GIANMARCO MANZIONE VS. DVP
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/review/R3LYCRVOE8ACSG/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=11&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxET77OIB1NF8L#MxET77OIB1NF8L
GIANMARCO MANZIONE SAID (What a great-sounding name Gianmarco
Manzione's got, too!):
>>> "Your adamant refusal to consider the alternative perspectives of sources other than your one "bible" {Gianmarco means Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" here, of course ~wink~}..." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN RETORTS:
Oh, I've considered several other "sources". And they all pale by
comparison to Bugliosi's tome; or to Posner's in fact; or to
Sturdivan's excellent book "The JFK Myths"; or to Dale Myers' equally-
as-compelling "With Malice".
All of these publications I've mentioned are rooted in one very
important thing -- the REAL EVIDENCE in the JFK and Tippit murder
cases. And the 888-page Warren Commission Report is rooted firmly on
that same turf. Like it or not.
GIANMARCO MANZIONE SAID (Love this guy's name):
>>> "...relegates you to the realm of the jesters who see only black or white about what happened that day in Dallas--whether a conspiracy or the SBT--and flaunt their feathers like peacocks in heat at anyone who dares to consider the potential for a gray area." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN UTTERS:
Nice prose. But it's not changing the fact that every scrap of
evidence leads to one wife-beating Marxist loner named "Lee".
And to believe that all (or ANY) of the evidence on the table has been
covertly "planted" or manufactured is an extraordinary belief that
requires some equally-extraordinary proof. (Wouldn't you agree?)
And that proof is.....?
(I won't hold my breath waiting for it.)
GIANMARCO MANZIONE SAID:
>>> "To say that the WCR is rife with fiction is not to wholly endorse the theories of the so-called conspiracy crowd; it is merely to open your eyes, and this report is worthless as a credible explanation of the events of 11/22/63." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS (WITH REASON):
Come up with anything else that's more "credible" (and, just as
important, more "reasonable"). To date, not a thing has come even
remotely close.
In fact, the silly unsupportable conspiracy theories being spewed 24/7
by the "CT Kooks" of the world have made the "Lone Nut" conclusion
seem all the more valid, reasonable, doable, and plausible....due to
the sheer absurdity of nearly all of the "plots" that have been tossed
up against the wall (including Oliver Stone's and Jim Garrison's "3-
Gun, 1-Patsy" laughfest).
The only "conspiracy plot" that's even remotely possible (given the
evidence) is one that has Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone gunman in Dealey
Plaza (and on Tenth Street for Tippit's murder) and an unseen, non-
shooting "plotter(s)" that we currently have no knowledge of (and
never will after 44 years, that's pretty much a certainty).
But even that kind of smaller "Oswald And One Other Guy Who Never
Fired A Shot" conspiracy scenario is very unlikely, given the type of
person Lee Oswald was. He was very much a loner. He shot at General
Walker by himself, with no outside conspirators aiding him. And he
very likely did the same on November 22nd, 1963.
Plus: If Oswald had had help from a friend, then where the heck was
this "friend" when Lee Harvey needed him the most -- at 12:33 PM on
11/22/63 when Oswald was leaving the Book Depository after having just
shot the President?
In that type of hypothetical smaller "plot", are we to believe that
the "other plotter(s)" just simply got cold feet and abandoned their
pal named Lee when the big moment arrived on November 22nd? That's
possible, I suppose....but I'd rather stick with the facts. And those
facts (including Oswald's own post-assassination actions, which reek
with guilt) undeniably spell out "OSWALD'S ON HIS OWN".
David Von Pein
November 16, 2007
aeffects
>>> another load of shit <<<
ya keep making up fraudulent names, write phony articles -- how stupid
do you think lurkers on this board are, dipshit? ? ?
David Von Pein
>>> "You can put as many guns in Oswald's hands as you'd like, but the fact remains that only three shell casings and no clips were found at his window. As you know, one of the bystanders at Dealey Plaza that day was a man named James Tague. He was hit by a fragment of concrete knocked off the curb by a bullet that had hit a curbstone near where he stood. He reported his injury to a hospital. So there was another man on record as having been hit during these same 6.8 seconds. This forced the Commission to accept that one bullet, the second by their count, missed both JFK and Connally. This complicated their task. Is that the best you've got, David?" <<<
Is that the best you've got, Gianmarco?
If so, it's mighty weak.
You'd better re-familiarize yourself with Page #117 of the WCR.
Because that page specifically tells us that the WC wasn't being
FORCED to accept the SBT scenario in any way whatsoever.
The WC fully acknowledged the possibility that James Tague's injury
and the chipped curb on Main St. could have been caused by a fragment
from the bullet that struck JFK in the head (shot #3 from Oswald's
Carcano).
Read Page 117 well, Gianmarco. It's very informative (in a "The Warren
Commission Wasn't Boxed In To Accepting The Single-Bullet Theory" kind
of fashion). Here's a link:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
Of course, in actuality, being "boxed in" to accepting the SBT really
wouldn't be a fate worse than death, seeing as how the SBT is
positively the ONLY POSSIBLE CORRECT SCENARIO in this case. Any other
version of the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC is laughable (at
best), such as the THREE-bullet substitute for the SBT that a large
majority of the conspiracy-loving kooks of the world seem to accept as
fact.
The number of laughable and unsupportable factors that are associated
with that conspiracy-flavored version of the shooting reaches into
double-digits, easy.