Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Was Tippit killed as a result of a traffic stop ?

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Gil Jesus

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 12:50:17 PM3/1/08
to

YoHarvey

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 1:00:03 PM3/1/08
to
On Mar 1, 12:50 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Witnesses say yes.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12363&st=0&gopi...


Witnesses say yes? How many witnesses?

YoHarvey

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 1:04:42 PM3/1/08
to

Hey Chico? Healy said he'd get you laid. His wife his running a sale
in Vegas. Questions?

cdddraftsman

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 4:16:40 PM3/1/08
to

Yo ! I didn't know LHO made a suspicious u-turn in front of Tippit ?
Was his tenny's black wall or white walled ? Think about it ?

tl

Walt

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 8:00:16 PM3/1/08
to
On 1 Mar, 11:50, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Witnesses say yes.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12363&st=0&gopi...

There's no evidence that Tippit was covered with a blanket as he lay
in the street after he was shot.

Since the woman is imagining that she put a blanket over Tippit's
body, she probably is also imagining that she saw a old gray coupe
leave the scene......

Gil Jesus

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 8:50:32 PM3/1/08
to
On Mar 1, 8:00�pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

> Since the woman is imagining that she put a blanket over Tippit's
> body, she probably is also imagining that she saw a old gray coupe
> leave the scene......


Frank and Mary Wright were the residents at 501 Tenth St. in 1963.
Neither were interviewed by the FBI nor asked to testify before the
Warren Commission.

Mr Wright saw the last part of the scene that Acquilla Clemmons had
described:

"Mr. Wright, who had been inside the house, came out in time to see
Officer Tippit roll over on the ground, probably the last movement of
his life. Wright observed another man looking down on the fallen
officer. Then the man circled around the police car and got into an
OLD GREY CAR on the other side of it. He drove off
rapidly." ( Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, pg. 229)

One can view the video interview of Ms. Clemmons by Mark Lane in 1966
here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-OH06xqX2g


So then, did Frank Wright also IMAGINE the SAME old grey car as the
woman ?

YoHarvey

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 6:20:55 PM3/2/08
to

OMG, now he's quoting Garrison roflmao.....Wow!!! That's an authority!

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 6:33:17 PM3/2/08
to
>>> "OMG, now he's quoting Garrison roflmao.....Wow!!! That's an authority!" <<<


Yep. Jimbo is the guy to go to alright (if you want the straight dope
on the Tippit murder). Just have a gander at these verbal gems from
the lips of Kook Garrison. (Jim evidently forgot about the testimony
of the Davis girls and Benavides in the "shell-dumping" regard):


"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges
were found at the scene of the {Tippit} slaying. Now, revolvers do not
eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find
gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer
deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that
cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and
left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to
incriminate Oswald." -- J. Garrison; 1967

Additional doses of Garrison's nuttiness (in massive quantities) can
be found here:


http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html

aeffects

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 6:35:53 PM3/2/08
to
On Mar 2, 3:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "OMG, now he's quoting Garrison roflmao.....Wow!!! That's an authority!" <<<
>
> Yep. Jimbo is the guy to go to alright ...

shit concerning this idiot Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes) love affair
with Jimbo? I'd suspect nothing less than this idiotic response.... at
least Gil didn't quote himself as Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes ) is so
fond of doing, ALL the time..... LMFAO

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 6:56:02 PM3/2/08
to
>>> "shit concerning this idiot Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes) love affair with Jimbo? I'd suspect nothing less than this idiotic response.... at least Gil didn't quote himself as Von Pein (aka Dave Reitzes ) is so fond of doing, ALL the time..... LMFAO" <<<


Can anybody decipher the above batch of incoherence for me?

Unfortunately, my "Kook Decipherer" is currently on the blink. (It
broke from overuse here at the Asylum.)

aeffects

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 7:11:44 PM3/2/08
to

troll loser....

and oh really?

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 7:16:51 PM3/2/08
to
On Mar 2, 6:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "OMG, now he's quoting Garrison roflmao.....Wow!!!  That's an authority!" <<<

"Yep. Jimbo is the guy to go to alright (if you want the straight dope
on the Tippit murder). Just have a gander at these verbal gems from
the lips of Kook Garrison. (Jim evidently forgot about the testimony
of the Davis girls and Benavides in the "shell-dumping" regard):"

Like your WC is so honest about it right?

      "The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges
were found at the scene of the {Tippit} slaying. Now, revolvers do not
eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find
gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer
deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that
cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and
left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to
incriminate Oswald." -- J. Garrison; 1967"

Sounds reasonable to me. Why would the killer delibrately leave shell
casings when he did NOT have to?

"Additional doses of Garrison's nuttiness (in massive quantities) can
be found here:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html"

Also known as massive doses of CS&L.

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 7:33:02 PM3/2/08
to

>>> "Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT have to?" <<<


And yet that's just exactly what Lee Harvey Oswald did on Nov. 22. Go
figure.

And after you're done "figuring", why not read this:


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

And this:


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm


And this:


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm

And this:


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm


And this:


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm


Sample testimony excerpt that makes Garrison and all other "OSWALD
DIDN'T DUMP ANY SHELLS AT ALL" kooks look like the idiots they are/
were:


DOM BENAVIDES -- "Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the
sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then
kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and
must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up,
and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the
corner."

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 7:49:49 PM3/2/08
to
On Mar 2, 7:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT have to?" <<<

"And yet that's just exactly what Lee Harvey Oswald did on Nov. 22. Go
figure."

Go figure doesn't cut it, how about proving it for a change?

"And after you're done "figuring", why not read this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm"

NO PROOF located at these locations, that is for sure. Pure
propaganda.

"Sample testimony excerpt that makes Garrison and all other "OSWALD
DIDN'T DUMP ANY SHELLS AT ALL" kooks look like the idiots they are/
were:

"DOM BENAVIDES -- "Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the
sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then
kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and
must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up,
and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the
corner.""

Where does he mention LHO? I don't see any mention of LHO, you are
making the assertion that the "man" he is talking about is LHO with NO
proof to back it up. Go figure.

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 8:14:38 PM3/2/08
to

>>> "Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT have to?" <<<

And yet that's just exactly what Lee Harvey Oswald did on Nov. 22. Go
figure.

And after you're done "figuring", why not read this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm

And this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/benavide.htm

Sample testimony excerpt that makes Garrison and all other "OSWALD


DIDN'T DUMP ANY SHELLS AT ALL" kooks look like the idiots they are/
were:

DOM BENAVIDES -- "Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the
sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then
kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and
must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up,
and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the
corner."


>>> "Where does he {Benavides} mention LHO? I don't see any mention of LHO, you are making the assertion that the "man" he is talking about is LHO with NO proof to back it up." <<<


If there's a God in heaven, He'll send a permanant virus to Robcap's
hard drive, so that we won't have to endure his idiocy any further.


Are ya listening to this, O Lord??

Anyway (sigh), it looks like I'm going to have to walk the kook
through things again......

For the purposes of this latest discussion regarding the "shell-
dumping" on 10th St. after Tippit was shot dead, the sample of
Benavides' testimony I provided doesn't really need to include the
words "I SAW OSWALD DUMPING SHELLS". (The other links I provided amply
prove that it was Oswald who was the shell-dumper on 10th St., without
the smallest speck of a doubt.)

But for THIS discussion--wherein you (Robcap) said the following.....

"Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT
have to?"

.....Benavides' testimony I quoted does the trick....because it shows
that WHOEVER the killer was (i.e., the ONE & ONLY PERSON WHO WAS
BRANDISHING A GUN ON TENTH STREET), that person DID perform the ultra-
stupid act of dumping (or "throwing" as Benavides termed it) spent
bullet shells on the ground near the corner of 10th & Patton on
November 22, 1963.*

* = And, of course, that ONE PERSON who was brandishing a gun and
dumping shells was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald. We know it was Oswald
based on the sum total of witness and ballistics evidence in the case.

E.G.:

Oswald's own gun (that he had on him when arrested) was linked "to the
exclusion of all other weapons" to the four spent shells that were
dumped by the ONLY PERSON SEEN BRANDISHING A FIREARM on 10th Street.

And approx. 13 different witnesses (from 10th Street to Patton Avenue
to Jefferson Boulevard) identified Lee Oswald as the man they saw
either shooting Officer Tippit or as the ONLY PERSON WITH A GUN
running (or walking) from the scene of the crime.

A kook, however, seems to want to dismiss all of the above in favor of
the forever-unanswerable open-ended question of:


"Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT
have to?"

Evidently Mr. Garrison in New Orleans had a desire to ignore all of
this "LHO SHOT TIPPIT" evidence too.

Seems kind of odd for a supposed seasoned and well-esteemed District
Attorney to want to start ignoring a mountain of evidence that's right
before his eyes. But, since Jimbo had "Conspiracy" in his sights, I
guess no amount of hard, factual evidence leading to Saint Oswald was
TOO MUCH to mangle, skew, and totally ignore.

Go figure that odd logic. I sure can't.

YoHarvey

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 8:23:52 PM3/2/08
to
On Mar 2, 8:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Interesting isn't it DVP that lunatic Healy NEVER mentioned Dave
Reitzes when Reitzes was a die hard conspiracist!! Healy is LIVING
proof on why parents MUST educate their young...or eat them!

Walt

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 8:39:41 PM3/2/08
to

Von Pea Brain....If your IQ was compared to Garrison's, yours wouldn't
even be on the same scale, And when comparing courage to face
facts.... Yer not even in the same college.....

I'll admit that I always doubted that JG was right about the dumping
of shells at the scene of Tippit's murder, but it's becoming more and
more evident that that is just what happened.

>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html

YoHarvey

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 8:46:07 PM3/2/08
to
> >http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Walt? You've gotten embarrassing. NORMAL thinking people are
laughing at you. Even respected CT diehards believe Tippit was killed
by LHO. It's hardly worth discussing any longer.

Walt

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 8:51:50 PM3/2/08
to
On 2 Mar, 19:46, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:39 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mar, 17:33, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "OMG, now he's quoting Garrison roflmao.....Wow!!!  That's an authority!" <<<
>
> > > Yep. Jimbo is the guy to go to alright (if you want the straight dope
> > > on the Tippit murder). Just have a gander at these verbal gems from
> > > the lips of Kook Garrison. (Jim evidently forgot about the testimony
> > > of the Davis girls and Benavides in the "shell-dumping" regard):
>
> > >       "The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges
> > > were found at the scene of the {Tippit} slaying. Now, revolvers do not
> > > eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find
> > > gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer
> > > deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that
> > > cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and
> > > left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to
> > > incriminate Oswald." -- J. Garrison; 1967
>
> > > Additional doses of Garrison's nuttiness (in massive quantities) can
> > > be found here:
>
> > Von Pea Brain....If your IQ was compared to Garrison's, yours wouldn't
> > even be on the same scale, And when comparing courage to face
> > facts.... Yer not even in the same college.....
>
> > I'll admit that I always doubted that JG was right about the dumping
> > of shells at the scene of Tippit's murder, but it's becoming more and
> > more evident that that is just what happened.
>
> > >http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Walt?  You've gotten embarrassing.  NORMAL thinking people are
> laughing at you.  Even respected CT diehards believe Tippit was killed
> by LHO.  It's hardly worth discussing any longer.

Hey, Yo Yo...If it's not worth discussing then don't discuss it....go
to alt flowers.com and pick yer nose.

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 8:52:57 PM3/2/08
to
>>> "I'll admit that I always doubted that JG was right about the dumping of shells at the scene of Tippit's murder, but it's becoming more and more evident that that is just what happened." <<<


<multiple chuckles>

The undeniable fact that shells were dumped (by Oswald) on Tenth
Street has been crystal-clear since Day 1 (11/22/63). That fact was
obvious once the four shells were found by Benavides, Davis, and
Davis....and once the following affidavits were signed by Davis &
Davis:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

Walt

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 9:12:15 PM3/2/08
to
On 2 Mar, 17:33, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "OMG, now he's quoting Garrison roflmao.....Wow!!!  That's an authority!" <<<
>
> Yep. Jimbo is the guy to go to alright (if you want the straight dope
> on the Tippit murder). Just have a gander at these verbal gems from
> the lips of Kook Garrison. (Jim evidently forgot about the testimony
> of the Davis girls and Benavides in the "shell-dumping" regard):

I'm not at all surprised that Von Pea Brain would attack Jim
Garrison..... Garrison was very close to cracking the case.....If the
government hadn't subverted his case he very likely would have got the
Jury to convict Clay Shaw as conspiring to assassinate JFK. The real
clincher for me was not so much the evidence that Garrison presented
in court but the stuff we learned long afterward that would have made
all the difference in the jury's mind. Later it was learned from CIA
officials that Clay Shaw was in fact a CIA agent in Nov 63, and he
used the alias Clay Bertrand, and Clay Bertrand told Dean Andrews to
go to Dallas and represent Lee Oswald.

The CIA had a vendetta against Garrison and actually tried to create
fake evidence thay he was taking payoff from pin ball machine
operators.... Not one pinball machine operator said that Garrison ever
received any payoff. Garrison convinced the jury that the tape
recordings that the government presented as evidence against him, were
FABRICATED. Garrison PROVED that the government MANUFACTURED false
evidence to get him convicted.... He proved that the evidence was
manufactured....This should scare the hell out of all American's. If
that doesn't bother you Pea Brain then you should feel right at home
in North Korea.

The fact that the government wanted Garrison's scalp is more
convincing that he was on the right track, then some of the ideas he
had about the actual assassination.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 9:12:43 PM3/2/08
to
On Mar 2, 8:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT have to?" <<<

"And yet that's just exactly what Lee Harvey Oswald did on Nov. 22. Go
figure."

Since you deleted my comments I'll put them back in. Go figure doesn't


cut it, how about proving it for a change?

"Sample testimony excerpt that makes Garrison and all other "OSWALD


DIDN'T DUMP ANY SHELLS AT ALL" kooks look like the idiots they are/
were:

DOM BENAVIDES -- "Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the
sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then
kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and
must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up,
and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the
corner."

Where does he mention LHO? I don't see any mention of LHO, you are


making the assertion that the "man" he is talking about is LHO with
NO

proof to back it up. Go figure.

> >>> "Where does he {Benavides} mention LHO?  I don't see any mention of LHO, you are making the assertion that the "man" he is talking about is LHO with NO proof to back it up." <<<

"If there's a God in heaven, He'll send a permanant virus to Robcap's
hard drive, so that we won't have to endure his idiocy any further."

Idiocy? You put a quote from a witness who has allegedly ID'd LHO and
then the quote contains no mention of LHO at all!!! If idiocy is the
issue it is on your side Dave-squared.

"Are ya listening to this, O Lord??"

So you can't deal with having NO evidence or proof and now you are
wishing bad things to my computer?

"Anyway (sigh), it looks like I'm going to have to walk the kook
through things again......

"For the purposes of this latest discussion regarding the "shell-
dumping" on 10th St. after Tippit was shot dead, the sample of
Benavides' testimony I provided doesn't really need to include the
words "I SAW OSWALD DUMPING SHELLS". (The other links I provided amply
prove that it was Oswald who was the shell-dumper on 10th St., without
the smallest speck of a doubt.)"

Nice try, but Benavides was the CLOSEST to the shooting and if he
can't say it was LHO, and he couldn't, then the witnesses further out
have to take a backseat. Besides, you have not proven one witness
said it was LHO that did not have major issues regarding their ability
to make that ID on their own.

"But for THIS discussion--wherein you (Robcap) said the following.....

'Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT
have to?'

.....Benavides' testimony I quoted does the trick....because it shows
that WHOEVER the killer was (i.e., the ONE & ONLY PERSON WHO WAS
BRANDISHING A GUN ON TENTH STREET), that person DID perform the ultra-
stupid act of dumping (or "throwing" as Benavides termed it) spent
bullet shells on the ground near the corner of 10th & Patton on
November 22, 1963.*"

But what was the purpose of doing this? You have NOT proven it was
LHO so you have no connection there. The real killer(s) used an
automatic so when he dumped the shells it was for one reason and one
reason only - to frame LHO.

"* = And, of course, that ONE PERSON who was brandishing a gun and
dumping shells was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald. We know it was Oswald
based on the sum total of witness and ballistics evidence in the
case."

How do you know this? Because the "killer" also left his wallet at
the scene with a drivers license in it? (The LHO of record could NOT
drive by the way)

"E.G.:

Oswald's own gun (that he had on him when arrested) was linked "to the
exclusion of all other weapons" to the four spent shells that were
dumped by the ONLY PERSON SEEN BRANDISHING A FIREARM on 10th Street."

Big deal. Since there is NO proof that the bullets actually retrieved
from JDT were NOT a match you have no real hard evidence. Those shells
could have been fired weeks before so you have no connection to the
crime.

"And approx. 13 different witnesses (from 10th Street to Patton Avenue
to Jefferson Boulevard) identified Lee Oswald as the man they saw
either shooting Officer Tippit or as the ONLY PERSON WITH A GUN
running (or walking) from the scene of the crime."

This tired old proclamation. You do NOT have 13 witnesses that saw
LHO, we have been through this numerous times already.

"A kook, however, seems to want to dismiss all of the above in favor
of the forever-unanswerable open-ended question of:

'Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT

have to?'"

Well, I guess the cops are kooks as well, because a normal
investigation would have looked at this question very hard as it goes
to motive.

"Evidently Mr. Garrison in New Orleans had a desire to ignore all of
this "LHO SHOT TIPPIT" evidence too.

Seems kind of odd for a supposed seasoned and well-esteemed District
Attorney to want to start ignoring a mountain of evidence that's right
before his eyes. But, since Jimbo had "Conspiracy" in his sights, I
guess no amount of hard, factual evidence leading to Saint Oswald was
TOO MUCH to mangle, skew, and totally ignore.

Go figure that odd logic. I sure can't."

If he had "Conspiracy" in his sights he would NOT have waited 3 years
to look into the case in full.

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 9:37:56 PM3/2/08
to
>>> "If he {Kook Garrison} had "Conspiracy" in his sights he would NOT have waited 3 years to look into the case in full." <<<

Another brilliant hunk of kook-like verbiage spewed forth by Robert C.

In other words, the fact that Garrison waited about three years to
start his skewed JFK "investigation" somehow means (according to
Robby) that he couldn't possibly have had any kind of "Conspiracy"-
flavored agenda on his mind in 1966-1967.

Yeah, right. The same thing applies to Mark Lane too, right? (Seeing
as how Lane didn't publish his pro-CT book until 1966.)

And all of the other CT authors who were around in '63-'64, but didn't
look into the case until many years later, also DIDN'T have their
"sights" on conspiracy either....right Rob?


(Do you EVER 'think' before dashing to the keyboard to post your
mindless drivel, Rob? Ever?)

Walt

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 9:51:51 PM3/2/08
to
On 2 Mar, 20:37, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If he {Kook Garrison} had "Conspiracy" in his sights he would NOT have waited 3 years to look into the case in full." <<<
>
> Another brilliant hunk of kook-like verbiage spewed forth by Robert C.
>
> In other words, the fact that Garrison waited about three years to
> start his skewed JFK "investigation" somehow means (according to
> Robby) that he couldn't possibly have had any kind of "Conspiracy"-
> flavored agenda on his mind in 1966-1967.
>
> Yeah, right. The same thing applies to Mark Lane too, right? (Seeing
> as how Lane didn't publish his pro-CT book until 1966.)

Duh.... Von Pea Brain... Garrison was still under the illusion that
he was living in the "Good ol USA" in 63 and 64, and he said that he
initally ASSUMED that the Warren Commission had performed an
exhaustive job of investigating the murder of President Kennedy and
they had reached the conclusion that Oswald was the lone nut killer.
He trusted our government institutions. We all thought that...until
we started looking a little closer. That's when Garrison started
seeing the truth.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 9:55:27 PM3/2/08
to
On Mar 2, 9:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If he {Kook Garrison} had "Conspiracy" in his sights he would NOT have waited 3 years to look into the case in full." <<<

"Another brilliant hunk of kook-like verbiage spewed forth by Robert
C."

First things first, I want to point out at how Dave-squared (for those
not in the know this is shorthand for him being Dave Reitzes AND Dave
Von Pein) likes to just delete the comments he can't answer, which is
most of the post by the way.

"In other words, the fact that Garrison waited about three years to
start his skewed JFK "investigation" somehow means (according to
Robby) that he couldn't possibly have had any kind of "Conspiracy"-
flavored agenda on his mind in 1966-1967."

NO, what it proves is he was willing to accept the WC at its word for
three years, he was not out seeking a conspiracy right away. ONLY
after reading the WCR and the companion paper weights (a.k.a. the 26
volumes of hearings and exhibits) did he see a pattern of lies that
lead to conspiracy.

"Yeah, right. The same thing applies to Mark Lane too, right? (Seeing
as how Lane didn't publish his pro-CT book until 1966.)"

Same thing, he read the WC findings and knew there was a conspiracy.

"And all of the other CT authors who were around in '63-'64, but
didn't look into the case until many years later, also DIDN'T have
their "sights" on conspiracy either....right Rob?"

Right Dave-squared, they all started out by reading the report AND the
26 volumes. That is the key, the report will fool you if you don't
know much about the evidence, which most didn't back then, but the 26
volumes make it very clear as they do NOT match the conclusions in the
report in many, many cases.

"(Do you EVER 'think' before dashing to the keyboard to post your
mindless drivel, Rob? Ever?)"

I think all the time, you are the one that repeats your orders like a
drone.

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 2, 2008, 10:17:42 PM3/2/08
to

>>> "I want to point out at how Dave-squared (for those not in the know this is shorthand for him being Dave Reitzes AND Dave Von Pein)..." <<<


Just one of the many, many things that Rob-Kook has gotten wrong since
he surfaced in late 2007.

Funny, too, that I am the one who defends Rob when he's called
"Jesus"....but I am not given the same benefit of the doubt from Robby
when it comes to the idiotic and wholly-unsupportable assertion that I
possess "twin identities" (which is so incredibly stupid in the first
place for anyone to even WANT to possess such dual monikers).

Of course, Rob-Kook is merely riding Healy-Kook's coattails in the
"dual identity" regard. For, if not for Healy's delusions re. this
make-believe topic, the "dual" notion would have never even entered
Robby's head.*

* = Which could provide a pretty decent segue for me here -- i.e., If
not for the crazy notions of many different CT authors, the "LHO WAS
MERELY A PATSY" notion would probably have never, ever entered the
mind of a kook named Robert C.

Food for (CT) thought anyway, isn't it, Robby? (Seeing as how you live
inside the conspiracy books of Armstrong, Garrison, Fetzer, Marrs, and
Livingstone, et al, 24/7.)


>>> "{DVP, or am I "Reitzes" today?} likes to just delete the comments he can't answer..." <<<


No, this is not really correct. I just sometimes can't handle the
inanities and hilarious nature that comprise the lion's share of your
tripe-filled ramblings. After all, everybody here knows about my weak
bladder! And a person can take just so much CT tripe before having a
weak urinary bladder burst! (I thought you would have realized this
fact of life by now.)

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Mar 3, 2008, 4:47:03 PM3/3/08
to
On Mar 2, 10:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I want to point out at how Dave-squared (for those not in the know this is shorthand for him being Dave Reitzes AND Dave Von Pein)..." <<<

"Just one of the many, many things that Rob-Kook has gotten wrong
since he surfaced in late 2007.

Funny, too, that I am the one who defends Rob when he's called
"Jesus"....but I am not given the same benefit of the doubt from Robby
when it comes to the idiotic and wholly-unsupportable assertion that I
possess "twin identities" (which is so incredibly stupid in the first
place for anyone to even WANT to possess such dual monikers)."

I'm kidding for Pete's sake. I think "Dave-squared" is pretty funny
myself. You do say I am not Gil, I'm a seperate "kook" if I quote you
correctly. Thanks for calling me a "kook" all on my own. :-)

"Of course, Rob-Kook is merely riding Healy-Kook's coattails in the
"dual identity" regard. For, if not for Healy's delusions re. this
make-believe topic, the "dual" notion would have never even entered
Robby's head.*

* = Which could provide a pretty decent segue for me here -- i.e., If
not for the crazy notions of many different CT authors, the "LHO WAS
MERELY A PATSY" notion would probably have never, ever entered the
mind of a kook named Robert C."

Not true as I had my suspicions for some time now, but like the WC I
can't prove them. Here is why:

1 - First and foremost, Dave Reitzes has always posted like he has NO
life whatsoever, I mean 14,000 posts plus in ONE year? Come on. I
notice you post a lot as well and you post early into the morning so I
am assuming you either work nights or you have NO life either. I'm
not meaning that as a dig, just a common trait between the two Daves.

2 - You both have a hate on for Jim Garrison, now many LNers do, but I
see a similar attack from both of you.

3 - You both push Amazon.com a lot and write reviews for them.

4 - Reitzes math is bad and so is yours.

5 - Your both named Dave! You are both so confused about the facts of
the case you have to be the same person.

"Food for (CT) thought anyway, isn't it, Robby? (Seeing as how you
live inside the conspiracy books of Armstrong, Garrison, Fetzer,
Marrs, and Livingstone, et al, 24/7.)"

Conspiracy is a common occurence whether you want ot acknowledge it or
not. Most crimes of a serious nature involve more than one person as
planning, obstructing and covering up all count towards conspiracy.

> >>> "{DVP, or am I "Reitzes" today?} likes to just delete the comments he can't answer..." <<<

"No, this is not really correct. I just sometimes can't handle the
inanities and hilarious nature that comprise the lion's share of your
tripe-filled ramblings. After all, everybody here knows about my weak
bladder! And a person can take just so much CT tripe before having a
weak urinary bladder burst! (I thought you would have realized this
fact of life by now.)"

Sure, and the Pope is NOT Catholic too!

0 new messages