|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: BHouseMadrigalsBHouseMadrigals Date: Sep 8, 2007 05:32
There are several distinct possibilities:
(1) Legitimately involved with their own families getting the kids off to
school, etc., etc.
(2) Watching reruns of The Dick Van Dyke Show produced in the good ole
days of the early 1960s before Kennedy was assassinated and all hell broke
loose politically in the US. (Those were the days.)
(3) Attending the latest Warren Commissionoid Convention... "We have met
the enemy and the enemy is us."
(4) On their annual Company paid vacation secretly funded by the FBI or
CIA... voting on who gets the coveted Edwin Landsdale award for political
subversion beyond the call of duty whether foreign or domestic.
(3) Attending the latest Ad Hominem Seminar looking for the lowest
personal attacks possible in leu of anything truly credible that Lee
Harvey Oswald shot anyone other than Santa Claus or Peter Pan in Dallas.
(4) Scouring the world looking for another bullet somehow, somewhere that
looks anything like CE399... but so far running out of gas money...
(5) Licking their wounds because their arguments continue to be repeatedly
rejected by 80 percent of American citizens who understand the
implications of this case better than they do.
|
| Show full article (1.74Kb) |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Sep 8, 2007 05:54
>>> "Sorry, but the only thing missing at this other "trial" was OSWALD himself, wasn't it? And some of you people never factor that in now that Oswald is dead, do you?
"BHouse" gets kookier with every passing post. It's hilarious to watch
his rapid decline into madness.
Fact is: Oswald would NEVER, EVER have taken that witness stand if he
had lived to stand trial...no way, no how.
Here's why......
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2c24506aa7154bf
Therefore, since the above is so obviously true (or at least very
likely to be true; just like another guilty double-killer, O.J.
Simpson), whether or not Lee Oswald was alive or dead during the 1986
mock trial is a moot point altogether.
(Anybody want to bet that this BHouse nutcase believes in O.J.'s
innocence too? Let's ask him.)
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Sep 8, 2007 05:59
>>> "You're reaching. Badly." {Re. Oswald having possibly switched from the scope to the rifle's iron sights after the first shot.} <<<
You're just plain kooky to say this. Several other people who have
looked into the case think the same thing re. LHO possibly using both
the scope and the iron sights during the assassination.
>>> "If Oswald BORE shot the president using the IRON sight, great balls of fire, the target would be 4 TIMES farther away and make the shot from "behind" even more difficult than it already was." <<<
Which wasn't difficult at all, of course....especially for a person
trained to shoot in the Marines. 88 yards maximum at Shot #3, shooting
at a virtually-stationary target moving away from him at 11 MPH. Duh!
>>> "...FOUR times farther away! This distance also goes for the supposed head shot to Kennedy that Oswald pulled off with his Hail Mary blast from the rear. He did this ALL with the IRON sight?" <<<
I don't know it for a fact, no. I surmised he possibly used the
sights. Nobody can know for sure. Duh!
And, unfortunately, the murderer wasn't kind enough to tell Will Fritz
(or anyone else) whether he cut down JFK by looking through the
telescope or by using the sights. That was damned unpolite of him not
to give that information, wasn't it Mr. Bullsh!tHouse?
>>> "Not to mention that Oswald would have had to RE-AIM on the last two IRON sight shots because of the rifle's RECOIL and without using the scope and, again, at four times the distance." <<<
Yeah, he wouldn't have had ANY recoil if he'd used the scope for all 3
shots, and he wouldn't have had to "re-aim" at all, right?
Kooky.
|
| Show full article (3.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Sep 8, 2007 06:18
>>> "Sorry, but the only thing missing at this other "trial" was OSWALD himself, wasn't it? And some of you people never factor that in now that Oswald is dead, do you?" <<<
"BHouse" gets kookier with every passing post. It's hilarious to watch
his rapid decline into madness.
Fact is: Oswald would never have taken the witness stand if he had
lived to stand trial. No way, no how.
Here's why (via a previously-posted DVP essay)......
==============================
Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in
Dallas on November 22, 1963. The evidence that shows Oswald to be
guilty of that murder is massive in quantity and scope.
Many people seem to think that Oswald would have walked away a free
man, in a court of law, if he had not been killed himself by Jack
Ruby's bullet on November 24, 1963.
And some conspiracy theorists also think that if Oswald himself had
taken the witness stand at his trial, he would have somehow exonerated
himself and (per certain CTers) would have revealed himself to be just
what those CTers think Oswald was -- an innocent "patsy", who was set
up and framed for the murder of President Kennedy.
|
| Show full article (8.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Sep 8, 2007 07:25
A MEGA-KOOK BLATHERED (No kidding! He REALLY said this! I kid you not!
I couldn't MAKE UP classic stuff like this!):
>>> "The only thing more embarrassing than your original post on 'Oswald's mastery of the iron sight' is that you have the balls to show your face around here any longer." <<<
LOL time.
Another -- ROFL!!
Man, you sure got a monster-sized set of gonads yourself there,
BHouse, I must give you credit for that.
The above BHouse idiocy directed at me is coming from a person who
said this just minutes earlier......
"Oswald shot no one."
Hat trick:
LOL!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Sep 8, 2007 07:36
Re. LHO's bullets:
Oswald obviously purchased SOME bullets to use in his rifle at some
point after he gained possession of it in late March 1963 (it was
bought so that Oswald could shoot and kill General Walker, btw;
there's little doubt of that, due to the timing of the Walker shooting
on 04/10/63, just days after Oz takes possession of C2766).
So when CTers bring up the "WHERE DID HE GET THE BULLETS?" thing, I
can't help but laugh, because the argument is just....silly.
By the same token, there's nobody in Dallas, or Fort Worth, or Irving,
or Walla Walla, or Bumfu*k, Egypt, who recalls selling Oswald any
bullets for his S&W revolver either.
But I KNOW for a fact he shot J.D. Tippit with that gun....and it was
loaded with bullets. So he got the bullets somewhere, at some point in
time after gaining possession of that weapon too (also in March 1963).
The bullet argument is a moot one. But CTers love that chaff so much,
they ignore the fields of wheat washing over them. Amazing.
========================
Re. the "88 yards" distance:
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: lazuli777lazuli777 Date: Sep 8, 2007 09:15
Once you are one of the club anything goes- just like Washington-Dr.
Baden is working for the defense of Phil Specter and so is Vincent Di
Mao who basically got the TNT Documentary The KGB Files shot down when
he became a belligerant ass and argued with Robert Groden and the
producers that a shot could not have comefrom the Grassy Knoll, so the
program ended up being shelved and the Documentary when released on home
video ultimately pissed off both conspiracy and lone nut people( pretty
hard to do). Bottom line: Why are Di Mao and Baden defending a crazed
drunken bastard murdering millionaire?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: clarkwilkinsclarkwilkins Date: Sep 8, 2007 17:08
On Sep 7, 8:32 pm, BHouseMadrig...@ aol.com wrote: > There are several distinct possibilities:
>
> (1) Legitimately involved with their own families getting the kids off to
> school, etc., etc.
>
> (2) Watching reruns of The Dick Van Dyke Show produced in the good ole
> days of the early 1960s before Kennedy was assassinated and all hell broke
> loose politically in the US. (Those were the days.)
>
> (3) Attending the latest Warren Commissionoid Convention... "We have met
> the enemy and the enemy is us."
>
> (4) On their annual Company paid vacation secretly funded by the FBI or
> CIA... voting on who gets the coveted Edwin Landsdale award for political
> subversion beyond the call of duty whether foreign or domestic.
>
> (3) Attending the latest Ad Hominem Seminar looking for the lowest
> personal attacks possible in leu of anything truly credible that Lee
> Harvey Oswald shot anyone other than Santa Claus or Peter Pan in Dallas. ...
|
| Show full article (2.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: rwalkerrwalker Date: Sep 9, 2007 18:20
> On Sep 7, 8:32 pm, BHouseMadrig...@ aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> There are several distinct possibilities:
>
>> (1) Legitimately involved with their own families getting the kids off to
>> school, etc., etc.
>
>> (2) Watching reruns of The Dick Van Dyke Show produced in the good ole
>> days of the early 1960s before Kennedy was assassinated and all hell broke
>> loose politically in the US. (Those were the days.)
>
>> (3) Attending the latest Warren Commissionoid Convention... "We have met
>> the enemy and the enemy is us."
>
>> (4) On their annual Company paid vacation secretly funded by the FBI or ...
|
| Show full article (2.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: cdddraftsmancdddraftsman Date: Sep 9, 2007 18:30
> On Sep 7, 8:32 pm, BHouseMadrig...@ aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> There are several distinct possibilities:
>
>> (1) Legitimately involved with their own families getting the kids off to
>> school, etc., etc.
>
>> (2) Watching reruns of The Dick Van Dyke Show produced in the good ole
>> days of the early 1960s before Kennedy was assassinated and all hell broke
>> loose politically in the US. (Those were the days.)
>
>> (3) Attending the latest Warren Commissionoid Convention... "We have met
>> the enemy and the enemy is us."
>
>> (4) On their annual Company paid vacation secretly funded by the FBI or ...
|
| Show full article (3.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
