Are CT's just ignorant, liars or both?
YoHarvey
LHO never stood trial; hence, he is NOT guilty of killing JFK.
I asked "if LHO had committed suicide, based on the actual evidence,
would LHO be guilty?
No response of course. They run and hide again.
The point is, must one stand trial to be guilty?
Of course not. Were the two teens who killed students at Columbine HS
innocent?
Was the killer of people at Virginia Tech also innocent?
Does a murderer have to commit suicide to be considered guilty?
CT's are a desperate group. They will ignore evidence. They will
change evidence. They will lie, lie and lie some more because they
NEED conspiracy. And now, they try to tell intelligent people that
UNLESS the suspect stands trial, he/she is innocent.
Loons. Every single one of them.
MSwanberg
I'm not sure exactly what your point here is...
There is a grand gulf between "guilty by deed" and "guilt in the eyes
of the law."
When speaking of guilt by law, this nation has a little phrase that
gets (over-)used: "innocent until proven guilty." That proof takes
place in courts of law.
So, by this line of reasoning, LHO was never proved guilty in a trial
by his peers, so by law he is still innocent.
To my knowledge, he has never had the opportunity to defend himself to/
against his accusors, and has only been "judged" as guilty in
committees that are not under oath and have no legal bearing on the
case. As such, to declare that LHO is guilty simply because the WC
says he is is a HUGE violation of his civil rights.
How would you feel if you were accused of something, never had a
chance to defend yourself, and your entire life was turned upside-down
because of your "conviction" only in the eyes of the public? You'd
feel victimized, wouldn't you?
I have a friend who, at one time, had a psycho girlfriend. This
girlfriend had my friend arrested on claims that he was abusive toward
her. Now, my friend had his day in court and was exonerated. But
imagine if he were denied a trial. Imagine if he were imprisoned
solely due to the girlfriend's word. Is there any justice there? Is
he guilty?
I am a CT, and I will not say that LHO was totally innocent (by deed)
of the events of 11/22/63. Regardless of whether he held a rifle and
pulled a trigger on that day, he obviously had a lot of shady dealings
in and around the event. And, if as most CTers believe, he fled
because he realized he was being made the patsy, then there is
foreknowledge there as well, of which any right-thinking individual
can conclude that he'd had dealings with people that he could readily
connect, in his own mind, to the events unfolding around him at the
time. So, I think it is obvious that LHO was, at the very minimum,
somewhat shady and somehow inexorably connected to the assassination.
Now, it is possible, as many have theorized, that LHO was working
undercover, perhaps to expose the would-be assassins. There is an
unlikelihood there in that, if it's true, he should/would have exposed
the ring before the shooting (one would hope). Of course, there is
also the idea that his handler(s) was/were part of the ring itself, so
he may have been informing to the very people he was informing on.
But to answer your question, I think it's a grand leap of logic to
point a finger at someone who understands the difference between
"guilt by deed" and "guilt in the eyes of the law" and say they're
nuts simply because they see the distinction. I believe that's called
a non sequitur.
-Mike
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
How would you feel if you were accused of something, never had a
chance to defend yourself, and your entire life was turned upside-
down
because of your "conviction" only in the eyes of the public? You'd
feel victimized, wouldn't you?
Typical, typical CT rhetoric. Meaning, it means nothing. I began
this thread not to discuss the American judicial system but to point
out flaws in CT thinking. I thank you for your contribution.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd477fdc-5fe1-4d8a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yop(Momma)Harvey wrote;
Typical, typical CT rhetoric. Meaning, it means nothing. I began
this thread not to discuss the American judicial system but to point
out flaws in CT thinking. I thank you for your contribution.
I write;
YHo(Momma)Harvey "ALWAYS" RUNS from his own evidence/testimony.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSwanberg
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sorry... are you saying that "innocent until proven guilty" is
somehow a bad thing? Are you also intimating that the cornerstone of
our judicial system is typical of CT rhetoric?
The point is that one can make a point for calling anyone guilty or
innocent, and they would be 100% correct from some viewpoint. It's an
immaterial argument. Purely.
I really like to come to this site and lurk (and sometimes post
questions or my viewpoints) because I want to learn. I will be the
first to admit I know squat about the case. I know far more than the
average bear, but I don't study it like the most-vocal handful of you
all on this site (the time constraints of a job and the pursuit of an
active sex-life preclude me spending lots of time on this). As such,
I really hate the namecalling and nonsensical B.S. that pretty much
every thread herein degenerates into.
So when you went on a tirade because someone might have implied that
"not having a trial" means "innocent, because not proven guilty", well
I wanted to try and clear up the matter, at least as far as I'm
concerned.
In the end, it's just an opinion. If you want to call him guilty and
someone else wants to call him innocent, who cares? That's just
opinion that's specific to a certain point of view. Totally
meaningless.
So could we please discuss the facts and ideas about the JFK
assassination, and just let people formulate their own opinions?
Thanks,
-Mike
aeffects
On this board one general thought stands out amongst the rest: the
Lone Nut case against LHO and the SBT is on very shakey ground. Hence,
the rabid lone nut defense.
There is much to learn from the 45 questions and 16 smoking guns
series...
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sorry... are you saying that "innocent until proven guilty" is
somehow a bad thing? Are you also intimating that the cornerstone of
our judicial system is typical of CT rhetoric?
No. I'm stating that one doesn't not have to have a trial TO BE
GUILTY.
MSwanberg
completely subject to opinion and point-of-view, not to mention a lack
of common definition of "guilty".
I think if you said, "one doesn't have to stand trial to have been
factually engaged in the illegal and/or illicit acts that one is said
to have perpetrated", then there would be little debate to your point.
The term "guilt" or "guilty" can have so many meanings.
-Mike
tomnln
RIGHT;
A Trial is NEEDED to PROVE that "guilt"...
(with the "Adversary Procedure".)
robcap...@netscape.com
"Robcap says:
"LHO never stood trial; hence, he is NOT guilty of killing JFK."
That AND the small matter of you having NO proof or evidence of his
guilt.
"I asked "if LHO had committed suicide, based on the actual evidence,
would LHO be guilty?"
The matter in which he died has NO bearing on whether he was guilty or
not. I thought you couldn't amaze me anymore with your ignorance, but
I was wrong.
"No response of course. They run and hide again."
I didn't see it, and since you post like 100 or more times a day (and
NONE of them discuss evidence) who could blame me?
"The point is, must one stand trial to be guilty?"
Yes!! Does your ignorance show no bounds? In a murder case most
certainly, in the case of who stole your brain, no perhaps we can just
point fingers.
"Of course not. Were the two teens who killed students at Columbine
HS innocent?"
They were caught in the act, was LHO? Of course not.
"Was the killer of people at Virginia Tech also innocent?"
He was also seen doing the crimes.
"Does a murderer have to commit suicide to be considered guilty?"
No, but he has to be shown to be guilty in a court of law, or have the
phyisical evidence show beyond all doubt it was him/her. Both things
were never accomplished against LHO.
"CT's are a desperate group. They will ignore evidence. They will
change evidence. They will lie, lie and lie some more because they
NEED conspiracy. And now, they try to tell intelligent people that
UNLESS the suspect stands trial, he/she is innocent."
The only ones ingoring evidence is LNers since they never discuss it.
No one needs conspiracy, what a dufus. You have to prove someone is
guilty of murder, you can't just claim it.
"Loons. Every single one of them."
Like he would know.
aeffects
especially for those with fascist bent...
> -Mike
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, but he has to be shown to be guilty in a court of law, or have
the
phyisical evidence show beyond all doubt it was him/her. Both things
were never accomplished against LHO.
Since ALL physical evidence in this case shows LHO to be GUILTY,
the only question remaining is: Was somebody behind the killing?
There is NO evidence to support such a theory. None. Zero. Zilch.
And that's my point. A case this extraordinary requires extraordinary
evidence. No such evidence exists; hence, the case after 44 years
has never been reopened. Speculation (as on this board), innuendo
and conjecture is NOT evidence. Nor, is motive.
Gil Jesus
>
> Since ALL physical evidence in this case shows LHO to be GUILTY,
>
The "evidence" was tampered with. Oswald was framed. They didn't have
enough on him so he was killed before he could go to trial.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
Nor is it true that "ALL physical evidence in this case shows LHO to be GUILTY",
indeed, there is physical evidence that is exculpatory - such as the paraffin
test, or the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray - or the autopsy
report, which corroborates the dozens of eyewitnesses to a large BOH wound, and
contradicts the BOH photo... or the photo take showing a bullet being retrieved
out of the grass... or the Z-film. Indeed - there's much to show conspiracy,
and much to show that Oswald was exactly what he claimed... a patsy.
Walt
"Now, it is possible, as many have theorized, that LHO was working
undercover, perhaps to expose the would-be assassins. There is an
unlikelihood there in that, if it's true, he should/would have
exposed
the ring before the shooting (one would hope). Of course, there is
also the idea that his handler(s) was/were part of the ring itself,
so
he may have been informing to the very people he was informing on."
Mike, I believe Oswald DID try to thwart the plot..... That's what
the note was about that he left at the Dallas FBI office for Hosty on
Wednesday 11 /20/63. I suspect that when Oswald saw those rifles in
Roy Truly's office on Wednesday 11/20 /63, he wanted to speak to Hosty
face to face and left Hosty a note that he thought would bring Hosty
looking for him.
Hosty ignored the note and that's why Oswald was so angry with Hosty
and the FBI when Hosty entered Captain Fritz office when Oswald was
being interrogated. Since Oswald didn't want to blow his cover as an
agent he didn't come right out and accuse Hosty of negligence, HOWEVER
one of the very first items to appear on the scribbled notes of the
interrogation is the rifles in Mr truly's office.
I believe the FBI had gotten a hint that there were men working at the
TSBD who hated JFK and could possibly be plotting an assassination.
Hence LHO was assigned to snoop around to see what he could find out.
I don't know if you know Richard Case Nagell's story...but te too got
the shaft, and ended up in the Federal prison and nut house in
Springfield Mo. because he tried to thwart the assassination.
> But to answer your question, I think it's a grand leap of logic to
> point a finger at someone who understands the difference between
> "guilt by deed" and "guilt in the eyes of the law" and say they're
> nuts simply because they see the distinction. I believe that's called
> a non sequitur.
>
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Man, I love science fiction!!!
Walt
The yo yo clapped his little hands and yelled.... "Man, I love science
fiction!!!"
You didn't need to tell us that little guy..... We were aware that you
like fiction, because you love the story put out by J. Edna Hoover,
and rubber stamped by Warren Commission.
YoHarvey
Walt? With your intellect, explain to this NG why NO investigation
has been reopened as you believe there is so much evidence to
present. Try and do it in an intelligent, articulate, coherent way.
In other words, avoid imput from other CT's. This science fiction
could rival Rod Serling!
aeffects
you really need to mine elsewhere, Bailey. Trolling alt.conspiracy.jfk
all these years has to be tough on your mental faculties. We've been
aware for a longtime the WHY'S of why your here. Are YOU aware? You're
just not making any progress, are ya son?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Nicole Simpson could well ask the same question of you...
YoHarvey
> In article <baeb6e32-f5c3-424a-b7ab-a399bc9f3...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I ask Walt a direct question....what happens?? Walt ignores it and
two other morons ask questions totally irrelevent to the question Walt
runs from. Anybody surprised? lol
Walt
Are you nuts???..... How would the government benefit from revealing
that they have lied to us and treated us like addled brained children
all these years???
Do you think the government wants to maintain control over the
populace?? Unless yer a total lunatic you have to know that the
primary function of any government is to control the citizens to avoid
anarchy.
What do you think would happen if the government were to step up and
say....."Well yes we have been lying to you about the murder of
President Kennedy. We've known all along that Hoover and Johnson
conspired to assassinate JFK ( we don't use the term "murder", it has
such a nasty ring to it) but we knew that you peasants couldn't handle
the truth, so in the interest of "national security" ( and our highly
respected and highly paid positions) we thought it was for your own
good that we supported, and perpetrated, Hoover's lie."
Are you really so obtuse and naive that you can't understand that such
a revelation would shake this nation to it's very foundations.
What the arrogant, ignorant, bastards don't understand is that they
are only making matters worse and prolonging the inevitable. My
religion teaches that... the truth will prevail. I believe that, and
therefore I believe it's just a matter of time before the citizens get
fed up with the lyin bastards in government and clean house.
Try and do it in an intelligent, articulate, coherent way.
> In other words, avoid imput from other CT's. This science fiction
> could rival Rod Serling!- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Walt didn't ignore it...... Walt's been busy. Do you think I should
monitor the NG 24 hours a day and then jump when a question is asked
of me??
You can forget that, Bubba..... I've got other things to do.
and
> two other morons ask questions totally irrelevent to the question Walt
> runs from. Anybody surprised? lol- Hide quoted text -
YoHarvey
I guess the WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission and all the
experts NOT connected to the government have all been lying. Hundreds
of people apparently. 18-19 forensic pathologists included. Tell ya
what Walt, you are the poster boy for everything screwey about CT's.
Loons!
aeffects
good of you to finally notice... I've been doing same for the past 5
years. You're offended, now? LMFAO
Walt
Hey Dumbass.... All of those people are smart enough to know the
ramifications of telling the American people that Hoover, and Johnson,
were no better than Himmler and Hitler.
Are you really so obtuse that you can't see that nobody with any
authority wants to be the one to pull the curtain down and show the
American people what they've been hiding behind it all these years.
Tell ya
> what Walt, you are the poster boy for everything screwey about CT's.
> Loons!- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
>
> Tell ya what Walt, you are the poster boy for everything screwey about CT's.
> > Loons!-
YoLarvae supports lies because YoLarvae is a liar.
THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR KNOWN AS YOHARVEY
1.It was YoHarvey, under the screenname baileynme who claimed that the
Oswald rifle had no scope when found. Baileynme-spiffy-YoHarvey wrote:
"The scope was NOT on the MC when it was found. It was laying
alongside the weapon."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e3aedb4b219289ad
But a photo of Lt. Day in the TSBD picking the rifle up by the strap
SHOWS a scope ATTACHED:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1Lw8sYt--F*VUv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
YOHARVEY AS A SNEAK
2. he/she tried to infiltrate JFKconspiracy under a different
screenname
YOHARVEY AS AN IDIOT
3. he/she claimed that Operation White Star began in Cambodia in 1962,
when in fact it began in Laos in 1958 and ended with the Declaration
of Neutrality in 1962
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f1e7c24a013b01d0
at which time I corrected his/her lack of historical knowledge
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fc6cacfb427769c5
YOHARVEY AS A LIAR
4. he/she posted a false "letter" and attributed the author as my
third grade teacher, who claimed to have me in her class at a time
when I was in kindergarten, proving himself/herself once again as a
liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f6f846cc8f05f54
YOHARVEY AS A SNEAK
5. posted an article by Dave Reitzes
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100custody.html
as his own without giving Reitzes any credit
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/293de06a42d2729e
YOHARVEY AS AN IDIOT
6. Then he/she perpetrated a falsehood that:: " In the mid 1950's Lee
Oswald spoke about killing an American President. Palmer MacBride
testified to the WC, in 1956 he befriended Oswald and they often
discussed politics. MacBride said that one central theme discussed was
the "exploitation of the working class" and one one occassion after
they began discussing President Eisenhower, Oswald made a statement
that he would like to kill the President because he was exploiting the
working class.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/275a8c64ca997ce4
but in fact: McBride's affidavit given to the FBI alleged that Oswald
made the statement in "late 1957 or early 1958", not in 1956 as
YoHarvey claimed. The 1957-58 timeframe conflicted with Marine records
that clearly showed that Oswald was in Japan at that time.
http://www.jfkresearch.com/jfk_101.html
YOHARVEY AS A LIAR
7. In one post YoHarvey calls the Education Forum the "research
community"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/48acfed5de8ec2ac
then he refers to it as a "demented group of misfits"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f100f49279807b0e
in another post he refers to it as "major kook central"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/605057d1f9873de2
YOHARVEY AS A LIAR
8. YoHarvey lied when he/she said that I was arrested in March 1994
for not paying a cable TV bill. He/she would like the reader to
believe that the theft of cable TV would go on for 2 or 3 years
without their knowing. He/she provides no evidence to support this
charge except his say so. No links to any police records, court
records, newspaper accounts of the theft. No links. No info.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/515311a1bd65759b
YOHARVEY AS A LIAR
9. YoHarvey lied when he said that I believed that Santos Trafficante
meant that JFK was going to be hit by Jackie because she found a bra
under JFK's pillow. I never said that. YOHARVEY DID THEN ATTRIBUTED IT
TO ME!! Here's the link to YoLarvae's ridiculous post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aeddd4f800150a44
and my response was:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8140300091f92867
YOHARVEY AS A LIAR
10. YoHarvey claimed that I said that Connally shot JFK. The post that
was cited is here.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd783b571f900c24
But as the post shows, I didn't actually say it. In fact, if you do a
search of this newsgroup of the phrase "Connally shot JFK", you'll
find that most, if not all of the posts were made by the trolls and
that I never actually said any such thing. I put to rest any notion
that I ever actually said any such thing here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25bc946d919d2937
causing another round of troll tears.
11. YOHARVEY AS A LIAR
YoHarvey produces a fake newspaper story that claims that I was being
questioned for killing JFK, even though I was only 9 when he was
murdered.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d202c8da08ea114f
YoHarvey/justme1952 makes up LIES as he/she goes along...like these:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc526ae91bd97331
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/54b99cbd78e1b516
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c31913883d98d97a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22423b43ea270314
Not only is he/she a liar, he/she admits to living a lie:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d8a4e3914459a3e9
ANTICHRIST YOHARVEY POKING FUN OF THE CRUCIFIXION
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3e955da36f61d10f
Given his/her propensity for being a sneak, an idiot and lying, can we
believe ANYTHING YoHarvey/baileynme/spiffy says ?
tomnln
Your Dedication to the Warren Report proves that.
Walt
> In article <f334cc7d-5346-4909-8342-edd380aa8...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 18, 6:55=EF=BF=BDpm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Since ALL physical evidence in this case shows LHO to be GUILTY,
>
> >The "evidence" was tampered with. Oswald was framed. They didn't have
> >enough on him so he was killed before he could go to trial.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
Nor is it true that "ALL physical evidence in this case shows LHO to
be GUILTY",
Actually there is No ( none, zero) physical evidence that shows Oswald
to be guilty. There are a couple of items of physical evidence that
SEEM to be incriminating....... but NONE that show him to be guilty.
This is the very reason that I believe the Warren Report is a lie.
The ONLY thing that comes to mind as incriminating is his staying in
the lunchroom while 99% of the people in the building went outside to
see the President pass by. As far as I've been able to determine
Oswald was one of two men who claimed he did not see the President
pass by and showed no interest in watching the President pass by.
( The Altgen's photo "may" show that Oswald was lying about having no
interest in seeing JFK pass by)
If Oswald did NOT go to the step to the front door for 30 seconds when
JFK passed by and did in fact remain in the lunchroom, then that
action is unnatural and somewhat suspictious. However the other
man, Jack Dougherty, who claimed he didn't see JFK as he passed by was
much nearer the sixth floor when Baker and Truly encountered him just
seconds after the shooting.
Why wasn't Dougherty considered equally suspect??
David Von Pein
That's because Walt looks at this case through Kook Glasses.
Anybody who has looked at this case thoroughly who can utter the
absurd comment Walt just spewed should start looking into another
murder case...because it's pretty obvious that he's getting noplace
(fast) with his JFK "investigation". <chuckle>
>>> "The ONLY thing that comes to mind as incriminating is his staying in the lunchroom while 99% of the people in the building went outside to see the President pass by. As far as I've been able to determine Oswald was one of two men who claimed he did not see the President pass by and showed no interest in watching the President pass by. (The Altgen's photo "may" show that Oswald was lying about having no interest in seeing JFK pass by)." <<<
<LOL uproar!>
Out of all the many items on the huge laundry list of stuff that Walt
could have chosen (such as the bullets, the gun, the shells, the
fingerprints, the paper bag, the fibers, the Thursday trip to Irving,
the Tippit "encounter", the Texas Theater scuffle and attempted murder
of more policemen, etc.)...Walt decides that the ONLY thing that even
remotely points (in any way!) to Lee Oswald's guilt is the fact that
LHO (per Walt's skewed CT version of things, which, of course, is
being based on Oswald's own lies) didn't have any desire to go outside
and see JFK on November 22.
<additional LOL uproar required here>
And then we get a tired, worn-out theory being propped up (at least
partially) by Walt The Idiot -- The Doorway Man crappola once more.
Lovely.
Keep going Walt....you'll probably have Oswald 500 miles from Dealey
Plaza pretty soon....such is your fantasy-prone mind.
>>> "If Oswald did NOT go to the step to the front door for 30 seconds when JFK passed by and did in fact remain in the lunchroom, then that action is unnatural and somewhat suspictious [sic]." <<<
But the fact that Oswald was SEEN pulling the trigger from the sixth
floor isn't to be considered "suspicious", is it Walt?
Not to mention the later murder that Oz committed on Tenth
Street...which SHOULD make anybody think twice about wanting to
exonerate LHO for JFK's slaying...but to kooks like Walt, THAT murder
too must not have ANY evidence linking Oswald to it at all. Right, Mr.
Kook?
And the fact that the sixth floor was literally littered with "OSWALD
WAS HERE FIRING A GUN!" type of evidence isn't to be considered a clue
as to who did it either...is it Walter?
Is it any wonder why Walt has been stuck in the mud for decades when
it comes to figuring out who committed these crimes?
BTW, Walt, if Oswald was on the steps at 12:30, what's your
explanation for him going BACK INTO the Depository and up one flight
to the second floor to buy a Coke within 2 minutes of just having
witnessed the President being shot (with Oswald being "Doorway Man"
per this nutsville theory that even Mr. Garrison was still trying to
push as late as 1967, three years after the whole matter was cleared
up by Billy Lovelady's WC testimony)?
Doesn't it seem a tad odd to want to leave the scene of this murder
(which occurred literally just a few seconds earlier) and go back
inside to get a Coke at that precise moment in time? Or maybe some
CTers now want to invent another theory and say that LHO wasn't
encountered on the second floor by Baker, Truly, and Reid at all on
November 22nd.
Maybe a CTer has purported such a fantasy theory, I'm not sure. But it
sure sounds like something Walt might be able to embrace too. After
all, when you live in a world of fairy tales and never-could-have-
happened "Patsy Plots" all your adult life, it's probably fairly easy
to adjust to pretty much ANY additional hunk of CT tripe that comes
along (like John Armstrong's "multiple Oswalds", for example).
>>> "However the other man, Jack Dougherty, who claimed he didn't see JFK as he passed by was much nearer the sixth floor when Baker and Truly encountered him just seconds after the shooting. Why wasn't Dougherty considered equally suspect?" <<<
Could it possibly be because it wasn't Dougherty's gun and shells
found on the 6th Floor?
And it wasn't Dougherty's prints that were all over stuff in the SN
(bag, boxes) where the killer was located.
And it wasn't Dougherty who was SEEN pulling the trigger at 12:30.
It was Oswald who fits into all those above niches....the same "patsy"
whom Walt The Mega-Kook just made this asinine statement about ---
"There is no physical evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty."
Sounds like Walt and Robby have been comparing kook notes.
Gil Jesus
> That's because Walt looks at this case through Kook Glasses.
> Walt's skewed CT version of things,
Walt The Idiot
..but to kooks like Walt,
Right, Mr.
> Kook?
Walt The Mega-Kook
> Sounds like Walt and Robby have been comparing kook notes.
You really can't discuss the case without insulting people can you Von
Pein ?
You're a real piece of troll shit.
David Von Pein
>>> "You really can't discuss the case without insulting people can you Von Pein?" <<<
As if Walt and his latest laughable quote--"There is no physical
evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty"--deserve anything BUT
insults.
But, Gil will no doubt support and back up anybody who is also a
member of the Anybody-But-Oz clique. Right, Jesus?
>>> "You're a real piece of troll shit." <<<
I feel sorry for Gil....being stuck with a heavenly last name like his
and having to be the super-moron and asswipe that he is. (Not to
mention being a kook who fully supports and stands behind a double-
murderer.)
Pitiable.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You really can't discuss the case without insulting people can you Von Pein?" <<<
"As if Walt and his latest laughable quote--"There is no physical
evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty"--deserve anything BUT
insults."
There is NONE, and Dave confirms it by NOT listing ANY! The WC
couldn't produce anything remotely close to showing LHO's guilt in
terms of shooting JFK or JDT.
"But, Gil will no doubt support and back up anybody who is also a
member of the Anybody-But-Oz clique. Right, Jesus?"
Even his digs make NO sense. OF course we are "Anbody But Oswald"
people as the government, through the Warren Commission, supposedly
studied the case for 9 months and then published a report showing
their theory of events. The sub-theories that makeup their main
theory of a single gunman (Oswald) killing JFK and JDT has been proven
to be totally false. They failed to produce any real evidence, proof
and motive to support their theory. Therefore, it has to be "Anybody
But Oswald" as he was shown to be innocent of the shooting by the same
Commission that was proposing his guilt.
David Von Pein
Just when you thought Robby couldn't slide any further into the land
of the absurd, we're treated to this gem:
"He [Prince Oz of Patsyville] was shown to be innocent of the
shooting by the same Commission that was proposing his guilt."
Nice job, kook Robert.
Next week's theory -- OSWALD WAS BORN BLIND, and therefore could not
possibly have intentionally killed anybody with a rifle on Nov. 22 or
any other day.
Kook Addendum:
I heard a good one from Walt Brown on Black Op Radio last week ---
Walt thinks it was impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have learned to
speak Russian.
Imagine that. I guess Marina, Ruth Paine, Nelson Delgado, George and
Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and many other people must have been "in" on
the Great Patsy Plot in some way too.....because all of those people
heard Oswald speak Russian fairly well in the late 1950s and early
1960s--the same person (LHO) who Walt Brown says couldn't possibly
have learned Russian (due to his "asked/axed" slip of the tongue on TV
during the midnight press gathering).
Lovely theory indeed. It must have been yet another "imposter" who was
speaking Russian to Marina and Ruth, et al.
Well, that's just one more reason to distrust anything spouted by an
ABO CTer.
aeffects
> Just when you thought Robby couldn't slide any further into the land
> of the absurd, we're treated to this gem:
LMAO... its painfully obvious your need to editorialize and ad hom
every post contrary to your beloveds Reclaiming History.... bopw down
and grab dem ankles son.... papa Vince is coming home, eh? It's has
become an obsession, you're a painful second to Vince Bugliosi, when
you can't get out of a prediciment, whine about CT's...
Only problem there son is this -- we KNOW the evidence.... so there's
nop place to run, no place to hide.... now about those 45 questions
and 16 smoking guns, eh?
Don't become pathetic, David... we can handle you being dumb, I prefer
you go no further
robcap...@netscape.com
"Just when you thought Robby couldn't slide any further into the land
of the absurd, we're treated to this gem:"
I haven't started believing in the WCR!
"He [Prince Oz of Patsyville] was shown to be innocent of the
shooting by the same Commission that was proposing his guilt."
"Nice job, kook Robert."
Thanks Dave, I try.
"Next week's theory -- OSWALD WAS BORN BLIND, and therefore could not
possibly have intentionally killed anybody with a rifle on Nov. 22 or
any other day."
Makes as much sense as the WC's version of events.
"Kook Addendum:
I heard a good one from Walt Brown on Black Op Radio last week ---Walt
thinks it was impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have learned to
speak Russian."
It IS an extremely hard language to learn, and when you consider LHO's
poor background in education, it is hard to explain him learning
Russian and speaking it like a native (sans accent) per Marina.
"Imagine that. I guess Marina, Ruth Paine, Nelson Delgado, George and
Jeanne Mohrenschildt, and many other people must have been "in" on the
Great Patsy Plot in some way too.....because all of those people heard
Oswald speak Russian fairly well in the late 1950s and early 1960s--
the same person (LHO) who Walt Brown says couldn't possibly have
learned Russian (due to his "asked/axed" slip of the tongue on TV
during the midnight press gathering)."
He is alluding to the issue of a second LHO (i.e. Harvey who was born
in Russia) speaking this language.
"Lovely theory indeed. It must have been yet another "imposter" who
was speaking Russian to Marina and Ruth, et al."
No crazier than ANY of the WC theories.
"Well, that's just one more reason to distrust anything spouted by an
ABO CTer."
Sure, pointing out how hard Russian is to learn, and why a man like
LHO would need to learn it by the way, is really wacky.
Walt
> >>> "Actually there is No (none, zero) physical evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty. There are a couple of items of physical evidence that SEEM to be incriminating....but NONE that show him to be guilty." <<<
>
> That's because Walt looks at this case through Kook Glasses.
>
> Anybody who has looked at this case thoroughly who can utter the
> absurd comment Walt just spewed should start looking into another
> murder case...because it's pretty obvious that he's getting noplace
> (fast) with his JFK "investigation". <chuckle>
>
> >>> "The ONLY thing that comes to mind as incriminating is his staying in the lunchroom while 99% of the people in the building went outside to see the President pass by. As far as I've been able to determine Oswald was one of two men who claimed he did not see the President pass by and showed no interest in watching the President pass by. (The Altgen's photo "may" show that Oswald was lying about having no interest in seeing JFK pass by)." <<<
>
> <LOL uproar!>
>
Out of all the many items on the huge laundry list of stuff that Walt
could have chosen (such as the bullets, the gun, the shells, the
fingerprints, the paper bag, the fibers, the Thursday trip to Irving,
Bullets.... One 6.5mm bullet that appears to be in such nearly
pristine condition that it had to have been fired into a bullet trap
and recovered and planted at Parkland Hospital.
Only an unthinking sucker would accept that bullet as evidence of
anything but a framing of the patsy.
The gun.... Oswald was photographed (CE 133A) by his wife Marina
while holding a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle, similar
to the one found in the TSBD. HOWEVER the rifle in CE 133A is NOT
the same rifle that was found under a stack of boxes in the TSBD.
Only an unthinking sucker would accept that the rifle was evidence of
anything but the framing of the patsy.
The shells ..... A couple of spent 6.5mm Carcano shells were found
only inches from the spot where the Warren Commission THEORIZED the
shots had been fired from ( an impossible THEORY) If the shells had
been ejected by a person who was operating the bolt as fast as he
could the shells would have been flung several yards away from the
THEORIZED firing position. One of the shells had struck by the
firing pin at least twice, which indicates that it been used for "dry
firing" the rifle. One shell was dented at the open end of the case
So it could not have been fired that day. ( In fact that dented lip is
exactly what happens when a spent case is carelessly loaded into the
breech from the clip. The rifle is designed to load only full length 3
inch long loaded cartridges, and if a person attempts to load a spent
case which is only 2 inches long into the breech without guiding it
with their fingers the shell will hang and become dented on the lip
just as one of the shells that were planted behind the sixth floor
window was.
Only an unthinking sucker would accept those spent shells as evidence
of anything but the framing of the patsy.
Finger prints.... Since there were no finger prints found on the rifle
that proved that Oswald had ever handled that rifle only a sucker
would believe that non existant finger prints could be used as
anything but evidence of the framing of the patsy.
Paper bag.....There was never a bag found that had contained a rifle.
The FBI examined the bag that was SUSPECTED of being a "paper gun
case" and found not ONE IOTA of evidence to support that silly
notion. Only an unthinking sucker would accept that the bag was
evidence of anything but the framing of the patsy.
Fibers.... According to the FBI there were blanket fibers found on the
paper bag, but NO blanket fibers found on the rifle. A fool would
believe that the rifle could have been removed from the blanket and
shed ALL ALL of the fibers it had snagged while in the blanket into
the paper bag. (an utterly absurd idea)
The FACT that there were NO (NONE, ZERO, ZILCH) blanket fibers found
on the rifle is a very strong indication that the TSBD rifle is NOT
the rifle that was in the blanket in Paine's garage.
Only an unthiking sucker would accept that the fibers were evidence of
anything but the framing of the patsy.
Walt
wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "You really can't discuss the case without insulting people can you Von Pein?" <<<
>
> "As if Walt and his latest laughable quote--"There is no physical
> evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty"--deserve anything BUT
> insults."
>
> There is NONE, and Dave confirms it by NOT listing ANY! The WC
> couldn't produce anything remotely close to showing LHO's guilt in
> terms of shooting JFK or JDT.
That's absolutely right , Rob....... IF the Warren Commission had
backed up the tale with just a couple of pieces of solid irrefutable
evidence, we wouldn't be here arguing the case today ( at least I
wouldn't) If there was ANY ANY solid evidence that Oswald was the
assassin, I wouldn't waste my time trying to uncover evidence that he
was not the assassin.
There simply isn't even ONE single piece of evidence that can't be
refuted.
Walt
> >>> "Actually there is No (none, zero) physical evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty. There are a couple of items of physical evidence that SEEM to be incriminating....but NONE that show him to be guilty." <<<
>
> That's because Walt looks at this case through Kook Glasses.
>
> Anybody who has looked at this case thoroughly who can utter the
> absurd comment Walt just spewed should start looking into another
> murder case...because it's pretty obvious that he's getting noplace
> (fast) with his JFK "investigation". <chuckle>
>
> >>> "The ONLY thing that comes to mind as incriminating is his staying in the lunchroom while 99% of the people in the building went outside to see the President pass by. As far as I've been able to determine Oswald was one of two men who claimed he did not see the President pass by and showed no interest in watching the President pass by. (The Altgen's photo "may" show that Oswald was lying about having no interest in seeing JFK pass by)." <<<
>
> <LOL uproar!>
>
> Out of all the many items on the huge laundry list of stuff that Walt
> could have chosen (such as the bullets, the gun, the shells, the
> fingerprints, the paper bag, the fibers, the Thursday trip to Irving,
> the Tippit "encounter", the Texas Theater scuffle and attempted murder
> of more policemen, etc.)...Walt decides that the ONLY thing that even
> remotely points (in any way!) to Lee Oswald's guilt is the fact that
> LHO (per Walt's skewed CT version of things, which, of course, is
> being based on Oswald's own lies) didn't have any desire to go outside
> and see JFK on November 22.
>
> <additional LOL uproar required here>
>
And then we get a tired, worn-out theory being propped up (at least
partially) by Walt The Idiot -- The Doorway Man crappola once more.
Lovely.
Listen to me Pea Brain...... I said LISTEN.... I've got a single
question for you, and I'd like a straighforward single answer ( yeah,
I know the souls in hell would like a glass of ice water )...fat
chance that I'll get one from you... However ... Here's the
question....
How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the
doorway??
aeffects
this ought'a be interesting..
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Not really... my crystal ball is telling me that DVP will duck and run again.
Walt
> On 20 Apr, 09:47, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> "Actually there is No (none, zero) physical evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty. There are a couple of items of physical evidence that SEEM to be incriminating....but NONE that show him to be guilty." <<<
>
> > That's because Walt looks at this case through Kook Glasses.
>
> > Anybody who has looked at this case thoroughly who can utter the
> > absurd comment Walt just spewed should start looking into another
> > murder case...because it's pretty obvious that he's getting noplace
> > (fast) with his JFK "investigation". <chuckle>
>
> > >>> "The ONLY thing that comes to mind as incriminating is his staying in the lunchroom while 99% of the people in the building went outside to see the President pass by. As far as I've been able to determine Oswald was one of two men who claimed he did not see the President pass by and showed no interest in watching the President pass by. (The Altgen's photo "may" show that Oswald was lying about having no interest in seeing JFK pass by)." <<<
>
> > <LOL uproar!>
>
> > Out of all the many items on the huge laundry list of stuff that Walt
> > could have chosen (such as the bullets, the gun, the shells, the
> > fingerprints, the paper bag, the fibers, the Thursday trip to Irving,
> > the Tippit "encounter", the Texas Theater scuffle and attempted murder
> > of more policemen, etc.)...Walt decides that the ONLY thing that even
> > remotely points (in any way!) to Lee Oswald's guilt is the fact that
> > being based on Oswald's own lies) didn't have any desire to go outside
> > and see JFK on November 22.
>
> > <additional LOL uproar required here>
>
> And then we get a tired, worn-out theory being propped up (at least
> partially) by Walt The Idiot -- The Doorway Man crappola once more.
> Lovely.
>
> Listen to me Pea Brain...... I said LISTEN.... I've got a single
> question for you, and I'd like a straighforward single answer ( yeah,
> I know the souls in hell would like a glass of ice water )...fat
> chance that I'll get one from you... However ... Here's the
> question....
>
How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the
doorway??
How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the
doorway??
Well, What's the answer Pea Brain??
> > to adjust to pretty much ANY additional hunk ofCTtripe that comes
> > along (like John Armstrong's "multiple Oswalds", for example).
>
> > >>> "However the other man, Jack Dougherty, who claimed he didn't see JFK as he passed by was much nearer the sixth floor when Baker and Truly encountered him just seconds after the shooting. Why wasn't Dougherty considered equally suspect?" <<<
>
> > Could it possibly be because it wasn't Dougherty's gun and shells
> > found on the 6th Floor?
>
> > And it wasn't Dougherty's prints that were all over stuff in the SN
> > (bag, boxes) where the killer was located.
>
> > And it wasn't Dougherty who was SEEN pulling the trigger at 12:30.
>
> > It was Oswald who fits into all those above niches....the same "patsy"
> > whom Walt The Mega-Kook just made this asinine statement about ---
> > "There is no physical evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty."
>
> > Sounds like Walt and Robby have been comparing kook notes.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the doorway??" <<<
As usual, an 'ABO' Kook can't even figure out the super-easy ones.
Walt, of course, surely knows about the following WC testimony, but I
guess he's decided to ignore it (or mangle it), like all WC stuff that
leads toward the idea that the proverbial Patsy was a killer.....
Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you
on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an
arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were
you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on
the the step, would be here (indicating).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.
Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
==============
Now, Walt, don't you feel like even more of a kook than you were five
minutes ago? (You should...but no doubt don't. A pity.)
aeffects
same assassination as we are.... might want to check with your
guidance counselor, son.... Or Tim anyway!
David Von Pein
>>> "David some of us are beginning to wonder if you're dealing with the same assassination as we are." <<<
Yeah, I've wondered that same thing about you CT-Kooks too. You're in
the T-Zone regarding this murder case (or the P-Zone; P is for
'Patsy', of course).
Because nobody could possibly believe in Oz's innocence re. Tippit,
given the evidence against him. And nobody but a drugged-up scrotum-
head could possibly believe in some nutty theory about Mr. Zapruder
not occupying the pedestal at 12:30.
But, amazingly, we do seem to have kooks (and scrotum-heads) who do
actually endorse such trash/tripe.
Go figure that.
Walt
> >>> "How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the doorway??" <<<
>
> As usual, an 'ABO' Kook can't even figure out the super-easy ones.
>
> Walt, of course, surely knows about the following WC testimony, but I
> guess he's decided to ignore it (or mangle it), like all WC stuff that
> leads toward the idea that the proverbial Patsy was a killer.....
>
> Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you
> on that picture?
>
> Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
>
> Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
>
> Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
>
> Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
>
> Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an
> arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were
> you when the picture was taken?
>
> Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on
> the the step, would be here (indicating).
>
>
> Mr. BALL - You were standing on which step?
>
> Mr. LOVELADY - It would be your top level.
>
> Mr. BALL - The top step you were standing there?
>
> Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
>
> ==============
>
> Now, Walt, don't you feel like even more of a kook than you were five
> minutes ago? (You should...but no doubt don't. A pity.)
Duh.... Are you so addled brained that you can't understand a simple
question?
Here's the question I asked..."How can a viewer be 100% certain about
the identity of the man in the doorway??"
Your post is NOT 100% proof of the identity of the man.
Simply because a person claims to be in a photo does not make it a
FACT.
I'm sure you're aware that there is much evidence that the man in the
photo was NOT Lovelady. On the day of the assassination Lovelady was
not wearing a shirt like the one seen on the man in the Altgens photo.
Walt
> >>> "David some of us are beginning to wonder if you're dealing with the same assassination as we are." <<<
>
> Yeah, I've wondered that same thing about you CT-Kooks too. You're in
> the T-Zone regarding this murder case (or the P-Zone; P is for
> 'Patsy', of course).
>
> Because nobody could possibly believe in Oz's innocence re. Tippit,
> given the evidence against him. And nobody but a drugged-up scrotum-
> head could possibly believe in some nutty theory about Mr. Zapruder
> not occupying the pedestal at 12:30.
Hey Von Pea Brain.... You did a fine job of exposing your ability to
reason.
I asked a very simply, straightforward, question....
How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the
doorway??
In your befuddled brain you couldn't even arrive at the ONLY and
OBVIOUS answer..... Which is: There is NO WAY for a viewer to 100%
certain about the identity of the man in the doorway.
You can have an OPINION about the man's identity but you can't KNOW
for a FACT that the person in the photo is who you BELIEVE he is. If
the photo was clearer and all details were clear a person could be 99%
certain of the man's identity, but since the clarity is lacking, there
is NO WAY to be 100% certain at this time. Perhaps someday there may
be a way to clatfy the image but until then...... yer full of it.
David Von Pein
>>> "Simply because a person claims to be in a photo does not make it a FACT." <<<
It's as good as a positive identification, you idiot. Billy N.
Lovelady knew where he was standing when JFK drove by the TSBD; and he
knew what he LOOKED LIKE. And he pointed to himself in the WC exhibit
that was shown him.
Looks like this is yet another super-easy one you have managed to
fumble.
>>> "On the day of the assassination Lovelady was not wearing a shirt like the one seen on the man in the Altgens photo." <<<
Yes he was, Mr. Idiot:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/lovelady.jpg
Are you SURE you actually want to dredge up the Doorway Man
myth...again?
You CAN'T be stupid enough to think that if Oswald was being set up as
a "Patsy" (which you positively DO believe), the plotters/framers
would have permitted their Patsy to wander outside to get himself
PHOTOGRAPHED by Altgens at the key assassination moment at 12:30
PM....can you?!
Is it POSSIBLE for Patsy-Framers to be THAT stupid? (Or for Walt The
Kook to be?)
Walt
> >>> "Simply because a person claims to be in a photo does not make it a FACT." <<<
>
> It's as good as a positive identification, you idiot. Billy N.
> Lovelady knew where he was standing when JFK drove by the TSBD; and he
> knew what he LOOKED LIKE. And he pointed to himself in the WC exhibit
> that was shown him.
Lovelady may have been standing on the steps and actually believed
that the man in the Altgens photo was himself.... That does NOT make
it a FACT.
>
> Looks like this is yet another super-easy one you have managed to
> fumble.
>
> >>> "On the day of the assassination Lovelady was not wearing a shirt like the one seen on the man in the Altgens photo." <<<
>
> Yes he was, Mr. Idiot:
Tom, Can you save me some time and effort and post a link to your
website which shows that Lovelady was wearing a shirt that was
different than the shirt on the man in the photo.
>
> http://surftofind.com/lovelady5.jpg
Walt
> >>> "Simply because a person claims to be in a photo does not make it a FACT." <<<
>
> It's as good as a positive identification, you idiot. Billy N.
> Lovelady knew where he was standing when JFK drove by the TSBD; and he
> knew what he LOOKED LIKE. And he pointed to himself in the WC exhibit
> that was shown him.
>
> fumble.
>
> >>> "On the day of the assassination Lovelady was not wearing a shirt like the one seen on the man in the Altgens photo." <<<
>
> Yes he was, Mr. Idiot:
>
>
> Are you SURE you actually want to dredge up the Doorway Man
> myth...again?
>
> You CAN'T be stupid enough to think that if Oswald was being set up as
> a "Patsy" (which you positively DO believe), the plotters/framers
> would have permitted their Patsy to wander outside to get himself
> PHOTOGRAPHED by Altgens at the key assassination moment at 12:30
> PM....can you?!
>
> Is it POSSIBLE for Patsy-Framers to be THAT stupid? (Or for Walt The
> Kook to be?)
Ask any cop..... Criminals are notoriously stupid.....and hate
mongers are particularly stupid. Members of the KKK or the DRE who
were driven by hate were not very bright.
David Von Pein
>>> "Criminals are notoriously stupid." <<<
And yet we're supposed to believe CTers when they shout that the JFK
hit was a "professional job".
I guess these "professionals" were incredibly stupid at the same time
when they decided to green-light a MULTI-gun assassination that would
certainly unravel all of that PRE-11/22 framing of their lone patsy
named LHO.
Right, Mr. Idiot?
REPRISE:
>>> "Criminals are notoriously stupid." <<<
So are ABO CT-Kooks.
David Von Pein
Lazy ass.
But you don't need The Nutsack...here's the proof that you're 100%
wrong (as always). And this was already posted earlier, but you're too
lazy to click a mouse even:
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:858c1d6d-9946-45df...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I see that the NUTSACK-SUCKER "Rejects" his own evidence/testimony AGAIN ! !
!
Here it Is>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
ps;
The only reason you would need David Von Pain(in the ass) is when you need
your pipes cleaned.
(Another Asshole who doesn't understand Retaliation to insults.)
aeffects
son, some are concerned enough to drag you into reality, YOU however,
are dumb enough to continue pushing the tide, uphill no-less....
Walt
Hey Von Pea Brain..... You seem offended by my remark that "Criminals
are notoriously stupid." ..... Are you a criminal?? You don't need
to answer that.....Because I already know that you are criminally
stupid.
You did a fine job of exposing your lack of ability to reason.
I asked a very simply, straightforward, question....
How can a viewer be 100% certain about the identity of the man in the
doorway??
In your befuddled brain you couldn't even arrive at the ONLY and
OBVIOUS answer..... Which is: There is NO WAY for a viewer to 100%
certain about the identity of the man in the doorway.
You can have an OPINION about the man's identity but you can't KNOW
for a FACT that the person in the photo is who you BELIEVE he is. If
the photo was clearer and all details were clear a person could be
99%
certain of the man's identity, but since the clarity is lacking,
there
is NO WAY to be 100% certain at this time.
Since there is no way to be 100% certain of the man's identity only
OPINIONS can be offered. Personally, I don't know the mans identity.
It could be either Lovelady or Oswald. The shirt the man is wearing
and the manner he is wearing it sure lends credence to the claim that
the man was Lee Oswald.
I didn't ask you that simple question to start a raging debate over
the man's identity.... I asked..."How can a viewer be 100% certain
about the identity of the man in the doorway??"
But you're too damned dumb, and dishonest, to answer the question
truthfully.
Neil Coburn
Neil
YoHarvey
> IGNORANT= Knowing little or nothing.. Sound like anyone we know?
> Neil
Holmes? Jesus/Robcap? Healy? Pick one.
aeffects
we gots us a hero in YoHavey.... the only ONI puke from -eye-Corps
Vietnam.... LMFAO Sounds like another Fast Eddie Cage, the 4 time BSM
holder (in one tour of course and NONE for Valor).... Jesus where do
you puke come from