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:
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):
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.
> 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:
> 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.
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
> 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.
> 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):
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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:
> 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):
> 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.
> 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:
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. ;-)
> 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):
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.
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.
> 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:
> 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. ;-)
>> 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):
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
> 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. ;-)
> > 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):
> 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.
> 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? 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
...
> On 10/8/2012 9:03 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article
> > <07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2-88de-28bb779f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 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
> Straw man argument. No one made that claim.
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.
> > 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:
> > 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. ;-)
> > > 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):
> > 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.
> > 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. 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?
> In article <507389a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 9:03 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2-88de-28bb779f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> Straw man argument. No one made that claim.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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?
"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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
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.
> 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.
> > 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?
> 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.
>>> "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
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."
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.)
> 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.
> 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?
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 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.
> > > 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.
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.
> 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.
If the publisher had to pay Bugliosi to write another thousand pages in order to cover the Tippit murder they would have gone bankrupt.
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.) :-)
> > 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.
> 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.
> On Oct 12, 9:10 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > 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?
> I didn't set it.
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 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.
