Today's LOL-Worthy "Made Up From Whole Cloth" Kookshit....
David Von Pein
"Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and
bullets in the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to
protect himself." -- WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT; March 30, 2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dcb86daf2ad062f7
TOMORROW'S "FROM WHOLE CLOTH" EPISODE:
Johnny Brewer framed Oswald (with assistance from Mrs. Julia Postal)!
Johnny & Julia were the true masterminds behind the murders of JFK and
J.D. Tippit!
Walt
Hey Dumbass .....Ridicule of the messenger is a poor tactic..... But
if that's all ya got .....I guess yer stuck with that feeble
tactic.
David Von Pein
>>> "Hey Dumbass....Ridicule of the messenger is a poor tactic. But if that's all ya got, I guess yer stuck with that feeble tactic." <<<
Incredible. Absolutely....incredible.
~~stares with mouth agape, dumbfounded, at Walter~~
David Von Pein
>>> "What a clusterf*ck of confused thinking by one of the biggest loons on the internet, Uncle Walty Cakebread-for-brains." <<<
Yep. Just as long as Pope Oz The First can remain a non-murderer, all
is well in a kook's world.
No matter how many pieces of evidence need to be re-structured and re-
formulated in order to maintain the "Anybody But Oz" stance of the
kooks...and no matter how much witness testimony has to be mangled
beyond all possible recognition in order to achieve that same goal
(perfect example: the complete re-writing Walt has done on Brennan's
testimony)...then the Super-Kooks like Walter are blissful.
Vince was right:
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence...treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vince Bugliosi
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a
little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
aeffects
> >>> "What a clusterf*ck of confused thinking by one of the biggest loons on the internet, Uncle Walty Cakebread-for-brains." <<<
>
> Yep. Just as long as Pope Oz The First can remain a non-murderer, all
> is well in a kook's world.
>
> No matter how many pieces of evidence need to be re-structured and re-
> formulated in order to maintain the "Anybody But Oz" stance of the
> kooks...and no matter how much witness testimony has to be mangled
> beyond all possible recognition in order to achieve that same goal
> (perfect example: the complete re-writing Walt has done on Brennan's
> testimony)...then the Super-Kooks like Walter are blissful.
>
> Vince was right:
>
yeah so is TimVP right, Tim wants a divorce.... (hate to be the bearer
of bad news)
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c412fbf6-76db-4e0e...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anybody have any idea how one goes about divorcing your brother?
>
> ~shrug~
For Openers.....Stop Sleeping with him! ! ! !
David Von Pein
Anybody have any idea how one goes about divorcing your brother?
~shrug~
(Although I can certainly see how Healy-Kook's brother would
desperately want to take advantage of such a legal procedure, if one
actually was on the books.)
Walt
> >>> "Hey Dumbass....Ridicule of the messenger is a poor tactic. But if that's all ya got, I guess yer stuck with that feeble tactic." <<<
>
> Incredible. Absolutely....incredible.
>
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Why didn't "I" think about that"
Walter replies.... You didn't think of it because yer brain is not
conditioned to THINK. Your brain is conditioned to regurgitate what
your master wants you to regurgitate. Can you say "Heil Hitler"?
David Von Pein
>>> "Stares with mouth agape, dumbfounded, at Walter and says "Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Why didn't *I* think about that"." <<<
Well, Walt, ANYBODY can skew the witness testimony beyond all
tolerance if they so desire (like you do all the time, particularly
with Mr. Brennan's testimony), but twisting someone's words around to
conform to YOUR silly "Sniper In The West-End Window" theory isn't
going to suddenly actually CHANGE Howard Brennan's ACTUAL SPOKEN WORDS
or change the meaning of the words he actually spoke to the WC in
1964.
Your own interpretation of things means very very little in the
grander scheme of things. But...we all have our little hobbies. One of
mine is collecting certain old TV shows on DVD. While Walt's main
hobby is to make sure virtually all testimony and evidence connected
with the murder of the 35th U.S. President is mangled to suit his
conspiracy-happy requirements (just as he has done with Howard Brennan
and just as he has done with all of the Tippit evidence and witnesses
as well).
Speaking of witness "interpretation", let me change gears for a minute
and switch over to the interesting WC testimony of Jean Hill (a
witness who is often cited by CTers as a very key "pro-conspiracy"
type of witness). But is Hill really a good "CT" witness? Really?? I'd
say she was somewhere "in between" (much like Lee Bowers too):
A CTer SAID:
>>> "Jean Hill {on} 11-22-63 said there was a shot from the grassy knoll and 4 to six shots." <<<
DVP RESPONDED:
And the higher her shot number soars to, the more WRONG she positively
is when she claimed that EVERY SHOT came from the Grassy Knoll.
Or do you now want to purport that SIX shots DID come from the Grassy
Knoll (in order to make Mrs. Hill 100% correct), while ZERO shots came
from the Texas School Book Depository?
You surely don't want to go down that rocky road, do you?
Let's listen to this intriguing exchange between Mrs. Hill and Arlen
Specter:
JEAN HILL -- "At that time I didn't realize that the shots were coming
from the building. I frankly thought they were coming from the knoll."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Why did you think they were coming from the knoll?"
HILL -- "That was just my idea where they were coming from."
~~~~~
SPECTER -- "Did you have a conscious impression of the source of the
first shot that you heard, that is, where it came from?"
HILL -- "Well, evidently I didn't because the only conscious
recollection I have of that---I mean---until all this other came
out---
I had always thought that they came from the knoll."
SPECTER -- "Did you have any conscious impression of where the second
shot came from?"
HILL -- "No."
SPECTER -- "Any conscious impression of where this third shot came
from?"
HILL -- "Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just
people shooting from the knoll---I did think there was more than one
person shooting."
~~~~~
And here we have an interesting admission by Mrs. Hill:
SPECTER -- "Do you think perhaps that you had the impression that that
came from the knoll exclusively 'cause you saw the man running away?
And your reaction that that must have been the man who did the
shooting?"
HILL -- "It could have been very well--it could have been."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_j.htm
I think the following give-and-take exchange between Hill and Specter
deserves an instant replay:
SPECTER -- "Do you think perhaps that you had the impression that that
came from the knoll exclusively 'cause you saw the man running away?
And your reaction that that must have been the man who did the
shooting?"
HILL -- "It could have been very well--it could have been."
==========
Now, let's compare the above 1964 words spoken by Jean Hill to these
words that we find printed in two places on the dust jacket of the
1992 book "JFK: THE LAST DISSENTING WITNESS", which Hill co-wrote with
Bill Sloan:
"'JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness' is the gripping story of
Jean Hill's incredible ordeal which began when she saw a gunman on the
famous grassy knoll fire the shot that exploded the president's
skull. .... Hill saw the shadowy figure of a man fire at President
Kennedy from behind a picket fence atop the now-famous grassy knoll."
www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0882899228/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
www.amazon.com/DVP/review/R1IP8ODVIT6YOA
And then, too, we also have Jean Hill's own words from the very day of
the assassination to use for comparison purposes as well, when Hill
said this during an interview with WBAP-TV:
QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."
==========
I'd like to ask Walt (or any CTer) the following question -- Just how
credible, overall, do you think Jean Hill is as a witness?
Walt
> >>> "Stares with mouth agape, dumbfounded, at Walter and says "Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Why didn't *I* think about that"." <<<
>
> Well, Walt, ANYBODY can skew the witness testimony beyond all
> tolerance if they so desire (like you do all the time, particularly
> with Mr. Brennan's testimony), but twisting someone's words around to
> conform to YOUR silly "Sniper In The West-End Window" theory isn't
> going to suddenly actually CHANGE Howard Brennan's ACTUAL SPOKEN WORDS
> or change the meaning of the words he actually spoke to the WC in
> 1964.
Youve got it backwards... Dumbass. Howard Brennan's affidavit and
viewing of the police line-up preceded his appearence before the
Warren Commission .....By several months. The Warren Commission
lawyer's attempted to change what Howard Brennan wrote in his
affidavit just an hour or so, after the shooting. In that affidavit
he DESCRIBED a gunman who did not fit Oswald's description. He
DESCRIBED a window that the gunman was aiming the rifle from that was
NOT the SE corner window on the sixth floor, and he DESCRIBED a rifle
tahe was NOT a standard military issue, Mannlicher Carcano. He closed
his affidavit by saying that he would be able to identify the gunman
if he ever saw him again.
A few hours later he viewed a line-up in which Lee Oswald as one of
the participants. He told the cops that the man he'd seen with the
hunting rifle was NOT in that line-up.
Walt
> >>> "Stares with mouth agape, dumbfounded, at Walter and says "Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Why didn't *I* think about that"." <<<
>
> Well, Walt, ANYBODY can skew the witness testimony beyond all
> tolerance if they so desire (like you do all the time, particularly
> with Mr. Brennan's testimony), but twisting someone's words around to
> conform to YOUR silly "Sniper In The West-End Window" theory isn't
> going to suddenly actually CHANGE Howard Brennan's ACTUAL SPOKEN WORDS
> or change the meaning of the words he actually spoke to the WC in
> 1964.
My My.... My pointing out that Brennan said that Oswald was NOT the
175 pound man in the light colored clothing who he saw aiming a
hunting rifle from the wide open window on the west end window, has
sure got yer shorts twisted doesn't it, Pea Brain? You can't walk
away from it....You just keep bringing it up, and I love it. Shall I
go through everything that Howard Brennan wrote and said on the
afternoon of the assassination?
You know what I mean..... He said the gunman was at least ten years
older than Lee, and he said the gunman was at least 45 pounds heavier
than Lee. He also said the gunman was dressed in a dingy white shirt
and his trousers were a shade lighter than his shirt.
He described the gunman's rifle as a "high powered" rifle ( hunting
rifle) and that he could see all of the barrel of the rifle from the
muzzle clear back to the gunman's hands. He told the cops at the time
he gave them the description of the man that the rifle could have been
a 30-30 Winchester ( which is a "high powered" deer rifle)
Should I continue, and then remind you that Brennan said that Oswald
was NOT the man he'd seen and DESCRIBED in his affidavit earlier that
afternoon,
David Von Pein
links) refuses to post the actual affidavit in question....so others
have to do it for him. Here it is:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
And it's as clear as clear can be that that affidavit does NOT, in any
substantial way at all, differ from Brennan's WC testimony.
Walt's pathetic. He wants Oswald to be innocent (for some silly
reason).
BTW, Walt, are you still of the opinion that "7%" makes a "majority?
David Von Pein
>>> "Brennan DESCRIBED the west end window when he said the gunman was STANDING and aiming a rifle from that window." <<<
I'd suggest that Walt dig up a copy of the 70-minute CBS-TV
documentary "WHO KILLED JFK? FACTS, NOT FICTION" (1992).
In that program, a portion of a circa 1964 interview with Howard
Brennan is shown. During that clip of Brennan describing what he saw
on 11/22/63, Brennan says that during the shooting itself he "LOOKED
DIRECTLY ACROSS AND UP" (in order to see the gunman fire his last
gunshot).
Again, Brennan said "Directly across and up". He didn't say anything
about looking to his LEFT to see any gunman fire from the WEST side of
the Depository.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0112a.jpg
Was Brennan lying to CBS-TV, Walt?
Of course, this is just one more example (among many, many others)
that demonstrates Walt to be a Grade-A kook when it comes to this
"Brennan Saw A West-End Killer" thing that he's got stuck up his anal
cavity for some reason.
And, of course, another huge problem Walt has (although he claims it's
not a problem at all) is when David Belin asked this question during
Brennan's WC session:
"Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
With Belin receiving this answer in return:
"Not on that {sixth} floor."
Walt
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> >>> "Brennan DESCRIBED the west end window when he said the gunman was STANDING and aiming a rifle from that window." <<<
>
> I'd suggest that Walt dig up a copy of the 70-minute CBS-TV
> documentary "WHO KILLED JFK? FACTS, NOT FICTION" (1992).
>
> In that program, a portion of a circa 1964 interview with Howard
> Brennan is shown. During that clip of Brennan describing what he saw
> on 11/22/63, Brennan says that during the shooting itself he "LOOKED
> DIRECTLY ACROSS AND UP" (in order to see the gunman fire his last
> gunshot).
Duh .....Are you really this obtuse?? How many times do I have to
tell you I don't give a damn what Howard Brennan said AFTER 11
-2-63, He wrote an affidavut about what he saw immediately after the
shooting. He told the cops what he saw immediately after the shooting,
and he told them when he saw Lee Oswald in the line-up that Oswald
wasn't the gunman he'd seen.
What he said later, when he was scared to death for his family's
safety, is of no consequence.... When ya gonna get that through yer
thick skull?
>
> Again, Brennan said "Directly across and up". He didn't say anything
> about looking to his LEFT to see any gunman fire from the WEST side of
> the Depository.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
lazu...@webtv.net
conspiracy. Dr. Perry said 3 times 11-22-63 the throat wound appeared to
be an entrance...his memory never got any better...he may say now it
could have been either or whatever, but his earliest statements carry
the weight-reminds me of Dr. Charles Crenshaw who said the throat wound
was clearly one of entrance- they tried to debunk his claims on ABC in
'92, when Dr. Charles Baxter was asked he said" it could have been
either "(entrance/exit)on the throat wound, which hardly debunks
Crenshaw's claims....Laz
lazu...@webtv.net
you...Laz