Jump to content
The Education Forum

O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie


Recommended Posts

Craig:

This is a non sequitir by you.

Oswald was not a gun nut. Just read Reasonable Doubt .Another book you probably never heard of. All his buddies in the Marines, virtually all of them, said Oswald simply did not have any real affinity for guns.

And that has what to do with the anything? Oh yea, nothing. Just another case of a ct making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, does your ammo have Winchester bullets wrapped in Remington shells? Because that is what the evidence found at the Tippit murder scene includes.

Those are called RELOADS. Again no big deal at all. Except when a kook reads it.

Go back to Varnell.

That weak stick can't even figure out how the sun works.

BTW Craig, I saw the Wilkinson scans last weekend.

You are really not going to like it, if you ever see it.

I advise you not to.

LOL! What makes you think I don't know exactly what those frames contain in high rez jimbo and that I can look at them at will..anytime I want?

Don't pin your hopes on folks who can't prove a thing.....oh wait. That's your SOP. Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>

BTW, by creating the illusion that the rifle ordered was the longer rifle, the question never arose, as it would in a real court room: if Klein's did not place scopes on the longer rifle, then how did this particular rifle have a scope on it when found?

Easy Jim, (As you are aware) Dial Ryder, in an Irving Gun Shop, testified that two or three weeks before the assassination, a man brought him a rifle which he was to "drill and tap" so that a telescopic sight could be mounted on it. The man left the name "Oswald". The FBI found out about this through an anonymous phone call telling them that Oswald had had a sight mounted at a store on the block on which the Irving Sports Shop is located. Ryder's employer testified that Ryder was an employee of six years, and a reliable man, and that he believed the tag with the name Oswald on it was a legitimate tag for a bona fide transaction. Ryder's testimony was supported, furthermore, by two women, Edith Whitworth and Gertrude Hunter. They testified that a man "who they later came to believe was Oswald, drove up to the Furniture Mart in a two-tone blue and white 1957 Ford automobile, entered the store and asked about a part for a gun, presumably because of a sign that appeared in the building advertising a gunsmith shop that had formerly occupied part of the premises." The man came back shortly afterwards with a woman and two young children, and they browsed in the store for about half an hour; one of the children was apparently a new-born, just as one of Oswald's was at that time.If LHO had a scope fitted three or four weeks before the assassination then how come he had photos taken with a scope on his rifle in March?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to Varnell.

For what?

To spew idiotic and irrelevant claims which David Von Pein and Paul Baker are too embarrassed to repeat?

Neither of these fine Nutter fellows can utter a word of defense of the SBT trajectory.

They have nothing to say, Jim.

That should tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though Craig, how do you get to that situation of having a mix of bullets and yet no storage boxes? Did you originally buy boxes of ammo but you used the rest?

Isn't the minimum quantity for bullets a box?

First you don't need to store your ammo in factory boxes, an second , yes you can shoot partial boxes at the range and save and load the rest . Again nothing sinister.

Besides how can you rule out the rounds being purchased or given individually from another person and not the store?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though Craig, how do you get to that situation of having a mix of bullets and yet no storage boxes? Did you originally buy boxes of ammo but you used the rest?

Isn't the minimum quantity for bullets a box?

LOL :sun

And BTW in those days you had to have a special machine to do that. Oswald of course never had one, since he was never into guns. And since they could never prove he purchased any, the WC was at loose ends on this one.

But not Craig. Nosiree.

And reloaders are something special? Come on jimbo...jump into reality. Oh wait, you don't do reality. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back to Varnell.

For what?

To spew idiotic and irrelevant claims which David Von Pein and Paul Baker are too embarrassed to repeat?

Neither of these fine Nutter fellows can utter a word of defense of the SBT trajectory.

They have nothing to say, Jim.

That should tell you something.

LOL..mr. "i've seen every shirt on every person waving their hand in all of recorded history" barks. Just can't quit making stuff up from thin air can you varnell? When all else fails, just count on varnell to tell yet other whopper.

Figure out how the SUN works yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the witnesses don't fit with preconceived ideas, then ignore them. Trouble is they don't go away. Wouldn't you just have loved seeing the prosecution squirming when they tried to get away with what the Warren Concoction did.`

And that's the key point Ray. None of the evidence against Oswald has been tested by cross examination. Whilst it is indisputable that there is evidence against Oswald, the defence would presumably attempt to rebut that evidence at trial. Its then up to a jury to decide whose evidence carries most weight.

So while Paul is correct in that there is a body of evidence implicating Oswald, its debatable as to whether that evidence would have survived adversarial process.

For example, knowing what we know now about the chain of possession of CE399, I don't think it would be allowed into evidence in a trial today.

That said, its my belief that Oswald would have been convicted had the trial taken place in 1964. The jury would likely (IMHO) have accepted the FBI & DPD evidence as it stood. Faith in those institutions was almost unshakeable in those days. The trials of Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray gave us a glimpse of what would have happened to Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you want to be convicted on this type of "evidence"?.

Of course not, but I'd fully expect to be.

So you're one of those people that thinks there wouldn't have been enough evidence to convict Oswald. Perhaps you even think, like some loonies do, that he didn't commit any crime at all.

Paul

Your "evidence " was never tested .

It appears you know very little about Oswald.

If Von Pein brings the rope I am sure you can help locate a tree.

We here have the benefit of discussion Oswald did not and was denied

Legal representation why if it was so "cinched" did they feel the need for silence?

Why not allow Oswald his phone call?. I am sure the DPD used this as Intelligence gathering in

Normal crimes ?.the guilty party tries to warn his cohorts and the net closes on the others

But Oswalds call was not put through why ? , did somebody know the answer already?.

Oswald was being watched from 59 onwards for what ?.

2 top level intel chiefs commented on his "maturing" after Minsk

Do you think they were discussing the onset of Oswalds puberty?.

I cannot understand you clinging to these old beliefs without attempting

To discredit them Would you have lynched Galileo for his intelligence ?.

By the way if the answer is yes just to keep the status as quo as possible

My next question would be .

Would you cover up his murder too?.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though Craig, how do you get to that situation of having a mix of bullets and yet no storage boxes? Did you originally buy boxes of ammo but you used the rest?

Isn't the minimum quantity for bullets a box?

First you don't need to store your ammo in factory boxes, an second , yes you can shoot partial boxes at the range and save and load the rest . Again nothing sinister.

Besides how can you rule out the rounds being purchased or given individually from another person and not the store?

It was an honest question about the range of ammo you were holding. I wasn't insinuating anything.

Seems odd though that Oswald would buy a rifle by traceable mail order to his own po box yet buy his ammo in small quantities in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this exchange is particularly edifying for either side, or creating any new insight.

I think its clear that Paul is committed to his point of view, as are we all.

Great. Another Education Forum member who thinks we may all begin to get somewhere by agreeing to the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

Listen, I've been batting back Paul Baker's and Von Pein's bullxxxx for two years.

You want the job, you're more than welcome to it. The job description is to ensure you demonstrate that every point they make is made up of complete xxxx. Thanks for taking the baton. I've got more important things to do with my time.

Good luck. I'm sure you'll all be getting on great in no time.

Sorry Lee. Its not my intention to insult or cause offence.

I just thinks its clear that no amount of debate is going to change the minds of David Von Pein or Paul Baker. Of course we can express disagreement, but I don't think the name calling & insults by anyone gets any of us any further forward.

I don't suggest civility will get us anywhere new, but it'd be a nicer experience for everyone.

I was a member at JFKResearch for several years, and Rich didn't tolerate clashes of this sort. I joined EF hoping for the same atmosphere but saw pretty quickly that it wasn't the same, so I've been away for a year or so. I was hoping it'd be more civil when I came back. In general, it does seem to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this thread has contained some useful information. I particularly liked the clipping from DVP containing Roger Craig's assertion that the shells on the 6th floor were originally very close together and all pointing in the same direction, ie not like the photos show them.

This was a new fact to me when I read Jim's review of The Lost Bullet over at CTKA only a couple of weeks ago. To see corroboration from a different source was interesting. Not least because I saw something that I'd never seen before, and it was from David! David has a vast array of material and I'm always interested to see new things, even if I disagree with David's conclusions.

Edited by Martin White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig uses stuff against Oswald that not even the WC found credible.

This is what the WC said about this excuse of a reload. "This is extremely unlikely because there is no evidence that the 4 recovered shells have been resized." This was clearly based on an FBi report. So Lamson is even more intent on convicting Oswald than the WC AND the FBI. Sylvia Meagher went further on this issue. She said that the above explanation was really a space filler. SInce the WC had already eliminated that excuse on the basis of the cost and bulk of the equipment. Someone would have recalled selling it to him and someone would have seen it before. (p. 281)

And yet if the brass and the lead were a mismatch, they have a pretty high likelihood of being reloads. Pretty simple really.

In any case, you, along with everyone else have now clue as to the exact movements of LHO, who he may have contacted, where he might have acquired the ammo. I guarantee you I have ammo no one could trace as to where I acquired it. Again nothing sinister, just reality.

Would someone have recalled selling him the ammo. Perhaps Would they by necessity COME FORWARD to tell someone? Who knows.

Your expectations are just that. They are pretty much worthless in the really world. But then again, that's a place you don't inhabit.

BTW I could care less if Oswald did it or not. I'm only interested in YOUR silly escapades here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...