Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
However, among the group of "Tippit-witnesses" we do find George Applin, the only patron listed. Anyone buying Westbrooks explanation:

Mr. BALL. Were you the senior officer there?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Possibly--I don't think there was another captain there. There was a lieutenant and then I ordered all of them to be sure and take the names of everyone in the theatre at that time.
Mr. BALL. We have asked for names of people in the theatre and we have only come up with the name of George Applin. Do you know of any others?
Mr. WESTBROOK. He possibly might have been the only one in there at the time the rest of them might have been working there, because I'm sure at that time of day you would have more employees than you would have patrons.
Mr. BALL. You didn't take the names of any of the patrons?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, Sir.

Any one buying this? Wait, there is one more hint:

Mr. BALL. Do you have any questions?
Mr. ELY. Yes; I have one. Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of everybody in the theatre, and you also stated you did not have this list; do you know who has it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; possibly Lieutenant Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list.
Mr. ELY. That's all.

Quickly lost interest in that list, Westbrook, but Cunningham seems to have been active in getting names of witnesses:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login (on page 2)

George Applin must be the witness he's referring to and Toney confirms names were taken as the doors were locked and Cunningham is named as the officer in charge, not Westbrook.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(Conningham also names E.E. Tayler -- Toney does not -- but I can't find his report)

How hard did the WC look for that list and did they talk to Cunningham and Toney?

Also worth noting these reports dates come out just prior to the Brewer/Postal affidavits...

Mr. BALL. We have asked for names of people in the theatre and we have only come up with the name of George Applin. Do you know of any others?
Mr. WESTBROOK. He possibly might have been the only one in there at the time the rest of them might have been working there,


 Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of everybody in the theatre, and you also stated you did not have this list; do you know who has it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; possibly Lieutenant Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list.

Would that be a list of ONE.....??
92
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Who do you believe?
« Last post by Rob Caprio on April 18, 2018, 11:04:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Caprio's paranoia on full display.

Paranoia? Then explain why I have been limited in reposting my series. It's not paranoia when they are really after you.

You LNers were whining about me reposting my series for months and you finally got your way. 😭 babies. You can't refute the evidence that I post. That much is apparent.
93
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Who do you believe?
« Last post by Rob Caprio on April 18, 2018, 10:58:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, somebody was actually spamming the site with ads for sunglasses or whatever.

I saw three spam threads. Hardly a national emergency. Shortly after Nickerson's post I was instructed to limit my reposting of my series.
94
General Discussion & Debate / Re: The two Oswalds
« Last post by Rob Caprio on April 18, 2018, 10:53:36 PM »
LNers mention John Armstrong when this topic comes up, but truth be told this topic was discussed as early as 1964 by some researchers.

There are many strange things that make more sense IF there were two Oswalds.
95
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here you go John:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That's an arraignment complaint.  It's an accusation, not a conclusion.  Exactly what investigation had been done on JFK's murder before 1:35 am on 11/23/63?
96
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Dallas authorities arrested and charged Oswald with the assassination in 1963 based on their assessment of the evidence.  Based on their investigation they concluded Oswald was the responsible party.  The prosecuting authorities make that determination not some lonely Internet krank.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really, Richard?  You wouldn't be making things up again, would you?  Where was this conclusion documented?

Here you go John:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
97
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In which we make some progress!  So is the Lincoln assassination an "open" case or not?  The known assassin was killed prior to receiving a trial and being convicted.  If Oswald had not been killed, he certainly would have been tried but the entire point is that he was killed. Just like Booth.  And the authorities are convinced Oswald was the assassin.  Just like Booth.  Both matter are considered closed by the authorities charged with investigating them.

We have made no progress as you continue to lie. No one disputes that Booth killed Lincoln as this was witnessed, but there is NO supporting evidence for the claim that LHO shot JFK or JDT. None.

You have no way of showing that LHO killed anyone. You're sunk.
98
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rob Caprio. I have read many of your 50 reasons, but not all.

I did not realize I was reciting your comments.

Please keep up your excellent contrubutions to this forum. I am new to this forum but have a long time interest in the matter.

Thanks Leonard. I was simply reinforcing your comments. Feel free to say whatever you wish.

My "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series actually had 464 installments befor the old forum was hacked. They will be reposted over time.
99
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It does not disprove its' authenticity, it disproves the carefully scripted witnesses statements involved in the plot/scheme to assassinate the President.       You have just fallen into my hands.   Really, the FBI, CIA and Secret Service find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.  You can't have the cake and eat it too!     They need to discredit the rest of the film but keep Z313/314 as they really need that for de facto evidence to complete the framing of a lone dead gunman LHO who did it all!

So in your opinion, you can't use the Z313/Z314 frames as they are not authentic.     How do you convict LHO?  These frames are produced as the infallible evidence used to convict LHO of a crime he didn't commit.    I would not go so far to say that he wasn't somehow involved, but I don't think he realized he was going to be killed for his sins in the plot!   We know that he must have had serious ties to his handlers as he had trips to Russia and Cuba that must have been funded by someone!    Those 2 slides collaborate the evidence of finding a sniper rifle in the sniper's nest in TSBD building!   A few frames were released at the time showing this to the WC but the bulk of the  film wasn't released for 10 years into the public domain.    The public cried for some pictures so some had to come out!   Why do you suppose this was done?    By saying what you have stated in your statement, you are admitting someone had wrongfully used this film as the concrete evidence to convict LHO.     What was the purpose of not letting the American Public see this film at the time?    The cameraman who took the pictures of the TBSD window, bus, theater and others entered as evidence is just too coincidental to have been real.   He was never even interviewed but disappeared from the scene!

You have just admitted to a real conspiracy - whatever statement you make debating its authenticity points the fingers to those who held this film for many years and chose not to let people see it in its entirety!   Who had a "copy" of it?  How many were made and how was it kept from being "leaked" out?

I will admit its authenticity must be questioned because of the modifications made to it.   That is why you have to ask who would want to modify and why was that necessary?   Z313, Z314 and look at Z335 where you see part of the President's head "erased" and blended in by a blouse.  You can't say the film wasn't modified.   Anyone that says that is lying!   As you said, overwhelming evidence that Jacqueline face and eyes were not covered in brain matter, blood spatter from the Z313/Z314 supposed "plume shots with explosive bullets is not there.    The reason it wasn't there is because it didn't happen that way!   If you look at the film without looking at individual slides, you will miss the modifications made.   Playing the film back, you don't see any problems with the storyline as it happens so fast!   Nelly Connally even goes so far to say that Jacqueline Kennedy had the President's brain in her hands if you watch her interview!     This film was modified.  If you admit that, you have to question why was it necessary if you are seeking the truth and why a coverup was necessary?

You only have to ask yourself 1 question. Where is the original Z film? Life and Z got copies. There are at least 2 obvious splices in the copies, which can only mean 1 thing: The FBI conspired to edit the film to "scrub" out any contradictions to the LN narrative. Otherwise, why else would the FBI hide the original film? And where the hell is it?
100
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why wasn't the sunlight reflecting off of ANYTHING else on JFK?

> The brain matter was wet

As is your argument. Have a look at the spot of sunlight on Connally's forehead during that sequence in the Z film and note how it disappeared when he moved. Not the case with JFK because you think wet=sunlit. Right.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]