Is David the Best You Got...?
RICLAND
Bullet Boys can do?
ricland
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> I'm not trying to be funny,
I`ve seen you try to be funny. Seems you can`t be.
> but is David Van Peon the best you Magic
> Bullet Boys can do?
Sounds like aeffects. "You guys need to impress me."
> ricland
aeffects
Of course you have to impress me, I'm not convinced LHO had a direct
hand in the assassination. Much less his finger on a trigger on Nov
22nd 1963.
Whether he participated or not, one thing is abundantly clear, in the
best interest of the country, he was NOT going to trial.
Dazzle us with your brilliance, eh?
> > ricland
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Mar 20, 9:33 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> > > I'm not trying to be funny,
> >
> > I`ve seen you try to be funny. Seems you can`t be.
> >
> > > but is David Van Peon the best you Magic
> > > Bullet Boys can do?
> >
> > Sounds like aeffects. "You guys need to impress me."
>
> Of course you have to impress me, I'm not convinced LHO had a direct
> hand in the assassination.
Nor will you ever be. I am content to allow you to be wrong.
> Much less his finger on a trigger on Nov
> 22nd 1963.
Had to be someones else, Oz said he didn`t kill anyone. Damn, there
goes our best lead.
> Whether he participated or not, one thing is abundantly clear, in the
> best interest of the country, he was NOT going to trial.
With Ruby as a clear starting point, all you need to do is
establish that someone put him up to killing Oz to silence him. Lets
get cracking...
> Dazzle us with your brilliance, eh?
What the hell would swine do with pearls? Eat them, I suppose...
> > > ricland
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> I'm not trying to be funny,
>
> I`ve seen you try to be funny. Seems you can`t be.
And you can't write a proper sentence. Try this:
I've see you try to be funny. Seems to me you can't.
ricland.
RICLAND
>
> What's so hard to understand about the SBT? A bullet hit JFK from
> behind, transited through his throat and plowed into JBC.
>
> The bullet behaved exactly as it was designed.
>
> RICLAND, don't get lost in the morass and muddled thinking that is the
> hallmark of conspiracy thought.
>
> RICLAND, the EVIDENCE shows JFK was struck from behind and the same
> bullet injured the Texas Governor.
>
> Don't you see the inherent flaws and contradictions if JFK and JBC
> WERE NOT wounded by the same bullet?
>
Sure.
The limo's rolling down Elm. Oswald targets JFK in his uncalibrated
scope and squeezes off a round. The MC recoils, momentarily making him
lose his aim. He bolts another round in the chamber, looks through the
scope and aims again, after which he goes through the procedure one more
time.
Easy as shooting ducks in a barrel, right?
Wrong.
Which is why 10 out of 11 FBI marksmen couldn't do it.
More telling still, they couldn't do it with a scope that was perfectly
calibrated and repaired, with the MC cleaned and tuned-up, and with card
board targets instead of the unholy pressure trying to hit the President
would cause.
Ten out of 11 expert riflemen -- the best the FBI has -- couldn't do it.
Annie Oakley wouldn't have been able to do it.
But it doesn't stop there ...
As if the near-impossibility of Oswald's supposed shooting feat isn't
enough, you then defy physics and the laws of science fiction by telling
us not only was Oswald a superman, but the bullets he used were superman
too, that they were able to do things no bullet we know of ever did,
that they, like Oswald's shooting, were super beings the like of which
we'll never see again.
David Van Pein is a Three Card Monte man and a cheap one at that. He
takes evidence and cups it in his hand the way Three Card Monte men cup
cards in their hands. Then when he's busted rather than try to talk his
way out of it the way a real smooth operator would, he loses his cool
and starts calling people names.
Point being, there's nothing wrong with being a pimp if you're good at
it, but David is not.
ricland
RICLAND
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's not a tough shot, RICLAND. 88 yards from the TSBD sniper nest to
> the limo at Z313. Three shots in about 8.3 seconds.
>
> Please tell me what is so hard about this.
>
>
Tell me why 10 out of 11 FBI expert marksmen couldn't do it.
ricland
wig...@xit.net
Only takes 1, but of course you know that.
aeffects
can't help daShoe, champ ...... He's toast, been so for months and
months and MONTHS!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Assuming Oswald was trying for a head
shot, he missed 2 out of three times. Pretty
lousy shooting. One more inch to the right
and he'd have missed all three head shots.
I doubt a professional hit man from the same
distances would have missed that frequently.
I doubt a "plot" to have mulitiple shooters
would have missed that frequently.
I doubt any parents of a CT have any
clue how fucked up their children are.
God help America.
Bud
Because the guy playing the role of JFK kept ducking down.
> ricland
wig...@xit.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oz's lifetime track record of peace & benevolence;
0 for 1 McDonald
4 for 5 Tippit
2 for 3 JFK
0 for 1 Walker
0 for 2 Oz himself
0 for 1 Sister inlaw
Patterns, we don't need no stinkin patterns.
Bud
"I`ve see you...."?
> ricland.
David Von Pein
And I guess there's nothing wrong with being a JFK Conspiracy Kook
either....if you're good at it (and such unsupportable tripe floats
your boat for some silly reason).
Ric is not.
I've yet to see a conspiracist who IS good at his/her craft. Anybody
know of one? I doubt it, since all conspiracy theories are wrong. It's
kinda hard to be good at supporting something that never happened.
eca...@tx.rr.com
and BS posts.. Oz's shooting feat was
not only not as difficult as you seem
to want to believe, it has been
*REPEATEDLY* matched and surpassed..
Ric I'm going to suggest that the
others DISREGARD nonsense posts by you<=============
which are the product of your profound
laziness: No research.
whar dew ya git dis stuF Ric?
Ed Cage
Herbert Blenner
> Ric as usual no homework on your part
> and BS posts.. Oz's shooting feat was
> not only not as difficult as you seem
> to want to believe, it has been
> *REPEATEDLY* matched and surpassed..
>
> Ric I'm going to suggest that the
> others DISREGARD nonsense posts by you<=============
> which are the product of your profound
> laziness: No research.
>
> whar dew ya git dis stuF Ric?
>
> Ed Cage
A Google search of alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk shows
that one and only one person posted the words that you have quoted and
attributed to me. That person, Ed Cage owes David Von Pein a
retraction and perhaps an apology.
In fact, I used the two words "ridiculous speculation" in a completely
different context. I wrote, "Newcomers may wonder why David devotes so
many words to ridiculous speculations." You elected to change the
meaning of my comment. Perhaps you can get away with this crap in your
neighborhood but be advised that your liable hops from one server to
another along the Internet. As a result the standards of Red Neck, USA
do not apply to this case.
Your time to remedy this situation has expired.
Herbert
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
RICLAND
The man makes a good point: Oswald (allegedly) missed two out of three.
ricland
Ben Holmes
Blenner says...
>
>On Mar 20, 9:42=EF=BF=BDpm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>> Ric as usual no homework on your part
>> and BS posts.. Oz's shooting feat was
>> not only not as difficult as you seem
>> to want to believe, it has been
>> *REPEATEDLY* matched and surpassed..
It has *NEVER* been "matched and surpassed".
Eddie is clearly *not* familiar with guns - and wouldn't know what a valid test
would look like.
Shooters with *vastly* better skills and knowledge *COULD NOT DUPLICATE*
Oswald's alleged feat for the WC, and no-one has done better since.
>> Ric I'm going to suggest that the
>> others DISREGARD nonsense posts by you<=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D
>> which are the product of your profound
>> laziness: No research.
>>
>> =A0 =A0whar dew ya git dis stuF Ric?
>>
>> Ed Cage
>
>A Google search of alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk shows
>that one and only one person posted the words that you have quoted and
>attributed to me. That person, Ed Cage owes David Von Pein a
>retraction and perhaps an apology.
>
>In fact, I used the two words "ridiculous speculation" in a completely
>different context. I wrote, "Newcomers may wonder why David devotes so
>many words to ridiculous speculations." You elected to change the
>meaning of my comment. Perhaps you can get away with this crap in your
>neighborhood but be advised that your liable hops from one server to
>another along the Internet. As a result the standards of Red Neck, USA
>do not apply to this case.
>
>Your time to remedy this situation has expired.
>
>Herbert
>
>
>>
>> On Mar 20, 4:17 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > chuck schuyler wrote:
>> > > On Mar 20, 3:39 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> > >> chuck schuyler wrote:
>> > >>> On Mar 20, 11:05 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> > >>>> I'm not trying to be funny, but is David Van Peon the best you Mag=
>ic
>> > >>>> Bullet Boys can do?
>> > >>>> ricland
>> > >>> DVP is pretty good. In fact, he's real good.
>> > >>> What's so hard to understand about the SBT? A bullet hit JFK from
>> > >>> behind, transited through his throat and plowed into JBC.
>> > >>> The bullet behaved exactly as it was designed.
>> > >>> RICLAND, don't get lost in the morass and muddled thinking that is =
>the
>> > >>> hallmark of conspiracy thought.
>> > >>> RICLAND, the EVIDENCE shows JFK was struck from behind and the same
>> > >>> bullet injured the Texas Governor.
>> > >>> Don't you see the inherent flaws and contradictions if JFK and JBC
>> > >>> WERE NOT wounded by the same bullet?
>> > >> Sure.
>>
>> > >> The limo's rolling down Elm. Oswald targets JFK in his uncalibrated
>> > >> scope and squeezes off a round. The MC recoils, momentarily making h=
>im
>> > >> lose his aim. He bolts another round in the chamber, looks through t=
>he
>> > >> scope and aims again, after which he goes through the procedure one =
>more
>> > >> time.
>>
>> > >> Easy as shooting ducks in a barrel, right?
>>
>> > >> Wrong.
>>
>> > >> Which is why 10 out of 11 FBI marksmen couldn't do it.
>>
>> > >> More telling still, they couldn't do it with a scope that was perfec=
>tly
>> > >> calibrated and repaired, with the MC cleaned and tuned-up, and with =
>card
>> > >> board targets instead of the unholy pressure trying to hit the Presi=
>dent
>> > >> would cause.
>>
>> > >> Ten out of 11 expert riflemen -- the best the FBI has -- couldn't do=
> it.
>>
>> > >> Annie Oakley wouldn't have been able to do it.
>>
>> > >> But it doesn't stop there ...
>>
>> > >> As if the near-impossibility of Oswald's supposed shooting feat isn't
>> > >> enough, you then defy physics and the laws of science fiction by tel=
>ling
>> > >> us not only was Oswald a superman, but the bullets he used were supe=
>rman
>> > >> too, that they were able to do things no bullet we know of ever did,
>> > >> that they, like Oswald's shooting, were super beings the like of whi=
>ch
>> > >> we'll never see again.
>>
>> > >> David Van Pein is a Three Card Monte man and a cheap one at that. He
>> > >> takes evidence and cups it in his hand the way Three Card Monte men =
>cup
>> > >> cards in their hands. Then when he's busted rather than try to talk =
>his
>> > >> way out of it the way a real smooth operator would, he loses his cool
>> > >> and starts calling people names.
>>
>> > >> Point being, there's nothing wrong with being a pimp if you're good =
RICLAND
Yep, profile of an assassin, no question about it.
ricland
aeffects
> In article <1174450021.219472.69...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
> Blenner says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 9:42=EF=BF=BDpm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> >> Ric as usual no homework on your part
> >> and BS posts.. Oz's shooting feat was
> >> not only not as difficult as you seem
> >> to want to believe, it has been
> >> *REPEATEDLY* matched and surpassed..
>
> It has *NEVER* been "matched and surpassed".
>
> Eddie is clearly *not* familiar with guns - and wouldn't know what a valid test
> would look like.
>
> Shooters with *vastly* better skills and knowledge *COULD NOT DUPLICATE*
> Oswald's alleged feat for the WC, and no-one has done better since.
Eddie is from down Dallas way... perhaps we should cut him some slack,
yes? -- After all, he does have 80,000 graphics jobs under that
bigggggg Texas belt buckle... LMAO!
RICLAND
> Ric as usual no homework on your part
> and BS posts.. Oz's shooting feat was
> not only not as difficult as you seem
> to want to believe, it has been
> *REPEATEDLY* matched and surpassed..
>
> Ric I'm going to suggest that the
> others DISREGARD nonsense posts by you<=============
> which are the product of your profound
> laziness: No research.
>
> whar dew ya git dis stuF Ric?
>
> Ed Cage
Not according Dan Rather's report sometime in the late 80s.
Anyone have that link?
ricland
Ben Holmes
wig...@xit.net says...
They did. See WC tests done by rifle experts.
>> I doubt a "plot" to have mulitiple shooters
>> would have missed that frequently.
They didn't. See Dealey Plaza, 11/22/63
>> I doubt any parents of a CT have any
>> clue how fucked up their children are.
>> God help America.
>>
>>
>
>Oz's lifetime track record of peace & benevolence;
>
>0 for 1 McDonald
>4 for 5 Tippit
>2 for 3 JFK
>0 for 1 Walker
>0 for 2 Oz himself
>0 for 1 Sister inlaw
>
>Patterns, we don't need no stinkin patterns.
That's okay, you don't have any...
tomnln
Warren Commission had 3 NRA "MASTERS" attempt what the WCR attributed to
Oswald. Their names were Staley, Miller & Hendrix.
ALL 3 FAILED
An NRA MASTER is one who is qualified to shoot in Olympic Competition.
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Le6dnRyHh55GKZ3b...@comcast.com...
RICLAND
You deal in obfuscation, David; that's your stock in trade.
I say the statements made by Officers Craig and Weitzman (7.65
Mauser)are evidence.
You say the pictures show a Mannlicher Carcano was found.
I say dozens of people looked and ran to the grassy knoll.
You say one guy saw Oswald in the window.
I say several witnesseses to the Tippit murder saw two men.
You say more saw one man who looked like Oswald.
In other words, you throw out all evidence that doesn't support your
pre-conceived notion that Oswald is the shooter.
Worse still, you become belligerent when you're told what you do is
obfuscation.
You think your job is to discredit all information that doesn't support
your pre-conceived notion. You're not an assassination buff nor a
"researcher." You're an institutional ideologue, a political hack, a
party functionary.
Know much about Earl Warren? Know what a despicable human being he was?
Born and raised in Bakersfield, California, he detested Asians, thought
they were sub-humans, thought they should not be granted citizenship or
the right to vote, thought -- even after WWII, all "japs" should remain
in internment camps.
ricland
David Von Pein
I deal in the verified, documented evidence in the case....and
EVALUATE IT USING COMMON SENSE.
Try it sometime. Starting here is a good idea:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
CTers do not (and evidently cannot) evaluate the evidence and witness
testimony properly. Your recent pro-CT analysis of the Tippit crime
being a prime example.
Again, wheat vs. chaff.
LN = Wheat.
CT = Chaff.
>>> "I say the statements made by Officers Craig and Weitzman (7.65 Mauser) are evidence." <<<
Sure. But is it the BEST evidence? What evidence came to light AFTER
those initial, kneejerk observations made by Weitzman and Boone and
Craig?
IOW: Where's the Mauser? What Commission Exhibit number was the
phantom "Mauser" given? Where is it?
>>> "You say the pictures show a Mannlicher-Carcano was found." <<<
Yes.
>>> "I say dozens of people looked and ran to the grassy knoll." <<<
Switching gears fast now, huh?
OK, I don't deny this fact. Dozens of people DID run toward the Grassy
Knoll.
But consider this, Ric:
If you just heard gunshots from a certain location, would you want to
immediately RUN TOWARD A PLACE WHERE A KILLER MIGHT BE LOCATED?
If you answer 'yes', please tell me why??
And please note many of the pictures of the Knoll-Stormers....there
are women and children and some old ladies with umbrellas (sans any
flechettes in them I would surmise) running up the grassy slope.
Do you REALLY think all of those people (old ladies and 10-year-old
kids included) had a desire to PLAY HERO and catch the assassin(s)?
Or -- were they merely confused, excited, playing follow-the-leader,
and RUBBERNECKING?
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4932.jpg
And this "Two Directions" pie slice (which, in terms of exact numbers,
amounts to only 5 out of 104 witnesses) virtually destroys the idea
that any shots whatsoever came from the Grassy Knoll area on 11/22/63:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>>> "You say one guy saw Oswald in the window." <<<
Yes. And others saw someone who looked generally like Mr. Oswald, too.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer.htm
>>> "I say several witnesses to the Tippit murder saw two men." <<<
You're jumping from place to place, willy-nilly, it seems. Is this
supposed to link to the previous remark about Oz in the SN? If so,
how?
Anyway, you're wrong about "several witnesses" seeing two men (i.e.,
co-conspirators) at the scene of the Tippit murder. AFAIK, Clemons is
THE only witness on record who stated that more than one person was
involved. But Clemons did NOT see the actual shooting. She saw only
the aftermath.
Clemons probably saw Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun, and thought
Callaway (with gun in hand) had shot the officer. Callaway, who was a
real hero on 11/22 in my book, rolled Tippit's dead body over and took
his gun and went hunting for Tippit's LONE killer.
Please cite Mr. Wright too. I asked you to do that before. Got nothing
but static in return. Care to do it now?
>>> "You throw out all evidence that doesn't support your pre-conceived notion that Oswald is the shooter." <<<
It's not a "pre-conceived" notion, you nitwit. It's a mountainous
pattern of evidence of all types that leads inexorably to one man --
the man you seem to want to free from blame so much (for some reason)
-- L.H. Oswald.
Or, to put it another way......
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING {you} can do about it. ... Because there's
not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VINCENT
BUGLIOSI; 1986
>>> "Worse still, you become belligerent when you're told what you do is obfuscation." <<<
Well, I never said I didn't have a fault or two. I grind my teeth
occasionally too. You?
Of course, in this instance (i.e., being told by a CT-Kook or a CT-
Faker {take your pick; matters not} that I'm indulging in
"obfuscation", it's hard not to become annoyed and testy, considering
the fact that such an allegation is hilariously absurd...in a Pot-
Kettle sort of way.)
>>> "You think your job is to discredit all information that doesn't support your pre-conceived notion." <<<
No, my job is to knock the wind out of a kook's sails. And I'm
underpaid too. I've asked VB for a raise. But Bud just got a raise
from the "WC Disinfo Agency, Inc."; so I might have to wait a few more
months. Their budget isn't limitless, after all. (Damn you, Bud, for
being so good at this; you stole my raise!)
>>> "You're not an assassination buff nor a "researcher." You're an institutional ideologue, a political hack, a party functionary." <<<
Leave anything out? Check your thesaurus again....surely you can add
two or three more impressive, highbrow-sounding things there.
Oh, I'm a big Gregory Peck fan too...don't leave that out of the mix.
>>> "Know much about Earl Warren?" <<<
He's my grandpa.
>>> "Know what a despicable human being he was?" <<<
<gasp> Which must make his grandson equally as despicable...knowing
his evil genes. Shit!
>>> "Born and raised in Bakersfield, California..." <<<
Yeah, most people from Bakersfield are detestable indeed. (Or bakers.)
BTW, you didn't get this exactly right either. Warren was born in Los
Angeles, but grew up in Bakersfield. (It's funny, though, that IMDB
doesn't include "despicable human being" on his webpage there. I guess
they should have checked with Ricland before writing up that Warren
profile.)
http://imdb.com/name/nm0912811/
<remainder of gutter talk not worthy of any retort>
RICLAND
>>>> "You deal in obfuscation, David; that's your stock in trade." <<<
>
> I deal in the verified, documented evidence in the case....and
> EVALUATE IT USING COMMON SENSE.
>
No you dont. You filter out all evidence that doesn't support your
thesis that Oswald is guilty. The Tippit shooting is but one of many
example.
You delude yourself into thinking your job here is to do what
prosecutors do, but what you don't grasp is the concept of prosecutorial
misconduct.
> Try it sometime. Starting here is a good idea:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
>
> CTers do not (and evidently cannot) evaluate the evidence and witness
> testimony properly. Your recent pro-CT analysis of the Tippit crime
> being a prime example.
There's only one way to evaluate Mrs. Clemons' testimony which is why
the Dallas Police came to her house and warned her to keep quiet.
There's only one reason why the Warren Commission did not interview her.
>
> Again, wheat vs. chaff.
> LN = Wheat.
> CT = Chaff.
>
>
>>>> "I say the statements made by Officers Craig and Weitzman (7.65 Mauser) are evidence." <<<
>
> Sure. But is it the BEST evidence? What evidence came to light AFTER
> those initial, kneejerk observations made by Weitzman and Boone and
> Craig?
That's not how evidence works. Manufactured evidence is often the "best
evidence" which is why no evidence is ever eliminated. All evidence is
preserved and examined -- but you don't do that. You take the "best
evidence" and dismiss everything else.
You're like a detective who has made up his mind that the butler did it,
then ignores the wife's prints on the dagger found in her husband's back.
That's nuts, but that's your modus operandi.
>
> IOW: Where's the Mauser? What Commission Exhibit number was the
> phantom "Mauser" given? Where is it?
You're asking the wrong question, David.
>
>
>>>> "You say the pictures show a Mannlicher-Carcano was found." <<<
>
> Yes.
You say the opinion of three police officers is not evidence?
>
>
>>>> "I say dozens of people looked and ran to the grassy knoll." <<<
>
> Switching gears fast now, huh?
>
> OK, I don't deny this fact. Dozens of people DID run toward the Grassy
> Knoll.
>
> But consider this, Ric:
>
> If you just heard gunshots from a certain location, would you want to
> immediately RUN TOWARD A PLACE WHERE A KILLER MIGHT BE LOCATED?
>
> If you answer 'yes', please tell me why??
That's it for you, David. Sorry, but I won't ever reply to anything you
write here again.
ricland
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1174450021....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
> Blenner says...
> >
> >On Mar 20, 9:42=EF=BF=BDpm, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> >> Ric as usual no homework on your part
> >> and BS posts.. Oz's shooting feat was
> >> not only not as difficult as you seem
> >> to want to believe, it has been
> >> *REPEATEDLY* matched and surpassed..
>
>
> It has *NEVER* been "matched and surpassed".
Aspects of the shooting have been matched. More hits by some, less
time by some.
> Eddie is clearly *not* familiar with guns - and wouldn't know what a valid test
> would look like.
Ben doesn`t go into details about what he thinks a valid test would
look like.
> Shooters with *vastly* better skills and knowledge
But lacking important knowledge and familiarity that Oz may have
had about his rifle.
> *COULD NOT DUPLICATE*
> Oswald's alleged feat for the WC, and no-one has done better since.
Where did anyone say they were trying to DUPLICATE Oz`s feat?
tomnln
Did they use CE-139?
Three NRA Masters could NOT do it with CE-139. (Volume III-446-447)
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1174482210.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...