MCADAMS NEEDS 26 VOLUMES BADLY
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:bljvt45cmjtovlpoc...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Apr 2009 23:07:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:bf7518f4-89fd-4006...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Addendum/Correction:
>>>
>>> When I said this above....
>>>
>>> "So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the
>>> front --
>>> a sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley thinks they
>>> were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has Connally
>>> being
>>> hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has to account for
>>> FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the SBT's one single
>>> bullet)."
>>>
>>> ....I was slightly in error, because I just remembered that Rossley only
>>> needs a mere THREE bullets to replace the SBT, and that's because
>>> Rossley
>>> believes (and said so during the 4/5/09 radio debate) that the shot that
>>> he says hit JFK in his throat from the front EXITED the President's
>>> upper
>>> back and then struck the pavement on Elm Street.
>>>
>>> But even a "mere" 3-bullet SBT replacement is absurd and everyone with
>>> some common sense should know why.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Proof that Davis does NOT know what the 26 volumes contains.
>>
>>It appears that David accepts a report he ghas NOT read.
>>
>>NO wonder he RAN from the radio debate.
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McAdams wrote;
> Explain to us what you believe, Tom.
>
> The stuff about Connally being hit from the front was a real hoot.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I write;
Now you know WHY I suggest that you get a copy of the 26 volumes John ! ! !
Do you Deny what I said about JBC being shot in the chest came from YOUR 26
Volumes???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you Deny what I said about JBC being shot in the chest came from YOUR 26 Volumes???" <<<
Thomas Rossley can't even figure out really easy stuff....like where
the inshoot and outshoot wounds were located on Governor Connally's
body.
Heaven help the man/fossil when it comes to harder stuff -- stuff
like: Was LHO a man or a woman?
David Von Pein
>>> "David doesn't know that JBC's own doctor made that ["in the chest"] statement." <<<
As I said before, you (Rossley) can't even use your common sense (if
you've got any left after wading through conspiracy myth after
conspiracy myth for over 40 years now) to figure out the really,
really easy-to-figure-out stuff regarding the evidence surrounding the
events of November 22nd, 1963.
If you ever came up against something really difficult, you'd probably
implode.
>>> "David doesn't know that that statement is in the 26 volumes." <<<
So what?
What did Robert Shaw say about JBC's wounds on live TV on 11/22/63?
Did Shaw say that Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY?
Answer: No, of course not. Nor did Shaw EVER claim in his WC testimony
that Connally's chest wound was a wound of entry.
Rossley, as always, is making shit up.
Whatever "in the chest" comment you're talking about that may be in
"the 26 volumes" is not relevant to proving where the ENTRY vs. EXIT
wounds were located on Governor Connally's body. Because it couldn't
be more obvious where the specific entry and exit holes in JBC were
located by just glancing briefly at Dr. Shaw's WC testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - When did you first have an opportunity then to examine
Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest?
Dr. SHAW - After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was
asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary
for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be
controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately
examine the wound entrance. We knew this was the wound exit.
Mr. SPECTER - This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the
body]?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - How did you know it was a wound exit.
Dr. SHAW - By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound.
This wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until
the Governor was anesthetized.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's
chest?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; the front part.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound
on the posterior side of the Governor's chest?
Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a
half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just
medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could
tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the
shoulder blade.
Mr. SPECTER - What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated
to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
Dr. SHAW - Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound
as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.
tomnln
YOU are the one who RAN from the radio debate David.
Looks like you don't have the volumes EITHER ! ! !
Gil Jesus
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:9088144e-6147-401a...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> YOU are the one who RAN from the radio debate David.
I believe that his stand is so indefensible that it requires him to
avoid the spotlight in ANY forum that will reveal his appearance or
voice.
Von Pein is an egomaniac, which is why he talks down to people. It's
also why he quotes himself. It's also why he keeps copies of every
post he's ever made.
In his mind, however, he simply is better than everyone else.
For him to go onto a radio or TV program and make an ass out of
himself, and to have that record out there for the world to utilize
time and time again, is just too much of an "overload" that his
fragile ego couldn't possibly take.
So he remains "underground" where no one can hurt him.
He is a sad little man, indeed.
Gil Jesus
PS:
The best thing about kissing Bugliosi's ass is that you don't have to
be on camera when he is.
justm...@gmail.com
Apparently Chico didn't get laid again lastnight....he wakes up
attacking anyone and everyone. What's the matter Jesus, the little
boys aren't interested in you anymore either?
David Von Pein
>>> "He is a sad little man, indeed." <<<
Somebody get the Kleenex (and the violins)....because that was truly a
moving speech.
Gil, naturally, conveniently dismisses the fact that I've been
shredding Mr. Rossley's "debate" points on this forum for the last
couple of days. (His "Dan Rather Saw Oswald" tripe is truly worthy of
Comedy Central. But, naturally, Rossley will continue to hold on to
his belief that Rather saw Oswald in the Carousel ON NOV. 21ST, which
is an impossibility on numerous fronts.)
The "underground" line was pure genius too, Jesus (if you're a mega-
kook, that is--which Gil is).
I'm "underground" by posting hundreds of messages per month, huh?
Gil's next gig -- Comedy Central too! Co-starring alongside The
Nutsack!
Cheers!
justm...@gmail.com
He better appear as the unknown comic with a bag over his head or
he'll have everyone in the audience getting sick looking at that bald
headed spittle face of his
David Von Pein
>>> "It's also why he [that "sad little man" named David V.P.] keeps copies of every post he's ever made." <<<
Well, not quite. Only about 93% of them.
But, then too, why wouldn't I want to "archive" (within easy reach) my
posts? I'm proud of what I write. And I'm not ashamed of my pro-LN
posts.
Plus, many of my posts/articles have taken up to 15 hours or so to
compose. So, yes, I want to save them for future reference.
Why don't you do the same, Gil? Aren't you proud of your pro-CT
stance? Sure you are. So why in the world would you want to spend
large amounts of time on this forum and put in many hours writing
posts...only to see them fall to the bottom of the pile so quickly, so
to speak? (Which everybody's posts always do, be it CTer or LNer.)*
* = Even though, of course, the posts actually ARE "archived" in the
Google/Usenet files forever; but since the "Search This Author's
Posts" search engine, which previously was working and was a great
tool for finding certain posts in a flash, is completely worthless as
of the last 8 months or so, it now makes it much more difficult to
search by keywords. I sure wish Google (or whoever) would reinstate
that previously-excellent search tool. It used to be a great resource
until somebody ruined it.
So why not start a blog too, Gil? You can call it -- "I'LL BELIEVE
ALMOST ANYTHING ABOUT JFK'S MURDER, AS LONG AS I CAN PRETEND LEE
HARVEY OSWALD WAS INNOCENT".
That title's a little long, but that's the general idea, isn't it?
tomnln
Do you wanna join in on a radio debate????
HAHAHAHAHA
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5170f4ca-c95c-4aeb...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
DAVID;
Did the Warren Commission ask the FBI to recover the filmed interview of Dan
Rather claiming he saw Ruby/Oswald together in Ruby's Club?
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/ratherlies.htm
DID THEY DAVID? HUH? DID THEY?? HUH?
I could have Napped my through a debate with you.
The "Smartest" decision you ever made was to RUN from that debate !
David Von Pein
>>> "Did the Warren Commission ask the FBI to recover the filmed interview of Dan Rather claiming he saw Ruby/Oswald together in Ruby's Club?" <<<
I really don't know.
My secondary answer to your inquiry is this:
Who gives a damn?
CE2983 proves you're a kook in this "Rather" regard.
BTW, do you still want to insist that Rather saw Oswald at the
Carousel on Nov. 21 (i.e., a date when we know Oswald was miles away
in Irving at the Paine house all night)?
Any chance you'll answer that last question, N-sack?