Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[Soupnazi630]

You just proved my point you have no idea what it says and you fall for every lie someone tells you.

For example I already explained how you naively fell for the magic bullet theory which was invented by conspiracy theorist and has been disproven.

You have no idea that it is phkny when you stupidly refuse to read it and believe anything like a sap.

You are one of the sheep easily led around by the nose.

And once again..................................

Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use.

No I am not

You are far more gullible and naive

I read both sides of the issue and judge based on evisence you strictly read one side, ignore the other and judge based on emotion and ideology.

I know that paraffin tests are unreliable which is why they are not evidence exonerating or implicating oswald

They prove nothing one way or the other.

You are a poor brainless dupe of a sheep. If you had a scintilla of smarts, you would know the WC is fanciful fiction designed to deceive dupes like you.

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, just blather.

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

 

[Soupnazi630]

If those are facts, you should be able to prove them.

I have proven that Oswald did fire a shot that day. The paraffin test he took proved it.

"During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test."
Appendix 10

"Oswald was the Patsy." is an opinion, not a fact. In fact, your last 4 "facts" are merely opinions. Perhaps you'd better learn the definition of a fact, so you stop using that word incorrectly. A fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true.

One does have to have the abily to think logically and put the totality of the event in focus. You have proven you do not have these abilities.

So sorry.

One does have to have the ability to read and then PROVE what he/she claims. You have repeatedly shown you don't know what a fact is nor do you have the ability to prove anything you post. EVERYONE who can read sees this. You should delete this account as you have ruined it..

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Yes, the CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up

Never call for proof?

You have never presented evidence including with this last link.

Emotion and ideology is not a valid argument and you have no idea what is true or false when you willfully refuse to look at the other side

You are the sheeple

 

[gipper]

You are one of the sheep easily led around by the nose.

And once again..................................

Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use.

No I am not

You are far more gullible and naive

I read both sides of the issue and judge based on evisence you strictly read one side, ignore the other and judge based on emotion and ideology.

I know that paraffin tests are unreliable which is why they are not evidence exonerating or implicating oswald

They prove nothing one way or the other.

You are a poor brainless dupe of a sheep. If you had a scintilla of smarts, you would know the WC is fanciful fiction designed to deceive dupes like you.

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, just blather.

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

 

[Soupnazi630]

No I am not

You are far more gullible and naive

I read both sides of the issue and judge based on evisence you strictly read one side, ignore the other and judge based on emotion and ideology.

I know that paraffin tests are unreliable which is why they are not evidence exonerating or implicating oswald

They prove nothing one way or the other.

You are a poor brainless dupe of a sheep. If you had a scintilla of smarts, you would know the WC is fanciful fiction designed to deceive dupes like you.

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, just blather.

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

Yes you keep making ridiculous statements but never offer evidence.

You believe different conclusions based on ideology and childish emotions

The wc has evidence you do not

 

[gipper]

You are a poor brainless dupe of a sheep. If you had a scintilla of smarts, you would know the WC is fanciful fiction designed to deceive dupes like you.

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, just blather.

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

Yes you keep making ridiculous statements but never offer evidence.

You believe different conclusions based on ideology and childish emotions

The wc has evidence you do not

The WC has evidence......Too funny. You get dumber with every post.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, just blather.

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

Yes you keep making ridiculous statements but never offer evidence.

You believe different conclusions based on ideology and childish emotions

The wc has evidence you do not

The WC has evidence......Too funny. You get dumber with every post.

Yes and you do not

 

[gipper]

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

Yes you keep making ridiculous statements but never offer evidence.

You believe different conclusions based on ideology and childish emotions

The wc has evidence you do not

The WC has evidence......Too funny. You get dumber with every post.

Yes and you do not

Dumb, dumb, and dumber.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

Yes you keep making ridiculous statements but never offer evidence.

You believe different conclusions based on ideology and childish emotions

The wc has evidence you do not

The WC has evidence......Too funny. You get dumber with every post.

Yes and you do not

Dumb, dumb, and dumber.

Nope true true and truer

You never read the wc report and have no basis for your claims

 

[hunarcy]

One does have to have the ability to read and then PROVE what he/she claims. You have repeatedly shown you don't know what a fact is nor do you have the ability to prove anything you post. EVERYONE who can read sees this. You should delete this account as you have ruined it..

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The evidence is so overwhelming, that your pea brain can’t accept it.

And yet, you STILL have produced no evidence of it. Makes your attempt to insult hollow.

 

[hunarcy]

No I am not

You are far more gullible and naive

I read both sides of the issue and judge based on evisence you strictly read one side, ignore the other and judge based on emotion and ideology.

I know that paraffin tests are unreliable which is why they are not evidence exonerating or implicating oswald

They prove nothing one way or the other.

You are a poor brainless dupe of a sheep. If you had a scintilla of smarts, you would know the WC is fanciful fiction designed to deceive dupes like you.

Blah, blah, blah, no proof, just blather.

Yep. Keep believing.

Fact it is you who believes but never researches or checks
Your only argument is uuuuhhh statist government lies blah blah blah

You never present evidence and run from it like a coward every time

Believing the conclusions of the WC, is akin to believing Hillary lost because Trump colluded with Russia.

LMFAO!

Opinion, not fact. Another epic fail for you.

 

[MacTheKnife]

One does have to have the abily to think logically and put the totality of the event in focus. You have proven you do not have these abilities.

So sorry.

One does have to have the ability to read and then PROVE what he/she claims. You have repeatedly shown you don't know what a fact is nor do you have the ability to prove anything you post. EVERYONE who can read sees this. You should delete this account as you have ruined it..

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The burden of proof was and is on the state. What proof do you have that Oswald shot anyone?

You have no motive, you have no one that saw him shoot anyone.

You have the intelligence community in essence investigating itself and controlling the Warren Commission....whose mission was to convince the public that a lone nut killed the President....whilst also claiming that Jack Ruby was another nut case who killed oswald ...can anyone really be blamed for refusing to believe this less than b movie material?

again.................https://www.amazon.com/Breach-Trust-Warren-Commission-Failed/dp/0700619399&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Cellblock2429]

One does have to have the ability to read and then PROVE what he/she claims. You have repeatedly shown you don't know what a fact is nor do you have the ability to prove anything you post. EVERYONE who can read sees this. You should delete this account as you have ruined it..

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The burden of proof was and is on the state. What proof do you have that Oswald shot anyone?

You have no motive, you have no one that saw him shoot anyone.

You have the intelligence community in essence investigating itself and controlling the Warren Commission....whose mission was to convince the public that a lone nut killed the President....whilst also claiming that Jack Ruby was another nut case who killed oswald ...can anyone really be blamed for refusing to believe this less than b movie material?

/----/ Did they have gun residue tests on skin and clothing back in 1963? I know he did shoot Officer Tippet, but that was with a handgun. Just wondering if it was available and if it was done.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The burden of proof was and is on the state. What proof do you have that Oswald shot anyone?

You have no motive, you have no one that saw him shoot anyone.

You have the intelligence community in essence investigating itself and controlling the Warren Commission....whose mission was to convince the public that a lone nut killed the President....whilst also claiming that Jack Ruby was another nut case who killed oswald ...can anyone really be blamed for refusing to believe this less than b movie material?

/----/ Did they have gun residue tests on skin and clothing back in 1963? I know he did shoot Officer Tippet, but that was with a handgun. Just wondering if it was available and if it was done.

What makes you think Oswald shot officer Tippet?

Anyhow.....yes parrafin tests were done....undertanding though they are notoriously unreliable....so it is irrelevant.

The Case Against Oswald

 

[rightwinger]

Got as far as your Mauser claim and stopped reading

You have been given the facts repeatedly about the Mauser error and you repeat the lie

Not really worth dealing with

"Not worth dealing with" like your entire take on the JFK coup, I guess. The two men that actually found the Mauser on the sixth floor of the TSBD, Craig and Weitzman, never said they made a mistake. They never recanted and never faltered.

It was the cover up machinery, higher ups in the department and media dupes who said a misidentification had been made.
You don't need to know a single thing about the coup and coverup to know the Warren Commission was lying their asses off based on issues like this, the constant manipulation of evidence and withholding of vital information just like the recently
declassified memo from the FBI admits to.

If only JFK was wearing his tin foil hat.....<Sigh>

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If only JFK was wearing his tin foil hat.....<Sigh>

Why not loan him yours, loser?

Oh, that's right....because a team of assassins blew his brains out long ago and the LBJ led government began a long and still functioning cover up of the coup d'etat.

I like you better when you shut the eff up instead of trolling your own thread you based on lies.

 

[hunarcy]

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The burden of proof was and is on the state. What proof do you have that Oswald shot anyone?

You have no motive, you have no one that saw him shoot anyone.

You have the intelligence community in essence investigating itself and controlling the Warren Commission....whose mission was to convince the public that a lone nut killed the President....whilst also claiming that Jack Ruby was another nut case who killed oswald ...can anyone really be blamed for refusing to believe this less than b movie material?

again.................https://www.amazon.com/Breach-Trust-Warren-Commission-Failed/dp/0700619399&tag=ff0d01-20

The assassination of JFK: an eyewitness account

 

[hunarcy]

Apparently you have read only the WC Report.

News Flash: There is much more written about the assassination. However as a statist, you only accept what the criminals in the government tell you. You would have done well in communist East Germany.

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The burden of proof was and is on the state. What proof do you have that Oswald shot anyone?

You have no motive, you have no one that saw him shoot anyone.

You have the intelligence community in essence investigating itself and controlling the Warren Commission....whose mission was to convince the public that a lone nut killed the President....whilst also claiming that Jack Ruby was another nut case who killed oswald ...can anyone really be blamed for refusing to believe this less than b movie material?

/----/ Did they have gun residue tests on skin and clothing back in 1963? I know he did shoot Officer Tippet, but that was with a handgun. Just wondering if it was available and if it was done.

A paraffin test WAS done and Oswald's hands tested positive. Conspiracy theorists claim the tests were unreliable (they were to an extent) and point to the fact that there was no residue on Oswald's face, but with the way rifle bolts operate, that is not a surprise.

JFK Assassination Firearms Factoids -- The "Paraffin Test"

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

/----/ Did they have gun residue tests on skin and clothing back in 1963? I know he did shoot Officer Tippet, but that was with a handgun. Just wondering if it was available and if it was done.

Three separate tests on Oswald while in police custody came up negative as far as firing a rifle was concerned.
He may have fired a handgun at some point but proof of that was inconclusive. Oswald's Rifle and Paraffin Tests : The JFK Assassination

So the idea that Oswald was up there with his junk rifle firing away at the president is definitely disproved. Just another Warren Report lie but an important one.
The gun itself was a cheap thirty year old weapon that could not be sighted properly or even fired. "The firing pin of the sixth-floor carbine was worn and there was rust on it and its spring. In fact, before their firing tests with the carbine, the master riflemen who performed the tests did not even pull the trigger, out of fear that they might break the firing pin."
An Objective Review of the Evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy - The Constantine Report
I suggest reading the link. It is excellent.

 

[hunarcy]

/----/ Did they have gun residue tests on skin and clothing back in 1963? I know he did shoot Officer Tippet, but that was with a handgun. Just wondering if it was available and if it was done.

Three separate tests on Oswald while in police custody came up negative as far as firing a rifle was concerned.
He may have fired a handgun at some point but proof of that was inconclusive. Oswald's Rifle and Paraffin Tests : The JFK Assassination

So the idea that Oswald was up there with his junk rifle firing away at the president is definitely disproved. Just another Warren Report lie but an important one.
The gun itself was a cheap thirty year old weapon that could not be sighted properly or even fired. "The firing pin of the sixth-floor carbine was worn and there was rust on it and its spring. In fact, before their firing tests with the carbine, the master riflemen who performed the tests did not even pull the trigger, out of fear that they might break the firing pin."
An Objective Review of the Evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy - The Constantine Report
I suggest reading the link. It is excellent.

Conspiracy theory vomit.

Testimony from Robert A. Frazier from the FBI.

"Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY - Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER - I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY - Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
Mr. McCLOY - Thank you."

This is the testimony that got everyone excited, and that has been used to "prove" the interior of C2766's barrel was rusted on 22/11/63 and that a bullet could not have passed through it on that day.

However, a careful examination of Frazier's testimony, and the consideration of the following points, will show clearly that Frazier said no such thing.

1. A worn and corroded barrel is not necessarily a rusty barrel. I have seen severely corroded and worn barrel interiors that are as shiny as the day the rifle was made, simply because someone has taken the time to clean the barrel.

2. As Frazier correctly points out, it is impossible to look at the interior of a barrel and determine if worn riflings are from wear due to a great number of shots fired through that barrel, or corrosion from improper storage and lack of cleaning and oiling.

Testimony Of Robert A. Frazier

 

[MacTheKnife]

How the CIA came to doubt the Warren Commission report.

How the CIA Came to Doubt the Official Story of JFK’s Murder