JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 154)

To show how out of kilter Jim DiEugenio is regarding certain matters
in the JFK case, he actually seems to think that Wesley Frazier's
mother (Essie Williams) is a prime/key witness who should have been
questioned in the same depth that Wesley and Linnie Mae were
questioned.

That is typical of a CT kook like Jimbo, though -- i.e., always
latching on to chaff and ignoring the wheat field. DiEugenio is a
master at harvesting chaff.

But we must always keep in mind that Jimbo is one of those rare and
very strange conspiracy clowns who has decided to believe that Lee
Oswald had NO LARGE PACKAGE AT ALL with him on the morning of November
the 22nd.

Keep on truckin', Jimbo. Pretty soon I'm sure you'll find a way to
pretend that LHO and Frazier didn't drive to the TSBD together AT ALL
on 11/22/63. It was all made up by big fat liar Wesley--just like the
paper bag. Right, Jimmy?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

At a real trial, not the phony fiasco in London, [Buell Wesley]
Frazier would have been opened up like a clam by a skilled and
knowledgeable lawyer who really knew this case. Opened up to the point
that no one, except maybe you [DVP] and McAdams, would have beleived
[sic] him.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Unbelievable.

DiEugenio gives new meaning to the word silly.

Ask 1,000 conspiracy theorists if they think Lee Oswald took a large
package into the TSBD on 11/22, and approximately 999 of them will
say, "Yes, of course he did, but the bag was too short to hold LHO's
rifle."

DiEugenio, of course, will never explain why the police forced Wes
Frazier to say that a MADE-UP bag had dimensions that were too short
to house disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle C2766.

You'd think that if the bag was non-existent from the get-go, the
crooked cops and Frazier (and Randle) would have made sure to say the
make-believe bag was at least big enough to hold the object that was
supposed to be inside that non-existent bag.

So, the cops were not only crooked beyond belief--they were also
apparently dumber than dirt too. Go figure.

Keep on going, Jimbo. Your delusions are perpetually entertaining. Not
to mention more hilarious
than Jack Benny.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/jack-benny.html

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 28, 2010, 3:19:07 AM10/28/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3651&st=45&p=210199&#entry210199

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "1. Davey, why did no one but Frazier see Oswald and his arm length sack enter the TSBD?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would you expect anyone but Frazier to have seen this? And please
don't bring up Dougherty, because he admitted he wasn't paying any
attention to Oswald when LHO entered the building on 11/22. He said he
only saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye. Hardly a perfect witness
for your "No Bag At All" purposes, Jimmy.

>>> "2. Davey, why did Shields say that Frazier told him he dropped off Oswald at the front of the TSBD that day? If so then Frazier is lying about following him and seeing the sack under his arm." <<<

Mr. Shields is obviously wrong, Jimmy. But you want to believe
Shields, vs. believing the person (Buell Frazier) who has always stuck
to his story from Day 1 about all of the stuff he did on November
22nd, including the manner in which Oswald exited the car and picked
up his package out of the back seat while Frazier was charging his
battery in the distant employee parking lot.

>>> "3. Davey, why did Troy West say that Oswald never got any paper from him at the TSBD even when he was always at his counter? He even ate lunch there." <<<

Just because Troy West didn't see Oswald take some paper and tape
doesn't mean Oswald didn't take those items from West's work area. (I
assume Troy had to go to the bathroom every now and then. That could
very well be when Oswald stole the paper. It wouldn't have taken very
long to swipe those items.)

>>> "4. Why did no one at the Paine household say they saw Oswald with his paper that night?" <<<

Probably because Lee was being careful and wasn't flaunting the paper
for everyone to see. After all, he was going to use it to hide a rifle
that he'd be using the next day in a Presidential assassination
attempt. Stands to reason he wouldn't be waving the paper bag around
for everybody to see.

>>> "5. Why were there no remnants [of] the paper found, or the tape, if Oswald prepared the sack that night?" <<<

Let me throw this same reasoning back in Jimbo's face with this
question:

Why were there no bullets found from the various non-Oswald guns that
you think were used to kill JFK?

To answer your #5 hunk of chaff specifically -- "Remnants" of the
paper bag trimmings could very well have been deposited by Oswald in a
garage (or kitchen) trash can on the night of Nov. 21st, and Ruth
Paine probably never would have noticed such snips of paper.

I suppose you think the cops should have searched through Ruth Paine's
trash for "paper trimmings/remnants", eh Jim?

>>> "6. Why was the broken down rifle not scratched as it would have had to have been if Frazier is telling the truth?" <<<

You're kidding with this hunk of silliness, aren't you Jimbo?

Oswald's rifle WAS beat up and scratched and battered. Why do you
think otherwise? Just look at the close-up color views of the rifle
via the NARA photo below:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/47/Photo_naraevid_CE139-3.jpg

>>> "7. Why did Linnie Mae tell that x-ray vision story that is almost certainly false? Now, can you imagine getting Frazier on the stand and cross examining him with this material, and much more? I would love to have him carry the disassembled rifle in a sack and walk the length of the court room a couple of times and then look at the parts. I would also love to take the jury to the Frazier home. I would then have them stand one by one in the spot where Linnie was standing and ask them if they can see through the car port." <<<

You CAN see through the carport. The slats in the carport wall are far
enough apart to let lots of light in, and hence a person on the other
side can be partially seen. Just look:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10897&relPageId=17

Your desperation to take the rifle out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands
has reached fantastic and outrageous proportions, Jimbo.

You've got to have the police making up lies (particularly people like
J.C. Day and Bob Studebaker, who each said they saw the paper bag
lying in the Sniper's Nest after the assassination); you need Buell
Frazier to be a liar about a whole bunch of stuff that he said he did
and saw on Nov. 22; you've got to have Linnie Mae Randle being a liar;
and you've got to have both the Warren Commission and the HSCA being
composed of a bunch of gullible goofs -- because BOTH of those
official U.S. Government entities believed that Buell Wesley Frazier
and Linnie Mae Randle were telling the truth when they said they saw
Oswald carrying a bulky brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22.

Now, who should I believe -- All of the above people/Govt.
organizations or James "Oswald Never Fired A Shot At Either JFK Or
J.D. Tippit" DiEugenio?

Not exactly the toughest choice in the world, is it?

aeffects

unread,

Oct 28, 2010, 3:51:07 AM10/28/10

to

On Oct 27, 9:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

so.... go sick'em suck'a--sick'em -- you are the ultimate lone nut
moron... keep coming back! ROTFLMFAO!

mucher1

unread,

Oct 28, 2010, 5:07:05 AM10/28/10

to

Meaningless drivel from an illiterate CT goon.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 5, 2010, 4:29:26 AM11/5/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16870

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16870&st=90&p=210949&#entry210949

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I believe now that the weight of the evidence should raise the
strongest suspicions about [Buell Wesley] Frazier. For recall, when
Oswald was confronted by Fritz with the curtain rod story, he denied
ever saying it to Frazier.

[...]

My argument is not that Oswald was lying or that he had found a new
apartment.

My argument is that it is Frazier who is lying, because he was
subborned.

And if Oswald brought only a small lunch bag to work that day, or
intended on buying his lunch, there could be no argument at all about
him bringing in a broken down MC rifle. Which the evidence says that
he never picked up.

[...]

I do know that Ruth Paine said she had heard of Frazier getting a job
at the TSBD from LMR [Linnie Mae Randle]. This implies they knew each
other which is reasonable since they lived so close to each other. I
think it was like a block away or so.

But as I said earlier, there has been little work done on the family
in all these years. And so little on any connection to the Paines.

I think this is because so many researchers, like lemmings, bought
into Frazier's story. (Including myself I should add.)

[...]

It is all coming pouring out, like piercing a puss ball now.

Interesting about Montgomery's seeming contradiction about when he
went up there and who ordered him to. Also interesting about Alyea
saying there was no chicken lunch. Sylvia Meagher has some fun with
the whole chicken lunch story also. (see pgs 39-41 of AAF)

Also, the diagram on the exhibit has a very hard time being matched to
the sack Montgomery brought down.

This is an important point about just when the curtain rod story was
brought forth by Frazier and when Oswald denied it and when others
heard about it.

[...]

And of course, we will never know what Oswald actually said. So we
will never know what he said about bringing a lunch, or how large his
lunch bag was. ... According to Frazier, he did not.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Watching James DiEugenio (and other conspiracy kooks like him)
attempting to rewrite the history of Buell Wesley Frazier, Lee Harvey
Oswald, and the paper bag [CE142] is like watching a train wreck in
action.

What an ugly sight indeed. Truly pathetic.

One of Jimbo's hilarious points made above is when he actually seems
to be implying that the "paper bag" dotted line in Commission Exhibit
No. 1302 [below] is supposed to be perfectly drawn "to scale" to match
the exact dimensions of CE142 (Oswald's gun-carrying paper sack).

Quite obviously, however, the Warren Commission didn't intend for the
dotted line in CE1302 to be a to-the-inch representation of the size
of Oswald's paper bag. It was drawn in merely to show the bag's
GENERAL shape and outline and to indicate approximately where in the
Sniper's Nest the bag was found by the police.

But Jim D. apparently thinks the dotted line can be used as an
exacting measuring device for the bag. Hilarious! Jim is silly beyond
belief. (And getting sillier too.)

CE1302:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm

And why in the world anyone would be surprised by the fact that the
MURDERER (Oswald) denied the "curtain rod" story is a real howler. OF
COURSE Oswald denied the curtain rod story. If he didn't deny the
whole story, he'd have to explain to Fritz, et al, why the curtain
rods completely disappeared after the assassination.

(Duh.)

As I've said several times in the past (and it's truer in 2010 than
ever before) -- Jim DiEugenio doesn't care how many people he has to
call liars in order to clean the skirts of double-murderer Lee Oswald.

In this thread, the rotten liar is Buell Wesley Frazier. In other
discussions, it's been Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J. Will Fritz, Henry
Wade, Patrick Dean, "The Troika" (Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, and John
McCloy), David Belin, Arlen Specter, J. Edgar Hoover, Vincent
Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, Michael Baden, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker,
Russell Fisher, Clay Shaw, Hugh Aynesworth, Dave Perry, Earl Warren,
James Phelan, John Lattimer, John McAdams, Linnie Mae Randle, Charles
Givens, Gerald Hill, the Dallas Police Department (as a whole), the
FBI (as a whole), etc., etc., to conspiratorial infinity.

In DiEugenio's strange world of the JFK murder case, it's all about
shifting the blame to somebody OTHER than the real killer. As long as
Jimbo THINKS he can support his outlandishly ludicrous claim that
every single person on my above list is a liar (and make no mistake--
DiEugenio HAS come right out and called each one of the above persons
[and dozens of others not listed] outright LIARS), he will continue to
peddle the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of murdering
John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

And even THAT isn't enough for DiEugenio. Oh no. Because he also wants
to paint sweet Lee Harvey as being innocent of shooting at General
Edwin Walker too!

So, that adds still more liars to Jimbo's long list of liars,
including the Warren Commission (as a unit) and the HSCA (as another
unit) -- because those two Government committees declared Oswald
guilty of shooting at General Walker [WCR p. 404 and HSCA Final Report
p. 61].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0214b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0046a.htm

Maybe DiEugenio should be given a new nickname -- "Blame Shifter
Jimbo". That moniker fits him quite nicely indeed.

http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 18, 2010, 12:26:07 AM11/18/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16835&st=75&p=212202&#entry212202

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Davey Boy, I have tried to impress on you that, for very good reasons, Gary Mack has a credibility problem." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I know this might come as a major heart-stopping shock to you, Jimmy
my boy, but I don't take ANYTHING you say very seriously.

In fact, IMO, you are the type of conspiracy theorist to totally
disregard with respect to the JFK assassination -- and that's because
you're in the "Anybody But Oswald" club of fantasists. And no
reasonable person can possibly take an "ABO" member seriously.

>>> "Plus, there is another evidentiary scandal brewing around Gary [Mack] which I am not free to comment on right now. But its [sic] pretty bad. So using him is like quoting, say, Dale Myers. (Which BTW, you do.)" <<<

Of course I often quote Gary Mack and Dale Myers. They are two of THE
best researchers in the JFK world. So, yes, I'll quote them as much as
I can.

Dale's work on the SBT and the Tippit murder is unparalleled, in my
view. Naturally, he's a rotten, corrupt liar in your mind. But, hey,
he's GOT to be that way to you--because you actually have the 'nads to
say (in public): "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." [DiEugenio
quote; via Black Op Radio broadcast of January 14, 2010; discussed
further at the link below.]

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-30.html

And anyone who can (with a straight face) utter those six words -- "I
don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" -- is most certainly not worth
taking seriously for even two seconds.

>>> "Question for you though: Do you use an alias on amazon.com? Is so, if I guess it, would you admit it?" <<<

No, Jimmy, sorry to disappoint you, but I have never used an "alias"
at Amazon.com--at any time.

The closest I've ever come to an alias is by using my initials ["DVP"]
at the IMDB.com forum (and I have wanted to change that username to my
full name, but they won't allow any changes of that nature after an
account has been created), and I have used "David VP" instead of my
full name in my early posts at acj and aaj.

Oh, yes, I have used an "aviation"-related alias at Airliners.net --
"LAX". But even in that instance, I put my full, real name in my
profile:

http://Airliners.net/profile/lax

But at Amazon.com, I've always used my real name.

http://Amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1FDW1SPYKB354

So, no, I'm not S.V. Anderson--in case that's your next question. I've
talked with Mr. Anderson on numerous occasions--Amazon included--and
he's got his head screwed on straight regarding the JFK case. He's
written some very good posts, too.

BTW, as a footnote to this "alias" topic -- Jim DiEugenio, in late
2008, was well on his way toward being convinced that I was, in fact,
David Reitzes (thanks to Len Osanic's rumor, which was undoubtedly
planted in his CTer mind by David G. Healy, who is the only person on
the planet who ever thought such a thing prior to October of 2008).

http://BlackOpRadio.com/black395a.ram

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 26, 2010, 5:08:04 AM11/26/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16975&st=75&p=213223&#entry213223

JAMES FETZER SAID:

>>> "David Von Pein wants to sell us a bill of goods about the Tippit shooting, when I have already explained why he is wrong." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And James H. Fetzer surely knows WAY more than the WC and the HSCA,
right?

Those two Govt. entities declared Oswald GUILTY of murdering J.D.
Tippit. But Jim Fetzer doesn't give a damn about that--after all, it's
merely the corrupt "Government". Right, James?

BTW, Jim, your explanations re the Tippit murder are pathetic. J.M.
Poe didn't initial FOUR shells. He only handled the two Benavides
shells, not four. And Poe himself told the WC that he wasn't sure
whether he marked them or not.

But even if we were to toss the two Poe shells out the window,
Oswald's guilt (ballistically) is still proven via the two OTHER
(Davis) shells, which have a clear and distinct chain of custody --
from the Davis girls to two different police officers: Doughty and
Dhority.

Addendum:

Today I wrote a brief article regarding Bill & Gayle Newman and their
11/22/63 interviews on WFAA-TV in Dallas.

I'm wondering what a Z-Film Alterationist like Mr. Fetzer thinks about
when he watches that 11/22 footage showing the Newmans talking about a
big hole in the RIGHT-FRONT portion of President Kennedy's head (vs.
the big hole being at the BACK of the President's head, which, of
course, is where Fetzer thinks the wound was located, with no big hole
AT ALL located in the place where Bill & Gayle Newman said they saw
one -- and the Newmans said that they saw it there within MINUTES of
the shooting too).

Jim, did some of the plotters somehow coerce both Bill and Gayle to
say on live TV that there was blood "gushing out" of the right side of
JFK's head?

More:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html

Every conspiracy theorist should watch (and listen to) the live TV and
radio coverage that aired on November 22, 1963. And after doing that,
they should ask themselves these questions:

Does the radio and TV footage I just watched and heard REALLY
support the kind of multi-gun assassination plot that many
conspiracists have endorsed since 1963? Or does that footage actually
support the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations?

Any reasonable person, after watching the live 11/22 coverage (in
which nearly every single report indicates that only THREE shots were
fired from ONE single gun and by ONE single gunman in the Texas School
Book Depository), has no choice but to conclude that the silly Oliver
Stone-like "3-gunmen, 6-shots" assassination scenario, and all multi-
gun theories similar to Stone's, should be discarded for all time as
being totally unreasonable and flat-out ludicrous, given the live TV
footage they have just witnessed.

You should try it, Jim. It'll do you good:

http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 28, 2010, 3:17:36 AM11/28/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16968&st=30&p=213381&#entry213381

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "You know, Davey Boy, it's bad enough when you deny the evidence. Which you always do. For instance, the idea that the WC really was not tied to a six-second shooting interval." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

They weren't tied to a 5.6-second shooting interval (or even 6
seconds). And the Warren Report makes that very clear on page 117
(which you apparently want to totally ignore):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

>>> "As always, we have been down that road. You make like you forgot it. So when Jesse [Ventura] does it in [a] best time of 8-9 seconds you say: See, what the WC said was possible! Leaving out all the other problems with this--like the fact that Jesse's targets were not moving--you leave out a very important fact." <<<

And according to an expert for the HSCA, Lee Oswald's target was
essentially a "stationary target" too, Jim. You like to ignore the
fact that when Oswald killed President Kennedy, he was shooting at him
from behind, when LHO's target was on virtually a straight line from
the barrel of his Mannlicher-Carcano on Elm Street (as we can see from
the Secret Service photos in Commission Exhibit No. 875; example
below):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0456a.jpg

The conspiracy theorists like Jesse Ventura (and many others) who love
to go around declaring that Oswald's shooting performance was "fucking
impossible" [Ventura quote] just do not know what the hell they are
talking about. Period.

Maybe Jesse should take a good look at the many photos from Oswald's
Sniper's Nest that can be found in CE875. It might do him good. (But I
doubt it.)

>>> "The WC was limited by Z 313. Any shot interval had to have ended there for them. Therefore, anything over six seconds, the time had to come from BEFORE JFK DISAPPEARED BEHIND THE SIGN. But here is your problem, which somehow you fail to mention even though I pointed it out to you: The oak tree made this impossible! Therefore, your imaginary shot had to have come before Z 166." <<<

The simple (and obvious) answer to that is: Oswald squeezed off one
(missed) shot prior to the President's car going behind the oak tree.
And the Warren Commission fully recognized and acknowledged that
possibility on Page 111 of the Warren Report:

"If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an
effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the
oak tree."

On the same WCR page, however, the Commission covered the other side
of the coin:

"On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first
shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit
a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his
shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large
automobile."

So, as we can see, the Warren Commission was covering ALL the bases.
They weren't saying which one of Oswald's three shots definitely
missed the limousine. They were laying all of the possibilities on the
table for the readers of the Warren Report to consider.

You'd think that the conspiracy theorists would be willing to give the
Commission at least a little bit of credit for NOT trying to
definitively state which shot missed. Shouldn't such "covering all the
bases" be looked upon as a GOOD thing, instead of a "cover-up" by
conspiracists? Such as, for example, when the Commission said this on
Page 111:

"The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first,
second, or third shot which missed." -- WR; Page 111

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm

>>> "Recall, you are tied to three shots, period. One is the Tague strike, one is the head shot. Therefore, your last remaining shot has to be the Magic Bullet." <<<

Now it is YOU, Jim, who is not considering alternate possibilities for
James Tague's cheek wound and the Main Street curb damage. You are
placing too much definitive emphasis on the missed shot having to be
the shot that caused Tague's slight wound. But that's not the case at
all (although I, myself, do, indeed, think that Oswald's first missed
shot did cause Tague's injury).

But there are other possibilities, which the Warren Commission also
presented (on Page 117 of the WCR), with the Commission once again
being shown to be flexible in its scenarios, allowing for the
possibility that the Main Street damage (and, hence, Tague's cheek
injury) "might have come from the bullet which hit the President's
head, or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the
missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area" [WCR; p. 117].

So, as we can easily see from just those two excellent Warren
Commission pages (pages 111 and 117), which are pages that apparently
very few conspiracy theorists have ever read or paid any attention to
whatsoever, Earl Warren's Commission was considering various
possibilities regarding the shooting timeline and the missed shot.

Yes, the Commission was pretty definite on what they felt was the
total number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza -- three. But there were
plenty of reasons for the Commission to accept a definitive "Three
Shots Were Fired" shooting scenario, including the presence of the
THREE bullet shells being found in the Sniper's Nest right after the
assassination, plus the vast number of witnesses who said they heard
exactly THREE shots being fired.

But as far as the Commission boxing itself into a corner regarding a
"5.6 second" shooting timeline or which shot missed the limousine,
that is simply untrue. Such talk is merely another one of the hundreds
of myths about the JFK case that have been spread by conspiracy
mongers over the last 47 years. And it's easy to prove that it's only
a myth by taking just one quick look at pages 111 and 117 of the
Warren Commission's Final Report.

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 28, 2010, 3:32:00 AM11/28/10

to

"You know, Davey Boy, it's bad enough when you deny the

evidence." -- Jim "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" DiEugenio

Is there anybody else out there who is enjoying the pot-kettle nature
of the above ridiculous comment as much as I am?

aeffects

unread,

Nov 28, 2010, 7:08:50 PM11/28/10

to

David VonPein Troll, no one enjoys watching you get your pansy ass
handed to you more that CT's on this board -- carry on moron!

DiEugenio is just the lastest to thrash your ass! Your dumb enough to
keep coming back, you've given up your right to piss and moan! But,
don't let that stop the show from going on... you're part of history
moron, enjoy!

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 3, 2010, 8:46:47 AM12/3/10

to

I always get a kick out of the CTers who think it was wrong (or
illegal in some way) for the FBI to get involved in the JFK
assassination investigation so quickly (and thus take the evidence
from Dallas to Washington for further study).

But the President of the United States had just been killed....and
while it was not technically a FEDERAL crime, does anyone in their
right mind actually think that the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was
just going to step aside and stay completely out of the investigation
of the murder of the PRESIDENT? That's nuts.

Of course the FBI was going to get involved in the case--and quickly.
And that's what happened. Nothing sinister. Nothing unusual about that
whatsoever. The kooks just want somebody to blame as "cover-up agents"
-- and Hoover's agency will do just fine for those conspiracy kooks of
the world.

But to think that the FBI, with all of its manpower and resources,
would have just sat by on its collective ass and watched the local
Dallas authorities handle the entire case from start to finish is just
plain silly.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Dec 3, 2010, 9:59:38 AM12/3/10

to

On Dec 3, 8:46 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I always get a kick out of the CTers who think it was wrong (or
> illegal in some way) for the FBI to get involved in the JFK
> assassination investigation so quickly (and thus take the evidence
> from Dallas to Washington for further study).
>
> But the President of the United States had just been killed....and
> while it was not technically a FEDERAL crime, does anyone in their
> right mind actually think that the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was
> just going to step aside and stay completely out of the investigation
> of the murder of the PRESIDENT? That's nuts.

What they could have done Dave is have LBJ sign something sooner than
11/26/63 saying they could get involved! The law is the law. Look,
I think the DPD did a horrible job in many aspects of this case but I
have to give them credit for one thing -- THEY DID NOT LOSE EVIDENCE
AT THE RATE THE FBI DID! At least you ADMIT they had NO jurisdiction
unlike a supposed "CTer" on here!

The bottom line is this -- when you sieze evidence you have NO
jurisdiction for you VOID the chain of possession and this means it is
inadmissable to a court of law.

> Of course the FBI was going to get involved in the case--and quickly.
> And that's what happened. Nothing sinister. Nothing unusual about that
> whatsoever. The kooks just want somebody to blame as "cover-up agents"
> -- and Hoover's agency will do just fine for those conspiracy kooks of
> the world.

They BROKE the law -- if that is NOT sinister I don't know what is!
Can you or I break the law "for the good of the country"? Who even
decides what is for the "good of the country" anyway? The fact this
case has gone unsolved for 47 years is NOT good for the country.

> But to think that the FBI, with all of its manpower and resources,
> would have just sat by on its collective ass and watched the local
> Dallas authorities handle the entire case from start to finish is just
> plain silly.

NO con man -- it was the LAW! I know LNers are not generally big
believers in laws and our judicial system, but tough luck!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Dec 3, 2010, 10:09:51 AM12/3/10

to

In article <d38ab464-391a-448c...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...

>
>On Dec 3, 8:46=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I always get a kick out of the CTers who think it was wrong (or
>> illegal in some way) for the FBI to get involved in the JFK
>> assassination investigation so quickly (and thus take the evidence
>> from Dallas to Washington for further study).
>>
>> But the President of the United States had just been killed....and
>> while it was not technically a FEDERAL crime, does anyone in their
>> right mind actually think that the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was
>> just going to step aside and stay completely out of the investigation
>> of the murder of the PRESIDENT? That's nuts.
>
>What they could have done Dave is have LBJ sign something sooner than
>11/26/63 saying they could get involved! The law is the law. Look,
>I think the DPD did a horrible job in many aspects of this case but I
>have to give them credit for one thing -- THEY DID NOT LOSE EVIDENCE
>AT THE RATE THE FBI DID! At least you ADMIT they had NO jurisdiction
>unlike a supposed "CTer" on here!
>
>The bottom line is this -- when you sieze evidence you have NO
>jurisdiction for you VOID the chain of possession and this means it is
>inadmissable to a court of law.

Another stupid assertion that you'll never be able to cite for.

It's a lie.

>> Of course the FBI was going to get involved in the case--and quickly.
>> And that's what happened. Nothing sinister. Nothing unusual about that
>> whatsoever. The kooks just want somebody to blame as "cover-up agents"
>> -- and Hoover's agency will do just fine for those conspiracy kooks of
>> the world.
>
>They BROKE the law

And can you *CITE* this law they "broke"?

(My crystal ball says no...)

> -- if that is NOT sinister I don't know what is!
>Can you or I break the law "for the good of the country"? Who even
>decides what is for the "good of the country" anyway? The fact this
>case has gone unsolved for 47 years is NOT good for the country.
>
>> But to think that the FBI, with all of its manpower and resources,
>> would have just sat by on its collective ass and watched the local
>> Dallas authorities handle the entire case from start to finish is just
>> plain silly.
>
>NO con man -- it was the LAW! I know LNers are not generally big
>believers in laws and our judicial system, but tough luck!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Dec 3, 2010, 11:15:31 AM12/3/10

to

On Dec 3, 10:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <d38ab464-391a-448c-b6f9-60fe6f1be...@29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 3, 8:46=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I always get a kick out of the CTers who think it was wrong (or
> >> illegal in some way) for the FBI to get involved in the JFK
> >> assassination investigation so quickly (and thus take the evidence
> >> from Dallas to Washington for further study).
>
> >> But the President of the United States had just been killed....and
> >> while it was not technically a FEDERAL crime, does anyone in their
> >> right mind actually think that the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was
> >> just going to step aside and stay completely out of the investigation
> >> of the murder of the PRESIDENT? That's nuts.
>
> >What they could have done Dave is have LBJ sign something sooner than
> >11/26/63 saying they could get involved! The law is the law. Look,
> >I think the DPD did a horrible job in many aspects of this case but I
> >have to give them credit for one thing -- THEY DID NOT LOSE EVIDENCE
> >AT THE RATE THE FBI DID! At least you ADMIT they had NO jurisdiction
> >unlike a supposed "CTer" on here!
>
> >The bottom line is this -- when you sieze evidence you have NO
> >jurisdiction for you VOID the chain of possession and this means it is
> >inadmissable to a court of law.
>
> Another stupid assertion that you'll never be able to cite for.
>
> It's a lie.

You are the liar and it is NO shock you are siding with a well-known
LNer! Here is but one example of this point from the CDC! Go to
slide #26!

http://www2.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/Pheldocs/2003_ForEpi/Presentations/ForEpi_LEslides.ppt

> >> Of course the FBI was going to get involved in the case--and quickly.
> >> And that's what happened. Nothing sinister. Nothing unusual about that
> >> whatsoever. The kooks just want somebody to blame as "cover-up agents"
> >> -- and Hoover's agency will do just fine for those conspiracy kooks of
> >> the world.
>
> >They BROKE the law
>
> And can you *CITE* this law they "broke"?

Don't have to as you can't cite the LAW that gave them the authority
to take the evdience with NO jurisidiction! YOU are a liar and the
funny thing is even the FBI says you are a liar! LOL!

> (My crystal ball says no...)

YOUR crystal ball is tainted with all the weird things you use it for!

> > -- if that is NOT sinister I don't know what is!
> >Can you or I break the law "for the good of the country"? Who even
> >decides what is for the "good of the country" anyway? The fact this
> >case has gone unsolved for 47 years is NOT good for the country.
>
> >> But to think that the FBI, with all of its manpower and resources,
> >> would have just sat by on its collective ass and watched the local
> >> Dallas authorities handle the entire case from start to finish is just
> >> plain silly.
>
> >NO con man -- it was the LAW! I know LNers are not generally big
> >believers in laws and our judicial system, but tough luck!
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes

> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Dec 3, 2010, 2:34:38 PM12/3/10

to

The memorandum from Katzenbach( after talks with Hoover) says on the
25th of November " that the public must be convinced Oswald is the real
assassin" and "that he had no confederates"....if that doesn't stink to
friggin' high heaven of cover up..nothing does. You would have to be one
dumb bunny( insert warren commission supporter) to think the FBI solved
the case on the 25th before they had even run down any leads, or had a
clue in making a definitive pronouncement....Laz

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 4, 2010, 4:31:11 AM12/4/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16301&st=60&p=213683&#entry213683

JIMBO DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "There is a picture online from a guy who appears to be Davey's brother that shows Davey Boy in what looks like a KFC or Church's chicken store. When this picture got around, people started to kid him about being a chicken to debate me, and also his rather diminutive height. Davey replied that this was a family owned business, therefore he didn't really work there as an employee. Now, if what he is saying is that he does not work there now, the implication is that the business has been since sold. Davey won't spell this out. Since he likes goofing around with me and saying, "See, DiEugenio is wrong again." Like I live in Hoosier land and know this stuff." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But that won't stop you from speculating (in print), will it Jimbo my
boy?

Truth is, in this "chicken" instance, I really enjoy toying with
conspiracy-happy people who think they know everything about
everybody. It's quite hilarious to watch them speculate -- with a
recent example being when one of Jimbo's "volunteers" (who apparently
has been assigned by Jimbo to monitor my every Internet move) dashed
off a report to DiEugenio about the possibility of my using the alias
"Kurt Ferrer" on the StarzMovie website.

Naturally, after getting the emergency report from his "volunteer"
back at the CTKA Conspiracy BatCave, DiEugenio was more than eager to
pounce on this important revelation and confront me with it.

I also took note of how DiEugenio misspelled Ferrer's last name (he
spelled it "Furrer" the first time he confronted me with the name),
which I now think was possibly a slick little ploy on Jimbo's part to
try and get me to type the man's name correctly in one of my posts.
And if I had accidentally spelled the name correctly (as Ferrer), then
Jimbo would have a nice little chunk of "evidence" to throw in my face
regarding this so-called "alias" that I told him I had never used.

Nice trick too, Jimbo. Too bad it didn't work.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe Jimbo's just a lousy speller. (He does
need to let go of the "shift" key sooner when he types many of his
posts. Jimbo often capitalizes the second letter of a sentence-
starting word by mistake. He's just typing out his conspiracy
crackpottery too fast at times, I guess.)

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 8, 2010, 12:08:07 AM12/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=60&p=214157&#entry214157

JAMES DiEUGENIO (WHO IS RAPIDLY APPROACHING "SUPER-KOOK" STATUS) SAID:

You didn't hit a nerve at all with that specific argument [re: Lee
Farley's idiotic theory about how Lee Oswald wasn't on CeCil
McWatters' bus or in William Whaley's taxicab on 11/22/63]. What bugs
him [super-kook Farley], and everyone else here who understands your
endless schtick, is this: You never get tired of recycling worn out
and discredited arguments for the sake of just prolonging an endless
phony debate.

The whole bus ride thing was taken apart by Sylvia Meagher back in
1967! [LOL.] There is not one credible witness who puts Oswald on that
bus. And in the recent article by Bob Fox called "Deeper into Dave
Perry" at ctka.net, Bledsoe is shredded permanently with help from
Rodger Remington and Pat Speer.

The fact that you take no heed of this--zilch, zero, nada--is par for
the course. Since your McAdams' disease has damaged your neurons. The
epitomy of this is you defending [Dale] Myers' lying on national TV by
calling the SB Fantasy the Single Bullet Fact. And then you later
admit it is not a fact, it's just the way things had to happen. Which
means it is not a fact. Period. In other words you were covering up--
lying really--for a liar.

But this is what your whole universe is about. Making these
nonsensical statements time and time again to get people involved with
your pointless rigamarole. It's exactly what you did at Lancer. So
that no one can have a rational or logical discussion of the real
evidence.

You retard this by citing stuff from the FBI or WC--as if they have
any respect in this case. If you recall when your mentor VB [Vincent
Bugliosi] brought up the WC, Jesse [Ventura] rolled his eyes. "I mean,
Vince, are you serious? In this day and age?"

And [super-kook Lee Farley] calling you a fool is not out of bounds.
It's quite understandable and justified. Because you are a deliberate
provocateur. You called me an idiot [and rightly so], you insulted the
memory of my dead mother [in Jim's imagination only], when I say Myers
lied on TV by using the phrase SIngle Bullet Fact, you reply "Bull
shit, Bull shit, Triple Bull shit."

What's the matter Dave, don't you like your own medicine? You yourself
said that you would never complain to the moderators about anything
that was said to you. You just did. Maybe you are a secret wimp huh?

If so, then either clean it up, or leave.

============================================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID TO THE KOOK:

Jim DiEugenio, as we all know, doesn't care how many people he calls
liars. In fact, to DiEugenio, the more people he can call liars, the
better he likes it.

E.G., per DiEugenio, all of these people were (or are) liars: Mary
Bledsoe, William Whaley, Wes Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Harry
Olsen, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Henry Wade, Ruth Paine, John
McAdams, Dave Perry, Dale Myers, the entire Warren Commission, most of
the HSCA and its staff, most of the FBI, the Clark Panel, Marina
Oswald, and hundreds more.

And now David Von Pein is a liar, per Jim:

"And then you [DVP] later admit it [the SBT] is not a fact, it's
just the way things had to happen. Which means it is not a fact.
Period. In other words you were covering up--lying really--for a liar
[Dale Myers]."

The conspiracy clowns have been busy breaking forum policy in this
thread, indeed.

I also find it very humorous to see the way Jimbo somehow has managed
to segue from my saying that the Single-Bullet Theory is a fact (which
it is, of course) to my somehow "lying" when I ALSO said another
factual truth -- i.e., that the SBT is the only way it could have
happened on Elm Street, given the way the two victims were lined up in
the limousine.

IOW -- A DOUBLE-TRUTH turns into a LIE, per the strange logic of James
"Everybody's A Liar" DiEugenio.

Unbelievable.

Have fun with your fellow CT coconuts in Hawaii in April 2011, Jimbo.
(And hopefully, Robert Groden will talk in depth about those SIX SHOTS
that he thinks totally missed the Presidential automobile. I doubt
that even Jim Fetzer could hold back his laughter after Groden utters
that theory.)

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 8, 2010, 4:42:14 PM12/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214226&#entry214226

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Yet, after I joined, Davey Boy, Reitzes and Francois Carlier got on quickly." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pretty much anybody can join this forum. All they need to do is e-mail
John Simkin directly -- at john.simkin[--at--]ntlworld.com (which is
the e-mail address I used on August 1st, 2010, to arrange my current
membership).

And DiEugenio is wrong about Francois Carlier joining up after Jimbo
joined. Fact is, Francois has been a member since January 19, 2010,
which was five months before DiEugenio joined:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6298

And, of course, as Duncan MacRae has already pointed out, Mark H.
wasn't "sent" here by any evil LN forces. He undoubtedly joined up
because he wanted to. And he probably went through the exact same
process I did when I joined in August, via e-mailing John Simkin
directly (if he received the "Forum Is Currently Not Accepting New
Members" message that many people have encountered recently).

My $0.02:

An occasional LNer is most certainly needed in a conspiracy-infested
forum like this one, just to provide some degree of balance to people
like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley and Jim Fetzer (and many others) who
believe in some of the strangest and off-the-wall things imaginable
when it comes to the JFK assassination -- such as believing that Lee
Oswald never fired a shot at EITHER John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit, which
is truly an off-the-wall belief that only a relatively small
percentage of Americans endorse, as the 2003 ABC News poll indicates:

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

Other unsupportable nonsense that should be swatted down by the
occasional LNer is the notion that the cops would have had ANY desire
whatsoever to want to FAKE Oswald's bus AND cab rides on November 22,
1963. Such an idea is just flat-out crazy, and everybody should know
why.

So, having an "LNer" around to occasionally come in here and point out
the basic common-sense flaws in many of the arguments put on the
Education Forum table by various conspiracy theorists is certainly not
a bad thing. Otherwise, the "lurkers" who come in here might actually
start to accept some of the nonsense being spouted by DiEugenio,
Farley, Fetzer, Lifton, White, and others.

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,

Dec 8, 2010, 5:22:51 PM12/8/10

to

On Dec 8, 1:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=2...
>
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=2...
>
> TOM SCULLY SAID:
>
> >>> "John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has..." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams'
> position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest
> whatsoever in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.
>
> What I do know is this (regardless of McAdams' politic views) -- he
> has an excellent website on the JFK assassination, which presents both
> sides of many, many important issues dealing with JFK's death, and he
> has written many top-notch articles and Internet posts supporting the
> official lone-assassin view of the assassination, which IMO are
> articles and posts that are filled with FACTS, COMMON SENSE, and LOGIC
> (three things that virtually all conspiracy theories and conspiracy
> theorists lack when dealing with this subject).
>
> If you want to think that Mr. McAdams' political views (whatever they
> may be, which don't interest me in the slightest) somehow are coloring
> his opinions and his articles regarding the JFK assassination, well,
> you just go right ahead and think that. It's a free country, after
> all.
>
> I, however, will stick to the FACTS and COMMON SENSE that Mr. McAdams
> imparts on a daily basis when he speaks about the issues associated
> with President Kennedy's murder.

~~roll me over the CT internet plain of battle, oh roll me over...~~
LMFAO you're cute when you whine David Von Pein... Carry On! ! ! !

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 8, 2010, 5:34:04 PM12/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214211&#entry214211

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214228&#entry214228

TOM SCULLY SAID:

>>> "John McAdams, from the results of my research, seems to exhibit all of the signs of a right wing, political extremist, and he has..." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll stop you right there. I couldn't care less what Prof. McAdams'
position is regarding politics. I have absolutely no interest
whatsoever in that aspect of Mr. McAdams.

What I do know is this (regardless of McAdams' political views) -- he

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 8, 2010, 9:04:33 PM12/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=214257&#entry214257

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "You have to send a bio and photo to Simkin." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that's true. But, just like I said before, pretty much anyone can
join.

>>> "[Francois] Carlier may have been a member previously. But he did not go into overdrive until the two Daves [Reitzes and Von Pein] entered the scene. Especially with that nuttiness about Oswald's ammo--which DVP actually tried to defend." <<<

Carlier was never in much of an "overdrive". In fact, I wanted him to
post a lot more often. He made relatively few posts--even in the so-
called "overdrive" mode that Jimbo imagines.

And, btw, I never ONCE gave my support to the notion that any ammo
found in Irving after 11/22 belonged to Oswald. If DiEugenio can
provide a post of mine where I said that I thought that ammo WAS
Oswald's, let's see it.

>>> "The idea that you guys never talk to each other, never e mail each other, never communicate with each other, don't even know each other, and simply all exist on separate alternative universes, is enough to make me puke. Except I have to puke while reading your trash which is on this forum. I mean, you even had your own organization led by McAdams and Ken Rahn." <<<

LOL.

I very rarely speak to other LNers via e-mail, although Francois has
written me a few times. And I never, ever talk to other LNers in
person.

Maybe other LNers chat via other non-forum means, however. I wouldn't
know. But Jimbo is off on a tangent here that suggests the LNers of
the Internet all get together and plan strategy on how to bash the
CTers, etc. Which, of course, is nonsense (at least based on my own
experience).

Once again, DiEugenio is talking out his ass. But, of course, we're
all accustomed to Jimbo's ridiculous anti-VB, anti-LN, anti-DVP, and
anti-WC tirades by now, aren't we?

>>> "Carlier noticed you all alerting you to the fact you will have to counter Len's Hawaii conference--which DVP just noted on this forum. Yet we are supposed to believe that with Duncan's and McAdam's [sic] funny farms as your base, you never ever communicate with each other in any way to try and counter anything the critics do." <<<

You're delusional. Plain and simple.

>>> "I believe that about as much as I do that Ruth Paine's freindship [sic] for Marina was only because she wished to learn Russian." <<<

Naturally, Jimbo. The whole world (including Ruth Paine) was out to
frame your favorite patsy.

And I made a snowman in Phoenix last August too.

aeffects

unread,

Dec 8, 2010, 11:18:50 PM12/8/10

to

On Dec 8, 6:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=90&p=2...
>

~~roll me over the CT internet plains of battle, oh roll me over...~~
Gawd, I love that tune.....
LMFAO -- you're cute when you whine David Von Pein... Carry On! ! ! !

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 9, 2010, 5:54:54 PM12/9/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16904&st=60&p=214361&#entry214361

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16904&st=60&p=214399&#entry214399

The above-linked (top) post written by a mega-kook named Robert "LBJ
WAS A SERIAL KILLER" Morrow gave me immense pleasure to read. It's
like an early Christmas gift.

I love posts like that one, because such posts just illuminate and
(re)-emphasize the skewed thinking that is possessed by many
conspiracy theorists.

To a person like Bob "LBJ Murdered JFK" Morrow, virtually EVERYTHING
associated with the Kennedy assassination is a "plot" or a
"conspiracy" of some kind -- right down to accusing two different
Internet posters of being the same person. (I sure hope Steve V.
Anderson sees Morrow's post too. I'm sure he'll get just as big a kick
out of it as I am currently getting.)

Of course, this silliness is nothing new to me. I've seen it many
times before (usually from fellow Education Forum member David G.
Healy). For the record, here's a partial list of the "other people"
that Healy has accused me of being over the last few years:

1.) Dave Reitzes
2.) Vincent Bugliosi
3.) Steve Keating
4.) Kurt Ferrer
5.) Rosemary Newton

And I'm pretty sure there are some additional "other" people that I'm
supposed to be masquerading as, too (per Healy), but the names escape
me at the moment.

The fifth person on the above list is particularly hilarious, because
Rosemary Newton is Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, with whom I have
corresponded several times since July of 2007.

But, as recently as April 26th of this year, Mr. Healy (incredibly)
was still embracing the idea that Rosemary was "fictitous" and
"mythological", despite the fact that Bugliosi talks about Rosemary on
page 1514 of his book "Reclaiming History".

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cdc2dca07d1a806b

Healy also made this hysterical statement about Rosemary in March
2010:

"Please tell that figment of your imagination, Rosemary (LMFAO)
she's wanted in the squadron room, Vince has lost his shoes! Get busy
boyo!" -- David G. Healy; 03/06/10

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b62e2050bb37ad68

So, as is fairly evident by Healy's inane comments, I've had to deal
with (but usually have ignored) some mighty strange crap coming from
conspiracy theorists.

I have a related question for other members here (I'd really enjoy
knowing this information, since this topic of using "aliases" has come
up yet again):

Have any of you other Education Forum members ever been accused of not
being who you say you are? Has it ever happened to you, Pat Speer?
Dean? Anyone else?

Anyway, my thanks go out to Bob "1963 Coup d'Etat" Morrow for
providing today's daily laugh here at The Education Forum.

==========================================

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16904&st=60&p=214402&#entry214402

Thanks for the link, Morrow [the link below]. It just keeps getting
better and better. My early Christmas presents from Bob "LBJ IS A
MURDERER" Morrow are piling up fast under the tree -- like this gem:

"Of course, S.V. Anderson, T. Folsom and DAVID VON PEIN are all
the same "person" if you can call them that... and Tinky Winky, and
Po ... and Laa Laa." -- Robert P. Morrow; December 9, 2010

http://Amazon.com/tag/jfk%20assassination/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1VLRED2TYB89B&cdMsgNo=478&cdPage=20&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2A0FG3MMM7X1Q&cdMsgID=MxNYDN6GTUTTDT#MxNYDN6GTUTTDT