JFK Assassination Resources Online
Dave Reitzes
documents, and loads of useful links:
Dave
Pamela McElwain-Brown
interesting site. Don't expect any objectivity, though.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
--
www.themagicflute.org
The amazing story of the real magic flute...and my life as a musician and
teacher.
www.in-broad-daylight.com
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X
SPEED Channel JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine Documentary at
Youtube:
http://youtube.com/profile?user=pamina58
My new radio channel, blog and chat at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/JFK-Assassination
My trade list at Bookins.Com:
http://www.bookins.com/rssreader/trade/1cz6c91cA/
My blogs:
http://yearofmozart2006.blogspot.com/
http://www.pipertothealternative.blogspot.com/
http://www.viennamystery.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.taowoofchu.blogspot.com/
"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f2a418c6-f718-4c4a...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "For anyone who wants to read the negatives about Garrison, this is an interesting site. Don't expect any objectivity, though." <<<
As if King-Kook Garrison deserves anything but "negatives".
Is there ANYthing "positive" to say about Mr. Garrison? Anything at
all?
If so, please let the masses know about it.
===================================
JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
GARRISON AND HIS 1967 NBC-TV "REBUTTAL":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/537ea06e75fd0a29
THE 1968 GARRISON/CARSON INTERVIEW:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/19cc01e0f1b9f8be
http://www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=ny0f225ycs&v=1
===================================
===================================
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "For anyone who wants to read the negatives about Garrison, this is an interesting site. Don't expect any objectivity, though." <<<
>
> As if King-Kook Garrison deserves anything but "negatives".
>
> Is there ANYthing "positive" to say about Mr. Garrison? Anything at
> all?
>
> If so, please let the masses know about it.
Is there ANYthing "positive" to say about a judiciary that has
accepted Mr. Garrison as a judge?
Herbert
>
> ===================================
>
> JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 1):http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
>
> JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 2):http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
>
> GARRISON AND HIS 1967 NBC-TV "REBUTTAL":http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/537ea06e75fd0a29
>
> THE 1968 GARRISON/CARSON INTERVIEW:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/19cc01e0f1b9f8be
>
> http://www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=ny0f225yc...
>
> ===================================
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> ===================================
aeffects
old news Dave..... CT's are taking over, everywhere
> Dave
aeffects
> >>> "For anyone who wants to read the negatives about Garrison, this is an interesting site. Don't expect any objectivity, though." <<<
>
don't you have a 70's baseball DVD to sell? Make a buck, show us
capitalism is alive and well, you do know how to do that don't ya?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
the assassination of JFK done through the US judicial system. Garrison had
immediately asked the FBI to interview David Ferrie in November, 1963. He
assumed those leads were followed by the WC. However, when the WCR came
out, that turned out not to be the case.
He discovered what amounted to the genesis of the conspiracy in the WC
Hearings and Exhibits, as well as the testimony of those individuals from
NOLA who were interviewed. He wondered why significant questions were not
asked. He decided to pursue leads that the FBI had not followed. He walked
into a quagmire that was the ongoing coverup.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
--
www.themagicflute.org
The amazing story of the real magic flute...and my life as a musician and
teacher.
www.in-broad-daylight.com
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X
SPEED Channel JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine Documentary at
Youtube:
http://youtube.com/profile?user=pamina58
My new radio channel, blog and chat at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/JFK-Assassination
My trade list at Bookins.Com:
http://www.bookins.com/rssreader/trade/1cz6c91cA/
My blogs:
http://yearofmozart2006.blogspot.com/
http://www.pipertothealternative.blogspot.com/
http://www.viennamystery.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.taowoofchu.blogspot.com/
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:90ba3824-dfb0-4bd2...@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
Hilarious!
On Feb 24, 5:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "For anyone who wants to read the negatives about Garrison, this is an interesting site. Don't expect any objectivity, though." <<<
>
> As if King-Kook Garrison deserves anything but "negatives".
>
> Is there ANYthing "positive" to say about Mr. Garrison? Anything at
> all?
>
> If so, please let the masses know about it.
>
> ===================================
>
> JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 1):http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
>
> JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG (PART 2):http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
>
> GARRISON AND HIS 1967 NBC-TV "REBUTTAL":http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/537ea06e75fd0a29
>
> THE 1968 GARRISON/CARSON INTERVIEW:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/19cc01e0f1b9f8be
>
> http://www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=ny0f225yc...
>
> ===================================
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> ===================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't you love how Reitzes's alias pops up to defend himself? Hilarious!" <<<
Don't you love it when one kook (Healy) can so easily convince another
kook (Caprio) of something that is so obviously incorrect (Reitzes
using any type of "alias")?
Hilarious.
To be expected (of course). But still hilarious.
robcap...@netscape.com
Hilarious.
Your group has said I am Gil Jesus since my first day on here so that
is the way it goes around here. I looked at at your site, er I mean
Reitzes's site, and it does seem to be the same person. I mean
**both** of you love Amazon don't you? So what, you are the same
person, big deal.
David Von Pein
>>> "Your group has said I am Gil Jesus since my first day on here." <<<
And, as you no doubt know, I have said that the LNers who think you
and Jesus are the same entity are 100% wrong (IMO).
>>> "I looked at your site, er I mean Reitzes's site, and it does seem to be the same person." <<<
What in the world would make you think that?
>>> "I mean **both** of you love Amazon don't you?" <<<
We do? That's news to me.
>>> "So what, you are the same person, big deal." <<<
Still batting triple-oh, Rob. Nice going.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Your group has said I am Gil Jesus since my first day on here." <<<
>
"And, as you no doubt know, I have said that the LNers who think you
and Jesus are the same entity are 100% wrong (IMO)."
Yes, you have, and these are the ONLY times you have shown any
CS&L! :-)
> >>> "I looked at your site, er I mean Reitzes's site, and it does seem to be the same person." <<<
"What in the world would make you think that?"
Geez, I don't know, maybe you **both** have a hate on for Garrison
perhaps. Also, Reitzes used to post in ungodly amounts and lately he
rarely posts, why the withdrawal? I think perhaps because he is
posting as someone else. Why? Who knows, as it is just plain
ridiculous to post as someone else on this board.
> >>> "I mean **both** of you love Amazon don't you?" <<<
"We do? That's news to me."
Check the link to his site, he has Amazon stuff also on his pages.
Your blog has more work on it as his (or should I say yours?) as a
simple blue background.
> >>> "So what, you are the same person, big deal." <<<
"Still batting triple-oh, Rob. Nice going."
Come on Dave, you even have the SAME first name! LOL!
David Von Pein
>>> "Geez, I don't know, maybe you **both** have a hate on for Garrison perhaps." <<<
Which is a reasonable LNer like-mindedness (seeing as how Garrison
deserves to be scorned by anyone with any common sense).
>>> "Also, Reitzes used to post in ungodly amounts and lately he rarely posts, why the withdrawal?" <<<
You'll have to ask him that question. I can't help you here.
>>> "I think perhaps because he is posting as someone else." <<<
Could be. But that "someone else" is certainly not me.
>>> "Why? Who knows, as it is just plain ridiculous to post as someone else on this board." <<<
On this point, I totally agree with you, Rob.
(Gee, maybe miracles CAN occur, huh?)
>>> "Check the link to his site, he has Amazon stuff also on his pages." <<<
So? Dave R., like me, is probably also a member of the "Amazon
Associates" program, where you can place Amazon links on your website
(or blog) and get revenue when people buy stuff after entering the
Amazon site directly through your site/blog. .....
I don't know about Dave R., but I haven't had very many sales via my
(very colorful) links on my blog. (Probably because I refuse to place
links to any crappy "pro-conspiracy" stuff; only LN stuff is going to
show up on my site/blog; if that's considered "one-sided", so be it.)
But I have managed to "sell" a couple copies of the best JFK movie
ever made -- "Four Days In November":
>>> "Your blog has more work on it as his (or should I say yours?) as a simple blue background." <<<
Well, I might as well take this added opportunity to plug both of the
Internet locations referred to here. (I wonder if this counts as 1 guy
promoting 2 sites, or 2 guys promoting 2 sites? Oh, the confusion of
being two "Daves" at once!)......
>>> "Come on Dave, you even have the SAME first name!" <<<
Which SHOULD probably be a big hint that we are NOT the same
individual. For, wouldn't it make better sense (from an "I WANT TO
HIDE MY REAL IDENTITY" POV) to use a different 1st name when using an
alias? (I certainly would think so. But--YMMV, I suppose.)
>>> "LOL!" <<<
I like my first name actually. I don't see what's so humorous about
it. It's straight out of the bible. :)
(Incidentally, Rob, my middle name is Robert. Yikes! I wonder if I
should now consider changing that middle moniker after talking with
Robcap?) ;)
robcap...@netscape.com
> > >>> "Your group has said I am Gil Jesus since my first day on here." <<<
>
> "And, as you no doubt know, I have said that the LNers who think you
> and Jesus are the same entity are 100% wrong (IMO)."
>
> Yes, you have, and these are the ONLY times you have shown any
> CS&L! :-)
>
> > >>> "I looked at your site, er I mean Reitzes's site, and it does seem to be the same person." <<<
>
> "What in the world would make you think that?"
>
> Geez, I don't know, maybe you **both** have a hate on for Garrison
> perhaps. Also, Reitzes used to post in ungodly amounts and lately he
> rarely posts, why the withdrawal? I think perhaps because he is
> posting as someone else. Why? Who knows, as it is just plain
> ridiculous to post as someone else on this board.
>
> > >>> "I mean **both** of you love Amazon don't you?" <<<
>
> "We do? That's news to me."
>
> >>> "Check the link to his site, he has Amazon stuff also on his pages." <<<
"So? Dave R., like me, is probably also a member of the "Amazon
Associates" program, where you can place Amazon links on your website
(or blog) and get revenue when people buy stuff after entering the
Amazon site directly through your site/blog. ....."
Mere concidence, huh? I think not.
> www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?location=http://associates.amazon.com...
"I don't know about Dave R., but I haven't had very many sales via my
(very colorful) links on my blog. (Probably because I refuse to place
links to any crappy "pro-conspiracy" stuff; only LN stuff is going to
show up on my site/blog; if that's considered "one-sided", so be it.)"
Of course NOT, who wants to buy a bunch of lies? You should be more
open to all angles and present conspiracy theories that you think are
feasible. Which reminds me, I asked you recently which theory or
theories you could agree to and you never answered.
"But I have managed to "sell" a couple copies of the best JFK movie
ever made -- "Four Days In November":"
Well, like P.T. Barnum said "there is a sucker born every minute" so
no shock there.
> www.amazon.com/dp/6301969308
> >>> "Your blog has more work on it as his (or should I say yours?) as a simple blue background." <<<
"Well, I might as well take this added opportunity to plug both of the
Internet locations referred to here. (I wonder if this counts as 1 guy
promoting 2 sites, or 2 guys promoting 2 sites? Oh, the confusion of
being two "Daves" at once!)......"
For all the up-to-date propaganda on the JFK case go to:
> >>> "Come on Dave, you even have the SAME first name!" <<<
"Which SHOULD probably be a big hint that we are NOT the same
individual. For, wouldn't it make better sense (from an "I WANT TO
HIDE MY REAL IDENTITY" POV) to use a different 1st name when using an
alias? (I certainly would think so. But--YMMV, I suppose.)"
Maybe you did before, but got confused so you decided to keep the same
first name? Who knows and it really doesn't matter to me. You are
totally lacking CS&L no matter which Dave you are.
> >>> "LOL!" <<<
"I like my first name actually. I don't see what's so humorous about
it. It's straight out of the bible. :)
(Incidentally, Rob, my middle name is Robert. Yikes! I wonder if I
should now consider changing that middle moniker after talking with
Robcap?) ;)"
How ironic as my middle name is David. Yikes, I should start to use
my second middle name, Richard, more often. :-)
David Von Pein
>>> "For all the up-to-date propaganda on the JFK case go to..." <<<
That's an odd statement coming from a CT-Kook like you. I thought the
"Dave & Dave Twins" were stuck in 1964.
Suddenly we're "up to date", huh?
Well, that's progress anyway.
David Von Pein
>>> "You should be more open to all angles and present conspiracy theories that you think are feasible." <<<
When I see a "feasible" one that actually FITS THE EVIDENCE IN THE
CASE, I'll present it. But so far...zilch in that department.
>>> "Which reminds me, I asked you recently which theory or theories you could agree to and you never answered." <<<
I'll answer that now.....
The only possible conspiracy theory that I could agree with at this
stage (i.e., after 45 years of CTers looking under every rock for a
plot and coming up empty every day of every week) would be this:
Oswald (as the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza and on 10th St.) was
"involved" in some manner with (perhaps) another individual (a non-
gunman) who could have conceivably urged Oswald to perform his
murderous deed in Dallas, or in some small way possibly helped Oswald
with the planning of the shooting.
But even the above low-level type of two-person "plot" doesn't seem
very likely at all, given the fact that if it were true, the main
question to ask would then be:
WHERE WAS THIS "OTHER" PLOTTER WHEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD NEEDED HIM THE
MOST (just after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63)?
Why did this other person, in effect, abandon Oswald when Oz could
certainly have used some "help" escaping the scene of the crime?
The "other" guy maybe got cold feet and left Oz holding the bag, you
say? Well, maybe. I suppose that is possible.
But another thing that doesn't add up even from that small 2-man
conspiracy is the fact that if it were true, and Oz had a "helper" in
some way in planning and/or carrying out the shooting, it's unlikely
(IMO) that Oswald would have used Wes Frazier as his ride to Irving on
Nov. 21st (thereby making it necessary for Oswald to lie his head off
to Wes Frazier regarding the paper bag and the "curtain rods").
Oswald, IF he had a helper (who could drive and had a vehicle), would
have surely utilized the services of the "helper" in transporting him
to Irving on Thursday or even earlier than Thursday (in order to
retrieve the rifle, which assumes the "helper" didn't have an even
better rifle of his own that Oswald could have perhaps used). And then
the co-conspirator would have also been able to drive Oswald back to
Dallas on Friday morning.
But, instead, we have Oswald doing unusual things on Thursday (going
to Irving WITH WESLEY FRAZIER, who certainly wasn't any "conspirator")
and on Friday (coming to work WITH FRAZIER while carrying a bulky
paper bag and NO LUNCH BAG at all, per what Oswald HIMSELF told Wes
Frazier, with Oz telling Wesley that he was going to "buy" his lunch
on Friday).
Among many other things, those unusual acts while USING FRAZIER as his
mode of transportation (instead of SOMEBODY ELSE), plus all of
Oswald's "on foot" activities after the assassination, indicate to me
that Oswald was a LONE ACT on November 22, 1963.
So, even a small 2-man "plot" doesn't really fit in with the known
evidence in the case (i.e., Oswald's verified actions before and after
12:30 PM on 11/22/63).
robcap...@netscape.com
Progress is the last word I would use in regards to LN thoughts, they
are the same exact ones LNers had in 1964. I was refering to the fact
you include CTers in your debates.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You should be more open to all angles and present conspiracy theories that you think are feasible." <<<
"When I see a "feasible" one that actually FITS THE EVIDENCE IN THE
CASE, I'll present it. But so far...zilch in that department."
Dave-squared, if you have not seen the light yet, that NO evidence
proves LHO fired a shot on 11/22/63, you are hopeless.
Do you realize how many normal crimes are a conspiracy? A large
number of crimes have two or more involved so why is it so far-fetched
for you to believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President? What
was LHO's motive? What did he hope to gain for his cause? What was
his cause? He died just two days later so whatever he hoped to gain
was out the window pretty fast, so it seems to me he was doing this
for a person(s) or more likely, a group, that could reap the benefits
of this act for a long time to come. The fact the WC could never come
up with a realistic motive is still a big thing for me as we do NOT
know what he hoped to gain from this act. What made it worth it?
David Von Pein
>>> "What made it worth it?" <<<
Finally achieving something BIG that he set out to do (i.e., killing
the President with his own gun).*
* = Just my guess, you see. But since LHO wasn't kind enough to tell
anyone his reasons for shooting JFK, we can never know for sure.
robcap...@netscape.com
Exactly my point! That is what INVESTIGATIONS are for as rarely does
the criminal kindly tell you why they did. The investigators put this
together and decide who has the best motive, means and opportunity to
do the crime.
David Von Pein
And that person was (per the sum total of evidence in the case):
[drumroll....]
Lee Harvey Oswald.
[Mark VII.]
robcap...@netscape.com
[drumroll....]
Lee Harvey Oswald."
Sure he was. It is a shame for you you have NO evidence to show your
assertion to be correct.
David Von Pein
>>> "It is a shame for you you have NO evidence to show your assertion to be correct." <<<
Yeah, I've only got about 606 things that perform that task. And the
Kook Requirement is 607 such items. Damn! Just one shy of the Promised
Land!
Still batting a solid .000, Rob.
But keep saying that all the evidence against LHO doesn't exist,
Robby. It really makes you look like you know a lot by denying the
existence of every scrap of LHO-Did-It evidence in the case.
Brilliant.
robcap...@netscape.com
Brilliant."
Davey, let's start at the beginning (beyond motive as you have NONE
for LHO) in this so-called evidence you have. Show me one bullet or
fragment that was proven to have been INSIDE JFK and/or JBC (I mean
one with blood, tissue, and DNA).
David Von Pein
What good would that do?
You, being the ABO basket of fruit you obviously are (or are
pretending to be) would just come up with some different excuse to try
and invalidate that evidence too. Just as you and your ilk do with
every piece of evidence in the whole case. Which is why you don't feel
embarrassed at all when you utter such nonsense like: "LHO shot no one
that day".
BTW,
CE842 was almost certainly inside JBC. And CE843 was almost certainly
in the head of JFK. (Common sense alone dictates this to be true.)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm
BTW #2,
"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have
any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that
must have been on it were removed by someone early on at the Dallas
{Vince misspoke here; he meant to say Washington} crime lab or
elsewhere almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I
handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none
had any visible blood on them. ....
"Interestingly, {the FBI's Robert} Frazier testified that with
respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential
limousine {CE567 & CE569}, "there was a very slight residue of blood
or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
examination"." -- VINCE "CS&L" BUGLIOSI; Page 425 of Endnotes in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Show me one bullet or fragment that was proven to have been INSIDE JFK and/or JBC (I mean one with blood, tissue, and DNA)." <<<
"What good would that do?"
For starters it would show you have the right evidence, but as it
stands you don't. You have a bullet and two fragments that show no
signs of ever being inside either victim so they are really not very
important.
"You, being the ABO basket of fruit you obviously are (or are
pretending to be) would just come up with some different excuse to try
and invalidate that evidence too. Just as you and your ilk do with
every piece of evidence in the whole case. Which is why you don't feel
embarrassed at all when you utter such nonsense like: "LHO shot no one
that day"."
NO I wouldn't! IF the bullet or fragments had blood, tissue, or
clothing fibers on them from JFK and JBC I would have to accept them,
but you have NO such evidence.
"BTW,
CE842 was almost certainly inside JBC. And CE843 was almost certainly
in the head of JFK. (Common sense alone dictates this to be true.)"
You CAN'T prove they were from a 6.5mm Carcano bullet though, can you?
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
"BTW #2,
"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any
blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must
have been on it were removed by someone early on at the Dallas {Vince
misspoke here; he meant to say Washington} crime lab or elsewhere
almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in
court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any
visible blood on them. ...."
Sure, how about proving this THEORY! Why would someone remove blood
from the bullet?
"Interestingly, {the FBI's Robert} Frazier testified that with respect
to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine
{CE567 & CE569}, "there was a very slight residue of blood or some
other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
examination"." -- VINCE "CS&L" BUGLIOSI; Page 425 of Endnotes in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)"
This was a bunch of bull as he finally had to admit there was no blood
or tissue connecting the bullet or fragments to JFK or JBC. Even the
2001 report that came out could not match them to either victim.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:74d30296-1d0b-477f...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
[drumroll....]
Lee Harvey Oswald."
NAZI Justice need "No Evidence".
David Von Pein
>>> "NAZI Justice need "No Evidence"." <<<
Nor does justice doled out by kooks, it would seem.