MY PUBLIC DUTY FOR THIS MONTH: REVISITING AND DESTROYING A KOOK'S NONSENSE (ONCE AGAIN)
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a44aff4d08ff9c81
>>> "Why did you want to drag me {a kook named Walter Cakebread} into this debate? You know I'll just show you to be a lying ignoramus." <<<
<chuckle time>
This is kind of like a turtle saying to a rabbit: "Why bother racing
me, Mr. Rabbit? You know I'll just end up beating you by a mile."
(Does anybody really know if Walt The Kook ACTUALLY believes he has
defeated ANY LNer on this board [or any other board] with his make-
believe bullcrap? If he does, the word 'delusional' comes to mind
immediately.)
>>> "Brennan said he saw the gunman moving back and forth behind WINDOWS (plural) on the sixth floor." <<<
Lookie! Walt is skewing the evidence again! What a surprise!
Please provide a cite for your above lie, Walt-Kook.
>>> "Brennan was referring to the window where he had seen the LIGHT CLOTHING clad gunman BEFORE the motorcade's arrival. In his afidavit [sic] he DESCRIBED the window where he'd seen the WHITE CLOTHING clad gunman aiming the rifle AT THE TIME of the shooting. The ONLY window that matches his DESCRIPTION was at the WEST end of the sixth floor." <<<
I'm certainly not going to once again type out the actual evidence
that proves "Walt The Ultra-Mega-Kook" to be dead-wrong (as per
usual). We've been over this multiple times previously...and I've
totally demolished Walt's ridiculous "BRENNAN WAS DESCRIBING THE WEST-
END WINDOW" bullshit several times over.
If anyone wants to see the kook's theory ripped to shreds by the real
evidence and testimony in the case, you can check out the two links
below from March 2007:
SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
>>> "Hey Dumbass....The planted evidence was good enough to fool the suckers (as you readily demonstrate, by being a prime example)." <<<
Hey Kook! There's not a person in this asylum who doesn't realize that
you are one of the "Kings of Evidence-Mangling". You wear the title
like it was a badge of honor.
Go figure somebody actually being PROUD of performing the kind of
evidence-twisting Walt engages in, 24/7.
~shrugs at the thought~
David Von Pein
Just as I predicted.....more "make-believe kook-talk" from Wacky Walt:
>>> "Belin cleverly did NOT give him a photo of the TSBD that showed the entire south face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63; so Brennan was forced to depict the rifle angle on that cropped Tom Dillard photo." <<<
And was Belin GAGGING Brennan too? Was Brennan prohibited from saying:
"Mr. Belin, this is not the window with the gunman"?
It's obvious why Belin didn't need to use photos depicting any WEST-
side windows.....it's because there was nothing going on in those
windows at all, and therefore the west-end windows were meaningless as
far as Brennan's testimony was concerned. So Belin, naturally, used
this large blow-up of the Dillard picture, which (of course) shows in
zoomed form THE ONLY WINDOW WHERE BRENNAN SAW ANYONE ON 11/22/63....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0113b.htm
>>> "If you were just half as smart and superior as you think you are you would have had better sense than to post the link to CE 482...<snip>..." <<<
And if you get any kookier, Nurse Ratched will come a-callin' for ya.
>>> "Anybody who looks at CE 482 can clearly see that it would have been impossible for Oswald to fire from that window." <<<
<sigh> There's that word "impossible" again. CT-Kooks love that word.
<sigh>
>>> "Howard Brennan drew an arrow depicting the angle of the rifle as the gunman fired." <<<
Yep. And on CE482, the exact window from which Oswald was firing. Go
figure.
>>> "It a very easy task to slide that 45-degree angle line down, and try to make it fit with the Warren Commission's scenario of Oswald sitting on a box behind the window and resting his rifle on a stack of boxes in front of him, and find that it can't be done as the Warren Commission SPECULATED." <<<
Walt evidently (per his vast knowledge here) has gone up to the SN,
raised the window half-way, and then fired a Carcano rifle toward the
Underpass....and he has verified that Oswald's feat was "impossible".
(Kooks love that word.)
>>> "Thank you for making a fool of yourself once again." <<<
And thank you for being the best butt any joke ever had.
~tips cap~
>>> "Incidently, I do sincerely want to thank you for inadvertantly post{ing} a link to a photo that absolutely demolishes the Warren Commission's THEORY that Lee Oswald was guilty, and he fired from that window to kill President Kennedy." <<<
<chuckles warmly at the idiocy of above statement>
And you, yourself, are incapable of posting links to pictures and
sites and articles, right? Weird.
Note how Walt, in true kook fashion, labels one photo as proof that
the WC scenario is "demolished". Of course just HOW the Dillard photo
"demolishes" the LN scenario is a mystery. But Walt KNOWS. That's what
counts....a kook KNOWS that Lee is innocent! He KNOWS!
Even though multiple people saw a rifle sticking out of that window
seen in CE482, and shells were below that very window, and Oswald's
prints were all over the nest (plus bag), and Oswald is seen at that
window, and Oz's bullets are IN THE LIMO and IN THE HOSPITAL --- this
(in a kook's world) adds up to:
A TOTALLY-DEMOLISHED THEORY BY WAY OF THIS IMAGE:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0113b.htm
It is now time (officially) to call for Nurse Ratched. ....
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Drama/Drama/OneFlewRatched2.jpg
>>> "...If you goggle [sic; LOL added; I might need "goggles" for this; that shit COULD be dangerous to my eyeballs!] back about ten years you may get a shock." <<<
You mean I might see some stuff posted by Walt that ISN'T full of
kookshit??! (Because that's the only way you'll shock me at this stage
of the game.)
BTW, once more (for effect)....the following exchange between Belin &
Brennan "absolutely demolishes" Walt-Kook's Brennan theory:
BELIN -- "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?"
BRENNAN -- "Not on that floor. There was no other person on that floor
that ever came to the window that I noticed. There were people on the
next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In
particular, I only remember two that I identified."
===============
NEXT ON "THE KOOK CHANNEL" --- WALT DECLARES BRENNAN TOTALLY BLIND AS
OF 11/22/63!! AND WALT CAN PROVE IT!! DETAILS AT 10!!
David Von Pein
March 2007
(Re-Post)
David Von Pein
"twisted" testimony that's needed from the lone "I Saw Oswald"
witness.....when all the Patsy Plotters needed to do is to "plant" a
couple of "fake" witnesses in Dealey Plaza, and then have these
witnesses rush to the police just after the shooting and give some
very good "Oswald" details re. the man they say they saw firing a gun
in the SN.
The WC would surely have called these regular citizens to
testify...right?
Voila!
Proof via TWO eyewitnesses (maybe more, if you want still more plants)
that Oswald was the killer!
Why didn't the plotters think of that?
They must have been too busy thinking of ways to justify going forward
with a MULTI-SHOOTER, ONE-PATSY plot in the first place, huh? (That
would have given me a migraine too, if I'd been on the Patsy-Framing
Team of goofballs who dreamed up that pre-11/22 scheme.)
David Von Pein
>>> "Patrick Dean quite possibly let Jack Ruby in to kill Oswald." <<<
Typical CT-Kook mentality -- i.e., ACCUSE NOW, PROVE NEVER.
REPRISE:
>>> "Patrick Dean quite possibly let Jack Ruby in to kill Oswald." <<<
Watch the following video (in which Patrick Dean, on live TV, within
minutes of Oswald's murder, admits to having previously known Jack
Ruby), and then try to convince yourself that DPD Sergeant Patrick
Dean "let Jack Ruby in [to the basement] to kill Oswald":
http://media.myfoxdfw.com/JFKvideo/video/jfk023.html
Would Dean ADMIT on live television that he personally knew Jack Ruby
if he (Dean) had just committed the immensely-incriminating
conspiratorial act of letting Ruby enter the basement?
If your answer is "Yes", you'll pardon me if I vigorously disagree
with that silly assessment of the Dean/Ruby situation.
David Von Pein
>>> "In many ways, the paper bag is to the Kennedy case what the "glove" was to the O.J. case. A jury could read it either way. The bag could very well have set Oswald free." <<<
What an incredibly-idiotic statement this is.
In reality, of course, the exact OPPOSITE of what Pat Speer says is
true. That empty brown paper bag, found in the Sniper's Nest with two
of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it, is extremely powerful
circumstantial (physical) evidence of Oswald's guilt.
In fact, it's one of THE most important pieces of evidence against
Oswald, because it puts Oswald's own hands (via his prints) on an
object that had no logical and INNOCENT reason for being where it was
found just after the assassination.
I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT
brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON
IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?
Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J.
Simpson DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was
found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the
very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in
Lee Oswald's hands on the morning of 11/22/63.
I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted
explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper
bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which
was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place
where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's
Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's
window on November 22nd.
I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
assassination of JFK....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.
Can you?
(Yeah, I know....the kooks will merely brush off this evidence by
saying "It's a fake". That's the typical CTer mantra. Too bad they
can't prove it. Never have. Never will.)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb8cfb984a9b889c
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "In many ways, the paper bag is to the Kennedy case what the "glove" was to the O.J. case. A jury could read it either way. The bag could very well have set Oswald free." <<<
"What an incredibly-idiotic statement this is."
It sure is, especially when one considers there is NO physical
evidence, NO proof and NO eyewitness testimony showing LHO shot JFK
(and JDT)!!! Why do we (normal thinking people, but in DVP's warped
mind - CTers) need an invisible bag to show LHO did not do this crime?
"In reality, of course, the exact OPPOSITE of what Pat Speer says is
true. That empty brown paper bag, found in the Sniper's Nest with two
of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it, is extremely powerful
circumstantial (physical) evidence of Oswald's guilt."
How does Dave prove it was found in the Sniper's Nest? Hint: He CAN'T
since no first on the scene cop saw it, it is NOT listed on the
inventory of items found in the SN, and there is NO photo of it where
it was alleged to be found. We are asked to "trust" a dotted line
instead.
The bag manufactured by the authorities, and this is the ONLY logical
conclusion since the WC could NEVER prove when, where and how LHO made
this alleged bag, had two alleged LHO's prints on it, but this in and
of itself is highly suspicioius as the WC claimed LHO carried it from
his house to the Randles, put it in the car, picked it back up and
carried it into the TSBD (with NO ONE ever seeing this), set it
somewhere until the time was right, then picked it up again, removed
the oily rifle (with none of the oil on the bag by the way), FOLDED
the bag and set it down. Now how do we ONLY have two partial prints
out of all of this touching? Sounds like the fictitious two alleged
prints found on the SN boxes when he would have had to move 25 boxes
and yet ony two partials are found on TWO boxes. Wait, you say others
may have moved them prior since they were redoing the floor, good
point, but the problem is NO OTHER PERSON'S PRINTS WERE FOUND ON THE
BOXES (except for LBJ's fixit man - Malcolm Wallace). Does this sound
rational to anyone beyond Dave?
"In fact, it's one of THE most important pieces of evidence against
Oswald, because it puts Oswald's own hands (via his prints) on an
object that had no logical and INNOCENT reason for being where it was
found just after the assassination."
To bad you can't prove this bag existed in the first place, and you
can't prove the alleged murder weapon was ever INSIDE IT. See, Dave
has many problems in regards to the bag. In ADDITION to the fact the
WC could NEVER prove when, where and how the bag was made, and by
whom, they had a few other small details to deal with as well. One
SMALL problem was NONE of the cops who were first on the scene, and
the cop who discovered the SN, saw a bag of any kind. This lead to a
couple of other 'small' problems, chiefly since no one 'saw' the bag
they failed to list it on the inventory list of items recovered from
the alleged assassination position. This 'small' problem led to the
issue that none of the 13 pictures taken of the SN showed the alleged
bag in place, but they recitfied this issue with a dotted line!!!!
Another 'small' problem for the WC was their ONLY two witnesses who
claimed to see the bag, Wes Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, disagree on
the size of the bag, but BOTH agree it is not longer than 28 inches!
This doesn't cut it as a disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano needs at
least a 35 inch bag to fully hide the rifle inside. There is the
'small' problem of their mother staying with them, Essie Mae Williams,
and she told the FBI she never saw any bag with LHO.
"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT
brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON
IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?"
I wonder what the odds are of a man who picked up and put down a bag
repeatedly ONLY having two alleged prints on it are?
"Care to guess at what those odds might be?"
Ready when you are.
"They must be close to "O.J. Simpson DNA" type numbers (in favor of
the empty own bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the
Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and
Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Oswald's hands on the morning of
11/22/63."
Another small problem for the WC was trying to get Linnie Mae's story
straight, as she kept changing how and when she witnessed this "bag".
Of course her mom saw NO bag.
"I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted
explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper
bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which
was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place
where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's
Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's
window on November 22nd."
The logical answer is because NONE of this is true, or at least proven
to be true by the WC. You are assuming things to be true when the WC
failed to prove any of this stuff happening. From what was put forth
by them there is NO bag, therefore, the rifle was NEVER inside it, and
there were NO prints on it.
"I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
assassination of JFK....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it."
Of course you can't because you accept things to be true when they
were NEVER proven to be so. How gullible and dishonest this is.
"Can you?"
IF one is honest and considers the things put forth by the WC were
NEVER proven to have occured it is quite easy to consider other
options. Why you accept UNPROVEN assertions is a better question.
What is your motive?
"(Yeah, I know....the kooks will merely brush off this evidence by
saying "It's a fake". That's the typical CTer mantra. Too bad they
can't prove it. Never have. Never will.)"
Don't NEED to say it is fake, that would give validity to the WC's
assertions, but instead the better statement is why could they NEVER
get the police and eyewitnesses to even agree with their assertions?
Let alone PROVE them.