Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 18)
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.
FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From March 2006, April
2006, and May 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- So you're saying they can't close down
roads for the President?
DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Of course they (the police) can close down
roads, etc. -- in fact, they DID do this...all throughout the motorcade
route.
But a "Main Street to Stemmons Freeway" access route (circa 1963)
wasn't just a matter of closing down some roads and re-routing traffic.
A portion of the street would physically have needed to be ripped apart
in order to allow the motorcade access to Stemmons directly from Main
Street. A concrete barrier between Elm and Main would need to be
removed (then replaced afterward obviously) to get the President
directly from Main to Stemmons. ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0282b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0283a.htm
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- {Lee Harvey Oswald was seen} in the break room 90 seconds
{after the assassination}, and was not out of breath, but had been
there for some time.
DVP -- A wild guess on your part re. Oswald having "been there for some
time". If you're basing that comment on Carolyn Arnold's testimony
about seeing Oswald at either 12:15 or 12:25 on Friday (11/22/63), it's
a weak argument....because Arnold's account has conveniently changed
over the years, and it still wouldn't give Oswald an alibi for the
precise time of the assassination as well (12:30 PM).
And the "not out of breath" argument has always been a very weak one in
this case when it comes to discussing Oswald's trip DOWN four flights
of stairs. Anyone who is not significantly overweight can easily
descend four flights of stairs and not be panting like mad. This has
always been a crazy CT argument, IMO.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Ruby was let inside {the DPD basement} by one of his many
police friends.
DVP -- I don't suppose it matters to you that there's no proof
whatsoever that Jack Ruby was "let inside by one of his many police
friends", does it?
The most-likely-to-be-correct solution is that Ruby simply walked down
the ramp just like he told the Warren Commission on July 18, 1964.
Let's listen:
JACK RUBY -- "As I left the Western Union, I walked toward the ramp,
and as I walked down, Lieutenant Pierce's car was parked already on the
curb, partly on the curb and partly some of it was on the ramp, and
some officer was talking to him...?"
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you walk by his car?"
MR. RUBY -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "At the same time it was parked there?"
MR. RUBY -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "So that the officer did not see you..."
MR. RUBY -- "That's correct."
~~~~~~
Now, I'm not going to say that comments made by criminals in custody
are the best way to arrive at "the truth"; because, obviously, that's
not the case. With a good example being Lee Oswald and the many lies he
told almost non-stop after his arrest. But criminals don't always lie.
Oswald told a few truths mixed in with his wealth of falsehoods.
And Ruby's details surrounding his basement/garage entry into the DPD
are rather interesting and convincing overall. How did Ruby know that
Pierce was talking to another officer at just that time if he (Ruby)
wasn't there? Or do CTers think that that info was "leaked" to Ruby in
his Dallas jail cell before he testified with the above quote in front
of the WC?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The HSCA determined the bullet path {through JFK's upper back
and neck} was in a slightly UPWARD direction.
DVP -- Yes...and it's an incorrect determination too. And contradicts
what the autopsy doctors have said; i.e., the back wound was positively
HIGHER than the exit (neck) wound.
And all a person needs to do is try a simple test on themselves or
another person...and measure 5.5 inches from their "Mastoids" (at the
lower tip of the ear) and then compare it with the area of the neck
below the Adam's Apple to determine the slightly DOWNWARD trajectory
(back to front) between these two points.
Obviously, that kind of simplistic test is not going to be perfect,
since the autopsy measurements were based on Jack Kennedy's body and
not yours or mine or John Doe's. But it gives a good general idea of
the downward path the SBT bullet took through JFK's body.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- The Warren Commission managed to publish 26 volumes of
evidence, yet missed the very first document created--the death
certificate.
DVP -- So what? Are you saying JFK isn't really dead? Or that Admiral
Burkley, who signed the death certificate, is one of the main
"conspirators" in the case? What IS your point here? I see none. Except
the probable CT suspicion of "moving wounds" on JFK's back. But the
death certificate placement of the back wound says "back", not "neck",
which is perfectly consistent with the autopsy photograph of President
Kennedy's back wound. So, again, what's your point?
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- You have no clue about how many shots might have been fired
that were inaudible or nearly simultaneous with other audible shots.
DVP -- Via this argument, NO crime involving guns could ever be
thoroughly solved or blamed on a lone shooter....because there COULD
have always been another gunman somewhere who fired an "inaudible" or
"simultaneous" shot.
Great argument, huh? Nobody hears that shot over there, and there's no
physical evidence of it either....meaning: there MUST have actually
been a shot from over there (of a totally-silenced and unprovable
variety).
That's akin to the proverbial pro-conspiracy argument of:
"Since virtually all the evidence leads to only Oswald...that must mean
just the OPPOSITE (i.e., Oswald's perfectly innocent somehow)!"
Logical? Hardly.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Oh my God! You are appalled at the idea that Oswald might steal
some curtain rods, but think nothing of accusing him of a double
murder?
DVP -- In the "He's Innocent, But Is Part Of The Plot In Some Fashion"
CT scenario (which almost all CTers believe, if they have at least one
active brain cell, that is) --- "stealing" the curtain rods from Ruth
Paine's home, and not saying a thing about any "curtain rods" to either
Ruth Paine or his wife Marina, is a stupid act on LHO's part. Because,
in such a case, the more people who can verify the package as "curtain
rods", the better Oswald is going to be.
Of course, to believe such a silly thing as: "Oswald Was Part Of The
JFK Plot, But Didn't Shoot Anybody, And Only Went To Irving On An
Unannounced Thursday Night Instead Of Friday In Order To STEAL Some
Curtain Rods From Ruth Paine" -- we'd have to believe, I suppose, that
Lee Oswald was the dumbest of all Patsies to come down the pike. ....
In such a crazy scenario, Oswald knows he's bringing a
perfectly-innocent, non-lethal item into work on 11/22/63 (unless he
figured he was going to be assigned the job of beating the passing
President to death with the curtain rods) .... and he knows there's a
plot brewing to kill Kennedy that very day from the very Plaza that his
workplace overlooks. ....
And yet he carts the bulky package into work wrapped up like a mummy
anyway (having to KNOW what the consequences of doing this might be
later on, because he KNOWS there's a plot to kill the President, and,
per Oliver Stone, Oswald is made to believe that he was going to serve
some purpose as some kind of useless telephone "contact" on the 2nd
Floor of the Depository, as he "waits for a phone call that never
comes") .... and even though the package has only innocent curtain rods
in it, he decides to hide the package somewhere in the building where
nobody will see it. ....
And then he decides to leave the rods behind in the TSBD after 12:33 on
Nov. 22, and then decides he's going to tell lies to the police about
taking any bulky package into work (even though the package contains
only perfectly-innocent curtain rods).
Gee, what a nice "Patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald was. He tried to frame
HIMSELF it would seem. He was just "aiding" his fellow Patsy-Framing
conspirators when he wouldn't tell the police he really had curtain
rods with him that morning. And he was trying to help his frame-up even
more by making the "curtain rod" incident look more "suspicious" and
covert by stealing them from the Paine garage, instead of creating a
better alibi for himself by simply asking Ruth Paine if he could have
the rods.
You don't find cooperative patsies like Lee Harvey every day of the
week. Good thing for the "real killers" they had such a nice guy like
Oswald working for them....in that he was willing to take the WHOLE
blame for TWO murders he evidently never committed on November 22.
And he was also willing to "play along" with the Patsy-Framers by
ACTING LIKE THE GUILTIEST MAN IN DALLAS just after BOTH the Kennedy and
Tippit murders were committed by OTHER people.
What a guy!
Maybe Lee's mom was right after all when she said this about her boy
shortly after he was killed by Jack Ruby:
"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his
country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite Oswald
~LOL!~
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Just a few inches one way {the SBT bullet's path, that is, per
this kook's Oscar-worthy fantasy account of the event} and then it
suddenly stops, reverses direction...Anyway, I don't believe LHO even
was a shooter...And that piece-of-junk rifle...
DVP -- Okay. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to
fully establish your status as another conspiracy-loving kook, as you
babble the nearly-verbatim pro-conspiracy nonsense as thousands before
you. (It was the "I don't believe LHO even was a shooter" line that
cemented your "kook" status).
Then there's also:
The zig-zag SBT path....
Oswald was the lousiest shot in America....
That crappy POS rifle!....
Joseph Milteer said this....
James Files said that....
Gerry Ford's a crook too (right?)....
The SBT is a ruse.
Perhaps you'd like to add these items too:
Kennedy wasn't even killed.
Neither was Malcolm X.
Barbara Eden has got them both in her bottle right now.
And Khrushchev is cute as a button.
Fantasies....it's hard to live without them.
-------------------------------------------
CTer -- Because Ruby killed Oswald before the trial, Oswald is
innocent. Innocent of killing Kennedy and Tippit.
DVP -- This argument won't hold up in any way. Because, based on the
overwhelming evidence in the case, Oswald was certainly NOT "innocent"
of killing either man in 1963.
Via this "He was killed, therefore he's innocent" logic, would you have
said O.J. Simpson was "innocent" of the two murders he so obviously
committed in 1994 if Simpson had been shot and killed prior to his
trial?*
* = Yes, I know that Simpson was found "Not Guilty" by the jury; but
that is a long way from declaring him "innocent", and I think everybody
realizes the difference of course. If ever a jury came to a wrong
verdict, that was the one. But my main point is that O.J. would have
been just as guilty (based on the evidence in his case), even if he had
died before his trial commenced. Death wouldn't have taken him off the
hook for knifing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. No way. Same goes
with Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby's bullet didn't suddenly WIPE OUT the
vast evidence that tells us Oswald is guilty.
tomnln
Making statements is NOT Debating.
Debating occurs ONLY when the issue is discussed from BOTH points of View.
THAT is why the Warren Commission Rejected the Adversary Procedure.
THAT is why you Reject my invitation to Debate me in my Live Audio Chat
Room.
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.
Then select Government & Politics.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
Either accept the invitation to Debate OR, Change the Heading of your Posts.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165857114.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 18):
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From March 2006, April
> 2006, and May 2006.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- So you're saying they can't close down
> roads for the President?
>
>
> DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- Of course they (the police) can close down
> roads, etc. -- in fact, they DID do this...all throughout the motorcade
> route.
>
> But a "Main Street to Stemmons Freeway" access route (circa 1963)
> wasn't just a matter of closing down some roads and re-routing traffic.
> A portion of the street would physically have needed to be ripped apart
> in order to allow the motorcade access to Stemmons directly from Main
> Street. A concrete barrier between Elm and Main would need to be
> removed (then replaced afterward obviously) to get the President
> directly from Main to Stemmons.
>
David Von Pein
Fuck you, you goddamn screwball! As if I'd ever consider taking orders
from a CT-Kook like you. Get real, moron.
And the word "debate" fully applies to each "Debate" thread in my
series of such items....because I'm quoting CT-Kooks (similar in
crackpot nature to you, yourself, Tom-Kook) and then responding with my
LN "debate" points. And, naturally, I couldn't give a rat's ass if they
meet your kooksville "debate" requirements anyway.
"DEBATE" (def. 1) -- "A contention by words or arguments".
bail...@gmail.com
be verbally abused, insulted and ultimately bounced. Tomnln, being the
lunatic he is invites folks in to "debate" but as soon as one raises
any issue with the CT community, they are denigraded by this sick fuck.
Be avised.
tomnln
Your Language is a Monumental Tribute to the teachings of your Parents.
Your "Debate" consists of ALL of your words.
Should I ever take the Liberties YOU Do by wording BOTH questions AND
answers,
you would've committed Suicide Years ago.
"Debate" requires dialogue between "Opposing" points of view.
Just like the WCR, you Oppose the Adversary Procedure.
I'll make a deal with you......
You Refrain talking about my Intelligence Level AND, I'll Refrain from
talking about your "Incest" Problem.
No wonder they refer to you as, David von Pain in the Ass.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165858798....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Dear "Kook-Sucker";
>
> Your Language is a Monumental Tribute to the teachings of your Parents.
Your sheer hypocrisy, evidenced by your thinly veiled use of the word
"kook" above, is amazing.
Hey, remember when you called someone a "GD liar"?
>
> Your "Debate" consists of ALL of your words.
What about any "uh's" or "ahs'? Are they words of debate too?
OK, what if he said "I want to debate", before there was any debating?
Is that part of the actual debate, or is it like a "pre-debate-intro"
or something?
What about removing a worm from a fish hook? Is that "debating"?
>
> Should I ever take the Liberties YOU Do by wording BOTH questions AND
> answers,
> you would've committed Suicide Years ago.
Wow....I thought I had seen all of the wacky Tomnln-speak.
TRANSLATION FOR TOMNLN: Tomnln-speak, wow wacky but... I though all of
it I had seen.
>
> "Debate" requires dialogue between "Opposing" points of view.
Yes, but please note that "Debate" also requires that none of the
participants be a crazed nutcase with a PC and a third grade education.
>
> Just like the WCR, you Oppose the Adversary Procedure.
>
> I'll make a deal with you......
> You Refrain talking about my Intelligence Level
Which is that of a third grader (see above).
>AND, I'll Refrain from
> talking about your "Incest" Problem.
>
> No wonder they refer to you as, David von Pain in the Ass.
Now, I haven't seen that, but I have seen you called a NUTSACK.
bail...@gmail.com
ONLY question he EVER asks on his Paltalk forum is: Do you support
felons? That's it. When any LN attempts to enter into serious debate,
Tomnln once again reverts back to this question. Tomnln, through his
native ignorance and lack of formal education is simply incapable of
intelligent dialogue. This is why he will not tolerate any LN in his
forum contrary to the BS he spews here. He will sit on google and
attempt to humiliate those like David with his childish name calling
which only again shows his utter lack of civility. Perhaps, realizing
he's old and inappropriate we should show his some consideration? Nah,
he's an asshole and gets what he deserves. What does he deserve? NO
RESPECT as a researcher or as a human being.
Todd W. Vaughan
bailey...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tomnln's lack of knowledge about the subject matter is the reason the
> ONLY question he EVER asks on his Paltalk forum is: Do you support
> felons? That's it. When any LN attempts to enter into serious debate,
> Tomnln once again reverts back to this question. Tomnln, through his
> native ignorance and lack of formal education is simply incapable of
> intelligent dialogue. This is why he will not tolerate any LN in his
> forum contrary to the BS he spews here. He will sit on google and
> attempt to humiliate those like David with his childish name calling
> which only again shows his utter lack of civility. Perhaps, realizing
> he's old and inappropriate we should show his some consideration? Nah,
> he's an asshole and gets what he deserves. What does he deserve? NO
> RESPECT as a researcher or as a human being.
I don't think Tom is going to like your post.
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> tomnln wrote:
> > Dear "Kook-Sucker";
> >
> > Your Language is a Monumental Tribute to the teachings of your Parents.
>
>
>
> Your sheer hypocrisy, evidenced by your thinly veiled use of the word
> "kook" above, is amazing.
>
> Hey, remember when you called someone a "GD liar"?
>
>
>
> >
> > Your "Debate" consists of ALL of your words.
>
>
>
> What about any "uh's" or "ahs'? Are they words of debate too?
eh-hmmm, ah-WHAT debate? There hasn't been a bit of debate here since
Ben Holmes made mincemeat of the alleged Lone Neuter's who drop by here
on occasion. Those usually leap back to .john's to lick their wounds -
but we don't hold it against them....
You'd do us ALL a favor if, say Fokes and Zimmermen dropped by for a
'extended' chat...eh? While you're getting the invitations ready, send
one to Ted Gittinger [do send him a copy of the WCR], I'd like to see
him around on occasion, he does write well.. Best of the Lone Nutter's
in my opinion (doesn't know shit about the assassination but he can put
on a believable front -- unlike most of the nutter's hereabouts these
day's.... ) He, Ted does know a bit about 'waltzing LBJ' though...
Todd W. Vaughan
aeffects wrote:
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > tomnln wrote:
> > > Dear "Kook-Sucker";
> > >
> > > Your Language is a Monumental Tribute to the teachings of your Parents.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your sheer hypocrisy, evidenced by your thinly veiled use of the word
> > "kook" above, is amazing.
> >
> > Hey, remember when you called someone a "GD liar"?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Your "Debate" consists of ALL of your words.
> >
> >
> >
> > What about any "uh's" or "ahs'? Are they words of debate too?
>
> eh-hmmm, ah-WHAT debate?
The concept of debate. Try and keep up, turtle.
>There hasn't been a bit of debate here since
> Ben Holmes made mincemeat of the alleged Lone Neuter's who drop by here
> on occasion. Those usually leap back to .john's to lick their wounds -
> but we don't hold it against them....
Sez the master of the say nothing post.
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > > tomnln wrote:
> > > > Dear "Kook-Sucker";
> > > >
> > > > Your Language is a Monumental Tribute to the teachings of your Parents.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your sheer hypocrisy, evidenced by your thinly veiled use of the word
> > > "kook" above, is amazing.
> > >
> > > Hey, remember when you called someone a "GD liar"?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your "Debate" consists of ALL of your words.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What about any "uh's" or "ahs'? Are they words of debate too?
> >
> > eh-hmmm, ah-WHAT debate?
>
> The concept of debate. Try and keep up, turtle.
when you can't debate FACT'S & WC evidence, let's debate the CONCEPT of
debate.... <sigh> you Lone Nutter moron's make me tired --
tomnln
WC
toad's lies in his own words are HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
AND, HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
toad can't overcome the message so, he attacks the messenger.
toad is a closet Coward Nazi.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165869505.6...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
You above all others should know I just Love using prostitutes own words to
prove what
Anti-Americans they really ARE.
Your words for an Example found HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
AND HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Every time you open your mouth, I just LOVE rammin your own words into it.
Keep up the Good Work Whore.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165870427.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
toad vaughan's support of Assassin's are in his own words HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
AND HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
toad is a Whore who got Paid for his Lies.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165874560....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Another Fool who Doesn't understand "No Disruption...No Foul Language".
(one who has no respect for Women/School Children)
(that might explain why his family is in Disarray)
Another Fool who doesn't have the guts to discuss evidence/testimony.
Another Felon Supporter who chooses Profanity over honest debate.
Another Blight on America.
Show your guts Bqarnum & Bailey.
<bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165870198.9...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
The above quote by Tom-Sack is a perfect example of how rabid CT-Kooks
operate....i.e., jumping to a conclusion they WANT to reach, without
any proof whatsoever.
And just for the record (once again) -- My "debates" do NOT consist of
only my own words, Mr. Tom-Kook. The "CTer" questions/comments are
culled from various forums and were posted by actual, living,
breathing, non-CS&L-possessing CTers.
David Von Pein
You aren't going to like the next hunks of text I'm going to post,
because they are going to prove you to be the dreck-spouter and liar
that everyone knows you are already, Mr. Tom-K.
You think that my "CTer" questions in my "Debate" threads are my OWN
words, correct? Well, then, I guess Ben Holmes, Bob Harris, and Tony
Marsh (and a fellow named Gary Myers over at Lancer.com) must be part
of my "Debate Conspiracy" ruse too. Let's have a look:
Here's a passage from this thread ("JFK DEBATE; PART 18"):
"CTer -- The Warren Commission managed to publish 26 volumes of
evidence, yet missed the very first document created--the death
certificate.
DVP -- So what? Are you saying JFK isn't really dead? Or that Admiral
Burkley, who signed the death certificate, is one of the main
"conspirators" in the case? What IS your point here? I see none. Except
the probable CT suspicion of "moving wounds" on JFK's back. But the
death certificate placement of the back wound says "back", not "neck",
which is perfectly consistent with the autopsy photograph of President
Kennedy's back wound. So, again, what's your point?"
~~~~~~~~
Now, let's see if I just made up the "death certificate" post that I
attribute to an unnamed "CTer":
~~~~~~~~
And then we have this passage (also from this "Part 18" thread):
"CTer -- You have no clue about how many shots might have been fired
that were inaudible or nearly simultaneous with other audible shots."
The above was said, verbatim, by Robert Harris on May 1, 2006:
~~~~~~~~
And there's also this (also from "Part 18"):
"CTer -- Oh my God! You are appalled at the idea that Oswald might
steal some curtain rods, but think nothing of accusing him of a double
murder?"
The above quote comes from Anthony Marsh (March 2006). But a kook named
Tom claims that I made up that quote out of thin air.
But if Tom-Kook had bothered to perform the simple task of copying the
exact text into the search engine right on this very website/NG, he
would have found the following confirmation of Tony's words.....
~~~~~~~~
And to further illustrate how much of a blowhard Tom-Kook is, there's
this post from another forum (JFK-Lancer), which I used in "Part 2" of
my debate threads.....
"CTer -- You do realize that if they {the proverbial "Real Assassins"}
had gotten a kill shot from behind, that all the cameras and all the
witnesses would not have made any difference. They did not get that
kill shot, so that is why we are where we are today."
Here's the original May 2005 Lancer post from which the above CTer
comment was culled:
Would you now care to retract the following blatant lie that you
carelessly wrote, Mr. Tom-Sack?.....
"Your "Debate" consists of ALL of your words. Should I ever take the
liberties YOU do by wording BOTH questions AND answers, you would've
committed suicide years ago." -- Tom R. (Dec. 11, 2006)*
* = Silly random capitalization errors corrected by me.
tomnln
ALL in your own words.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165914305.4...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1165934626....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
clickable links that even a Nutsack with one hand on his sack could
click & see)....and here's the retort I get still....
"ALL in your own words."
Well...a sack'll be a sack I guess. And a stupid one at that. ~shrugs~
tomnln
Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
Scroll to bottom of page.
These Felon Supporters are listed in order of importance.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166062899.9...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...