weekend of the assassination. Their analysts determined at least 4+ shots. Now I understand Oswald shooting abilities have been raised to that mythical status of Sgt. York. However, 4+ shots in how many seconds, 8 tops? That's conspiracy, Tom. More than one shooter! (KISS, right?) That simple testimony, given in a court of law blows the SBT right out of the water. And it makes no difference if Oswald was involved or not....

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results. Don't be suprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry to disappoint you Craig, but the actual numbers from the primaries prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your theory:

polling numbers from the primaries suggested no presence of a Bradley Effect. On the contrary, it was Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton -- who somewhat outperformed his polls on Election Day.

On average, Barack Obama overperformed the Pollster.com trendline by 3.3 points on election day.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

As a wise man once said Don't be surprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary. Its a pretty sad attempt at spin to claim when AVERAGED OUT percentage wise he did not underperform. Sad...Really sad. I'm quessing he wont have to worry about underperforming in the FINAL polls, since the race is now for all intents even.

"...nothing, NOTHING is inevitable." --John McCain 10-28-2008

Evidently Angry Old John has forgot one simple fact: none of us get out of here alive! Now that is inevitable! Is Angry Old John that out-of-touch with reality? And he looks so tired, is he gonna make it till next week?

From all that I've seen that you've posted, it seems that you think that Oswald was more than "a very guilty part of that conspiracy," but rather the only guilty part of the conspiracy since you haven't suggested any role for any of the others involved.

What did those other people do?!? Could we get "a straight answer" on that?

Nope, sorry Duke I ain't playing guessing games, or to paraphrase your recent post it depends on how you define "straight answer" etc etc. Straight answer is, as I dont KNOW who Oswald's co-conspirators were or which group they belonged to, I cant possible KNOW what their role was. Oh sure, I have lots of ideas and theory, those ideas and theory PLUS 10p will buy a box of matches. In other words they are quite useless unless backed up by facts an evidence. Which I dont have. There are certain threads where I have postulated my ideas/theory. But I dont feel that would be appropriate here, this thread seems more concerned with facts or at least how people with differant opinions define those facts. I'd like to keep it that way. What was it Ray said ? Something along the lines of "inquirers differ from believers in that they dont revel their beliefs until they have finished their inquiries" or words to that effect. I thought the phrase very clever and I intend to steal it.

Hi Gary.... (he was peeking in on ya Pointing) checking the troops I guess, eh?

How about adding the category:

THE MEMBER OTHER MEMBERS WOULD MOST LIKE TO LEAVE THE FORUM.

With a bit of luck Healy will read the result and go. lol

envy will get you no where, son... Be a man, gird those loins come to Vegas... I'll buy you a drink after I teach you some manners you poor Bill Miller clone you!

Hi Duke,

Do you believe Oswald played any part in the events of that day?

Thanks - Steve

The most interesting question on this thread yet Steve, I like the way you come straight to the point. But will "THE DUKE" give as straight a reply?

Mr. Pointing, if you had bothered to read Duke's posts on this very thread wherein he discussed his views/suspicions re Oswald's role you would not be making this kind of snide insinuation. Duke has long ago earned a reputation as a straight shooter. He is not a BELIEVER, like you, he is an INQUIRER, and true inquirers cannot state their BELIEFS until the inquiry is complete.

BTW, good job on finding the radio report on the Tippit murder. Can you post a link?

Ray, no "snide insinuation" was intended, a simple request for a straight answer, no more, no less. Just for the record I have nothing but respect for Duke's work and no less respect for him as a person. But that does not mean that I have to accept all he states without question. And I'm certain Duke wouldn't want nor expect me to. To be honest I find Duke's style of writing rather confusing at times, a fault of mine rather than his I'm sure, at times Duke an I dont seem to be too far off the same page an yet at other times we seem to be in total disagreement. Hence my request for a "straight answer" I would genuinely like to know where Duke is "coming from".

When I can find the link Ray I will indeed post it, that's a promise. One final thing Ray, may I ask why you always seem so very hostile? I am here for debate and if that debate becomes a little hot at times so be it, we're all grown men. But just because my opinion differs from yours that does not mean I am some kind of enemy. With respect. DENIS.

Some wonder why you spend an inordinate amount of time making excuses as to why you almost agree with those you disagree with all the time.... if you can't figure out where Duke is coming from perhaps you should consult a seer. Your hostile card was thrown into this ring long before this thread Pointing, I for one don't believe a damn thing you opine... Carry on!

I think that you are pushing your luck and taking advantage of your friendship with Kathy by posting the above disgusting filthy remark, making it almost impossible for her to moderate this thread in a fair manner. She has requested that the thread stays on topic. I have honoured that request, but you appear to be ignoring it.

I hope Kathy shows some balance of fairness and deletes the above disgraceful slanderous comment.

Duncan MacRae

Christ loved all his fellow brothers and sisters ... nothing disgraceful about that. He didn't claim not to be able to function without them posting monkey pics and misstating the witnesses like Miles did, but loved them all the same. Now are you going to address the question ...

"Previously in this thread there was an opinion posted by Duncan as to his believing that the man in the Nix film is a separate issue - to that the view from Nix to the figure above the wall is different that Mooman's, thus she couldn't have seen him, to there being no one between the wall and the fence in the Nix film. That was Duncan's choice to discuss those topics within this thread. So now I am going to exercise my right in asking Duncan to explain in detail how he came to the conclusion that the person seen beyond the wall in Nix could not be seen from where Moorman stood???"

Bill Miller

Frankly these day's, I'm surprised anyone is responding to your nonsense. When Lone Nuts have to resort to calling on Jesus for support, ya know the Lone Nut non-film/photo alteration crowd are in deep do-do.... Carry on!

...

When I get the time, I'll look it up for you...maybe.

perhaps while you're looking up things, you can find something in the McCain-Palin/GOP platform concerning immigration reform... seems to me Angry John and Sweet Sarah are both running from this Southwest-US issue at a rapid clip. A "weighty" subject I'd say, is turning your tail to the US electorate the best idea?

Looks like Indiana is going "DIM" -- that has gotta be a mega size heartburn for ya, eh?

...I attempted to postulate Oswald's escape from Dallas in a earlier post, to which you made a rather sarcastic and nonsensical reply about Oswald stealing an elephant from the zoo and charging out of town! So maybe we can now hear your suggestion.

You asked me about Red Bird Airport being close to downtown Oak Cliff, which it sort of is. I replied:

...I'd think that until someone was able to fill in those kinds of gaps [that I wrote about] before they can hypothesize an "escape" via Redbird or elsewhere, that such speculation has about as much validity as the possibility that Oswald was actually headed to the Dallas Zoo (only a few blocks from where he was, in the direction he was supposedly heading, and also accessible by McWatters' Marsalis bus) to "bulldoze" his way out of Dallas on the back of an elephant.

My point, since you missed it, was simply that because something was "nearby" doesn't make it a destination. He was headed to Jack Ruby's place ... he was going to the Harlandale "safe house" ... he was going to Red Bird ... ad nauseum. There's nothing more than mere proximity on which to form the basis of such speculation, and they have about as much validity as the "zoo" scenario.

"Busybody Brewer" didn't follow Oswald because he was "sweating a dollar ticket fee" that's nonsense, Brewer's testimony makes it perfectly clear as to why he became suspicious of Oswald and subsequently followed him...

So there's really nothing at all surprising concerning Brewer's actions, any sensible, alert person would have acted the same way. As to why Oswald never attempted "getting the heck out of Dodge" Oswald may have been trying to do exactly that before he got "side tracked" into killing Tippit.

I happen to disagree with your assessment about what "any sensible, alert person" would have done: it's a generalization that fails as often as not. Someone commented to me that "any" cop who heard about Tippit getting shot in Oak Cliff would "naturally" connect that to the shooting of the President; makes sense, right? But we find homicide Detective Jim Leavelle testifying that "we didn't put them together at the time." Surely, if "any" cop would put the two together, then certainly a veteran homicide detective would do the same, wouldn't you think? Generalizations are generally meaningless.

Brewer said that the radio "kept reconstructing what had happened and what they had heard, and they talked about it in general. There wasn't too much to talk about. They didn't have all the facts, and just repeated them mostly. And they said a patrolman had been shot in Oak Cliff," so the question is, do we know when an announcement about Tippit was first made on a public radio station?

That goes to whether Brewer was suspicious of Oswald because of the proximity of Tippit's shooting, or whether it was more generally related to JFK's, or whether it was simply that he thought Oswald "looked funny" and thought him "suspicious" for that reason alone. Just because he remembered that it happened that way doesn't mean that it's true.

It's like his description of the police sirens: according to him, they were approaching from the east but turned around at Zangs, which he couldn't have seen from inside the store, no matter whether or where they turned around. It's a "fact" of which he has no personal knowledge and couldn't have had.

Now here's the odd thing about it: while he said that the cops turned around and went back east, Julia Postal was standing in front of the theater looking west after the police cars had gone that way, and her boss had left the theater going west following the police cars ... that, according to Brewer, didn't go by his store nor, therefore, the theater, so Julia and her boss must've been imagining things.

If Brewer was wrong about having heard about a cop getting killed nearby, as it appears he was wrong about the sirens "doing a U-turn ... at Zangs," then the whole deal about what "any" sensible, alert person is out the window, and Brewer making a case why he was a sensible, alert person when the reality may simply be that he became suspicious for no explainable reason beyond "gut instinct."

... And then we get to the question: how is it that Oswald "got 'side tracked' into killing Tippit?" Is this the sole role of those nebulous co-conspirators you've hypothesized? They don't seem to have done anything else except get Oswald captured and killed. So is their role that of the "masterminds" who managed to get Oswald to shoot JFK and then had him kill a cop to "tie up loose ends?"

Excellent.

Jack

amen....

You are spinning like a top and squealing like a stuck pig now mrgoogle.

Thanks so much for proving what I have been saying ALL ALONG was exactly true. Rather than rebute your latest diatribe line for line, lets just note a few things.

I was correct that the polls are oversampling dims to reps and by the range I stated.

I was correct about the historical dim/rep percentages in the last presidental race.

I was correct that even the Mc Cain camp was complaining about the weighing.

I did give the historical and empirical data as I said it did. That you missed it is your problem.

I was also correct with the data I posted for the Newsweak poll. In case you missed it the second part SHOWED the sample weighing, and shows WHY the "as of today" numbers were skewed. Where I failed was to assume that mrgoogle would understand. BIG mistake.

I was correct to point out that the oversampling has no basis in reason. You were unable to offer any evidence to the contrary yet you now claim this oversampling is "reasonable". Simply amazing, but to unexpectied seeing the hole you have dug for yourself.

And finally I was correct when I stated your "question" about who knows more about polling is STILL irrelevent.

You just can't win this one mrgoogle, quit while you are ahead.

and the above has WHAT to do with Obama becoming the next President of the United States? Time for the GOP to retrench, or dissolve.

So, up to the moment, how do you spell 'double digit lead' nearly everywhere?

For the record: no, you don't sound like a *squealing stuck pig* but, I'll tell you who does: Rush Limpd*ck, Sean *pull'em up by their jocks* Hannity, Michael *gird your loins* Savage and Mark *what's it all about Alfie* Levin. Ya can hear their whining-chorus without an AM radio....

If I get hundreds of persistent emails from a pest, I will just ignore them.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

What if you find that some sick-puppy is asking one of your female members for personal info such as her work schedule ... would you continue to ignore that kind of behavior as well?

Bill Miller

vintage wild Bill Miller, duck-n-hide.... LMFAO! Show some grit, show up at the appropriate place and ask and answer the questions.

simple: stay away from Wall Street and pick up the STICKS (good for the soul).

Denis,

Still awaiting a response:

The thread seemed to be going in the direction that Oswald was just a totally innocent guy, who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Where as I belive Oswald's actions in the theater that day, along with many, many other actions, show that not to be the case.

Purported actions. Let's review some of the "many, many other actions" outside the theater that suggest he was guilty:

• Being in the second floor lunch room
  
• Buying a coke
  
• Leaving work
  
• Getting on a bus
  
• Getting off a bus
  
• Getting a transfer
  
• Taking a cab ride
  
• Walking south instead of north
  
• Going into his room
  
• Putting on a jacket
  
• Lying(?) about changing his clothes
  
• Standing by a bus stop
  
• Not using his transfer
  
• Going to a movie house
  
• Sneaking into the theater
  

Am I missing anything? You're going to be hard-pressed to have me add "killing a cop" to that list because Oswald plainly wasn't Olympics material. As for getting a gun out of his room, I'd be more inclined to go along with that if Earlene Roberts had seen such a thing (with her good eye, mind you!), but that is merely implied under presumption of his guilt in shotting Tippit. But meanwhile, we're stuck on defining those "many, many other actions" that seem to make him guilty. (Did he even do "many, many" things that day, much less "many, many" apparently incriminating things?)

There's more, of course, but these are chief among those things that supposedly make Oswald "suspect." I'm merely trying to ascertain what those "many, many other things" are that did so, and since you brought them up, what are they?

I've made my position plain, I belive Oswald was as guilty as hell. Although others were involved thus forming a conspiracy. I'm convinced Oswald was a major player. Therefore my "list" would be:

* Taking a rifle to work

*Fleeing the murder scene.

* Killing Tippit.

* Sneaking into the theater to escape patrol cars.

* Trying to avoid capture by pulling a revolver and attempting to shoot a police officer.

A slightly differant list than yours Duke, I make no apology for that. Don't ask me to produce evidence for my convictions, I haven't the time nor inclination to "copy & paste" endless links, eyewitness testimony, police documents etc etc. Besides, I'm sure you know the evidence against Oswald better than I do. This may be a shock to you Duke, but the fact that you dont accept that evidence does not make it invalid. How about cutting to the chase and YOU telling ME you're reasons for not accepting that evidence.

my-my more Lone Nut sensitivity .... must be a Bill Miller acolyte, carry on.

I have to laugh - their own members are breaking their own rules already! Amazing.

You have to laugh? Why? Nervous is as nervous DOES, perhaps?

Stick with what got you here Evan, NASA space photos.

...

For US TV, the 24fps rate of 16mm film is then converted to 30fps for TV, resulting in more frame duplications. But it's entirely normal and is nothing more than simple, basic physics.

Gary Mack

Yes indeed, Groden altered many JFK assassination related films for our viewing pleasure....

BTW, for television its 29.97fps, accuracy counts! Perhaps Gary Mack can tell you why....