Well I Think It's About Time CTer's Put Up or Shut Up !
cdddraftsman
Assassination , Don't You Think ? ! No , I Suppose You Don't Think !
No smoking gun , yet a lot of smoke coming out the rear ends of
CTer's . No extra gun found , yet plenty of Cter's shooting off their
mouths , using opinions as facts . No extra shell casings , yet the
shills come out of the woodwork like the Russians just landed in New
Jersey . No smoking gun , yet the majority of the files have been
released . What we do have a excess of here is opinions , which like
rear ends , everyone is entitled to , but too many CTer's use as a
thinking tool . Plenty of far fetched scenario's that are reminicent
of the 60's , but too little real research done by CTer's , mostly
hyper-speculatory non-sense that any 3rd grader could dismiss with out
sneezing . It's time to put up or shut up , show us some substance or
go back to your old job which entailed saying ' Would you like fry's
with your order Sir ? " ................tl
Papa Andy
A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>so the reason you post here is .......
>
>
>A
>
>
>
>On Feb 20, 11:24 am, "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 44 years is a long time to wait for a revelation in the JFK
>> Assassination , Don't You Think ?
It would be if no revelations had been found...
>> ! No , I Suppose You Don't Think !
>> No smoking gun ,
But plenty of smoke...
>> yet a lot of smoke coming out the rear ends of
>> CTer's . No extra gun found ,
Not only found, but confiscated by the DPD. When lies are used to support the
"truth", some people might begin to wonder if you found the right "truth".
>> yet plenty of Cter's shooting off their
>> mouths , using opinions as facts .
Nah... merely the evidence. LNT'ers simply *hate* much of the evidence - since
it fails to support their pet theory.
>> No extra shell casings ,
Actually, not *enough* shell casings... but too many bullets.
>> yet the
>> shills come out of the woodwork like the Russians just landed in New
>> Jersey . No smoking gun ,
Yet the smoke was seen and smelled...
>> yet the majority of the files have been
>> released .
And don't support the WCR or the HSCA. In fact, the ARRB released files
*PROVED* that the HSCA simply lied about the eyewitness testimony. And no
LNT'er yet has given an explanation for this fact.
>> What we do have a excess of here is opinions ,
Untrue... what we *have* is an excess of evidence that LNT'ers can't respond to.
>> which like
>> rear ends , everyone is entitled to , but too many CTer's use as a
>> thinking tool . Plenty of far fetched scenario's that are reminicent
>> of the 60's ,
LNT'ers are fond of speculation... so too are some CT'ers... but the evidence is
all that's needed.
>> but too little real research done by CTer's ,
And next to *none* by LNT'ers... this is why the LNT'er side has advanced not at
all compared to the WCR... yet the CT'er side has advanced considerably.
There's no longer any doubt by reasonable people that a conspiracy took the life
of JFK.
>> mostly
>> hyper-speculatory non-sense that any 3rd grader could dismiss with out
>> sneezing .
And trolls such as yourself have no answer for.
>> It's time to put up or shut up ,
Been there, done that.
David Von Pein
Yep. Up to several MINUTES after the gun supposedly went off on the
Knoll. A passenger on one of the press busses at the rear of the
motorcade is said to have seen smoke. Did these goofball assassins
KEEP ON FIRING even AFTER Kennedy's car left the Plaza...just for the
practice maybe?
That's a GREAT plot (and gun) there. ....
Let's NOT use silencers on the Knoll gun(s) -- even though we want Oz
blamed for this whole thing.
And: Let's use a musket that emits scads of LINGERING SMOKE (for
MINUTES, or at the very least, MANY, MANY SECONDS after being
discharged).
And: Let's use a gun that results in gunpowder that can be smelled
also for MINUTES after the gun is fired.
A reasonable person just MIGHT ask themselves -- Gee, if a person that
deep in the motorcade said smoke was visible, I wonder if SOMETHING
ELSE BESIDES A RIFLE could have caused that smoke?
Your make-believe plotters were reckless as all get out, I'll tell ya
that much. But since they are make-believe, they can be anything a
kook wants them to be. Right?
Carry on, kook. Piecemeal question #102 awaits, I'm sure.
YoHarvey
David? Your critical mistake is using the term "reasonable" when
discussing kooks like Holmes, Rossley, Jesus, Aeffects et al. These
people are of the paranoid mentality and have been their entire
lives. This won't change. All you can do is laugh at them and move
on. Perhaps, after 43 years, they're simply frustrated. It's a never
ending cycle. The AARB releases documents and no smoking gun
appears. So, what do the CT's say? In their typically paranoid
manner they say "well, the government is STILL witholding the smoking
gun". This will continue forever. They NEED to believe in
conspiracy. Logic and common sense have no place in their lives.
Just laugh at them; antagonize them (because it's fun) and move on!
Remember, the truth is on our side....
cdddraftsman
> In article <1171990792.682377.288...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
> says...
>
>
>
> >so the reason you post here is .......
>
> >A
>
> >On Feb 20, 11:24 am, "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> 44 years is a long time to wait for a revelation in the JFK
> >> Assassination , Don't You Think ?
>
> It would be if no revelations had been found...
>
>
>
> >> > of heard about them by now . Oh ! I forgot , you think 35 questions
> >> > is enough to break the case wide open ? Astonishing lapse of thought
> >> > there Holmes , I don't see any other CTer's crowing about it . Could it
> >> > be they've been there and done that ?
>
> >> ! No , I Suppose You Don't Think !
> >> No smoking gun ,
>
> But plenty of smoke...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> yet a lot of smoke coming out the rear ends of
> >> CTer's . No extra gun found ,
>
> Not only found, but confiscated by the DPD. When lies are used to support the
> "truth", some people might begin to wonder if you found the right "truth".
>
>
>
> >> > when does it reach a critical mass ? Have a formula on that one ? E=JFKSQ'D
> >> > Or something ?
>
>
>
> >> yet plenty of Cter's shooting off their
> >> mouths , using opinions as facts .
>
> Nah... merely the evidence. LNT'ers simply *hate* much of the evidence - since
> it fails to support their pet theory.
>
>
>
> >> > what's in the National Archives , the solid stuff that CTer's are afraid to touch
> >> > in fear of losing their fantasy's .
>
> >> No extra shell casings ,
>
> Actually, not *enough* shell casings... but too many bullets.
>
>
>
> >> > bullets and where they're located at today ?
>
> >> yet the
> >> shills come out of the woodwork like the Russians just landed in New
> >> Jersey . No smoking gun ,
>
> Yet the smoke was seen and smelled...
>
>
>
>
> >> yet the majority of the files have been
> >> released .
>
> And don't support the WCR or the HSCA. In fact, the ARRB released files
> *PROVED* that the HSCA simply lied about the eyewitness testimony. And no
> LNT'er yet has given an explanation for this fact.
>
>
>
> >> > jumpy to reach a conspiratorial conclusion . Saw a interview with that guy on
> >> > tape . A mouse farted and he hit the ceiling ! Not the cold , calculating sort of
> >> > fellow I'd put my complete trust in , although he made some points . I really
> >> > don't see a great deal of interest in anyone by following up on his suggestions
> >> > which I think is understandable . He uses blanks in the overall picture , that
> >> > has let his feelings over ride a more disciplined approach that more people
> >> > might respect . Too bad isn't it ? Another chance to put conspiracy in the coffin
> >> > flubbed by a over anxious gadfly .
>
> >> What we do have a excess of here is opinions ,
>
> Untrue... what we *have* is an excess of evidence that LNT'ers can't respond to.
>
>
>
> >> > evidence , untried in a adversarial procedure , which remains classified as
> >> > untested evidence , to be used as fact . Sorry to burst your bubble on that one
> >> > , but you should try getting your definitions in order before starting a CTer
> >> > backyarn panic for no reason other then you enjoy using hyper speculation
> >> > to bolster your opinion based , so called facts . Which are the furthest thing
> >> > from the truth .
>
> >> which like
> >> rear ends , everyone is entitled to , but too many CTer's use as a
> >> thinking tool . Plenty of far fetched scenario's that are reminicent
> >> of the 60's ,
>
> LNT'ers are fond of speculation... so too are some CT'ers... but the evidence is
> all that's needed.
>
>
>
> >> > understanding in these matters . A report I find wholly believable and
> >> > without the usual conspiratorial non-sense that has plagued the issue .
>
>
>
>
> >> but too little real research done by CTer's ,
>
> And next to *none* by LNT'ers... this is why the LNT'er side has advanced not at
> all compared to the WCR... yet the CT'er side has advanced considerably.
> There's no longer any doubt by reasonable people that a conspiracy took the life
> of JFK.
>
>
>
> >> > be used . When you do use it , it can lead you in several different directions at
> >> > once and is a presciption for disaster . That's why LNer's have one Assassin
> >> > corralled and the CTer's are still sifting through 63 possible suspects , 12
> >> > possible shooting locations and upwards of 15 bullets fired at JFK ! CTer's
> >> > have advanced from one construct to the next , fighting each other for bragging
> >> > rights on who's right , when the assassination could of happened only one way
> >> > , it proves 99.9% of their theory's are wrong . What's the chance the remaining
> >> > .01% is right ? A 1 in 63 chance of being right ! Not very good odds I'm afraid .
> >> > Especially when it's sold in a book as the truth , make that 0% probability that
> >> > the remainder can be right . A little statistic's and common sense would of told
> >> > you this before starting on some conspiracy with no end .
>
> >> mostly
> >> hyper-speculatory non-sense that any 3rd grader could dismiss with out
> >> sneezing .
>
> And trolls such as yourself have no answer for.
>
>
> >> > flapping your lips long enough to learn something about what your talking
> >> > about before putting into motion a conspiracy of the mind that is wholly in the
> >> > realm of speculation and was never and did never come close to reality .
>
> >> It's time to put up or shut up ,
>
> Been there, done that.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> show us some substance or
> >> go back to your old job which entailed saying ' Would you like fry's
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172008180.4...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Only a complete idiot would attempt to make it appear that the general
public hasn't learned many of the FACTS that were available to Lyin
Bastard Johnson's Commission in 1964. These facts might be called
"new evidence" because they were hidden from the public, so they were
unaware that the evidence existed. But in fact it isn't really "NEW"
evidence at all it's just the truth gradually coming to light. You
probably should keep your eyes closed Daffy....cause the light of
truth will strike you blind. ( Which would be no great lose, cause
you can't use em anyway.....with yer head in yer ass)
Walt
David Von Pein
Of course, Walt The Kook won't mention the relevant FACT which that
film reveals (in very vivid detail) -- i.e., the bunched jacket on
JFK's back.....
Jefferies Film:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
Croft Photo (on Elm St.):
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
Here's what Gerald Posner said today about the new discovery (text
shown below). I disagree with him re. his "several layers" remark,
however, which is something that cannot possibly be proven beyond all
doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt under his coat is not
viewable).
Of course, when evaluating the "holes" evidence, there IS no other
possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery") than to
conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat HAD to
be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's back. I've
often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even debatable?
(Silly question, I guess, when talking to CT-Kooks, huh?) ;)
Here's the Posner article........
February 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
"Single Bullet, Single Gunman"
By: GERALD POSNER
"The ability to use advanced forensics and minuscule traces of DNA to
solve crimes, even cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans
into armchair sleuths seeking to "solve" the unexpected deaths of
people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith. But sometimes, old-
fashioned evidence is as useful in solving puzzles as anything under a
nuclear microscope.
Last weekend, a never-before-seen home movie was made public showing
President John F. Kennedy's motorcade just before his assassination.
An amateur photographer, George Jefferies, took the footage and held
onto it for more than 40 years before casually mentioning it to his
son-in-law, who persuaded him to donate it to the Sixth Floor Museum
in Dallas. The silent 8-millimeter color film was of interest to most
people simply because it showed perhaps the clearest close-up of
Jacqueline Kennedy taken that morning.
But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves
one of the case's enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on
Kennedy's back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did
not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his
suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists
fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the
report fabricated.
This is more than an academic debate among ballistics buffs. It is
critical because if the bullet did enter where shown on the autopsy
photos, the trajectory lines up correctly for the famous "single
bullet" theory - the Warren Commission hypothesis that one bullet
inflicted wounds to both Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas.
However, if the hole in the clothing was the accurate mark of where
the bullet entered, it would have been too low for a single bullet to
have inflicted all the wounds, and would provide evidence of a second
assassin.
For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was
sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy's suit had bunched up
during the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one
would expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align
perfectly, if the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt
also had to have been raised.
Some previously published photos taken at the pivotal moment showed
Kennedy's jacket slightly pushed up, but nothing was definitive.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have done everything to disprove that
the jacket was bunched. Some used grainy photos or film clips to
measure minute distances between Kennedy's hairline and his shirt,
what they dubbed the "hair-to-in-shoot distance."
The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip,
as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady,
Kennedy's suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers
creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the
first shot, Kennedy's suit jacket was precisely in the position to
misrepresent the bullet's entry point.
While the film solves one mystery, it leaves another open: estimates
are that at least 150,000 people lined the Dallas motorcade route that
fateful day, so there must be many other films and photographs out
there that have never come to light. Those who have them should bear
in mind that even the most innocuous-seeming artifacts, like the
Jefferies tape, can sometimes put enduring controversies to rest. As
Gary Mack, the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum said the other day,
'The bottom line is, don't throw anything away'." -- G. Posner; Feb.
2007
David Von Pein
The "general public" HASN'T learned most of the facts and evidence
surrounding the JFK case. Just ask anybody off the streets (i.e., the
"general public" at large) if they've read the Warren Report, or
studied the case in any depth at all. What you're likely to hear is
something that Vincent Bugliosi discovered many years ago, which is
something he revealed via the following comments.....
"I was speaking in Toronto on tactics and techniques used in the movie
"JFK" just after the Oliver Stone movie was released. After the
speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked for a show of hands of how many
believed the assassination was a conspiracy. It was 80% to 90% of the
audience.
"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was
an enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of
the story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I
asked how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their
hands.
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- V. Bugliosi; April 1997
aeffects
> Another item that has recently "come to light" is the Jefferies Film.
> Of course, Walt The Kook won't mention the relevant FACT which that
> film reveals (in very vivid detail) -- i.e., the bunched jacket on
> JFK's back.....
dufus, hole[s] in the shirt/jacket have nothing to do with who killed
Kennedy.... hiding behind this won't get you anywhere nor anything but
more ridicule.... Then again, its the socially deprived Lone Neuter's
that need this debate, so carry on, Gloria....
Oh, what was it the HSCA agreed upon? Yes, there was a **C-O-N-S-P-I-R-
A-C-Y** in the killing JFK. Their finding, YES? Jefferies film means
one thing; Gary Mack is doing his job, that being hustling a decent PR
image for the City of Dallas via the 6th Floor Museum.... Releasing
this newly found film (which many have known about for years) touting
how well Jackie looks, is tantamount to celebrating Washington's
birthday as *matress sale day*
How convenient for the Lone Neuter's..... you're a bunch of
illiterate, know nothing wannabe's! Whom can't stand the thought that
the WCR was/is wrong!
> Jefferies Film:http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
>
> Croft Photo (on Elm St.):http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
>
> Here's what Gerald Posner said today about the new discovery (text
> shown below). I disagree with him re. his "several layers" remark,
> however, which is something that cannot possibly be proven beyond all
> doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt under his coat is not
> viewable).
>
> Of course, when evaluating the "holes" evidence, there IS no other
> possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery") than to
> conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat HAD to
> be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's back. I've
> often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even debatable?
> (Silly question, I guess, when talking to CT-Kooks, huh?) ;)
>
> Here's the Posner article........
ROTFLMFAO ----
you moron, Posner is a complete fraud... yet you insist he's the end
all be all-- When the Nutter's pull out Posner, they're all but
buried...
David Von Pein
That's funny, I thought "daBug" was my "be-all/end-all".
You've got your "Be-Alls" mixed up, kook. Try again. ;)
Plus....your post ridiculing me about my feelings toward Poz are
silly, in light of the fact I berated a critical portion of his
article re. the "several layers" business...which IS silly (by JUST
watching that film...unless Gerald now has X-ray vision).
So, try to make your silly posts at least halfway on target...okay?
aeffects
> >>> "Posner is a complete fraud...yet you insist he's the end all be all..." <<<
>
> That's funny, I thought "daBug" was my "be-all/end-all".
nah, 'daBug' is your latest Lone Nut venture. There's always someone
else out there debunking the CT side of the equation.
> You've got your "Be-Alls" mixed up, kook. Try again. ;)
Poser is, and always will be; the king of the Neuter Hill... Without
Gerald there is no MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC primetime or
otherwise talking-head, cream-puff interview[s]
>
> Plus....your post ridiculing me about my feelings toward Poz are
> silly, in light of the fact I berated a critical portion of his
> article re. the "several layers" business...which IS silly (by JUST
> watching that film...unless Gerald now has X-ray vision).
750 words a day should be sufficient defending the lone neuter
position - wouldn't want anyone thinking you're a WCR fanatic. Hell,
who knows, maybe you would support a Mark Lane-Gerald Posner debate.
> So, try to make your silly posts at least halfway on target...okay?
My silly posts don't miss often.... you just don't realize you been
hit (happened before, even in real life)
David Von Pein
Can't argue with ya there, Mr. K. They don't miss often...they miss
ALWAYS.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:08 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Another item that has recently "come to light" is the Jefferies Film.
> > Of course, Walt The Kook won't mention the relevant FACT which that
> > film reveals (in very vivid detail) -- i.e., the bunched jacket on
> > JFK's back.....
>
> dufus, hole[s] in the shirt/jacket have nothing to do with who killed
> Kennedy....
Jezz, the kooks are really afraid of this evidence. They can`t
afford the attrition of losing these squalking points (if they lose
one point a year, pretty soon they won`t have anything left to squalk
about). .
> hiding behind this won't get you anywhere nor anything but
> more ridicule.... Then again, its the socially deprived Lone Neuter's
> that need this debate, so carry on, Gloria....
>
> Oh, what was it the HSCA agreed upon? Yes, there was a **C-O-N-S-P-I-R-
> A-C-Y** in the killing JFK. Their finding, YES?
Yah, nice of you to tout their finding that Oz alone, firing at the
limo, caused all the wounds sustained by the passengers of that
vehicle. Thats the kind of conspiracy any LN can accept.
.
> Jefferies film means
> one thing; Gary Mack is doing his job, that being hustling a decent PR
> image for the City of Dallas via the 6th Floor Museum.... Releasing
> this newly found film (which many have known about for years) touting
> how well Jackie looks, is tantamount to celebrating Washington's
> birthday as *matress sale day*
Hmmm, how does releasing this film help Dallas`s image? I just
can`t make out these connections the kooks see so clearly, I guess I
don`t take the right drugs.
> How convenient for the Lone Neuter's..... you're a bunch of
> illiterate, know nothing wannabe's!
"Whaaa! I won`t let you take my precious conspiracy away from me, I
won`t! I`ll teach you, I`ll believe it regardless of how much
information shows I`m wrong, so there!"
> Whom can't stand the thought that
> the WCR was/is wrong!
They produced the only reasonable explaination for the events
available. Have you seen a better one?
> > Jefferies Film:http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
> >
> > Croft Photo (on Elm St.):http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
> >
> > Here's what Gerald Posner said today about the new discovery (text
> > shown below). I disagree with him re. his "several layers" remark,
> > however, which is something that cannot possibly be proven beyond all
> > doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt under his coat is not
> > viewable).
> >
> > Of course, when evaluating the "holes" evidence, there IS no other
> > possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery") than to
> > conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat HAD to
> > be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's back. I've
> > often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even debatable?
> > (Silly question, I guess, when talking to CT-Kooks, huh?) ;)
> >
> > Here's the Posner article........
>
>
> ROTFLMFAO ----
>
> you moron, Posner is a complete fraud...
No, that would be Ben Holmes.
> yet you insist he's the end
> all be all-- When the Nutter's pull out Posner, they're all but
> buried...
Yah, he didn`t even mention the Gary Mack/City of Dallas public
relations coup that was so clearly behind the release of this film.
Who needs reality, when you can make stuff up off the top of your head
and run with it?
Walt
What an excellent example of a dishonest biased poll.
In reality everybody in that audience had in fact heard the
conclusion of the Warren Commission which is what the Warren Report is
all about.
So this is who Bugliosi is...... A charletan and con artist who would
try to make people believe that they hadn't heard both sides of the
story, when in reality the very reason that most people went to see
the movie JFK was because they knew what was in the Warren Report and
found it unacceptable. They were looking for answers .....
Da Bug is a cockroach
Walt
eca...@tx.rr.com
Whar dew dees nit-wits come
from? Questions in lieu of
Evidence.. Wisecracks and
Insults instead of Answers..
AND
COMMON SENSE
AND OBJECTIVITY??
Forget about it.. They
honestly seem more interested
in arguing..
But let me offer what I think
is a pearl of wisdom and
observation on MY point:
I personally believe their
apparent intense frustration
comes from subconsciously KNOWING*
they are on the wrong side of
clear and convincing evidence
and objectivity.. Hence the hair-
trigger temper rebuttal (har-har)
of you're a "liar and a
coward" -- 3rd grade mentality.
Very sincere on this one,
Ed Cage
* There are exceptions to this;
some TSFH members are just
plain *stewpit* (unreachable)
> Remember, the truth is on our side....- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
to evaluate stuff like a kook (i.e., incorrectly)!
Walt makes the grand Herculean leap to Vince Bugliosi being a
"cockroach", just because VB asked for a show of hands at a speaking
engagement...with the results being: hardly anyone in that crowd had
read the WR.
By telling the TRUTH re. that one hand-raising incident, VB gets to be
labelled a "cockroach".
Walt is ill.
But...if Walt-Kook could get into the majors, he'd win the batting
title....for even the TOP hitters in the ML can't get to .400....but
Walt bats 1.000 in Kookville every day -- i.e., ALL his posts are
useless and filled with miscalculated conclusions.
Walt
> For at least the THIRD time today, Walt exhibits his amazing ability
> to evaluate stuff like a kook (i.e., incorrectly)!
>
> Walt makes the grand Herculean leap to Vince Bugliosi being a
> "cockroach", just because VB asked for a show of hands at a speaking
> engagement...with the results being: hardly anyone in that crowd had
> read the WR.
That's not the point the charlatan was attempting to make.... He was
trying to make the point that people didn't know both sides of the
story because they hadn't read the Warren Report. Everybody knows
the bottom line of the Warren Report whether they've read it or not.
Everybody knows that the Warren Commission handed down an unbelievable
decree and that's the reason they go to movies like JFK , or watch the
documentaries on TV. They're looking for the truth.
Da Bug's hand poll was a dishonest charade ..... conducted by a
cockroach.
Walt
David Von Pein
Ben Holmes
Interestingly, VB was involved in a court case (which he lost, by the way), in
which he attempted to prove A CONSPIRACY in the RFK case - and refers obliquely
to a conspiracy in the JFK case. See my post on VB quotes.
eca...@tx.rr.com
you more regarding Vincent Bugliosi..
He has impressed me profoundly with
his genius level common sense and
profound objectivity.
I do know quite a bit about polls
however but I must confess I'm
unfamiliar with what you are
talking about here:
---WALT ON:-----------
"Da Bug's hand poll was a dishonest
charade.. conducted by a cockroach."
---WALT OFF----------
What was this poll Walt?
Thanks,
Ed
> > useless and filled with miscalculated conclusions.- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 10:08 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Another item that has recently "come to light" is the Jefferies Film.
> > > Of course, Walt The Kook won't mention the relevant FACT which that
> > > film reveals (in very vivid detail) -- i.e., the bunched jacket on
> > > JFK's back.....
>
> > dufus, hole[s] in the shirt/jacket have nothing to do with who killed
> > Kennedy....
>
> Jezz, the kooks are really afraid of this evidence. They can`t
> afford the attrition of losing these squalking points (if they lose
> one point a year, pretty soon they won`t have anything left to squalk
> about). .
evidence of what Slickster? You forget what side of the Charles River
your on?
> > hiding behind this won't get you anywhere nor anything but
> > more ridicule.... Then again, its the socially deprived Lone Neuter's
> > that need this debate, so carry on, Gloria....
>
> > Oh, what was it the HSCA agreed upon? Yes, there was a **C-O-N-S-P-I-R-
> > A-C-Y** in the killing JFK. Their finding, YES?
conspiracy Slickster.... you keep coming back, we'll fix you right up!
> Yah, nice of you to tout their finding that Oz alone, firing at the
> limo, caused all the wounds sustained by the passengers of that
> vehicle. Thats the kind of conspiracy any LN can accept.
> .
oh he did, where can I fond where anyone or anyBODY convincingly put
Oswald in that window?
> > Jefferies film means
> > one thing; Gary Mack is doing his job, that being hustling a decent PR
> > image for the City of Dallas via the 6th Floor Museum.... Releasing
> > this newly found film (which many have known about for years) touting
> > how well Jackie looks, is tantamount to celebrating Washington's
> > birthday as *matress sale day*
>
> Hmmm, how does releasing this film help Dallas`s image? I just
> can`t make out these connections the kooks see so clearly, I guess I
> don`t take the right drugs.
it doesn't stump! See, all you have to do is hang around here. Osmosis
does wonders. And what's a wuzz like you talking about drugs for?
> > How convenient for the Lone Neuter's..... you're a bunch of
> > illiterate, know nothing wannabe's!
>
> "Whaaa! I won`t let you take my precious conspiracy away from me, I
> won`t! I`ll teach you, I`ll believe it regardless of how much
> information shows I`m wrong, so there!"
that-a-girl, keep cpoming back!
> > Whom can't stand the thought that
> > the WCR was/is wrong!
>
> They produced the only reasonable explaination for the events
> available. Have you seen a better one?
>
that's why you're here Dudster, you're looking for explanantions. Why
you'd be here, otherwise?
>
> > > Jefferies Film:http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
>
> > > Croft Photo (on Elm St.):http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
>
> > > Here's what Gerald Posner said today about the new discovery (text
> > > shown below). I disagree with him re. his "several layers" remark,
> > > however, which is something that cannot possibly be proven beyond all
> > > doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt under his coat is not
> > > viewable).
>
> > > Of course, when evaluating the "holes" evidence, there IS no other
> > > possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery") than to
> > > conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat HAD to
> > > be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's back. I've
> > > often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even debatable?
> > > (Silly question, I guess, when talking to CT-Kooks, huh?) ;)
>
> > > Here's the Posner article........
>
> > ROTFLMFAO ----
>
> > you moron, Posner is a complete fraud...
>
> No, that would be Ben Holmes.
oh Dudster, you're so silly. You've made a complete fool out of
yourself time after time after TIME. But do keep coming back, we need
you! We need to display the utter idiocy Lone Neuter's go to in order
to prop up the WCR.....You're performing a public service, we
understand you lack of military service, your need to measure up and
we hate doing thos to you -- but what-the-hell.....
> > yet you insist he's the end
> > all be all-- When the Nutter's pull out Posner, they're all but
> > buried...
>
> Yah, he didn`t even mention the Gary Mack/City of Dallas public
> relations coup that was so clearly behind the release of this film.
> Who needs reality, when you can make stuff up off the top of your head
> and run with it?
you got a lot to learn youngster.... do keep coming back!
David Von Pein
To laugh and make fun of kooks like you. I thought that was all too
obvious.
You needed reminded of Bud's motives? He's told you himself, numerous
times.
Perhaps you were busy getting the Charmin for King Ben when he said it.
David Von Pein
Ed, Walt's Depends undergarments are in a bind because VB said
this.......
aeffects
> >>> "that's why you're here Dudster, you're looking for explanantions. Why you'd be here, otherwise?" <<<
>
> To laugh and make fun of kooks like you. I thought that was all too
> obvious.
David, you should try and be honest for a change, the Kennedy
assassination is your bread and butter, you post and post and post
regarding the legitimacy of the WCR. You're here hoping and praying
you're NOT wrong.... the doubt is THERE we see it, champ. In you,
Dudster and Lower_y.... Forget Cage, he just wants attention. If he
could hold your skirt, he'll do it!
> You needed reminded of Bud's motives? He's told you himself, numerous
> times.
Bud's a tinhat beanie wonderboy from the northside of the Charles
River (Boston if you must know)... not a lick of fucking common sense.
You on the other hand, are simply misguided - a Johnny come-lately to
the JFK scene, and in awe with the Lone Neuter establishment....
there's hope for you, you do do television, afterall....
> Perhaps you were busy getting the Charmin for King Ben when he said it.
Ben's is a vet, just like me... He led men in the Marine Corps, I need
no other information as to who Ben Holes is... Ben is no KING, Ben
does take apart JFK assassination subject adversaries with a scapel, I
on the other hand use a sledgehammer... in the end, we end up in the
same spot, no KINGS needed -- we got the ACES! The EVIDENCE and the 35
questions [perhaps more]....
cdddraftsman
If all you got after 44 years , 21,000 interviews done by the FBI in
this case and all done by humans that are not infallible , I say you
don't have jack shit let alone a ace hidden in your sleeve . Time to
wake up boy and quite pretending you or Ben Holmes have anything of
substance . Evidence of a Conspiracy ....Not a micron !
Embarrassment .......yes ! Tons of it through inappropriate
investigative means that have made you two especially a laughing stock
that is subject to no end of ridicule for parroting dead lines of
supposed proof that have got the Critical Community mired in confusion
of their own making and nothing now short of complete evacuation , out
of this field can save your worthless low life asses ! CLEAR OUT !
THAT'S AN ORDER ! YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LACKY ? ..................tl
aeffects
I say your hedging your bet you weanie, infallible? Its gonna cost ya
to see my hand...and you can't afford me -- This is Vegas baby, you
know, that little suburb of Los Angeles, ring-a-bell? -- you have no
clue who holds what... LMFAO!
<snip the rest of the nonsense>
David Von Pein
I've got a couple dozen Qs myself....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9f9db2052413d59d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e70b829247b4a49
I've noticed a more mellow David Healy tonight. Wonder why? Has DH
softened...ever so slightly?
Might be a good time to ask David H. this.....
COULD THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ON THE TABLE IN THE JFK/TIPPIT CASES
ACTUALLY BE CORRECT/LEGIT?
Is that even REMOTELY possible in your mind?
If yes....then why does your mind always lean toward conspiracy here?
Because if the evidence IS real/not faked/unaltered/legit -- then Mr.
Oswald is as guilty as Ted Bundy and there's nothing any complainer
can do about it.
Awaiting a (mellower) logical DH response.
Thank you.
aeffects
> >>> "We {the CT kooks} got the ACES! The EVIDENCE and the 35 questions." <<<
>
> I've got a couple dozen Qs myself....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9f9db2052413d59d
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e70b829247b4a49
>
> I've noticed a more mellow David Healy tonight. Wonder why? Has DH
> softened...ever so slightly?
>
> Might be a good time to ask David H. this.....
>
> COULD THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ON THE TABLE IN THE JFK/TIPPIT CASES
> ACTUALLY BE CORRECT/LEGIT?
why do you equate Tippit with JFK? The evidence suggests to me, they
are not related. Just another DPD case, the unfortunate murder of a
DPD officer.
> Is that even REMOTELY possible in your mind?
NO, my read of the evidence suggests LHO was NOT involved.
> If yes....then why does your mind always lean toward conspiracy here?
>
> Because if the evidence IS real/not faked/unaltered/legit -- then Mr.
> Oswald is as guilty as Ted Bundy and there's nothing any complainer
> can do about it.
see the above
David Von Pein
<multiple belly laughs ensuing>
Yeah, it just so happens that a cop is killed just a few miles from
DP, and killed (without a shred of a doubt) by a man who just happened
to work in the building from which JFK was killed 45 minutes
earlier...a building where Tippit's killer's gun rests on the 6th
Floor, a 6th Floor which is strewn with Tippit's killers prints and
other evidence that shows Tippit's killer to also be JFK's slayer.
Yeah...who would ever CONNECT those two killings?
Silly me.
Just don't take that little theory of yours to Vegas (baby)...you
know, that little suburb of LA (baby)? Ring a bell?
>>> "NO, my read of the evidence suggests LHO was NOT involved." <<<
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't "read".
Well, the "mellow" in you must just be the narcotics taking hold. Too
bad.
Oh, well...back to bed with Ollie and Fetzer you go (baby)!
Still waiting for that shot-by-shot scenario though. Any chance we'll
see that before 2019? Why won't you cough it up? Or were JFK/JBC shot
at all on 11/22? That's a new CT for you -- just deny the men were
shot. No need for ANY shots at all. You're home free.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:56 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > On Feb 21, 10:08 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Another item that has recently "come to light" is the Jefferies Film.
> > > > Of course, Walt The Kook won't mention the relevant FACT which that
> > > > film reveals (in very vivid detail) -- i.e., the bunched jacket on
> > > > JFK's back.....
> >
> > > dufus, hole[s] in the shirt/jacket have nothing to do with who killed
> > > Kennedy....
> >
> > Jezz, the kooks are really afraid of this evidence. They can`t
> > afford the attrition of losing these squalking points (if they lose
> > one point a year, pretty soon they won`t have anything left to squalk
> > about). .
>
> evidence of what Slickster? You forget what side of the Charles River
> your on?
>
> > > hiding behind this won't get you anywhere nor anything but
> > > more ridicule.... Then again, its the socially deprived Lone Neuter's
> > > that need this debate, so carry on, Gloria....
> >
> > > Oh, what was it the HSCA agreed upon? Yes, there was a **C-O-N-S-P-I-R-
> > > A-C-Y** in the killing JFK. Their finding, YES?
>
> conspiracy Slickster.... you keep coming back, we'll fix you right up!
What did the HSCA base their conclusions of conspiracy on? Did that
evidence hold up? With the faulty dictabelt evidence removed, what
does that leave? Oz, alone, firing at the limo.
> > Yah, nice of you to tout their finding that Oz alone, firing at the
> > limo, caused all the wounds sustained by the passengers of that
> > vehicle. Thats the kind of conspiracy any LN can accept.
> > .
>
> oh he did, where can I fond where anyone or anyBODY convincingly put
> Oswald in that window?
>
> > > Jefferies film means
> > > one thing; Gary Mack is doing his job, that being hustling a decent PR
> > > image for the City of Dallas via the 6th Floor Museum.... Releasing
> > > this newly found film (which many have known about for years) touting
> > > how well Jackie looks, is tantamount to celebrating Washington's
> > > birthday as *matress sale day*
> >
> > Hmmm, how does releasing this film help Dallas`s image? I just
> > can`t make out these connections the kooks see so clearly, I guess I
> > don`t take the right drugs.
>
> it doesn't stump! See, all you have to do is hang around here. Osmosis
> does wonders. And what's a wuzz like you talking about drugs for?
It`s my standard put-down of you, haven`t you noticed? "Healey is a
junkie".
> > > How convenient for the Lone Neuter's..... you're a bunch of
> > > illiterate, know nothing wannabe's!
> >
> > "Whaaa! I won`t let you take my precious conspiracy away from me, I
> > won`t! I`ll teach you, I`ll believe it regardless of how much
> > information shows I`m wrong, so there!"
>
> that-a-girl, keep cpoming back!
>
> > > Whom can't stand the thought that
> > > the WCR was/is wrong!
> >
> > They produced the only reasonable explaination for the events
> > available. Have you seen a better one?
> >
>
> that's why you're here Dudster, you're looking for explanantions. Why
> you'd be here, otherwise?
That is true, I did come here looking for the answer to the
question "how can the conspiracy believers believe such bullshit?".
The answer I`ve found is, they want to. Maybe need to.
> >
> > > > Jefferies Film:http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10222.jpg
> >
> > > > Croft Photo (on Elm St.):http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-1084-1154280771.jpg
> >
> > > > Here's what Gerald Posner said today about the new discovery (text
> > > > shown below). I disagree with him re. his "several layers" remark,
> > > > however, which is something that cannot possibly be proven beyond all
> > > > doubt via JUST the film, because JFK's shirt under his coat is not
> > > > viewable).
> >
> > > > Of course, when evaluating the "holes" evidence, there IS no other
> > > > possible answer (aside from massive unprovable "fakery") than to
> > > > conclude that the ONE bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt and coat HAD to
> > > > be holes made by the ONE and only bullet that entered JFK's back. I've
> > > > often wondered why this evidence re. the "holes" is even debatable?
> > > > (Silly question, I guess, when talking to CT-Kooks, huh?) ;)
> >
> > > > Here's the Posner article........
> >
> > > ROTFLMFAO ----
> >
> > > you moron, Posner is a complete fraud...
> >
> > No, that would be Ben Holmes.
>
> oh Dudster, you're so silly. You've made a complete fool out of
> yourself time after time after TIME. But do keep coming back, we need
> you! We need to display the utter idiocy Lone Neuter's go to in order
> to prop up the WCR.....You're performing a public service, we
> understand you lack of military service, your need to measure up and
> we hate doing thos to you -- but what-the-hell.....
The highlight of your life was being drafted, eh?
Walt
> Walt I couldn't disagree with
> you more regarding Vincent Bugliosi..
> He has impressed me profoundly with
> his genius level common sense and
> profound objectivity.
>
> I do know quite a bit about polls
> however but I must confess I'm
> unfamiliar with what you are
> talking about here:
> ---WALT ON:-----------
> "Da Bug's hand poll was a dishonest
> charade.. conducted by a cockroach."
> ---WALT OFF----------
>
> What was this poll Walt?
For someone who thinks he's one of the annointed elite, who thinks
he's superior to the peasant CT's, who are too stupid to realize the
Warren Commission was a panel of elite intellectuals who gave us the
truth about JFK's murder, you certainly have trouble with simple
concepts. A show of hands on any question is a very basic poll.....
Duh!
Walt
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Feb 21, 9:54 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "We {the CT kooks} got the ACES! The EVIDENCE and the 35 questions." <<<
>>
>> I've got a couple dozen Qs myself....
Nothing, however, that you'd be willing to support when they are refutted with
the *EVIDENCE*.
You've proven that many times.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Feb 21, 8:57 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "that's why you're here Dudster, you're looking for explanantions. Why you'd be here, otherwise?" <<<
> >
> > To laugh and make fun of kooks like you. I thought that was all too
> > obvious.
>
> David, you should try and be honest for a change, the Kennedy
> assassination is your bread and butter, you post and post and post
> regarding the legitimacy of the WCR. You're here hoping and praying
> you're NOT wrong.... the doubt is THERE we see it, champ. In you,
> Dudster and Lower_y.... Forget Cage, he just wants attention. If he
> could hold your skirt, he'll do it!
>
>
> > You needed reminded of Bud's motives? He's told you himself, numerous
> > times.
>
> Bud's a tinhat beanie wonderboy from the northside of the Charles
> River (Boston if you must know)... not a lick of fucking common sense.
> You on the other hand, are simply misguided - a Johnny come-lately to
> the JFK scene, and in awe with the Lone Neuter establishment....
> there's hope for you, you do do television, afterall....
>
> > Perhaps you were busy getting the Charmin for King Ben when he said it.
>
> Ben's is a vet, just like me...
Makes me wonder if they checked the lead content in the rations
during the time you served.
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 8:57 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >>> "that's why you're here Dudster, you're looking for explanantions. Why you'd be here, otherwise?" <<<
>
> > > To laugh and make fun of kooks like you. I thought that was all too
> > > obvious.
>
> > David, you should try and be honest for a change, the Kennedy
> > assassination is your bread and butter, you post and post and post
> > regarding the legitimacy of the WCR. You're here hoping and praying
> > you're NOT wrong.... the doubt is THERE we see it, champ. In you,
> > Dudster and Lower_y.... Forget Cage, he just wants attention. If he
> > could hold your skirt, he'll do it!
>
> > > You needed reminded of Bud's motives? He's told you himself, numerous
> > > times.
>
> > Bud's a tinhat beanie wonderboy from the northside of the Charles
> > River (Boston if you must know)... not a lick of fucking common sense.
> > You on the other hand, are simply misguided - a Johnny come-lately to
> > the JFK scene, and in awe with the Lone Neuter establishment....
> > there's hope for you, you do do television, afterall....
>
> > > Perhaps you were busy getting the Charmin for King Ben when he said it.
>
> > Ben's is a vet, just like me...
>
> Makes me wonder if they checked the lead content in the rations
> during the time you served.
more than enough weight to keep one grounded in reality during the
time I served...