Common Sense Concerning The JFK Assassination
David Von Pein
The blog linked below contains hundreds of common-sense and fact-based
quotes relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
I'll be updating and expanding this cool blog on a regular basis. So
if anyone here (or elsewhere) says something that I deem worthy of
inclusion in my "Quoting Common Sense" blog, I'll be adding it to this
blog page.
Enjoy (I know I certainly enjoyed compiling these gems):
www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
Chuck Schuyler said:
>>> "Excellent work!!! I like the common sense angle." <<<
I then said back:
Thanks, Chuck.
And I didn't leave you out either, Chuck. Your famous quote is
included in my blog. Along with several entries from Bud, including
this one (which belongs in the "Quote Hall-of-Fame"):
"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-
deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble
him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cad24cdfd4162b58
Bud
> The blog linked below contains hundreds of common-sense and fact-based
> quotes relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
>
> I'll be updating and expanding this cool blog on a regular basis. So
> if anyone here (or elsewhere) says something that I deem worthy of
> inclusion in my "Quoting Common Sense" blog, I'll be adding it to this
> blog page.
>
> Enjoy (I know I certainly enjoyed compiling these gems):
>
> www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> Chuck Schuyler said:
>
> >>> "Excellent work!!! I like the common sense angle." <<<
>
> I then said back:
>
> Thanks, Chuck.
>
> And I didn't leave you out either, Chuck. Your famous quote is
> this one (which belongs in the "Quote Hall-of-Fame"):
>
> "The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-
> deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble
> him to death by ducks?" --Bud; April 1, 2006
>
Nice presentation, David. I think it suffered from my inclusion,
though. Like including amongst a panel of distinguished speakers a guy
they found whizzing in the alley.
David Von Pein
>>> "Nice presentation, David. I think it suffered from my [Bud's] inclusion, though." <<<
Not a chance. Your quotes are gold-plated.
I always look forward to reading your common-sense thoughts. And I
hope to be adding still more Bud-isms to my Quotes Blog in the future.
BTW, I've expanded my blog page already since first launching it. I've
added quotes from the likes of William Manchester, Jim Moore, Richard
Trask, Bob Huffaker, and Dale Myers.
WhiskyJoe
**************************************************
> "Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men."
> -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961
True enough. Reason appeals to CTers about as much
as taking a bath appeals to a dog.
**************************************************
> "Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth
> is a little like leaving the front-porch light on
> for Jimmy Hoffa." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
No it isn't. Jimmy might come back.
**************************************************
> JOHNNY CARSON -- "Now, you say 'the fact remains'
> again....as if it IS a fact. You keep saying 'we know'
> and 'the fact is'....but that's not a fact, is it?"
> JIM GARRISON -- "Yes."
> JOHNNY CARSON -- "What makes it a fact? Because you
> say so?"
No, because Garrison thinks so.
**************************************************
> "If there's NOT a "SBT", then how on Earth did a
> SEPARATE gunshot to John Connally's back end up
> striking the Governor in pretty much the same
> location where such a wound would be located if a SBT
> did exist? Odds of [this] occurring without a SBT?
> Can anyone hazard a guess?" -- David Von Pein;
> January 22, 2007
Well, CTers typically answer that one by changing the
angles a bit, moving Connally, a bit, so that the
straight line misses Connally's wound location by
about six inches and instead lines up with the
middle of Connally's back.
Why wasn't Connally wounded in the middle of the back
as well? Because bullet deflections, while never allowed
to help the SBT, are allowed if needed to help the
Multiple Bullet Theory. So the bullet emerging from
JFK's throat must have been deflected by a lot more than
six inches and was deflected out of the limousine.
**************************************************
> "Mafia contract killers are always selected with
> utmost care. I mean the one chosen to kill Oswald
> would be everything that Jack Ruby was not. He'd be
> someone who had a long track record of effectively
> carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would
> be a precise, unemotional, business-like, and above
> all, tight-lipped, killer for hire.
And Mafia contract killers always choose their
contracts with care. Mafia contract killers always
have a reasonable chance of getting away. They might
not always escape being caught or killed. But it
is unprecedented for one to be caught within five
seconds of the hit, surrounded by one hundred
policemen, with no chance of escaping. Where's the
profit in that?
**************************************************
> "Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult
> to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe
> the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the
> Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet,
> then we must believe that a bullet passed through
> the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on
> a course that was taking it directly into the middle
> of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace.
Some CTers believe the bullet vanished without a
trace after exiting the throat. But others believe
it vanished without a trace within the neck and a
separate bullet struck the throat and that bullet
disappeared as well.
**************************************************
> "Anybody who would be stupid enough to rely on
> the EYEwitness testimony of a man [Governor
> John B. Connally, Jr.] who WASN'T EVEN LOOKING
> AT THE PRESIDENT when the President was hit is
> obviously also stupid enough to take Mr. Connally's
> own unreliable words as the Gospel [when JBC said he
> was of the opinion that he was not hit by the same shot
> as JFK]. Connally's testimony in this specific regard
> is utterly worthless, and always has been." --
> David Von Pein; 2005
And the same is doubly true of Mrs. Connally.
See wasn't even looking at either man when it appears
that both were wounded. Governor Connally, while not
looking at JFK, could at least feel a bullet and could
tell, roughly, when he was wounded.
A minimum, and absolute minimum requirement of a witness,
is that they were looking at the subject at the critical
time in order to be taken seriously. And even witnesses
who are looking at a subject are often wrong. Neither
Connally meets even the most minimum of requirements.
And, of course, in this case, it's impossible for
any eyewitness to meet the minimum requirements.
Only a chameleon could watch JFK with one eye and
Connally with the other.
The only competent witness in this matter is the
Zapruder film. Only watching the Zapruder film over
and over again can one obtain enough information to
decide if JFK or Connally were hit first or at the
same time. No other witness has this ability. They
only get to see the assassination once.
In this case, I think the Freeway sign may actually
help, because it provides the perfect frame of
reference and it's clear that both men start
reacting just after they appear from behind
the sign. In a sense, the sign was placed perfectly.
**************************************************
> "[A] benefit to [Jim] Garrison of only charging
> [Clay] Shaw with conspiracy [instead of both
> conspiracy and murder itself] is that under
> Louisiana law...when conspiracy alone is alleged,
> only 9 out of 12 jurors must concur to render a
> guilty verdict. So Garrison only needed nine jurors
> to convict Shaw. He couldn't even get one."
> -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History"
An interesting tidbit of history that I had not heard.
Garrison was trying to take advantage of the law to
maximize his chances of getting some sort of conviction
with what he knew was a weak case.
This was a common tactic of Garrison. He brought in that
New York accountant at the last minute, which is not
allowed in other states but was in Louisiana, so the
defense would have a minimum amount of time to find
out information about him. He would always try to get
any kind of edge, no matter how dubious, to convict Shaw.
**************************************************
> "Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case
> against Oswald as being weak because it was
> "only circumstantial," the implication being that
> any case based on circumstantial evidence is not
> solid. .... But nothing could be further from the
> truth. ....
> "Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence
> against Oswald [e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints
> traced to the defendant], but there was an enormous
> amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence,
> including the very most powerful in this category:
> his flight from the murder scene, his resisting
> arrest, and his telling one provable lie after
> another upon his apprehension, all showing an
> unmistakable consciousness of guilt."
> -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 528 of "Reclaiming History"
As excellent a summation of the case against Oswald as
I have ever heard.
**************************************************
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Nice presentation, David. I think it suffered from my [Bud's]
inclusion, though."<<<
>
> Not a chance. Your quotes are gold-plated.
>
> I always look forward to reading your common-sense thoughts. And I
> hope to be adding still more Bud-isms to my Quotes Blog in the future.
>
Kiss up to your fellow WC defenders and then call me a kook for proving
that the Zapruder film is authentic.
David Von Pein
>>> "Kiss up to your fellow WC defenders and then call me a kook for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic." <<<
Aw, poor Tony's feelings are hurt it would seem.
David Von Pein
"I have watched Robert Groden, Josiah Thompson, G. Robert Blakey and
others come to Dealey Plaza. The first thing these writers and researchers
always do is look up at that sixth-floor window. If they truly believe
Oswald innocent of the assassination, why do they crane their heads to
stare upward at the sniper's perch?
"The answer is that, deep in the secret recesses of their minds and
hearts, nearly all these people accept what will ultimately be history's
verdict: Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed the President.
"But to show that acceptance would be anathema to the critics, for
they have too much at stake. Down the drain would go political causes they
champion, money they stand to make, and their personal and professional
reputations. Those are hefty reasons for keeping their voices shrill and
their platitudes unreasonable." -- Jim Moore; Page 208 of "Conspiracy Of
One"
David Von Pein
"I do think for the historical record it's important that people
understand that Lee [Oswald] was a very ordinary person -- that people
can kill a President without that being something that shows on them
in advance." -- Ruth Paine; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"; July 1986
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=GIR1ExW1NWU
www.RapidShare.com/files/235894737/TESTIMONY_OF_RUTH_PAINE_AT_1986_TELEVISION_DOCU-TRIAL.wmv
Anthony Marsh
>
> "I have watched Robert Groden, Josiah Thompson, G. Robert Blakey and
> others come to Dealey Plaza. The first thing these writers and researchers
> always do is look up at that sixth-floor window. If they truly believe
> Oswald innocent of the assassination, why do they crane their heads to
> stare upward at the sniper's perch?
>
I don't know any of those who claim that NO shots came from the sniper's
nest. Even the wackiest conspiracy theorist claims that diversionary
shots were fired from the TSBD.
> "The answer is that, deep in the secret recesses of their minds and
> hearts, nearly all these people accept what will ultimately be history's
> verdict: Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed the President.
>
More nonsense.
> "But to show that acceptance would be anathema to the critics, for
> they have too much at stake. Down the drain would go political causes they
> champion, money they stand to make, and their personal and professional
So you think that the JFK assassination is tied to affirmative action or
something? And YOU want to be taken seriously?
ShutterBun
For what it's worth, the paragraphs DVP is quoting come from Jim
Moore's "Conspiracy of One," as he has correctly attributed them.
David Von Pein
>>> "I don't know any of those who claim that NO shots came from the
sniper's nest." <<<
Groden.
But you'll never admit that Groden (on pages 20-40 of TKOAP) says that
it's his belief that it's LIKELY that ZERO shots came from the SN window
(out of up to TEN shots fired, per Groden).
Groden has ONE shot possibly coming from LHO's SN window....but even THAT
shot Groden thinks "more probably" came from the 2nd Floor of the Dal-Tex.
Hence...Groden's FINAL and BEST scenario is: 0 shots from the Sniper's
Nest.
And, quite obviously, that's plain nuts.
www.The-Killing-Of-A-President.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
"In the ... conspiracy universe, no evidence of
guilt is stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee Harvey
Oswald." -- Vincent Bugliosi
David Von Pein
"Per the disjointed theories they espouse, [many] conspiracy
theorists have no choice but to believe on faith that an incredible
"like-mindedness" existed between the "plotters" who were running
around setting the trap for Oswald many days, weeks, and months before
11/22/63....and the police, Warren Commission, etc.
"Yes, coincidences can, and do, occur in life. But isn't the
following coincidence a little bit too spectacular and improbable even
for most CTers? ---
"The police (et al) wanted to frame the same INNOCENT man after
the assassination that a different group of henchmen/plotters were
trying to frame many days/weeks/months BEFORE the assassination. ....
"It's especially idiotic to think that the Dallas Police
Department would have had the SLIGHTEST desire to frame Oswald for the
slaying of a fellow police officer (which, laughably, is a frame-up
theory that is accepted as a fact by many conspiracy kooks)." -- David
Von Pein; January 17, 2008
www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "I don't know any of those who claim that NO shots came from the
> sniper's nest."<<<
>
> Groden.
>
> But you'll never admit that Groden (on pages 20-40 of TKOAP) says that
> it's his belief that it's LIKELY that ZERO shots came from the SN window
> (out of up to TEN shots fired, per Groden).
>
We've only been through this 982 times so maybe you forgot.
> Groden has ONE shot possibly coming from LHO's SN window....but even THAT
> shot Groden thinks "more probably" came from the 2nd Floor of the Dal-Tex.
>
You know nothing about what Groden thinks.
> Hence...Groden's FINAL and BEST scenario is: 0 shots from the Sniper's
> Nest.
>
> And, quite obviously, that's plain nuts.
>
And even David Lifton thinks that diversionary shots were fired from the
sniper's nest.
> www.The-Killing-Of-A-President.blogspot.com
>
>
David Von Pein
"In the final analysis, the validity of the HSCA's acoustic evidence
collapses under the weight of its own requirements. The HSCA presented no
photographic or testimonial evidence that any police motorcycle with an
open microphone was at the point on Houston Street where such a motorcycle
would have had to be at the time of the assassination for its hypothesis
to be possible.
"More importantly, the very police Dictabelt recording that the HSCA
relied on to conclude that a second gunman fired at the president proves
beyond all doubt that the impulse sounds committee members thought were
gunfire were recorded at least one minute after Oswald shot Kennedy in the
head.
"In addition, common sense tells us the fourth-shot acoustic
evidence must be wrong since it is completely incompatible with the
overwhelming evidence in this case that only three shots were fired in
Dealey Plaza, and those three shots came from the sniper's nest.
"That, of course, is not what conspiracy theorists would have you
believe. In the best of worlds, they would prefer that the question of
conspiracy remain open. How else can they continue the charade that more
than one gunman murdered the president?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 217 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
David Von Pein
>>> "You know nothing about what Groden thinks." <<<
Therefore, per Marsh, pages 20-40 of Groden's TKOAP really do NOT
represent what Groden "thinks". (At least as of 1993.)
Weird, Tony. Really weird. (Even for you.)
Footnote -- I think Groden has possibly added a shot or two to his
make-believe 10-shot shooting scenario since '93. Which is the great thing
about being a CTer, of course -- you don't have to pay attention to ANY of
the facts and evidence. You can merely make up your own facts (and
non-existent gunshots)...just like Groden does on pages 20 thru 40 of
TKOAP.
David Von Pein
>>> "And even David Lifton thinks that diversionary shots were fired from
the sniper's nest." <<<
Who cares? I'm talking about Robert J. Groden now, not Lifton.
pamela
Of course, the Bug has it wrong. Whether the HSCA conclusion re the
dictabelt was correct or not does not mean the WCR has been 'proven'. And
the 'only three shot' theory is what they were 'supposed' to hear, not
what the witnesses actually saw and heard.
ShutterBun
You're right, we don't know what Groden "thinks," we only know what he
wrote & said. Jim Moore gave us his impression of what Groden
thought, but you poo-pooed that with all due haste.
Here's what Groden wrote:
Shot 1: Missed. No origin is specified, but his drawing indicates the
Dal-Tex building (2nd floor) Note that Groden accepts the testimony
of 2 witnesses who said the "first shot missed and hit the pavement."
He places the shot at 150-152 Curious.
Shot 2: Grassy Knoll shot, hits JFK in the throat. Yeah.
Shot 3: From SouthWEST corner of TSBD (??) Hits Connally in the back
(causing no further wounds)
Shot 4: I will quote: "...from behind, possibly from the so called
"Oswald" window, but more probably from the second floor of the DalTex
building." It struck the president in the back, driving him forward.
Note that JFK has now been hit TWICE already.
Shot 5: Grassy knoll shot, hits JFK in the head
Shot 6: Again from the SouthWEST corner of TSBD, hits Connally in the
wrist (can you believe you're reading this?)
Additional Shots: "There were at least two other shots fired in Dealey
Plaza that day, perhaps even four more." (Groden goes on to specify
that a totally seperate bullet hit the windshield frame) Note the he
wisely does not attribute a time-frame or sequence to any of these
"additional shots."
Note further that the closest he comes to allowing a"possible" (but
less likely) bullet to be fired from the sniper's nest is an
extraneous "back shot" to JFK at frame 224 (which, if memory serves
me, is not totally inconsistent with other, less conspiratorial
theories)
Anthony Marsh
The original discussion is about some conspiracy authors that you claim
say that no shots came from the TSBD. You've come up empty every time.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "You know nothing about what Groden thinks."<<<
>
> Therefore, per Marsh, pages 20-40 of Groden's TKOAP really do NOT
> represent what Groden "thinks". (At least as of 1993.)
>
> Weird, Tony. Really weird. (Even for you.)
>
Weird that you don't keep up with what Groden thinks. He used to claim
that it was Oswald seen in the Altgens photo. But working for the HSCA
he changed his mind. He used to think that the Mentessana film showed a
second rifle, but a couple of us proved to him that it was the cop's
shotgun. He didn't know about the second set of reinterment photos until
I told him last month.
> Footnote -- I think Groden has possibly added a shot or two to his
> make-believe 10-shot shooting scenario since '93. Which is the great thing
> about being a CTer, of course -- you don't have to pay attention to ANY of
> the facts and evidence. You can merely make up your own facts (and
> non-existent gunshots)...just like Groden does on pages 20 thru 40 of
> TKOAP.
>
You think? No, you don't think. You guess.
claviger
Well he got 2 out of 8 right. Wouldn't it be fun to hear Groden and
Fetzer have a debate: 8 vs 16 total shots fired that day. How do they
explain the majority of witnesses heard only 3 shots? Andrew Mason
will hold their feet to the fire on that one!
bigdog
Why would anyone want to fire diversionary shots? If the purpose was to
draw attention to the SN, why bother with diversionary shots? Why not fire
those same shots at the intended target. You accomplish the purpose of
drawing attention to the SN while increasing the chances for success? The
theory is as nutty as Lifton.
David Von Pein
"Even if we were to make the assumption that Lee Oswald WAS
acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that many conspiracy
theorists think LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay
Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million
miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY
INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN
DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.
"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once
Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of
evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the
planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas,
Texas. No evidence whatsoever.
"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates
that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true
even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New
Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).
"In other words -- Where is the BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that
allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this:
"LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY
BANISTER....
"....to this:
"SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?
"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY
OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of
faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally
ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 30, 1:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/29/2009 10:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "I don't know any of those who claim that NO shots came from the
>>> sniper's nest."<<<
>>
>>> Groden.
>>
>>> But you'll never admit that Groden (on pages 20-40 of TKOAP) says that
>>> it's his belief that it's LIKELY that ZERO shots came from the SN window
>>> (out of up to TEN shots fired, per Groden).
>>
>> We've only been through this 982 times so maybe you forgot.
>>
>>> Groden has ONE shot possibly coming from LHO's SN window....but even THAT
>>> shot Groden thinks "more probably" came from the 2nd Floor of the Dal-Tex.
>>
>> You know nothing about what Groden thinks.
>>
>>> Hence...Groden's FINAL and BEST scenario is: 0 shots from the Sniper's
>>> Nest.
>>
>>> And, quite obviously, that's plain nuts.
>>
>> And even David Lifton thinks that diversionary shots were fired from the
>> sniper's nest.
>>
>
> Why would anyone want to fire diversionary shots? If the purpose was to
> draw attention to the SN, why bother with diversionary shots? Why not fire
Not my theory. I said Lifton.
I suppose he would say that you can use an unskilled patsy from the TSBD
for that job, but you need an expert marksman for the shots from in front.
> those same shots at the intended target. You accomplish the purpose of
> drawing attention to the SN while increasing the chances for success? The
> theory is as nutty as Lifton.
>
Ah, maybe the conspirators were worried about collateral damage firing
the Mannlicher-Carcano. You can hit Jack, but don't dare hit Jackie?
David Von Pein
"Any assassins who would have needed only Oswald fingered for the
two murders on 11/22/63 must have all (to a man!) been under the influence
of large quantities of hallucinogenic drugs when they decided to place a
variety of different shooters throughout Dealey Plaza (and on 10th Street
for Tippit's killing), as many CTers advocate.
"And these powerful drugs they must have been on I guess must have
had a crazy type of "Miracles Are Possible" effect on all of the shooters
and behind-the-scenes schemers -- because only a "miracle" could have
rescued such an inane multi-shooter "Patsy" plan from certain failure on
that 22nd day of November back in '63." -- David Von Pein; April 7, 2006
Anthony Marsh
> ShutterBun,
>
>> You're right, we don't know what Groden "thinks," we only know what he
How does Andrew Mason explain the plurality of witnesses heard shots
from the grassy knoll?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 30, 10:58 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/29/2009 10:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "I don't know any of those who claim that NO shots came from the
>>> sniper's nest."<<<
>>
>>> Groden.
>>
>>> But you'll never admit that Groden (on pages 20-40 of TKOAP) says that
>>> it's his belief that it's LIKELY that ZERO shots came from the SN window
>>> (out of up to TEN shots fired, per Groden).
>>
>> We've only been through this 982 times so maybe you forgot.
>>
>>> Groden has ONE shot possibly coming from LHO's SN window....but even THAT
>>> shot Groden thinks "more probably" came from the 2nd Floor of the Dal-Tex.
>>
>> You know nothing about what Groden thinks.
>>
>>> Hence...Groden's FINAL and BEST scenario is: 0 shots from the Sniper's
>>> Nest.
>>
>>> And, quite obviously, that's plain nuts.
>>
>> And even David Lifton thinks that diversionary shots were fired from the
>> sniper's nest.
>>
>>
>>
>>> www.The-Killing-Of-A-President.blogspot.com
>
> You're right, we don't know what Groden "thinks," we only know what he
> thought, but you poo-pooed that with all due haste.
>
Yeah, and Josiah Thomson wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas that a shot from
the TSBD caused JFK's head to move forward 2 inches in one Zapruder frame.
He no longer believes that, yet some dullards here keep quoting it.
> Here's what Groden wrote:
>
> Shot 1: Missed. No origin is specified, but his drawing indicates the
> Dal-Tex building (2nd floor) Note that Groden accepts the testimony
> of 2 witnesses who said the "first shot missed and hit the pavement."
> He places the shot at 150-152 Curious.
>
> Shot 2: Grassy Knoll shot, hits JFK in the throat. Yeah.
>
> Shot 3: From SouthWEST corner of TSBD (??) Hits Connally in the back
> (causing no further wounds)
>
> Shot 4: I will quote: "...from behind, possibly from the so called
> "Oswald" window, but more probably from the second floor of the DalTex
> building." It struck the president in the back, driving him forward.
> Note that JFK has now been hit TWICE already.
>
> Shot 5: Grassy knoll shot, hits JFK in the head
>
> Shot 6: Again from the SouthWEST corner of TSBD, hits Connally in the
> wrist (can you believe you're reading this?)
>
> Additional Shots: "There were at least two other shots fired in Dealey
> Plaza that day, perhaps even four more." (Groden goes on to specify
> that a totally seperate bullet hit the windshield frame) Note the he
> wisely does not attribute a time-frame or sequence to any of these
> "additional shots."
>
Nor does he specify the location of the weapon.
David Von Pein
"We already knew that ["Harvey And Lee" author John] Armstrong threw
out logic and reason long ago with respect to his [double Oswald] fairy
tale, but at least he had his insanity to fall back on.
"The fairy tale loses even its “internal logic” insanity when he
asserts that the CIA got someone to impersonate Marguerite [Oswald] who
looked nothing like her. How much longer do we have to wait for Armstrong
to inform us that it was a Kennedy imposter who was assassinated?
"For those conspiracy theorists who feel I haven’t “done
justice” to Armstrong by not mentioning every matter, issue, or witness
Armstrong cited in his nearly one-thousand-page book--to do so would
almost take a book in itself--if justice is giving something its due, the
only justice for Armstrong’s book is to put it in a trash can.
"Every word I wrote about this freaky book is one more word than
Armstrong and his theory deserve. Here’s a book that at worst doesn’t
deserve First Amendment protections (I’m being facetious) and at best is
merely fun and games.
"And yet, Walt Brown, a serious student of the assassination, while
noting a few of the book’s absurdities, gives it a positive review in
his publication, JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, saying it is “required
reading.”
"When someone of Brown’s stature in the conspiracy community tells
his readers to go out and “get the book and set aside...everything you
previously read about what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22,
1963” (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, April 2004, pp.3–10), he is doing
nothing more than encouraging other Armstrongs to go off on similar
delirious odysseys into the twilight zone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 578
of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
yeuhd
Plurality?
Of the 104 earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza who are on record with an
opinion as to the direction from which the shots came, 55 (53.8%)
thought that the shots came from the direction of the Texas School
Book Depository, 33 (31.7%) thought that the shots came from the area
of the grassy knoll or the Triple Underpass, 8 (7.7%) thought the
shots came from a location entirely distinct from the knoll or the
Depository, 5 (4.8%) thought they heard shots from two locations, and
3 (2.9%) thought the shots came from a direction consistent with both
the knoll and the Depository.
Anthony Marsh
As usual you cite a biased study.
David Von Pein
The latest top-notch quotes added to my ever-expanding "QUOTING COMMON
SENSE" blog:
"Buff assumptions don't control history." -- John McAdams;
August 23, 2009
"Do you [Robert Harris] think you have the right to treat
anybody you merely SUSPECT as a criminal, in the absence of evidence?"
-- John McAdams; August 23, 2009
David Von Pein
"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so
much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex
Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963
Anthony Marsh
Straight out of the CIA playbook.
yeuhd
You have access to some CIA "playbook"? Please quote your source.
David Von Pein
Oh, goodie! Now Alex Dreier of ABC News is "CIA".
Is there ANYBODY who's not with "The Agency", Mr. Marsh?
Anthony Marsh
>
> Oh, goodie! Now Alex Dreier of ABC News is "CIA".
>
> Is there ANYBODY who's not with "The Agency", Mr. Marsh?
>
Everyone notice how he snips out the context and then misrepresents what I
really said. BTW, it was Colby who said that all the journalist are owned
by the CIA.
Anthony Marsh
Richard Helms.
David Von Pein
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"Not one scrap of evidence has ever emerged that on February 24
[1967], the day [Jim] Garrison announced that he and his staff had "solved
the case," he had any evidence connecting anyone, in any way, with the
assassination.
"If there were nothing else at all, this alone, by definition, would
be enough to prove beyond all doubt that Garrison had no personal
credibility with respect to this case." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1365 of
"Reclaiming History"
www.QUOTING-COMMON-SENSE.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
9/26/09 QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
"The only thing more horrifying to me than the assassination [of
President Kennedy] itself is the insidious, perverse notion that
elements of the American Government, that my own Agency, had some part
in it. I am determined personally to make public or to expose to
disinterested eyes every relevant scrap of paper in CIA’s possession,
in the hope of helping to dispel this corrosive suspicion." -- CIA
Director Robert Gates; May 12, 1992 [ARRB Final Report; Chapter 8;
Page 146]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/report/html/arrb_fin_167.htm
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Lovely.
So when did he release Joannides papers?
Forgot them, eh?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:55a0735a-9ca9-4866...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
9/26/09 QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
"The only thing more horrifying to me than the assassination [of
President Kennedy] itself is the insidious, perverse notion that
elements of the American Government, that my own Agency, had some part
in it. I am determined personally to make public or to expose to
disinterested eyes every relevant scrap of paper in CIA�s possession,
tomnln
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ssjsb5pq76fhi2a6c...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> 9/26/09 QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
>
>
> "The only thing more horrifying to me than the assassination [of
> President Kennedy] itself is the insidious, perverse notion that
> elements of the American Government, that my own Agency, had some part
> in it. I am determined personally to make public or to expose to
> in the hope of helping to dispel this corrosive suspicion." -- CIA
> Director Robert Gates; May 12, 1992 [ARRB Final Report; Chapter 8;
> Page 146]
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/report/html/arrb_fin_167.htm
>
> http://QUOTING-COMMON-SENSE.blogspot.com
>
We shouldn't expect anything less from the professional liars. If they had
secrets from the Peloponnesian War they would still classify them Top
Secret and refuse to release them even to historians.
David Von Pein
"If you were put in charge of framing your lone patsy on 11/22/63,
would you have placed three gunmen all throughout Dealey Plaza? Or would
you have fired from ONLY the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD using only your
patsy's gun?
"And would you allow your patsy to wander around in the lunchroom at
12:30, where he's quite likely to be seen by people AT LUNCHTIME?
"What if Oswald had called in sick on November 22nd? What then?
Would the plotters have re-routed the motorcade to have it pass by Ruth
Paine's home in Irving?" -- David Von Pein; April 2007
Anthony Marsh
> "If you were put in charge of framing your lone patsy on 11/22/63,
> would you have placed three gunmen all throughout Dealey Plaza? Or would
> you have fired from ONLY the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD using only your
> patsy's gun?
>
More silly questions that we've already answered a million times before.
You're like a stuck record.
> "And would you allow your patsy to wander around in the lunchroom at
> 12:30, where he's quite likely to be seen by people AT LUNCHTIME?
>
Just pay off or intimidate the witnesses. De regure for Dallas.
Sandy McCroskey
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > "If you were put in charge of framing your lone patsy on 11/22/63,
> > would you have placed three gunmen all throughout Dealey Plaza? Or would
> > you have fired from ONLY the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD using only your
> > patsy's gun?
>
> More silly questions that we've already answered a million times before.
> You're like a stuck record.
>
But your "answers" were the farthest thing from "common sense."
> > "And would you allow your patsy to wander around in the lunchroom at
> > 12:30, where he's quite likely to be seen by people AT LUNCHTIME?
>
> Just pay off or intimidate the witnesses. De regure for Dallas.
That's "de rigueur." Just remember, it's cognate with "rigor." You're
welcome.
/sandy
David Von Pein
>>> "More silly questions that we've already answered a million times
before. You're like a stuck record." <<<
Nice non-answer, Tony.
I guess this means that Tony, if framing a lone patsy, would indeed have
placed a firing squad of additional assassins in various non-TSBD
locations, which would ensure the failure of the "1 patsy" plot from the
get-go.
Right, Tony?
David Von Pein
"Remarkably, even sensible, intelligent people, such as HSCA
chief counsel Robert Blakey, who personally believes [Carlos] Marcello
was behind Kennedy's assassination, unthinkingly invoke the buffs' A-B-
C reasoning to support their position. On Frontline's 1993 show "Who
Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Blakey said, "When you find David Ferrie, who
is an investigator for Carlos Marcello, being a boyhood friend to Lee
Harvey Oswald, and with him that summer, and with Carlos Marcello at
that very point in time, you have an immediate connection between a
man [Marcello] who had the motive, opportunity, and means to kill
Kennedy and the man [Oswald] who killed Kennedy."
"What?!? Although common sense alone should tell conspiracy
theorists that knowing someone or even being friendly with him is no
evidence of a connection to his criminal activity, that you have to
show the two were involved with each other in the same enterprise,
there is another fascinating phenomenon that the conspiracy theorists
must be aware of but seem determined not to acknowledge.
"I'm referring to the curious but undeniable reality that
virtually any two people chosen at random can be connected to each
other by the interposition of a very small number of mutual friends or
acquaintances. ....
"To dilute the connection even further, Ferrie was not an
investigator for Carlos Marcello. He was an investigator for lawyer G.
Wray Gill, and Gill had Ferrie work on an immigration lawsuit against
Marcello in which Gill was representing Marcello.
"Also, there is no credible evidence that Ferrie was ever a
boyhood friend of Oswald's or was with Oswald in the summer of 1963.
But even if these assertions were true, so what? They certainly don't
add up to a conspiracy to commit murder." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
981 of "Reclaiming History"
David Von Pein
"The Dallas police certainly made their mistakes, including their
critical lapse of failing to adequately protect Oswald from any possible
assassin, resulting in his death. Still, by and large, Dallas homicide
captain J. Will Fritz, in his dogged, taciturn way, had, within two days
of the assassination, managed to build a very powerful case against Lee
Harvey Oswald, a case that has stood the test of time.
"The principal investigation of the assassination, by the Warren
Commission, is, of course, unparalleled in history, not just in the sheer,
staggering volume of information collected by the FBI and other federal
agencies, but in its monumental thoroughness and attention to detail.
"Likewise, the House Select Committee's modern scientific analysis
of the hard, physical evidence in the case produced a corroborative
foundation of fact that previous investigations couldn't have hoped to
obtain, and thereby contributed appreciably to our knowledge of the case.
"When taken as a whole...the body of evidence collected by these
official investigations leaves ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that Lee Harvey Oswald
murdered the president, and NO REASONABLE DOUBT that he acted alone." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 380 of "Reclaiming History"
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Remarkably, even sensible, intelligent people, such as HSCA
> chief counsel Robert Blakey, who personally believes [Carlos] Marcello
> was behind Kennedy's assassination, unthinkingly invoke the buffs' A-B-
> C reasoning to support their position. On Frontline's 1993 show "Who
> Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Blakey said, "When you find David Ferrie, who
> is an investigator for Carlos Marcello, being a boyhood friend to Lee
> Harvey Oswald, and with him that summer, and with Carlos Marcello at
> that very point in time, you have an immediate connection between a
> man [Marcello] who had the motive, opportunity, and means to kill
> Kennedy and the man [Oswald] who killed Kennedy."
>
Well, I agree that guilt by association is not a good investigative tool,
but please be careful that you don't even accidentally admit the
association. Keep pretending that Ferrie could never possibly have known
Oswald. Deny the picnic photo.
Anthony Marsh
Thanks. My built in spell checker is not so good at French.
> /sandy
yeuhd
> Well, I agree that guilt by association is not a good investigative tool,
> but please be careful that you don't even accidentally admit the
> association. Keep pretending that Ferrie could never possibly have known
> Oswald.
Straw man argument. He didn't claim that "Ferrie could never possibly
have known Oswald".
> Deny the picnic photo.
Straw man argument. He didn't deny that photo.
Re-read the quotation from Bugliosi. It's about whether Oswald and
Ferrie were friends, not whether they were involved with the same
Civil Air Patrol unit. HSCA investigators could find no evidence that
they knew each other beyond that fact.
Anthony Marsh
It's called the insurance shot. You place shooters behind and shooters in
front. The shooters in front do not have to fire unless the target is
escaping alive.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 30, 4:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Well, I agree that guilt by association is not a good investigative tool,
>> but please be careful that you don't even accidentally admit the
>> association. Keep pretending that Ferrie could never possibly have known
>> Oswald.
>
> Straw man argument. He didn't claim that "Ferrie could never possibly
> have known Oswald".
>
I did not say that is what he said and I did not quote him as you just
quoted above. I said that is what he pretends.
>> Deny the picnic photo.
>
> Straw man argument. He didn't deny that photo.
>
It's a good suggestion if he wants to be a good little WC defender.
Never admit anything.
> Re-read the quotation from Bugliosi. It's about whether Oswald and
> Ferrie were friends, not whether they were involved with the same
> Civil Air Patrol unit. HSCA investigators could find no evidence that
> they knew each other beyond that fact.
>
Well, I don't think they were friends. But they don't have to be friends
for Ferrie to have known Oswald. Even in the Biblical sense.
David Von Pein
week. I immediately had to add it to my "Common Sense" blog....
"You conspiracy kooks remind me of a homeless man that goes into a Diner
and orders food knowing that he can't pay for it. You look for the hair in
the egg. Because you people don't want to believe that a lone assassin
could kill JFK. So you people beat the innocence drum for the man that
murdered him. Shameful, Pathetic." -- Mike T.; Aug. 19, 2016
http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com
mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Breitbart a pal of yours?
Jason Burke
claviger
If you force everyone to think logical this Newsgroup will dry up and blow
away. You're no fun. Not fair. Boo on you.
mainframetech
Now if you could only prove it against my proofs from the official record,
you might have something! Let me know when you'll be ready to match your
proofs against mine...:)
Chris
mainframetech
Oswald was guilty. He supports the WCR and therefore he will lose one day
ignominiously. He already ignores the proof from the official files that
I've produced, so he's on his way to being on of the LN kooks we see every
day.
Chris
Jason Burke
After 53 years, you and your ilk haven't got squat. Mainly because
there isn't squat for you to get.
Deal with it, and get on with your life.
Ah, the smiley. Now I *know* your mental age.
Jason
Anthony Marsh
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:23:41 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 8/21/2016 6:43 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 10:36:06 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> Here's a great comment that a fellow left on one of my YouTube videos this
>>>> week. I immediately had to add it to my "Common Sense" blog....
>>>>
>>>> "You conspiracy kooks remind me of a homeless man that goes into a Diner
>>>> and orders food knowing that he can't pay for it. You look for the hair in
>>>> the egg. Because you people don't want to believe that a lone assassin
>>>> could kill JFK. So you people beat the innocence drum for the man that
>>>> murdered him. Shameful, Pathetic." -- Mike T.; Aug. 19, 2016
>>>>
>>>> http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are many LN kooks out there.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>> Too bad the LN theory is correct, eh, Chris?
>
>
> Sounds like you just admitted that you're a believer in that theory.
Trying to pin him down is futile. He could just have his own specialized
LN theory.
bigdog
of them believe he had accomplices. Only the really silly people believe
he was innocent in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
As for your "proof", it only proves your complete lack of understanding of
what constitutes proof. Making silly assumptions and pointing to kook
websites and fairy tales written by charlatan authors who were more than
happy to take your money isn't proof of anything.
Anthony Marsh
conspiracy. All you have is the same old cover-up and government lies.
mainframetech
Whaddya think of the 'LOL'? It certainly applies to your ridiculous
comments, which (of course) are all opinion without a single stitch of
proof of anything. I've produced reams of evidence from the official
record showing the failure of the WCR and you haven't been able to oppose
a single word of it. I know that can make a person feel impotent, but
what can you expect? If you won't get down in the mud with the rest of us
and make decent arguments, how can you hold your head up in front of
everyone?
Chris
mainframetech
of my information from official files such as the ARRB, which you are
afraid of, because it tells much truth that is lacking in the WC and HSCA
files. And as to understanding 'proof', I've put solid proof in front of
you and you can't see it, because you're blinded by the WCR.
Chris
Jason Burke
simplest crimes in history.
And I thought you had enough sense to know how to read a header. I guess
I overestimated your abilities, Tony.
Anthony Marsh
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:37:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:53:04 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:36:06 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> Here's a great comment that a fellow left on one of my YouTube videos this
>>>> week. I immediately had to add it to my "Common Sense" blog....
>>>>
>>>> "You conspiracy kooks remind me of a homeless man that goes into a Diner
>>>> and orders food knowing that he can't pay for it. You look for the hair in
>>>> the egg. Because you people don't want to believe that a lone assassin
>>>> could kill JFK. So you people beat the innocence drum for the man that
>>>> murdered him. Shameful, Pathetic." -- Mike T.; Aug. 19, 2016
>>>>
>>>> http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> If you force everyone to think logical this Newsgroup will dry up and blow
>>> away. You're no fun. Not fair. Boo on you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Claviger, have no fear, DVP won't get anywhere with his stories that
>> Oswald was guilty. He supports the WCR and therefore he will lose one day
>> ignominiously. He already ignores the proof from the official files that
>> I've produced, so he's on his way to being on of the LN kooks we see every
>> day.
>>
>
> A clear majority of Americans believe Oswald was the assassin even if some
> of them believe he had accomplices. Only the really silly people believe
> he was innocent in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
>
But you don't. You hate majority rule.
bigdog
> which you are
> afraid of, because it tells much truth that is lacking in the WC and HSCA
> files.
seekers many years after the assassination and tailored to appeal to
gullible conspiracy hobbyists.
> And as to understanding 'proof', I've put solid proof in front of
> you and you can't see it, because you're blinded by the WCR.
>
that the WC supplied. There isn't an ounce of physical evidence to support
any of these cockamamie stories that you choose to believe. That should
tell you something but it doesn't. All the physical evidence points to
Oswald and nobody else. That should tell you something but it doesn't.
There are none so blind as he who will not see.
Anthony Marsh
Jason Burke
Anthony Marsh
> any of these cockamamie stories that you choose to believe. That should
> tell you something but it doesn't. All the physical evidence points to
> Oswald and nobody else. That should tell you something but it doesn't.
> There are none so blind as he who will not see.
>
David Von Pein
"What kind of a sick mind needs to contrive complex and fantastic
explanations for every aspect of this case?" -- Bud; April 26, 2017
"The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face
Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the
Single-Bullet Theory. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have
encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the
implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited"
hogwash. (Go figure.)" -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2017
"The "evidence" to show that Oswald was innocent of shooting Officer
Tippit is NON-EXISTENT. The ACTUAL "evidence" (as opposed to the
"evidence" that only exists in a CTer's imagination) is providing the
conclusive PROOF that Lee Oswald--and only Lee Oswald--was the killer of
J.D. Tippit. Only a freakish conspiracy theorist bent on mangling the true
facts could possibly even *begin* to believe otherwise. ~Mark VII~ ~Hammer
stroke~" -- David Von Pein; April 16, 2017
http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
mainframetech
> Latest inclusions....
>
>
> "What kind of a sick mind needs to contrive complex and fantastic
> explanations for every aspect of this case?" -- Bud; April 26, 2017
>
>
> "The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face
> Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the
> Single-Bullet Theory. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have
> encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the
> implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited"
> hogwash. (Go figure.)" -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2017
>
>
exited the body of JFK? That was the conclusion of ALL of the prosectors
who did the autopsy. And later in the autopsy, that conclusion was
verified when they began removing the organs and saw the PROOF that the
bullet never left the body, and never went out through any throat wound.
Chris
mainframetech
See above where it says "files such as the ARRB".
> > which you are
> > afraid of, because it tells much truth that is lacking in the WC and HSCA
> > files.
>
> You mean it contains the bullshit stories that were invented by publicity
> seekers many years after the assassination and tailored to appeal to
> gullible conspiracy hobbyists.
>
a position to point fingers. After all, you got hooked in by the WCR, a
phony document if there ever was one. It contains the bullshit stories
that were invented after the murder to suck in the fools.
> > And as to understanding 'proof', I've put solid proof in front of
> > you and you can't see it, because you're blinded by the WCR.
> >
>
> I can see how lame your claims of proof are because I have seen real proof
> that the WC supplied. There isn't an ounce of physical evidence to support
> any of these cockamamie stories that you choose to believe. That should
> tell you something but it doesn't. All the physical evidence points to
> Oswald and nobody else. That should tell you something but it doesn't.
> There are none so blind as he who will not see.
circumstantial evidence that couldn't convict a serial killer of spitting
on the sidewalk.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:43:35 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Latest inclusions....
>>
>>
>> "What kind of a sick mind needs to contrive complex and fantastic
>> explanations for every aspect of this case?" -- Bud; April 26, 2017
>>
>>
>> "The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face
>> Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the
>> Single-Bullet Theory. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have
>> encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the
>> implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited"
>> hogwash. (Go figure.)" -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2017
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Where were you when it was proven that the upper back wound never
Why don't you equally say "Where were you when they proved that the back
wound was caused by an Ice Bullet?"
> exited the body of JFK? That was the conclusion of ALL of the prosectors
> who did the autopsy. And later in the autopsy, that conclusion was
It was one early guess, not a conclusion.
bigdog
fact finding process rather at the CONCLUSION of it. Hence the term
conclusions.
Chris, let me ask you a question since we both worked in the same field.
If you ever designed mainframe computer systems I'm sure you did your
share of requirements reports. In interviewing users as part of the fact
finding process for the requirements report, were you ever given erroneous
information by them. When you discovered their error did you stick with
what you were initially told and wrote your requirements report based on
that early information or did you discard that erroneous information in
favor of what you knew to be accurate information?
bigdog
former prosecutor, made that observation. It was born out in the mock
trial featuring Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
Ask 100 attorneys whether they would rather prosecute the case against
Oswald or defend him but tell them they only get paid if they win the
case. I'll bet 99 of them would choose to prosecute. The other one is
probably so rich he wouldn't care about the money.
Anthony Marsh
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:36:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:51:10 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:40:01 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:52:01 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 11:37:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:53:04 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 9:36:06 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here's a great comment that a fellow left on one of my YouTube videos this
>>>>>>>> week. I immediately had to add it to my "Common Sense" blog....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "You conspiracy kooks remind me of a homeless man that goes into a Diner
>>>>>>>> and orders food knowing that he can't pay for it. You look for the hair in
>>>>>>>> the egg. Because you people don't want to believe that a lone assassin
>>>>>>>> could kill JFK. So you people beat the innocence drum for the man that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com???
mainframetech
the JFK case, I've seen your evidence and it doesn't amount to a hill of
beans. Without Brennan, who discredited himself, you've got nothing to
convict with.
> Ask 100 attorneys whether they would rather prosecute the case against
> Oswald or defend him but tell them they only get paid if they win the
> case. I'll bet 99 of them would choose to prosecute. The other one is
> probably so rich he wouldn't care about the money.
don't know all the facts, and so will come to the wrong conclusion.
That's the case with all your attorneys. If they were aware of the bullet
hole in the forehead/temple area, and if they knew what had occurred at
the autopsy, they would have chosen the defense.
Chris
mainframetech
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:36:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:43:35 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Latest inclusions....
> > >
> > >
> > > "What kind of a sick mind needs to contrive complex and fantastic
> > > explanations for every aspect of this case?" -- Bud; April 26, 2017
> > >
> > >
> > > "The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face
> > > Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the
> > > Single-Bullet Theory. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have
> > > encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the
> > > implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited"
> > > hogwash. (Go figure.)" -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2017
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Where were you when it was proven that the upper back wound never
> > exited the body of JFK? That was the conclusion of ALL of the prosectors
> > who did the autopsy. And later in the autopsy, that conclusion was
> > verified when they began removing the organs and saw the PROOF that the
> > bullet never left the body, and never went out through any throat wound.
> >
>
> Chris continues to believe people reach conclusions at the beginning of a
> fact finding process rather at the CONCLUSION of it. Hence the term
> conclusions.
>
saying things like that. The fact finding process at the autopsy can be
seen by anyone that wishes to look through the literature. It will be
seen that each item they dealt with from beginning to end and they reached
their conclusions and went on to the next item. Poor bd just can't face
the truth that was placed in front of him. After the autopsy, everyone
went home and they did NOT attend any meeting to change their earlier
conclusions, but Humes went home and wrote up an Autopsy Report that was
completely different than what he had seen at the removal of the organs
where he got the verification that the back wound bullet never left the
body of JFK to go out the throat wound. He had to have gotten orders to
write it the way that he did.
> Chris, let me ask you a question since we both worked in the same field.
But I seriously doubt that you worked in the same field as me. modifying
the assembler code in a 3705 comm unit is not your thing, if I read you
right.
> If you ever designed mainframe computer systems I'm sure you did your
> share of requirements reports. In interviewing users as part of the fact
> finding process for the requirements report, were you ever given erroneous
> information by them.
complete online, real time, re-entrant system from scratch in assembler
without a single conversation with anyone. I knew what my company needed
to advance in our field, and I sat down and wrote it, tested it, and put
others on it to see if it worked properly, which it did. That produced a
product far faster than anything you could do in the silly world of CICS
or other aids.
> When you discovered their error did you stick with
> what you were initially told and wrote your requirements report based on
> that early information or did you discard that erroneous information in
> favor of what you knew to be accurate information?
feature, I included it, and there was no tedious forms and reports to fill
out. I got it done. I had already written the systems for the batch
processing for the same thing, and I knew what was needed in the realtime,
online version. Have you ever written re-entrant assembler code? If not,
then you don't know what I did.
Chris
David Von Pein
discomfort or uneasiness when they dump in the trash the conclusions
reached by all of these entities --- the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the
Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission. Per the CTers [Conspiracy
Theorists], EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above organizations dropped the ball
and/or just flat-out LIED about the assassination of JFK. ALL FOUR of
those outfits got it wrong, according to the all-knowing CTers. Even the
conspiracy-seeking HSCA got it totally wrong, too, per the
CTers....because virtually all conspiracy believers think that JFK was hit
in the head from the FRONT, which is not what the HSCA determined." --
David Von Pein; July 28, 2009
David Von Pein
Kennedy] itself is the insidious, perverse notion that elements of the
American Government, that my own Agency, had some part in it. I am
determined personally to make public or to expose to disinterested eyes
every relevant scrap of paper in CIA’s possession, in the hope of
helping to dispel this corrosive suspicion." -- CIA Director Robert Gates;
May 12, 1992 [ARRB Final Report; Chapter 8; Page 146]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/report/html/arrb_fin_167.htm
David Von Pein
times a day. It's a moving two-frame picture of a man named John Connally
who is IN DISTRESS at Z225:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KCPYZe3ljVA/UolSwZ4DOwI/AAAAAAAAw1o/JH7p-L7CfvU/s1600/110a.+Z224-Z225+Toggling+Clip.gif
Now, considering the fact that that same man (John B. Connally Jr.) was
shot in the upper back by a bullet at just about this exact same time in
Dealey Plaza, what are the odds of this reaction being displayed by Mr.
Connally in the above Zapruder Film clip being the result of SOMETHING
ELSE BESIDES THE RIFLE BULLET THAT HIT HIM IN THE UPPER BACK AT ALMOST
THIS EXACT SAME INSTANT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?" -- David Von Pein; April
26, 2010
David Von Pein
gobs of stuff that the President's killer almost certainly touched,
including:
1.) The gun used to murder the President.
2.) The paper bag that was almost certainly used to transport that gun
into the TSBD/Sniper's Nest.
3.) And multiple boxes deep inside the Sniper's Nest that the killer
almost certainly touched while constructing his hiding place.
But these prints, in total, mean zilch to [CTers]. With some of the prints
even presumed to have been planted by the cops.
A typical CTer motto -- If all else fails....just say 'It's Planted!'" --
David Von Pein; 2007
David Von Pein
CTer's face in order for them to even begin to CONSIDER the notion that
Lee Oswald took his own rifle to work on Nov. 22 and fired some shots at
the President from a deserted sixth floor at 12:30 PM that day? It's truly
a shame that the "Anybody But Oswald" crowd seems to be so popular on
Internet forums. It could be, I suppose, that some of those CTers grabbed
the baton from their mentor, Harold Weisberg:
"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have no
reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor. All
of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in one way or
another." -- H. Weisberg
It's incredible. All of that evidence treated like nothing more than a few
dozen Juicy Fruit wrappers, worthy of only the gutter (according to Mr.
Weisberg and Company). What a shame. And a crock." -- David Von Pein;
April 12, 2013
David Von Pein
evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010
David Von Pein
swayed by Bug's book [Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"] that Oswald
shot Kennedy, my thought was "stay a retard Vince". [Palamara] studied the
case for years and years, and couldn't figure out Oswald shot Kennedy
until Bugs wrote a book telling him it was so. .... I want all the stupid
people to stay on [the conspiracy] side of this issue. The world makes
more sense to me that way. The general public gets a pass, because they
have no idea of the evidence indicating Oswald's guilt in this case. ....
But the only way someone can study this case and not determine that Oswald
killed Kennedy is if they are retarded." -- Bud; December 6, 2009
David Von Pein
in a court of law, and he never got that trial, so we must say he's
officially innocent". .... But it doesn't seem to bother some of these
same conspiracy theorists when they point an accusing finger of GUILT
(sans any trial) at many other non-Oswald people and groups who these
CTers think were involved in the assassination. E.G.: The Mob, the Secret
Service, the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the KGB, the CIA, and even
President Johnson himself!
Doesn't the PRESIDENT deserve the same benefit of the doubt that CTers say
the LNers never give Lee Harvey Oswald (especially in light of the fact
that it wasn't LBJ's rifle or shells or prints found on that 6th Floor on
Nov. 22)?! Or are the rules completely different once the tables are
turned with respect to this "Innocent Till Proved Guilty" topic?
And, seeing as how all of the physical evidence DOES, indeed, point to
Oswald, while no hard evidence points to any of the other people/groups I
mentioned above, it seems to me that the CTers are in a boat with many
more holes in it when it comes to this topic than are any lone-nutters. If
I were to hang a sign on that "CT boat" in question, the sign would most
certainly say: "Beware: Hypocrites On Board!" " -- David Von Pein; July
23, 2007
David Von Pein
opinion that at least four gunmen were hiding in Dealey Plaza, probably a
total of five, when we include the one guy whom Jimbo thinks (thought) was
in the sewer.
And, of course, Garrison also admitted in numerous public appearances that
Oswald was being "sheep-dipped" and being set up as the lone patsy well in
advance of 11/22/63.
Imagine that uphill battle -- FIVE gunmen firing five separate rifles at
JFK (and NONE of them firing Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, btw;
that's another thing Garrison says in his public appearances) within the
underlying framework of a "LET'S FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS THE LONE
PATSY" plot.
It doesn't get too much funnier (or more ridiculous) than that. But, at
least filmmaker Oliver Stone bought the whole Garrison package, which
enabled millions more to also leave their common sense in the lobby of the
movie theater prior to going in to see Mr. Stone's "JFK"." -- David Von
Pein; January 22, 2008
http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
that Ruby was about the last goof in Dallas that the "mob" would entrust
with such an important "hit" as the Oswald "hit" that so many CTers think
was pulled off by the mafia.
For one thing, Ruby was getting up early every morning for weeks shortly
prior to the assassination and going to local Dallas department stores in
order to try and sell his "Twistboard" exerciser gadget to local
merchants.
Do Mob hit men usually have to supplement their salaries in such an odd
fashion? Or do conspiracy theorists think that that was merely a clever
"cover" being used by Ruby so that nobody would catch on to the massive
"plot" that brewed all around him in late 1963?
Maybe it was similar to the "I'll Take My Dog Downtown To A Killing And
Leave The Pooch In The Car While I Go In The Basement And Shoot The Patsy"
type of ruse, huh?
Try reading Chapter 22 ("Ruby And The Mob") of Bugliosi's JFK book. It's
one of the best chapters in the massive tome. .... It's a fabulous (and
thorough) account of Jack Ruby's life." -- David Von Pein; November 19,
2007
bigdog
Just what is it you are waiting on before you think you can wrap it up?
> but
> the JFK case, I've seen your evidence and it doesn't amount to a hill of
> beans. Without Brennan, who discredited himself, you've got nothing to
> convict with.
>
Brennan was just the cherry on top of the sundae.
>
>
> > Ask 100 attorneys whether they would rather prosecute the case against
> > Oswald or defend him but tell them they only get paid if they win the
> > case. I'll bet 99 of them would choose to prosecute. The other one is
> > probably so rich he wouldn't care about the money.
>
>
>
> You're fond of calling on and polling people here and there hoping they
> don't know all the facts, and so will come to the wrong conclusion.
> That's the case with all your attorneys. If they were aware of the bullet
> hole in the forehead/temple area, and if they knew what had occurred at
> the autopsy, they would have chosen the defense.
>
conclusion about who killed JFK? That is very possible.
bigdog
> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 3:49:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:36:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:43:35 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Latest inclusions....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "What kind of a sick mind needs to contrive complex and fantastic
> > > > explanations for every aspect of this case?" -- Bud; April 26, 2017
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face
> > > > Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the
> > > > Single-Bullet Theory. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have
> > > > encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the
> > > > implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited"
> > > > hogwash. (Go figure.)" -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2017
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Where were you when it was proven that the upper back wound never
> > > exited the body of JFK? That was the conclusion of ALL of the prosectors
> > > who did the autopsy. And later in the autopsy, that conclusion was
> > > verified when they began removing the organs and saw the PROOF that the
> > > bullet never left the body, and never went out through any throat wound.
> > >
> >
> > Chris continues to believe people reach conclusions at the beginning of a
> > fact finding process rather at the CONCLUSION of it. Hence the term
> > conclusions.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Still can't face me, eh?
> I understand your embarrassment when
> saying things like that. The fact finding process at the autopsy can be
> seen by anyone that wishes to look through the literature. It will be
> seen that each item they dealt with from beginning to end and they reached
> their conclusions and went on to the next item.
piece in isolation rather than looking at the body of evidence as a whole
to see how it all fits together. Fortunately the autopsy team wasn't that
stupid. They knew the discoveries made in one part of the body would
impact their findings about discoveries made in another part of the body.
Only a really stupid person would think that an observation made after
only an external examination of the body should be set in stone no matter
what was learned after a more thorough internal examination of the body.
> Poor bd just can't face
> the truth that was placed in front of him. After the autopsy, everyone
> went home and they did NOT attend any meeting to change their earlier
> conclusions, but Humes went home and wrote up an Autopsy Report that was
> completely different than what he had seen at the removal of the organs
> where he got the verification that the back wound bullet never left the
> body of JFK to go out the throat wound. He had to have gotten orders to
> write it the way that he did.
>
of x-rays and observing the damaged trachea ring and learning from
Parkland that a tracheostomy incision had been performed over a bullet
hole they wouldn't even consider that those wounds could be connected to
the back wound because they had already decided that after an external
examination of the body that the bullet causing that wound didn't exit.
How moronic would that be?
>
>
>
> > Chris, let me ask you a question since we both worked in the same field.
>
>
>
> Ah, you're trying to face me now, congratulations on your courage!
> But I seriously doubt that you worked in the same field as me. modifying
> the assembler code in a 3705 comm unit is not your thing, if I read you
> right.
>
were my forte. The State of Ohio warrant writing system which I was
responsible for maintaining as well as writing new applications for were
coded in those two languages.
>
>
> > If you ever designed mainframe computer systems I'm sure you did your
> > share of requirements reports. In interviewing users as part of the fact
> > finding process for the requirements report, were you ever given erroneous
> > information by them.
>
>
>
> Forget it. You weren't aware of the way that I operated. I wrote a
> complete online, real time, re-entrant system from scratch in assembler
> without a single conversation with anyone.
intended users of that system to learn what their business requirements
were. Now I am starting to understand why you seem to always be in the
dark.
> I knew what my company needed
> to advance in our field, and I sat down and wrote it, tested it, and put
> others on it to see if it worked properly, which it did. That produced a
> product far faster than anything you could do in the silly world of CICS
> or other aids.
>
their needs were. It wouldn't do much good to create a washing machine for
somebody who needed a refrigerator.
>
>
> > When you discovered their error did you stick with
> > what you were initially told and wrote your requirements report based on
> > that early information or did you discard that erroneous information in
> > favor of what you knew to be accurate information?
>
>
> I wrote it the way I knew it had to be. If I was asked to include a
> feature, I included it, and there was no tedious forms and reports to fill
> out. I got it done. I had already written the systems for the batch
> processing for the same thing, and I knew what was needed in the realtime,
> online version. Have you ever written re-entrant assembler code? If not,
> then you don't know what I did.
>
they know is whether or not the system fulfills their needs. I find it
mind boggling that any competent system designer would set out to design a
system without first finding out what the users needed. Although I spent
the bulk of my career at one shop, the State Auditor of Ohio, I also did
some consulting work and as such moved around to a lot of different shops.
I never came across a single one in which the first step of creating a new
computer system whether batch or online processing was to first sit down
with the users and found out how their business operated and what their
needs were. Early on in my career our shop brought in consultants from IBM
who created the framework for our system design. The first step was always
to create a requirements report and to learn the requirements you needed
to speak to the users. Sometime they would give you bad information but
you always at least got them to sign off on the requirements report before
proceeding any farther, just to cover your ass.
bigdog
to maintain plausible denial of Oswald's guilt. Of course there is nothing
plausible about their denials. The evidence of Oswald's guilt is
overwhelming. There is no way all that evidence could stack up against an
innocent person. One wonders why they are so adamant that Oswald was
framed. They could still hypothesize a conspiracy with Oswald as the
shooter. Whomever they choose to blame for being the masterminds behind
the assassination, they could simply say those people hired Oswald. Ah,
but there's the rub. Accusing somebody else of engineering the
assassination demands proof of their involvement and there is simply no
evidence of anyone's involvement except Oswald. Since they can't produce
evidence that someone was working with Oswald they are forced to try to
tear down the case against Oswald which would establish a conspiracy de
facto. To that end they will invent any excuse they can dream up no matter
how far fetched to dismiss any and all evidence that Oswald was the
shooter. Bugliosi identified 53 pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. It
could have been 5300 and the dedicated conspiracy hobbyists would still
invent whatever excuses needed to dismiss it all.
David Von Pein
I won't speak to the Tippit case which is not complete yet.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
LOL.
Will it take Chris another 50+ years to figure out what the DPD figured
out by 7 PM CST on 11/22/63?
There couldn't possibly be an easier case to "solve" than the Tippit case.
The only possible way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of shooting
J.D. Tippit is if the following idiotic situation occurred (which nobody
could possibly even begin to believe happened):
Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This
"non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald, but
really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four
shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets
up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO.
Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in
possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just
35 minutes earlier.
Anthony Marsh
to look for new evidence that we never saw before? Didn't you try that
in Watergate, telling people to NOT listen to the tapes because the
other evidence did not corroborate them and they might be fake?
And certainly you refuse to look at the autopsy photographs because they
were not released in 1963.
>> Poor bd just can't face
>> the truth that was placed in front of him. After the autopsy, everyone
>> went home and they did NOT attend any meeting to change their earlier
>> conclusions, but Humes went home and wrote up an Autopsy Report that was
>> completely different than what he had seen at the removal of the organs
>> where he got the verification that the back wound bullet never left the
>> body of JFK to go out the throat wound. He had to have gotten orders to
>> write it the way that he did.
>>
>
> We are supposed to believe that after finding no bullet despite two sets
> of x-rays and observing the damaged trachea ring and learning from
> Parkland that a tracheostomy incision had been performed over a bullet
It's only about how stupid the autopsy doctors were at the time.
So YOU as part of the cover-up are supposed to believe everything they
said, Like the Ice Bullet. What flavor was that? prefer the cherry.
> hole they wouldn't even consider that those wounds could be connected to
> the back wound because they had already decided that after an external
> examination of the body that the bullet causing that wound didn't exit.
> How moronic would that be?
>
not do a thorough exam. The Army General ordered them not to.
discussing programming computers.
Here's my brag.
When I was programming in machine language for the Commodore 64, I
exploited a defect in the 6502 machine codes to par down a subroutine so
that it would fit entirely in the tape buffer and run itself upon
loading and keep running in the background and continuously update error
messages.
Gee, this is fun!
Anthony Marsh
> "Vincent Bugliosi did lots of "Ruby homework" too. .... Vince discovered
> that Ruby was about the last goof in Dallas that the "mob" would entrust
> with such an important "hit" as the Oswald "hit" that so many CTers think
> was pulled off by the mafia.
>
> For one thing, Ruby was getting up early every morning for weeks shortly
> prior to the assassination and going to local Dallas department stores in
> order to try and sell his "Twistboard" exerciser gadget to local
> merchants.
>
> Do Mob hit men usually have to supplement their salaries in such an odd
> fashion? Or do conspiracy theorists think that that was merely a clever
> "cover" being used by Ruby so that nobody would catch on to the massive
> "plot" that brewed all around him in late 1963?
>
the early sixties the Mafia and the CIA were partners in assassination? If
the CIA wanted someone assassination they would contract out hits to their
Mafia buddies. But Ruby was not a Mafia member, he was only a Mafia front.
If Trafficante had a job to be done in Dallas he would subcontract Campisi
and in this case Campisi used RUby since he had connections in the DPD and
could get in unnoticed. Did you see Richard Helms or Allen Dulles in the
WFAA footage in the basement?
After WWII did Helms personally have to assassinate anybody? Name names,
give me the dates and locations.
Have you ever read the CIA's assassination manual.
Do you know what plausible deniability is?
How can you possibly find enough straw where you live to keep making
these straw man arguments year after year?
> Maybe it was similar to the "I'll Take My Dog Downtown To A Killing And
> Leave The Pooch In The Car While I Go In The Basement And Shoot The Patsy"
> type of ruse, huh?
>
> Try reading Chapter 22 ("Ruby And The Mob") of Bugliosi's JFK book. It's
> one of the best chapters in the massive tome. .... It's a fabulous (and
> thorough) account of Jack Ruby's life." -- David Von Pein; November 19,
> 2007
>
Anthony Marsh
> "The late New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was of the loony
> opinion that at least four gunmen were hiding in Dealey Plaza, probably a
> total of five, when we include the one guy whom Jimbo thinks (thought) was
> in the sewer.
>
> And, of course, Garrison also admitted in numerous public appearances that
> Oswald was being "sheep-dipped" and being set up as the lone patsy well in
> advance of 11/22/63.
>
> Imagine that uphill battle -- FIVE gunmen firing five separate rifles at
> JFK (and NONE of them firing Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, btw;
> that's another thing Garrison says in his public appearances) within the
> underlying framework of a "LET'S FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS THE LONE
> PATSY" plot.
>
How many straw men have you created?
Only 5? You're not trying hard enough!