JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 111)

On Sep 20, 10:06�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 111):
>
> ======================================================
>

> JFK'S ASSASSINATION--AS IT HAPPENED:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...

>
> LISTEN TO A CONSPIRACY THEORIST MANGLE THE EVIDENCE:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc4b5a76c755b21a
>
> SEVENTEEN "HACKS"?:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0882e6bb04e790b0
>

> DR. LATTIMER:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9c6be063ef6a...

>
> EXIT WOUND:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a70b6f4f76c870e1
>
> THE ILLOGIC OF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea5556194f340f6b
>

> 36 INCHES VS. 40 INCHES:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84a384ad91233090http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/68108eeaa89b77c7http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3d5ac1832edfa1d1
>
> "CARBINE":http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/52958c55882255b7
>
> SERIAL NUMBER "C2766":http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/957e27e804442efchttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/62817a46c82f653b

>
> ADDITIONAL RIFLE TALK:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8fbf50ec88d0985bhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d54026b3c75974f2
>

> MORE STUFF:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae8062f300836145http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae4089c124c070dehttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/40130aed516861e9http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f2ef0e4707c59e0http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d9df40aa84fd...
>
> ======================================================

DAMAGE CONTROL............DAMAGE CONTROL...............DAMAGE
CONTROL......

ROFLMAO

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 9:49:42 PM9/28/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f5b0f29f2e83e57e

>>> "Not only do I believe it [I.E., A BUNCH OF UTTER NONSENSE ABOUT HOW EVERYBODY AND HIS BROTHER WAS TRYING TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD FOR BOTH PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S AND OFFICER TIPPIT'S MURDERS IN NOVEMBER 1963], I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN THE [LONE-ASSASSIN] THEORY YOU EMBRACE." <<<

Just when I thought my fits of laughter had ceased after reading
Zachary's last hilarious post, Zach Burgundy provides some additional
bladder-busting commentary with the above quote.

IOW, to "Burgundy", it makes a lot "MORE SENSE" to believe that a
large (or even small) number of "plotters" were manipulating poor Lee
Harvey than it does to believe that Lee Harvey HIMSELF would have done
what all of the evidence says he did do (i.e., kill 2 men in Dallas in
Nov. '63).

Is that about the size of your topsy-turvy stance, Burgundy?

If so, I'm wondering what dictionary Burgundy uses for his definition
of "sense"? It's certainly not Webster's, that's for sure:

SENSE -- Sound mental capacity and understanding typically
marked by shrewdness and practicality.

www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/sense

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 10:30:25 PM9/28/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c97b74db982331f9/a2192afd32fd44c2?#a2192afd32fd44c2

>>> "David your "2d vs. 3d argument" is nonsensical. This argument only makes sense when people are comparing items seen at different angles, not when comparing objects seen at similar angles in photo recreations." <<<

LOL. Nice try at damage control there, Pat. But you are still dead
wrong.

You don't know the exact distance from the camera in either one of the
two "bag" photos that you're using for comparison purposes (including
a picture of CE142), so how can you possibly think you can PROVE that
the two bags are totally different bags via measurements obtained in
such a willy-nilly photo comparison?

www.patspeer.com/mosdef.jpg/mosdef-full.jpg

aeffects

unread,

Sep 28, 2009, 11:35:06 PM9/28/09

to

On Sep 28, 7:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c97b7...

>
> >>> "David your "2d vs. 3d argument" is nonsensical. This argument only makes sense when people are comparing items seen at different angles, not when comparing objects seen at similar angles in photo recreations." <<<
>
> LOL. Nice try at damage control there, Pat. But you are still dead
> wrong.
>
> You don't know the exact distance from the camera in either one of the
> two "bag" photos that you're using for comparison purposes (including
> a picture of CE142), so how can you possibly think you can PROVE that
> the two bags are totally different bags via measurements obtained in
> such a willy-nilly photo comparison?
>
> www.patspeer.com/mosdef.jpg/mosdef-full.jpg

and you troll, can't even find Dealey Plaza with a fucking map.... who
the hell are you trying to kid here, moron?

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 29, 2009, 7:52:47 PM9/29/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c97b74db982331f9/508af0cd8ba9f449?#508af0cd8ba9f449

>>> "Typical for a WC defender you [John McAdams] fail to separate the conspiracy to murder from the cover-up." <<<

Here we have another absurd statement from the e-lips of Anthony Marsh
(despite the silly words about "World War 3" that Tony wrote just
after I cut him off above).

So, now we can add this incredible coincidence to Marsh's list of
things that he apparently thinks actually happened:

There was a PRE-assassination "conspiracy" to frame Lee Harvey
Oswald.....and then immediately after JFK's murder, all of the
authorities (from the DPD on up to the Chief Justice and the entire
WC) decided they ALSO wanted to frame the VERY SAME PATSY that the
pre-11/22 plotters were attempting to frame.

That's not just a coincidence among TWO totally-separate groups of
plotters/cover-uppers --- that's a miracle!

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 29, 2009, 8:03:45 PM9/29/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a9c1d542fd4b1a28/b70fa8ef2596b6a7?#b70fa8ef2596b6a7

>>> "I am tired of LNers claiming Oswald was an expert shot." <<<

No LNer that I know of has ever made such a silly claim (and Tom
Purvis doesn't count, because he's really a CTer, of course). Why are
you overstating Oswald's classification with a rifle?

The long and the short of it is this --- Lee Oswald was a GOOD-ENOUGH
shot to get the job done in Dallas on 11/22/63.

And he only hit the "target" (JFK's cranium) 33% of the time with his
3 shots. Is a 1-for-3 performance with a rifle supposed to be
considered an "expert" performance? On the baseball field--yes. In the
Sniper's Nest--no.

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 16, 2009, 5:58:57 AM11/16/09

to

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1374.msg18975.html#msg18975

>>> "David....any thoughts on Benevides [sic] interview?" <<<

I've seen Domingo Benavides' 1967 interview with Eddie Barker on CBS-
TV (many times). And, yes, a grain of salt needs to be consumed when
watching Benavides positively identify Lee Oswald as Officer Tippit's
killer 3.5 years after the event.

Benavides goes on to tell Barker and the CBS audience that (as of
mid-1967) he has no doubt at all that it was, indeed, Oswald who shot
Tippit, with Domingo adding (paraphrasing): "I could even tell you how
he combed his hair and if he had a scar. You don't forget things like
that."

So, yes, take Benavides' 1967 CBS-TV comments with a grain of salt (a
whole barrel of salt if you want to), since the same witness seemed
pretty sure that he would not have been able to identify Tippit's
killer back in '63.

But, at the same time, also keep in mind the OTHER things that Domingo
Benavides saw (and did) on November 22, 1963 -- such as: seeing
Tippit's killer dump empty bullet shells from his gun as he ran toward
the corner of Tenth & Patton (which is shell-ejecting activity that is
corroborated by multiple other eyewitnesses).

And the fact that Benavides was fearful that the police would not find
those shells, so Domingo himself went to the corner and picked up two
of the shells and put them in an empty Winston cigarette package.
(Benavides later said on the same 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report" special
that he had picked up three shells, which was an obvious error,
because those were the "Poe" shells that conspiracy theorists love to
argue about so much, and we know there were only TWO "Poe" shells.)

More of my thoughts about Benavides' 1967 TV comments:

My guess is that Domingo Benavides had convinced himself that Tippit's
killer was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald, based partly on actually
seeing Oswald shoot Tippit, but possibly even more on the fact that he
had seen Oswald on TV and in the newspapers many times after November
22.

We must also keep in mind that Benavides told the Warren Commission in
1964 that Tippit's murderer "resembled" Oswald:

DAVID BELIN -- "You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man
was Oswald?"

DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a
guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald."

Now, we can argue from now until doomsday about whether Benavides
himself actually believed that the man he saw shoot Officer Tippit was
really Lee Harvey Oswald.

But I'm not too sure that Benavides' 1967 "positive identification" of
Oswald should be entirely overlooked either. It's a bit of a strange
situation, in that we have a witness who told the police on 11/22/63
that he didn't think he would be able to make a positive
identification of Tippit's killer (which could have simply been a case
of Benavides being scared to death at the time, so he hedged on
telling the police the full truth about Tippit's slayer), and
therefore Benavides was never taken downtown to view any of the police
lineups. Maybe Domingo WOULD have picked Oswald out of a lineup in
November 1963. But we'll never know whether he would have or not.

But then more than three years later, the same witness confidently
tells a CBS-TV audience that he was absolutely positive that Tippit's
shooter was Lee Oswald, with Benavides going so far as to say that he
could even tell us how Oswald "combed his hair", etc.

So, given the circumstances, it is difficult to know for certain
whether Benavides' positive IDing of Oswald in 1967 was derived
entirely from Benavides' memory of SEEING OSWALD HIMSELF on 11/22/63,
or a combination of seeing the shooter and the later TV/newspaper
accounts. Nobody can ever know for sure.

But even without an "official" identification of Oswald by Benavides,
there is still ample physical (and witness) evidence to hang Lee
Oswald for Tippit's slaying.

As Vincent Bugliosi is likely to say: WHEN YOU'RE CAPTURED WITH THE
MURDER WEAPON ON YOU WITHIN 35 MINUTES OF THE SHOOTING, THAT'S THE END
OF THE BALLGAME! YOU'RE GUILTY AS SIN!*

* = The above argument being similar in style to Vincent's compelling
argument regarding O.J. Simpson's obvious guilt in the 1994 murders of
Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman -- "WHEN YOUR BLOOD IS FOUND AT THE
MURDER SCENE, THAT'S THE END OF THE BALLGAME! THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO
SAY!"

>>> "In another thread...Will Fritz...was described as master interrogator. .... [D.A. Henry] Wade said to the press...that he did not think Oswald would confess. Strange with all the weight of evidence, and Fritz's reputation that he was certain he woudn't confess. Don't you think?" <<<

No, I don't think that's strange at all. That was merely Henry Wade's
own personal opinion about Oswald. Nothing more.

I, too, don't think Oswald would have ever confessed. He was going to
let the cops and the courts convict him. But he certainly wasn't going
to give them any help at all. Ever. (IMO.)

As he told the police shortly after he was arrested (paraphrasing) --
"You're the cops. You figure it out."

www.Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 5:38:26 AM11/17/09

to

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1391.msg19075.html#msg19075

>>> "It was Oswald who supplied the rifle but was a lousy shot (Walker) and Dougherty who fired from the 6th floor." <<<

Yeah, why go where all the evidence leads (to Oswald), when you can
blame an innocent bystander (Jack Dougherty) instead?

~sigh~

www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Nov 17, 2009, 1:37:32 PM11/17/09

to

On Nov 17, 2:38 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising troll, you know the rules......