Can we have honest and open debates?
Walt
totally honest and candid posts in this N.G. Anybody who posts here
has an agenda.
I wonder how much could be learned if it were possible to engage in a
totally honest and candid discussion, dealing with verifiable
FACTS....and omit the OPINIONS of "experts".
I suspect that Oswald did have a role in the murder of president
Kennedy, but just what that role was has never been HONESTLY
investigated.....Because the Warren Commission decreed that Oswald was
just a lone nut who murdered President kennedy for no discernable
reason. That decree cut off investigation into any other question
about if others were involved.
Was he involved as part of a conspiracy and KNOWINGLY went along with
the plot, without realizing that he was being set up?....Or was he in
fact a knowing and willing participant in the murder.....or was he as
the Warren Commission decreed ...Just a lone nut.
There are some ideas that I'd like to discuss but finding honest and
open minded people to discuss them with is very difficult.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt,
When you make flase claims about what I have previously said, and
posted, as you have done with what I said about Brennan and LHO's
shirt, you make it VERY clear who here is being dishonest.
Todd
Baldoni <baldoniXXV
>
>
> There are some ideas that I'd like to discuss but finding honest and
> open minded people to discuss them with is very difficult.
>
Don't let the bastards grind you down.
--
Count Baldoni
bigdog
So if we omit the opinions of experts, should we replace them with the
opinions of unqualified amateurs. That has been the source of so much
of the bullshit in this case. People with no training or expertise in
a wide range of disciplines dispute the findings of qualified experts
and concoct their own version of events.
aeffects
The Lone Nuts can't afford that, Walt. It interfers with their
longterm disinfo campaign....
For what its worth, I too, believe LHO was involved, most likely as he
himself stated, "a patsy". He was not suppose to survive beyond
11/22/63....
aeffects
sitdown.....go find your files....
> Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
LOL!
The country's prisons are filled with those who claim they were
patsies. They all need some Healy love too. It's Christmas time, and
you're a Turtle Dave. Better get stepping - you, Captain Gullible,
gotta buy all of the country's prison patsies nice gifts to make their
Chirstmas special.
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
wrote:
oh you bleeding heart... you have no idea who is in our prisons, other
than what your handlers tell you of course.....
where, oh WHERE are those files, Todd?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
For what its worth, I too, believe LHO was involved, most likely as
he
himself stated, "a patsy". He was not suppose to survive beyond
11/22/63....
Absurd statement but typical. If Oswald was NOT supposed to survive,
why would conspiracists allow him to leave the building and then
wander aimlessly....boarding a bus, taking a cab etc, etc.?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
I doubt if Toddy *wants* to find his mythical files... for if he did, he
wouldn't have any rebuttal to the "FBI Intimidation" post - and no 'fall back'
position of 'Yes, I can refute all of this, but my files that have the
information aren't available right now...'
Toddy has proven himself to be dishonest...
>> Todd
aeffects
wrote:
> In article <b72e47bc-82cc-496d-b48b-c54394ac3...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
indeed he HAS....
> >> Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
Oh, now I have a "handler".
LOL.
You're such a sheep David - you follow anyone anywhere and then let
them fuck you in the ass anytime they want.
>
> where, oh WHERE are those files, Todd?
In my file cabinet David, where I've always said they were.
They've NEVER been lost David. That you imply otherwise is a lie.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
aeffects
you Nutters ALL seem to be *TO* interested in "brown", what a sickness
you suffer, Todd. Does that picture turn you on.... shall we lump you
in with the he/she/it carpet munching LN fools recently assigned this
board? Surely you won't nothing to do with those poor children, do
you?
Perhaps yours and other Lone Nut KOOKS obsession with sodomy explains
the current diatribes and ignorance towards the evidence, exhibits and
testimony concerning the JFK assassination, eh?
>
> > where, oh WHERE are those files, Todd?
>
> In my file cabinet David, where I've always said they were.
>
> They've NEVER been lost David. That you imply otherwise is a lie.
sure they have Todd.....surely you would of made good on your comment,
you check your files and get back to us (a year or so ago - multiple
times, you're not denying THAT are you?)
Todd W. Vaughan
David, David, David.
Of ALL of the many times that YOU talked about peoples asses, etc.
I've even called you out on it before. Maybe you forgot along with all
of the DP photo evidence knowledge you forgot?
You are the living, breathing personification of the pot calling the
kettel, um, er, brown.
> the current diatribes and ignorance towards the evidence, exhibits and
> testimony concerning the JFK assassination, eh?
"...ignorance towards the evidence, exhibits and testimony concerning
the JFK assassination,..."
LOL. Like you've ever discussed the facts.
>
>
>
> > > where, oh WHERE are those files, Todd?
>
> > In my file cabinet David, where I've always said they were.
>
> > They've NEVER been lost David. That you imply otherwise is a lie.
>
> sure they have Todd.....surely you would of made good on your comment,
> you check your files and get back to us (a year or so ago - multiple
> times, you're not denying THAT are you?)
That promise was to your girlfriend, lil' Benny, not to to any group
that then justifies your use of "us".
Damn, you're a dense one.
And that promise to Ben was to be a my leisure, on my time, when I
want.
Damn, you're stupid.
I think I'll call you Stupid Turtle from now on.
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3950f03-432a-48b8...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Toddy has proven himself to be dishonest...
>
>
> indeed he HAS....
I refer to it as "Verbal Judo".
I use his own words to Destroy him>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
That's WHY he RUNS from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
WHAT does he RUN from?>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c682a944-49dd-4dcc...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:526ee1ff-eb07-4f9d...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
ALL in her own words.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98904422-0e31-4a61...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anybody who is honest with himself cannot deny that there are very few
> > totally honest and candid posts in this N.G. Anybody who posts here
> > has an agenda.
>
> > I wonder how much could be learned if it were possible to engage in a
> > totally honest and candid discussion, dealing with verifiable
> > FACTS....and omit the OPINIONS of "experts".
>
> > I suspect that Oswald did have a role in the murder of president
> > Kennedy, but just what that role was has never been HONESTLY
> > investigated.....Because the Warren Commission decreed that Oswald was
> > just a lone nut who murdered President kennedy for no discernable
> > reason. That decree cut off investigation into any other question
> > about if others were involved.
>
> > Was he involved as part of a conspiracy and KNOWINGLY went along with
> > the plot, without realizing that he was being set up?....Or was he in
> > fact a knowing and willing participant in the murder.....or was he as
> > the Warren Commission decreed ...Just a lone nut.
>
> > There are some ideas that I'd like to discuss but finding honest and
> > open minded people to discuss them with is very difficult.
>
> > Walt
>
> The Lone Nuts can't afford that, Walt. It interfers with their
> longterm disinfo campaign....
I realize that there are posters in this NG who are paid to monitor
and disrupt. So they have a vested interest in refusing to engage in
an honest discussion..... but there are also some LNer's who I believe
are seriously misguided and have been suckered into believing a lie.
The big reason they will believe is because they lack the guts to
speak out against the authority who taught them that red was actually
blue. Since that teacher is the official and correct authority on the
subject they will not stand up against it. HOWEVER....some CT's must
share the blame for these LNer's being afraid to stand up and be
counted.... There have been some CT's who have spewed theories that
are absolute nonsense about the murder of JFK. Who can blame those
Lner's for not wanting to be identified with the utter screwballs.
>
> For what its worth, I too, believe LHO was involved, most likely as he
> himself stated, "a patsy". He was not suppose to survive beyond
> 11/22/63....- Hide quoted text -
>
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
ALL in his own words.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:22c181c0-9970-4c91...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 1:19 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <b72e47bc-82cc-496d-b48b-c54394ac3...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> I never said those files were lost and needed to be "found", now did I
> Benjamin the Dishonest?
>
> Your implication to the contrary makes you a liar.
>
> As for your "FBI Intimidation" post, your post relies at least in some
> cases on demonstrable liars, like Richard Randolph Carr, and those who
> have told multiple versions of their stories, like Richard Randolph
> Carr. When you were asked if you had even ever checked to see if it
> was physically possible for Carr to see what he claimed (it wasn't),
> you balked.
>
> And you make demands of me?
>
> A clown you are.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Todd- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:98904422-0e31-4a61...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 1:41 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 10:23 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 14, 1:14 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Dec 14, 10:11 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Dec 14, 1:07 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > longterm disinfo campaign....
>
> >> > > > > as he
> >> > > > > himself stated, "a patsy". He was not suppose to survive beyond
> >> > > > > 11/22/63....- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reading this thread Walt, you now see why no one can have a legitimate
discussion about the assassination. You have idiots like Healy and
Rossley starting with their childish name calling and insults. It took
3 posts and off they went on their idiotic venture. NO ONE wants to
address anything with these fools. Holmes pops out from his little
rock he lives under and Healy is right on his ass like the little
puppy Holmes has him trained to be. You can thank Ben for changing the
route this thread should have taken.
The little stump has to try and be the big man. Todd posted and Ben
jumps in changing the subject. When crapper posts something on any
thread, Holmes jumps in and changes the subject. Have you noticed that
almost every thread thats been started in the past 2 weeks, Holmes has
changed the content on by reposting the same shit over and over again
of his arguments with Robcrap? Holmes thinks he has the upper hand,
therefore he has to be the center of attention, the King of Kooks in
every thread.
It was a nice thought Walt, but with these idiots you associate with
as CT's good luck at getting this thread moving in the direction you
wanted it to move.
Todd W. Vaughan
> On 14 Dec, 12:07, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Anybody who is honest with himself cannot deny that there are very few
> > > totally honest and candid posts in this N.G. Anybody who posts here
> > > has an agenda.
>
> > > I wonder how much could be learned if it were possible to engage in a
> > > totally honest and candid discussion, dealing with verifiable
> > > FACTS....and omit the OPINIONS of "experts".
>
> > > I suspect that Oswald did have a role in the murder of president
> > > Kennedy, but just what that role was has never been HONESTLY
> > > investigated.....Because the Warren Commission decreed that Oswald was
> > > just a lone nut who murdered President kennedy for no discernable
> > > reason. That decree cut off investigation into any other question
> > > about if others were involved.
>
> > > Was he involved as part of a conspiracy and KNOWINGLY went along with
> > > the plot, without realizing that he was being set up?....Or was he in
> > > fact a knowing and willing participant in the murder.....or was he as
> > > the Warren Commission decreed ...Just a lone nut.
>
> > > There are some ideas that I'd like to discuss but finding honest and
> > > open minded people to discuss them with is very difficult.
>
> > > Walt
>
> > The Lone Nuts can't afford that, Walt. It interfers with their
> > longterm disinfo campaign....
>
> and disrupt.
That sounds like fun. Where do we sign up, and what's the starting
pay?
> So they have a vested interest in refusing to engage in
> an honest discussion..... but there are also some LNer's who I believe
> are seriously misguided and have been suckered into believing a lie.
> The big reason they will believe is because they lack the guts to
> speak out against the authority who taught them that red was actually
> blue. Since that teacher is the official and correct authority on the
> subject they will not stand up against it. HOWEVER....some CT's must
> share the blame for these LNer's being afraid to stand up and be
> counted.... There have been some CT's who have spewed theories that
> are absolute nonsense about the murder of JFK. Who can blame those
> Lner's for not wanting to be identified with the utter screwballs.
>
>
>
>
>
> > For what its worth, I too, believe LHO was involved, most likely as he
> > himself stated, "a patsy". He was not suppose to survive beyond
> > 11/22/63....- Hide quoted text -
>
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d1743bc-aa70-4e45...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reading this thread Walt, you now see why no one can have a legitimate
> discussion about the assassination. You have idiots like Healy and
> Rossley starting with their childish name calling and insults. It took
> 3 posts and off they went on their idiotic venture. NO ONE wants to
> address anything with these fools. Holmes pops out from his little
> rock he lives under and Healy is right on his ass like the little
> puppy Holmes has him trained to be. You can thank Ben for changing the
> route this thread should have taken.
> The little stump has to try and be the big man. Todd posted and Ben
> jumps in changing the subject. When crapper posts something on any
> thread, Holmes jumps in and changes the subject. Have you noticed that
> almost every thread thats been started in the past 2 weeks, Holmes has
> changed the content on by reposting the same shit over and over again
> of his arguments with Robcrap? Holmes thinks he has the upper hand,
> therefore he has to be the center of attention, the King of Kooks in
> every thread.
>
> It was a nice thought Walt, but with these idiots you associate with
> as CT's good luck at getting this thread moving in the direction you
> wanted it to move.
Looks like justme intends to Continue engaging in insults rather than
address evidence/testimony.
Be Forewarned, I RETALIATE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
justm...@gmail.com
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > Reading this thread Walt, you now see why no one can have a legitimate
> > discussion about the assassination. You have idiots like Healy and
> > Rossley starting with their childish name calling and insults. It took
> > 3 posts and off they went on their idiotic venture. NO ONE wants to
> > address anything with these fools. Holmes pops out from his little
> > rock he lives under and Healy is right on his ass like the little
> > puppy Holmes has him trained to be. You can thank Ben for changing the
> > route this thread should have taken.
> > The little stump has to try and be the big man. Todd posted and Ben
> > jumps in changing the subject. When crapper posts something on any
> > thread, Holmes jumps in and changes the subject. Have you noticed that
> > almost every thread thats been started in the past 2 weeks, Holmes has
> > changed the content on by reposting the same shit over and over again
> > of his arguments with Robcrap? Holmes thinks he has the upper hand,
> > therefore he has to be the center of attention, the King of Kooks in
> > every thread.
>
> > It was a nice thought Walt, but with these idiots you associate with
> > as CT's good luck at getting this thread moving in the direction you
> > wanted it to move.
>
> Looks like justme intends to Continue engaging in insults rather than
> address evidence/testimony.
>
> Be Forewarned, I RETALIATE.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rossley? Go tell someone who gives a crap. Good luck finding anyone
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> > > Reading this thread Walt, you now see why no one can have a legitimate
> > > discussion about the assassination. You have idiots like Healy and
> > > Rossley starting with their childish name calling and insults. It took
> > > 3 posts and off they went on their idiotic venture. NO ONE wants to
> > > address anything with these fools. Holmes pops out from his little
> > > rock he lives under and Healy is right on his ass like the little
> > > puppy Holmes has him trained to be. You can thank Ben for changing the
> > > route this thread should have taken.
> > > The little stump has to try and be the big man. Todd posted and Ben
> > > jumps in changing the subject. When crapper posts something on any
> > > thread, Holmes jumps in and changes the subject. Have you noticed that
> > > almost every thread thats been started in the past 2 weeks, Holmes has
> > > changed the content on by reposting the same shit over and over again
> > > of his arguments with Robcrap? Holmes thinks he has the upper hand,
> > > therefore he has to be the center of attention, the King of Kooks in
> > > every thread.
>
> > > It was a nice thought Walt, but with these idiots you associate with
> > > as CT's good luck at getting this thread moving in the direction you
> > > wanted it to move.
>
> > Looks like justme intends to Continue engaging in insults rather than
> > address evidence/testimony.
>
> > Be Forewarned, I RETALIATE.
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Be Forewarned, I RETALIATE.
roflmao...he retaliates like a 6 year old and thinks intelligent
people are frightened roflmao.
Walt
If you want to sign up...see our enrollment officer, Helen Wait.
Just got to hell n Wait
Bud
Won`t you only killfile him like you did Mark when he acceded to
your demands, pussy?
David Von Pein
>>> "Can we have honest and open debates?" <<<
Walt says he wants an "honest and open debate" regarding the JFK
assassination. That's hilarious, coming as it does from a kook named
"Walt" who completely ignores and/or mangles virtually all of the
evidence surrounding this case (including the Tippit murder too).
Walt interjecting the word "honest" into his thread title is almost
too funny for words. As we all know, Walt is the one who decides who
is "honest" or not with respect to everything associated with the
official evidence in the JFK case. And anyone who has ever pointed a
finger of guilt in Oswald's direction was "dishonest"....just because
Walt (an "honest" man) has said so.
Here are some examples of Walt's "honesty" (IOW, an example of the
bullshit he's invented without a stitch of evidence to support such
crap). All of these are verbatim quotes from the e-lips of "Honest
Walt" (aka: one of the most despicable CTers ever to utilize a
computer keyboard)......
"David Belin did a good job of twisting Brennan's testimony."
"Belin twisted the events that happened BEFORE the shooting to
make it look like Brennan was talking about what he saw DURING the
shooting."
"Belin cleverly did not provide a photo that showed the entire
face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63. He gave Howard
Brennan photos that showed only windows on the upper east side,
forcing Brennan to use those photos to depict the events he
witnessed."
"There are also photos which show a rifle protruding from that
window BEFORE the motorcade arrived....But there was NOBODY in that
{southeast 6th-Floor} window at the time of the shooting."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- LOL time. But at least Walt's being "honest" when
it comes to the massive amount of hard evidence that he's flushing
right down the toilet with respect to a rifle being fired from
Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window on November 22, right Walter? He'll just
ignore or skew every last speck of that evidence. A nice "honest"
approach by Walt-Kook, isn't it?]
"If the truth be known, the gunman was probably planting the
spent shells when Brennan saw him."
"Do you think that Howard {Brennan} was hallucinating??.....That
the 35 year old, 175 pound gunman who was dressed in a WHITE shirt and
trousers was merely a figment of his imagination?"
[DVP INTERJECTION -- Nice "honesty" depicted above about what Brennan
actually said, huh?]
"There WAS a 35 year old, 175 pound man, dressed in a white
shirt and trousers, visible in that window just a few minutes prior to
the shooting."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- Walt again thinks he can place such exactitude on
such things as "age" and "weight" and even "clothing", all the while
mangling the actual words uttered by Howard Brennan. Lovely "honesty"
once more, eh?]
"He {Howard Brennan} DESCRIBED the location where he saw the
gunman aiming the rifle from the window, and he did NOT describe the
window on the EAST end of the sixth floor."
"I believe the so called "Sniper's Nest" was nothing more than a
hidden "Smoker's Nook" that a TSBD employee had constructed so that he
could goof off and smoke without being seen by the boss."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- This particular brainstorm of Walter's, uttered
on August 6, 2006, deserves some extra attention from those "LOL"
initials once more!]
"There's no doubt about it.....Howard Brennan saw a man who was
NOT Lee Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD. He saw him in the
partly open S.N. window BEFORE the motorcade arrived, and he saw him
firing a rifle from a WIDE OPEN during the shooting."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- "There's no doubt about it", folks. That's
because Walt is an "honest" person when it comes to fairly and
reasonably evaluating and assessing the physical evidence in the case
and the testimony of one Howard Leslie Brennan. Right, Walt-Kook?]
"The Croft photo...shows a tiny piece of JFK's white shirt being
blown out through his suit jacket by the exiting bullet. .... The
bullet hole in JFK's jacket is EXACTLY where the tiny piece of white
shirt appears in the CROFT photo. .... The bullet was a TINY (perhaps
55 grain) .22 caliber bullet. A bullet this size will lose its energy
very rapidly. .... Therefore, after passing through JFK's body, it's
[sic] energy was pretty well spent. When it passed through one of the
grill openings {of the SS follow-up car} and struck some metal behind
the grill, it didn't have much more energy than a BB fired from a BB
gun. It simply fell into the area behind the grill of the Caddy."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- The above is a good example of a Mega-Kook's
imagination run amok in Dealey Plaza. Walt thinks JFK suffered a
"throat-thru-back" bullet wound at approx. Z161 on the Zapruder Film.
Can Walt's "honest" and fair and reasonable approach to President
Kennedy's injuries possibly get any more idiotic than in his quote
above? And yet Walt expects people to be open and respectful to such
moronic and unsupportable bullshit like that. He actually seems to
think that such utter nonsense ISN'T worthy of being ridiculed. Go
figure.]
"Everyone can have a theory about why Tippit was there and why
he was killed. .... The one thing we can be sure of is Oswald was NOT
the killer."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- This completes the "Anybody But Oswald" circle
for "honest" kooks like Walter. Not only is Lee Oswald completely
innocent of shooting President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza per these
nutcases like Walt, but the "ABO" kooks also want to have the
obviously-guilty Oswald innocent of Officer Tippit's murder as well.
It's so "honest" of Walt to tell us to totally ignore that pile of
"LHO Killed Tippit" evidence, isn't it? Just toss it out, says
Walt....including the Tippit murder weapon, which every kook's
favorite patsy had ON HIM when arrested just a half-hour after
Tippit's murder.]
==========
Summarizing......
Don't ya love watching a researcher approach the JFK evidence in an
"open" and "honest" manner like Walt has done via the "Kook Kwotes" I
have provided above? Just lovely isn't it?
I can "honestly" say this without fear of embarrassment --- Walt is an
"honest"-to-goodness idiot when it comes to his forum posts regarding
the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
bigdog
>
> I realize that there are posters in this NG who are paid to monitor
> and disrupt. So they have a vested interest in refusing to engage in
> an honest discussion.....
Are you telling us there are LNs who are getting paid to do this shit.
Where the fuck is my check? I'm going to sue somebody's ass
off......as soon as I find out who it is.
Walt
> >>> "Can we have honest and open debates?" <<<
>
> Walt says he wants an "honest and open debate" regarding the JFK
> assassination.
Hey Von Pea Brain, You really lneed to learn to read. Here's what I
actually wrote.
"if it were possible to engage in a totally honest and candid
discussion" Do you see that tiny little word preceding the
sentence? That word is " IF" .... Do you Know what that word
means, Pea Brain??
I recognize that it's impossible to have open and honest debates, and
I believe the reason it's not possible is because of the egotistical
and arrogant attitude of people who sign their name Sir John Doe , or
William Smith esq. Vincent Bugliosi III esq. or David Von Pein. They
think they are so damned much smarter than the average joe that they
couldn't possibly be tricked into believing a fairy tale. They've read
the Warren report and they'll cite it chapter and verse without ever
actually THINKING about what they are regurgitating.
Walt
Walt
Hey Von Pea Brain...The fact that you believe the Warren Report is an
excellent example of people believing unsupportable BS.
> "Everyone can have a theory about why Tippit was there and why
> he was killed. .... The one thing we can be sure of is Oswald was NOT
> the killer."
>
> [DVP INTERJECTION -- This completes the "Anybody But Oswald" circle
> for "honest" kooks like Walter. Not only is Lee Oswald completely
> innocent of shooting President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza per these
> nutcases like Walt, but the "ABO" kooks also want to have the
> obviously-guilty Oswald innocent of Officer Tippit's murder as well.
>
> It's so "honest" of Walt to tell us to totally ignore that pile of
> "LHO Killed Tippit" evidence, isn't it? Just toss it out, says
> Walt....including the Tippit murder weapon, which every kook's
> favorite patsy had ON HIM when arrested just a half-hour after
> Tippit's murder.]
>
> ==========
>
> Summarizing......
>
> Don't ya love watching a researcher approach the JFK evidence in an
> "open" and "honest" manner like Walt has done via the "Kook Kwotes" I
> have provided above? Just lovely isn't it?
>
> I can "honestly" say this without fear of embarrassment --- Walt is an
> "honest"-to-goodness idiot when it comes to his forum posts regarding
> the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
Not a bad compilation of things I said .....Perhaps you can dig a
little deeper and find more of my ideas. I'd love for you to present
all of them then we can debate them. (Don't worry....I don't expect
an HONEST debate.)
Walt
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
Walt
Mr. Belin.
Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. Brennan.
Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
Mr. Belin.
Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the
rifle was wearing?
Mr. Brennan.
No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I
mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words.
If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.
Mr. Belin.
I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission
Exhibit 150.
Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you
make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
Mr. Brennan.
I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so
lighter.
Mr. Belin.
Than Exhibit 150?
Mr. Brennan.
That is the best of my recollection.
Mr. Belin.
All right.
Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. Brennan.
I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of
the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I
called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. Belin.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. Brennan.
That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the
window.
Mr. Belin.
You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. Brennan.
Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the
same clothes on.
Walt
Walt
Hey dumbass..... If you don't have a contract with Arlen Specter, you
don't have a prayer of winning a law suit. If yer dumb enough to aid
and abet the liar....that's TS.
Walt
David Von Pein
LOL. Yeah, I know what "if" means. But so what? What the heck does the
meaning of that word have to do with the many absurd and blatantly-
wrong (dishonest?) quotes that I attributed as having come out of your
(honest? dishonest?) mouth in my previous post?
And those are only the tip of the "Absurd Quotes" iceberg when it
comes to Walt's nonsense, as most everyone on this forum fully
realizes of course. I could have supplied dozens (probably hundreds)
more that are equally as idiotic.
But Walt doesn't care that those quoted passages that he uttered are
unsupportable and, IMO, totally "dishonest". And, of course, those are
the exact same things that Walt would be saying in ANY forum thread
entitled "An Honest Discussion With Walt". Right, Walt?
So, your beef over the word "if" is completely moot. (And stupid.)
>>> "I recognize that it's impossible to have open and honest debates..." <<<
Yeah....and YOU are one of the biggest reasons that such "honest"
debates are not possible with the "CT Kook" crowd. Because you simply
are not "honest" about the evidence.
You "mangle".
You "skew".
You "invent".
And you "speculate" with a large, Capital S.
It's always been this way with conspiracy-loving kooks like Walt.
And yet Walt seems to think that HE is the "honest" one in any "JFK
Debate". (Somebody break out the "ROFL" icons...quick!)
>>> "...and I believe the reason it's not possible is because of the egotistical and arrogant attitude of people who sign their name Sir John Doe , or William Smith esq. Vincent Bugliosi III esq. or David Von Pein." <<<
In my opinion, it's usually a good idea to be arrogant when dealing
with Super-Kooks like Walt. You know the type I mean -- the type of
conspiracy kook who decides for HIMSELF what the testimony of a
certain person really was all about, despite the fact the testimony is
actually saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE from the kook's skewed variation
of it. You know, stuff like that there.
It's advisable to keep "Arrogance" (and sarcasm, of course) right on
the table--up front--when dealing with rabid conspiracy theorists like
Walter "JFK WAS SHOT AT Z161 FROM THE FRONT" Kook.
>>> "They think they are so damned much smarter than the average joe that they couldn't possibly be tricked into believing a fairy tale. They've read the Warren report and they'll cite it chapter and verse without ever actually THINKING about what they are regurgitating." <<<
Problem is -- Walt The Super-Nutcase has thought about it TOO much.
WAY too much. So now, after looking it over time and time again
(Brennan's testimony can be used as a good example), and being
desperate to find SOMETHING (ANYthing!) that can be used to prop up
his make-believe, never-happened "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy plot,
Walt decides he's going to completely mangle and literally CHANGE the
meaning of many of Howard Brennan's words (or someone else's words
within the WCR or the supporting volumes; it doesn't really matter WHO
it is....the words written in the Report WILL be mangled in a way to
support the CT-Kook's pro-CT viewpoint; simple as that).
Nice hobby, Walt. Maybe we could call your current JFK hobby --
"Willfully Warping Warren (& Company)".
Walt
Ok. Von Pea Brain please give me your interpretation of Howard
brennan's testimony given below.
What color clothes was Oswald wearing??
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cc25053aabbf0754
>>> "Not a bad compilation of things I said." <<<
Yeah, I figured you'd like reading many hunks of your nonsense all
lumped together. Kind of like a "Written Monument To A Moron". But,
naturally, Walt thinks every one of the quotes makes perfect (and
"honest") sense....right Kook?
<chuckle time>
>>> "Perhaps you can dig a little deeper and find more of my ideas. I'd love for you to present all of them then we can debate them." <<<
Already have....several times in fact.
Here's one from 2006:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cecd397f64847fc8
And another Walt-destroying episode from early 2007 (enjoy re-living
your defeat over and over again):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/622b43959a56e79c
Of course, Walt The "Honest" Kook will completely ignore the times
I've ripped him to shreds on the Brennan thing and on his stupid "JFK
WAS HIT AT Z161" fiasco (which could be ripped to shreds by a
toothless puppy, of course).
>>> "Don't worry....I don't expect an HONEST debate." <<<
Nor would I expect such a thing....because I'd be debating you.
======================
"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." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a
little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
======================
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "What color clothes was Oswald wearing??" <<<
>
>
> Purple with bright orange stripes maybe??
>
> But what difference would it really make to a kook like Walt anyway?
> He'd find some excuse to get Patsy Oz off the murdering hook, even if
> Brennan had said this when describing the assassin in the SN window
> (which would be "too perfect and too pat", so there's Walt's excuse
> right there):
>
> "He was 5-feet-9 exactly; weighed 148.75 pounds; had dark
> (brownish, and thinning) hair; he was of slender build; he was wearing
> a white T-shirt underneath an open (unbuttoned) brownish-rusty-colored
> long-sleeved shirt; he was 24 years and 1 month old; he has pursed
> lips; and he was very soft-spoken usually (although I only heard him
> talk just that one time, when he looked at me and hollered: "Lookie up
> here Howard, I'm Lee H. Oswald and I'm going to shoot the President!";
> so I didn't get a chance to hear his speech patterns too much. He also
> had $13 andsome change in his dark-colored trousers, I noticed the
> "bulges" in his pants, so that I could determine the amount of cash he
> had. Oh, yes, I almost forgot...he was born on October 18, 1939. And
> he was born on a Wednesday...in New Orleans. ... Sorry I can't help
> you fellows out any more. I tried to see his Social Security Number,
> but my eyes aren't quite THAT good." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63
What do the kooks base their expectations of the performance of the
eyewitnesses on? Nothing but their own kooky expectations naturally,
none of them has spent any time researching what the norm for accuracy
under the conditions of this event should be.
David Von Pein
>>> "What color clothes was Oswald wearing??" <<<
Purple with bright orange stripes maybe??
But what difference would it really make to a kook like Walt anyway?
He'd find some excuse to get Patsy Oz off the murdering hook, even if
Brennan had said this when describing the assassin in the SN window
(which would be "too perfect and too pat", so there's Walt's excuse
right there):
"He was 5-feet-9 exactly; of slender build; he weighed 148.75
pounds; he had dark (brownish, and thinning) hair; he was wearing a
white T-shirt underneath an open (unbuttoned) brownish-colored long-
sleeved shirt; he was 24 years and 1 month old; he had pursed lips;
and he was very soft-spoken usually (although I only heard him talk
just that one time, when he looked at me and hollered: "Lookie up here
Howard, I'm Lee H. Oswald and I'm going to shoot the President!"; so I
didn't get a chance to hear his speech patterns too much).
"He also had approximately $15.15 in his dark-colored trousers.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot...he was born on October 18, 1939. And he was
born on a Wednesday...in New Orleans. Oh...and he likes potatoes for
dinner.
"Sorry I can't help you fellows out any more. I tried to get a
look at his Social Security Card, and I also tried to count his nose
hairs too, but my eyes aren't quite THAT good." -- Howard L. Brennan;
11/22/63
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cc25053aabbf0754
>
> >>> "Not a bad compilation of things I said." <<<
>
> Yeah, I figured you'd like reading many hunks of your nonsense all
> lumped together. Kind of like a "Written Monument To A Moron". But,
> naturally, Walt thinks every one of the quotes makes perfect (and
> "honest") sense....right Kook?
>
> <chuckle time>
>
> >>> "Perhaps you can dig a little deeper and find more of my ideas. I'd love for you to present all of them then we can debate them." <<<
>
> Already have....several times in fact.
>
> Here's one from 2006:
In addition to giving a physical description of a gunman who
obviously
wasn't Oswald, Brennan described a shooting postion that obviously
was NOT the so called "Snipers Nest".
Here's an excerpt from Brennan's testimony.....
Mr. Belin: Would you describe just exactly what you saw the last
time
you saw him? ( The 35 year old man in the light colored clothing)
HB: Well it appeared that he was STANDING up and resting against
the
left window sill, with the gun shouldered to his right shoulder,
holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim he fired
his
last shot....
Mr. Belin: Well let me ask you. What kind of gun did you see in the
window?
HB: I am not an expert on guns. It was as I could observe some kind
of
high powered rifle.
Mr. Belin: Could you tell whether it had any kind of scope on it?
Could
you tell whether it had or not it had one? Could you observe that it
definitely did, or did not, or don't you know?
HB: I do not know if it had a scope or not.
Mr. Belin: At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much
of the man could you see?
HB: Well I could see... at the time he was firing the gun, from
his
belt up....
Mr. Belin: How much of the gun do you believe you saw?
HB: I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
How does this eyewitness account fit with the W.C. finding that
Oswald
murdered JFK by firing a rifle while SITTING on a box and resting the
rifle on a box on the window ledge?
First off...Oswald was younger, lighter weight, and wore darker
colored
clothes than the gunman.
Secondly.... Brennan said the man was standing ( he could see from
his
belt up) and steadying the rifle against the side of the window. He
could see almost the entire rifle ( 70 to 85 percent)
Thank you, Pea Brain.... Obviously you can't see the foolishness of
posting actual testimony that blows yer theories out of the water,
but I'll bet most folks reading these posts can understand what Howard
Brennan is saying.
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cecd397f...
>
> And another Walt-destroying episode from early 2007 (enjoy re-living
> your defeat over and over again):
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/622b4395...
Walt
> >>> "What color clothes was Oswald wearing??" <<<
>
> Purple with bright orange stripes maybe??
No need to guess Von Pea Brain,.... The W.C. told us that Oswald was
wearing a DARK reddish brown shirt, and dark gray trousers. Does that
match with the white shirt and trousers that Brennan saw on the man
who was aiming a hunting rifle out of a wide open window??
David Von Pein
>>> "...that Brennan saw on the man who was aiming a hunting rifle out of a wide open window??" <<<
Still inventing your own Brennan testimony about the rifle, I see, huh
Mr. Kook?
Walt
So you've finally conceded that the clothing and the physical
characteristics of the gunman don't match Oswald, and now yer reduced
to arguing about the rifle. There are two witnesses who saw the
rifle in the gunman's hands, Both of those witnesses described a
HUNTING rifle. One of those witnesses said it was a "high powered
hunting rifle with a large scope attached" the other man simply
described the rifle as a high powered rifle with a long, exposed
metal, barrel. Neither of them saw a MILITARY rifle, like a
Mannlicher Carcano.
Walt