Battling Another CTer (Re: "Reclaiming History")

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&newContentID=Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7&store=books#Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
book well before the publication date.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
at the top of my review.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:

WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm

WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm

WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm

How many more indexes do you require?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is,
the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive
(certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be
determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally,
you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?

The WC's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look at the autopsy
photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on inaccurate drawings
made by Mr. Rydberg.

But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to
discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because
the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and
X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP
came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was
shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND. And
the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to
the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with
it. So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not
meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be
hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

He [Vincent Bugliosi] did very little actual research (almost none in
fact) and although the book was 20 years in the making, precious
little of that time was used in researching and writing this book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Between
approximately 2001 and November 2006, Mr. Bugliosi worked 80 to 100
hours per week on "Reclaiming History". And to say he did almost no
research for the book is to simply ignore the 10,000 source notes that
appear in the book.

Get real, Garry. So far you're anything but.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I wasn't aware that Mr. Garrison had been "thoroughly discredited." By
whom?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

By anyone with a smidgen of common sense, that's by whom. Just read
Vincent's section on that topic in "Reclaiming History" (beginning on
Page 1361). Apparently you didn't.

For Pete sake, Jim Garrison's own lead investigator, William Gurvich,
resigned in disgust and told the world that Garrison had "no case"
whatsoever against the man Garrison was prosecuting for murder--Clay
Shaw.

Read more about Garrison's total lack of evidence against Shaw and
Gurvich's comments about the case here ("RH" page 1361):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bqOUgo/s1600/RH-Excerpt.png


GARRY PUFFER PUFFED:

Your review suffers from the same faults as "Reclaiming History": It
is voluminous but without substance, it contains untruths, and it
avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your
review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're
getting for your review of my review.

The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that
undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren
Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line. Thus far no conspiracy
theorist has been able to do that. But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer
of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Keep glossing over the fact that Warren, Specter and a couple of others
saw them.

> But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to
> discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because
> the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and
> X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP
> came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was
> shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND. And
> the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to
> the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?
>

So it doesn't matter to you exactly WHERE he was hit as long as they agree
that he was hit twice. I guess accuracy is too much to ask for. So to you
is a person is hit by a bullet and one doctor says the foot while the
other doctor says the thigh then they both agree on where the person was
shot, the leg.

>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with
> it. So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not

It's called filibustering.

> meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be
> hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)
>
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> He [Vincent Bugliosi] did very little actual research (almost none in
> fact) and although the book was 20 years in the making, precious
> little of that time was used in researching and writing this book.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Between
> approximately 2001 and November 2006, Mr. Bugliosi worked 80 to 100
> hours per week on "Reclaiming History". And to say he did almost no
> research for the book is to simply ignore the 10,000 source notes that
> appear in the book.

So he claims. The writing portrays a different story. Written by a
committee. They couldn't even agree on a frame number for the SBT.

>
> Get real, Garry. So far you're anything but.
>
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> I wasn't aware that Mr. Garrison had been "thoroughly discredited." By
> whom?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> By anyone with a smidgen of common sense, that's by whom. Just read
> Vincent's section on that topic in "Reclaiming History" (beginning on
> Page 1361). Apparently you didn't.
>
> For Pete sake, Jim Garrison's own lead investigator, William Gurvich,
> resigned in disgust and told the world that Garrison had "no case"
> whatsoever against the man Garrison was prosecuting for murder--Clay
> Shaw.
>
> Read more about Garrison's total lack of evidence against Shaw and
> Gurvich's comments about the case here ("RH" page 1361):
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bqOUgo/s1600/RH-Excerpt.png
>

Garrison did not prosecute Clay Shaw for pulling a trigger in Dealey
Plaza. But for being part of the conspiracy which culminated in Dealey
Plaza. Like all conspiracy cases he was starting with the little fish
and then would work his way up to the big fish.

[timstter]

TOP POST

This fellow, Gary Puffer, appears to be an almost complete IDIOT,
spouting tired old CT factoids like the WC had no index, LOL!

His claim that Bugliosi did no research is openly LAUGHABLE.

Bugliosi had ALREADY done a HUGE amount of research in preparing for
the LWT docu-drama, *On Trial - Lee Harvey Oswald* before even
starting Reclaiming History.

Puffer simply has NO clue, on this showing.

His idea of a good read is probably a Mark Lane book, LOL!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!




On Oct 8, 3:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?...

>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
> book well before the publication date.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
> Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
> at the top of my review.
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
> MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>

> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bq...

[John Reagor King]

In article
<07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding
> =UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=T
> x3L36ZL9W89MBT&newContentID=Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7&store=books#Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7

I have just joined in with that thread on Amazon.

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
> book well before the publication date.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
> Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
> at the top of my review.
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
> MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm
>
> How many more indexes do you require?

And today, what does it matter how well or how poorly the documents were
indexed in the original publication? I would think Mr. Puffer ought to
have known years ago that all of this stuff has been superbly indexed
online for more than a decade, making it childishly simple to locate
practically any document in the 26 volumes.

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is,
> the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive
> (certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be
> determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally,
> you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?
>
> The WC's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look at the autopsy
> photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on inaccurate drawings
> made by Mr. Rydberg.

Ah yes. Are you starting to agree with me a little on that issue,
David? :P

> But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to
> discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because
> the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and
> X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP
> came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was
> shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND.

Yep, exactly the same conclusions I myself have expressed that all shots
came from behind, fired from one rifle, in one building. So my belief
in something connected with that doesn't conflict in the slightest, eh?
I "wonder how" I'm able to manage to not have any crisis of conscience
over that? :P

> And
> the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to
> the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?

No, they were correct. There was just one issue about the autopsy that
none of them, including the HSCA, studied adequately. :P

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with
> it.

That's what a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of posters say to me here too,
that some of my articles are much too long, including those which
discuss issues that cannot come even close to adequately representing
those issues in an article that is any shorter. I feel like making tart
comments about their attention spans, but I usually restrain myself
somewhat. ;-)

> So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not
> meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be
> hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)

I thought your review of the book was just the right length, neither too
long nor too short. So please don't get hanged just yet. ;-)

As I have already noted to Mr. Puffer on Amazon a few minutes ago, it is
my impression that he seems to be unaware that since his death quite a
few of Mr. Garrison's claims have been proven conclusively to be false.
Some of them were proven to be false by his own widow. And I haven't
even mentioned there yet the whole business of the release after his
death of documents which show that the Clinton witnesses were originally
saying some things that were quite different from what they later said
at the trial.

> GARRY PUFFER PUFFED:
>
> Your review suffers from the same faults as "Reclaiming History": It
> is voluminous but without substance,

Oh, I had missed that he said "without substance." ROFL. In actual
fact it was his own reply to you that was without substance.

> it contains untruths, and it
> avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your
> review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're
> getting for your review of my review.
>
> The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that
> undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren
> Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line. Thus far no conspiracy
> theorist has been able to do that. But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer
> of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.
>
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

This is similar to me. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
just someone, just anyone, to prove, for the first time ever, that more
than 10% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said that the shots came from
multiple directions. I have been saying for years that it is less than
10%. Only three or four posters here have disputed me in the slightest on
that, yet all they ever do is just say I'm wrong, over and over and over,
but they never make the slightest attempt to come within a million
light-years of proving me to be wrong. Some of them even stoop to
claiming I said something I've never said, such as claiming that I even
once said "exactly 10%" and ignoring the words "less than" that ALWAYS
precede the percentage in my statements, or claiming the reverse, that I
said "exactly 90%" for the witnesses who said the shots came from a single
direction, while ignoring the words "more than" which almost always
precede "90%" in all my statements about this.

[Anthony Marsh]

Straw man argument. No one made that claim.

[curtjester1]

On Oct 8, 9:03 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2-88de-28bb779f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?...

> > =UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThrea­d=T

> > x3L36ZL9W89MBT&newContentID=Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7&store=books#Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7
>
> I have just joined in with that thread on Amazon.
>
>
>
>
>
> > GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> > I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
> > book well before the publication date.
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
> > Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
> > at the top of my review.
>
> > GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> > The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> > volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
> > MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:
>
> > WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> > WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:

> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...

>
> > WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:

> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...

> >http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bq...

> precede "90%" in all my statements about this.- Hide quoted text -
>

First, most people wouldn't get involved with such a question. What does
it prove? Would it prove anything about a lone gunman or multiple
shooters? What is meant by direction? You mean from one building or next
to the building? How about within one building but different places?
Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
of the shots? Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
came from two different weapons. Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
a necessary question, eh? Two different sounding weapons would mean death
for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it? I surely would have asked it the
sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots. And too
when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
the areas are so close together? And what about the people that heard two
shots? Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
likes a 3 shot theory? And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
abilities when taking an oath? I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
between the two places that received the most consideration, when they did
have a lot of gun experience? Enough. My two cents.

CJ

[John Reagor King]

In article <507389ac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Yes you did, on many different occasions, every single time you said my
"less than 10%" and "more than 90%" statistics were bogus. It's such a
shame (for you only) that you are helplessly unable to prove it.

[Bud]

It wouldn`t "prove" anything. It would indicate a single shooting
location/direction.

> What is meant by direction?

It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
sound came from.

>  You mean from one building or next
> to the building?

Many indicated a particular building.

>  How about within one building but different places?
> Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
> of the shots?  Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
> came from two different weapons.

Echoes sound different than the shot.

> Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> a necessary question, eh?

Why would such a question be necessary?

>Two different sounding weapons would mean death
> for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?

Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
only impressions and opinions.

>  I surely would have asked it the
> sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> likes a 3 shot theory?

Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three

shot theory?

> And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> between the two places that received the most consideration,

Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.

[Anthony Marsh]

Two different things here.
First, I never said what you quoted. I said that ALL yours statistics
are bogus and cited your constantly using 10% or 90% no matter what the
topic.
Second, I am not allowed to prove anything here because all my messages
are censored and deleted to protect you. It used to be in the old days
that I was not allowed to call you a liar. Now the new rule is that I am
not even allowed to point out that you are wrong.
That's the easiest way to win any argument, just forbid the other person
from speaking. So you are allowed to spread whatever misinformation you
want, but I am not allowed to warn readers that you are doing it. So I
will have to invent new ways to point out your mistakes.

[curtjester1]

On Oct 11, 11:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:15 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 9:03 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>
> > > This is similar to me.  I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
> > > just someone, just anyone, to prove, for the first time ever, that more
> > > than 10% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said that the shots came from
> > > multiple directions.  I have been saying for years that it is less than
> > > 10%.  Only three or four posters here have disputed me in the slightest on
> > > that, yet all they ever do is just say I'm wrong, over and over and over,
> > > but they never make the slightest attempt to come within a million
> > > light-years of proving me to be wrong.  Some of them even stoop to
> > > claiming I said something I've never said, such as claiming that I even
> > > once said "exactly 10%" and ignoring the words "less than" that ALWAYS
> > > precede the percentage in my statements, or claiming the reverse, that I
> > > said "exactly 90%" for the witnesses who said the shots came from a single
> > > direction, while ignoring the words "more than" which almost always
> > > precede "90%" in all my statements about this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > First, most people wouldn't get involved with such a question.  What does
> > it prove?  Would it prove anything about a lone gunman or multiple
> > shooters?
>
>   It wouldn`t "prove" anything.

True.

It would indicate a single shooting
> location/direction.
>

It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot. Like I said
the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD. SO, it
in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
for bringing up the topic.

> > What is meant by direction?
>
>   It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
> sound came from.
>
> >  You mean from one building or next
> > to the building?
>
>   Many indicated a particular building.
>

See above

> >  How about within one building but different places?
> > Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
> > of the shots?  Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
> > came from two different weapons.
>
>   Echoes sound different than the shot.
>

IF they do, are they part of the shot that people are describing? Is an
echo different than say a backfire? Is a backfire a shot, or were they
from vehicles at the time of the shooting? What about 'firecrackers'?
Are they shots, backfires, echos, or real firecrackers? They were
described a lot.

> > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > a necessary question, eh?
>
>  Why would such a question be necessary?
>

Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
shots.

> >Two different sounding weapons would mean death
> > for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?
>
>   Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
> only impressions and opinions.
>

Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
for shots on a more regular basis, wouldn't you think conclusions
could possibly be made?

> >  I surely would have asked it the
> > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
>   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> shot theory?
>

Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out. And how
would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
up? Or even silencers.

> > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
>   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>

I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
to make his strong opinion made. Sandy Speaker and A.J. Millican were
interviewed or their interviews were referenced in Crossfire by Marrs.
You might catch something on the search engine effort.

CJ

[David Von Pein]

CONTINUATION OF AN AMAZON.COM DISCUSSION (AKA: MISCELLANEOUS FIGHTS
AND ANTAGONISTIC POSTS):

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx1IFTXJGNSZBZB&cdMsgNo=25&cdPage=3&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx1IFTXJGNSZBZB


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David von Pein [sic] is an internet troll. .... He does not believe
the stuff he spews forth.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a stupid thing to say. Why on Earth would anyone say such a silly
thing? Just to be argumentative?

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

He [DVP] distorts information and even lies...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry Puffer, of course, won't be able to quote a single "lie" coming
from my mouth, and that's because I have never once "lied" in any of
my posts regarding the JFK case.

He might be able to find an occasional "mistake", but that's not quite
the same thing thing as a lie. I wonder if Puffer truly understands
the difference. (But he won't find very many mistakes in my posts
either. But, good luck trying.)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I will assume that you [John King] are being truthful and that you are
not just DVP using a different name as he is known to do.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a bald-faced lie right there. I have never once utilized
multiple aliases or Internet usernames in order to pose as different
people. That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard of, in
fact. I've put a lot of work into my JFK articles over the years, and
I certainly don't want some alias getting the credit for them. That's
just dumb, IMO.

And I'm wondering just where Puffer got the idea that I have utilized
aliases in the past? I, too, have heard the accusation, so don't think
that you (Puffer) are the first to bring that wholly false claim to my
attention. But I'm just curious to know where you got such a stupid
idea in the first place? Black Op Radio perhaps? (Ugghhh!)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David,

I won't play your game. You have been trained in ways I have not.

But the short of it is that no intelligent person who is the slightest
bit familiar with the case could possibly believe that Oswald did it
alone. Since you seem to be intelligent and you ARE familiar with the
case, you cannot possibly believe that Oswald did it alone. Therefore
in claiming that you do believe such a thing, you are, quite simply,
lying.

The only people still defending the patently false notion of the Lone
Nut and the painfully ridiculous SBT do not merely think that people
need to be saved from the awful kooks and nuts of the conspiracy
community. They are people with a different agenda. You know what
yours is. I don't, really, I have to admit. I don't know whether you
are driven merely by money or something else, but I do know that you
are not driven by a need to "set the record straight." If you were,
you would not be defending a book as shallow and misleading as
"Reclaiming History." You would be agitating for an independent
investigation of the whole affair. Yet you claim that we already have
all the answers. How pitiful. How deficient in true understanding.

I find it interesting that you did not reply to my last post yet as
soon as I posted a reply to Mr. King, here you are. Hmmm.

To Mr. John Reagor King,

If DVP had remained silent, I would have been happy to study your
posts and reply to you, as I indicated. However, his noxious presence
here is so offensive to me that I will no longer post on this thread.
Sorry.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, after all, Puffer, this is a comments area for MY REVIEW. It
stands to reason, therefore, that "noxious" ol' lyin' DVP (or am I
really King after all?) would probably be posting at least a little
bit here, since it's kind of my home territory (review-wise).

And it was a nice sidestep dance Puffer did when talking about all of
my supposed "lies". He can't name one, of course, therefore we're
treated to sewage like this:

"Since you seem to be intelligent and you ARE familiar with the case,
you cannot possibly believe that Oswald did it alone. Therefore in
claiming that you do believe such a thing, you are, quite simply,
lying."

Don't ya just love it when somebody ELSE tells you exactly what you're
REALLY thinking and doing?

Puffer's got it all figured out. In his own conspiracy-infested head,
that is.

It's just too bad for Puffer that he doesn't have a single solitary
piece of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his belief in a JFK conspiracy.
That'd be a little helpful, wouldn't it?

[Ace Kefford]

Puffer is just fishing.

[Ray]

After Reviewing the Warren Report
Lord Devlin wrote:

"The evidence connecting Oswald with the assassination of the President
would in my opinion be insufficient if there were not evidence connecting
him with the murder of Patrolman Tippit."

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/reactions_to_warren_report/Support_from_center/Death_of_a_president--Devlin.html

Devlin was a Law Lord, the British equivialent of a Supreme Court Justice,
and he was pro-Commission, yet he points out that the Tippit murder was
the only possible case against Oz.

Yet Bugliosi in his humongous book does not have a chapter on the Tippit
murder.

How can anyone take Bugliosi seriously?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/11/2012 10:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> CONTINUATION OF AN AMAZON.COM DISCUSSION (AKA: MISCELLANEOUS FIGHTS
> AND ANTAGONISTIC POSTS):
>

Highly inappropriate. The newsgroup rules forbid crossposting messages
from another newsgroup. How do we know they were quoted accurately? How
can we doublecheck a message AFTER you have complained about it and had
it deleted? We even have that problem here where trolls will claim that
someone said something which was never said just to try to get someone
into trouble. That's what Trolls do. You can go crying to McAdams and
claim that I called you a monkey, without any proof, and ask him to
delete all messages. That's the sleazy way to win an argument when you
don't have any facts on your side.

And several times I will quote your messages and ask you to clarify what
you meant and you will deny writing what I had just quoted.

> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx1IFTXJGNSZBZB&cdMsgNo=25&cdPage=3&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx1IFTXJGNSZBZB
>
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> David von Pein [sic] is an internet troll. .... He does not believe
> the stuff he spews forth.
>

Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original
author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. Wow, what a
huge insult. Or maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the
"von" in that derivative of the name. Or did you make an editorial
comment to try to correct his not capitalizing the "Von" in your name?
Or maybe you don't realize that "[sic]" in Latin means "this is exactly
how it was written in the original even though it is not correct."

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> What a stupid thing to say. Why on Earth would anyone say such a silly
> thing? Just to be argumentative?
>

Yes, because that is what Internet trolls do. They never really believe
any position in the argument, but just say provocative things to start
arguments just for the giggles.

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> He [DVP] distorts information and even lies...
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Garry Puffer, of course, won't be able to quote a single "lie" coming
> from my mouth, and that's because I have never once "lied" in any of
> my posts regarding the JFK case.
>

So because McAdams protects you from posters HERE calling you a liar,
you violate the newsgroup rules to quote someone else in another forum
calling you a liar. And how do we know the other guy really said that if
you complained and had the offending message removed?

There is a psychological condition where someone constantly complains
that others are attacking her just to get attention.

> He might be able to find an occasional "mistake", but that's not quite
> the same thing thing as a lie. I wonder if Puffer truly understands
> the difference. (But he won't find very many mistakes in my posts
> either. But, good luck trying.)
>

Thank God McAdams protects you here. We are not even allowed to point
out that you make mistakes. So don't look for a list of your 100 biggest
mistakes, because McAdams will delete it to protect you. It is against
the rules to attack his friends.

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> I will assume that you [John King] are being truthful and that you are
> not just DVP using a different name as he is known to do.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's a bald-faced lie right there. I have never once utilized
> multiple aliases or Internet usernames in order to pose as different
> people. That's one of the silliest things I have ever heard of, in
> fact. I've put a lot of work into my JFK articles over the years, and
> I certainly don't want some alias getting the credit for them. That's
> just dumb, IMO.
>

So you get around the rules here forbidding someone from calling another
poster a liar by QUOTING yourself from another forum calling someone
else a liar. And you are allowed by McAdams to get away with that trick.
Do you I could get away with that trick by logging onto Amazon.com and
calling you a liar and then posting that message here in quote marks?
Any other insults you like to see me make on Amazon.com and then quote
back here? This could be fun. I'll have to get out my thesaurus to
invent some new insults. Maybe Olde English.
What's that famous Klingon insult?

> And I'm wondering just where Puffer got the idea that I have utilized
> aliases in the past? I, too, have heard the accusation, so don't think
> that you (Puffer) are the first to bring that wholly false claim to my
> attention. But I'm just curious to know where you got such a stupid
> idea in the first place? Black Op Radio perhaps? (Ugghhh!)
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>

Prove that "Garry puffer" isn't and alias. Maybe his real name is Gerry
Poofter.

Maybe he meant everything you said in your review, where you praised
Bugliosi for his lies.
Just the mere fact that you endorse and believe in the WC tells everyone
that you condone official lies.

> "Since you seem to be intelligent and you ARE familiar with the case,
> you cannot possibly believe that Oswald did it alone. Therefore in
> claiming that you do believe such a thing, you are, quite simply,
> lying."
>
> Don't ya just love it when somebody ELSE tells you exactly what you're
> REALLY thinking and doing?
>
> Puffer's got it all figured out. In his own conspiracy-infested head,
> that is.
>
> It's just too bad for Puffer that he doesn't have a single solitary
> piece of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support his belief in a JFK conspiracy.
> That'd be a little helpful, wouldn't it?
>

The issue is not his proof of conspiracy. The issue is YOUR proof of
conspiracy, that you secretly believe it was a conspiracy. But when we
say conspiracy we are kooks and when you say conspiracy you are GOD. The
same problem with 9/11.

[Bud]

On Oct 11, 10:45 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:15 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 8, 9:03 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is similar to me.  I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
> > > > just someone, just anyone, to prove, for the first time ever, that more
> > > > than 10% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said that the shots came from
> > > > multiple directions.  I have been saying for years that it is less than
> > > > 10%.  Only three or four posters here have disputed me in the slightest on
> > > > that, yet all they ever do is just say I'm wrong, over and over and over,
> > > > but they never make the slightest attempt to come within a million
> > > > light-years of proving me to be wrong.  Some of them even stoop to
> > > > claiming I said something I've never said, such as claiming that I even
> > > > once said "exactly 10%" and ignoring the words "less than" that ALWAYS
> > > > precede the percentage in my statements, or claiming the reverse, that I
> > > > said "exactly 90%" for the witnesses who said the shots came from a single
> > > > direction, while ignoring the words "more than" which almost always
> > > > precede "90%" in all my statements about this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > First, most people wouldn't get involved with such a question.  What does
> > > it prove?  Would it prove anything about a lone gunman or multiple
> > > shooters?
>
> >   It wouldn`t "prove" anything.
>
> True.

So why set the bar where it can`t be reached?

>  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > location/direction.
>
> It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> for bringing up the topic.

The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
at such things.

> > > What is meant by direction?
>
> >   It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
> > sound came from.
>
> > >  You mean from one building or next
> > > to the building?
>
> >   Many indicated a particular building.
>
> See above
>
> > >  How about within one building but different places?
> > > Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
> > > of the shots?  Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
> > > came from two different weapons.
>
> >   Echoes sound different than the shot.
>
> IF they do, are they part of the shot that people are describing?  Is an
> echo different than say a backfire?  Is a backfire a shot, or were they
> from vehicles at the time of the shooting?  What about 'firecrackers'?
> Are they shots, backfires, echos, or real firecrackers?  They were
> described a lot.

Possibly when someone hears a loud report from an unknown source
that their mind goes to familiar similar sounds, like backfires and
firecrackers.

> > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> shots.

You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.

> > >Two different sounding weapons would mean death
> > > for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?
>
> >   Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> > where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
> > only impressions and opinions.
>
> Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
> for shots on a more regular basis, wouldn't you think conclusions
> could possibly be made?

Little could be established regardless of the approach. You are trying
to mine gold from doody. Look, if you hear a loud noise behind you, say a
loud trash truck bang, and you look over your left shoulder and see
nothing, but then see a trash truck on your right hand side, which do you
think is more accurate, your sight or your impression of where the noise
originated from? Sound is invisible. Sound bounces. Sound goes forward in
a cone, people out of the cone hear it different than those inside. Where
a shooter was *seen* and where evidence of a shooting took place was found
is way better then where people *think* the sound of the shots came from.

> > >  I surely would have asked it the
> > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
> >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > shot theory?
>
> Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> up?  Or even silencers.

Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.

> > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> to make his strong opinion made.

Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
less?

[David Von Pein]

RAY SAID:

>>> "After Reviewing the Warren Report, Lord Devlin wrote: "The evidence

connecting Oswald with the assassination of the President would in my
opinion be insufficient if there were not evidence connecting him with the

murder of Patrolman Tippit." .... Devlin was a Law Lord, the British

equivialent of a Supreme Court Justice, and he was pro-Commission, yet he
points out that the Tippit murder was the only possible case against Oz.
Yet Bugliosi in his humongous book does not have a chapter on the Tippit
murder. How can anyone take Bugliosi seriously?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But just because there's not a chapter in "Reclaiming History"
labelled "The Tippit Murder", that doesn't mean Bugliosi totally
ignored the Tippit crime. To the contrary, there's ample material
concerning J.D. Tippit's murder (and Oswald's all-too-obvious guilt in
that crime) in Mr. Bugliosi's book.

However, I too was a bit surprised (even before the book came out) to
find that there was no specific chapter on the Tippit slaying in "RH".
It is, indeed, a very important part of solving JFK's murder.

"I'm very surprised that Vince hasn't added a chapter in his
book devoted to J.D. Tippit's murder. That's quite strange, IMO.
Obviously, VB will get into the Tippit murder in great depth in a
comprehensive book of this sort...but a lack of a chapter heading on
that key Tippit crime is a bit of a mystery to me." -- DVP; May 5,
2007

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ff097a722bef180d


ADDENDUM REGARDING THE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY LORD DEVLIN:

Lord Devlin, in his review of the Warren Commission's case against Lee
Oswald in the March 1965 edition of "Atlantic Monthly", seemed to be
of the opinion that the evidence against Oswald was, indeed,
legitimate evidence (i.e., it wasn't all planted and/or manufactured
by some third party who was trying to frame Oswald, which is the
nonsense that most conspiracists now seem to swallow).

But even in accepting the large amount of evidence against Oswald as
legitimate evidence that wasn't tampered with, Lord Devlin did make
this statement (as Ray pointed out in his earlier post):

"The evidence connecting Oswald with the assassination of the
President would in my opinion be insufficient if there were not

evidence connecting him with the murder of Patrolman Tippit. It is
most unlikely that Oswald would have murdered Tippit it he had not
previously been concerned in the killing of the President. The two
things hang together."

That above comment seems very odd in light of the many things that
Devlin ALSO said in the very same 1965 article that support the Warren
Commission's findings and conclusions. Let's take a look at a few of
Devlin's remarks:

"All this is simple to follow and appears to me to establish
quite conclusively that the shots that killed the President were fired
from the depository. The rest of the evidence is corroborative. There
is medical evidence about the nature of the wounds to show that the
bullets were fired from above and behind and also evidence that a
bullet fragment struck the windshield of the car from behind.

[...]

"If the case against Oswald is stripped of everything that does
not amount to practical certainty, what is left is this. He was in the
building at the time of the assassination of the President and could
have been on the sixth floor. The President was killed by a gun which
belonged to Oswald and which he falsely denied buying or owning. The
man who fired it was not unlike Oswald. Three quarters of an hour
later Patrolman Tippit was shot with a revolver belonging to Oswald.
Oswald’s jacket was found along the path taken by the murderer in
flight. Then Oswald was found with the revolver in his possession, and
he used violence in resisting arrest. He was a man who had attempted
assassination before. In the [Warren] report, these bare bones are
fully fleshed. An exhaustive investigation has produced a mass of
corroborative evidence and nothing at all to shake the natural
conclusion.

[...]

"A defense counsel who was given free leave by the courts to
invent any explanation which would account for the facts in this case
and yet be consistent with his client’s innocence would have had a
desperate task.

[...]

"The careers of Oswald and Ruby have been traced from birth. An
appendix is devoted to each of them. The picture that emerges of them
both makes it, to my mind, more likely that each of them would have
acted as a solitary than as a conspirator. Their motives are
inexplicable by ordinary standards, but there is something in the
character of each that makes them at least plausible.

[...]

"I can only say that after reading it all [the Warren
Report]...I am left with the impression of a searching and objective
investigation and a completely impartial analysis. .... The best
tribute to the solidity of the report comes from its critics. It
would, I should have thought, have been obvious even to an amateur
that he could not make much impression on the structure of this report
unless he had a charge of high explosives to put under some parts of
it. But all that the critics seem to be doing is to clamber about on
the surface, chipping away with a hammer and chisel as if the height
of their ambition were to deface the exterior slightly.

[...]

"It is no doubt distressing to the logical mind when after an
immense investigation, two extraordinary murders occurring in the
course of the same story are explained only as disconnected and
senseless actions. But life is more distressing than logic. And what
is the alternative? Perhaps one day the critics will produce one. If
they can suggest one that is even faintly credible, they will deserve
more public attention than they are likely to get by making charges of
suppression that are more than faintly ridiculous."

-- Lord Devlin; circa late 1964 / early 1965

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/reactions_to_warren_report/Support_from_center/Death_of_a_president--Devlin.html


Via the above excerpts, it sure sounds to me as if Lord Devlin thinks
Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, killed John F. Kennedy.

[David Von Pein]

TONY M.:

Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original

author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. .... Or

maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the "von" in that
derivative of the name.

DVP SAYS:

I added the "sic", because it kind of irks me when I see my name
misspelled (even though the person misspelling it knows full well how
to spell it correctly, because my name appears at the top of every
post I make).

It's funny, actually (and irritating at the same time) -- as if
somebody ELSE knows better than I do how to spell my own name.
Therefore, they just arbitrarily decide to lower case the "V". After
all, why should I know how to spell my own name better than some
stranger? (Hilarious.)

<snipping the rest of Tony's goofy post>

(Man, that guy named Marsh has a lot of time on his hands, doesn't he?
Every single post in every single thread must be commented on, even if
ludicrously, by W. Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts. Geesh.)

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 10/12/12 5:07 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> Puffer is just fishing.
>

Pufferfish?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2012 9:50 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY M.:
>
> Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original
> author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. .... Or
> maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the "von" in that
> derivative of the name.
>
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> I added the "sic", because it kind of irks me when I see my name
> misspelled (even though the person misspelling it knows full well how
> to spell it correctly, because my name appears at the top of every
> post I make).
>

Of course you did. I would expect nothing less from you. So you did not
quote his message accurately. You added your own editorial comment.
Which is why you can not be trusted.
I can't take sides in your dispute without doing a lot more genealogical
research, but did you ever consider that you are the one who has been
spelling it wrong all these years? Maybe you capitalize it only as a
poncy affectation to make everyone think you are high society.

> It's funny, actually (and irritating at the same time) -- as if
> somebody ELSE knows better than I do how to spell my own name.

You may not even know your own family history name. How far can you
trace your family tree? A trailer park in the Great Depression?

> Therefore, they just arbitrarily decide to lower case the "V". After
> all, why should I know how to spell my own name better than some
> stranger? (Hilarious.)
>
> <snipping the rest of Tony's goofy post>
>
> (Man, that guy named Marsh has a lot of time on his hands, doesn't he?
> Every single post in every single thread must be commented on, even if
> ludicrously, by W. Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts. Geesh.)
>

Ludicrous to anyone who knows how to view message thread trees.

[curtjester1]

I didn't set it. The LNT'er did! He's bringing in statistics that are
virtually meaningless. I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
scenario, if that's what he was after.

> >  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > > location/direction.
>
> > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > for bringing up the topic.
>
>   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> at such things.
>
>

it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
for the first time. Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
have origniated from think it was unsignificant?? Let me guess who...lol.

>
>
>
> > > > What is meant by direction?
>
> > >   It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
> > > sound came from.
>
> > > >  You mean from one building or next
> > > > to the building?
>
> > >   Many indicated a particular building.
>
> > See above
>
> > > >  How about within one building but different places?
> > > > Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
> > > > of the shots?  Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
> > > > came from two different weapons.
>
> > >   Echoes sound different than the shot.
>
> > IF they do, are they part of the shot that people are describing?  Is an
> > echo different than say a backfire?  Is a backfire a shot, or were they
> > from vehicles at the time of the shooting?  What about 'firecrackers'?
> > Are they shots, backfires, echos, or real firecrackers?  They were
> > described a lot.
>
>   Possibly when someone hears a loud report from an unknown source
> that their mind goes to familiar similar sounds, like backfires and
> firecrackers.
>

So where are you going to try to fit this in, in your grand scheme of
things??

> > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > shots.
>
>   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>

You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.
What else would you be afraid of?

> > > >Two different sounding weapons would mean death
> > > > for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?
>
> > >   Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> > > where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
> > > only impressions and opinions.
>
> > Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
> > for shots on a more regular basis, wouldn't you think conclusions
> > could possibly be made?
>
>   Little could be established regardless of the approach. You are trying
> to mine gold from doody. Look, if you hear a loud noise behind you, say a
> loud trash truck bang, and you look over your left shoulder and see
> nothing, but then see a trash truck on your right hand side, which do you
> think is more accurate, your sight or your impression of where the noise
> originated from? Sound is invisible. Sound bounces. Sound goes forward in
> a cone, people out of the cone hear it different than those inside. Where
> a shooter was *seen* and where evidence of a shooting took place was found
> is way better then where people *think* the sound of the shots came from.
>
>

So when there is a shooting, no sound should ever be part of any
investigative discussion by those wanting a court system to decide the
fate of anyone?

>
>
>
> > > >  I surely would have asked it the
> > > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > > > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
> > >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > shot theory?
>
> > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> > sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> > would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> > shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> > up?  Or even silencers.
>
>   Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
>

Weapons don't care about Occam. What about the people who died by the
hands of silencers? You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
the back?

> > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > to make his strong opinion made.
>
>   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> less?
>
>

Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
occurred at Dealey. That is entrenched in testimony. Maybe the people
who were between the two spots would have more to observe and especially
if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.

CJ

[Ray]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm very surprised that Vince hasn't added a chapter in his
book devoted to J.D. Tippit's murder. That's quite strange, IMO.

...but a lack of a chapter heading on
that key Tippit crime is a bit of a mystery to me." -- DVP; May 5,

2007.

Maybe Bugliosi was afraid to face up to ALL the facts in the Tippit case,
especially Oswald's alibi defense and the clear indication that the
shells, etc. were deliberately left at the scene to incriminate Oz. Hence
the absence of a chapter on Tippit.

ADDENDUM REGARDING THE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY LORD DEVLIN:
>
Lord Devlin, in his review of the Warren Commission's case against Lee
Oswald in the March 1965 edition of "Atlantic Monthly",

"If the case against Oswald is stripped of everything that does

not amount to practical certainty, what is left is this. He was in the

building at the time of the assassination of the President and could

have been on the sixth floor...


He COULD have been on the sixth floor, except he wasn't
and had no motive.


Devlin: "The President was killed by a gun which

belonged to Oswald"

Elsewhere in the same article Devlin says:

"The ownership of a rifle used in a murder does not prove that the owner was the murderer,"




LORD DEVLIN: "It is no doubt distressing to the logical mind when after

an immense investigation, two extraordinary murders occurring in the
course of the same story are explained only as disconnected and senseless
actions."

Correction, M'Lord, they are trying to convince us that THREE
sensless murders occurred by pure coincidence.

David Von Pein writes:

"Via the above excerpts, it sure sounds to me as if Lord Devlin thinks

Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, killed John F. Kennedy."

Devlin is a true believer, but he admits that his beliefs are not proven
by evidence, i.e they are irrational.

Further, Devlin does not know how irrational he really is. Like most LN's,
Devlin is a victim of the CONJUNCTION Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

Devlin thinks it is more likely that Oz killed both JFK and Tippit
than that he killed Tippit alone, which is a logical fallacy.

[Anthony Marsh]

If the publisher had to pay Bugliosi to write another thousand pages in
order to cover the Tippit murder they would have gone bankrupt.

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original
author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. .... Or
maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the "von" in that
derivative of the name.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I added the "sic", because it kind of irks me when I see my name
misspelled (even though the person misspelling it knows full well how
to spell it correctly, because my name appears at the top of every
post I make).

TONY MARSH SAID:

Of course you did. I would expect nothing less from you. So you did
not quote his message accurately. You added your own editorial

comment. Which is why you can not [sic] be trusted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Note the ironic "[sic]" up there, which I added for Tony's benefit
and amusement, as Anthony misspelled the word "cannot". Tony, for some
strange reason, will now say I can't be trusted because I did not
quote his above statement accurately.]

Can it get any sillier than this? Of course I quoted his message
accurately, hence the reason I added the "[sic]" after he misspelled
my name. Meaning: The quote is exactly as written by the author even
though it's wrong.

TONY MARSH SAID:

I can't take sides in your dispute without doing a lot more
genealogical research, but did you ever consider that you are the one
who has been spelling it wrong all these years? Maybe you capitalize
it only as a poncy affectation to make everyone think you are high
society.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Tony.

But if I have been falsely capitalizing the V in my last name for many
years, how does that particular action turn me into a person of "high
society", Tony? Please explain that comment to me, because I'll have
to admit, I'm so "low society" and out to lunch that the inference
associated with that strange remark went zooming right over my
cranium.

TONY MARSH SAID:

You may not even know your own family history name. How far can you
trace your family tree? A trailer park in the Great Depression?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't matter. My birth certificate verifies the true spelling of
my name, regardless of whether an ancestor of mine spelled it the same
way or not.

(Can anyone believe this discussion is actually taking place? I can't
believe it--and I'm right in the middle of this silliness. Oh well,
it's just another day at the office for Anthony "I'll Argue With
Everybody About Everything" Marsh.) :-)

[curtjester1]

On Oct 13, 12:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 5:09 PM, Ray wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > After Reviewing the Warren Report
> > Lord Devlin  wrote:
>
> > "The evidence connecting Oswald with the assassination of the President
> > would in my opinion be insufficient if there were not evidence connecting
> > him with the murder of Patrolman Tippit."
>

> >http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/reactions_to_warren_re...

>
> > Devlin was a Law Lord, the British equivialent of a Supreme Court Justice,
> > and he was pro-Commission, yet he points out that the Tippit murder was
> > the only possible case against Oz.
>
> > Yet Bugliosi in his humongous book does not have a chapter on the Tippit
> > murder.
>
> If the publisher had to pay Bugliosi to write another thousand pages in
> order to cover the Tippit murder they would have gone bankrupt.
>
>
>
> > How can anyone take Bugliosi seriously?

Which means they would have had to hire Dale Myers and pay him for all
the potential ammo for disinformation that's available in Sputtering
Spiral form.

CJ

[Bud]

Yah, you did. You introduced "prove", as though if it couldn`t prove
something (a very tough goal to shoot for) than it wasn`t meaningful.

> The LNT'er did!  He's bringing in statistics that are
> virtually meaningless.  I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> scenario, if that's what he was after.

How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?

> > >  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > > > location/direction.
>
> > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > > for bringing up the topic.
>
> >   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> > at such things.
>
> it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> for the first time.  Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
> have origniated from think it was unsignificant??

But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
witnesses. You are getting the impression from the witnesses where the

sound of the shots came from.

>  Let me guess who...lol.

> > > > > What is meant by direction?
>
> > > >   It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
> > > > sound came from.
>
> > > > >  You mean from one building or next
> > > > > to the building?
>
> > > >   Many indicated a particular building.
>
> > > See above
>
> > > > >  How about within one building but different places?
> > > > > Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
> > > > > of the shots?  Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
> > > > > came from two different weapons.
>
> > > >   Echoes sound different than the shot.
>
> > > IF they do, are they part of the shot that people are describing?  Is an
> > > echo different than say a backfire?  Is a backfire a shot, or were they
> > > from vehicles at the time of the shooting?  What about 'firecrackers'?
> > > Are they shots, backfires, echos, or real firecrackers?  They were
> > > described a lot.
>
> >   Possibly when someone hears a loud report from an unknown source
> > that their mind goes to familiar similar sounds, like backfires and
> > firecrackers.
>
> So where are you going to try to fit this in, in your grand scheme of
> things??

I don`t need to, the evidence is clear that the impressions of where
the shots came from as indicated by many of the witnesses was
erroneous. Like I said, this is something that CTers have been trying
to wring some support for conspiracy from.

> > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > shots.
>
> >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>
> You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.

That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.

> What else would you be afraid of?

Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
off things) came from.

Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from the
earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?

> > > > >Two different sounding weapons would mean death
> > > > > for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?
>
> > > >   Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> > > > where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
> > > > only impressions and opinions.
>
> > > Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
> > > for shots on a more regular basis, wouldn't you think conclusions
> > > could possibly be made?
>
> >   Little could be established regardless of the approach. You are trying
> > to mine gold from doody. Look, if you hear a loud noise behind you, say a
> > loud trash truck bang, and you look over your left shoulder and see
> > nothing, but then see a trash truck on your right hand side, which do you
> > think is more accurate, your sight or your impression of where the noise
> > originated from? Sound is invisible. Sound bounces. Sound goes forward in
> > a cone, people out of the cone hear it different than those inside. Where
> > a shooter was *seen* and where evidence of a shooting took place was found
> > is way better then where people *think* the sound of the shots came from.
>
> So when there is a shooting, no sound should ever be part of any
> investigative discussion by those wanting a court system to decide the
> fate of anyone?

It`s mush, of very little evidential value. If sound makes someone
look in the right direction and they see something of significance
then the sound helped the person locate the source.

Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?

> > > > >  I surely would have asked it the
> > > > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > > > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > > > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > > > > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > > > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
> > > >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > > shot theory?
>
> > > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > > maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> > > sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> > > would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> > > shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> > > up?  Or even silencers.
>
> >   Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
>
> Weapons don't care about Occam.  What about the people who died by the
> hands of silencers?  You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
> the back?

You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
this event does not require them.

> > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > to make his strong opinion made.
>
> >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > less?
>
> Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> who were between the two spots

There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
can`t show that Speaker was one of them.

>would have more to observe and especially
> if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.

You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
direction of shots.

> CJ

[curtjester1]

Reading comprehension is mandantory. If one can't prove what they
might assert is meaningful, it would be utterly useless. That's what
I asserted and have stuck by.

> > The LNT'er did!  He's bringing in statistics that are
> > virtually meaningless.  I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> > scenario, if that's what he was after.
>
>   How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
>

Do you even know what he asserted???? You seem to be lost. He stated
that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
locations for the source of their hearing shots. Now if you think
that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
anything, please let us know, ok?

> > > >  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > > > > location/direction.
>
> > > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > > > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > > > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > > > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > > > for bringing up the topic.
>
> > >   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > > often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> > > at such things.
>
> > it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> > for the first time.  Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
> > have origniated from think it was unsignificant??
>
>   But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
> witnesses. You are getting the impression from the witnesses where the
> sound of the shots came from.
>

Well the quality of their listening is something a court would decide,
wouldn't it? And if it wasn't thought of being relevant, they
wouldn't have asked the questions at their hearings, would they?

Why is it necessarily erroneous? Isn't it only your opinion as a
armchair quarterback, and nothing else?

> > > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > > shots.
>
> > >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>
> > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.
>
>   That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.
>

It's just merely hypothetical. Is there anything that makes that
theory bona fide?

> > What else would you be afraid of?
>
>   Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
> how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
> witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
> off things) came from.
>

Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
theory? Do you have any possible means to negate witness quality by
the introduction of such a theory?

>   Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from the
> earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
> at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
> surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?
>

What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?

> > > > > >Two different sounding weapons would mean death
> > > > > > for a Lone Gunman theory, wouldn't it?
>
> > > > >   Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> > > > > where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
> > > > > only impressions and opinions.
>
> > > > Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
> > > > for shots on a more regular basis, wouldn't you think conclusions
> > > > could possibly be made?
>
> > >   Little could be established regardless of the approach. You are trying
> > > to mine gold from doody. Look, if you hear a loud noise behind you, say a
> > > loud trash truck bang, and you look over your left shoulder and see
> > > nothing, but then see a trash truck on your right hand side, which do you
> > > think is more accurate, your sight or your impression of where the noise
> > > originated from? Sound is invisible. Sound bounces. Sound goes forward in
> > > a cone, people out of the cone hear it different than those inside. Where
> > > a shooter was *seen* and where evidence of a shooting took place was found
> > > is way better then where people *think* the sound of the shots came from.
>
> > So when there is a shooting, no sound should ever be part of any
> > investigative discussion by those wanting a court system to decide the
> > fate of anyone?
>
>   It`s mush, of very little evidential value. If sound makes someone
> look in the right direction and they see something of significance
> then the sound helped the person locate the source.
>

Say there was a bank robbery with a few people doing the heist. More
than one robber was shooting inside the bank. Do you think that the
witnesses would be of value if called on to identify the source of the
shots, say if they were even on the ground?

>   Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
> now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
>

I'm not sure how this would relate. Were these two people very close
together you speak of?

> > > > > >  I surely would have asked it the
> > > > > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > > > > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > > > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > > > > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > > > > > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > > > > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
> > > > >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > > > shot theory?
>
> > > > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > > > maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> > > > sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> > > > would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> > > > shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> > > > up?  Or even silencers.
>
> > >   Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
>
> > Weapons don't care about Occam.  What about the people who died by the
> > hands of silencers?  You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
> > the back?
>
>   You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
> this event does not require them.
>

I don't have to imagine. They are a bona fide way of shooting
bullets. If there was a conpiracy potential, wouldn't using silencers
be of benefit if the conpirators wanted to keep things at a surprise,
and mask the potential of the amount of gunmen that might be in on the
shooting?

> > > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > to make his strong opinion made.
>
> > >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > less?
>
> > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> > who were between the two spots
>
>   There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> can`t show that Speaker was one of them.
>

No, as he was a half a block away. That's not too far. And can you
say that he was not in between?

> >would have more to observe and especially
> > if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.
>
>   You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> direction of shots.

He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
he was talking about, that there were not 3 shots fired, but more.
See pg. 126.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47569088/Chapter-7-The-assassination

CJ

> CJ

[Ace Kefford]

You cheeky commoners. How dare you question the words of a "Lord"? Pay
attention to your betters!

[Anthony Marsh]

It was not mush in the Kent State Massacre case where they used sound to
prove exactly who had fired which fatal shots from exactly where.

> Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
> now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
>

Was there only one shooter in that case? Not a conspiracy? No, you are a
conspiracy believer.

>>>>>> I surely would have asked it the
>>>>>> sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots. And too
>>>>>> when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
>>>>>> west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
>>>>>> the areas are so close together? And what about the people that heard two
>>>>>> shots? Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
>>>>>> likes a 3 shot theory?
>>
>>>>> Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
>>>>> shot theory?
>>
>>>> Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
>>>> maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
>>>> sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out. And how
>>>> would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
>>>> shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
>>>> up? Or even silencers.
>>
>>> Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
>>
>> Weapons don't care about Occam. What about the people who died by the
>> hands of silencers? You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
>> the back?
>
> You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
> this event does not require them.
>

It could have, but it didn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/13/2012 10:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original
> author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. .... Or
> maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the "von" in that
> derivative of the name.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I added the "sic", because it kind of irks me when I see my name
> misspelled (even though the person misspelling it knows full well how
> to spell it correctly, because my name appears at the top of every
> post I make).
>
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Of course you did. I would expect nothing less from you. So you did
> not quote his message accurately. You added your own editorial
> comment. Which is why you can not [sic] be trusted.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> [Note the ironic "[sic]" up there, which I added for Tony's benefit
> and amusement, as Anthony misspelled the word "cannot". Tony, for some
> strange reason, will now say I can't be trusted because I did not
> quote his above statement accurately.]
>

Oh, so now you pretend to be a linguistics professor? Can not means the
same thing as cannot.

> Can it get any sillier than this? Of course I quoted his message
> accurately, hence the reason I added the "[sic]" after he misspelled
> my name. Meaning: The quote is exactly as written by the author even
> though it's wrong.
>

So you claim. As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly.
WIKI:

In German, the particle "von" (meaning "of", pronounced [fɔn]) or
"genannt" (meaning "named") in a surname (e.g. Alexander von Humboldt)
is not capitalized (unless it is the first letter of a sentence).

Von
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Von (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (September 2012)

In German, von [fɔn] is a preposition which approximately means of or from.

When it is used as a part of a German family name, it is usually a
nobiliary particle, like the French, Galician, Spanish and Portuguese
de.[1] At certain times and places, it has been illegal for anyone who
was not a member of the nobility to use von before the family name.
However, in the Middle Ages, the von particle was still a common part of
names and was widely used also by commoners; thus, "Hans von Duisburg"
meant Hans from [the city of] Duisburg. The Dutch van, which is a
cognate of von but does not indicate nobility, can be said to have
preserved this earlier meaning.

Usage
Germany and Austria

The abolition of the monarchies in Germany and Austria in 1919 meant
that neither state had a privileged nobility, and both had exclusively
republican governments.

In Germany, this meant that in principle von simply became an ordinary
part of the names of the people who used it. There were no longer any
legal privileges or constraints associated with this naming convention.
According to German alphabetical sorting, people with von in their
surnames – of noble or non-noble descent alike – are listed in telephone
books and other files under the rest of their name (e.g., Ludwig von
Mises would be under M in the phone book rather than V).

In Austria, in contrast, not only were the privileges of the nobility
abolished, their titles and prepositions were abolished as well. Thus,
for example, Friedrich von Hayek became Friedrich Hayek in 1919, when
Austria abolished all indicators of nobility in family names. On this
issue, also see Austrian nobility.

In contrast to the peerage of the United Kingdom, the aristocracies of
the German-speaking countries were held to include untitled gentry,
although the names of nearly all the families falling into this category
did include von or "zu", or both. Again unlike typical families in the
peerage, all members of German aristocratic families were usually
considered to be noble.

Nordic countries

In the Nordic countries, von is common but not universal in the names of
noble families of German origin and has occasionally been used as a part
of names of ennobled families of native or foreign, but non-German,
extraction, as with the family of the philosopher Georg Henrik von
Wright, which is of Scottish origin.
Non-noble use

The preposition originated among German speakers during the Middle Ages
and was commonly used to signify a person's origins simply from the name
of the place he/she originated from or the name of his/her father, as
the concept of surname did not start to come into common usage until
later on. Indeed in many Germanic-speaking lands, universal adoption of
surnames did not occur until mandated by the French Emperor Napoleon and
the legal reforms he introduced in Europe ca. 1800. As the preposition
became associated with nobility, however, only a minority of families
using von in their names were commoners. It is incorrect, strictly
speaking, to use the word untitled to refer to such families, because
"untitled" and "non-noble" do not mean exactly the same thing in the
German speaking world. However, it can be said that almost all German
nobles use von, but not all users of von are noble. Nonetheless, many
individuals of no titled descent choose to add the particle to their name.
Ancient nobility

Some very old noble families, usually members of the Uradel, do not use
von but are nevertheless still noble.

Also, a very few German families were elevated to the nobility without
the use of the preposition von. This was the case of the Riedesel
Freiherren zu Eisenbach who received their baronial dignity in 1680.

Ancient families distinguish themselves from newly ennobled ones by
abbreviating von to v. This is also the traditional practice of nobles
in North Germany.

Dita Von Teese (note non-standard capitalization) and Denise van Outen
added the von/van to their name by their own choice.

>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I can't take sides in your dispute without doing a lot more
> genealogical research, but did you ever consider that you are the one
> who has been spelling it wrong all these years? Maybe you capitalize
> it only as a poncy affectation to make everyone think you are high
> society.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're funny, Tony.
>
> But if I have been falsely capitalizing the V in my last name for many
> years, how does that particular action turn me into a person of "high
> society", Tony? Please explain that comment to me, because I'll have
> to admit, I'm so "low society" and out to lunch that the inference
> associated with that strange remark went zooming right over my
> cranium.
>

Pretending to be of high society.

>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> You may not even know your own family history name. How far can you
> trace your family tree? A trailer park in the Great Depression?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> It doesn't matter. My birth certificate verifies the true spelling of
> my name, regardless of whether an ancestor of mine spelled it the same
> way or not.
>
> (Can anyone believe this discussion is actually taking place? I can't
> believe it--and I'm right in the middle of this silliness. Oh well,
> it's just another day at the office for Anthony "I'll Argue With
> Everybody About Everything" Marsh.) :-)
>

You were the one who started it by claiming that someone intentionally
misspelled your name to insult you.

[David Von Pein]

TONY M.:

>>> "As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly." <<<

DVP:

I don't give a damn what Wikipedia says. The V in my particular name is
supposed to be capitalized. Period.

My prediction has come true though (as I knew it would) -- I figured Marsh
would attempt to give me a lesson on how to spell my own name. And I sure
was right, with Wiki quotes coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.

Maybe Marsh will next tell me that the "Pein" portion of my name
[pronounced "Pine", btw, not "Peen" or "Pain" as most people think] isn't
spelled right either. I can't wait for the 14 Wiki pages that will be
introduced to set me straight on that one.

>>> "You were the one who started it by claiming that someone
intentionally misspelled your name to insult you." <<<

Another inaccurate statement by Marsh. I never said anybody misspelled my
name to "insult" me. I merely said it "irks" me when I see it spelled
wrong.

[Bud]

Wrong. It might not in and of itself prove something, but it can be
indicative.

> That's what
> I asserted and have stuck by.

Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.

> > > The LNT'er did!  He's bringing in statistics that are
> > > virtually meaningless.  I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> > > scenario, if that's what he was after.
>
> >   How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
>
> Do you even know what he asserted????  You seem to be lost.  He stated
> that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
> locations for the source of their hearing shots.  Now if you think
> that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
> anything, please let us know, ok?

You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
of witnesses indicating a singular shooting location indicates a
singular origin for the shots?

> > > > >  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > > > > > location/direction.
>
> > > > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > > > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > > > > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > > > > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > > > > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > > > > for bringing up the topic.
>
> > > >   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > > > often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> > > > at such things.
>
> > > it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> > > for the first time.  Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
> > > have origniated from think it was unsignificant??
>
> >   But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
> > witnesses. You are getting the impression from the witnesses where the
> > sound of the shots came from.
>
> Well the quality of their listening is something a court would decide,
> wouldn't it?

Why are you still scratching around for ways to rehabilitate this
evidence after I`ve explained to you that it is mush?

>And if it wasn't thought of being relevant, they
> wouldn't have asked the questions at their hearings, would they?

They asked because some were right. Their impressions were borne out
by the physical evidence.

Because it isn`t unanmous. One thing happened, differing accounts of
what happened exist so some *must* be wrong.

> Isn't it only your opinion as a
> armchair quarterback, and nothing else?

No, it`s a fact. Some of the witness *must* be wrong. In this case
it is simple to determine which ones were. Just not by you.

> > > > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > > > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > > > shots.
>
> > > >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>
> > > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > > a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.
>
> >   That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.
>
> It's just merely hypothetical.  Is there anything that makes that
> theory bona fide?

The fact that it is backed up by facts.

> > > What else would you be afraid of?
>
> >   Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> > mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
> > how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
> > witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
> > off things) came from.
>
> Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
> theory?

Are you incapable of understanding what I did say?

>  Do you have any possible means to negate witness quality by
> the introduction of such a theory?

You really are afraid to assess witness supplied information
realistically, aren`t you? Puts a damper on the silly game.

> >   Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from the
> > earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
> > at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
> > surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?
>
> What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?

You are showing your ignorance of how sound operates. Soft surfaces
absorb sound, hard surfaces reflect it. How can you come to any understand
of the information the earwitnesses provided without the most basic
understanding of how sound operates?

Thats a stupid analogy, they would see and know where the robbers doing
the shooting were. But if they said it sounded to them that the shooting
was coming from the parking lot, but spent shells were found inside the
bank, then the physical evidence would kick the hell out of the
impressions of the witnesses cowering on the floor.

> >   Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
> > now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> > shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> > witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> > ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
>
> I'm not sure how this would relate.

I didn`t expect you would, it really wasn`t aimed at you, my target
audience is thinking people.

>  Were these two people very close
> together you speak of?

By close do you mean proximity or as pertaining to a relationship?

> > > > > > >  I surely would have asked it the
> > > > > > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > > > > > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > > > > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > > > > > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > > > > > > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > > > > > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
> > > > > >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > > > > shot theory?
>
> > > > > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > > > > maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> > > > > sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> > > > > would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> > > > > shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> > > > > up?  Or even silencers.
>
> > > >   Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
>
> > > Weapons don't care about Occam.  What about the people who died by the
> > > hands of silencers?  You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
> > > the back?
>
> >   You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
> > this event does not require them.
>
> I don't have to imagine.  They are a bona fide way of shooting
> bullets.

So is a blunderbuss.

>  If there was a conpiracy potential, wouldn't using silencers
> be of benefit if the conpirators wanted to keep things at a surprise,
> and mask the potential of the amount of gunmen that might be in on the
> shooting?

As I said, your evidence for silencers is that your ideas require
them.

> > > > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > > > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > > to make his strong opinion made.
>
> > > >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > > less?
>
> > > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > > occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> > > who were between the two spots
>
> >   There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> > can`t show that Speaker was one of them.
>
> No, as he was a half a block away.  That's not too far.  And can you
> say that he was not in between?

In order for him to be between the grassy knoll and the TSBD he
would need to be in Dealey Plaza.

> > >would have more to observe and especially
> > > if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.
>
> >   You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> > direction of shots.
>
> He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
> he was talking about, that there were not 3 shots fired, but more.
> See pg. 126.

Can you show that a person with Speaker`s credentials is more adept
at counting shots than someone who has never served in the military?

> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47569088/Chapter-7-The-assassination
>
> CJ> CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

How come you didn't explain refracting? Or acoustical ducting? Or
sympathetic vibrations?
And why did you not read the report of the listening tests?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/14/2012 10:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY M.:
>
>>>> "As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly." <<<
>
> DVP:
>
> I don't give a damn what Wikipedia says. The V in my particular name is
> supposed to be capitalized. Period.
>

So you think.

> My prediction has come true though (as I knew it would) -- I figured Marsh
> would attempt to give me a lesson on how to spell my own name. And I sure
> was right, with Wiki quotes coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.
>
> Maybe Marsh will next tell me that the "Pein" portion of my name
> [pronounced "Pine", btw, not "Peen" or "Pain" as most people think] isn't
> spelled right either. I can't wait for the 14 Wiki pages that will be
> introduced to set me straight on that one.
>

You probably don't even know what the original spelling was, but you are
stuck with it now. Like all those millions of immigrants on Ellis Island
who had the names changed by the authorities who couldn't figure out how
to spell them.

>
>>>> "You were the one who started it by claiming that someone
> intentionally misspelled your name to insult you." <<<
>
> Another inaccurate statement by Marsh. I never said anybody misspelled my
> name to "insult" me. I merely said it "irks" me when I see it spelled
> wrong.
>

Why would that irk you? Could be a simple typo or keyboard malfunction.
Maybe it irked you because you thought it was meant as an insult. Are
you irked when people misspell the same of a city of politician? Every
time one of the newbies types in "Connelly" do you get irked and complain?

[curtjester1]

If indicative, how on earth is it going to help or hinder a lone
gunman or different shooters scenario?

> > That's what
> > I asserted and have stuck by.
>
>   Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.
>

Thtat's like having a class instructor teaching how a square peg fits
in a round hole, right?

> > > > The LNT'er did!  He's bringing in statistics that are
> > > > virtually meaningless.  I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> > > > scenario, if that's what he was after.
>
> > >   How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
>
> > Do you even know what he asserted????  You seem to be lost.  He stated
> > that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
> > locations for the source of their hearing shots.  Now if you think
> > that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
> > anything, please let us know, ok?
>
>   You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
> of witnesses indicating a singular shooting location indicates a
> singular origin for the shots?
>

Why would it, since the 90% that have chosen one location (more or
less), have not one location they stated, but merely one of two?

> > > > > >  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > > > > > > location/direction.
>
> > > > > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > > > > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > > > > > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > > > > > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > > > > > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > > > > > for bringing up the topic.
>
> > > > >   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > > > > often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> > > > > at such things.
>
> > > > it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> > > > for the first time.  Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
> > > > have origniated from think it was unsignificant??
>
> > >   But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
> > > witnesses. You are getting the impression from the witnesses where the
> > > sound of the shots came from.
>
> > Well the quality of their listening is something a court would decide,
> > wouldn't it?
>
>   Why are you still scratching around for ways to rehabilitate this
> evidence after I`ve explained to you that it is mush?
>

If you think you are in a thread to say the likelihood of all the
shots came from one building, and one spot in the building, then I
contend you are entirely mush.

> >And if it wasn't thought of being relevant, they
> > wouldn't have asked the questions at their hearings, would they?
>
>   They asked because some were right. Their impressions were borne out
> by the physical evidence.
>

Right, that the people fired upon were hit from two different
directions. Well done, Bud.

it might be wrong in the grand scheme of things, but their hearing
might have been correct. Where they were positioned or they type of
gunfire that was loud, was only capable of hearing what they heard.

> > Isn't it only your opinion as a
> > armchair quarterback, and nothing else?
>
>   No, it`s a fact. Some of the witness *must* be wrong. In this case
> it is simple to determine which ones were. Just not by you.
>

Were the ones that said shots were from the GK even standing outside
the TSBD were just wrong by 'your' standards?

> > > > > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > > > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > > > > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > > > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > > > > shots.
>
> > > > >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>
> > > > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > > > a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.
>
> > >   That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.
>
> > It's just merely hypothetical.  Is there anything that makes that
> > theory bona fide?
>
>   The fact that it is backed up by facts.
>

But 'facts' have been argued on this case for many years, so the
'facts' aren't quite on the same page as the other 'facts.'

> > > > What else would you be afraid of?
>
> > >   Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> > > mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
> > > how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
> > > witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
> > > off things) came from.
>
> > Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
> > theory?
>
>   Are you incapable of understanding what I did say?
>

No, I think I did quite understand, but I am having a problem of your
theory being somehow 'bonafide'.

> >  Do you have any possible means to negate witness quality by
> > the introduction of such a theory?
>
>   You really are afraid to assess witness supplied information
> realistically, aren`t you? Puts a damper on the silly game.
>

If you have experts other than yourself here, we would surely be
interested in how you might bounce things around...:)

> > >   Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from the
> > > earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
> > > at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
> > > surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?
>
> > What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?
>
>   You are showing your ignorance of how sound operates. Soft surfaces
> absorb sound, hard surfaces reflect it. How can you come to any understand
> of the information the earwitnesses provided without the most basic
> understanding of how sound operates?
>

I have no idea, I just put the headphones on. But perhaps the people
that were in-between were not affected by this bouncing as they were
between the soft grasses and hard buildings. But the
trees..hmmm...are they hard or soft?

Oh noit necessarily. My witnesses were on the ground for a long time,
whilst the robbers too a long time to rob, going everywhich way in the
bank for a good time.

> was coming from the parking lot, but spent shells were found inside the
> bank, then the physical evidence would kick the hell out of the
> impressions of the witnesses cowering on the floor.
>

No spent shells allowed.

> > >   Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
> > > now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> > > shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> > > witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> > > ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
>
> > I'm not sure how this would relate.
>
>   I didn`t expect you would, it really wasn`t aimed at you, my target
> audience is thinking people.
>

Well good. It didn't look promising for you anyway.

> >  Were these two people very close
> > together you speak of?
>
>    By close do you mean proximity or as pertaining to a relationship?
>

No, I meant for shooting purposes. And he thinks he is thinking..

> > > > > > > >  I surely would have asked it the
> > > > > > > > sounds of firecrackers or backfires were thought of to be shots.  And too
> > > > > > > > when some answers are so ambiguous like the west side of the GK or the
> > > > > > > > west side of the TSBD, couldn't it be thought of two different places as
> > > > > > > > the areas are so close together?  And what about the people that heard two
> > > > > > > > shots?  Are their directions more likely to be off, since the questioner
> > > > > > > > likes a 3 shot theory?
>
> > > > > > >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > > > > > shot theory?
>
> > > > > > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > > > > > maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> > > > > > sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> > > > > > would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> > > > > > shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> > > > > > up?  Or even silencers.
>
> > > > >   Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.
>
> > > > Weapons don't care about Occam.  What about the people who died by the
> > > > hands of silencers?  You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
> > > > the back?
>
> > >   You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
> > > this event does not require them.
>
> > I don't have to imagine.  They are a bona fide way of shooting
> > bullets.
>
>   So is a blunderbuss.
>

I think of it more like a kerfuffle.

> >  If there was a conpiracy potential, wouldn't using silencers
> > be of benefit if the conpirators wanted to keep things at a surprise,
> > and mask the potential of the amount of gunmen that might be in on the
> > shooting?
>
>   As I said, your evidence for silencers is that your ideas require
> them.
>

Not at all. There were many descriptions of sounds, and there were
descriptions of even a flurry of bullets hitting the limo by the
driver. Any weapon should be considered.

> > > > > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > > > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > > > > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > > > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > > > to make his strong opinion made.
>
> > > > >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > > > less?
>
> > > > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > > > occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> > > > who were between the two spots
>
> > >   There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> > > can`t show that Speaker was one of them.
>
> > No, as he was a half a block away.  That's not too far.  And can you
> > say that he was not in between?
>
>   In order for him to be between the grassy knoll and the TSBD he
> would need to be in Dealey Plaza.
>

He likely was approaching DP between the TSBD and the GK. They were
working nearby.

> > > >would have more to observe and especially
> > > > if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.
>
> > >   You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> > > direction of shots.
>
> > He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
> > he was talking about, that there were not 3 shots fired, but more.
> > See pg. 126.
>
>   Can you show that a person with Speaker`s credentials is more adept
> at counting shots than someone who has never served in the military?

For the thinking man, I would consider that a given.

CJ

>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47569088/Chapter-7-The-assassination
>
> > CJ> CJ

[Sandy McCroskey]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 10:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> TONY M.:
>>
>>>>> "As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly." <<<
>>
>> DVP:
>>
>> I don't give a damn what Wikipedia says. The V in my particular name is
>> supposed to be capitalized. Period.
>>
>
> So you think.

This is too funny.

There are no spelling rules for people's names, Tony. The way a person's
name is spelled (and pronounced) is a matter of family tradition and
even personal choice.

>
>> My prediction has come true though (as I knew it would) -- I figured
>> Marsh
>> would attempt to give me a lesson on how to spell my own name. And I sure
>> was right, with Wiki quotes coming out of the woodwork. Hilarious.
>>
>> Maybe Marsh will next tell me that the "Pein" portion of my name
>> [pronounced "Pine", btw, not "Peen" or "Pain" as most people think] isn't
>> spelled right either. I can't wait for the 14 Wiki pages that will be
>> introduced to set me straight on that one.
>>
>
> You probably don't even know what the original spelling was, but you are
> stuck with it now. Like all those millions of immigrants on Ellis Island
> who had the names changed by the authorities who couldn't figure out how
> to spell them.
>

You have no reason to think that is relevant to the instance at hand.

>>
>>>>> "You were the one who started it by claiming that someone
>> intentionally misspelled your name to insult you." <<<
>>
>> Another inaccurate statement by Marsh. I never said anybody misspelled my
>> name to "insult" me. I merely said it "irks" me when I see it spelled
>> wrong.
>>
>
>
> Why would that irk you? Could be a simple typo or keyboard malfunction.
> Maybe it irked you because you thought it was meant as an insult. Are
> you irked when people misspell the same of a city of politician? Every
> time one of the newbies types in "Connelly" do you get irked and complain?
>
>

If he did, he would be still be showing less of an unthinking, knee-jerk
reaction as you do when you are compelled to reply to virtually *every*
post with an argument.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

This is hard to explain, but giving someone a hint or a clue might cause
them to investigate something which they have ignored. Please don't
misinterpret this as praise for Gary Mack, but no one wanted look at the
DPD tape until Gary Mack said that he heard 6 shots on the tape. The WC
looked into and decided that 6 noises on the tape were not shots. So when
we finally got the HSCA, someone decided to look for the original DPD
tapes and have them professionally studied to resolve the question. When
they were at the point of 50-50 on the grassy knoll shot they called in a
couple more experts to resolve that question either way.

>>> That's what
>>> I asserted and have stuck by.
>>
>> Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.
>>
> Thtat's like having a class instructor teaching how a square peg fits
> in a round hole, right?
>

Better done by a shop teacher than a college physics instructor.

>>>>> The LNT'er did! He's bringing in statistics that are
>>>>> virtually meaningless. I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
>>>>> scenario, if that's what he was after.
>>
>>>> How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
>>
>>> Do you even know what he asserted???? You seem to be lost. He stated
>>> that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
>>> locations for the source of their hearing shots. Now if you think
>>> that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
>>> anything, please let us know, ok?
>>
>> You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
>> of witnesses indicating a singular shooting location indicates a
>> singular origin for the shots?
>>
> Why would it, since the 90% that have chosen one location (more or
> less), have not one location they stated, but merely one of two?
>

Where do you get your phony 90%? Is there a 90% sale at Wallmart?

How do you know all the shots were being fired by your robbers? Maybe
some were fired by the security guard or the cops.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Every time one of the newbies types in "Connelly" do you get irked
and complain?" <<<

No, because Connally is not my own name. (Geez.)

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If we are to abide by the literal definition of "von" (lower case) as it
was originally intended many many years ago, with "von" meaning "of" or
"from", I guess Tony must think that my name really means David of Pein
(or David from Pein).

Since it's quite obvious that through the years the particle "von" has
been attached to names that do not double as locations (such as my own),
this would also logically indicate that the literal meaning of the
particle ("of" or "from") does not apply to any such names, and therefore
the "von" need not always be presented in lower-case form (as if it were
substituting for merely the word "of" or "from").

[David Von Pein]

Addendum/Correction To My Last Post:

I was incorrect in saying that "Pein" is not a location. In fact,
there is a town in Germany with that name (although it's spelled
"Peine"; so, incredibly, my earlier thought about Tony Marsh possibly
giving me a lecture on how the last part of my last name is also
misspelled can, indeed, now come true).

What I should have said in my last post is:

Since it's obvious that over a period of time, the particle "von" has
become attached to the names of people who are not "from" the last
portion of their last names (e.g., neither I or any of my relatives
that I am aware of come from "Pein" or "Peine", Germany), the
standardization of always using lower case when writing the "von" can
reasonably and logically be eliminated in many instances. And,
obviously, it has been discarded in the case of my particular name.

I think that should about end this senseless and off-topic discussion
(much to the delight of moderators John C. McAdams and Peter Fokes).
Unless, of course, Mr. Marsh would like to treat us to the
aforementioned potential lecture on why my ancestors eventually
dropped the "e" off the end of my last name. That lecture promises to
be just as boring and irrelevant as the rest of this discussion, but
if my crystal ball is accurate, I'm sure Tony M. will want the last
word on this matter.

Thanks, and Godspeed.

:-)

[Bud]

Right, we should be looking for information that doesn`t indicate
anything, thats the kind CTer cherish.

> > > That's what
> > > I asserted and have stuck by.
>
> >   Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.
>
> Thtat's like having a class instructor teaching how a square peg fits
> in a round hole, right?

Your way hasn`t gotten you anywhere, you may as well try mine.

> > > > > The LNT'er did!  He's bringing in statistics that are
> > > > > virtually meaningless.  I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> > > > > scenario, if that's what he was after.
>
> > > >   How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
>
> > > Do you even know what he asserted????  You seem to be lost.  He stated
> > > that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
> > > locations for the source of their hearing shots.  Now if you think
> > > that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
> > > anything, please let us know, ok?
>
> >   You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
> > of witnesses indicating a singular shooting location indicates a
> > singular origin for the shots?
>
> Why would it, since the 90% that have chosen one location (more or
> less), have not one location they stated, but merely one of two?

I explained to you about the bouncing which can make the perceived
direction be erroneous. But that they overwhelmingly said all the shots
came from one location/direction is not indicative of multiple shooters.

> > > > > > >  It would indicate a single shooting
>
> > > > > > > > location/direction.
>
> > > > > > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > > > > > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > > > > > > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > > > > > > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > > > > > > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > > > > > > for bringing up the topic.
>
> > > > > >   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > > > > > often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> > > > > > at such things.
>
> > > > > it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> > > > > for the first time.  Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
> > > > > have origniated from think it was unsignificant??
>
> > > >   But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
> > > > witnesses. You are getting the impression from the witnesses where the
> > > > sound of the shots came from.
>
> > > Well the quality of their listening is something a court would decide,
> > > wouldn't it?
>
> >   Why are you still scratching around for ways to rehabilitate this
> > evidence after I`ve explained to you that it is mush?
>
> If you think you are in a thread to say the likelihood of all the
> shots came from one building, and one spot in the building, then I
> contend you are entirely mush.

Yes, I know, you reject using the information the earwitnesses
supplied realistically or constructively. It`s how you guys operate.

> > >And if it wasn't thought of being relevant, they
> > > wouldn't have asked the questions at their hearings, would they?
>
> >   They asked because some were right. Their impressions were borne out
> > by the physical evidence.
>
> Right, that the people fired upon were hit from two different
> directions.  Well done, Bud.

No, pay attention, the witnesses overwhelming indicated singular
location/directions for the shots. Singular.

Thats the kind of convoluted thinking I expect from CTers.

> Where they were positioned or they type of
> gunfire that was loud, was only capable of hearing what they heard.

They are overwhelmingly saying they heard three shots. Are you
offering the heard *different* sets of three?

> > > Isn't it only your opinion as a
> > > armchair quarterback, and nothing else?
>
> >   No, it`s a fact. Some of the witness *must* be wrong. In this case
> > it is simple to determine which ones were. Just not by you.
>
> Were the ones that said shots were from the GK even standing outside
> the TSBD were just wrong by 'your' standards?

Yes. How could they not be? Can you offer a plausible scenario where
a shooter fires 3 loud shots from the knoll where the shooter remains
unseen, leaves no evidence and causes the wounds on Connally and
Kennedy?

> > > > > > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > > > > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > > > > > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > > > > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > > > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > > > > > shots.
>
> > > > > >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>
> > > > > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > > > > a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.
>
> > > >   That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.
>
> > > It's just merely hypothetical.  Is there anything that makes that
> > > theory bona fide?
>
> >   The fact that it is backed up by facts.
>
> But 'facts' have been argued on this case for many years, so the
> 'facts' aren't quite on the same page as the other 'facts.'

Generally CTers play with "facts" like children play with blocks.
They arrange them to suit themselves.

> > > > > What else would you be afraid of?
>
> > > >   Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> > > > mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
> > > > how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
> > > > witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
> > > > off things) came from.
>
> > > Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
> > > theory?
>
> >   Are you incapable of understanding what I did say?
>
> No, I think I did quite understand, but I am having a problem of your
> theory being somehow 'bonafide'.

You seem unable to argue against it. Perhaps if you had a better
understanding of the nature of sound.

> > >  Do you have any possible means to negate witness quality by
> > > the introduction of such a theory?
>
> >   You really are afraid to assess witness supplied information
> > realistically, aren`t you? Puts a damper on the silly game.
>
> If you have experts other than yourself here, we would surely be
> interested in how you might bounce things around...:)

Whatever you do don`t try to cure you ignorance about sound, God
forbid you should know what you are talking about. You don`t need no
stinking knowledge, right?

> > > >   Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from the
> > > > earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
> > > > at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
> > > > surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?
>
> > > What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?
>
> >   You are showing your ignorance of how sound operates. Soft surfaces
> > absorb sound, hard surfaces reflect it. How can you come to any understand
> > of the information the earwitnesses provided without the most basic
> > understanding of how sound operates?
>
> I have no idea, I just put the headphones on.  But perhaps the people
> that were in-between were not affected by this bouncing as they were
> between the soft grasses and hard buildings.  But the
> trees..hmmm...are they hard or soft?

Now you are getting it, come to grips with your ignorance, embrace
it. Sound is like magic to you, it comes from headphones and thats all
you need to know.

It is the physical evidence that backs up the witnesses impressions.
Without it, how can you tell if they are correct?

> > > >   Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
> > > > now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> > > > shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> > > > witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> > > > ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
>
> > > I'm not sure how this would relate.
>
> >   I didn`t expect you would, it really wasn`t aimed at you, my target
> > audience is thinking people.
>
> Well good.  It didn't look promising for you anyway.

Not from your vantage.

> > >  Were these two people very close
> > > together you speak of?
>
> >    By close do you mean proximity or as pertaining to a relationship?
>
> No, I meant for shooting purposes.

What purpose does two people very close serve in shooting?

> And he thinks he is thinking..

I`m thinking you write cryptically.

How is anything you mentioned evidence that a silencer was used?

> > > > > > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > > > > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > > > > > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > > > > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > > > > to make his strong opinion made.
>
> > > > > >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > > > > less?
>
> > > > > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > > > > occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> > > > > who were between the two spots
>
> > > >   There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> > > > can`t show that Speaker was one of them.
>
> > > No, as he was a half a block away.  That's not too far.  And can you
> > > say that he was not in between?
>
> >   In order for him to be between the grassy knoll and the TSBD he
> > would need to be in Dealey Plaza.
>
> He likely was approaching DP between the TSBD and the GK.  They were
> working nearby.

You don`t know where he was.

> > > > >would have more to observe and especially
> > > > > if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.
>
> > > >   You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> > > > direction of shots.
>
> > > He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
> > > he was talking about, that there were not 3 shots fired, but more.
> > > See pg. 126.
>
> >   Can you show that a person with Speaker`s credentials is more adept
> > at counting shots than someone who has never served in the military?
>
> For the thinking man, I would consider that a given.

Really? Ok thinking man, display your thought processes ...


Why would a person who served in the military be more adept at
counting loud noises then the average person?


Why would a person not at the scene of the shooting be more
trustworthy that the nearly 200 people there?


What training does the military give for shot counting?

[John Reagor King]

In article <1b5fa795-7262-4838...@googlegroups.com>,

Ray <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Further, Devlin does not know how irrational he really is. Like most LN's,
> Devlin is a victim of the CONJUNCTION Fallacy

Oh, like CTs aren't often just as guilty of that very thing? I've long
ago lost count of how many times I have seen CTs make an argument that is
very much like this:

"Marina described Lee as being agitated when he came home and said he had
shot at Walker. Johnny Brewer described Oswald in similar terms when
seeing him outside the shoe store close to the Texas Theater. Yet Officer
Baker described Oswald in the lunchroom as being quite calm. Why would he
be so agitated after shooting at Walker and being hunted for shooting
Tippit, but so calm after supposedly having just shot the President?
Conclusion: he probably didn't shoot at the President."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/15/2012 9:28 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Addendum/Correction To My Last Post:
>
> I was incorrect in saying that "Pein" is not a location. In fact,
> there is a town in Germany with that name (although it's spelled
> "Peine"; so, incredibly, my earlier thought about Tony Marsh possibly
> giving me a lecture on how the last part of my last name is also
> misspelled can, indeed, now come true).
>

Well, if that is the only good deed I have done this year, I will take
it. In addition to paying for a professional genealogy chart I would
also suggest that you send in a cheek swab and fork out a couple of
hundred dollars to 23andme.com.

> What I should have said in my last post is:
>
> Since it's obvious that over a period of time, the particle "von" has
> become attached to the names of people who are not "from" the last
> portion of their last names (e.g., neither I or any of my relatives
> that I am aware of come from "Pein" or "Peine", Germany), the
> standardization of always using lower case when writing the "von" can
> reasonably and logically be eliminated in many instances. And,
> obviously, it has been discarded in the case of my particular name.
>

You are allowed to keep using the "von" if you wish even though your
relatives might see it as a poofy affectation.
You may have difficulties when you apply for Social Security if the name
you want to use does not match their records of your name. When I
applied for Social Security benefits and showed them my original SS card
which says "W. Anthony Marsh" they said that I don't exist and I had to
get a new SS card made out to "William A. Marsh" or legally change my
name in court to "W. Anthony Marsh" and I would lose all my work credits
under my original name.
Several of my ancient ancestors in Essex, England were named William
Marsh. I was named Anthony on my birth certificate to honor the memory
of my parents friend named Tony who died in battle in WWII.

> I think that should about end this senseless and off-topic discussion
> (much to the delight of moderators John C. McAdams and Peter Fokes).
> Unless, of course, Mr. Marsh would like to treat us to the
> aforementioned potential lecture on why my ancestors eventually
> dropped the "e" off the end of my last name. That lecture promises to

Maybe they didn't. Maybe that was the handiwork of some mindless
bureaucrat on Ellis Island. Several years ago there was a popular
movement in Hollywood sparked by the TV series Roots to trace their
family history and change their names back to the original pre-Ellis
Island names.

> be just as boring and irrelevant as the rest of this discussion, but
> if my crystal ball is accurate, I'm sure Tony M. will want the last
> word on this matter.
>
> Thanks, and Godspeed.
>
> :-)
>

PS. I am working on a much more boring version, but need to do some
research in German, which ain't easy. BTW when McAdams rejected one of
my messages for criticizing another poster for not knowing anything
about music he said he was fascinated by some of the details in my
message. I have a Bachelor of Music Education.

[Anthony Marsh]

If you haven't traced your family tree back to the Middle Ages then you
may not appreciate where your name came from.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. The HSCA listening test debunked your wacky theory.

So therefore you think that all the shots came from the grassy knoll?
Do you think Oswald was on the grassy knoll?

[curtjester1]

Yet you and the LN'er are the ones trying to indicate, while I said it
was meaningless.

> > > > That's what
> > > > I asserted and have stuck by.
>
> > >   Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.
>
> > Thtat's like having a class instructor teaching how a square peg fits
> > in a round hole, right?
>
>   Your way hasn`t gotten you anywhere, you may as well try mine.
>

No, people shouldn't listen to you or anything to do with witnesses
non-IDing of two or more shooting spots.

> > > > > > The LNT'er did!  He's bringing in statistics that are
> > > > > > virtually meaningless.  I am saying it's not going to help a lonegunman
> > > > > > scenario, if that's what he was after.
>
> > > > >   How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?
>
> > > > Do you even know what he asserted????  You seem to be lost.  He stated
> > > > that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
> > > > locations for the source of their hearing shots.  Now if you think
> > > > that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
> > > > anything, please let us know, ok?
>
> > >   You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
> > > of witnesses indicating a singular shooting location indicates a
> > > singular origin for the shots?
>
> > Why would it, since the 90% that have chosen one location (more or
> > less), have not one location they stated, but merely one of two?
>
>   I explained to you about the bouncing which can make the perceived
> direction be erroneous. But that they overwhelmingly said all the shots
> came from one location/direction is not indicative of multiple shooters.
>

So, IF SO, it should make any shooting spots less reliable including
your wannabee spots.

No, it's just a consensus of testimony. Now on how YOU guys
operate....

> > > >And if it wasn't thought of being relevant, they
> > > > wouldn't have asked the questions at their hearings, would they?
>
> > >   They asked because some were right. Their impressions were borne out
> > > by the physical evidence.
>
> > Right, that the people fired upon were hit from two different
> > directions.  Well done, Bud.
>
>   No, pay attention, the witnesses overwhelming indicated singular
> location/directions for the shots. Singular.
>

Yes, SINGULAR, but singular from TWO predominate DIFFERENT directions.

As your's might be more correcter?

> > Where they were positioned or they type of
> > gunfire that was loud, was only capable of hearing what they heard.
>
>   They are overwhelmingly saying  they heard three shots. Are you
> offering the heard *different* sets of three?
>

That's not what the thread is about. It's about where they heard the
shots.

> > > > Isn't it only your opinion as a
> > > > armchair quarterback, and nothing else?
>
> > >   No, it`s a fact. Some of the witness *must* be wrong. In this case
> > > it is simple to determine which ones were. Just not by you.
>
> > Were the ones that said shots were from the GK even standing outside
> > the TSBD were just wrong by 'your' standards?
>
>   Yes. How could they not be? Can you offer a plausible scenario where
> a shooter fires 3 loud shots from the knoll where the shooter remains
> unseen, leaves no evidence and causes the wounds on Connally and
> Kennedy?
>

Yes, from both spots, very possible, easily.

> > > > > > > > > > Maybe it was a conspiracy not to ask such
> > > > > > > > > > a necessary question, eh?
>
> > > > > > > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?
>
> > > > > > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > > > > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > > > > > > shots.
>
> > > > > > >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.
>
> > > > > > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > > > > > a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.
>
> > > > >   That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.
>
> > > > It's just merely hypothetical.  Is there anything that makes that
> > > > theory bona fide?
>
> > >   The fact that it is backed up by facts.
>
> > But 'facts' have been argued on this case for many years, so the
> > 'facts' aren't quite on the same page as the other 'facts.'
>
>   Generally CTers play with "facts" like children play with blocks.
> They arrange them to suit themselves.
>

Your playing with a scenario that shouldn't be brought out of the toy
closet.

> > > > > > What else would you be afraid of?
>
> > > > >   Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> > > > > mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
> > > > > how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
> > > > > witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
> > > > > off things) came from.
>
> > > > Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
> > > > theory?
>
> > >   Are you incapable of understanding what I did say?
>
> > No, I think I did quite understand, but I am having a problem of your
> > theory being somehow 'bonafide'.
>
>   You seem unable to argue against it. Perhaps if you had a better
> understanding of the nature of sound.
>

No need to introduce favorable theories when the witnesses said what
they said.

> > > >  Do you have any possible means to negate witness quality by
> > > > the introduction of such a theory?
>
> > >   You really are afraid to assess witness supplied information
> > > realistically, aren`t you? Puts a damper on the silly game.
>
> > If you have experts other than yourself here, we would surely be
> > interested in how you might bounce things around...:)
>
>   Whatever you do don`t try to cure you ignorance about sound, God
> forbid you should know what you are talking about. You don`t need no
> stinking knowledge, right?
>

Why don't you start a new thread, and see how many takers you
get?...:)

> > > > >   Instead of trying to squeeze something of value from the
> > > > > earwitnesses shouldn`t you first try to determine how well people do
> > > > > at determining the direction of sound in an area with soft and hard
> > > > > surfaces when they don`t see the source of the sound?
>
> > > > What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?
>
> > >   You are showing your ignorance of how sound operates. Soft surfaces
> > > absorb sound, hard surfaces reflect it. How can you come to any understand
> > > of the information the earwitnesses provided without the most basic
> > > understanding of how sound operates?
>
> > I have no idea, I just put the headphones on.  But perhaps the people
> > that were in-between were not affected by this bouncing as they were
> > between the soft grasses and hard buildings.  But the
> > trees..hmmm...are they hard or soft?
>
>   Now you are getting it, come to grips with your ignorance, embrace
> it. Sound is like magic to you, it comes from headphones and thats all
> you need to know.
>

Naw, I was just having fun and playin' wich ya.

Whatever they say, can sway a jury, and does. More corrobating
additional evidence, the better.

> > > > >   Lets put it this way, in the Beltway sniper case, they pretty much
> > > > > now know where Malvo and the other clown were when they did their
> > > > > shooting. If they reviewed the witness supplied information and some
> > > > > witnesses indicated the shots came from somewhere else, should they
> > > > > ignore Malvo and look for other shooters?
>
> > > > I'm not sure how this would relate.
>
> > >   I didn`t expect you would, it really wasn`t aimed at you, my target
> > > audience is thinking people.
>
> > Well good.  It didn't look promising for you anyway.
>
>   Not from your vantage.
>

You better say the GK witnesses were having a bad hair day. It's
about all ya got.

> > > >  Were these two people very close
> > > > together you speak of?
>
> > >    By close do you mean proximity or as pertaining to a relationship?
>
> > No, I meant for shooting purposes.
>
>   What purpose does two people very close serve in shooting?
>

it does in IDing specifically what the people meant by 'one spot'.
Like I said it could be one building with different spots in the
building..or even the GK.

> > And he thinks he is thinking..
>
>   I`m thinking you write cryptically.
>

Yah, I got the answer in puzzle #22 coming up.

More bullets deemed found and fired by witnesses. Prove a silencer or
any other weapon wasn't used.

> > > > > > > > > > And shouldn't the questioners ask about their gun
> > > > > > > > > > abilities when taking an oath?  I believe A.J. Millican and Brennan's
> > > > > > > > > > boss, Speaker were way off offering so many bullets when positioned
> > > > > > > > > > between the two places that received the most consideration,
>
> > > > > > > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.
>
> > > > > > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > > > > > to make his strong opinion made.
>
> > > > > > >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > > > > > less?
>
> > > > > > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > > > > > occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> > > > > > who were between the two spots
>
> > > > >   There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> > > > > can`t show that Speaker was one of them.
>
> > > > No, as he was a half a block away.  That's not too far.  And can you
> > > > say that he was not in between?
>
> > >   In order for him to be between the grassy knoll and the TSBD he
> > > would need to be in Dealey Plaza.
>
> > He likely was approaching DP between the TSBD and the GK.  They were
> > working nearby.
>
>   You don`t know where he was.
>

he heard five shots. Others heard more.

> > > > > >would have more to observe and especially
> > > > > > if they were adept in hearing shots like a Sandy Speaker.
>
> > > > >   You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> > > > > direction of shots.
>
> > > > He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
> > > > he was talking about, that there were not 3 shots fired, but more.
> > > > See pg. 126.
>
> > >   Can you show that a person with Speaker`s credentials is more adept
> > > at counting shots than someone who has never served in the military?
>
> > For the thinking man, I would consider that a given.
>
>   Really? Ok thinking man, display your thought processes ...
>

Off the cuff, man, off the cuff.

>  Why would a  person who served in the military be more adept at
> counting loud noises then the average person?
>

Because they have heard much more gunfire, in differing situations,
with more weapons.

>   Why would a person not at the scene of the shooting be more
> trustworthy that the nearly 200 people there?
>

Because they would know the difference between a backfire, and echo, a
firecracker, and a loud blast.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/15/2012 9:28 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Addendum/Correction To My Last Post:
>
> I was incorrect in saying that "Pein" is not a location. In fact,
> there is a town in Germany with that name (although it's spelled
> "Peine"; so, incredibly, my earlier thought about Tony Marsh possibly
> giving me a lecture on how the last part of my last name is also
> misspelled can, indeed, now come true).
>

More than just the city it is a district in Lower Saxony.

Peine (district)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peine
??? District ???
Country Germany
State Lower Saxony
Capital Peine
Area
??? Total 535 km2 (207 sq mi)
Population (31 December 2011)[1]
??? Total 131,075
??? Density 250/km2 (630/sq mi)
Time zone CET (UTC+1)
??? Summer (DST) CEST (UTC+2)
Vehicle registration PE
Website landkreis-peine.de

Peine is a district in Lower Saxony, Germany. It is bounded by (from the
south and clockwise) the districts of Hildesheim, Hanover and Gifhorn,
and the cities of Brunswick and Salzgitter.
Contents

1 History
2 Geography
3 Coat of arms
4 Cities and municipalities
5 Notable people from Peine
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

History

Until the early 19th century, the territory of the district belonged to
Brunswick-Celle, Brunswick-Wolfenb??ttel, and the Bishopric of
Hildesheim. After 1815, both Brunswick-Celle and Hildesheim belonged to
the Kingdom of Hanover. In 1866, Hanover fell to Prussia. The Prussian
administration established districts (Kreise) in 1885, among them Peine.

The region has a smelting tradition, the associated mining tradition
lasted until 1976 when the last existing mine was closed. One of the
best known events in local history was the mining disaster of Lengede in
1963, when 29 miners died and 11 miners were rescued two weeks after the
incident.
Geography

The district comprises the space between the cities of Hanover and
Braunschweig. The Fuhse river enters the district in the south, runs
through the town of Peine and leaves northwards to Celle.
Coat of arms

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Peine_district_coa.png/100px-Peine_district_coa.png

Coat of arms The coat of arms is derived from the arms of the County of
Wolfenb??ttel-Assenburg. This county existed only until 1260, but its
rulers were responsible for the foundation of Peine.
Cities and municipalities
Cities Municipalities

Peine



Edemissen
Hohenhameln
Ilsede
Lahstedt
Lengede
Vechelde
Wendeburg

Notable people from Peine

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, anarcho-capitalist economics professor at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas and a Distinguished Fellow with the
Ludwig von Mises Institute

See also

Metropolitan region Hannover-Braunschweig-G??ttingen-Wolfsburg

References

^ Landesbetrieb f??r Statistik und Kommunikationstechnologie
Niedersachsen ??? Bev??lkerungsfortschreibung

External links

Media related to Landkreis Peine at Wikimedia Commons

Official website (German)

[hide]

v
t
e

Flag of Lower Saxony Urban and rural districts in the state of Lower
Saxony in Germany Flag of Germany
Region

Hanover

Urban districts

Braunschweig
Delmenhorst
Emden
Oldenburg
Osnabr??ck
Salzgitter
Wilhelmshaven
Wolfsburg

Rural districts

Ammerland
Aurich
Bentheim
Celle
Cloppenburg
Cuxhaven
Diepholz
Emsland
Friesland
Gifhorn
Goslar
G??ttingen
Hamelin-Pyrmont
Harburg
Heidekreis
Helmstedt
Hildesheim
Holzminden
Leer
L??chow-Dannenberg
L??neburg
Nienburg
Northeim
Oldenburg
Osnabr??ck
Osterholz
Osterode
Peine
Rotenburg
Schaumburg
Stade
Uelzen
Vechta
Verden
Wesermarsch
Wittmund
Wolfenb??ttel

Coordinates: 52??20???N 10??15???E
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Categories:

Districts of Lower Saxony
Peine (district)

Create account
Log in

Article
Talk

Read
Edit
View history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia Shop

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox
Print/export
Languages

Deutsch
Espa??ol
Esperanto
Fran??ais
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
??????????????
Nederlands
O??zbekcha
????????????
Polski
Portugu??s
Rom??n??
??????????????
Seeltersk
Svenska
Ti???ng Vi???t
Winaray
??????

This page was last modified on 8 September 2012 at 19:27.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia?? is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us

> What I should have said in my last post is:
>
> Since it's obvious that over a period of time, the particle "von" has
> become attached to the names of people who are not "from" the last
> portion of their last names (e.g., neither I or any of my relatives
> that I am aware of come from "Pein" or "Peine", Germany), the
> standardization of always using lower case when writing the "von" can
> reasonably and logically be eliminated in many instances. And,
> obviously, it has been discarded in the case of my particular name.
>

Maybe you are not aware, because you have not traced your family roots.
Others have.

http://boards.ancestry.com/localities.ceeurope.germany.saxony.General/168/mb.ashx

Peine Germany
Replies: 6
Peine Germany
wildvine48 (View posts) Posted: 29 Jan 2003 6:06PM GMT
Classification: Query
Hello does anyone know where exactly this town is located in Germany? I
am seeking information on my great grandparents.Louisa Pein sailed for
New York in 1928 with two toddlers Ida and Hermann.She was a 28 year old
widow traveling with her babies to meet a friend in America.I am at a
total dead end as far as where she or her husband were born.Do not know
his first name.May have been Hermann also.She settled in Secaucus New
Jersery.Her young boy Hermann grew up married a woman named Anna Hess
and they had four sons and three daughters that grew to adulthood and
married and had children also.
Family lore tells me that the name was changed originally from Von Pein
or Von Peine.Any help in this area would be so appreciated.I am wearing
out a path to the LDS Family History Center in my town!
Thankyou
Elaine (Pein) Louderback


Pein/Peine/Von Peine
Replies: 3
Re: Pein/Peine/Von Peine
Linda Canull (View posts) Posted: 15 Jun 2005 10:09AM
Classification: Query
My fathers name was Robert Pein. My mother and my father visited the
village of Peine in Germany, also. This is the village that my fathers
family came from. I believe that my fathers family was actually VonPein.
My fathers uncle was Bob Pein who started State Auto in Columbus,
Indiana. My father had two brothers, Jim and Bill and two sisters
Marjorie and Marion. The family lived in Northern Indiana I believe,
Richmond, and settled in Indianapolis. All of my aunts and uncles have
passed away. My uncle Bill has one son, Chuck who lives in Columbus
Indiana. My brothers name is David.

Pein/Peine/Von Peine
Replies: 3
Pein/Peine/Von Peine
Les_Peine (View posts) Posted: 23 Jan 2003 12:43PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 9 May 2004 12:12AM GMT
Surnames: Peine, von Pein, Wissman
My heritage is Peine/Von Peine. My great grandfather Wilhelm August
Peine was born in Sachsen/Saxony Germany in April 1866 and came to the
US April 16, 1892 sailing from Liverpool England and arriving via Ellis
Island.
I have visited Peine Germany, which is just West of Hannover. I am told
that this is where the name originated and Von Pein or Von Peine would
support that. Research shows that the name originated in Lower
Saxony.Variations of the name are Peine, Peines, Von Peine, Pein. Some
of the line went to Silesia, Schleswig-Holstein and others to Austria
and others into the Rhine valley. Wilhelm settled in Cleveland, OH. He
married Bernardina Rosa Wissman in Cleveland. She was born December 1874
in Oldenburg Germany. Their son and my grandfather William/Wilhelm
August Peine Jr. lived on a farm in Thompson, Ohio. Does anyone have a
connection in your line to my Wilhelm August Peine?
Les Peine

> I think that should about end this senseless and off-topic discussion
> (much to the delight of moderators John C. McAdams and Peter Fokes).
> Unless, of course, Mr. Marsh would like to treat us to the
> aforementioned potential lecture on why my ancestors eventually
> dropped the "e" off the end of my last name. That lecture promises to
> be just as boring and irrelevant as the rest of this discussion, but
> if my crystal ball is accurate, I'm sure Tony M. will want the last
> word on this matter.
>

https://www.23andme.com/ancestry/

> Thanks, and Godspeed.
>
> :-)
>