A Better Sequence (TM DVP)

[Walt Cakebread]

I don’t lie. The “spent rounds (3)” version of the list is in CE 2003 (p 130). It says exactly the same thing about the partial palm print as the “spent rounds (2)” version.

This fabrication gets more and more absurd every minute. They hid the original list because they didn’t want us to know about the palmprint, so they replaced it with an altered copy that says the exact same thing about the palmprint. Makes perfect sense.

The “spent rounds (3)” version of the list is in CE 2003 (p 130). It says exactly the same thing about the partial palm print as the “spent rounds (2)” version.


Yes, I posted that in one of the early posts in this thread....Page 260, of Vol.24...It's part of CE 2003  ( the place where there's a wealth of the stuff the WC wanted to sweep under the rug.)   But that is NOT the original list that was created on 11/22/63. That is the altered list that was created from a photocopy of the original list.   You said:    Quote...."Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents."......

Show me.... You wouldn't lie, would you? 

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, I posted that in one of the early posts in this thread....Page 260, of Vol.24...It's part of CE 2003  ( the place where there's a wealth of the stuff the WC wanted to sweep under the rug.)   But that is NOT the original list that was created on 11/22/63. That is the altered list that was created from a photocopy of the original list.   You said:    Quote...."Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents."......

Show me.... You wouldn't lie, would you?

I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.

You claimed that “the reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card”. But that makes no sense whatsoever, because the altered version of that document says the exact same thing about the card.

[John Iacoletti]

A lift was taken from Oswald's rifle

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.

and was directly compared to the print Lt. Day took on the 22nd and it was proved that Day's print was lifted off Oswald's rifle meaning that Oswald touched his rifle. Exactly what you'd expect.

Great “proof”: the say-so of a guy whose stated purpose was to convince the public that Oswald was the real assassin, and a smudge with lines drawn on it.

No sworn testimony. No FBI report detailing who did this test, or how, or when, or where on the rifle this test lift was done, and if or how it matched where Day claimed he did his lift. Nothing. Just a pinkie-swear that there are 5 marks that line up.

Some years later, Vincent Scalise examined some newly found rifle photos and positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on the Trigger Guard.

“Newly found rifle photos”. LOL.

[Walt Cakebread]

I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.

You claimed that “the reason the conspirators didn't want us pissants ( as LBJ called us) to see the original list is because it lists that 3 X 5 card”. But that makes no sense whatsoever, because the altered version of that document says the exact same thing about the card.

I didn’t say the “spent rounds (2)” version was in the WC documents.

Here it is John.....  I ( walt )said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63 ( the one with two 6.5mm spent shells) Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied ....  Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote

Quote
    ( You won't find this list in the Warren Commission documents...  Walt C.

Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.

Why did you lie, John?

[John Iacoletti]

So much for keeping it out of this thread.

No, Walt, I didn’t lie. You’re attempting a bait and switch. See the other thread.

[Walt Cakebread]

So much for keeping it out of this thread.

No, Walt, I didn’t lie. You’re attempting a bait and switch. See the other thread.

No, John I'm doing nothing of the kind....Yes, I added the parenthetical ( "the one with the two spent 6.5 shells) to clarify my original post.

Here it is John.....  I ( walt )said that the original list that was created on 11 /22/63  Could not be found in the WC documents , and you replied ....  Quote....Uh, Walt...that list is in the WC documents.....unquote

[John Iacoletti]

No, John I'm doing nothing of the kind....Yes, I added the parenthetical ( "the one with the two spent 6.5 shells) to clarify my original post.

So why are you blaming me for not knowing what you meant before you “clarified”?

[Walt Cakebread]

So why are you blaming me for not knowing what you meant before you “clarified”?

So now you're claiming that you didn't understand that I was referring to the UNALTERED evidence list....??

I doubt that .....