On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:08:28 GMT, Gil Jesus <
gjjmail120253@aol.com>
wrote:
Oswald said he had lunch with a co-worker he knew as "Junior" and another Negro whose name he did not know.
James "Junior" Jarman testified that he had his lunch on the first floor and Harold Norman testified that
he had his lunch in the first floor Domino Room. ( 3 H 188 )
So I asked David Von Pein:
How did Oswald know the specific whereabouts of these two men if he was on the 6th floor, as you claim ?
Von Pein ran.
------------------------------------------------------
Off. Marrion Baker testified that he saw Oswald being interrogated while he was writing out his affidavit
in a back room in the Homicide Bureau. ( 3 H 257-258 )
So I asked David Von Pein:
Why didn't Baker put in his written affidavit that the man they had in custody ( Oswald )
was the man he encountered in the building ?
Von Pein ran.
------------------------------------------------------
I pointed out to Von pein that as any rifleman will tell you that once a rifle is disassembled,
the scope has to be readjusted because you lose "Zero" ( the POI or Point of Impact ).
I cited the Commission's own expert on the scope, Sgt. James Zahm, who testified that in order to scope the rifle in,
Oswald would have had to have fired ten rounds through the weapon. ( 11 H 308 )
This was not possible once Oswald had the weapon in the building on 11/22, as the WC and Von Pein claim.
There's no way he could have fired off ten rounds without anyone knowing and scoped that rifle in
once he reassembled it.
So I gave Von Pein a choice:
Either the 40" rifle was brought into the building in the 38-inch "paper gunsack" disassembled and had to be
sighted-in by firing ten shots,
or the rifle was brought into the building intact and the "gunsack" is a fake that never contained the rifle.
Given these two choices, Von Pein ran again.
--------------------------------------------------
EF Member Greg Doudna, citing the above asked Von Pein :
"I wonder if you could comment on Gil Jesus's point about a broken-down rifle after reassembly would need to be
sighted-in anew, involving shooting the rifle, in order to be useful with accuracy in the assassination.
Gil Jesus cited expert testimony that multiple shots would be required to accomplish that.
But Oswald did not fire target shooting in the TSBD on the morning of Nov 22--did not sight the rifle in in the TSBD
that morning after a reassembly--before, according to the Warren Commission, being the shooter using that rifle to fire
at and accurately hit the president using a rifle that had to have been sighted-in.
Does it not appear that the Mannlicher-Carcano had to have been infiltrated into the TSBD intact so as to be sighted-in,
i.e. not in broken-down form on the morning of Nov 22 and then reassembled in the building that morning and used without
any mechanism for having it sighted-in?
But if the rifle was infiltrated into the building intact and sighted-in, not in broken-down condition, then it was not
infiltrated into the building by Oswald on the morning of Nov 22 but through some other mechanism which could even have
been on an earlier day than Nov 22.
Since you are knowledgeable of and advocate the LN view, what is the LN-view response to this? I am unable to find in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming History, either from memory of prior reading or in the index just now, anywhere where Bugliosi addresses this.
Do you know if Bugliosi addresses this? Do you address it on your website?"
Von Pein ran.
You give well documented proof of what I've long asserted... that
David Von Pein is a coward.
Indeed, ALL believers are cowards, none can address the evidence we
post.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)