Another Conspiracy Kook Attempts To Revise The Facts In The JFK Case
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=45&p=214062&#entry214062
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=45&p=214116&#entry214116
CONSPIRACY KOOK LEE FARLEY SAID:
>>> "The FBI and the DPD had to get him [Lee Oswald] out of that Rambler
and onto McWatter's [sic] bus." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
TIME OUT FOR A REALITY BREAK HERE!!
Surely Lee Farley MUST realize how totally silly he sounds when he
purports such total nonsense.
Because why on Earth would the FBI and/or the DPD feel the need to
jump through so many hoops regarding Lee Harvey Oswald--even if we
make the kooky assumption that they WERE wanting to frame him for
JFK's murder?
IOW, why not just say that Oswald took the cab to his roominghouse,
and skip the unnecessary bus "story"?
By adding a story about a bus, the "plotters" (FBI/DPD/Mother Teresa,
et al) now only add more complications and hazards to the "Let's Frame
Oswald" plot that so many of you conspiracy-happy folks like to think
really took place on November 22nd.
Via a phony bus story, the authorities now have to have more and more
people in their hip pockets to tell lies for them (mainly Mary E.
Bledsoe in this bus instance), PLUS they've got to plant a phony bus
transfer in Oswald's pocket after he's arrested.
And please note that bus driver Cecil McWatters apparently resisted
the FBI's and Mother Teresa's attempts to place Oswald on his bus,
because McWatters refused to make a positive identification of Oswald.
>>> "The evidence we have tells us he [LHO] wasn't on the bus. The
evidence tells us he wasn't in the cab." <<<
Good God, what crap you're spewing here, Lee.
Of course, the exact OPPOSITE is the truth regarding Lee Harvey
Oswald's bus and cab rides on November 22nd, 1963 -- i.e., the
evidence that exists demonstrates beyond ALL reasonable doubt that
Oswald was, in fact, a passenger on Cecil McWatters' bus AND a
passenger in William Whaley's taxicab on 11/22/63.
But it's always nice to know that conspiracy theorists like Lee Farley
are still hard at work at revising the true facts surrounding JFK's
tragic murder.
Well, maybe "nice" is the wrong word to use there -- "pathetic" is a
more appropriate term for what kooks like Farley are doing to the
evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. (And "sickening", too.)
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-whaley.html
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>CONSPIRACY KOOK LEE FARLEY SAID:
>Surely Lee Farley MUST realize how totally silly he sounds when he
>purports such total nonsense.
> ...so many of you conspiracy-happy folks
>Good God, what crap you're spewing here ....
> ...conspiracy theorists like Lee Farley
> -- "pathetic" is a
>more appropriate term for what kooks like Farley are doing
David, your writing suffers from a surfeit of ad hominems and insults.
It really doesn't help your cause to beggar your neighbour.
I'm not sure who you think your audience is, but I can assure you,
very few people have the time or patience to wade through so much
irrelevant sniping.
Why not cut the repetitive verbiage, and stick tothe point you want
to make? Failing to do so, makes it obvious your main pint is to
insult rather than make a clear, strong argument.
Most of us are well beyond the playground stage of interaction with
one another. Why not join us?
Regards
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On 7 Dec 2010 22:50:58 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>CONSPIRACY KOOK LEE FARLEY SAID:
>
>>Surely Lee Farley MUST realize how totally silly he sounds when he
>>purports such total nonsense.
>
>> ...so many of you conspiracy-happy folks
>
>>Good God, what crap you're spewing here ....
>
>> ...conspiracy theorists like Lee Farley
>
>> -- "pathetic" is a
>>more appropriate term for what kooks like Farley are doing
>
>
>David, your writing suffers from a surfeit of ad hominems and insults.
>It really doesn't help your cause to beggar your neighbour.
>
>I'm not sure who you think your audience is, but I can assure you,
>very few people have the time or patience to wade through so much
>irrelevant sniping.
Here's an example of editing, David.
(I will add an "o" to the word "pint" below and thereby correct a
typo.)
>Why not cut the repetitive verbiage, and stick to the point you want
>to make? Failing to do so, makes it obvious your main point [editied word] is to
>insult rather than make a clear, strong argument.
>
>Most of us are well beyond the playground stage of interaction with
>one another. Why not join us?
See how easy that is?
It's even easier just to leave some words and phrases out completely.
Cheerio
PF
Chuck Schuyler
> On 7 Dec 2010 22:50:58 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
Whether VP uses a few words or a few thousand words, he's right about
Farley.
By the way, no one--myself included--is beyond the "playground stage
of interaction" if we're still discussing 11/22/63 with the idea we're
going to change minds or influence anyone to reopen the assassination,
etc.
This is a hobby, like painting landscapes. VP just uses a few more
brush strokes than most of us.
On the opposite extreme, Rossley draws stick figures. Most of his
posts are under ten words with a link to his website.
David Von Pein
>>> "Most of us are well beyond the playground stage of interaction with
one another. Why not join us?" <<<
How about minding your own business, Peter? I don't need a preacher,
thanks. I'm just pointing out the endless series of stupid arguments being
promoted as fact by the conspiracy nuts at other localities. And I shall
continue to do so whenever I see fit.
If you don't like the way I present those things -- tough.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>>>> "Most of us are well beyond the playground stage of interaction with
>one another. Why not join us?" <<<
>
>How about minding your own business, Peter?
Hey, I help moderate so I'd love to see you make strong arguments
without the fluff.
>I don't need a preacher,
>thanks.
Oh Lord! Neither do I ... at the moment! Even a kooky one!
>I'm just pointing out the endless series of stupid arguments being
>promoted as fact by the conspiracy nuts at other localities. And I shall
>continue to do so whenever I see fit.
Hey, perhaps there really is a Mr. Nut and Mrs. Nut ... I will give
you the benefit of the doubt.
But beyond those people with the surname "Nut" why not try to use
real names rather than insults?
In Toronto, the cops have found themselves in real trouble because
some peaceful protester at the G20 summit, when asked to identify
himself, said Adam Nobody. They then proceeded to beat him up.
Smashed his head because he wouldn't give his real name.
Turns out his real name was Adam Nobody.
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/902664--a-second-look-at-g20-police-assault
>If you don't like the way I present those things -- tough.
Fine by me. I read your stuff almost every day.
You are free to post any old thing you want (as long as the wise
moderators, gatekeepers of free speech, ok it).
A little editing never hurt any writer though. A strong argument
doesn't need ad hominem. Academics look askance at such arguments.
Cheers
PF
Chuck Schuyler
Didn't you just lecture another poster about not participating here if
they didn't want to read other opinions?
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Dec 7, 10:50 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2010 22:50:58 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >CONSPIRACY KOOK LEE FARLEY SAID:
>> >Surely Lee Farley MUST realize how totally silly he sounds when he
>> >purports such total nonsense.
>> > ...so many of you conspiracy-happy folks
>> >Good God, what crap you're spewing here ....
>> > ...conspiracy theorists like Lee Farley
>> > -- "pathetic" is a
>> >more appropriate term for what kooks like Farley are doing
>>
>> David, your writing suffers from a surfeit of ad hominems and insults.
>> It really doesn't help your cause to beggar your neighbour.
>>
>> I'm not sure who you think your audience is, but I can assure you,
>> very few people have the time or patience to wade through so much
>> irrelevant sniping.
>>
>> Why not cut the repetitive verbiage, and stick tothe point you want
>> to make? Failing to do so, makes it obvious your main point is to
>> insult rather than make a clear, strong argument.
>>
>> Most of us are well beyond the playground stage of interaction with
>> one another. Why not join us?
>>
>> Regards
>> PF
>
>Didn't you just lecture another poster about not participating here if
>they didn't want to read other opinions?
Yes indeed .... in response to jas who wrote:
"Maybe it'll shut up some of the Bufferites for a while."
I wrote:
If you don't want to spend time reading posts by people who have
opinions other than your own, why bother reading other posts at all?
If all you are seeking is confirmation of your own opinion, and the
warm fuzzy feeling that comes when everyone agrees with you, why not
get a recording device and record messages to yourself.
Then, in the wee hours of the morning, play them back to yourself.
You turn on your computer. You seek out this newsgroup.
So stop complaining about having to "listen" to other posters.
You are not forced to do anything.
You choose to be here, or else a little person inside your noggin has
got your number.
>Perhaps you should take your own advice.
You are confused.
I don't mind reading David Von Pein's opinions about the
assassination. But it would be more enjoyable if he stopped insulting
people in the process. Ad hominem does nothing to prove his point,
and .John and I try to catch every personal barb but some slip
through.
Refraining from ad hominem and insults would make our task easier.
Cheers,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
David Von Pein
>>> "A little editing never hurt any writer though. A strong argument
doesn't need ad hominem." <<<
Yes, that's true. But it's so much fun to make fun of these crazy people,
Peter. Surely you can appreciate my zeal in doing so.
After all, Pete, we're talking about people who think the DPD would have
wanted to pretend that LHO was on a bus after the assassination-- even
though there was absolutely no reason to fake that kind of thing
whatsoever. And, for that matter, there was no need for the cops to want
to fake Oswald's cab ride either (even if the DPD did want to frame
Oswald).
Because even if we had no knowledge at all of Oswald's mode of
transportation from the TSBD to his roominghouse, we can be sure he DID
make that journey to Oak Cliff, because Earlene Roberts witnessed him
coming home at about 1:00.
And Lee Farley's argument about how the cops desperately needed the bus
ride to establish Oswald's "fleeing" the scene of the crime is enough to
make anybody's bladder bust wide open. Because even without the bus ride,
isn't it kind of obvious that Oswald DID FLEE THE MURDER SCENE just after
12:30?
Earlene Roberts, alone, establishes that fact via her testimony about
Oswald rushing into and out of his room on 11/22. Plus, the mere fact that
Oswald wasn't anywhere to be found in the TSBD shortly after the
assassination tells us that he left the scene of the crime.
And yet people like Farley and DiEugenio think their paper-thin arguments
regarding a "phony" bus trip AND a "phony" cab ride DON'T deserve to be
ridiculed.
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!
David Von Pein
>>> "Hey, I help moderate so I'd love to see you make strong arguments
without the fluff." <<<
I do that all the time, Peter. Sometimes I toss in some (well- deserved)
insults. Sometimes not.
But it makes no difference to the kooks who believe the kooky things they
believe whether I toss in an extra "ad hom" or two. They're still going to
ignore the solid evidence I consistently present.
I post mostly for my own archives anyway. (I.E., for future reading of the
truth.)
Bud
> On 7 Dec 2010 22:50:58 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
Join you? What is "beyond the playground stage" but an insulting ad
hominem?
> Regards
> PF
Bud
Yah, he is like what we would have gotten had LBJ tapped soccer
hooligans to conduct the investigation instead of professionals.
Anthony Marsh
Would there be any way to color code the text the way some forums do? That
way all the messages from the WC defenders would be coded in red and the
messages from conspiracy believers would be coded in blue. That way each
side would be able to ignore the other by instantly spotting the
difference in color.
My newsreader shows colors, but that is just translating the multiple
quote marks like >>>>>> into different colored vertical lines.
John Blubaugh
LNs are not capable of do any such refraining. Attacks and insults are
their only weapons since the the facts are against them.
JB
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214211&#entry214211
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214228&#entry214228
TOM SCULLY SAID:
>>> "John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all
of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has..." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams'
position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever
in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.
What I do know is this (regardless of McAdams' politic views) -- he has an
excellent website on the JFK assassination, which presents both sides of
many, many important issues dealing with JFK's death, and he has written
many top-notch articles and Internet posts supporting the official
lone-assassin view of the assassination, which IMO are articles and posts
that are filled with FACTS, COMMON SENSE, and LOGIC (three things that
virtually all conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists lack when
dealing with this subject).
If you want to think that Mr. McAdams' political views (whatever they may
be, which don't interest me in the slightest) somehow are coloring his
opinions and his articles regarding the JFK assassination, well, you just
go right ahead and think that. It's a free country, after all.
I, however, will stick to the FACTS and COMMON SENSE that Mr. McAdams
imparts on a daily basis when he speaks about the issues associated with
President Kennedy's murder.
davidemerling
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=45&p=2...
>
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=45&p=2...
One thing you point out (that most CTers seem oblivious to) is the
convoluted nature of most of their conspiracy theories. It's almost as if
the conspirators primarily focused on how to frame Oswald than they did in
killing the president.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
Well it seems some yahoo attacked me for being a conservative, and for
favoring the death penalty, and then got in a spat with other posters
who *also* favor the death penalty.
This fellow, like Tony Marsh and others here, want to make this an
issue about political ideology.
Fine with me. Since about 40% of Americans call themselves
"conservative" and about 20% call themselves "liberal," let them give
everybody the idea that only liberals believe in conspiracy.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
(Violins, please.)
Just a sincere thought, but perhaps you need to resign as Assistant-to-
the-Assistant Chief Post Passer-On Person if the strain of wading
through ad hominems and insults is weighing you down.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
You are still confused.
Neither John or I mind going through the posts in the inbox.
And if you want to spin what I said you are free to do so.
I will repeat what I wrote above(for those touchy LNs who equate ad
hominem with argument)
I don't mind reading David Von Pein's opinions about the
assassination. But it would be more enjoyable if he stopped
insulting people in the process. Ad hominem does nothing to prove his
point, and .John and I try to catch every personal barb but some slip
through.
Refraining from ad hominem and insults would make our task easier.
For example, the other day, someone was called a "fraud".
.John admitted that one slipped through.
Sure things gets heated, but insults and personal barbs are not going
to make any argument stronger. That's my point, Chuck.
Cheers
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
Peter Fokes
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2010 22:11:00 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214211&#entry214211
>>
>>
>>http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214228&#entry214228
>>
>>TOM SCULLY SAID:
>>
>>
>>>>> "John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all
>>of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has..." <<<
>>
>>
>>
>>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>>
>>I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams'
>>position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever
>>in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.
I agree, David. But there is no need to call another person a "kook"
because they characterize someone's political stance.
>>What I do know is this (regardless of McAdams' politic views) -- he has an
>>excellent website on the JFK assassination, which presents both sides of
>>many, many important issues dealing with JFK's death, and he has written
>>many top-notch articles and Internet posts supporting the official
>>lone-assassin view of the assassination, which IMO are articles and posts
>>that are filled with FACTS, COMMON SENSE, and LOGIC (three things that
>>virtually all conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists lack when
>>dealing with this subject).
And he rarely uses the kind of ad hominem that you do, David. If he
did, his arguments would be less effective. The bombast just weakens
any argument.
>>
>>If you want to think that Mr. McAdams' political views (whatever they may
>>be, which don't interest me in the slightest) somehow are coloring his
>>opinions and his articles regarding the JFK assassination, well, you just
>>go right ahead and think that. It's a free country, after all.
>>
>>I, however, will stick to the FACTS and COMMON SENSE that Mr. McAdams
>>imparts on a daily basis when he speaks about the issues associated with
>>President Kennedy's murder.
Good idea! Your decision to avoid ad hominem and stick to the facts
is an excellent one! Bravo.
>
>Well it seems some yahoo attacked me for being a conservative,
You mean some "person"? Did he call you a yahoo or by your name?
>and for
>favoring the death penalty, and then got in a spat with other posters
>who *also* favor the death penalty.
>
>This fellow, like Tony Marsh and others here, want to make this an
>issue about political ideology.
Who are you referring to? Sandy? Nope. He is a leftie but does not
believe in conspiracy.
>Fine with me. Since about 40% of Americans call themselves
>"conservative" and about 20% call themselves "liberal," let them give
>everybody the idea that only liberals believe in conspiracy.
I doubt the few posters who want to make this an issue about political
ideology on this forum give "everybody" the idea only liberals
believe in conspiracy. We have liberal posters here who do not believe
in conspiracy, and frankly our readership is so miniscule that any
idea any a right wing or left wing poster here is influencing
"everybody" is absurd.
Cheers,
>
>.John
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:39:16 -0600, John McAdams
Actually, he did use some nasty ad hominem, calling me one of the
"winger crazies."
But you are right that it weakens his argument, since anybody who does
not share his left-wing opinions would be put off immediately.
And so will leftists (like Sandy here) who share his political outlook
but are more logical.
>
>>>
>>>If you want to think that Mr. McAdams' political views (whatever they may
>>>be, which don't interest me in the slightest) somehow are coloring his
>>>opinions and his articles regarding the JFK assassination, well, you just
>>>go right ahead and think that. It's a free country, after all.
>>>
>>>I, however, will stick to the FACTS and COMMON SENSE that Mr. McAdams
>>>imparts on a daily basis when he speaks about the issues associated with
>>>President Kennedy's murder.
>
>
>Good idea! Your decision to avoid ad hominem and stick to the facts
>is an excellent one! Bravo.
>
>>
>>Well it seems some yahoo attacked me for being a conservative,
>
>You mean some "person"? Did he call you a yahoo or by your name?
>
Actually, he called me a "winger crazy" and did call me by name.
And yes, he's a yahoo.
>>and for
>>favoring the death penalty, and then got in a spat with other posters
>>who *also* favor the death penalty.
>>
>>This fellow, like Tony Marsh and others here, want to make this an
>>issue about political ideology.
>
>Who are you referring to? Sandy? Nope. He is a leftie but does not
>believe in conspiracy.
>
>>Fine with me. Since about 40% of Americans call themselves
>>"conservative" and about 20% call themselves "liberal," let them give
>>everybody the idea that only liberals believe in conspiracy.
>
>I doubt the few posters who want to make this an issue about political
>ideology on this forum give "everybody" the idea only liberals
>believe in conspiracy. We have liberal posters here who do not believe
>in conspiracy, and frankly our readership is so miniscule that any
>idea any a right wing or left wing poster here is influencing
>"everybody" is absurd.
>
I don't think our readership is as miniscule as you might think, since
on any forum "lurkers" outnumber posters by an order of magnitude.
It's also the case that some of the intellectual habits we see here
are typical of the culture, and are found in lots of other places
(including the Education Forum).
So let people think that JFK conspiracy theories are a left-wing
thing. That gives me an unfair advantage, and imposes on relatively
sane lefties like you and Sandy an unfair disadvantage.
But if it's forced on me, I'll take it.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chuck Schuyler
Fair enough, but the gentleman doth seem to protest too much, methinks. A
quick perusal of a post catches the more egregious offending verbage, and
if an occasional iffy word sneaks through, I think we're all thick skinned
enough (at least the LNs seem to be) to handle an offending word or two.
The Sticks and Stones schoolyard taunt comes to mind. I rather like the ad
homs (I've had a few directed toward me), the post topics that veer from
JFK, the insult humor, etc.
However, I confess that I take all of this in a more light-hearted way,
and participating here and reading/commenting on the whacky theories that
supposedly did JFK "in" is sort of a stress reliever from the daily grind.
Kennedy is dead and anyone who thinks, half-a- century after the fact that
they are going to uncover a conspiracy when 99.5% of what we're going to
know about the case is in the public domain, is a...[Ad hom attack omitted
to simplify PF''s job.]
Anthony Marsh
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:39:16 -0600, John McAdams
> <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Dec 2010 22:11:00 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214211&#entry214211
>>>
>>>
>>> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214228&#entry214228
>>>
>>> TOM SCULLY SAID:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all
>>> of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has..."<<<
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams'
>>> position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever
>>> in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.
>
> I agree, David. But there is no need to call another person a "kook"
> because they characterize someone's political stance.
>
Is it ok to call someone a kook because his theory is insane?