Kenneth Drew Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I've never once heard any LNer claim that Buell Frazier was "lying". CTers, of course, just refuse to assess the "paper bag" information in a reasonable manner. ----------------- "I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963). I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63. I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007 "I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? And of course we all know that never existed, so lie or mistake, it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007 Try "he was framed." There's one explanation. And another one is that no brown bag was found there, either with or without his fingerprints. Even the chicken bag didn't have his prints. DVP, making it up as he goes along..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Let us all know when you get C2766 in LHO's hands. Okay..... Now, you, Ken, will be sure to let us know as soon as you've learned how to spell Tippit, right? (And his name is spelled the same backward as forward. The capitalization doesn't count when speaking of that particular fact. If you truly think it does count, you're just being silly.) I guess you misunderstood, I said get C2766 in Oswald's hands. Faked photo's don't count. I'm not the one that claims that Tippit's name is spelled the same. I spell it differently. I use a Capital T on one end and a small t on the other. If you think a Capital t and a small t is the same, I'll bet you got poor grades in spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) If you think a Capital t and a small t is the same, I'll bet you got poor grades in spelling. You see, folks, this is the kind of mind-numbing (il)logic I'm confronted with every day here in the "JFK world". Kenny Drew knew exactly what I meant when I said (correctly) that J.D. Tippit's last name was spelled the same backward and forward. But Kenny will nitpick about the Capital T. He does this just to argue and for no other worthwhile purpose. Mind-boggling, isn't it? Edited July 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) And goodness, we all know that if it was in the Warren Report it must be real. You're right. I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story. Edited July 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 If you think a Capital t and a small t is the same, I'll bet you got poor grades in spelling. You see, folks, this is the kind of mind-numbing (il)logic I'm confronted with every day here in the "JFK world". Kenny Drew knew exactly what I meant when I said (correctly) that J.D. Tippit's last name was spelled the same backward and forward. But Kenny will nitpick about the Capital T. He does this just to argue and for no other worthwhile purpose. Mind-boggling, isn't it? You see, folks, this is the kind Just who are you appealing to here DVP? Do you think there is someone here that thinks you are objective? Did you notice where I also said (more red meat, folks) I knew I was throwing something out that doesn't mean anything and that you would make it into a major event. And you can't resist that red meat. Is this subject 'really' important to you? Do you really care if I know how to spell Tippet? (deliberate) Well, if you weren't so enamored with proving a CTer wrong you would likely just have a laugh and go on to the next comment. But Noooooooooo...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 If you think a Capital t and a small t is the same, I'll bet you got poor grades in spelling. You see, folks, this is the kind of mind-numbing (il)logic I'm confronted with every day here in the "JFK world". Kenny Drew knew exactly what I meant when I said (correctly) that J.D. Tippit's last name was spelled the same backward and forward. But Kenny will nitpick about the Capital T. He does this just to argue and for no other worthwhile purpose. Mind-boggling, isn't it? It was your nit picking over his mis-spelling of Tippit that made him re-nitpick. Mind boggling you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 And goodness, we all know that if it was in the Warren Report it must be real. You're right. I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story. Once again, when someone's statement disagrees with your position, they are lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Another thing that's kind of ironic about the ridiculous "OSWALD NEVER LIVED AT 1026 BECKLEY" theory is that anyone who endorses that theory can no longer ever utter the following words.... Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have possibly killed J.D. Tippit because he didn't have enough time to get to the Tippit murder site on Tenth Street after leaving his roominghouse on Beckley. But if Greg Parker is to be believed, Oswald never went to the Beckley roominghouse at all on 11/22/63. And, therefore, the popular "He Couldn't Get To Tenth Street In Time To Shoot Tippit" theory goes flying out the window, because there would be no "starting point" for Oswald's trip to Tenth and Patton at all. So Greg Parker is discarding one false theory for another one. The same type of ironic twist exists when discussing Oswald's paper bag (CE142) too. For years, the most popular "paper bag" conspiracy theory was this one.... Oswald didn't take the Carcano rifle into the TSBD on November 22 because the paper bag he carried into the building that morning was too short to hold the disassembled rifle. But that theory has to be taken off the table if a conspiracy theorist now believes that Oswald never carried ANY large-ish paper bag to work with him at all. Ironic, isn't it? But it just goes to prove one thing --- Regardless of which theory they embrace, conspiracy theorists never get anything right. The really, really ironic thing is that you are allowed to post your propaganda on something calling itself an "education forum". Once again, you slip into the most obvious of dirty plays, putting words and theories in someone's mouth in order to shoot them down, while assiduously avoiding the land mine which is the actual evidence here for lone-nutdom. There is no point in addressing your putrescent falsities. You'll just make up more and around we go. The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth JFK once said. You make a mockery of it, and your enablers here are just as guilty for caring more about "foul" language than about the foul tactics you and others employ in your battle to thwart any chance of "education" here. Edited July 22, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story. Once again, when someone's statement disagrees with your position, they are lying. The "trousers" thing isn't really very important at all. I just don't think Oswald took the time to change his pants (or shirt) when he went to his roominghouse on Nov. 22. Therefore, it's my opinion that Oswald lied about his pants. It's possible that he changed his pants, but I'm doubting it. It just doesn't make any sense to me that he would have done that. Edited July 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth JFK once said. You make a mockery of it, and your enablers here are just as guilty for caring more about "foul" language than about the foul tactics you and others employ in your battle to thwart any chance of "education" here. The "OSWALD NEVER RENTED A ROOM AT 1026 BECKLEY" is an idiotic theory and all rational people know it. Even most CTers know it. Such a theory is completely at odds with all of the testimony and evidence that proves with 100% certainty that Lee Oswald rented a room at the Beckley roominghouse in October and November of 1963. And let's bask in the irony of a CTer who is berating me for being a "mockery" when it comes to the "advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth" relating to this "Beckley roominghouse" topic. If Greg Parker gets any further from the truth on this thing, he'll be taking up residence on Neptune. Because he's that far out on this subject for sure. Edited July 22, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story. Once again, when someone's statement disagrees with your position, they are lying. The "trousers" thing isn't really very important at all. I just don't think Oswald took the time to change his pants (or shirt) when he went to his roominghouse on Nov. 22. Therefore, it's my opinion that Oswald lied about his pants. It's possible that he changed his pants, but I'm doubting it. It just doesn't make any sense to me that he would have done that. If it wasn't important, why did you bring it up? Edited July 22, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Another thing that's kind of ironic about the ridiculous "OSWALD NEVER LIVED AT 1026 BECKLEY" theory is that anyone who endorses that theory can no longer ever utter the following words.... Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have possibly killed J.D. Tippit because he didn't have enough time to get to the Tippit murder site on Tenth Street after leaving his roominghouse on Beckley. But if Greg Parker is to be believed, Oswald never went to the Beckley roominghouse at all on 11/22/63. And, therefore, the popular "He Couldn't Get To Tenth Street In Time To Shoot Tippit" theory goes flying out the window, because there would be no "starting point" for Oswald's trip to Tenth and Patton at all. So Greg Parker is discarding one false theory for another one. The same type of ironic twist exists when discussing Oswald's paper bag (CE142) too. For years, the most popular "paper bag" conspiracy theory was this one.... Oswald didn't take the Carcano rifle into the TSBD on November 22 because the paper bag he carried into the building that morning was too short to hold the disassembled rifle. But that theory has to be taken off the table if a conspiracy theorist now believes that Oswald never carried ANY large-ish paper bag to work with him at all. Ironic, isn't it? But it just goes to prove one thing --- Regardless of which theory they embrace, conspiracy theorists never get anything right. The really, really ironic thing is that you are allowed to post your propaganda on something calling itself an "education forum". Once again, you slip into the most obvious of dirty plays, putting words and theories in someone's mouth in order to shoot them down, while assiduously avoiding the land mine which is the actual evidence here for lone-nutdom. There is no point in addressing your putrescent falsities. You'll just make up more and around we go. The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth JFK once said. You make a mockery of it, and your enablers here are just as guilty for caring more about "foul" language than about the foul tactics you and others employ in your battle to thwart any chance of "education" here. Greg, you sure understand DVP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story. Once again, when someone's statement disagrees with your position, they are lying. The "trousers" thing isn't really very important at all. I just don't think Oswald took the time to change his pants (or shirt) when he went to his roominghouse on Nov. 22. Therefore, it's my opinion that Oswald lied about his pants. It's possible that he changed his pants, but I'm doubting it. It just doesn't make any sense to me that he would have done that. Interesting that Oswald LIED, but Officer Baker "misremembered." In case you missed it, Oswald had just as much going on on November 22, 1963, as Officer Baker did...and possibly more, if you believe everything you read. But in DVP's world, only folks who are on the side of Oswald's guilt are allowed to "misremember;" DVP believes everyone else "lied." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now