Quoting (More) Common Sense

[David Von Pein]

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Just added:

"It's amazing how all the good stuff falls just out of range of
photographic capabilities, always in the realm of interpretation and
speculation. The conspirators must have just known that no camera was
going to get a clear picture of all the stuff they were doing. In fact
they were banking their lives on it. Yet they still left the person
they put so much effort into framing stand out front with everyone
during the assassination and had shooters all over in an area with
plenty of cameras and home movies. Incredible guts and incredible
luck, if conspiracy ideas have any merit." -- Bud; August 12, 2012

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/273bf2b19956d6ec

[aeffects]

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/273bf2b19956...

methinks you lone nut morons are REALLY running now... you can't quite
grasp, or (better yet) your finally grasping just how fucked up the
Warren Commission Report is --AND-- just how weak the case against is
against Lee Harvey Oswald.... you're in full flight now., stuck with
your on damn misgivings and the simple realization of just how much
time you wasted defending pure bunk! Bud the dudsters above post
reflects just how far out of touch the trolls have become... with this
type of lone nut attitude you moron's should still be defending the
falt earth scenario.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! Carry on dah-ling, you
incompetent you!!

[timstter]

You can't even spell, Healy.

Go away.

NOBODY is interested in your pathetic opinion, you clown.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[aeffects]

fuck off Fatboy... you're irrelevant around here ....

> Informative Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <72f2d8cd-71dc-4964...@r2g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

The kooks have to invent difficulties where there were none.

The press cars were moved back, even the official White House photographer, who
was normally in the followup car, wasn't there this day. By moving all the press
photographers out of position, all they needed to worry about was the relatively
light crowds... and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest,
within minutes.

When you control the investigation, you don't worry about facts... facts can be
swept under the rug... they can disappear.

Although RFK, not JFK, you can google "Jamie Scott Enyart" for an obvious and
clear example...


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

>>> "...and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest, within minutes." <<<

Liar.

Altgens' camera wasn't confiscated. Nor were his photos. Nor were the
photos or cameras of any of the following Dealey Plaza witnesses:

Moorman
Zapruder
Muchmore
Nix
Towner
Willis
Croft
Bond
Bronson
Powell.

(Et al.)

Holmes, as usual, is nuts.

[aeffects]

Von Pein as usual is dancing the .john lone nut shuffle. Title of the
song he's dancing to: Disinfo For The Ages by Earl Warren Sextet.

[Jason Burke]

Why don't you respond to why all the above films / photos weren't
confiscated, fucktard?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5140d449-b9e6-40fe...@hv2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 12, 5:24=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "...and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest, within=

> minutes." <<<
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> Altgens' camera wasn't confiscated. Nor were his photos. Nor were the
>> photos or cameras of any of the following Dealey Plaza witnesses:
>>
>> Moorman
>> Zapruder
>> Muchmore
>> Nix
>> Towner
>> Willis
>> Croft
>> Bond
>> Bronson
>> Powell.
>>
>> (Et al.)
>>
>> Holmes, as usual, is nuts.
>
>Von Pein as usual is dancing the .john lone nut shuffle. Title of the
>song he's dancing to: Disinfo For The Ages by Earl Warren Sextet.

And not surprisingly, he's lying again.

Zapruder was taken from the public within days, and was never seen by the public
for a decade. Nix is another excellent example - taken, and when returned, Nix
complained that it wasn't the same. Willis, another excellent example... the
kook can't produce the original negative - it's gone forever.

And, of course, we have testimony from those who's cameras & film *WERE*
confiscated ... so what do we end up with?

A liar... lying about known facts, pretending that all's well - when we *KNOW*
the truth.

And what's truly sad... DVP will pretend that he's in the right on this issue.

Just like when he couldn't admit that Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's
testimony.

[aeffects]

son, you're not worthy of my case related film-photo commentary. Why?
Simple, you're a damn fool, as well as a liar and a phoney who needs
at least 3 aliases on this board, so in a few simple words: get
fucked, idiot!

[David Von Pein]

KOOK HOLMES SAID:

And not surprisingly, he [DVP] is lying again.

[The] Zapruder [film] was taken from the public within days, and was

never seen by the public for a decade. Nix is another excellent
example - taken, and when returned, Nix complained that it wasn't the

same. Willis, another excellent example...the kook can't produce the

original negative - it's gone forever.

And, of course, we have testimony from those who's [sic] cameras &

film *WERE* confiscated ... so what do we end up with?

A liar... lying about known facts, pretending that all's well - when
we *KNOW* the truth.

And what's truly sad... DVP will pretend that he's in the right on
this issue.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I see that Holmes has decided to move the goal posts. He's changing
"confiscated within minutes" to "days" now.

But in either case, he's nuts. Zapruder's film was in Zapruder's or
Schwartz's possession until it was processed and all three copies
made. IOW--No possible way it could have been faked, unless Mr. Z or
the Kodak/Jamieson boys were "in" on a plot immediately.

And the fact the Z-Film was never shown for 11+ years to the general
public certainly had nothing to do with the Government keeping it
under wraps. It was Life Magazine keeping it under wraps--to protect
their investment (of course). It was their property during that decade
and they were going to treat it as exclusive property, which they did.
Does Ben think that LIFE was in cahoots with the Government and in on
a cover-up? (I'll bet he does think so. Poor kook.)

The Nix Film is pretty crappy and dark in the background, and
thus isn't very clear for determining much of anything important or
case-breaking (except for the limo slowdown, which perfectly matches
the Z-Film, although Kook Holmes will lie and say otherwise). Plus,
the
Nix Film also matches the Z-Film with respect to the debris from
JFK's
head all going UP and FORWARD of his head right after the fatal shot.
Is that part "fake", Benny?

And what do Willis' pictures show that would be of interest to the
photo-fakers? What did they have to alter in those photos, Benji? A
Knoll shooter in the background? Jimmy Files sticking out of a
manhole?

And, yes, I am in the "right" about this issue -- because to think
that ANY of those films/photos were altered by ANYBODY at all is a
stupid idea. Particularly the Z-Film theories--with the head snap
being left IN the altered film. Talk about idiot plotters. That takes
first prize in the "Stupid Things To Leave In An Altered Film"
category.

[Bud]

On Aug 12, 7:36 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <72f2d8cd-71dc-4964-bc43-0e1eaa222...@r2g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,

Not if you imagine conspirators that can do anything, in an arena at
any time. Then it`s easy-peasy. But in the real world no matter how
powerful you are there are things that are going to be out of your
control.

> The press cars were moved back, even the official White House photographer, who
> was normally in the followup car, wasn't there this day. By moving all the press
> photographers out of position,

Just think, if you could just show that any of these aspects were
the work of some conspiracy you would *actually have something*. But
in every area you fail.

> all they needed to worry about was the relatively
> light crowds... and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest,
> within minutes.

All of them? And why do you fail to uncover the operation? Wouldn`t
police on the scene have to be told that something was going to occur,
and their role was to obtain all the cameras at the scene. How do you
stop the cops from talking about these strange instructions?

And of course Ben is missing the point. Conspiracy retards for years
have been claiming that is blur or that in the evidence photos is
significant. The fact that these things are never clear and always
open to interpretation is indicative not of conspiracy but desperation
to believe there was one.

> When you control the investigation, you don't worry about facts... facts can be
> swept under the rug... they can disappear.

If the conspirators are magical leprechauns. When the conspirators
you imagine require such abilities for your ideas to be valid it`s
time to scrap your ideas.

> Although RFK, not JFK, you can google "Jamie Scott Enyart" for an obvious and
> clear example...

Are you claiming those police that took the film knew beforehand
that Robert Kennedy was going to be shot?

[timstter]

Awww, poor dwiddle Dave boy is losing it.

Must be high time that you and <snicker> *Benny* circled the wagon, eh
Dave?

LMFAO Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[mainframetech]

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/273bf2b19956...

One has to reaqlize that DVP has a stake in the outcome being that
Oswald was the dhooter and was alone in that task. Of course, he's
wrong, but there's no way he would admit it at this late date after
he's built a small website on that viewpoint.

But let's take a simple look at the photos that were generated from
the infamous autopsy. Here's the link so we al can follow along:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

First, let's look at the picture entitled 'Groden superior' at the
bottom of the list. Looking closely at the right forehead just up
past the hairline, we see a disturbance in the hair looking like a
white spot somewhat out of place. This is the spot that one of the
bullets entered the head based on the statement of a doctor that saw
the wounds at Parkland hospital before there was any chance for anyone
to mess with the body and change anything. The appearance is of
mortician's wax used to cover up wounds, but it wasn't done too well.
Second, let's look at the picture entitled BE2_HI and we see a pile of
brains coming out the back of the head. While it is far more than
doctors at Parkland hospital saw, testifying to the damage the body
had suffered at unknown hands in the intervening time, it is still
clear that the exit wound is in there somewhere, given the statement
of the doctor we will hear from soon.

Now let's hear from Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was present at the
efforts to save the president's life at Parkland hospital. These
people were the first medically trained people to see the body before
it was stolen by the Secret Service at gunpoint from the hospital to
be spirited away to Bethesda, MD where there was a completely
incompetent set of military doctors, all of whom were subject to
orders that may come down to them, and were not free to just state
their views. Here is Dr. Crenshaw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

As seen above, the doctor made it clear that the bullet came in
from the front (upper right forehead), demolishing any possibility
that the shooter was behind, or above, the murder victim. As noted by
David Lifton, in his book "Best Evidence", the body and particularly
the head can be the best evidence about the murder available to us.
In this case the photos that DVP foolishly says are not present, are
indeed present, and tell their story that corroborates the doctor's
statement of what he saw that fatal day.

While the photos tell much of the story, agreeing with good doctor,
the autopsy was considered a failure and faked, and by looking into
the work of Douglas Horne, you will see the proof of that attempt at
sleight of hand to fool the people. His site is here along with some
of his evidence:
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

Thank you Davey, for this opportunity to clear up that paux pas. I'm
looking forward to the next one you offer...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Aug 13, 6:04 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

Nope. Won't do. The statements of many people that their pictures
were grabbed by the FBI or other authorities and never returned
stands. That EVERY picture wasn't kept means that those returned
showed nothing, or showed what was wanted to support the wacky WC
theory. To this day there are pictures that would seem that they
might show something important and are still missing. It doesn't make
a lot of sense that the authorities would lose or refuse to hand back
films after a case has supposedly been solved, and especially in the
crime of the century. So where are those films? Perhaps FOIA
requests might get some story of how they were lost or won't be parted
with, but that could mean a costly suit. Of course, suits against the
government are paid off with money belonging to you and me.

> > all they needed to worry about was the relatively
> > light crowds... and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest,
> > within minutes.
>
>   All of them? And why do you fail to uncover the operation? Wouldn`t
> police on the scene have to be told that something was going to occur,
> and their role was to obtain all the cameras at the scene. How do you
> stop the cops from talking about these strange instructions?
>

First, little buddy, we must consider that cops everywhere would
want to collect any photos to a crime that might be available, like
nowadays they would check for any security camera photos or fim that
might have been running at the time of the action. Important clues to
the guilty parties can be there, as you must know. There are no
'orders' to collect ccamers and film, it's a general rule for law
enforcement to collect photographic information.

>   And of course Ben is missing the point. Conspiracy retards for years
> have been claiming that is blur or that in the evidence photos is
> significant. The fact that these things are never clear and always
> open to interpretation is indicative not of conspiracy but desperation
> to believe there was one.
>

Nope, that won't do either. Rather your usual attempt to push off
the problem with your old saw about conspiracy evidence people
misinterpreting pictures is false. Perhaps we should look at it from
a different angle. It appears that many pictures show proof of
conspiracy, but the LNers fight hard to misinterpret them all and
argue how impossible they are to tell anything from.

> > When you control the investigation, you don't worry about facts... facts can be
> > swept under the rug... they can disappear.
>
>   If the conspirators are magical leprechauns. When the conspirators
> you imagine require such abilities for your ideas to be valid it`s
> time to scrap your ideas.
>

Not necessarily. When orders came down from Hoover, to his group
of agents and laboratories, it was well known at that time that those
orders were carried out to the letter or heads would roll. Hoover
stated that it was a lone nut assassin and everyone then knew they
must fulfill that prophecy. The local DPD soon caught on to that, and
since it helped them to go with that wacky theory, they jumped right
in and supported it. For crimes of this type and of this notoriety,
there may or may not be planning in advance (in this case there was),
but as soon as possible, if there's a labor force of agents ready to
make a scenario come true (there are reasons they can be given to do
that), as bits of evidence come out, they can be dealt with as they
occur. As a repository of al statements and evidence, the FBI can do
pretty much what it wants, and if it happens at the lower level, who's
to know? Evidence forgotten, reported wrongly, witnesses intimidated
and made to change their story, In the JFK case, there are still
efforts to combat the general knowledge that it was a political murder
planned by higher-ups and executed by professional hitmen, which as
been obvious to moast Americans and even Europeans, when asked. There
are statements from witnesses for all of that stuff going on in this
case. So the ideas (much of which have been proven, by witnesses)
will not be put aside at one little LNer's suggestion. They should be
shouted from the rooftops instead.

> > Although RFK, not JFK, you can google "Jamie Scott Enyart" for an obvious and
> > clear example...
>
>   Are you claiming those police that took the film knew beforehand
> that Robert Kennedy was going to be shot?
>

Oh, little buddy, doesn't that make you want to look up the
reference? That would be lazy and foolish not to. Here it is the
link:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKenyartS.htm

You'll find all your questions answered as you see how the
authorities can cover up a crime, often with the help of the local
police. In that case a judge and the state archives administrator and
the city Distict Attorney helped. It wasn't necessary to know
beforehand that a crime was about to be committed. As you've been
schooled before, the authorities collect all evidence as soon after a
crime as possible, especially including cameras and film. Once they
have them, depending on the case and the ramifications of the
evidence, they can seal it all for years, or lose it, or have it
stolen, or whatever works to keep it out of the hands of someone that
might pass it on to the general public, as with the JFK case. You
really have to think about these things before woldly going off the
reservation...:)

Chris

[aeffects]

the only excuses you have for the above trash is: (a) you have no
conception of film-photo alteration, (b) you're a damn fool, (c)
ignorant too! Is all that chicken fat you ingest finally getting to
you? Carry on moron!

[aeffects]

you're dancing mightly son, feeling this slip away from you?

[aeffects]

On Aug 12, 8:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <5140d449-b9e6-40fe-841f-ec6379190...@hv2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 12, 5:24=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "...and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest, within=
> > minutes." <<<
>
> >> Liar.
>
> >> Altgens' camera wasn't confiscated. Nor were his photos. Nor were the
> >> photos or cameras of any of the following Dealey Plaza witnesses:
>
> >> Moorman
> >> Zapruder
> >> Muchmore
> >> Nix
> >> Towner
> >> Willis
> >> Croft
> >> Bond
> >> Bronson
> >> Powell.
>
> >> (Et al.)
>
> >> Holmes, as usual, is nuts.
>
> >Von Pein as usual is dancing the .john lone nut shuffle. Title of the
> >song he's dancing to: Disinfo For The Ages by Earl Warren Sextet.
>
> And not surprisingly, he's lying again.
>
> Zapruder was taken from the public within days,

2 of the prints within hours (which there were a total of three
printed by Dallas Kodak 11/22/63) of the assassination, in fact. The
other print and alleged Zapruder camera original within 24-36 hours.

Schwartz, Zapruder's partner 'thinks' the Zapruder camera original may
have left Dallas for LIFE [Chicago] as late as the Tuesday after the
murder. Other's think it may have left Dallas by Saturday afternoon,
the day after the assassination 11/23/63.

In any case, the alleged Zapruder film(s), all 4 disappeared from
public view within 72 hours after the murder. Never to be seen in
their full running, 8mm entirety, again.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <32ef2585-571d-46bb...@c4g2000pbw.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Aug 12, 10:57=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> KOOK HOLMES SAID:
>>
>> And not surprisingly, he [DVP] is lying again.
>>
>> [The] Zapruder [film] was taken from the public within days, and was
>> never seen by the public for a decade. Nix is another excellent
>> example - taken, and when returned, Nix complained that it wasn't the
>> same. Willis, another excellent example...the kook can't produce the
>> original negative - it's gone forever.
>>
>> And, of course, we have testimony from those who's [sic] cameras &
>> film *WERE* confiscated ... so what do we end up with?
>>
>> A liar... lying about known facts, pretending that all's well - when
>> we *KNOW* the truth.
>>
>> And what's truly sad... DVP will pretend that he's in the right on
>> this issue.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> I see that Holmes has decided to move the goal posts. He's changing
>> "confiscated within minutes" to "days" now.

We have testimony that some cameras were indeed confiscated within minutes.

You seem to think that because not *everything* was confiscated within minutes
that I'm not accurately portraying history.

You can't deny, that is, you can't *HONESTLY* deny that the authorities very
quickly ended up with virtually all photographic material.

But, you'll lie about it.

>> But in either case, he's nuts. Zapruder's film was in Zapruder's or
>> Schwartz's possession until it was processed and all three copies
>> made. IOW--No possible way it could have been faked, unless Mr. Z or
>> the Kodak/Jamieson boys were "in" on a plot immediately.

Who's changing the goalposts?

You can't admit that the film was sequestered for many years, and even when it
*WAS* finally seen, it was a bootleg copy.

>> And the fact the Z-Film was never shown for 11+ years to the general
>> public certainly had nothing to do with the Government keeping it
>> under wraps.

LOL!!!

>> It was Life Magazine keeping it under wraps--to protect
>> their investment (of course). It was their property during that decade
>> and they were going to treat it as exclusive property, which they did.
>> Does Ben think that LIFE was in cahoots with the Government and in on
>> a cover-up? (I'll bet he does think so. Poor kook.)

Yep.

You, on the other hand, must believe that Life, protecting their "investment",
NEVER USED IT AGAIN...

The ties between the CIA and Life are indisputable.

Indeed, between the CIA and most major media outlets...

>> The Nix Film is pretty crappy and dark in the background, and
>> thus isn't very clear for determining much of anything important or
>> case-breaking (except for the limo slowdown, which perfectly matches
>> the Z-Film, although Kook Holmes will lie and say otherwise).

You're lying again... for it doesn't match at all...

>> Plus, the
>> Nix Film also matches the Z-Film with respect to the debris from
>> JFK's head all going UP and FORWARD of his head right after the fatal shot.
>> Is that part "fake", Benny?

What did Nix say about his film when he got it back from the government?


Dare you quote him on that issue?

>> And what do Willis' pictures show that would be of interest to the
>> photo-fakers? What did they have to alter in those photos, Benji? A
>> Knoll shooter in the background? Jimmy Files sticking out of a
>> manhole?
>>
>> And, yes, I am in the "right" about this issue -- because to think
>> that ANY of those films/photos were altered by ANYBODY at all is a
>> stupid idea.

Actually, it's a provable idea...

>> Particularly the Z-Film theories--with the head snap
>> being left IN the altered film. Talk about idiot plotters. That takes
>> first prize in the "Stupid Things To Leave In An Altered Film"
>> category.

That has been responded to a number of times, yet you kooks just keep

>the only excuses you have for the above trash is: (a) you have no
>conception of film-photo alteration, (b) you're a damn fool, (c)
>ignorant too! Is all that chicken fat you ingest finally getting to
>you? Carry on moron!

Nah, in DVP's case, it's not that he's a fool, it's that he's intentionally
lying.

He understands quite well the issues.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5a9a77d7-7573-4cfb...@i10g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 12, 8:27=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <5140d449-b9e6-40fe-841f-ec6379190...@hv2g2000pbc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Aug 12, 5:24=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> "...and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest, wit=
>hin=3D

Of course, we have testimony that the film was being "viewed", although I
suspect far more than that, at a top-secret photographic facility Saturday
night.

The original alterations, which probably included simply removing frames,
undoubtedly occurred then.

>> and was never seen by the public
>> for a decade. Nix is another excellent example - taken, and when returned,
>> Nix complained that it wasn't the same. Willis, another excellent
>> example... the kook can't produce the original negative - it's gone forever.
>>
>> And, of course, we have testimony from those who's cameras & film *WERE*
>> confiscated ... so what do we end up with?
>>
>> A liar... lying about known facts, pretending that all's well - when we
>> *KNOW* the truth.
>>
>> And what's truly sad... DVP will pretend that he's in the right on this
>> issue.

My crystal ball proved correct again, didn't it?

[timstter]

On Aug 13, 9:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <72f2d8cd-71dc-4964-bc43-0e1eaa222...@r2g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,

Translation: I can't find a good JFK example so I'll clutch at straws
and produce an RFK one instead.

This post by you simply shows how paranoid you are, Holmes.

You are simply talking gibberish.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

[timstter]

Healy, as usual, is dancing the head up Benny's ass shuffle.

It's PITIFUL to view, Dave.

You served in Vietnam did you?

I don't think so, Ringo.

[timstter]

On Aug 13, 1:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <5140d449-b9e6-40fe-841f-ec6379190...@hv2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Who were the people whose films were confiscated, Holmes?

Bev Oliver?

LOL! That lady is a liar just like Mark Lane, your hero!

[Bud]

Did you even read what I wrote? You sure aren`t addressing it.

> > > all they needed to worry about was the relatively
> > > light crowds... and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest,
> > > within minutes.
>
> >   All of them? And why do you fail to uncover the operation? Wouldn`t
> > police on the scene have to be told that something was going to occur,
> > and their role was to obtain all the cameras at the scene. How do you
> > stop the cops from talking about these strange instructions?
>
>   First, little buddy, we must consider that cops everywhere would
> want to collect any photos to a crime that might be available,

So when Ben was using the word "confiscated" he was describing
ordinary police work.

> like
> nowadays they would check for any security camera photos or fim that
> might have been running at the time of the action.  Important clues to
> the guilty parties can be there, as you must know.  There are no
> 'orders' to collect ccamers and film, it's a general rule for law
> enforcement to collect photographic information.

Yet Ben was implying it was a sinister activity. And your idea is
that conspiracy just assumed that if a camera caught a clear photo of
an assassin that a cop would likely get control of that camera. In
fact they were so confident they were betting their lives on it.

> >   And of course Ben is missing the point. Conspiracy retards for years
> > have been claiming that is blur or that in the evidence photos is
> > significant. The fact that these things are never clear and always
> > open to interpretation is indicative not of conspiracy but desperation
> > to believe there was one.
>
>    Nope, that won't do either.

You don`t understand the argument, as shown by your response below.
I`m not interested in dumbing it down to within your reach.

>  Rather your usual attempt to push off
> the problem with your old saw about conspiracy evidence people
> misinterpreting pictures is false.  Perhaps we should look at it from
> a different angle.  It appears that many pictures show proof of
> conspiracy, but the LNers fight hard to misinterpret them all and
> argue how impossible they are to tell anything from.

The proof that they show nothing is proven by your inability to do
anything with what you think they show.

> > > When you control the investigation, you don't worry about facts... facts can be
> > > swept under the rug... they can disappear.
>
> >   If the conspirators are magical leprechauns. When the conspirators
> > you imagine require such abilities for your ideas to be valid it`s
> > time to scrap your ideas.
>
>    Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily, to do everything the conspiracy retards assume the
conspiracy did it would need magical abilities.

> When orders came down from Hoover, to his group
> of agents and laboratories, it was well known at that time that those
> orders were carried out to the letter or heads would roll.  Hoover
> stated that it was a lone nut assassin and everyone then knew they
> must fulfill that prophecy.  The local DPD soon caught on to that, and
> since it helped them to go with that wacky theory, they jumped right
> in and supported it.  For crimes of this type and of this notoriety,
> there may or may not be planning in advance (in this case there was),
> but as soon as possible, if there's a labor force of agents ready to
> make a scenario come true (there are reasons they can be given to do
> that), as bits of evidence come out, they can be dealt with as they
> occur.  As a repository of al statements and evidence, the FBI can do
> pretty much what it wants, and if it happens at the lower level, who's
> to know?  Evidence forgotten, reported wrongly, witnesses intimidated
> and made to change their story, In the JFK case, there are still
> efforts to combat the general knowledge that it was a political murder
> planned by higher-ups and executed by professional hitmen, which as
> been obvious to moast Americans and even Europeans, when asked.  There
> are statements from witnesses for all of that stuff going on in this
> case.  So the ideas (much of which have been proven, by witnesses)
> will not be put aside at one little LNer's suggestion.  They should be
> shouted from the rooftops instead.

Look at the retard scratching around for justification for believing
stupid things. Why not just come right out and admit you enjoy
believing stupid things?

> > > Although RFK, not JFK, you can google "Jamie Scott Enyart" for an obvious and
> > > clear example...
>
> >   Are you claiming those police that took the film knew beforehand
> > that Robert Kennedy was going to be shot?
>
>   Oh, little buddy, doesn't that make you want to look up the
> reference?  That would be lazy and foolish not to.  Here it is the
> link:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKenyartS.htm

I told you to scrap that source. spartacus is written by retards for
retards.

>    You'll find all your questions answered

Why are you running from the one I asked? Do you think the cops were
told that Robert Kennedy was to be killed and their role was to make
sure they confiscated all the cameras?

[mainframetech]

Yes, fool. Why do you think I said what I did? Are you paying
attention? You said if I could prove conspiracy, I would have
something, but I have failed. I responded to that comment by pointing
out the efforts of the FBI to grab photos and cameras and to
manipultes witnesses, showing a conspiracy on the part of the FBI and
whoever directed them to operate in such a direct and incorrect way.
With the advent of an ex-FBI agent himself saying the same things, my
efforts are not a failure at all. As to a conspiracy in the killing
of JFK, there is no doubt about that,,,I believe in your auiet moments
at home, I'm not wasting too much effort to convince you, since you're
practically under orders to stay in your WCR cocoon. I believe that
you too know it was a conspiracy. I've shown you many times the
impossibility of the 2 shots hitting JFK from the rear and then doing
the wacky things the WC said they did. As well, you have the evidence
of the autopsy photos showing the shots came from behind too,along
with the corroboration from Dr. Crehshaw. All these I expected you to
remember, so I told you of a conspiracy wthin the FBI. You apparently
missed where I was going and couldn't keep up. I keep having to
remember that and change my thinking to slow down and fall back to
your level.

> > > > all they needed to worry about was the relatively
> > > > light crowds... and *those* cameras were confiscated, as witnesses attest,
> > > > within minutes.
>
> > >   All of them? And why do you fail to uncover the operation? Wouldn`t
> > > police on the scene have to be told that something was going to occur,
> > > and their role was to obtain all the cameras at the scene. How do you
> > > stop the cops from talking about these strange instructions?
>
> >   First, little buddy, we must consider that cops everywhere would
> > want to collect any photos to a crime that might be available,
>
>   So when Ben was using the word "confiscated" he was describing
> ordinary police work.
>

Depends what they did with the evidence they 'confiscated'. If they
gave it back as soon as it was no longer needed for a trial or to be
copied, etc. Then it was 'collected'. 'Confiscated' suggests the
owner doesn't get the property back. In the aforementioned RFK case,
the various depts. of the government failed to return the property
(film rolls), and therefore thay had to pay hundreds of thousands of
your and my money to the owner.

> > like
> > nowadays they would check for any security camera photos or fim that
> > might have been running at the time of the action.  Important clues to
> > the guilty parties can be there, as you must know.  There are no
> > 'orders' to collect ccamers and film, it's a general rule for law
> > enforcement to collect photographic information.
>
>  Yet Ben was implying it was a sinister activity. And your idea is
> that conspiracy just assumed that if a camera caught a clear photo of
> an assassin that a cop would likely get control of that camera. In
> fact they were so confident they were betting their lives on it.
>

Nope little buddy, won't do. I didn't say that and little benny can
defend himself, so check him out as to his assumptions. For my part,
I haven't said anything about conspirators planning what to do about
pictures that get taken. But thinking on the problem, which you could
do too if you weren't so enthralled by the WCR, I find that
professional shooters would pick a spot where it would be a very small
chance that a photo would be taken. Behind the fence at the GK would
be good, because the area is shaded by the trees there, and the
shooter(s) are behind the fence and moved quickly after the shots, so
that no one was in the area to take pictures of a few people that
seemed to be normal to the area. They even offered ID saying they
were OK, and were passed by the DPD guys. The shooter(s) obviously
vacated the area quickly and there was nothing left to photograph
then.

> > >   And of course Ben is missing the point. Conspiracy retards for years
> > > have been claiming that is blur or that in the evidence photos is
> > > significant. The fact that these things are never clear and always
> > > open to interpretation is indicative not of conspiracy but desperation
> > > to believe there was one.
>
> >    Nope, that won't do either.
>
>   You don`t understand the argument, as shown by your response below.
> I`m not interested in dumbing it down to within your reach.
>

Sure do catch it buddy. You tried to suggest that the 'unclear
photos' argument is used by conspiracy evidence people, while I talked
about that being false. Am I getting ahead of you again?

> >  Rather your usual attempt to push off
> > the problem with your old saw about conspiracy evidence people
> > misinterpreting pictures is false.  Perhaps we should look at it from
> > a different angle.  It appears that many pictures show proof of
> > conspiracy, but the LNers fight hard to misinterpret them all and
> > argue how impossible they are to tell anything from.
>
>   The proof that they show nothing is proven by your inability to do
> anything with what you think they show.
>

I've done a great deal with the photos, and particularly the ones
that are clear, like the autopsy photos. A shame you can't argue the
evidence and avoid the personality stuff, but then you'd have nothing
to say anymore. Ah well.

> > > > When you control the investigation, you don't worry about facts... facts can be
> > > > swept under the rug... they can disappear.
>
> > >   If the conspirators are magical leprechauns. When the conspirators
> > > you imagine require such abilities for your ideas to be valid it`s
> > > time to scrap your ideas.
>
> >    Not necessarily.
>
>   Yes, necessarily, to do everything the conspiracy retards assume the
> conspiracy did it would need magical abilities.
>

LOL! Rather you should talk about the item known as the 'magic
bullet', which name is used throughout the country...:)

Welp little buddy, that wouldn't be 'scratching around' but rather a
statement in full flower, full of witnesses and everything. And do
you ask about witnesses to the crimes and failings of the
authorities? Nope, you wouldn't dare because you know I would answer
and not just throw in your ad hominem stuff, and then you would have
to deal with evidence, the one thing that wears you out, since you
have to try and prove the wacky WCR...:) You know full well that I
have shown to you and quoted many cases where the authorities fouled
up.

> > > > Although RFK, not JFK, you can google "Jamie Scott Enyart" for an obvious and
> > > > clear example...
>
> > >   Are you claiming those police that took the film knew beforehand
> > > that Robert Kennedy was going to be shot?
>
> >   Oh, little buddy, doesn't that make you want to look up the
> > reference?  That would be lazy and foolish not to.  Here it is the
> > link:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKenyartS.htm
>
>   I told you to scrap that source. spartacus is written by retards for
> retards.
>

OK, try these:
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~dlewis/enyart.htm
http://www.cracked.com/article_19656_5-lost-photos-that-could-have-changed-history.html
http://www.citizine.net/politics/politics_0506_rfk_twhite.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/jamie-scott-enyart

> >    You'll find all your questions answered
>
>   Why are you running from the one I asked? Do you think the cops were
> told that Robert Kennedy was to be killed and their role was to make
> sure they confiscated all the cameras?
>

I answered you stupid. You need to apply your head to my comments
to understand. Ican't slow down to always catch you up with me. Try
to understand that when I tell you that police will collect evidence,
especially cameras and film at the scene of a crime, it doesn't mean
that they knew a crime was to be committed, it is a standard thing for
cops to do for evidence purposes. Why weren't you able to figure that
out from my answer? It's so simple. Now do you have any comment or
question about that, or do you accept it as stated?

>
>
> > as you see how the
> > authorities can cover up a crime, often with the help of the local
> > police.  In that case a judge and the state archives administrator and
> > the city Distict Attorney helped.  It wasn't necessary to know
> > beforehand that a crime was about to be committed.  As you've been
> > schooled before, the authorities collect all evidence as soon after a
> > crime as possible, especially including cameras and film.  Once they
> > have them, depending on the case and the ramifications of the
> > evidence, they can seal it all for years, or lose it, or have it
> > stolen, or whatever works to keep it out of the hands of someone that
> > might pass it on to the general public, as with the JFK case. You
> > really have to think about these things before woldly going off the
> > reservation...:)
>

To aid the watchers with evidence aboutthe JFK muirder:
11. Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland, saw entrance wounds, believes shot
from front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

12. Evalea Glanges saw bullet hole at Parkland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7RYjgcepX0

13. Rose Cheramie - predicted the assassination days ahead and also
said Oswald and Ruby were friends:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami

14. Sgt. Delgado-Oswald buddy in service, FBI wanted him to lie about
marksmanship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw

15. John Elrod-cellmate to LHO who told him of prev. meeting with
Jack Ruby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=aMWlf8xZyDc&NR=1

16. Roger Craig relates the finding and IDing of the Mauser
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2168628935793686311#

17. Tomlinson at Parkland found bullet on wrong stretcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

18. Photographer with autopsy pictures faked up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1DtJE

Chris

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Not exactly. The request was for the photo labs to notify the FBI if anyone brought in assassination photos or films to be developed." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. The DPD's Glen King went on live TV on 11/23/63 and appealed to
anyone who was taking pictures in Dealey Plaza to come forward with
their pictures or films (see video below). I suppose most CTers think
that King's request was done so that the cops could get ahold of the
films for alteration purposes only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PL364F4A4B1BBC9DC6&v=8YkIg7Xl0Cg#t=141s

[aeffects]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PL364F4A4B1...

ahh.... super wanker David Von Pein-ski is dancing the .john two-step
again... and what was Dallas KODAK told about developing Dealey Plaza-
assassination film again, hon? ROTFLMFAO

[mainframetech]

========================
Very interesting that DVP would post such a video. The guy was clear
in saying a day after the killing that he knew of no one that had a
camera that day and asked folks to bring in their pictures if they
were there taking them. Odd he would say that clearly, since all the
authorities that day were grabbing cameras and film from anyone they
saw with them.

Rose Cheramie - predicted the assassination days ahead and also said
Oswald and Ruby were friends:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami

Chris

[Sam McClung]

how many films and photos showing evidence of the conspiracy were innocently
given to (criminal) authorities then the films and photos disappeared?

it's amazing how when you tell dumb farm boys they are all of a sudden
attorneys or in the fbi how crooked they get

[Sam McClung]

but zapruder, immigrating russian, the illuminati archivist with cam filming
the assassination, gets to keep his film and get megabux from you and me for
it = democrazy