On Jun 30, 3:24 pm, "robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 1:53 pm, "robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 6:52 pm, Bud <sirsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 5:24 pm, "robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 24, 8:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 3:23 pm, "robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<robcap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 4:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > Top Post: Why is robcap such an idiot that he can`t respond
i=
n the
> > > > > > odinary manner, but must bracket what he is responding to in
qu=
otes?
>
> > > > > Better idjit?
>
> > > > Yah, it is.
>
> > > > > Who invited you to this discussion?
>
> > > > It`s an open forum, numbnuts.
>
> > > It is open to people who know the JFK assassination,
>
> > No, it`s open to anyone, even idiots like yourself.
>
> The only idiot I see is you as you know NOTHING regarding this
> issue.
I know this is an open forum. Where would you be without me
explaining these things to you?
> > > and from what I
> > > seen of your posts since I have been here this does NOT include you.
>
> > > > > I guess because
> > > > > Dave can't handle the answers himself you have to jump in,
right?
>
> > > > I responded because I felt like it, not knowing who else also
> > > > might ridicule and embarrass you about your idiot drivel.
>
> > > You wish, you can't even handle the basic aspects of this case. Why
> > > not get offline for a change and actually read the WCR and its 26
> > > accompanying volumes?
>
> > The WC was formed for idiots like yourself, long on imagination,
> > and short on the ability to think. I could have figured out who killed
> > JFK had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure it out with their
> > help.
>
> This guy is amazing as he believes every word used by the WC yet I'm
> the one who is short on the abilty to think?
An excellent example. You made an idiotic statement not based in
reality. I can only assume your thinking is the root cause of this
problem.
> I can think for myself
No, you really can`t. You`ve shown no ability to think at all.
> that is why I don't believe the lies put forth by the WC, but you
> gobble it up. You are like the "Manchurian Candidate" as you are
> programmed to believe LHO did all alone despite there being NO
> evidence, NO motive and NO proof showing this to be the case.
See, your inability to think causes you to make stupid statements
like this.
> You
> can't figure out what to wear each day, let alone figure out who
> really killed JFK.
Both simple things well within my capability.
> > > > > > > > >>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm)
a=
nd the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work
=
at the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > > > > "Total bull****. Learn the case. And the proper chronology."
>
> > > > > > > I like how when you nail Dave on one dishonest assertion,
the=
Davis'
> > > > > > > ladies found shells that had a proper chain of custody,
>
> > > > > > What authority has determined the shells found on the
Davis`s=
lawn
> > > > > > didn`t have a proper chain of custody? Who determines these
thi=
ngs,
> > > > > > courts, or idiots?
>
> > > > > I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT
the=
same
> > > > > ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need.
>
> > > > Can you quote the people who found these shells saying they
> > > > weren`t the shells they found? In any case, courts decide chain of
> > > > custody issues, not internet idiots.
>
> > > Already have moron, why don't you keep up. It is in the WC's 26
> > > volumes.
>
> > Those witnesses never said the shells in evidence are not the
> > shells they found, you are lying.
>
> Your lack of reading ability is NOT my problem.
It not my ability to read that is questionable on this. The witness
did not say what you claimed.
> > > > > A lying troll
> > > > > like you will disregard this fact though. Too bad it is
containe=
d in
> > > > > the bible you wor****p, yet seem to know nothing of what it
contai=
ns,
> > > > > so you can't dispute that the shells found and the shells
present=
ed as
> > > > > "evidence" by the WC are two seperate entities.
>
> > > > Your denial of the evidence doesn`t mean anything.
>
> > > Who's denying it idjit, I posted it when discussing this with DVP
> > > (which he ran from and started another attack from like 6 months
ago)=
,
> > > but for the reading impaired (i.e. YOU) here it is again:
>
> > > Volume XXIV, page 414
>
> > Nothing on that page has them saying the shells in evidence aren`t
> > the shells they found. This is why you kooks are where you are, you
> > lie about, misrepresent, or just plain old don`t understand the
> > information you look at.
>
> Thanks for confirming what I already knew - you CAN'T read the English
> language. What part of:
>
> "She advised she was UNABLE to identify the cartridge case she found
> as being one of the four exhibited to her." (emphasis mine - C47-C50)
>
> don't you get?
I get all of it. You said...
"I think when the people who found the shells say they are NOT the
same ones as the WC put forth that is all the proof I need."
Any thinking person can easily compare what you wrote with the
testimony you produced and see they are not the same thing. That you
cannot shows once more that you are in over your head intellect-wise
looking into this simple case.
> > > > > > > he diverts to
> > > > > > > some old debate from last year. Let's see if what he claims
i=
s
> > > > > > > correct, I'm betting not, or at least, leaves out all the
det=
ails.
>
> > > > > > > "It was announced in mid-September that JFK would be going
to=
Dallas,
> > > > > > > yes. But the site for the November 22 luncheon (and, hence,
t=
he exact
> > > > > > > motorcade route through the city) wasn't determined and
final=
ized
> > > > > > > until much later (November 13 or 14 to be more precise)."
>
> > > > > > > No it wasn't. The motorcade route that INCLUDED the turns
on=
to
> > > > > > > Houston and Elm was NOT announced until November 19 when it
w=
as listed
> > > > > > > in the paper. The advance team toured the route with Curry
a=
nd he did
> > > > > > > NOT show them the two turns, period. There was NO
discussion=
of the
> > > > > > > two turns onto Houston and Elm until it was listed in the
pap=
er on
> > > > > > > November 19 & 20 (and not all showed these as well). Those
t=
urns
> > > > > > > would probably have been nixed (we hope anyway, but given
the=
poor
> > > > > > > performance of the SS on 11/22/63 who knows) as they were
too=
sharp
> > > > > > > and required the car to slow too much.
>
> > > > > > > "Ken O'Donnell is the one who approved the Trade Mart for
the
> > > > > > > luncheon....and he didn't put the stamp of finality on that
d=
ecision
> > > > > > > until November 13th or 14th."
>
> > > > > > > This is irrelevant as the destination had nothing to do with
=
JFK's
> > > > > > > death, it was the illegal two turns (in comparison to the SS
=
manual)
> > > > > > > that made his death so easy. They should have stayed on
Main=
St.
>
> > > > > > > "Look it up on Page 31 of the Warren Re****t, right here:
>
> > > > > >
>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCRe****t_002=
8a.htm"
>
> > > > > > > I've seen it and it means very little as the addition of the
=
two turns
> > > > > > > increased the likelihood JFK would die, NOT the destination.
>
> > > > > > > "Plus -- The specific motorcade route through Dealey Plaza
wa=
sn't made
> > > > > > > known to the public (including Mr. Oswald) until the morning
=
of
> > > > > > > Tuesday, November 19th."
>
> > > > > > > Exactly, thanks for pointing this out. This works against
th=
e charges
> > > > > > > of the WC that he planned this assassination for some time.
T=
here is
> > > > > > > no proof he ever read of this trip in the paper as he
occassi=
onally
> > > > > > > read papers left in the lunchroom, but yet again the WC
faile=
d to
> > > > > > > prove that LHO read of the visit and the fact of the
motorcad=
e passing
> > > > > > > beneath the TSBD.
>
> > > > > >It was information widely available.
>
> > > > > Widely available in the paper, but the WC FAILED to prove this
is=
how
> > > > > LHO learned of the visit.
>
> > > > The information was widely available.
>
> > > This is NOT proving LHO read it though is it? Many things are
widely
> > > available but that is NOT the same as proving someone learned of it
> > > from this or these sources. The WC FAILED to prove how he learned
of
> > > the visit, if he did at all.
>
> > But they did show the information was widely available.
>
> This is only half the battle, they had to PROVE how LHO heard of the
> trip to show he planned to kill JFK and they FAILED to do this.
No, they didn`t. They only had to show that it was possible for him
to know this information. Idiot.
> > > > > They FAILED to prove he heard of the visit
> > > > > and motorcade route in any other manner either. Prove they did,
=
I
> > > > > dare you.
>
> > > > Not necessary. Only need to show it was information widely
> > > > available.
>
> > > Of course it isn't, since you CAN'T PROVE IT!!! It could be widely
> > > available in ways LHO never used, these are NOT the same, and if you
> > > continue to say they are the "L" word will soon be used.
>
> > "Lettuce"?
>
> Liar.
The pattern so far is that I am only called a liar by those I catch
lying.
> > > > > > > He in fact asked several other coworkers what all
> > > > > > > the fuss was about. You have no proof he knew JFK was even
c=
oming to
> > > > > > > Dallas, let alone that he would pass right below him.
>
> > > > > > Oz shooting JFK from his work proves he knew Kennedy was
pas=
sing
> > > > > > there. And I can see OJ using this tactic "Prove I knew Nicole
=
was
> > > > > > going to be home when I supposedly went and killed her".
>
> > > > > Another comment that proves you are an idjit. IF the WC could
NO=
T
> > > > > prove he knew JFK was coming, and they could NOT, why do you
swal=
low
> > > > > hook, line and sinker that he did? How stupid are you? Does
som=
eone
> > > > > spoon feed you your meals too?
>
> > > > Prove Ruby had enough strength in his trigger finger to pull
th=
e
> > > > trigger of his gun.
>
> > > You are insane.
>
> > Making a point using your criteria of proving things. Don`t worry,
> > you won`t get it.
>
> The proof is LHO was shot, and Ruby was filmed doing it,
Where is you proof that Ruby had enough strength to pull the
trigger? He had to do that to be able to shoot Oswald, yet you can`t
prove he had the necessary strength to do so.
>where is your
> proof LHO heard ahead of time of JFK's visit?
The information was widely available.
> > > Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO,
>
> > Do these films show Ruby`s trigger finger pulling the trigger?
>
> So who shot LHO then?
Not the point, idiot. They took OJ to trial with no direct
evidence he touched a knife that day. They didn`t need it, they had
his ex-wife`s body telling them he did.
> I didn't see anyone else with a gun in the
> films or photos but let's hear your opinion. I realize you are
> pathetically trying to make some way off topic point, but let's play
> along.
I`m through tutoring your stupid ass.
> > >where is the
> > > film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass
> > > right beneath the windows of his workplace? Where is the proof that
> > > LHO even knew JFK was coming to Dallas?
>
> > Where is the proof Ruby trigger finger had enough strength to pull
> > the trigger of his gun?
>
> The main proof is LHO is dead and Ruby was filmed and seen doing the
> shooting ...
You still show no signs of understanding the word "proof".
> read more =BB
|
