Battling Yet Another Conspiracy-Loving Kook
David Von Pein
nuthatches in this world (as evidenced by the inane comments presented
by a CTer below).
Hopefully, though, Mr. Bugliosi's sensational literary effort
("Reclaiming History") can quiet down at least a few of these kooks.
(But, I will admit, that's doubtful. But a person can always hope,
right?)
=====================================
FROM THE AMAZON.COM WEBSITE (RE. BUGLIOSI'S JFK BOOK):
=====================================
>>> "You, like many others, im [sic] sure were pleased to see an anti-war president die." <<<
This, of course, is a totally-uncalled-for remark. In fact, it's
completely reprehensible. Where in S.V. Anderson's review (which is
excellent, btw) does S.V. give any hint at being "pleased" to see
young, vigorous John F. Kennedy die?
You should issue a formal apology to S.V. Anderson asap. That was a
disgusting remark. (And I've just started evaluating your miserable
Amazon comment here. Maybe I should take a TUMS tablet before
proceeding.)
>>> "JFK was killed by the CIA and the FBI." <<<
No, he wasn't. He was killed by a loony, lonely Fidel-loving Marxist
named Lee Oswald.
>>> "He was killed b/c he didn't want to follow the norm and allow the CIA and the FBI to control the lives of millions of soldiers." <<<
I'm gonna need another TUMS before this is over, I'm sure.
>>> "You should not be rude towards others who do not agree with you." <<<
Can somebody say "Pot" and "Kettle"? Those words certainly apply here.
>>> "You [sic] debating skils [sic] are weak at best, and to be a school teacher and to be educating the way you do, well frankly that shows your lack of skill as an educator." <<<
As S.V. said to the previous (idiot) commenter, why in the heck is a
REVIEW supposed to double as a DEBATING platform? It's a REVIEW, i.e.,
a group of words expressing an individual opinion of the item being
reviewed here at Amazon (in this case, Vince Bugliosi's remarkable
tome, "Reclaiming History").
BTW, Devin, you could use a dictionary. The irony of your miserable
spelling while talking about "education" is classic.
>>> "You should present both sides of fact, and not show one side. Let your students figure it out for themselves." <<<
Vince Bugliosi's book DOES square with the FACTS in the JFK case,
whether people like you want to believe it or not.
Do you think that S.V. Anderson should stoop to presenting the
theories of every kooky Tom, Dick, and Harry (Livingstone) that has
ever come down the pike? (Along with every Groden, Marrs, Garrison,
Judyth Baker, and Doug Horne, to boot?)
If that type of conspiracy-loving craziness is what passes for
objective educational techniques these days, I fear for today's young
folks.
>>> "BTW, im [sic] sure if you enjoyed the lone gun man [sic] theory, and enjoyed when JFK died, i'm [sic] sure you enjoyed when Bush took office and send [sic] this country off to war and now 3500 of our soldiers back [sic; sigh] in body bags." <<<
Looks like a second major apology is in order. (And please get that
Webster's dictionary soon.)
>>> "The facts are not on your side." <<<
Bull. The facts are on the lone-killer side. And always have been.
What I want to know is: WHERE ARE THE NON-OSWALD BULLETS? Where? I've
yet to see one. Have you?
>>> "It is next to impossible that someone with [of?] oswalds [sic] caliber could have fired three perfect shots in a matter of 1.5 minutes." <<<
Huh?? 1.5 minutes???
Gee, most kooks like you only give Lee 5.6 seconds (he actually had
8.4). You're giving him 90 seconds. Nice.
>>> "It is next to impossible with a moving target, having to shoot through shubbery [sic], live oak to be exact, to get off three perfect shots." <<<
LOL. As if a 1-for-3 performance is "perfect". He only hit his main
target (JFK's head) ONE time in three shots, and totally missed the
whole car with one shot. And yet you classify Oswald's performance as
"perfect". Curious thinking indeed.
>>> "I am sure you thoroughly support Mr [sic] Specters [sic] ignorant "magic bullet theory". That is one of the most ignorant theories I have ever heard." <<<
The Single-Bullet Theory is easily the most believable scenario put on
the table to date. In fact, it perfectly FITS all the evidence (and
the LACK of evidence; e.g., the lack of any other bullets and bodily
damage to JFK's innards).
ANY other anti-SBT theory pales by comparison. The staggering
ignorance (or denial) amongst the many conspiracy theorists who love
to deride the SBT is truly the biggest mystery I've come across with
respect to the entire JFK murder case.
The CTers, quite obviously, just flat-out don't want to see the
logicality of the SBT; and that's because staunch CTers WANT bullet
CE399 to be a "planted" bullet, even though such a planted bullet is
idiotic from every POV, even any "plotters'" POV. Go figure.
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
>>> "Mr. Bugliosi has lost his mind." <<<
But at least your mind is as sharp and conspiracy-loving as ever,
right Devin?
Vince Bugliosi has spent 20 years rooting through all the evidence in
the JFK case and has had enough gray matter and common sense to not be
pulled into the bottomless pit of conspiracy quicksand and has relied
on the hard physical and circumstantial evidence in this case (which
all leads toward LHO).....and what does he get in return:
He gets some kook who says: "Mr. Bugliosi has lost his mind."
(To S.V. Anderson -- Can I use that "pot/kettle" thing twice in the
same comment? I think it's needed again here....so I think I will.
Thanks.)
(S.V., have you got some TUMS and aspirin you can spare? I'm all out
after wading through the above dreck authored by Devin.) ;)
justm...@gmail.com
> Unfortunately, we never seem to run low on conspiracy-loving
> nuthatches in this world (as evidenced by the inane comments presented
> by a CTer below).
>
> Hopefully, though, Mr. Bugliosi's sensational literary effort
> ("Reclaiming History") can quiet down at least a few of these kooks.
>
> (But, I will admit, that's doubtful. But a person can always hope,
> right?)
>
> =====================================
>
> FROM THE AMAZON.COM WEBSITE (RE. BUGLIOSI'S JFK BOOK):
>
> =====================================
>
Dave....
This Devin makes even Rossley look intelligent...how scarey is
that????
David Von Pein
On a related note......
I've been having a discussion with a devoted CTer via e-mail, and this
guy agrees that JFK had a large hole in the FRONT of his head...but he
thinks it's an ENTRY wound for a bullet.
When I offered up a mountain of provable evidence to support the fact
that the ONLY entry hole in JFK's head was at the BACK of his head,
the CTer in question totally ignored all of this evidence and resorted
back to "soft-nosed" bullets that can cause large, gaping ENTRY wounds
(and evidently no exit holes; at least in this instance).
The autopsy report, the WC, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the 3
autopsists' testimony (all talking about the "bevelling in" of the
entry wound at the back of the head, etc.) didn't faze Mr. Conspiracy
one bit. He wants his head shot from the front/knoll....so, by God,
that's what he's gonna believe. And to hell with the WC, the HSCA, the
autopsy report....etc.
Gotta love them kooks. (At least for a laugh anyway.)
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182903631....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> Unfortunately, we never seem to run low on conspiracy-loving
> nuthatches in this world (as evidenced by the inane comments presented
> by a CTer below).
>
> Hopefully, though, Mr. Bugliosi's sensational literary effort
> ("Reclaiming History") can quiet down at least a few of these kooks.
>
> (But, I will admit, that's doubtful. But a person can always hope,
> right?)
>
> =====================================
>
> FROM THE AMAZON.COM WEBSITE (RE. BUGLIOSI'S JFK BOOK):
>
what are you getting tired and sensitive in your old age? C'mon you
Lone Nut *adjective* abuser, whack job, you... daBugliosi needs you
around here ALL the time, he's sinking and fast....
When the hell are you going to debate the WCR -- you getting to be old
news David.... how do YOU spell B-O-R-I-N-G?
<snip the nonsense>
aeffects
>
> It just proves the point that the belief of a conspiracy in the murder
> of JFK is really a religion.
>
so Chuckie daShoe...if its a religion for the CTer, it's **OCCULT**
for you Lone Nut idiot sticks!
<snip the Lone Nut idiot stick nonsense>
David Von Pein
nothing....again.
What a surprise.
David Von Pein
most modern technological advances available in film and photography
could do what the buffs said was done {to the Zapruder Film} over four
decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been done back
then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC {National Photographic
Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.} was not equipped...to
duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which the Zapruder 8-
millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over 40 years, no
evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- VB; Pages 352 and
355 of Endnotes
================
DVP addendum: And I'm still waiting for a kooky "Z-Film alterationist"
to tell me (with a straight face) why on this Earth a band of
sophisticated film-fakers decided to alter the Zapruder movie and yet
NOT ALTER the very thing that spells out "conspiracy" to most people
viewing the movie -- i.e., THE REAR HEAD SNAP?
Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary
Moorman's shoes and socks to worry about such trivialities like that
head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was
probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in
the late 1970s)?
Or: Were the film-fakers just freaking idiots?!
Funny, the CTers (like Healy-MegaKook-Scumbag) who favor an "altered"
Z-Film never seem to say.
~shrug~
cdddraftsman
> ( Rossley snipped ) Like his nuts at birth !
>
>
> > And the high priest of mumbo jumbo , the fat fatwa king of bs
> > is none other than Rosslenuts the insane :
> > http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6btog1c
> > This is the America he remembers when he was a priest !
cdddraftsman
>
>
>
> > I think someone put the lid back on the manhole , he's gone .
> > .................tl
justm...@gmail.com
> On Jun 26, 10:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think someone put the lid back on the manhole , he's gone .
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well fellow LN'ers....if you looked like this group of CT's what more
could you do with your life but try and make other peoples lives
miserable??? Rossley, Healey, Chico, Ricland and Bennie the Dwarf...
http://i8.tinypic.com/4zml2qo.jpg[/IMG]
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182928988.4...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> "The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any of the
> most modern technological advances available in film and photography
> could do what the buffs said was done {to the Zapruder Film} over four
> decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been done back
> then. ....
David when you demonstrate any, ANY knowledge of film composition,
give me a call. As for daBugliosi, hell he lives in LA, I'm sure he
knows who will DO lunch.
> "But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC {National Photographic
> Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.} was not equipped...to
> duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which the Zapruder 8-
> millimeter home movie was.
you or daBugliosi suggesting researchers say it was duplicated at the
NPIC? How silly!
Over the course of well over 40 years, no
> evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- VB; Pages 352 and
> 355 of Endnotes
>
> ================
>
> DVP addendum: And I'm still waiting for a kooky "Z-Film alterationist"
> to tell me (with a straight face) why on this Earth a band of
> sophisticated film-fakers decided to alter the Zapruder movie and yet
> NOT ALTER the very thing that spells out "conspiracy" to most people
> viewing the movie -- i.e., THE REAR HEAD SNAP?
frankly, no Z-film alterationist (that I'm aware of) cares about the
headsnap! That's a Bugliosi idolators, *none conspiracy* problem
>
> Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary
> Moorman's shoes and socks to worry about such trivialities like that
> head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was
> probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in
> the late 1970s)?
more questions than you can shake a stick at, aren't there?
> Or: Were the film-fakers just freaking idiots?!
nah, you ready to take on the Z-131-32-33 issues
> Funny, the CTers (like Healy-MegaKook-Scumbag) who favor an "altered"
> Z-Film never seem to say.
mwaaaah? scumbag? LMFAO! Even Zavada and Fielding (you know who he is,
right?) begged off, big guy! -- only question remining: do I/we have
the time for your nonsense trivia.... btw, have you ever discussed the
evidence with anyone associated with the hearing[s]? Or are you just
peanut gallery noise?
> ~shrug~
visual don't work, Stump -- ask Fast Eddie Cage, now THERE is a
graphics expert..... ROTFLMFAO!
David Von Pein
I shall. And when you exhibit your first granule of CS&L, let ME know
too. Okay? Thanks.
>>> "You or daBugliosi suggesting researchers say it was duplicated at the NPIC? How silly!" <<<
OK. Where was it faked/phonied/altered? Zapruder's office at Jennifer
Juniors? Or did you let the fakers use your garage to do this delicate
work?
And: How did the film-fakers manage to get Zapruder and/or Schwartz to
just hand it over to them for altering? Did they knock them out and
swipe Mr. Z's camera and film? Or was Mr. Z a plotter too? (Just
curious.)
>>> "No Z-film alterationist (that I'm aware of) cares about the headsnap!" <<<
Yeah, why worry about the ONE thing in the whole movie that could look
"conspiratorial" to a layperson? After all, Moorman's shoes are MUCH
more critical.
Hilarious!
Somebody get the net (for Healy).
>>> "More questions than you can shake a stick at, aren't there?" <<<
You mean Moorman's shoes? And a cop's helmet "bands"? Those are things
that the fakers worried about, instead of that head snap?
Hilarious.
The net's moving closer....
>>> "You ready to take on the Z-131-32-33 issues." <<<
Ah yes. More needless "fakery/altering" in areas of the film when NO
GUNFIRE IS OCCURRING. Brilliant! (And hilarious, too, of course.)
>>> "Even Zavada and Fielding (you know who he is, right?)..." <<<
Nope. Sure don't. And I couldn't care less who he is. Because if he's
a "Z-Film Alterationist", he's not worth looking up. (Similar to your
net worth re. this case.)
>>> "Do I/we have the time for your nonsense trivia?" <<<
Probably not. You're too busy looking for ridiculous anomalies at Z133
and around Mary's shoelaces. That stuff is much more important than
finding any bullets (or finding the truth of the assassination).
And what about the "Altgens Shadow Angle"? Surely, THAT too is a sign
of "fakery". Right, kook?
Tell me the truth. You think that Ike Altgens' shadow looks kinda
"funny" on that Elm curb, don't you? That's GOTTA mean the film is
phony, doesn't it?
>>> "Have you ever discussed the evidence with anyone associated with the hearing[s]? Or are you just peanut gallery noise?" <<<
Nah, I deal mainly with Planters Nuts like Healy. Those nuts are much
more entertaining.
BTW, have you found those extra bullets yet? Tony Marsh told me he HAS
found them. He must be hiding them under his mattress (along with
Gordy Arnold's unseen film).
David Von Pein
now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film
were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what
took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of
people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....
"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the
assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved
to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; Pages 506-507 of "RH"
aeffects
> >>> "David when you demonstrate any, ANY knowledge of film composition, give me a call." <<<
>
> I shall. And when you exhibit your first granule of CS&L, let ME know
> too. Okay? Thanks.
>
> >>> "You or daBugliosi suggesting researchers say it was duplicated at the NPIC? How silly!" <<<
>
> OK. Where was it faked/phonied/altered? Zapruder's office at Jennifer
> Juniors? Or did you let the fakers use your garage to do this delicate
> work?
Your shucking and jiving already, David -- Are you aware there is HSCA
sworn testimony stating, at the NPIC frames were extracted from the
Zapruder Film for information boards.... Doesn't daBugliosi tell you
that....!
You're silly David.... perhaps you can redeem yourself and tell us
when the Zapruder film was shown to the Warren Commission? The date
and place FBI Agent Shaneyfelt number the film frames? I say late
February 1964.... In that amount of time I could cut a feature film of
about 90 minutes.... I think cutting a 20 second piece (in 3 months)
such as the Z-film would be a cinch...
btw, you need the grassy knoll more than we do :)
And, your limited knowledge (if any) of film compositing is showing
through, guy!
> And: How did the film-fakers manage to get Zapruder and/or Schwartz to
> just hand it over to them for altering? Did they knock them out and
> swipe Mr. Z's camera and film? Or was Mr. Z a plotter too? (Just
> curious.)
need none of that, David -- (as an aside, you should take a close
look at ole Abe, why he remained untouchable is a mystery, wasn't he a
White Russian?)
> >>> "No Z-film alterationist (that I'm aware of) cares about the headsnap!" <<<
>
> Yeah, why worry about the ONE thing in the whole movie that could look
> "conspiratorial" to a layperson? After all, Moorman's shoes are MUCH
> more critical.
>
> Hilarious!
still has you running in circles, doesn't it? LMAO
> Somebody get the net (for Healy).
>
> >>> "More questions than you can shake a stick at, aren't there?" <<<
>
> You mean Moorman's shoes? And a cop's helmet "bands"? Those are things
> that the fakers worried about, instead of that head snap?
>
> Hilarious.
now your sounding like that dolt Bill (there's something in the trees)
Miller
> The net's moving closer....
>
> >>> "You ready to take on the Z-131-32-33 issues." <<<
>
> Ah yes. More needless "fakery/altering" in areas of the film when NO
> GUNFIRE IS OCCURRING. Brilliant! (And hilarious, too, of course.)
get in the batter's box, you OR daBugliosi -- I'm here, he isn't and
YOU can't.....
> >>> "Even Zavada and Fielding (you know who he is, right?)..." <<<
>
> Nope. Sure don't. And I couldn't care less who he is. Because if he's
> a "Z-Film Alterationist", he's not worth looking up. (Similar to your
> net worth re. this case.)
my goodness, you do need to read my article, till you do you'r not
competent in discussing the issue
> >>> "Do I/we have the time for your nonsense trivia?" <<<
>
> Probably not. You're too busy looking for ridiculous anomalies at Z133
> and around Mary's shoelaces. That stuff is much more important than
> finding any bullets (or finding the truth of the assassination).
David, Zapruder states he didn't stop filming the Elm Street sequence,
the Z-film clearly shows a film stop down, WHY?
> And what about the "Altgens Shadow Angle"? Surely, THAT too is a sign
> of "fakery". Right, kook?
David, you really need to get educated, its a very easy to do.....
> Tell me the truth. You think that Ike Altgens' shadow looks kinda
> "funny" on that Elm curb, don't you? That's GOTTA mean the film is
> phony, doesn't it?
read the above
> >>> "Have you ever discussed the evidence with anyone associated with the hearing[s]? Or are you just peanut gallery noise?" <<<
>
> Nah, I deal mainly with Planters Nuts like Healy. Those nuts are much
> more entertaining.
the best the Nutters have on this board and you waste your time with
me, I'm impressed -- perhaps you can show what your made of and answer
those 45 questions (and the list is growing), eh? You don't think
we're going away do you?
> BTW, have you found those extra bullets yet? Tony Marsh told me he HAS
> found them. He must be hiding them under his mattress (along with
> Gordy Arnold's unseen film).
I don't know David, I'm still trying to figure out why a 6.5 round
ended up in a Dallas cop's pocket for a few day's -- just some
innocent faux pas, eh???? LMAO (besides, throwing around Tony's name
doesn't impress anyone around here. all you Nutter's sound the same
[the shrill is getting louder these days] some even willing to fall on
the Lone Nut/SBT sword)
aeffects
> "The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have
> now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film
> were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what
> took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of
> people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
> bearing on the president's murder. ....
c'mon now David -- I'm waiting for Vinny daMan to show his keyboard
here
> "The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the
> assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved
> to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
> height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
> silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
> palate?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; Pages 506-507 of "RH"
as is Vinnie's cowardly palate. He just can't screw up the courage to
debate -- He sends his minion David Von Pein (who knows nothing of the
subject matter) to protect his latest farce Reclaiming History....
When is that TV deal going to be completed? LMAO!
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182967106.8...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
I'd sooner watch grass grow. Although whatever your "article" says,
it's bound to be quite humorous.
>>> "The best the Nutters have on this board and you waste your time with me, I'm impressed -- perhaps you can show what your [sic] made of and answer those 45 questions..." <<<
Keep pretending that most of them haven't been addressed. It's a new
day, after all.
You are right about one thing though....you ARE a waste of time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
>>> "You don't think we're going away do you?" <<<
Nah. Just like taxes and gum on a shoe....the kooks are here to stay.
David Von Pein
Why weren't the film-fakers worried at all about the rear head snap?
Why did they leave that head snap in the finished "altered" film?
I'm just curious as to what your reasoning on this matter might be?
Thanks.
tomnln
The way these LN's Dodge evidence/testimony
The way these LN's "Speculate"
The way these LN's attack those who wanna address evidence/testimony
The way these LN's Denounce all Law officials as idiots is Discreacefull
Indicates that they ALL smoke cigarettes with NO WRITING on them.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182971931.7...@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
They FOUGHT releasing the Z film all the way up to the U S Supreme Court.
ALL the4 while, LYING about what the film showed.
"The head goes Forward with Considerable Violence".
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182972577.2...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Jun 26, 10:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any of the
>> most modern technological advances available in film and photography
>> could do what the buffs said was done {to the Zapruder Film} over four
>> decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been done back
>> then. ....
>
>David when you demonstrate any, ANY knowledge of film composition,
>give me a call. As for daBugliosi, hell he lives in LA, I'm sure he
>knows who will DO lunch.
>
>
>> "But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC {National Photographic
>> Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.} was not equipped...to
>> duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which the Zapruder 8-
>> millimeter home movie was.
>
>you or daBugliosi suggesting researchers say it was duplicated at the
>NPIC? How silly!
>
>
>Over the course of well over 40 years, no
>> evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- VB; Pages 352 and
>> 355 of Endnotes
>>
>> ================
>>
>> DVP addendum: And I'm still waiting for a kooky "Z-Film alterationist"
>> to tell me (with a straight face) why on this Earth a band of
>> sophisticated film-fakers decided to alter the Zapruder movie and yet
>> NOT ALTER the very thing that spells out "conspiracy" to most people
>> viewing the movie -- i.e., THE REAR HEAD SNAP?
Sad to say, the WC *DID NOT* view the "head-snap" as evidence of conspiracy. So
clearly, the implication that the head-snap by itself would be worrying to any
conspirators is silly.
So too is the *UNSPOKEN* problem that the troll here has... what was
*ORIGINALLY* on the film?
The evidence seems quite clear that the *ORIGINAL* Z-film would have shown
between 6-8 shots, and would have shown JFK slumping *forward*, as well as the
limo slowdown/stop.
In taking out the additional shots, and the limo slowdown/stop - the unintended
consequences were that the *SLOW* pulling back of JFK by Jackie was magnified
into a "head-snap".
But the troll won't have any coherent response to these facts...
>frankly, no Z-film alterationist (that I'm aware of) cares about the
>headsnap! That's a Bugliosi idolators, *none conspiracy* problem
Indeed it is! The problem posed by the "head-snap" does *NOT* fall on the
CT'ers side. It falls on those who believe that the Z-film is authentic.
>> Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary
>> Moorman's shoes and socks
They got them wrong, had they actually been worrying about it.
>> to worry about such trivialities like that
>> head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was
>> probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in
>> the late 1970s)?
>
>more questions than you can shake a stick at, aren't there?
And yet, the troll can't explain why the WC didn't see what Americans saw when
*they* saw the film.
>> Or: Were the film-fakers just freaking idiots?!
>
>nah, you ready to take on the Z-131-32-33 issues
There's far more than this, of course.
An entire book has been written on the problems of the extant Z-film.
But trolls and the "defenders of the faith" run in the opposite direction, or
simply lie, when the topic comes up.
>> Funny, the CTers (like Healy-MegaKook-Scumbag) who favor an "altered"
>> Z-Film never seem to say.
Actually, they do all the time... you just don't pay attention.
David Von Pein
My insert above says it all.
All Z-Film alterationists are some of the fruitiest of fruitcakes.
These "alterationist" kooks think that the band of film-forgers
wouldn't merely GET RID of the film they now have in THEIR OWN
POSSESSION, instead of jumping through incredible, complicated hoops
to "alter" the film and then allow it to get back into the hands of
non-conspirators. Silly beyond all belief.
Vince said it well (as usual) when he said......
"If we're to believe the theorists, it apparently never crossed the
minds of the alleged conspirators who killed Kennedy to simply get rid
of the evidence that could convict them. Unlike nearly all ordinary
conspirators, Kennedy's killers intentionally and knowingly left
evidence behind in the archives and the Warren Commission volumes that
could expose them -- evidence that only the conspiracists {aka, the
kooks} are smart and industrious enough to uncover." -- V. BUGLIOSI;
"RH"
>>> "And yet, the troll can't explain why the WC didn't see what Americans saw when *they* saw the film." <<<
The WC saw the rear head snap, you freakin' goofball. Of course they
SAW it. They had to have SEEN it, you idiot. But at the same time they
also knew that the incontrovertible evidence was that JFK was ONLY HIT
IN THE HEAD FROM BEHIND.
This undeniable, irrevocable FACT of Kennedy being struck in the head
only once and FROM BEHIND meant to the WC that the "head snap" was
meaningless when it came to determining the location from where that
shot originated.
Ergo, there's no need whatsoever to focus on a meaningless head snap
at all. And, therefore, they didn't dwell on it.
If more CT-Kooks could begin to think logically like the WC did, we'd
have fewer kooks. That's a certainty.
aeffects
David, David, DAVID -- all the pissing and moaning, the fawning over
Sir Vincent and his voluminous work, calling everyone under the sun
kooks, you're going to get might get nowhere.... A longtime ago I was
told when you gotta tear 'em apart by name calling, you're giving the
world a reflection of yourself... You've been attacking for weeks
(ever since the book tanked) give it a rest....
Listeneing to a Bugliosi interview he sounds like hell these day's....
So get real, get to the 45 questions then I'll take a look at Vinnie
daBug (after all what's another rewrite of the WCR?) -- till then, you
and HE (his Lordship Bugliosi) will flounder in CT hell, no way out
David -- there's no way OUT!
tomnln
Tell us WHY they put a black bar across the frames?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182986396.6...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
To give you kooks something to whine about maybe?
tomnln
Positively, it's Destruction of Evidence. a FELONY.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183002452.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...