Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Dave...

Of course there is room there, stamps need to leave room for when a 1 is actually there.

You seem to be ignoring the "noise" of the paper itself and the limitation of the file.  

The thing you are calling a "1" is simply part of the pattern in the paper.  A real 1 looks like the 1 in front of 1963.

I put arrows near similar paper designs and even took one, rotated it to be vertical and show how identical they are.

Sorry buddy, no "1" there.  So explain how a letter typed on the 9th is postmarked the 2nd?

Oh, and how come they didn't give Oswald a 6 month visa from that 6 month application?

5978bec54f3b5_PostmarkonRuthPaineTypedletterofOswaldtoRussianEmbassyinDC-no1there.thumb.jpg.90bae1f61937e7addb466fea75ba9e88.jpg

If we want to see the "1" that DVP says is there, I can see similar phantom digits in multiple locations. It just isn't there.

***edit... I see that David Josephs already made that point.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, those bumbling/stumbling plotters strike again! They want everybody to think Oswald sent a letter to Washington AFTER Nov. 9th, so "they" fake an envelope which has "Nov. 2" on it, right? Even though those same plotters COULD have put ANY date on the envelope via the postmark that was apparently a "fake" postmark. Correct?

Brilliant!

The things CTers believe never cease being incredible---and hilarious.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, those bumbling/stumbling plotters strike again! They want everybody to think Oswald sent a letter to Washington AFTER Nov. 9th, so "they" fake an envelope (which they COULD have put ANY date on via the "fake" postmark) which has "Nov. 2" on it, right?

Brilliant!

The things CTers believe never ceases being incredible---and hilarious.

 

Focus Dave...   6 month application yields a 15-day visa...  how dat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Josephs said:

6 month application yields a 15-day visa...  how dat?

Beats me, Dave. I guess it's just one more thing (among many) that your idiotic plotters and Patsy Framers did wrong when they were framing Oswald in November of '63.

Just a few examples....

Per many CTers....

....The unknown "they" who were in the process of allegedly "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald screwed up the dates on the letter and/or envelope in Commission Exhibits 15 and 16.

....They screwed up the length of time for the visa that Oswald was supposedly applying for.

....They screwed up everything imaginable relating to Oswald's rifle purchase (e.g., the length of the gun, the postmark on the Klein's envelope, they permitted the "fake" order to get to Klein's way too soon [in just 24 hours], they didn't check LHO's employment records closely enough at Jaggars and thusly had the "fake" rifle order being mailed at a time when the CTers say Oswald couldn't possibly have left work to go to the post office, etc.).

....They screwed up the Backyard Photos of Oswald holding the rifle (e.g., the shadows are all wrong, Oswald is "leaning" over in an impossible fashion, etc.).

....They screwed up the part of the frame-up at the car dealership (because Oswald The Patsy couldn't really drive nearly well enough to test drive a car at the high speeds and in the reckless way that Mr. Bogard said he did).

....They screwed up the part of the frame-up at Dial Ryder's Irving Sports Shop (because Oswald's rifle was already supposed to have a scope on it).

And on and on and......on.

Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (in advance) in 1963 must have been total morons.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know Dave...  the extra BS you tag onto the end of your "I don't know" reply is superfluous.

IOW - nobody needs it or cares for it...   I did not ask you 15 questions, I asked one for which you do not have an answer

That you can regurgitate the same WCR arguments that have been debunked on these pages is a laugh.

The final laugh is you talking for "many CTers".   Defend your own pathetic arguments and let me defend mine... K?

Don't tell me what I already know, if you could PROVE you are right about any one thing of significance, you wouldn't be the posting laughing stock you are.

We all appreciate you aggregating videos and films... your inability to construct a coherent defense of any of your/WCR conclusions is all that anyone cares about anymore.

As the mouthpiece of the WCR you have no credibility here...  just like Specter, Jenner, Liebeler, Ball and on and on.

Until you actually attempt gaining some credibility... why should anyone care about your repeated description of who CTers are and what you think we think?

You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion...  that must really suck for you. :up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Y'know Dave...  the extra BS you tag onto the end of your "I don't know" reply is superfluous.

IOW - nobody needs it or cares for it...   I did not ask you 15 questions, I asked one for which you do not have an answer

That you can regurgitate the same WCR arguments that have been debunked on these pages is a laugh.

The final laugh is you talking for "many CTers".   Defend your own pathetic arguments and let me defend mine... K?

Don't tell me what I already know, if you could PROVE you are right about any one thing of significance, you wouldn't be the posting laughing stock you are.

We all appreciate you aggregating videos and films... your inability to construct a coherent defense of any of your/WCR conclusions is all that anyone cares about anymore.

As the mouthpiece of the WCR you have no credibility here...  just like Specter, Jenner, Liebeler, Ball and on and on.

Until you actually attempt gaining some credibility... why should anyone care about your repeated description of who CTers are and what you think we think?

You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion...  that must really suck for you. :up

Ha Ha! I think you ruined his plan to post this thread in his little Hall of Selective Fame that he maintains on his website. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@David Josephs....

What must really suck for you and your CT brethren, David, is to have to admit that the basic fact I mentioned previously is 100% true (if Oswald had been framed for JFK's murder, as so many conspiracy theorists firmly believe), which is this basic fact....

"Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (IN ADVANCE) in 1963 must have been total morons."

And that you have the gall to actually say this to me....

"You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion."

....only goes to show how "out to lunch" you truly are.

Do you really think that reasonable and sensible people who reside outside the doors of Internet JFK forums are actually in such a deep state of denial about the JFK evidence that they are going to believe the B.S. you just uttered about there being no evidence in the Warren Report whatsoever which supports the conclusion that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy? Yeah, right.

The fact is (and always has been) that virtually ALL of the evidence in the JFK case supports the WCR conclusion of Oswald's sole guilt in the murders of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

But apparently, if you're a CTer posting on an Internet JFK forum, ALL equals NOTHING AT ALL.

What a (CTer) crock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Ha Ha! I think you ruined his plan to post this thread in his little Hall of Selective Fame that he maintains on his website. :lol:

Not at all. I posted this material on my site more than 24 hours ago....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1255.html

I always enjoy archiving discussions where CTers say really dumb things, like this Golden Nugget Of Idiocy authored by Mr. Josephs today....

"You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion."  LOL.gif

Hard to get any sillier (and funnier) than the above CT gem.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

@David Josephs....

What must really suck for you and your CT brethren, David, is to have to admit that the basic fact I mentioned previously is 100% true (if Oswald had been framed for JFK's murder, as so many conspiracy theorists firmly believe), which is this basic fact....

"Face it, David Josephs ---- the people that many conspiracy theorists think were framing Lee Harvey Oswald (IN ADVANCE) in 1963 must have been total morons."

And that you have the gall to actually say this to me....

"You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion."

....only goes to show how "out to lunch" you truly are.

Do you really think that reasonable and sensible people who reside outside the doors of Internet JFK forums are actually in such a deep state of denial about the JFK evidence that they are going to believe the B.S. you just uttered about there being no evidence in the Warren Report whatsoever which supports the conclusion that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy? Yeah, right.

The fact is (and always has been) that virtually ALL of the evidence in the JFK case supports the WCR conclusion of Oswald's sole guilt in the murders of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

But apparently, if you're a CTer posting on an Internet JFK forum, ALL equals NOTHING AT ALL.

What a (CTer) crock.

The Warren Commission gave plenty of evidence for conspiracy with their acceptance of the EOP wound. And in the "Tracking Oswald part 5" thread, you did not respond to my common-sense rebuttal to the cowlick entry theory: 1. Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, 2. he always said he could examine the entry wound within the intact-open cranium, and 3. there is almost certainly no way you could remove the brain without also removing the "cowlick" area of the skull! Given how shattered the skull was around the large defect, it is also obvious that the "cowlick" area of the skull would naturally separate! It's almost as if the Doctors deserved to be heard out when they spent their whole lives shouting from the highest mountains that the wound was near the external occipital pertuberance! About six other autopsy witnesses gave statements also indicating a low entry wound in the head! If you wish to respond, can you do so on the other thread?

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micah,

Over the years, I've discussed the "Cowlick vs. EOP" topic at great length with (mostly) John A. Canal. I've archived most of those discussions here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Quick Note --- Regardless of exactly WHERE on the head the entry wound was located, we know from all the autopsy doctors (plus the autopsy report) that there was only ONE entry wound in JFK's cranium...and that ONE single entry hole was located at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

So, CTers are defeated either way, regardless of whether it was an "EOP" entry location or a "Cowlick" entry location.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Micah,

Over the years, I've discussed the "BOH vs. EOP" topic at great length with (mostly) John A. Canal. I've archived most of those discussions here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Quick Note --- Regardless of exactly WHERE on the head the entry wound was located, we know from all the autopsy doctors (plus the autopsy report) that there was, indeed, only ONE entry wound in JFK's cranium...and that ONE single entry hole was located at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

So, CTers are really the losers either way, regardless of whether the wound was an "EOP" entry location or a "Cowlick" entry location.

Then you should also know the contradictions raised by a single-assassin theorist believing any connection between the EOP wound and the large head wound.

I don't want to search your blog because I've brought the brain removal-EOP issues up with other LNers elsewhere before and they only resort to childish gish gallop BS. I'm pretty sure the EOP wound can be the only answer.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

If we want to see the "1" that DVP says is there, I can see similar phantom digits in multiple locations. It just isn't there.

***edit... I see that David Josephs already made that point.

Thanks to both David's, not to make light of Mr. Joseph's assertion.  I've not though of or heard "One' in years.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=three+dog+night+one+is+the+loneliest+number&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=c74039e3e295474486633a7e53cbfa1c&sp=1&ghc=1&qs=AS&pq=three+dog+night+one+is&sc=4-22&cvid=c74039e3e295474486633a7e53cbfa1c 

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...