FOR COWARD DAVID V P

tomnln

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 1:54:14 AM7/15/09

to

From: "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Book Review -- "With Malice"
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:21 PM

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:42bf1465-4075-4aa9...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> OK, LNers -- Tom's right! We'll have to drop all charges against
> Oswald because there are two different addresses listed for Tippit
> someplace.
>
> Somehow, per Tommy, the 2 addresses totally wipe out all the evidence
> against LHO.
>
> Damn.

Which of the Tippit "Evidence" do you want to discuss with me David????

http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

You didn't have the Guts to partake of the radio debate.

Maybe you'll have the guts to address evidence/testimony here in the
newsgroup??

I'mACooCy&ConspiracyNutts!

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 3:52:55 AM7/15/09

to

HAHAHAHA ! Rosstards Trounced By McAdam's In Radio Debate ....!

Rosstards was flapping his huge homo dripping lips so fast he neither
admitted his infamous fakery or admitted he was wrong on almost every
debated issue !

JFK Assassination Debate John McAdams vs. Tom Rossley pts 1 thru 11 :

Debate that took place on Sunday, April 5th, 2009 between Professor
John McAdams of Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and a
40+
year student of the Kennedy assassination Mr. Tom Rossley. Professor
McAdams takes the position that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone
gunman,
and thus part of no conspiracy. Mr. Rossley contends that Lee Oswald
was a patsy that did not even shoot President Kennedy, and that the
President was killed by a conspiracy that was covered up by our
national news media.

Whatch Rossley get caugth telling 'Big Whoppers' that include but are
not limited to :

a) The first person to reach the knoll raced behind it and
encountered SS agents per Rossley , when in fact Clyde Haygood was :
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/haygood.htm
and he wasn't even looking towards the grassy knoll when he arrived
there and no person on the triple overpass was redirecting his
attention towards the knoll per Rossley's own photo :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/rar.gif

AAMOF if you'd like this or many other discredited pieces of evidence
stated as fact go to :
www.whokilledjfk.net

b) The "parffin test was then and is now a reliable test to
determine if a person fired a firearm" per Rossley , when in fact
many
years previous the FBI sent memorandums to all law enforcement
agency's saying that the test provided false positives and false
negatives : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

You'll find that under :

'Bogus Evidence'
'Firarms Factoids'
on McAdam's Site :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm

.John : "A much longer list of firearms factoids is a veritable
cornucopia of bogus forensics principles" : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms.htm

Or if you'd like these 'bogus' 'firarms factoids' listed as fact go
to : www.whokilledjfk.net

c) The weird chin on LHO in the 'Backyarn Photo's' per Rossley ,
which was in fact not weird at all and under microscopic examination
of the negative proved it :
Photo Fakery
Dino A. Brugioni
A founder of the CIA's NPIC
(National Photographic Interpretation Center) .
Chapter : Spotting fakes :
Page : 89
"Microscopic Analysis : The photo fake detectives best friend is the
microscope . Detailed analysis of a negative can be conducted for
spurious line changes in the negative that would indicate photo
montaging . None were apparent in this photo of Lee Harvey Oswald" .

But I'm sure you'll find the opposite to be the case by going to non-
photo expert Rossley's web site : www.whokilledjfk.net were these and
thousands of other misrepresentations are presented as fact .

d) Many many others which are too numerous to to list here .....
but you can listen as Rossely is exposed by McAdam's telling 'Tall
Tale' after 'Tall Tale' which was undoubtedly a huge embarrassment to
Tom Rossley personally by clicking the links above . Of course when
exposed Rossley ignores or goes on to other 'Official Evidence and
Testimony' that further obfuscates the issue . Telltale sign of a JFK
Assassination Tragedy Conspiracy Hoaxer .

end ....

tl

----------
It is as alive as Norman Bates's mother. The CT's will never accept
the fact that it is dead. They will keep treating the corpse as if it
were still alive.

On Jul 15, 12:33 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> JFK Assassination Debate John McAdams vs. Tom Rossley pts 1 thru 11 :

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 6:35:52 AM7/15/09

to

> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:42bf1465-4075-4aa9...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > OK, LNers -- Tom's right! We'll have to drop all charges against
> > Oswald because there are two different addresses listed for Tippit
> > someplace.
>
> > Somehow, per Tommy, the 2 addresses totally wipe out all the evidence
> > against LHO.
>
> > Damn.

Which evidence was that David ?

The description of the Tippit shooter that didn't match Oswald ?

The broadcast descriptions of a weapon Oswald did not own ?

The ballistics test that could not positively link the bullets
recovered from Tippit's body to Oswald's handgun ?

The description of the man who slipped into the Texas Theater that did
not match the description of the Tippit shooter ?

The phony police lineups.....Oswald was placed in a lineup with
teenagers and a Mexican......how many witnesses described the murderer
as a teenager or a Mexican ?

Tells us what evidence you're speaking of......I know you're not
talking about eyewitnesses, because you've already stated how
unreliable their accounts are.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/617cf567207b9159

"Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum
situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence...." ( VINCENT
BUGLIOSI, 1986 )

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 7:31:52 AM7/15/09

to

On Jul 15, 1:54�am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> You didn't have the Guts to partake of the radio debate.
>
> Maybe you'll have the guts to address evidence/testimony here in the
> newsgroup??

He likes to refer to anyone who doesn't agree with him as "Mr. Kook".

Maybe we should start calling him "Mr. Chicken".

Bud

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 8:20:39 AM7/15/09

to

On Jul 15, 6:35 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:42bf1465-4075-4aa9...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > OK, LNers -- Tom's right! We'll have to drop all charges against
> > > Oswald because there are two different addresses listed for Tippit
> > > someplace.
>
> > > Somehow, per Tommy, the 2 addresses totally wipe out all the evidence
> > > against LHO.
>
> > > Damn.
>
> Which evidence was that David ?
>
> The description of the Tippit shooter that didn't match Oswald ?

Where did you get the retarded idea that the description should
match? Do you think it`s possible see a person briefly, and give a
description that matches that person?

> The broadcast descriptions of a weapon Oswald did not own ?

The only cop that saw the weapon Oswald used was Tippit, and he gave
no description of the weapon.

> The ballistics test that could not positively link the bullets
> recovered from Tippit's body to Oswald's handgun ?

The firing pin mark on the shells matched the firing pin on the gun
Oswald had in his possession. But, even if you throw out the
ballistics, there is still the fact that people saw him with a handgun
at the murder scene, and Oswald had a handgun on him when arrested.
What are the chances those two things could transpire if he wasn`t
there?

> The description of the man who slipped into the Texas Theater that did
> not match the description of the Tippit shooter ?

Again, "match" is a retard`s criteria.

> The phony police lineups.....Oswald was placed in a lineup with
> teenagers and a Mexican......how many witnesses described the murderer
> as a teenager or a Mexican ?

What difference could it make who was standing beside him in the
line-ups? The people were asked to select the person they saw. Many
said it was Oswald they saw.

> Tells us what evidence you're speaking of......I know you're not
> talking about eyewitnesses, because you've already stated how
> unreliable their accounts are.

Witness do show themselves to be fallible when it comes to relating
details. But one skill people have, because it is used hundreds of
times a day, is recognition.

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/617cf567207b...

>
> "Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum
> situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence...." ( VINCENT
> BUGLIOSI, 1986 )

Certainly, when hard evidence differs from information a witness
relates, the hard evidence should trump the witness. That does not
mean you throw out the information witnesses relate, you view it in
the proper context. Viewing information in the proper context is what
the WC did, and retarded kooks cannot.

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 10:16:02 AM7/15/09

to

On Jul 15, 8:20�am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>
> > Which evidence was that David ?
>
> > The description of the Tippit shooter that didn't match Oswald ?
>
> � Where did you get the retarded idea that the description should
> match? �Do you think it`s possible see a person briefly, and give a
> description that matches that person?

Then what's the point of broadcasting a description if it's not
accurate ?

Idiot.

YEAH BUD THE COPS ALWAYS PICK UP A GUY WHO DOESN'T MATCH THE
DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY WITNESSES.

>
> > The broadcast descriptions of a weapon Oswald did not own ?
>
> � The only cop that saw the weapon Oswald used was Tippit, and he gave
> no description of the weapon.

WRONG. Hill said the weapon was a 38 AUTOMATIC and broadcasted it as
such. Calloway described the weapon as a .32.

>
> > The ballistics test that could not positively link the bullets
> > recovered from Tippit's body to Oswald's handgun ?
>
> � The firing pin mark on the shells matched the firing pin on the gun
> Oswald had in his possession. But, even if you throw out the
> ballistics, there is still the fact that people saw him with a handgun
> at the murder scene, and Oswald had a handgun on him when arrested.
> What are the chances those two things could transpire if he wasn`t
> there?

YOU GOT PROOF THOSE SHELLS WERE AT 10TH AND PATTON AND THEY WEREN'T
FIRED BY THE DPD AFTER THE FACT ? JM Poe put his initials on the
shells at 10th and Patton but he couldn't find them on the shells in
"evidence".

> > The description of the man who slipped into the Texas Theater that did
> > not match the description of the Tippit shooter ?
>
> � Again, "match" is a retard`s criteria.

WRONG..."MATCH" IS WHAT SENDS 26 POLICE OFFICERS TO RESPOND TO A
THEATER WHERE A GUY SNEAKS IN WITHOUT PAYING.

> > The phony police lineups.....Oswald was placed in a lineup with
> > teenagers and a Mexican......how many witnesses described the murderer
> > as a teenager or a Mexican ?
>
> � What difference could it make who was standing beside him in the
> line-ups? The people were asked to select the person they saw. Many
> said it was Oswald they saw.

YOU CAN'T SEE THE "LEADING" OF THE WITNESSES BY DISPLAYING CHILDREN
WITH AN ADULT ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskQDYovBGs

ROFLMAO

> > Tells us what evidence you're speaking of......I know you're not
> > talking about eyewitnesses, because you've already stated how
> > unreliable their accounts are.
>
> � Witness do show themselves to be fallible when it comes to relating
> details. But one skill people have, because it is used hundreds of
> times a day, is recognition.
>

AND HOW DO WITNESSES "RECOGNIZE" SOMEONE WITHOUT REMEMBERING DETAILS ?

> � Certainly, when hard evidence differs from information a witness

> relates, the hard evidence should trump the witness. That does not
> mean you throw out the information witnesses relate, you view it in
> the proper context. Viewing information in the proper context is what
> the WC did, and retarded kooks cannot.

AND THE INFORMATION THEY DIDN'T VIEW ?

How embarrassing.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 10:46:22 AM7/15/09

to

>>> "Maybe you'll have the guts to address evidence/testimony here in the newsgroup??" <<<

Yeah, that would be quite new for me, huh? It's not like I've EVER
discussed the "evidence" in the case before now on the NGs (including
the Tippit murder at great length, at the link below), huh?

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

BTW, Tom Rossley is one of the looniest of loony-toons you'll ever run
across.

And what makes Rossley DOUBLY loony is the fact that he's a VERY
FORGETFUL loony toon/kook.

Example:

Just yesterday, Rossley again was urging John McAdams to get a copy of
all 26 Warren Commission volumes. Rossley's exact words to McAdams
were -- "You Really need the 26 Volumes." (T.Rossley; 07/14/09;
original post linked below)

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/804c2e7455a6f8c7

Rossley The Retard, however, KNOWS full well that nobody needs to own
the PHYSICAL "26 volumes" of the WC in order to still see and read
those 26 volumes. And that's because every single page of all 26 books
is available for free online:

http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_wc.htm

And the same goes for the 13 total volumes of the HSCA (including its
Final Report).

And Rossley has certainly been reminded of the fact that his comments
like "You really need the 26 volumes" are stupid comments in this
Internet age we live in. But even after being reminded about such
online availability of the various Government documents, Rossley still
writes this to Professor McAdams on July 14, 2009:

"You Really need the 26 Volumes."

In fact, just one day after Rossley's radio debate with John McAdams,
I wrote this to Tom R.:

"Why would John [McAdams] (or anyone) need the PHYSICAL VOLUMES
themselves, Tom? I don't own a set of the physical volumes either. The
27 WC volumes (including the 888-page Warren Report itself) are
available for free all over the Internet...and (for a very small
price) are also available on CD-ROM. (I got my CD copy last year from
Rich DellaRosa's website; a good deal too.) .... So possessing the
physical VOLUMES themselves is totally unnecessary, and you (Tom) must
surely know it's unnecessary in today's "Internet" age." -- DVP; April
6, 2009

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/da2fd1462b5a19c9

And it's pretty much the same "forgetful" scenario when it comes to
anything else relating to the events of November 22, 1963 -- i.e.,

1.) Rossley says something stupid about "conspiracy" that was debunked
or destroyed YEARS ago.

2.) An LNer points out to Rossley that his "conspiracy" point is
worthless and has been trashed in the past.

3.) After a couple of new moon cycles or a few new sunrises, Rossley
decides to rehash the same tired, already-refuted conspiracy points
that he posted a short time previously.

And there's no better example of this kind of never-ending "CT vs. LN"
merry-go-round cycle of discredited nonsense than the topic of J.D.
Tippit's murder.

Because anyone who can look at the TOTALITY of evidence against Lee
Oswald in the Tippit murder and still constantly rehash the "LHO Was
Innocent And/Or Framed" mantra is a person who simply doesn't want to
find the truth and WANTS Oswald to be innocent (despite the evidence
to the contrary).

tomnln

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 12:16:12 PM7/15/09

to

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a47b802c-7590-4dcb...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOST appropriate is>>> "KOOK-SUCKER"
(sorry 'bout the typo)

tomnln

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 12:38:07 PM7/15/09

to

David Von Pain(in the ass) thinks that "DENIAL" is the same as 'Debunked".

Comparable to any Junkie's Denials.

David Von Pain (in the ass) thinks the Internet has been around for 45 Years
!

David Von Pain (in the ass) is a KOOK-SUCKER !
(sorry 'bout the typo)

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:bdb5552c-fb74-4200...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 1:39:59 PM7/15/09

to

On Jul 15, 10:30 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David Von [Pein, my main LN dude] thinks the Internet has been around for 45 Years! <<<
>
> Good! Another stupid comment from a retardo.
>
> I guess Rossley thinks that even though every page of the WC volumes
> is available online today, this still means that everyone needs to own
> the physical 26 volumes too.
>
> What a kook.

I like this header subject title, what-say-you, troll? And remember no
free advertising....

Message has been deleted

tomnln

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 1:54:13 PM7/15/09

to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:77c59476-1aa2-428c...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>>>> "David Von [Pein, my main LN dude] thinks the Internet has been around
>>>> for 45 Years! <<<
>
> Good! Another stupid comment from a retardo.
>
> I guess Rossley thinks that even though every page of the WC volumes
> is available online today, this still means that everyone needs to own
> the physical 26 volumes too.
>
> What a kook.

From a KOOK-SUCKER who refuses to debate.

http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm

He even RAN from a radio debate

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 1:56:29 PM7/15/09

to

aeffects

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 1:59:44 PM7/15/09

to

we still like this one better, shithead.....

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 2:12:01 PM7/15/09

to

OOOO....OOOO.......let me play.

I like this one.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 2:13:23 PM7/15/09

to

aeffects

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 2:44:35 PM7/15/09

to

why is DVP/Reitzes afraid to meet his public? Curious!

tomnln

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 8:55:50 PM7/15/09

to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:a8aaca89-f5a1-4019...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pain (in the ass) thinks the WC's 26 Volumes were "On-Line" since
1964.

What a KOOK-SUCKER ! ! !
(sorry 'bout the typo)

Bud

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 10:40:38 PM7/15/09

to

On Jul 15, 10:16 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jul 15, 8:20 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Which evidence was that David ?
>
> > > The description of the Tippit shooter that didn't match Oswald ?
>
> > Where did you get the retarded idea that the description should
> > match? Do you think it`s possible see a person briefly, and give a
> > description that matches that person?
>
> Then what's the point of broadcasting a description if it's not
> accurate ?
>
> Idiot.

<snicker> How the fuck would the police know whether the
descriptions witnesses give them are acurate, retard? Catch the person
first and compare it to the information the witness supplied?

> YEAHBUDTHE COPS ALWAYS PICK UP A GUY WHO DOESN'T MATCH THE
> DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY WITNESSES.

Perhaps they realize what you don`t, that people who see other
people briefly don`t necessarily give a description that is a perfect
match of the person they saw. It does help refine the search, if the
witness says the suspect is a fat, bald black man, they can disregard
a good portion of the general population. I thought you were a cop,
shouldn`t you be aware of these very fundamental aspects of police
work?

> > > The broadcast descriptions of a weapon Oswald did not own ?
>
> > The only cop that saw the weapon Oswald used was Tippit, and he gave
> > no description of the weapon.
>
> WRONG. Hill said the weapon was a 38 AUTOMATIC and broadcasted it as
> such.

Did he see the gun, retard?

>Calloway described the weapon as a .32.

Is he a cop, retard?

Reread what I wrote and try again.

> > > The ballistics test that could not positively link the bullets
> > > recovered from Tippit's body to Oswald's handgun ?
>
> > The firing pin mark on the shells matched the firing pin on the gun
> > Oswald had in his possession. But, even if you throw out the
> > ballistics, there is still the fact that people saw him with a handgun
> > at the murder scene, and Oswald had a handgun on him when arrested.
> > What are the chances those two things could transpire if he wasn`t
> > there?
>
> YOU GOT PROOF THOSE SHELLS WERE AT 10TH AND PATTON AND THEY WEREN'T
> FIRED BY THE DPD AFTER THE FACT ?

Do you have proof you aren`t retarded?

>JM Poe put his initials on the
> shells at 10th and Patton but he couldn't find them on the shells in
> "evidence".

Yah, that is a strong indication that the DPD didn`t manufacture
this evidence later, because if they had, they would have had Poe
initial it.

> > > The description of the man who slipped into the Texas Theater that did
> > > not match the description of the Tippit shooter ?
>
> > Again, "match" is a retard`s criteria.
>
> WRONG..."MATCH" IS WHAT SENDS 26 POLICE OFFICERS TO RESPOND TO A
> THEATER WHERE A GUY SNEAKS IN WITHOUT PAYING.

Only a kook would criticize success, that is where the cop`s
murderer was captured. But you have produced nothing to show that it
was a match of the description that sent the cops there.

> > > The phony police lineups.....Oswald was placed in a lineup with
> > > teenagers and a Mexican......how many witnesses described the murderer
> > > as a teenager or a Mexican ?
>
> > What difference could it make who was standing beside him in the
> > line-ups? The people were asked to select the person they saw. Many
> > said it was Oswald they saw.
>
> YOU CAN'T SEE THE "LEADING" OF THE WITNESSES BY DISPLAYING CHILDREN
> WITH AN ADULT ?

Again, what difference does it make who is in the line-up? They were
there to select the man they saw. Many selected Oswald as the person
they saw. You have nothing to back up your contention that this
selection was made because of the other people present in the line-
ups.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskQDYovBGs
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> > > Tells us what evidence you're speaking of......I know you're not
> > > talking about eyewitnesses, because you've already stated how
> > > unreliable their accounts are.
>
> > Witness do show themselves to be fallible when it comes to relating
> > details. But one skill people have, because it is used hundreds of
> > times a day, is recognition.
>
> AND HOW DO WITNESSES "RECOGNIZE" SOMEONE WITHOUT REMEMBERING DETAILS ?

Do you really know so little that I have to take you by the hand
and explain something to you that you have done all your life? If you
walk into a store that has a hundred people in it, with 99 that are
unfamiliar to you, and one person you know, how do you suppose you
recognize that one person you know? By what they are wearing? By how
tall they are? "Hey, that person is 5-11, just like Bob, it must be
Bob"? You don`t recognize people by the details, you recognize by
noting familiar features about that person. How close their eyes are
together, how they carry themselves when they walk, ect. These
identifications are made on a subconscious level, there isn`t a
checklist of details you check off when you see them. That is why it
is so very, very difficult to give a description of someone, even
someone you know well. Try it, pick someone you`ve seen a thousand
times, and write up a description of them. It isn`t easy. Now, imagine
seeing someone briefly during a traumatic experience. Really tough to
give a verbal description. But not that difficult, if you see a person
later, to make the determination that that is the person you saw
previously. You kooks seem to have no real-world experience to draw
from to apply to this case. You really are the worst people imaginable
to attempt any kind of meaningful investigation.

> > Certainly, when hard evidence differs from information a witness
> > relates, the hard evidence should trump the witness. That does not
> > mean you throw out the information witnesses relate, you view it in
> > the proper context. Viewing information in the proper context is what
> > the WC did, and retarded kooks cannot.
>
> AND THE INFORMATION THEY DIDN'T VIEW ?

Well, of course being a retard, you would have had them disregard
the people who said they saw Oswald kill people, and instead focus on
that which doesn`t exist.

> How embarrassing.

tomnln

unread,

Jul 15, 2009, 11:18:14 PM7/15/09

to

Until you can name the exact witness and, exact Law Enforcement officer.....

There was NO description from any witness of the shooter.

S S Agent Sorrels didn't return to the TSBD for at least 20/25 minutes.

Inspector Sawyer's witness had NO clothing description when asked by the
Dispatcher.

Brennan testified to the shooter wearing a light colored shirt with Lighter
trousers.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan.htm

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sorrels.htm

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/inspector_sawyer_____volume_vi.htm

Warren Commission LIED !

You LIED !

Official Records PROVE It !

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:63f5ccf5-f2c8-4388...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

timstter

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 1:35:43 AM7/16/09

to

Me too, Bald Verm!

LMFAO Regards,

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

tomnln

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 2:03:40 AM7/16/09

to

"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0d2b3e8-b7b1-4cc1...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Me too, Bald Verm!

LMFAO Regards,

Timmy/Rob went Bald from rubbin his head against a Lotta guys' Belt Buckles.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 7:47:38 AM7/16/09

to

On Jul 16, 2:03�am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> Timmy/Rob went Bald from rubbin his head against a Lotta guys' Belt Buckles.
>
> SEE>>> �

> http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm

oh my

Bud

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 8:56:55 AM7/16/09

to

On Jul 15, 11:18 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Until you can name the exact witness and, exact Law Enforcement officer.....
>
> There was NO description from any witness of the shooter.

Of course there was, Tom, a description was broadcast over police
radio.

> S S Agent Sorrels didn't return to the TSBD for at least 20/25 minutes.

Who was following him with a watch timing his movements?

> Inspector Sawyer's witness had NO clothing description when asked by the
> Dispatcher.

Perhaps Brennan was reluctant to give one because he wasn`t
confident of these details. Perhaps he was pressed by police to
provide these details, and he gave his best guess, and offered
impressions instead of actual observations he was sure of. Perhaps
simple, mundane explanations are are more likely than complex,
imaginary conspiracies.

> Brennan testified to the shooter wearing a light colored shirt with Lighter
> trousers.

Likely Oswald was wearing a light colored top while he was shooting.
People in the building reported seeing him in a light colored top.
That information is in the official records, you can look it up.

> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sorrels.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/inspector_sawyer_____volume_vi.htm
>
> Warren Commission LIED !

They came to the correct conclusion, that Oswald killed both Kennedy
and Tippit.

> You LIED !

I never said you weren`t retarded.

> Official Records PROVE It !

They prove Oswald murdered some people. No other possibility exists.

> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message

Gil Jesus

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 9:25:21 AM7/16/09

to

On Jul 16, 8:56�am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> � Likely Oswald was wearing a light colored top while he was shooting.

> People in the building reported seeing him in a light colored top.

> That information is in the official records, you can look it up.

IT'S NOT IN THE WC TESTIMONY, I SEARCHED.

I keep asking you for the citation and you keep running.

When you make an assertion it's YOUR responsibility to include the
citation.

In previous posts, you've said that the descriptions of a shooter in a
light colored shirt.....

"Possible description of him in his t-shirt, though"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b36dc19ce9841bd

POSSIBLE ??? POSSIBLE????

Where's the evidence ?

Since when is a t-shirt a shirt that is "open at the neck" ?

STOP BSing PEOPLE AND POST THE EVIDENCE.

tomnln

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 3:10:19 PM7/16/09

to

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW

"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fae7m.3570$9P...@newsfe08.iad...

>
> From: "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: Book Review -- "With Malice"
> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:21 PM
>
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:42bf1465-4075-4aa9...@q35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> OK, LNers -- Tom's right! We'll have to drop all charges against
>> Oswald because there are two different addresses listed for Tippit
>> someplace.
>>
>> Somehow, per Tommy, the 2 addresses totally wipe out all the evidence
>> against LHO.
>>
>> Damn.
>
>
>
>

> Which of the Tippit "Evidence" do you want to discuss with me David????
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

>
>
> You didn't have the Guts to partake of the radio debate.
>

Bud

unread,

Jul 16, 2009, 3:15:25 PM7/16/09

to

On Jul 16, 9:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:56 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Likely Oswald was wearing a light colored top while he was shooting.
> > People in the building reported seeing him in a light colored top.
> > That information is in the official records, you can look it up.
>
> IT'S NOT IN THE WC TESTIMONY, I SEARCHED.

I told you who said it, retard. Look it up.

> I keep asking you for the citation and you keep running.
>
> When you make an assertion it's YOUR responsibility to include the
> citation.

I have no such responsibility.

> In previous posts, you've said that the descriptions of a shooter in a
> light colored shirt.....
>
> "Possible description of him in his t-shirt, though"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b36dc19ce9841bd
>
> POSSIBLE ??? POSSIBLE????
>
> Where's the evidence ?

Reed`s testimony. Jarman`s testimony. Brennan`s testimony.

> Since when is a t-shirt a shirt that is "open at the neck" ?

Who said they were the same, idiot? Let me ask you this, if a
description was given for someone who robbed a store, and the
description said the person was wearing blue shorts, and the police
found a man wearing blue boxer shorts, do you suppose he would be left
go based on this discrepancy in the description.

Your whole argument is based on a faulty assumption, that if a
witness says he saw a person briefly wearing an article of clothing,
they must get this article of clothing correct. You offer nothing to
support your assumption.

> STOP BSing PEOPLE AND POST THE EVIDENCE.

Say please.

timstter

unread,

Jul 17, 2009, 1:15:45 AM7/17/09

to

Oh my, that looked like a VERY nasty and unchristian sentiment that
religious hypocrite Gil *Bald Vermin* Jesus appeared to agree with
there.

Gil, do you find tomnln to be a devout kind of fellow? Looks like you
quite liked his post!

Posted to any religious newsgroups lately, trying to attract young
followers, you religious hypocrite?

Concerned Regards,

tomnln

unread,

Jul 17, 2009, 1:02:34 PM7/17/09

to

"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:94717d7a-a046-48e6...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Concerned Regards,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timmy got TIRED of gettin her Ass Kicked over the Oswald Dwarf.

Timmy's still looking for the Oswald who was....
5 foot 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds

Spoke "Broken Russian"

see>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------