Rossley debates John McAdams!
Chuck Schuyler
John McAdams announces that TOM ROSSLEY was the guy Detroit radio host
Anton Batey was putting up for debate! David Von Pein--you should've
taken Batey up on the offer to "debate" Tom!
Here's the text from John McAdam's thread:
I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey
to
debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
take a pro-conspiracy position.
When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
debater was Rossley!
It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
aeffects
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/
a real debate between John McAdams and Greg Burnham -- been on the net
for years, now you troll on back to those insurance products you line
your pockets with, we'll take it from here....
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
I wonder if Rossley drooled on the microphone.
tomnln
David didn't think his position was defensible.
How about you?
Would you care to take up the fallen LN'r banner of your Leaders???
Maybe McAdams & I can arrange for YOU to debate me.
Do you wanna be a "pinch-hitter"?
GOD knows you ain't a "First Team'r".
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:475db7b9-2ee2-42e2...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53a6407c-b95f-4969...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
BIGDOG WROTE;
I wonder if Rossley drooled on the microphone.
I write;
Why don't you "Pinch-Hit" for McAdams next time there's a debate?
Considering that you're NOT on the starting team.
Maybe my good friend McAdams & I can arrange that for you.
Are ya up to it Bunky????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aeffects
> Hey chuckie;
>
> David didn't think his position was defensible.
maybe Kevin can tell the world what a 'derivative' is.... eh,
Chuckles?
Chuck Schuyler
> Hey chuckie;
>
> David didn't think his position was defensible.
That's not what he said, liar.
>
> How about you?
I'd embarrass you. I honestly hope McAdams took it easy on you,
because you're actually rather pathetic.
>
> Would you care to take up the fallen LN'r banner of your Leaders???
Only in your shriveled, twisted alzheimer-racked mind is there an LN
banner that has 'fallen', like some sort of American Civil War flag on
a battlefield or something. You're an old wheelchair bound, colostomy
bag burdened d*ckhead.
>
> Maybe McAdams & I can arrange for YOU to debate me.
Tom, I know what I'm writing is a bit above you, and I know you
disagree, but you're not actually worthy of a serious debate. You're
just not very important or knowledgeable. You're a kook. You deserve
pity. Same goes for Healy, robcap, Walt, Holmes, Gil, Laz and rest of
the misfits that think they are actually contributing something to a
murder that happened 45 years ago.
>
> Do you wanna be a "pinch-hitter"?
I hear you're a switch-hitter.
>
> GOD knows you ain't a "First Team'r".
I know I'm not. You're deluded and think you are. That's the
difference.
David Von Pein
Without even hearing the radio debate, there can be no question as to
who the victor was/is -- Mr. McAdams.
How can we know?
Simple -- Because there is no CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for conspiracy in the
JFK case...period.
Thus, Lee Oswald was the lone shooter in Dallas.
It's hilarious to hear Rossley thumping his chest, when there isn't
even the slimmest of chances that ANY debate about the JFK case could
result in the "CTer" coming out smelling like a rose. (And, yes, I can
say this without even hearing a single word of the radio debate in
question.)
When I was asked by Anton Batey last week on the IMDB forum to
participate in his radio debate, I asked Anton this question:
"And how far out in left field is the conspiracy theorist who
will be on your show? (If his name is Brian David Andersen, you've got
a problem, Anton.)"
Anton's answer was:
"The conspiracy theorist isn't THAT far out. He obviously thinks
there was a second gunman in the knoll area, and thinks the evidence
weas covered up."
I'm thinking perhaps Anton might have been better off with Brian "JFK
WASN'T KILLED AT ALL" Andersen. :)
Here's my correspondence with Anton from last week:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa8725ff91816274
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9efb060816bb96e5
tomnln
On Apr 6, 1:05 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hey chuckie;
>
> David didn't think his position was defensible.
That's not what he said, liar.
DAVID REFUSED THE INVITATION TO DEBATE! ! ! !
>
> How about you?
I'd embarrass you. I honestly hope McAdams took it easy on you,
because you're actually rather pathetic.
McAdams SURE DID GO EASY ON ME.
Just like, you he, RAN From my quotes of evidence/testimony.
Just like you he made Stupid claims WITHOUT Official Citations.
McAdams was the Easiest adversary I ever Defeated.
>
> Would you care to take up the fallen LN'r banner of your Leaders???
Only in your shriveled, twisted alzheimer-racked mind is there an LN
banner that has 'fallen', like some sort of American Civil War flag on
a battlefield or something. You're an old wheelchair bound, colostomy
bag burdened d*ckhead.
I LOVE REMINDING YOU YOU REPRESENT 10% OF AMERICANS.
>
> Maybe McAdams & I can arrange for YOU to debate me.
Tom, I know what I'm writing is a bit above you, and I know you
disagree, but you're not actually worthy of a serious debate.
Your Leader, McADAMS DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU !
You're
just not very important or knowledgeable. You're a kook. You deserve
pity. Same goes for Healy, robcap, Walt, Holmes, Gil, Laz and rest of
the misfits that think they are actually contributing something to a
murder that happened 45 years ago.
>
YOU'RE "DISRESPECT" FOR TRUTH/JUSTICE IS DULY NOTED !
> Do you wanna be a "pinch-hitter"?
I hear you're a switch-hitter.
PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADDRESS EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY.
>
> GOD knows you ain't a "First Team'r".
I know I'm not. You're deluded and think you are. That's the
difference.
I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE. (I have always described myself as "a student of the
subject")
(However, the feedback I already received stated that I "Beat the Snot"
outta McAdams)
It seems that there were several employees at the radio station last night.
IMAGINE WHAT AN EXPERT COULD DO TO McADAMS ! ! !
?Do you represent IRAN with your Olympic RUNNING Skills?
Stay away from deep water...you'll Drown with all of the gold medals.
Like all LN's you're all "Symbolism & No Substance" (other than the illegal
substances)
You're Representative of "The Enemy Within">>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/enemy_within.htm
I'm sure my good friend McAdams & I can set it up for you to debate me on
the radio show.
AMAZING how you can judge a radio debate that you have NOT heard yet.
Kinda like judging the evidence/testimony you have NOT read yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "I was surprised to hear McAdams admit that he doesn't have the 26 volumes though!!" <<<
LOL.
Why would John (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.)
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_wc.htm
So possessing the physical VOLUMES themselves is totally unnecessary,
and you (Tom) must surely know it's unnecessary in today's "Internet"
age.
And that's something that I was trying to get Vincent Bugliosi to
fully understand when Vince was doing his many radio interviews when
promoting his JFK book in 2007.
Through his secretary, I think I wrote a couple of e-mails to her on
this very subject, attempting to get word to Vince to stop
embarrassing himself (slightly) when he continued to seemingly insist
that the ONLY possible way to read all of the information in the 26 WC
volumes is by possessing the physical volumes themselves....which is
just a ridiculous claim in this computer age we live in.
Unfortunately, I was never able to get Vince to stop making that
incorrect claim about the WC "volumes". Just as I was also
unsuccessful in getting Vince to stop making the VERY wrong statement
that he made in 2007 when he claimed that "Reclaiming History" was the
"only book" ever published to include pictures of Zapruder frames 312
and 313. I, alone, have five JFK books that have those frames printed
in them.
But that just goes to show that even a master of a subject can make an
occasional innocuous error every now and then.
Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi should "debate" Thomas Rossley sometime. That
would be a howl....with Rossley calling VB a liar for two or three
straight hours....and with Vince countering with gobs of evidence
favoring the guilt of the man whom Rossley thinks was completely
innocent of killing anybody on November 22, 1963.
The only points Rossley could score with Vince would be to inform him
of the couple of minor verbal gaffes that Vince made on radio and TV
in 2007 (the ones I discussed above). Other than that, ol' Tom would
be toasted by the physical evidence of the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald--
for two or three straight hours (or until it got too embarrassing for
ol' Tom R. to continue the debate).
Chuck Schuyler
> "Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2137307b-054b-4fba...@r15g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 1:05 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey chuckie;
>
> > David didn't think his position was defensible.
>
> That's not what he said, liar.
>
> DAVID REFUSED THE INVITATION TO DEBATE! ! ! !
So you're admitting you lied? DVP debates at forums like this all the
time.
>
>
>
> > How about you?
>
> I'd embarrass you. I honestly hope McAdams took it easy on you,
> because you're actually rather pathetic.
>
> McAdams SURE DID GO EASY ON ME.
> Just like, you he, RAN From my quotes of evidence/testimony.
> Just like you he made Stupid claims WITHOUT Official Citations.
> McAdams was the Easiest adversary I ever Defeated.
Whatever you say Tom...
>
>
>
> > Would you care to take up the fallen LN'r banner of your Leaders???
>
> Only in your shriveled, twisted alzheimer-racked mind is there an LN
> banner that has 'fallen', like some sort of American Civil War flag on
> a battlefield or something. You're an old wheelchair bound, colostomy
> bag burdened d*ckhead.
>
> I LOVE REMINDING YOU YOU REPRESENT 10% OF AMERICANS.
Another stat you've mangled, but what-the-hell. If only .005% if the
population believed Oswald alone killed JFK, I'd be right there with
'em. The evidence is clear that Oswald killed JFK--and that he acted
alone.
>
>
>
> > Maybe McAdams & I can arrange for YOU to debate me.
>
> Tom, I know what I'm writing is a bit above you, and I know you
> disagree, but you're not actually worthy of a serious debate.
>
> Your Leader, McADAMS DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOU !
I have no doubt McAdams was kind and deferential towards you. I'd
expect no less. And he's not my 'leader'.
>
> You're
> just not very important or knowledgeable. You're a kook. You deserve
> pity. Same goes for Healy, robcap, Walt, Holmes, Gil, Laz and rest of
> the misfits that think they are actually contributing something to a
> murder that happened 45 years ago.
>
>
>
> YOU'RE "DISRESPECT" FOR TRUTH/JUSTICE IS DULY NOTED !
Oh, really? How do you twist my observation that you and the rest of
your ilk are kooks into a disrespect for truth/justice?
>
> > Do you wanna be a "pinch-hitter"?
>
> I hear you're a switch-hitter.
>
> PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO ADDRESS EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY.
How?
>
>
>
> > GOD knows you ain't a "First Team'r".
>
> I know I'm not. You're deluded and think you are. That's the
> difference.
>
> I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE. (I have always described myself as "a student of the
> subject")
> (However, the feedback I already received stated that I "Beat the Snot"
> outta McAdams)
> It seems that there were several employees at the radio station last night.
Don't throw your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back.
>
> IMAGINE WHAT AN EXPERT COULD DO TO McADAMS ! ! !
Tom, I know this will be hard for your feeble, stegosaurus-sized
walnut brain to comprehend this, but the Kennedy murder isn't/wasn't a
debate. It was a real crime. Whether someone out-points someone else
in some stupid, subjective contest about JFK related trivia doesn't
change the facts. Read the autopsy report, for starters. JFK was hit
once in the upper back/loer neck, and the bullet exited his throat. He
was hit once in the back of the head, and it blew his brains out. Of
course, you think the autopsy report was faked, right?
>
> ?Do you represent IRAN with your Olympic RUNNING Skills?
> Stay away from deep water...you'll Drown with all of the gold medals.
>
> Like all LN's you're all "Symbolism & No Substance" (other than the illegal
> substances)
>
> You're Representative of "The Enemy Within">>>http://whokilledjfk.net/enemy_within.htm
>
> I'm sure my good friend McAdams & I can set it up for you to debate me on
> the radio show.
Good friend McAdams?
>
> AMAZING how you can judge a radio debate that you have NOT heard yet.
Where did I say I'd already "judged" the so-called debate?
>
> Kinda like judging the evidence/testimony you have NOT read yet.
Finally sitting down and reading the evidence/testimony is what turned
me into an LNer.
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:53a6407c-b95f-4969...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 9:31 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > At aaj., regarding a thread titled, "On the Radio Debating Rossley",
> > John McAdams announces that TOM ROSSLEY was the guy Detroit radio host
> > Anton Batey was putting up for debate! David Von Pein--you should've
> > taken Batey up on the offer to "debate" Tom!
>
> > Here's the text from John McAdam's thread:
>
> > I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey
> > to
> > debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>
> > He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
> > take a pro-conspiracy position.
>
> > When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
> > debater was Rossley!
>
> > It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
>
> > There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> BIGDOG WROTE;
>
> I wonder if Rossley drooled on the microphone.
>
> I write;
>
> Why don't you "Pinch-Hit" for McAdams next time there's a debate?
>
> Considering that you're NOT on the starting team.
>
> Maybe my good friend McAdams & I can arrange that for you.
>
> Are ya up to it Bunky????
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anytime, toothless one. If you have to actually think and can't just
post a link to your irrelevant website, you'll be lost.
Can't wait for the podcast with McAdams. It should be entertaining.
Kind of like watching the lions vs. the Christians.
Sam Brown
I cant wait for this, it may even be funnier than the Ricky Gervais
podcasts.
David Von Pein
AN LNer AT THE IMDB JFK FORUM SAID:
>>> "Well, you'll never guess who was eventually bagged for this debate. None other than John McAdams. I didn't hear it, but I'm sure it's available online somehow. I'll post a link when I know more. Hopefully old DVP will beat me to the punch. According to McAdams' post on his assassination online discussion group, the pro-conspiracy side was taken by someone named Rossley. I have no idea who that is." <<<
DVP THEN SAID:
Rossley is an old man named Tom Rossley (at least I've heard he is
pretty old; I don't know that from first-hand knowledge, however; I've
never met the kook, but I've had plenty of online "debates" with him
on the alt.conspiracy.jfk forum).
Rossley (who posts as "tomnln" at the acj/aaj fora) is your typical
"Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy-loving idiot/kook, who wants to
believe that everybody (and their accountants) were out to frame poor
schnook Oswald in 1963.
According to Rossley's own horn-tooting posts at acj, the April 5,
2009, radio debate lasted 3 hours and 20 minutes! Holy cow! That
surely offered Mr. McAdams (a very informed person on LHO's guilt, of
course) ample time to hammer home the facts to the WHPR-Radio
audience.
I very much look forward to listening to the podcast (which John
McAdams hinted was probably going to be forthcoming soon).
More Info:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e2556a9a738777b2
Bud
Only if the Christians were very, very old. And retarded.
tomnln
You did NOT have the guts to enter into the debate.
You even wanted to know in advance who you would be debating.
(looking for a 3 year old Perhaps)
You Wrongly judge a debate you did NOT hear. (fool)
Feedback I have is that your Leader got "Shot Down, BIG Time".
After reading Bugloisi's "Door-Stop" I would love nothing better than to
debase (correction) DEBATE him.
As his Pimp, can you arrange it???
I'm pretty that my good friend McAdams & I could get the radio station to go
along with it.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f998b5c-4f23-4459...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:49da79ad$0$3799$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
THAT "website is the "Closest" you've ever been to the evidence/testimony
from the 26 volumes.
Would YOU care to "Pinch-Hit" for McAdams in the next radio debate?
I'm sure my good friend McAdams & I can arrange it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "You did NOT have the guts to enter into the debate. You even wanted to know in advance who you would be debating. (looking for a 3 year old Perhaps)" <<<
Of course I wanted to know who the CTer was beforehand. I don't think
that's an unreasonable request. (Not that I couldn't turn your 'ABO'
nonsense into dust via mere CS&L alone...not to mention the evidence.)
But I'm kinda glad I turned Anton Batey down, though.
For Pete sake, I almost totally ignore you here at the acj forum (in
fact, except for today, I don't think I've responded to a single
Rossley forum post in a solid year, maybe longer)....so why in the
world would I have any desire to sit and talk on the phone with a kook
like you for 200 straight minutes on the radio?
Get real.
(I'm glad Mr. McAdams made the sacrifice though. It should be a howl
hearing an old fart named Tom get his ABO clock cleaned out. Thank
you, .John....in advance.)
tomnln
Your position on the subject is NOT Defensible ! ! ! !
YOU RAN ! ! !
Your FIRST statement says it ALL>>>
"> Without even hearing the radio debate, there can be no question as to
> who the victor was/is -- Mr. McAdams."
Just like judging the WCR "Without" reading the evidence/testimony.
YOUU RAN ! ! !
Maybe my good friend McAdams *& I can arrange for you to still enter the
radio debate.
Are Ya Up for it Bunky?
(Thank GOD you represent ony 10% of Americans)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:df6e1399-6970-439d...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
On Apr 6, 3:48 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2137307b-054b-4fba...@r15g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 1:05 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey chuckie;
>
> > David didn't think his position was defensible.>
> That's not what he said, liar.
>
> DAVID REFUSED THE INVITATION TO DEBATE! ! ! !
chuckie wrote;
So you're admitting you lied? DVP debates at forums like this all the
time.
I write;
Looks like YOUR colostomy bag has backed uo into your brain.
It was only 2 days ago David was talking about how proud he was to be
invited to debate on the radio.
Then he "Chickened" Out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
>
> Rossley,
>
> Why on Earth would Vince Bugliosi would have any desire to debate an
> Anybody-But-Oswald nobody/fool like you?
>
> Dream on, Mr. Nutsack.
Are you telling us that Bugloisi's position is NOT defensible?
BOTTOM LINE.......
YOU RAN
tomnln
>
>
>
>>>> "You did NOT have the guts to enter into the debate. You even wanted to
>>>> know in advance who you would be debating. (looking for a 3 year old
>>>> Perhaps)" <<<
>
>
> that's an unreasonable request. (Not that I couldn't turn your 'ABO'
> nonsense into dust via mere CS&L alone...not to mention the evidence.)
>
> But I'm kinda glad I turned Anton Batey down, though.
>
> For Pete sake, I almost totally ignore you here at the acj forum (in
> fact, except for today, I don't think I've responded to a single
> Rossley forum post in a solid year, maybe longer)....so why in the
> world would I have any desire to sit and talk on the phone with a kook
> like you for 200 straight minutes on the radio?
>
> Get real.
>
> (I'm glad Mr. McAdams made the sacrifice though. It should be a howl
> you, .John....in advance.)
BOTTOM LINE.....
YOU RAN
I RAN YOU OFF
HAHAHAHAHAHA
David Von Pein
>>> "I RAN YOU OFF." <<<
Yeah...even though I had no idea who the "CTer" involved in the debate
was going to be.
Can't you ever get ANYTHING right.
How could it have been YOU (specifically) who "ran [me] off" (as you
put it) if I didn't even know YOU were going to be the person I would
have debated?
What a 'tard.
David Von Pein
VIA THE IMDB FORUM, RADIO HOST ANTON BATEY SAID:
"There was no clear cut “winner” [in the April 5, 2009, radio
debate between John McAdams & Thomas Rossley on WHPR-FM in Highland
Park, Michigan]. Both men did extremely well, and represented their
respective positions very first-class, as both Professor McAdams and
Mr. Rossley would concur.
"The bad news is that there was a huge snowstorm in the Detroit
area after the debate and knocked the power out, which “corrupted” the
sound file that it was being saved on. The good news is that it can be
retrieved; I just need somebody to come here and do [it]. The debate
will be posted within a few days, maybe less.
"The debate was very, very good[,] but it may have to be cut
down due to it’s [sic] length. There were times when both gentlemen
broke off for 15-20 minutes at times and argued about things that were
not relevant; as I’m sure they both would agree in retrospect.
"I’ll definitely let you all know when it’s posted." -- ANTON
BATEY; 04/06/2009
www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/134145127?d=latest&p=3#134963210
tomnln
>
>
>>>> "I RAN YOU OFF." <<<
>
> Yeah...even though I had no idea who the "CTer" involved in the debate
> was going to be.
THEN, EVEN MICKEY MOUSE COULD HAVE RUN YOU OFF.
David Von Pein
NICK KENDRICK (ANOTHER LNer WHO DECLINED ANTON BATEY'S OFFER TO
PARTICIPATE IN ANTON'S 4/5/09 RADIO DEBATE ON WHPR-RADIO IN HIGHLAND
PARK, MICHIGAN) SAID THIS AT IMDB.COM:
>>> "[Anton], or DVP, one of you please tell me that your Tom Rossley isn't the same Tom Rossley who coaches college football at Texas A&M?" <<<
I kinda doubt it...unless the football coach is an approx. 75-year-old
mega-kook who has made 21,000+ posts on the acj forum (and 99% of
those posts are say-nothing drivel, featuring mainly links to his
awful website, a site with random clippings and links that Rossley
actually thinks is useful in "solving" the JFK case and "proving"
conspiracy).
I doubt it's the same Rossley.
BTW -- For reference, I've made about 8,000 posts to that same forum.
BTW 2 -- Anton was undoubtedly just being a good host (i.e., not
wanting to discredit or undermine his debate participants) when he
said there was no clear-cut "winner" of the debate.
No, I haven't heard a word of it yet, but the only possible way for
Mr. McAdams to have lost a JFK-assassination debate with that mega-
retard named Tom Rossley would have been for McAdams to have fallen
asleep!
tomnln
Looks like david Prejudges Everything.
Chuck Schuyler
DVP--
You've gotta remember that with the CT retards that post here, black
is white and white is black. I'm sure the kooks will proclaim Rossley
the "victor", hence PROVING a conspiracy killed JFK.
As I write this, Congress is getting ready to reinvestigate the JFK
murder based on Rossley's stunning mastery of the evidence/testimony
from the 26 volumes on a tiny radio station/podcast listened to by 40
people. The Presidential Medal of Freedom, to be proudly displayed on
Tom's shiny new colostomy bag burdened wheelchair, and tearful hugs of
gratitude from the dying Senator Ted Kennedy, all await Sack-o-Nuts
and his proud wife, Mrs. Ellen Sack-o-Nuts.
David Von Pein
NICK KENDRICK WROTE:
>>> "I get the impression you don't like this guy [Mega-Kook Thomas Rossley] too much." <<<
DVP AGREED:
Your impression is an accurate one.
But I will say this (as I've said about some the kookiest of
conspiracy kooks I've encountered on the Internet) -- Tom Rossley is
probably a pretty nice guy when you get him OUTSIDE the realm of the
"JFK Assassination".
But there's something weird about this murder case that makes
otherwise intelligent and reasonable people go off the deep "IT
COULDN'T HAVE BEEN OSWALD AT ALL!" end.
It's just amazing. I've seen it time and time again (and you, Nick,
have no doubt taken note of the same thing too). It's a strange
phenomenon that I doubt anyone can fully explain.
There's just "something" about this case that causes usually-rational
people to start thinking crazy.
Anyway, regarding Mr. Rossley (when it comes to the JFK case) -- He's
such a far-out kook, that virtually nobody at the acj/aaj forums will
even respond to his say-nothing crap anymore. He's almost totally
ignored (much the same way David "ZAPRUDER NEVER WAS EVEN ON THE
PEDESTAL AT ALL" Healy is ignored for the most part at the forums he
invades).
These wacky kooks are good for an occasional laugh...and nothing more.
Because ANYONE who has supposedly looked deeply into John F. Kennedy's
murder and has then come to the "Anybody But Oswald" conclusions that
these nuts have come to (Rossley and Healy included) do not deserve
one ounce of respect, in my opinion.
Here's Rossley half-baked website, riddled with nonsense and
subjective analysis of the evidence (with Rossley invariably always
coming to a "conspiracy" conclusion after his own evaluation of the
evidence, esp. the WC stuff; his "Tippit" page is particularly idiotic
and hilarious):
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm sure the kooks will proclaim Rossley the "victor", hence PROVING a conspiracy killed JFK." <<<
Oh, naturally. Can there be any doubt of it?
Greg Jaynes
> On Apr 6, 6:31 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At aaj., regarding a thread titled, "On the Radio Debating Rossley",
> > John McAdams announces that TOM ROSSLEY was the guy Detroit radio host
> > Anton Batey was putting up for debate! David Von Pein--you should've
> > taken Batey up on the offer to "debate" Tom!
>
> > Here's the text from John McAdam's thread:
>
> > I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey
> > to
> > debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>
> > He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
> > take a pro-conspiracy position.
>
> > When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
> > debater was Rossley!
>
> > It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
>
> > There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>
The picture of McAdams in the overcoat belongs to me.
It's a frame capture from a videotape I shot at a meeting
several of us had in Grand Rapids.
I have asked Mike not to use it years ago. To no avail I see.
I'd like to hear the debate. Do you have to have an Ipod to
hear it or will it play in Windows Media player?
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
David Von Pein
You won't need an Ipod, Greg.
You might need a bigger bladder though, seeing as how Rossley The
Retard is McAdams' opponent. It should provide ample laughs from the
Anybody-But-Oswald side of the fence.
Gil Jesus
I find it laughable that a man ( Von Pein ) who is afraid to post his
picture ANYWHERE on line ( let alone refuse to appear "live" on video
or audio ) would be posting negative comments about ANYONE.
Kudos to Tom or anyone else who has the courage to defend his position
LIVE, while Von Pein's "image" remains an oil painting of JFK.
Talk about "ample laughs".
It just goes to show what a coward Von Pein is.
aeffects
> On Apr 6, 11:14 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 6:31 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > At aaj., regarding a thread titled, "On the Radio Debating Rossley",
> > > John McAdams announces that TOM ROSSLEY was the guy Detroit radio host
> > > Anton Batey was putting up for debate! David Von Pein--you should've
> > > taken Batey up on the offer to "debate" Tom!
>
> > > Here's the text from John McAdam's thread:
>
> > > I accepted an invitation from a fellow in Detroit named Anton Batey
> > > to
> > > debate the JFK assassination tonight (Sunday night).
>
> > > He vaguely alluded to another person on the same program who would
> > > take a pro-conspiracy position.
>
> > > When I got on the air, I was astonished to find out that the other
> > > debater was Rossley!
>
> > > It was actually a lot of fun. A hoot, really.
>
> > > There will, apparently, be a podcast, to which I will post a link.
>
> >http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/
>
> The picture of McAdams in the overcoat belongs to me.
not much to brag about, hey were those sandbags moving? And did Todd
Vaughan hit anything?
> It's a frame capture from a videotape I shot at a meeting
> several of us had in Grand Rapids.
>
> I have asked Mike not to use it years ago. To no avail I see.
it's been there for quite a while.....
> I'd like to hear the debate. Do you have to have an Ipod to
> hear it or will it play in Windows Media player?
funny thing about that, now the link is touted as a:
"This web site at www.fortunecity.com has been reported as an attack
site and has been blocked based on security preferences."
Imagine that..... you can however ignore that warning, I believe the
files are in REAL Player format. Can't really remember -- frankly, I'd
heed the above warning....
I know the latest REAL Player will play .wmv files, whether it works
the other way I have no idea...
> Respectfully,
> Greg Jaynes
aeffects
he's got his brother reputation to protect, after all...... :)
aeffects
labeled in my browser as an attack site, moron. I'm sure Greg
appreciates you urging him on...... ROTFLMFAO -- what-a-dipashit Von
Pein is!
David Von Pein
>>> "...while Von Pein's "image" remains an oil painting of JFK." <<<
I love my "trademark" portrait of JFK. It couldn't "fit" me any
better. If you don't like it, that's just tough.
Anyway, Mr. Kennedy is far better looking than my hideous mug.
David Von Pein
>>> "Labeled in my browser as an attack site, moron. I'm sure Greg appreciates you urging him on." <<<
Oh, crap! I think I misunderstood Greg's "Ipod" question. I thought
Greg was talking about the soon-to-be-coming podcast of the WHPR-Radio
debate (which I'm pretty sure won't require an "Ipod" for listening;
at least I've never had to have one for listening to any Internet
podcasts).
But now that I re-read Greg's post, I guess he was talking about that
McAdams/Burnham debate, which has been unavailable for quite awhile
(AFAIK).
And, yes, Healy is right, the links there warn you of an "attack
site". I've noticed that too. So I've stayed clear of that
place....and would advise Greg to do the same.
Sorry, Greg, I didn't mean to mislead you on that. I thought you were
talking about something else. My apologies. I hope you didn't dive
into that "attack site" place.
Regards,
DVP
tomnln
DVP--
chuck'd FEAR of Rossley & Hatred fot all Kennedy's are Duly noted.
tomnln
>
> NICK KENDRICK WROTE:
>
>>>> "I get the impression you don't like this guy [Mega-Kook Thomas
>>>> Rossley] too much." <<<
>
>
> DVP AGREED:
>
>
> Your impression is an accurate one.
>
> But I will say this (as I've said about some the kookiest of
> conspiracy kooks I've encountered on the Internet) -- Tom Rossley is
> probably a pretty nice guy when you get him OUTSIDE the realm of the
> "JFK Assassination".
The ONLY thing Von Pain (in the ass) ever got Right
> But there's something weird about this murder case that makes
> otherwise intelligent and reasonable people go off the deep "IT
> COULDN'T HAVE BEEN OSWALD AT ALL!" end.
>
> It's just amazing. I've seen it time and time again (and you, Nick,
> have no doubt taken note of the same thing too). It's a strange
> phenomenon that I doubt anyone can fully explain.
EXACTLY like evidence/testimony you CAN'T explain !
> There's just "something" about this case that causes usually-rational
> people to start thinking crazy.
>
> Anyway, regarding Mr. Rossley (when it comes to the JFK case) -- He's
> such a far-out kook, that virtually nobody at the acj/aaj forums will
> even respond to his say-nothing crap anymore. He's almost totally
> ignored (much the same way David "ZAPRUDER NEVER WAS EVEN ON THE
> PEDESTAL AT ALL" Healy is ignored for the most part at the forums he
> invades).
>
> These wacky kooks are good for an occasional laugh...and nothing more.
> Because ANYONE who has supposedly looked deeply into John F. Kennedy's
> murder and has then come to the "Anybody But Oswald" conclusions that
> these nuts have come to (Rossley and Healy included) do not deserve
> one ounce of respect, in my opinion.
Von Pain (in the ass) has chosen a position which he can NOT defend.
Which is WHY he does NOT have the self confidence to debate the issue.
> Here's Rossley half-baked website, riddled with nonsense and
> subjective analysis of the evidence (with Rossley invariably always
> coming to a "conspiracy" conclusion after his own evaluation of the
> evidence, esp. the WC stuff; his "Tippit" page is particularly idiotic
> and hilarious):
>
www.whokilledjfk.net
Thanks for the free advertising.
That website is the "Closest" you/yours will ever get to official records.
tomnln
>
>
>
>>>> "I'm sure the kooks will proclaim Rossley the "victor", hence PROVING a
>>>> conspiracy killed JFK." <<<
>
tomnln
david has a "Compulsion" for the masses NOT becoming aware of the official
evidence/testimony.