Facing The Evidence
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16150&st=0&p=196666&#entry196666
AT "THE EDUCATION FORUM", JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "DVP is piece of work that not even Central Casting could dream up for
a villian [sic] in a Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza. .... Last year, at the
request of a forum member at Black Op--I extended a debate challenge to
Gary Mack, DVP, Reitzes and John McAdams. .... DVP chickened out. .... So
now, months after the initial challenge to him was turned down, he began
to email me about a debate. Except there was a qualifier. Please sit down
before you read this. He wanted to set the ground rules! Yep. It's true.
He did not want a scripted debate in which both sides knew the questions
in advance. He wanted an off-the-cuff debate, where you could create your
own questions willy nilly. .... I told him that the decision is not mine,
but Len's [Osanic]. But that I would not agree to an unscripted debate for
a simple reason: if McAdams made stuff up for a scripted debate, I can
imagine what a fabricator like Von Pein could do when he could create his
own questions. .... Bottom Line: When DVP had the opportunity to debate me
fair and square, he chickened out. Now he wants to debate me in a format
where he can make stuff up." <<<
DVP SAID:
DiEugenio is full of crap here.
And here's why:
It's true that I declined to debate Jim D. in 2009 when I most certainly
could have done so. But after preparing over 30 questions for Jimbo in the
months since the 2009 debate between Jim and John McAdams, I decided to
step up and challenge DiEugenio to a different kind of JFK debate--one
that would have the debaters asking the questions, instead of relying on
other people for the questions.
And that type of format regarding the questions, as I've said numerous
times since my initial challenge to Jim in early May of 2010, is a format
that I simply cannot believe DiEugenio would be AGAINST. Because he could
ask me any questions he wanted, and as many as he wanted.
And DiEugenio's excuse of not wanting me to ask my own questions because
he's concerned that I will simply "make stuff up" is just nuts.
Why?
Here's why:
Because from Jim's utterly crazy "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-
of-view, it's quite obvious that my own CORE BELIEFS about the whole JFK
case (including J.D. Tippit's murder) are beliefs that DiEugenio, in
effect, thinks were just "MADE UP" in the first place.
The facts about Lee Oswald's guilt weren't "made up" by me personally, of
course, but they certainly are core "Oswald Is Guilty" facts that Jimbo
believes are dead wrong and were literally MADE UP by somebody along the
way. Heck, Jim thinks this whole case is "made up" against poor Patsy
Oswald. The entire case, per Jim D., is nothing but one great-big lie and
cover-up and "made up" fact after another.
Plus: Again from DiEugenio's POV, what difference would it make to him if
I did just "make stuff up"? He would simply tell the listening audience
during our debate that I was making nonsense up, right? And Jim would go
on to explain the reasons he knows that I was making stuff up. Isn't that
kinda what a DEBATE is all about--to tell the audience why your opponent
is wrong and why you're right (even if it means having to tell the
audience why your opponent just MADE SOMETHING UP out of thin air)?
Good heavens, if the shoe were on the other foot, and I were to back out
of a debate with James DiEugenio (or any of the many "Anybody But Oswald"
conspiracy kooks who regularly post on the Internet) merely due to the
fact that I was of the opinion that my opponent would be inclined to "make
stuff up" concerning JFK's assassination during a radio debate with that
person -- good gosh, then I'd never be able to debate anyone like
DiEugenio....because I KNOW he's going to simply "make stuff up" himself!
That's a given.
A great example being: Jim's current belief that Lee Oswald carried NO
LARGE PACKAGE WHATSOEVER into the Book Depository Building on November 22,
1963. Jimbo, you see, now believes that BOTH Buell Wesley Frazier AND
Linnie Mae Randle lied their asses off when they each said they saw LHO
carrying a long brown paper parcel on the morning of Nov. 22nd, with Buell
and Linnie being strong-armed by the evil Dallas Police Department into
making up from whole cloth their individual stories about having seen
Sweet Lee with a large package.
Now, if that wholly unsupportable and (frankly) pathetic theory about
Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle doesn't qualify as "making stuff up", then
I don't know what would qualify.
In short, James DiEugenio doesn't want to be forced to answer specific
questions written by a lone-assassin advocate like myself in a public
debate. And that's because those questions about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
which proves Lee Harvey Oswald to be the murderer of both John F. Kennedy
and J.D. Tippit will be far too much to handle from Jim DiEugenio's
"Oswald Shot Nobody" viewpoint.
Jim would be made to look so silly and foolish when answering my dozens of
questions focusing on EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE that hangs Oswald, he
has decided it would be best to reject my proposed debate format, and
stick with the questions coming from other people instead (even though
many of those questions aren't very challenging at all, which was
precisely one of Jim's complaints about the first half of his Black Op
Radio debate against John McAdams from last September 24th).
But when given the opportunity to write his own questions (which could
potentially make me crawl under my computer desk in fear, from Jim's POV),
Mr. DiEugenio says, 'No thanks'.
I can't say I blame Jim, though. If I knew I was going to have to admit to
the four Black Op listeners that I believed that every single piece of
evidence against Lee Oswald was fake, phony, manipulated, planted, or
otherwise worthless, I think I might have a few reservations about doing
so in a public place too.
David Von Pein
July 5, 2010
cdddra...@live.com
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16150&st=0&p=19...
I had a similar encounter with Mumbo-Jumbo-Jimbo1, the walking black
kettle and cracked pot of conspiracy lore and myth making at heraldnet.com
were he tried to come to the rescue of BRAND NEW GARRISON DEFENDER AND
TALK AROUND THE SUBJECT artist, Mitchell Warriner.
Mr. MW, who apparently went through the 'Oswald is Innocent'
"patsy"fication program and grist mill at an early age, and just like the
like minded lackey like Mr. D. believe's that Jimbo2 had credibility? :
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091109/NEWS01/711099943/-1/news01
Needless to say Mr. MW is preparing a book for the sake of personal profit
and grandstanding, but insists it will include NEW AND EXCITING guff from
the released documents that now reside at the National Archives, that he
has gandered at from a distance, no doubt impressed by the daunting task
ahead of himself.
My prediction? The book of the century will come out on the 50th
anniversary of whats his names death.
end ....
tl ...
..
.
"the tent poles shook, my body trembled as I gasped for air,
frightened to turn another page, aghast at what I might find out if I
read another word"
Robert Harris
David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
DiEugenio?
As in so many other things in life, the truth lies between the extremes.
Robert Harris
In article
<c1ffa20e-2bbe-4a98...@d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16150&st=0&p=196666&#ent
cdddraftsman
> David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> DiEugenio?
>
> As in so many other things in life, the truth lies between the extremes.
>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16150&st=0&p=19...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't worry yourself about DVP, he does quite well pounding the nails
into the conspiracy coffin that you try unsuccessfully to get 'Oswalds
Ghost' to disappear from.
You got MUCH BIGGER problems yourself. Like trying to convince the
world that you are right and the rest of the world, including those
like minded conspiracists are all wrong.
Concerned Regards For The Future Outlook of Z-285
Zzzzzzzzz
tl
bigdog
> David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> DiEugenio?
>
Z285 shot.
David Von Pein
>>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
DiEugenio?" <<<
No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285 and the non- existent
fabrication of Commission Exhibit No. 842.
But the difference is: The main reason I post any messages at all on the
Internet is so that I can add to my JFK-related archives that I'm now
saving on my blogs (in future years, these things will be fun to read,
mainly from the standpoint of illustrating how dead wrong all JFK
conspiracy theorists have been since 1963).
But you, Robert Harris, post your endless nonsense just to prop up your
unsupportable pet theories (as opposed to creating a lasting archive of
JFK-related Internet articles for future reference).
Granted, I certainly didn't need to start this thread at aaj, because I
already posted this thread separately at acj, and I almost always use the
acj version for my archival copies.
But, what the heck. I kinda figured John McAdams might get a kick out of
hearing the latest from James "Oswald Shot Nobody" DiEugenio (if .John
hadn't already seen Jimbo's latest nonsensical post over at The Education
Forum) -- especially since Jim D. loves to constantly repeat his crap
about how Professor McAdams was "making stuff up" during their radio
debate last year.
I'm still scratching my head about that bizarre statement by DiEugenio
concerning McAdams "making stuff up" during the debate.
.John, do you have ANY idea what the hell Jimbo is talking about about
when he says such retarded things? I sure don't. Because I listened to all
four hours of that radio debate (twice now), and Prof. McAdams didn't
"make up" anything.
Jim DiEugenio, as usual, is nuts.
=================================
McADAMS VS. DiEUGENIO DEBATE (TOP 4 LINKS):
http://www.box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&
=================================
Robert Harris
<86fc2860-3f9c-4b47...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
> posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<f1350563-9f68-46ec...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You obviously care, Bigdog because you have responded a number of times
when I posted about it.
But why is it that you disappear every time I challenge you to refute my
arguments??
Robert Harris
Bud
> DiEugenio?
Why`d you just open a newsgroup, Harris? Isn`t the clash of ideas
what it is all about? Or is that newsgroup just a place to showcase
your own ideas?
> As in so many other things in life, the truth lies between the extremes.
Like you know where to find the truth. The truth is that Oswald took
his rifle to work, and shot some people. Unable to accept the truth,
you speculate different shooters, shooting locations, rifles, bullets.
Everything and everywhere but the truth.
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <c1ffa20e-2bbe-4a98-bda1-46932e6e0...@d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16150&st=0&p=19...
Bud
> In article
> <86fc2860-3f9c-4b47-85d4-4f2cda21c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> > No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
> > posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>
> OK, now we're getting somewhere.
No, we aren`t going anywhere, we moved on to your silly theory.
> How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
How do you confirm there wasn`t a gunshot at every frame of the z-
film, Harris?
> Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?" <<<
Come now, my good man named Robert Harris. You know how I confirmed
it. But, let's take this dead horse for another trip around the
stable, just for fun:
1.) There were only three shots fired. (The fact that 90%+ of the
earwitnesses heard three shots or fewer, coupled with the THREE spent
bullet cartridge cases that were found beneath Lee Oswald's Sniper's-
Nest window provide a pretty decent CONFIRMATION of this #1 item
here.)
2.) All of the 3 shots came from Oswald's Sniper's Perch. (Those THREE
spent shells again provide the confirmation.)
3.) All 3 of the shots came from one single rifle -- Oswald's C2766
Mannlicher-Carcano.
4.) There was a shot fired at Z313.
The above four items confirm (IMO) the fact that no shot was fired at
Zapruder Frame #285. Nor COULD any shot have been fired at Z285, when
taking all four of the above things into account, because there's only
1.53 seconds between Z285 and a known shot from Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano at Z313.
That 1.53-second figure is close to the minimum of 1.66 seconds needed
between shots established by the HSCA, but it's not close enough. It's
too tight a fit for Oswald's rifle to get off two shots, particularly
in this situation we're discussing here--with the LAST of the shots in
this very tight timeline being the kill shot that struck President
Kennedy in the head at Z313.
What I mean by that is -- It's less likely LHO would have gotten a
"bulls-eye" at Z313 after being forced to shoot again so quickly after
a shot at Z285.
(That last observation is based on nothing more than garden-variety
common sense. It's not to be considered "proof" of anything.)
~~Stamp It "Mark VII" With The 'Dragnet' Hammer~~
John McAdams
wrote:
>
Well I said that Kurtz, who in the second edition of his said he had
seen Lee Oswald with Banister and Ferrie, did not say that in the
first edition.
DiEugenio gave a page number (supposedly from the First Edition) where
he said Kurtz had claimed to personally seen the three together.
I got my copy off the shelf (it turned out I did have 1e, although I
thought I had 2e) and I was right.
No mention of Kurtz personally seeing the three together.
But I lost the phone connection at that point (Osanic's phones are
nuts) and couldn't get back on to correct DiEugenio.
>Jim DiEugenio, as usual, is nuts.
>
>=================================
>
>McADAMS VS. DiEUGENIO DEBATE (TOP 4 LINKS):
>
>http://www.box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&
>
>
>=================================
Absolutely. What was so wacky is that he never thinks about the
implications of what he says.
He claimed a brown bag was sent to Mrs. Paine, but didn't get there
because of inadequate postage.
He seemed to think this was sinister. Like maybe The Conspiracy was
mailing a bag to Oswald, but was incompetent, and didn't use the right
postage.
But somehow Lee managed to fabricate a bag himself. Actually, Jim
probably doesn't believe that, so he must think the Evil Minions
(having blundered on the postage) found another way to get the bag to
. . . who? Not Oswald, in Jim's world.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
When do you think the shot from the sewer hit JFK in the head?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
<76afe29f-edfc-40f6...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 12:55 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > DiEugenio?
>
> Why`d you just open a newsgroup, Harris? Isn`t the clash of ideas
> what it is all about?
Well Yes, but I prefer a clash of good ideas.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
John, you are a professor with a Phd from Harvard, are you not?
Are you proud of your tactics and your dedication to truth?
Robert Harris
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mark drenning
frasier, and his sister had no reason to lie. as far as he knew there
were curtain rods in that package.
mark drenning
oswald had to be silenced so quickly. how come no one killed jack ruby.
Robert Harris
<bobharris77-B934...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Umm.... David??
Are you OK?
Robert Harris
John McAdams
wrote:
>In article <14s736pe296ecjmg9...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Jul 2010 20:28:31 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><86fc2860-3f9c-4b47...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
>> >> DiEugenio?" <<<
>> >>
>> >> No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
>> >> probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
>> >> posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>> >
>> >OK, now we're getting somewhere.
>> >
>> >How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
>> >
>>
>> When do you think the shot from the sewer hit JFK in the head?
>>
>> .John
>
>
>John, you are a professor with a Phd from Harvard, are you not?
>
>Are you proud of your tactics and your dedication to truth?
>
>
>
Sashay(tm)!
Answer the question, Bob.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
creepin...@msn.com (mark drenning) wrote:
> p.s. if there was a conspiracy and those behind it were so worried that
> oswald had to be silenced so quickly. how come no one killed jack ruby.
Because Marcello trusted Ruby, mainly because Ruby had family members in
the area. And while he was in prison, the mob could have him killed on
demand.
Robert Harris
Bud
> In article
> <76afe29f-edfc-40f6-841f-3a6684fcf...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 12:55 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > > DiEugenio?
>
> > Why`d you just open a newsgroup, Harris? Isn`t the clash of ideas
> > what it is all about?
>
> Well Yes, but I prefer a clash of good ideas.
With your ideas being the only good ones. Problem being they
aren`t.
> Robert Harris
Bud
> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jul 2010 20:28:31 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
>
> > >> >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > >> DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> > >> No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > >> probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
> > >> posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>
> > >OK, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> > >How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
>
> > When do you think the shot from the sewer hit JFK in the head?
>
> > .John
>
> John, you are a professor with a Phd from Harvard, are you not?
>
> Are you proud of your tactics and your dedication to truth?
You consider questioning your position is a "tactic"? You`ll make a
great moderator, Harris.
And why do think people need to scale the walls of your fortress
when there are so many wide open doors to chose from?
David Von Pein
>>> "Umm.... David?? Are you OK?" <<<
Just fine.
If this post of yours was supposed to act as a "bump" to remind me to
answer your latest "285" inquiry -- I already answered it. Very well
too. Look above.
Anthony Marsh
> p.s. if there was a conspiracy and those behind it were so worried that
> oswald had to be silenced so quickly. how come no one killed jack ruby.
>
>
Because Ruby was not part of the murder plot.
Robert Harris
<378783aa-f9c8-4ed2...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Of course they're not.
Flat screen TV was a great idea too.
RH
>
> > Robert Harris
Dave Reitzes
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> > No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
> > posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>
> OK, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
>
> Robert Harris
One would think Bob would be content to tend to his own forum instead
of trying to hijack every thread in sight here.
Dave
Robert Harris
<a68a89ce-f0ee-4cdc...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:26?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <14s736pe296ecjmg978ojjg6ouir93l...@4ax.com>,
> > ?John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Jul 2010 20:28:31 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >In article
> > > ><86fc2860-3f9c-4b47-85d4-4f2cda21c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > > >> DiEugenio?" <<<
> >
> > > >> No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > > >> probably about the same number of people who read your batch of
> > > >> continual
> > > >> posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
> >
> > > >OK, now we're getting somewhere.
> >
> > > >How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
> >
> > > When do you think the shot from the sewer hit JFK in the head?
> >
> > > .John
> >
> > John, you are a professor with a Phd from Harvard, are you not?
> >
> > Are you proud of your tactics and your dedication to truth?
>
> You consider questioning your position is a "tactic"? You`ll make a
> great moderator, Harris.
Thank you Bud, but I already am a great moderator.
And why would you think I believe that questioning my position is a
"tactic". Bud, if you don't understand the conversation, all you have to
do is ask.
The tactic that John employs is to attack my claim that the final shot
could have come from the North storm drain. He does that in the hope that
some people won't realize I am not talking about a shot at 312, rather
than a later shot after the President became visible to a shooter there.
That's not about challenging my position Bud. That's about misrepresenting
it.
>
> And why do think people need to scale the walls of your fortress
> when there are so many wide open doors to chose from?
Because we need a forum that is about issues rather than ad hominem
attacks. When John formed this newsgroup, he usurped the rules from the
old forum he and I started, with the solitary exception of the rule
prohibiting ad hominem attacks, which he removed.
We also need a forum in which the rules are enforced equally for everyone,
regardless of their position on the case.
Robert Harris
Dave Reitzes
> Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <86fc2860-3f9c-4b47-85d4-4f2cda21c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > > DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> > > No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > > probably about the same number of people who read your batch of continual
> > > posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>
> > OK, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> > How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> Umm.... David??
>
> Are you OK?
>
> Robert Harris
Umm....Robert??
DVP's response was posted at 10:53 last night.
Are you okay?
Dave
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?"<<<
>
> it. But, let's take this dead horse for another trip around the
> stable, just for fun:
>
> 1.) There were only three shots fired. (The fact that 90%+ of the
> earwitnesses heard three shots or fewer, coupled with the THREE spent
> bullet cartridge cases that were found beneath Lee Oswald's Sniper's-
> Nest window provide a pretty decent CONFIRMATION of this #1 item
> here.)
You have several errors of logic there.
First, never rely on witnesses to prove anything.
Yes, you might be able to safely say that the three spent shells
indicate that three shots were fired from the sniper's nest.
But that does not rule out shots fired from other locations.
BTW, I realize that accuracy does not matter to you, but not all three
spent shells were found beneath the sniper's nest window. One was an
outlier.
>
> 2.) All of the 3 shots came from Oswald's Sniper's Perch. (Those THREE
> spent shells again provide the confirmation.)
>
> 3.) All 3 of the shots came from one single rifle -- Oswald's C2766
> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> 4.) There was a shot fired at Z313.
>
> The above four items confirm (IMO) the fact that no shot was fired at
> Zapruder Frame #285. Nor COULD any shot have been fired at Z285, when
> taking all four of the above things into account, because there's only
> 1.53 seconds between Z285 and a known shot from Oswald's Mannlicher-
> Carcano at Z313.
>
Except that an additional shot at Z-285 could have been fired from a
different location.
> That 1.53-second figure is close to the minimum of 1.66 seconds needed
> between shots established by the HSCA, but it's not close enough. It's
And who says that is the absolute minimum. The absolute minimum can be
shorten as required by whatever wacky theory comes along.
> too tight a fit for Oswald's rifle to get off two shots, particularly
> in this particular instance here--with the LAST of the shots in this
> very tight timeline being the kill shot that struck President Kennedy
> in the head at Z313.
>
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 10:26?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <14s736pe296ecjmg978ojjg6ouir93l...@4ax.com>,
> > > ?John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On 6 Jul 2010 20:28:31 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >In article
> > > > ><86fc2860-3f9c-4b47-85d4-4f2cda21c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > > > >> DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> > > > >> No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > > > >> probably about the same number of people who read your batch of
> > > > >> continual
> > > > >> posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>
> > > > >OK, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> > > > >How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
>
> > > > When do you think the shot from the sewer hit JFK in the head?
>
> > > > .John
>
> > > John, you are a professor with a Phd from Harvard, are you not?
>
> > > Are you proud of your tactics and your dedication to truth?
>
> > You consider questioning your position is a "tactic"? You`ll make a
> > great moderator, Harris.
>
> Thank you Bud, but I already am a great moderator.
\:^)
> And why would you think I believe that questioning my position is a
> "tactic". Bud, if you don't understand the conversation, all you have to
> do is ask.
>
> The tactic that John employs is to attack my claim that the final shot
> could have come from the North storm drain. He does that in the hope that
> some people won't realize I am not talking about a shot at 312, rather
> than a later shot after the President became visible to a shooter there.
>
> That's not about challenging my position Bud. That's about misrepresenting
> it.
>
>
>
> > And why do think people need to scale the walls of your fortress
> > when there are so many wide open doors to chose from?
>
> Because we need a forum that is about issues rather than ad hominem
> attacks.
LOL. Robert Harris would never stoop to such tactics.
When John formed this newsgroup, he usurped the rules from the
> old forum he and I started, with the solitary exception of the rule
> prohibiting ad hominem attacks, which he removed.
I'm not familiar with the old group's rules, but I notice that
a.c.jfk's charter contains this passage:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/newgroup5.txt
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------
5. Posters may not levy personal attacks against other posters. Ideas
may
be vigorously discussed, but attacks on ideas should be phrased to
make it
clear that the poster is not being attacked. Any post whose
predominant
subject or theme is another poster rather than the assassination is
likely
to be rejected.
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
> We also need a forum in which the rules are enforced equally for everyone,
> regardless of their position on the case.
>
> Robert Harris
Seems to me that the mods bend over backwards to be fair, even
approving messages from posters like Harris, Anthony Marsh, and Pamela
Brown containing complaints about the group itself, which some
moderators might be inclined to view as off-topic. I've had my share
of posts rejected, and both Mr. Harris and Ms. Brown are on record as
suspecting that I enjoy some kind of privileged, if not sinister,
relationship to Professor McAdams. This is called ad hominem, but I
digress . . . \:^)
Dave
mark drenning
in dallas named hugh aynesworth. knew ruby well he said if jack knew
anything he would tell someone within one block.
Anthony Marsh
Hugh Aynesworth is a proven liar and part of the cover-up.
If you are trying to refute something I said, please have the common
decency to quote me as per Usenet protocol.
Bud
>
>
>
>
>
> Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 10:26?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <14s736pe296ecjmg978ojjg6ouir93l...@4ax.com>,
> > > ?John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On 6 Jul 2010 20:28:31 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >In article
> > > > ><86fc2860-3f9c-4b47-85d4-4f2cda21c...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >>> "David, do you really think anyone cares about your squabble with
> > > > >> DiEugenio?" <<<
>
> > > > >> No. I fully realize that virtually nobody is reading my posts. It's
> > > > >> probably about the same number of people who read your batch of
> > > > >> continual
> > > > >> posts about the non-existent gunshot at Z285
>
> > > > >OK, now we're getting somewhere.
>
> > > > >How did you confirm that there was no gunshot at 285?
>
> > > > When do you think the shot from the sewer hit JFK in the head?
>
> > > > .John
>
> > > John, you are a professor with a Phd from Harvard, are you not?
>
> > > Are you proud of your tactics and your dedication to truth?
>
> > You consider questioning your position is a "tactic"? You`ll make a
> > great moderator, Harris.
>
Time will tell.
> And why would you think I believe that questioning my position is a
> "tactic".Bud,
Because .John asked you a question and you referred to it as a
tactic, maybe?
> if you don't understand the conversation, all you have to
> do is ask.
I understood that you saw questioning your position as some short of
underhanded activity.
> The tactic that John employs is to attack my claim that the final shot
> could have come from the North storm drain. He does that in the hope that
> some people won't realize I am not talking about a shot at 312, rather
> than a later shot after the President became visible to a shooter there.
Why didn` you provide an answer that made your position clear, so that
"some people" could be enlightened about your position, instead of
grousing about some imagined "tactics"?
> That's not about challenging my positionBud. That's about misrepresenting
> it.
It looked like he was asking you about it. And it looked like you
avoided the question. "some people" might wonder why an honest man would
do such a thing.
> > And why do think people need to scale the walls of your fortress
> > when there are so many wide open doors to chose from?
>
> Because we need a forum that is about issues rather than ad hominem
> attacks. When John formed this newsgroup, he usurped the rules from the
> old forum he and I started, with the solitary exception of the rule
> prohibiting ad hominem attacks, which he removed.
When you claimed .John was "misrepresenting" your position, wasn`t
that an as hominem attack? Instead of addressing his query, didn`t you
make it about him?
> We also need a forum in which the rules are enforced equally for everyone,
> regardless of their position on the case.
And you see yourself as being able to provide that. I expect not.
> Robert Harris
Dave Reitzes
Actually, Mark, you're on solid ground. Not only did Aynesworth (a
renowned reporter widely despised by conspiracy theorists for
debunking many of their pet theories) state this, but virtually
everyone who knew Ruby was of the exact same opinion. Please see:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
Feel free to ask Anthony Marsh to present his evidence that Ruby was
part of a conspiracy, though.
Dave
mark drenning
moment. as for mr aynesworth, i have never met him have you?
mark drenning
find it very interesting discussing the events of that weekend. i have
seen several interviews with hugh anyesworth,and he seems to be a very
honest man. very emotional, even after all these years. it does seems that
those who believe deepest in the conspiracy, like to argue the loudest.
pehaps it is because they see history proving them wrong. and lets face it
human nature being what it is no one wants to be proven wrong.
mark drenning
Robert Harris
<3f6a7c47-95e3-4658...@8g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
Umm.. there is nothing above this except a post by Reitzes which doesn't
say anything at all.
Why don't you just post a straight answer?
How did you confirm that there was not a shot at frame 285?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> mr. marsh, seems to take disagreement rather personal. i do not, i merely
> find it very interesting discussing the events of that weekend. i have
Casual interest. Not serious research.
> seen several interviews with hugh anyesworth,and he seems to be a very
> honest man. very emotional, even after all these years. it does seems that
Hugh Aynesworth almost started WWIII by spreading the rumor that Oswald
was working for Castro. He is a known liar.
> those who believe deepest in the conspiracy, like to argue the loudest.
> pehaps it is because they see history proving them wrong. and lets face it
> human nature being what it is no one wants to be proven wrong.
>
>
The last official conclusion was conspiracy. You lost, we won. You are a
sore loser.
Anthony Marsh
Ruby confessed on camera that certain people put him in the position to
do what he did, i.e. shoot Oswald.
That is a definition of conspiracy.
Bud
How do others position you to shoot someone in a room full of cops?
> That is a definition of conspiracy.
No, it really isn`t. Some rapists claim the victim caused them to
commit rape by the way the victim acted or the clothes she wore. Does
this mean the victim conspired with the rapist?
And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
that a conspiracy?
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Umm.... David?? Are you OK?" <<<
>
> > Just fine.
>
> > If this post of yours was supposed to act as a "bump" to remind me to
> > answer your latest "285" inquiry -- I already answered it. Very well
> > too. Look above.
>
> Umm.. there is nothing above this except a post by Reitzes which doesn't
> say anything at all.
>
> Why don't you just post a straight answer?
That's our Bob: you answer his question and he refuses to read it. He
does that to me all the time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3b6b988b17a5ec16
Dave
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 9, 5:43 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/8/2010 11:45 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 5:24 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/2010 11:30 AM, mark drenning wrote:
>>
>>>>> so jack ruby , was just a willing late in the game recrute? a reporter
>>>>> in dallas named hugh aynesworth. knew ruby well he said if jack knew
>>>>> anything he would tell someone within one block.
>>
>>>> Hugh Aynesworth is a proven liar and part of the cover-up.
>>>> If you are trying to refute something I said, please have the common
>>>> decency to quote me as per Usenet protocol.
>>
>>> Actually, Mark, you're on solid ground. Not only did Aynesworth (a
>>> renowned reporter widely despised by conspiracy theorists for
>>> debunking many of their pet theories) state this, but virtually
>>> everyone who knew Ruby was of the exact same opinion. Please see:
>>
>>> http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
>>
>>> Feel free to ask Anthony Marsh to present his evidence that Ruby was
>>> part of a conspiracy, though.
>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Ruby confessed on camera that certain people put him in the position to
>> do what he did, i.e. shoot Oswald.
>
> How do others position you to shoot someone in a room full of cops?
>
The way the Mafia always does it, by threatening to kill those he loves.
>> That is a definition of conspiracy.
>
> No, it really isn`t. Some rapists claim the victim caused them to
> commit rape by the way the victim acted or the clothes she wore. Does
> this mean the victim conspired with the rapist?
>
Silly.
> And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
> that a conspiracy?
>
Silly.
Dave Reitzes
> On 7/9/2010 12:55 AM, mark drenning wrote:
>
> > mr. marsh, seems to take disagreement rather personal. i do not, i merely
> > find it very interesting discussing the events of that weekend. i have
>
> Casual interest. Not serious research.
Last time I checked, this forum was open to anyone who wanted to post
here.
> > seen several interviews with hugh anyesworth,and he seems to be a very
> > honest man. very emotional, even after all these years. it does seems that
>
> Hugh Aynesworth almost started WWIII by spreading the rumor that Oswald
> was working for Castro.
What a level-headed conclusion.
>He is a known liar.
Yeah, you keep saying that.
> > those who believe deepest in the conspiracy, like to argue the loudest.
> > pehaps it is because they see history proving them wrong. and lets face it
> > human nature being what it is no one wants to be proven wrong.
>
> The last official conclusion was conspiracy. You lost, we won. You are a
> sore loser.
The last official conclusion was that the previous investigatory
body's evidence for conspiracy was invalid.
Anyone want to know more? The full official report is on my website:
http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html
Anthony Marsh knows all about this report, because he's unsuccessfully
argued against it in the past. Why he spreads misinformation about it
is anybody's guess.
Dave
mark drenning
and officer tippit and to the extent that it affected his famly oswald.
there are no winners only broken hearted shattered families. i think that
it is one of the worst outcomes in this whole thing that far too many
people see the assassination as a game rather then the human tragedy it
is.
Bud
> On 7/9/2010 9:13 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 5:43 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 7/8/2010 11:45 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 8, 5:24 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/8/2010 11:30 AM, mark drenning wrote:
>
> >>>>> so jack ruby , was just a willing late in the game recrute? a reporter
> >>>>> in dallas named hugh aynesworth. knew ruby well he said if jack knew
> >>>>> anything he would tell someone within one block.
>
> >>>> Hugh Aynesworth is a proven liar and part of the cover-up.
> >>>> If you are trying to refute something I said, please have the common
> >>>> decency to quote me as per Usenet protocol.
>
> >>> Actually, Mark, you're on solid ground. Not only did Aynesworth (a
> >>> renowned reporter widely despised by conspiracy theorists for
> >>> debunking many of their pet theories) state this, but virtually
> >>> everyone who knew Ruby was of the exact same opinion. Please see:
>
> >>>http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
>
> >>> Feel free to ask Anthony Marsh to present his evidence that Ruby was
> >>> part of a conspiracy, though.
>
> >>> Dave
>
> >> Ruby confessed on camera that certain people put him in the position to
> >> do what he did, i.e. shoot Oswald.
>
> > How do others position you to shoot someone in a room full of cops?
>
> The way the Mafia always does it, by threatening to kill those he loves.
His dogs?
> >> That is a definition of conspiracy.
>
> > No, it really isn`t. Some rapists claim the victim caused them to
> > commit rape by the way the victim acted or the clothes she wore. Does
> > this mean the victim conspired with the rapist?
>
> Silly.
Speaks directly to your position that if the perpetrator of the
crime blames others, that means there was a conspiracy (by definition,
no less).
> > And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
> > that a conspiracy?
>
> Silly.
Did Ruby provide anything more substantial than this?
Anthony Marsh
What do you mean MY position? That's crap. Didn't McAdams already warn you
100 times to stop claiming what other people's positions are? I am just
saying that sometimes the perpetrator admits he was part of a conspiracy.
That is not blaming the victim.
>>> And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
>>> that a conspiracy?
>>
>> Silly.
>
> Did Ruby provide anything more substantial than this?
>
Ah, he died before he could get his retrial.
Anthony Marsh
You made a personal attack, a baseless charge. Now let's see you back it
up. Tell everyone which specific things in my rebuttal you think I got
wrong. Same for Don Thomas. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
Dave Reitzes
Very well said, sir.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
No, that's your racket.
Now let's see you back it
> up. Tell everyone which specific things in my rebuttal you think I got
> wrong. Same for Don Thomas. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
I hope this smoke dream of yours brings you comfort.
Dave
Bud
You gave birth to the idea. You named it. It has your eyes. Do we
need to go on Maury Povich to prove your paternity?
> That's crap. Didn't McAdams already warn you
> 100 times to stop claiming what other people's positions are?
No, that was you.
> I am just
> saying that sometimes the perpetrator admits he was part of a conspiracy.
This, of course, is not what you said. You represented Ruby`s
claims as being the definition of conspiracy.
> That is not blaming the victim.
It`s the perp blaming others for his actions. Like the rapist
sometimes blames others (the victim) for his crimes.
> >>> And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
> >>> that a conspiracy?
>
> >> Silly.
>
> > Did Ruby provide anything more substantial than this?
>
> Ah, he died before he could get his retrial.
Then that would be "no", wouldn`t it?
Anthony Marsh
No, that is not true. McAdams has warned you about this before. Stop
misrepresenting what someone else says. I was not the person to bring up
the concept of blaming the victim. YOU were.
>> That's crap. Didn't McAdams already warn you
>> 100 times to stop claiming what other people's positions are?
>
> No, that was you.
>
>> I am just
>> saying that sometimes the perpetrator admits he was part of a conspiracy.
>
> This, of course, is not what you said. You represented Ruby`s
> claims as being the definition of conspiracy.
>
He was talking about a conspiracy to make him shoot Oswald. Anyone can
see that.
>> That is not blaming the victim.
>
> It`s the perp blaming others for his actions. Like the rapist
> sometimes blames others (the victim) for his crimes.
>
Stop the nonsense.
>>>>> And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
>>>>> that a conspiracy?
>>
>>>> Silly.
>>
>>> Did Ruby provide anything more substantial than this?
>>
>> Ah, he died before he could get his retrial.
>
> Then that would be "no", wouldn`t it?
>
Stop drawing erroneous conclusions for me.
Dave Reitzes
Ruby never made any such claim, which is why Anthony can't post a
citation. Ruby insisted until the bitter end that his encounter with
Oswald was a fluke of chance:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydeathbed.html
Dave
Bud
No, he never has. Why would he admonish me for doing something I
never do?
> Stop
> misrepresenting what someone else says. I was not the person to bring up
> the concept of blaming the victim. YOU were.
You brought up the concept of a criminal blaming other people for his
crimes, and claimed it was a definition of conspiracy. So I brought up an
example of a criminal blaming other people for his crimes, and asked why
this wouldn`t also be a conspiracy. Your turn.
> >> That's crap. Didn't McAdams already warn you
> >> 100 times to stop claiming what other people's positions are?
>
> > No, that was you.
>
> >> I am just
> >> saying that sometimes the perpetrator admits he was part of a conspiracy.
>
> > This, of course, is not what you said. You represented Ruby`s
> > claims as being the definition of conspiracy.
>
> He was talking about a conspiracy to make him shoot Oswald. Anyone can
> see that.
Yah, he was just talking. Why would you consider nothing but talk to
be "a definition of conspiracy"?
> >> That is not blaming the victim.
>
> > It`s the perp blaming others for his actions. Like the rapist
> > sometimes blames others (the victim) for his crimes.
>
> Stop the nonsense.
That was my intent when I responded to you.
> >>>>> And if the voices in someone`s head tell them to kill someone, is
> >>>>> that a conspiracy?
>
> >>>> Silly.
>
> >>> Did Ruby provide anything more substantial than this?
>
> >> Ah, he died before he could get his retrial.
>
> > Then that would be "no", wouldn`t it?
>
> Stop drawing erroneous conclusions for me.
So your answer is "yes", that Ruby did offer information that
substantiated his claims? Thats the whole menu, Tony, pick one and
support it.
Dave Reitzes
Good luck.
Anthony Marsh
More false charges from the gang of cover-up artists. I already posted the
citation, but McAdams keeps deleting my messages to protect you and leave
the false impression that I never back up my claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
Jack Ruby:
"The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motive.
The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive, to
put me in the position I am in, will never let the true facts come above
board for the world."
-
Commentator:
"Are these people in very high positions, Jack?"
-
Jack Ruby:
"Yes!"
Dave Reitzes
LOL. How lame!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
>
> Jack Ruby:
>
> "The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motive.
> The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive, to
> put me in the position I am in, will never let the true facts come above
> board for the world."
>
> -
>
> Commentator:
> "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?"
>
> -
> Jack Ruby:
> "Yes!"
Nothing about anybody putting him up to anything, there, Marsh. In
fact, when invited to explain his views, he indicated precisely the
opposite:
http://www.jfk-online.com/ruby-conspiracy.html
See also:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydeathbed.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sorrow.htm
Feel free to post your detailed, annotated rebuttal right here.
Of course, you never will.
Dave
bigdog
>
> Feel free to post your detailed, annotated rebuttal right here.
>
> Of course, you never will.
>
I've seen this footage a number of times but I am unclear about when Ruby
made this statement. Was it before or after his trial and was it before or
after the verdict had been overturned on appeal. In any case, it could
simply have been a ploy by Ruby to avoid the electric chair.
Anthony Marsh
Nice try. Anything to deny. Again you slip past the point. The point is
that I made a claim and someone challenged me to back it up and then had
the nerve to say that I never back up my claims when McAdams deletes my
messages to prevent me from providing the requested citations.
Anthony Marsh
You delibertaly misrepresent what he said to deny obvious facts. He
clearly said, "people .. to put me in the position I am in." That means
conspiracy. That means people put him up to it.
Sandy McCroskey
Ruby was losing his mind at the time.
/sm
Dave Reitzes
Wrong. The position he was in was appearing to be guilty of conspiracy
in JFK's death. He said so during his WC testimony, and he said so
later on. See:
http://www.jfk-online.com/ruby-conspiracy.html
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
See also:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydeathbed.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sorrow.htm
You can avoid the evidence or you can learn something. Your choice.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
> > Feel free to post your detailed, annotated rebuttal right here.
>
> > Of course, you never will.
>
> I've seen this footage a number of times but I am unclear about when Ruby
> made this statement. Was it before or after his trial and was it before or
> after the verdict had been overturned on appeal. In any case, it could
> simply have been a ploy by Ruby to avoid the electric chair.
It was no ploy; he genuinely thought a massive conspiracy was making
him and the Jews look responsible for JFK's death. He was already
talking about it during his WC testimony. After the WC was unable to
honor his request to meet with LBJ and personally assure him of his
innocence in JFK's death, Ruby became convinced that even LBJ was
plotting against him and the Jews. He was going insane.
Check out:
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
http://www.jfk-online.com/ruby-conspiracy.html
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
> >> Feel free to post your detailed, annotated rebuttal right here.
>
> >> Of course, you never will.
>
> > I've seen this footage a number of times but I am unclear about when Ruby
> > made this statement. Was it before or after his trial and was it before or
> > after the verdict had been overturned on appeal. In any case, it could
> > simply have been a ploy by Ruby to avoid the electric chair.
>
> Nice try. Anything to deny. Again you slip past the point. The point is
> that I made a claim and someone challenged me to back it up and then had
> the nerve to say that I never back up my claims when McAdams deletes my
> messages to prevent me from providing the requested citations.
Maybe no one believes you. I sure don't.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
That is not what his comment was about. You are telescoping irrelevant
anecdotes. His press conference was ONLY about why he shot Oswald. He
did not reference who killed JFK.
> talking about it during his WC testimony. After the WC was unable to
> honor his request to meet with LBJ and personally assure him of his
> innocence in JFK's death, Ruby became convinced that even LBJ was
> plotting against him and the Jews. He was going insane.
>
Innocence? He said nothing about innocence. He said he was coerced into
doing it. He admitted doing it.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. He was only talking about what HE did, shoot Oswald.