Von Pinhead!------Pay Attention!
Brokedad
Von Pinhead! Pay Attention and you just may learn something..
Provided of course that you have someone read this to you and repeat
it sufficientely enough that you can then "Parrot" it back.
> 1. The first shot struck!
This happens to be CE399 which only penetrated a short distance into
the back of JFK and lodged.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
"I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I
immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker,
looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit
the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.
> 2. The second shot struck!
This happens to be the shot impact to the head of JFK at Z313/aka the
"Cowlick entry" of which a fragment from this bullet travelled forward
striking the right wrist of JBC, as well as the windshield and
windshield molding of the limousine.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
" a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of
the Boss's head"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could
see
the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was
leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant
what
appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the
President
seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded
and
the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when
the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the
President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs.
KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
Mr. HUDSON -I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I
happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the
second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in
the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
> 3. The third shot struck!
This happens to be the impact to the head of JFK at survey stationing
4+95/aka directly in front of James Altgens position.
It is the "EOP" entry in which the bullet struck and entered the scalp
at the base of the hairline at the rear of the head/neck, tunnelled
through the soft flesh of the rear of the neck/head, and thereafter
struck the skull in the EOP region at a point on the skull which was
higher than was the entry into the scalp.
Oh, and by the way, the bullet also passed through the coat of JFK at
the edge of the coat collar, prior to having struck JFK in the scalp.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
right along in there.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could
notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side,
as
Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were
relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military
service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he
expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as
quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim,
and fire three shots.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took
place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last
shot,
but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not
another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That
was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of
certainty.
Mr. LIEBELER - Could you tell us approximately how many shots there
were between the first and the last shot--as you well know--there
were
supposed to have been three shots, but how many shots did you hear?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I wouldn't want to say--I don't want to guess,
because facts are so important on something like this. I am inclined
to feel like that there were not as many as I have heard people say.
I
think it's of a smaller denomination, a smaller number, but I
cannot--
I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
least one shot in between.
Mr. LIEBELER - At least one?
Mr. ALTGENS - I would say that--I know there was one in between. It
is
possible there might have been another one I don't really know, but
two, I can really account for.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that's the first one and the last one?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.
Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went
down the street; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the
very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had
prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came
from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just
as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if
at
the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing
===========================================================================
=============
Now! Lets see if we can assist Von Pin/Parrothead in figureing this
out!
1. The first shot struck JFK in the back.
2. The Second shot struck JFK in the head.
3. There were three shots fired.
4. The last shot fired struck JFK in the head directly in front of
James Altgens.
OH! This is so confusing!
Hey Pin/Parrothead! Perhaps you should make an attempt at reading
and understanding the testimonies and evidence for yourself.
When one merely "Parrots" what others have fed to him, he is quite
subject to ultimately appear quite stupid.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arowland.htm
the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when
I
heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire [sic]. In fact some
of
the people around laughed and then in about 8 seconds I heard another
report and in about 3 seconds a third report.
----------------------
===========================================================================
=============
> Actually, one must question as to exactly what level of stupidity one
> must achieve to have believed that whoever the shooter was, that if he
> could hit JFK at least two out of three times, that he could have at
> least hit a relatively large limousine and/or someone else in it with
> the third shot.
> Care to explain exactly why you fell for and believed THE SHOT THAT
> MISSED?
> P.S. Don't get caught driving through our County, with that County
> wide ordnance against STUPIDITY, you could easily be locked up.- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> Von Pinhead! Pay Attention and you just may learn something..
>
> Provided of course that you have someone read this to you and repeat
> it sufficientely enough that you can then "Parrot" it back.
>
> > 1. The first shot struck!
>
> This happens to be CE399 which only penetrated a short distance into
> the back of JFK and lodged.
I wonder if this is even possible. What stopped the bullet, the
resistance of back muscle? If the bullet had so little energy that
this would stop it, I wouldn`t think it would be able to penetrate the
skin.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
>
> "I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I
> immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker,
> looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit
> the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.
What z-frame would you put this first bullet strike at?
And are you saying this bullet went through Connally also?
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
> I wonder if this is even possible. What stopped the bullet, the
> resistance of back muscle? If the bullet had so little energy that
> this would stop it, I wouldn`t think it would be able to penetrate the
> skin.
>
In event that you had bothered to properly evaluate CE399, then you
would know.
Hint: It is no coincidence that the deformed base to CE399 measures
4mm X 7mm in size.
Just as it is no coincidence that the "punch-type" back wound of JFK
with it's relatively clean-cut edges, also measured 4mm X 7mm in size.
Just as it is no coincidence that the back wound of JFK had
considerable fabric from his coat and shirt that was "punched" out and
carried down into the wound of entry, when a normal fully velocity
bullet, striking in the normal nose-first attitude, DOES NOT carry
fabric from clothing down into the wound.
Just as it is no coincidence that on May 25, 1964, the day after the
WC completed their phony assassination re-enactment, members of the
FBI were observed in a "bucket lift" up in the top of the live oak
tree located directly in front of the TSDB, and they were cutting and
removing limbs from the top of the tree.
So, to some of us, it is no great suprise as to exactly what it is
that makes a projectile becomed deformed in the manner as is CE399, as
well as lose a considerable amount of it's velocity, begin to tumble
in flight and strike in a base first attitude.
Of course, it is certainly no great suprise to FBI Agent Robert
Frazier either.
"Or the other alternative would be if the bullet began to tumble in
flight and struck in a base-first attitude"
FBI Agent Robert Frazier testimony
New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw.
----------------------------------------------
Think! Paper-Punch!
Bud
<snicker> You mean if I drew the same conclusions you did by looking
at it?
> Hint: It is no coincidence that the deformed base to CE399 measures
> 4mm X 7mm in size.
> Just as it is no coincidence that the "punch-type" back wound of JFK
> with it's relatively clean-cut edges, also measured 4mm X 7mm in size.
Bullet holes are often smaller than the bullet that made them This
is because the skin stretches.
> Just as it is no coincidence that the back wound of JFK had
> considerable fabric from his coat and shirt that was "punched" out and
> carried down into the wound of entry, when a normal fully velocity
> bullet, striking in the normal nose-first attitude, DOES NOT carry
> fabric from clothing down into the wound.
Where do you get the idea that bullet points can`t carry fibers.
This source indicates they can...
http://books.google.com/books?id=VbrDbbHAflsC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=forensics+clothing+fibers+in+bullet+wounds&source=web&ots=xkjt26bbHo&sig=3R9iAkGzOdeRHwYyld0qnnHXiw8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
This article from Lancer talks about fibers carried in the nose of
the bullet fragments found in the limo...
http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/fragments.html
> Just as it is no coincidence that on May 25, 1964, the day after the
> WC completed their phony assassination re-enactment, members of the
> FBI were observed in a "bucket lift" up in the top of the live oak
> tree located directly in front of the TSDB, and they were cutting and
> removing limbs from the top of the tree.
No, that was probably no coincidence, the President was murderered
there, so they may have been looking for evidence.
> So, to some of us, it is no great suprise as to exactly what it is
> that makes a projectile becomed deformed in the manner as is CE399,
It would have to be a glancing blow off the oak tree to cause the
relatively minor deformation to CE399. A glancing blow would not
expend much of the bullets energy. Even striking base first, it should
still not have been stopped by anything less than bone.
>as
> well as lose a considerable amount of it's velocity, begin to tumble
> in flight and strike in a base first attitude.
>
> Of course, it is certainly no great suprise to FBI Agent Robert
> Frazier either.
>
> "Or the other alternative would be if the bullet began to tumble in
> flight and struck in a base-first attitude"
> FBI Agent Robert Frazier testimony
> New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Think! Paper-Punch!
Skin isn`t paper, it stretches.
And I was interested in what shot you thought went through
Connally`s body, i didn`t see that accounted for in your shooting
scenario.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3d501f1f92b6a392
Oh, Lord. Am I going to have to wade through all of Purvis' make-
believe poppycock yet again?? (I just ate too. It's not good for the
digestion.)
It's amazing to me that Purvis can dismiss out of hand the conclusions
of SO MANY different people who have looked into this case
"officially" (and stating that all of these "official" people are "in"
on a cover-up plot, from the WC to the HSCA and everybody in-between,
is just too silly to even begin to contemplate).
But Thomas H. Purvis will, indeed, just THROW OUT the observations and
tests and reconstructions and results and determinations of SEVENTEEN
different pathologists and of many, many investigators who worked on
the case for the FBI, the WC, and the HSCA.
And why does Purvis want to dismiss and throw out the window so much
"official" stuff?
Because Purvis wants to be THE only person on the face of the planet
who knows the FULL TRUTH about the JFK assassination.*
* = That's just my surmise on why he wants to totally toss aside so
much perfectly-reasonable evidence in this case. I'll admit, that
reason could be inaccurate. The real reason could merely be because
Thomas H. Purvis is a crazy conspiracy-happy kook. So, you can flip a
coin on the reason.
Brokedad
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3d501f1f...
====================================================================
And why does Purvis want to dismiss and throw out the window so much
> "official" stuff?
While you are "surmising".
Why not, for the enjoyment of the reading public, attempt to explain
exactly why the US Secret Service in their December 1963 assassination
re-enactment, as well as the FBI in their February 1964 assassination
re-enactment, BOTH placed the third shot impact some 30-feet farther
down Elm St. than the Z313 impact.
Which location by the way, places the shot directly in front of James
Altgens Position.
Surely, the SS & FBI with their First Generation copy of the Z-film
were not so misguided that they mislocated a shot impact by some 30-
feet.
You truly are stupid if you believe that they were that incompetent.
But then again, you are quite obviously stupid enough to believe the
WC version and "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".
P.S. The "Official" version was as stated above during the SS and FBI
assassination re-enactments and survey work.
The BS version came into being with the WC.
Hope you liked the taste since you quite apparantly swallowed so much
of it.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
Third shot impact, stationing 4+95 (what was actually surveyed in)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
Z313 impact, stationing 4+65.3
And, yep, Mr. West utilized the exact same beginning point for all
three works, which by the way "screwed" the WC.
P.P.S. While you are at it, why not also attempt to explain exactly
why the WC altered their own survey data as I long ago allowed to be
published.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/textsearch/advancedResults.do
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 7, Issue 3 pg 1
Found in: Kennedy Assassination Chronicles
multiple hits in this document
The Fourth Decade, Volume 3, Issue 1 pg 17
Found in: The Fourth Decade
Purvis, who has been corre- sponding with Robert West since 1991, the
level of government deceit can now be understood. This is not the
first time Mr. West and surveyor, Chester Breneman, have raised
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++
I am certain that the reading public would enjoy hearing your version
as to why the WC changed information relative to what positions they
actually had Mr. West survey in and what positions appear on CE884.
As well as the slight/sleight-of-hand method utilized to admit the
true survey into evidence without it ever have been seen.
And, once you have done that, then you may want to tackle the "Vehicle
Speed" which again demonstrates exactly how phony the WC assassination
re-enactment was.
Oh! I forgot! You are a Parrot who can not think and/or conduct
deductive reasoning on your own.
So, have someone read and explain these things to you and then
"repeat" them until such time as you can recite them as well.
Irrelevant as to whether you actually understand any of it or not.
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
" a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of
the Boss's head"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound,
right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the
right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
Von Pinhead:
I would suppose that whoever it is that is attempting to teach you to
mimic, forgot to read that to you sufficiently to the extend that you
grasped the difference between the right rear high of the head and the
lower edge of the hairline down at the base of the skull.
David Von Pein
>>> "Attempt to explain exactly why the US Secret Service in their December 1963 assassination re-enactment, as well as the FBI in their February 1964 assassination re-enactment, BOTH placed the third shot impact some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313 impact. Which location, by the way, places the shot directly in front of James Altgens Position." <<<
You're an idiot. And a big idiot, to boot.
Purvis The Kook apparently thinks that JFK was shot in the head (from
behind) a SECOND time around Z-Film Frame #353 (depicted below), which
would place Kennedy's car just about directly in front of AP
photographer James "Ike" Altgens' position (Altgens can be seen in
Z353 below on the south side of Elm Street with his camera to his
eye):
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z353.jpg
Now, it's rather interesting when we study the above Z-Film frame (and
the frames surrounding it) to note how much of President Kennedy could
have been viewable at that time from Jim Altgens' point-of-view. Mrs.
Kennedy has begun to get out of her seat....she's rising up in her
seat en route to the back of the car, and Jackie appears from this
angle of the Zapruder Film to be totally blocking out any view Altgens
had of JFK during these critical frames when a kook named Purvis
insists that Mr. Altgens was witnessing a SECOND head shot to John
Kennedy's cranium.
Crazy shit from Purvis, huh? You bet it is....and from several POVs
too. Not just this "Altgens" one.
Another crazy part of Purvis' "2 Head Shots" theory is the fact that
the Zapruder Film shows absolutely NO EVIDENCE on the film of any
SECOND impact of a bullet to JFK's head at approx. Z353 (or any other
post-Z313 frame).
But, since Purvis has his "plat maps" to guide him and two subjective
witness statements (Altgens and Hudson), I guess we'll just have to
chuck the Z-Film in the trash, along with the autopsy report, and the
everlasting "JFK WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY JUST ONE BULLET" testimony of
Humes, Finck, and Boswell.
Because evidently those trivial things I just mentioned are trumped by
Thomas H. Purvis' detailed analysis of the shooting. Right, Mr. Purv-
Kook?
BTW, where in James Altgens' WC testimony does he ever even HINT that
President Kennedy was hit in the head by MORE THAN ONE BULLET? Where?
Answer: Nowhere. That idea rests uniquely in the mind of only a kook
named Thomas H. Purvis.
Let's take a look:
================================
MR. ALTGENS -- "There was not another shot fired after the President
was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say
with a great degree of certainty."
MR. LIEBELER -- "What makes you so certain of that, Mr. Altgens?"
MR. ALTGENS -- "Because, having heard these shots and then having seen
the damage that was done on THIS SHOT [DVP's emphasis] to the
President's head, I was aware at that time that shooting was taking
place and there was not a shot--I looked--I looked because I knew THE
SHOT [DVP's emphasis] had to come from either over here, if it were
close range, or had to come from a high-powered rifle."
[Later....]
MR. LIEBELER -- "So, it is clear from your testimony that the third
shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?"
MR. ALTGENS -- "Well, off and on we have been referring to the third
shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot
did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that
was made after that. I was just going to make a conclusion here, but
that's not my place to do that, so I'll just forget it--what I was
going to say."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Well, what were you going to suggest--go ahead."
MR. ALTGENS -- "Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on
it--
of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of
shock--but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be
another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough
damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he
was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away,
because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious
conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the
President was struck in the head."
================================
Evidently Purvis believes that one bullet hit JFK in the head around
the "hairline" area of his head, but this shot didn't cause the
massive explosion of Kennedy's head that we see in Z313 of the
Zapruder Film. Then at around Z353, the President is hit by another
shot in the head, causing the massive explosion (even though the Z-
Film shows no such massive explosion of JFK's head at any other time
except Z313).
Is that about the size of your made-up tripe, Mr. Purvis? If I've
misinterpreted your make-believe bullshit, please forgive me....but,
you see, since I'm dealing with a kook who wants to make up his own
scenarios about this assassination, I sometimes have a hard time
figuring out which end is up regarding the nutjob's theory....seeing
as how it never happened that way in the first place.
Anyhow, as we pull ourselves back into the realm of "Reality" from
Purvis' Twilight Zone of Idiocy, there's no question that JFK was
struck in the head JUST ONE TIME, and that "one time" was at Z-Frame
#313.
Also:
Does Purvis think the Zapruder Film is a fraud or a fake? If not, then
where's the SECOND head-shot impact on the film seen below? Even if
this additional "impact" didn't cause a large spray of blood and brain
tissue, why isn't there at least SOME indication on the Z-Film of this
"second" impact from a high-speed bullet as it strikes somewhere on
JFK's head?
And how did James Altgens, who never uttered a word about there being
TWO separate shots that hit JFK in the head, manage to see an
explosion of JFK's head around Z353 (at a time when the President was
slumping down in the back seat and, as mentioned, was a time when
Altgens' view appears to be blocked by Mrs. Kennedy's movements)?
Purvis, of course, is just making up his own "Two Head Shots" theory
while utilizing selected slices of some of the witnesses' remarks,
such as when Altgens said the following to the Warren Commission:
MR. LIEBELER -- "Now, you have previously indicated that you were
right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head."
MR. ALTGENS -- "Well, I was about 15 feet from it."
MR. LIEBELER -- "But it was almost directly in front of you as it went
down the street; isn't that right?"
MR. ALTGENS -- "Yes."
I think the key word in the above WC exchange between Liebeler and
Altgens is "almost". But the "almost" becomes blurred and
misrepresented by kooks of Purvis' ilk. And that's because Purvis
WANTS his crazy theory to be accurate and true....no matter how stupid
and idiotic it really is (when weighed against the super-sized
mountain of evidence that proves he's an idiot in this "Two Head
Shots" regard).
So, therefore, the "almost" isn't important to Purvis. And the
"almost" becomes "positively directly in front of me [Altgens]" for
the purposes of the kook named Purvis who is bent on re-writing the
history of how a President died.
Purvis also apparently is of the opinion that James Altgens must have
had a tape measure with him on November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza as
the President's car passed by him on Elm Street, with Altgens
physically going to the trouble to measure the distance between
himself and JFK's car at various points along Elm. Because the
estimated distances provided by Mr. Altgens during his WC testimony
are supposedly rooted in FACT, according to Purvis. They couldn't
possibly be slightly off one way or the other.
In short, folks, it couldn't be more obvious (given the sum total of
evidence that has been on the table in this case since Day 1 in 1963)
that John F. Kennedy was shot in the head only ONE time, with that one
bullet entering the back of the President's head and exiting the right-
front-top portion of the head (chiefly exiting in the "parietal"
region of the skull, just exactly as the official autopsy report
clearly indicates):
www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
And even though Thomas H. Purvis does (rightly) believe that all of
the shots on 11/22/63 came from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, and those
shots were fired by Oswald himself from the Book Depository....Purvis
is still a "conspiracy-loving kook" in my book, because he is
attempting to re-write the true facts surrounding some of the events
of November 22nd. And he's attempting to do that based on some very,
very flimsy evidence.
Brokedad
Whereas you appear to be again feeling "Spunky", let me first add this
to your collection:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13439&pid=154566&st=0&#entry154566
Gil;
Although quite obvious that you and I disagree on several primary
aspects of the assassination of JFK, at least one could state that
"common ground" has been found in regards to David Von Pein/aka
whoever/whatever he truly is.*
*I personally have serious doubts as to his true identity
When dealing with the JFK assassination, one should be most leary of
ANY prophet who comes down the road preaching the gospel.
Be it David Von Pein, or Tom Purvis!
Far too many "False Prophets" have already lead this relatively simple
enigma into a quagmire in which only the most dedicated and qualified
researchers could find anything other than more mud in their face.
It has been my general experience in life (of which I do have
considerable) that those such as Von Pein are in fact operating with
some true "Agenda", as few persons are either so vocal in their
attempts to discredit, and/or few go to such extremes as posting all
over the internet in an attempt to discredit or scare others from even
opening their mouth on subjects of controversy in the Kennedy
assassination.
A prime example of this is the means by which Von Pein attempts to
justify the WC's conclsions while admitting that they made some minor
errors.
While of course maintaining a continuation of the WC scenario of THE
SHOT THAT MISSED, and then utilizing the Posner scenario as the
further basis and support of the WC's findings.
And now utilizing the VB book as further support of the other lies,
merely because VB represents some "great" legal mind.
In that regards, anyone who openly and blatently supports the WC's
findings and/or Posner's "refined" scenario, is a complete fool.
Which of course places the VB followers in the same boat.
The first is an intentional lie, and the second is a lie generated in
attempt to cover for those lies and errors of the first.
And, who knows what the purpose of the VB book actually is, as it most
assuredly is not a true attempt to present the facts of the
assassination.
In this era of what frequently appears as severe mental derangement on
the part of many persons, one could safely assume that this is merely
Von Pein's problem.
This society, having produced the likes of Jim Jones; David Koresh;
Ervil LeBaron; Charles Manson; etc; etc; etc;, could have easily
generated a truly fanatical "JFK Assassination" individual such as
David Von Pein.
And, in that regards, one must assume that either:
A. David Von Pein has a true agenda.
B. David Von Pein is a truly fanatical and potentially dangerous
individual with a clearly demonstrated mental disorder.
On the other hand, it could be "A" & "B" combined.
Tom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
> Evidently Purvis believes that one bullet hit JFK in the head around
> the "hairline" area of his head, but this shot didn't cause the
> massive explosion of Kennedy's head that we see in Z313 of the
> Zapruder Film. Then at around Z353, the President is hit by another
> shot in the head, causing the massive explosion (even though the Z-
> Film shows no such massive explosion of JFK's head at any other time
> except Z313).
>
---------------------------------------------
Evidently, Von Pein is so ignorant that he can not read simple
statements.
A. Z313 impact was, just as the witnesses have testified, and just as
the HSCA determined, to the top/rear/high/aka Cowlick of the head.
B. The Altgens impact to the head of JFK/aka stationing 4+95/aka EOP
entry is that bullet which first went through the coat of JFK on an
oblique angle (striking the coat just below the lower edge of the
collar), penetrated through the coat to exit and strike JFK in the
lower edge of the hairline; tunnel "upwards" (as one sits erect)
through the soft tissue at the base of the neck, and then strick JFK
in the EOP region of the skull.
In event that anyone actually knows Von Pinhead personally, would you
take the time and effort to read this to him.
P.S. Pinhead! Since I am neither smarter nor more qualified than the
SS and/or FBI, both agencies accurately plotted/platted and determined
that the third/last shot impact was directly in front of James Altgens
position, which happens to be some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than
the Z313 impact.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
You do have copies of their survey plats and the accompanying survey
notes, do you not?
No! Well rest assured that I do not loan my copies to complete
idiots.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++
I think the key word in the above WC exchange between Liebeler and
> Altgens is "almost". But the "almost" becomes blurred and
> misrepresented by kooks of Purvis' ilk. And that's because Purvis
> WANTS his crazy theory to be accurate and true....no matter how stupid
> and idiotic it really is (when weighed against the super-sized
> mountain of evidence that proves he's an idiot in this "Two Head
> Shots" regard).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS -I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and
that's as far as I got with my camera.
Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went
down the street; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg
Directly in front of James Altgens would have been ALMOST six to eight
feet farther down Elm St.
That certainly appears as "Almost", along with having a camera to his
eye.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++
> Does Purvis think the Zapruder Film is a fraud or a fake? If not, then
> where's the SECOND head-shot impact on the film seen below? Even if
> this additional "impact" didn't cause a large spray of blood and brain
> tissue, why isn't there at least SOME indication on the Z-Film of this
> "second" impact from a high-speed bullet as it strikes somewhere on
> JFK's head?
>
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg
I would have to suppose that you are also a visually impaired Parrot.
Happen to notice something somewhat odd about the frame coloring, as
well as the "sprocket holes",
(or lack thereof)?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
> Purvis also apparently is of the opinion that James Altgens must have
> had a tape measure with him on November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza as
> the President's car passed by him on Elm Street, with Altgens
> physically going to the trouble to measure the distance between
> himself and JFK's car at various points along Elm. Because the
> estimated distances provided by Mr. Altgens during his WC testimony
> are supposedly rooted in FACT, according to Purvis. They couldn't
> possibly be slightly off one way or the other.
>
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg
Elm St. was 40 feet wide. One lane empty (close to Altgens = 13 1/3
feet.
JFK was located approximately center of the center lane---------+7
feet.
When ABSOLUTELY directly in front of Altgens position, JFK would have
been approximately 20 to 21 feet from James Altgens.
At survey stationing 4+95 (impact location of last shot), JFK is
approximately 25 feet (direct line) distance from James Altgens
position.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449a.htm
Which is exactly where both the SS as well as the FBI determined as
the point of impact of the third shot, and which point was plotted on
both of their assassination re-enactment survey plats.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
> In short, folks, it couldn't be more obvious (given the sum total of
> evidence that has been on the table in this case since Day 1 in 1963)
> that John F. Kennedy was shot in the head only ONE time, with that one
> bullet entering the back of the President's head and exiting the right-
> front-top portion of the head (chiefly exiting in the "parietal"
> region of the skull, just exactly as the official autopsy report
> clearly indicates):
>
Just in case Von Pinhead has not realized it yet, it is not the
evidence that has been on the table that is of relevance.
It is all of that evidence which the WC and others have "slid" under
the table cloth that is of significance.
And although Mr. Von Parrot can quite obviously quote/parrot selective
portions of the WC, he tends to completely ignore all of those other
aspects of the factual evidence as presented in the WC as well as the
Clark Panel and the HSCA Investigations which totally contradict a
single bullet to the head shooting scenario.
And, since the SS and FBI had easily resoved the second shot to the
head impact location, it truly does not even take a smart person to
figure out what else they "hid" from the Parrots such as Von Pein.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
....Purvis
> is still a "conspiracy-loving kook" in my book, because he is
> attempting to re-write the true facts surrounding some of the events
> of November 22nd. And he's attempting to do that based on some very,
> very flimsy evidence.
>
Yep! Truly flimsy!
Two seperate survey plats and survey notes by two separate Law
Enforcement Agencies, which demonstrate the physical
location of JFK at the time of the Third/Last/Final shot.
A witness to the exact impact to the head of JFK of this shot.
Multiple witnesses who observed the impact and have so statated that
athe Z313 impact to the head of JFK was the SECOND SHOT fired.
Two bullet entrance wounds into the back of the head of JFK:
1, The "Cowlick" entry in the top/right/rear of the head as seen by
the witnesses as well as seen by ALL of those persons on the HSCA
medical panel. aka/the impact at Z313 when JFK was sitting almost
erect.
2. The "EOP" entry which in fact passed through the coat of JFK on an
oblique angle, exited to strike the scalp in the lowere edge of the
hairline, and due to the fact that JFK was leaning well forward,
tunnelled through the soft tissues at thae base of the neck to strike
the skull of JFK in the EOP region at a location which was HIGHER (as
one sits erect) than was the entry into the scalp.
At least those CT personnel who recognize that the physical damage to
the skull and brain of JFK is totally inconsistant with a single
bullet is totally inconsistant with a single bullet impact are smarter
than "Parrothead".
Now Parrothead.
Examine the brain of JFK and you will find the pathway of these two
bullets.
The Cowlick entry in which the bullet severely fragmented, tore down
into the cerebral tissue some 1.77 inches deep.
Read real carefully that portion dealing with the examination of the
brain and one can then "connect the dots" for the EOP entry as it
begins with the tip of the occipital lobe and thereafter progress
through the mid-brain, completely seperate from the higher damage
caused by the Z313 impact.
========================================================================================
Now I know exactly why I have always disliked "Parrots".
aeffects
The elusive DVP, the David Von Pein that no one has ever seen (I doubt
his Indiana mother [and brother in fact-who he shares a bedroom] have
never seen his likeness, anywhere including home -- ROFLMFAO). The
troll has never appeared at a JFK assassination conference.... yet,
hired sight unseen to be Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (not) internet
PR guru. Thankfully he did a stellar job promoting Bugliosis'
nonsense. David actually sold 7 books over a 14 month period. It took
25,000 USENET posts but there you have it, friends and neighbors --
Reclaiming History, one of the most, if not THE most colossal
publishing failure in the modern day history of book publishing,
PERIOD.
Tom -- David VP is one of 5-10 *regular* USENET posters (utilizing (up
to) 20+ aliases each) responsible of over 100,000 posts to these JFK
assassination related boards today...
pearls before swine, Tom.... KUTGW!
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13439&pid=15456...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Gil Jesus
>
> Although quite obvious that you and I disagree on several primary
> aspects of the assassination of JFK, at least one could state that
> "common ground" has been found in regards to David Von Pein/aka
> whoever/whatever he truly is.*
>
> *I personally have serious doubts as to his true identity
Gentlemen can disagree and do it with a level of civility. They also
recognize that that there is such a thing as free speech, that whether
or not you agree with someone, that someone has as much a right to
express himself as a David Von Pein.
Unfortunately, Von Pein does not agree. He started a "group" on Google
that only he can post messages to:
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
As for me, I will always defer to someone who has demonstrated an
expertise or greater knowledge in an aspect of the case than I have.
For me, it's a learning experience.
I'm looking at this as a murder case solely through the eyes of a
police officer.
And I see a LOT of problems with this case.
Your comment about his "true identity" is intriguing. One must wonder
why Von Pein would fail to provide a self photo for the Ed Forum.
Could his identity be that of someone we would all recognize ?
muc...@gmail.com
Like Cher?
Gil Jesus
PS:
Don't get me wrong. Von Pein has his supporters among the "trolls" in
this group:
Bud
Tim Brennan
mucher1
justme1952
Chuck Schuyler
cdddraftsman
Gil Jesus
bump
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:341c6d05-9d3a-48e3...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
PS:
Add me to the list bigot.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Sam,
Good on ya, mate! Well said! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 14, 11:50 am, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
Sam Brown
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:804537fa-7e60-4725...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi Sam,
Good on ya, mate! Well said! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Hello there Tim,
I consider it quite life - affirming to be included on such a list.
KUTGW by the way.
David Von Pein
>>> "pearls before swine, Tom.... KUTGW!" <<<
Says the kook named Healy (aka Crackpipe) who doesn't believe a single
thing that Thomas H. Purvis believes in regarding the way President
John Kennedy died in 1963.
Purvis thinks that only bullets fired by Lee Oswald killed JFK. Healy
obviously doesn't believe that's true. But, Healy will slap Purv on
the back anyway and give him a "KUTGW" just for the heck of it.
There's nothing like telling somebody whom you (Healy) think is
virtually 100% wrong about everything relating to the JFK case to
"keep up the good work", huh?
That makes about as much sense as my telling Walt, Don W., and Ben to
"keep up the good work" (and meaning it).
Hilarious.
Gil Jesus
than mere stupidity.
It is extremely rare to find anyone who is that fanatical in his/her
support of the Warren Commission conclusions as Von Pein is.
There is something inherently abnormal about someone who runs around
referring to anyone who disagrees with him/her as either a "kook" or
"Mr. Kook". This is not normal behavior, especially for a 46-year old
man. Neither is childish-name calling. I personally have had several
run-ins with this individual over the years and have found him to be
less than truthful with the information he presents.
He makes a statement in a posting, then refers back to that statement
in a future posting as if it were some sort of "source" or fact. Using
such "sources" in this fashion are the equivalemt of saying, "if you
don't believe me, just ask ME."
It's ridiculous of course, from a viewpoint of research.
Objectivity has never been a Von Pein trait. He created a "group" on
Google in which he himself is the only member allowed to post. He
doesn't even allow those who AGREE with him to post their comments and
opinions. In reality his "group" is nothing more than another internet
soapbox for DVP to present his propaganda to the world without fear of
correction.
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics?tsc=1
"LALALALALA....I CAN'T SEE YOU, YOU'RE NOT THERE.
LALALALALA....I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU'RE NOT TALKING..."
Sadly, he is a man completely out of touch with reality, evidenced by
some of the more humorous of his posts at alt.conspiracy.jfk. In one
such post, he writes:
"WHAT DOES "BACK AND TO THE LEFT" PROVE? ANYTHING?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/422b8ff853bebd3e
In another he posts:
"let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several
different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of
"C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence
in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one: So what?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
This is a guy for real ?
Add to this enigma that is David Von Pein, an ABNORMAL, almost God-
like worship of Vincent Bugliosi and a belief in "Reclaiming History"
as if it were the word of the Almighty Himself.
In Von Pein we have a man who is a fanatical supporter of the WC, who
uses himself as a source for his research, locks out the opinions of
others, refuses to post his photograph on line, engages in childish
name-calling with those he disagrees with and abnormally worships
Vincent Bugliosi.
This is a man with serious unresolved issues. Delusional and in
denial. I really feel sorry for him. He needs help.
justm...@gmail.com
roflmao, roflmao, roflmao....you really are nuts aren't you
Jesus?????
Are you not the one that refers to all LN's as "Trolls" in every
single one of your threads that you have started lately??? Tell me
hypocrite, what is the difference in DVP calling you idiots "kooks" as
opposed to you idiots calling LN's "Trolls"??????? I suppose you think
that this is normal behavor for a 54 year old scum like yourself
correct?
DVP has a group where only he is allowed to post, that doesn't ring a
bell to your youtube channel where only YOU are allowed to post videos
or make comments and no one else is allowed??? Again showing what a
hypocritical fool you are.
Stop trying to play psychologist around here Jesus, because if there
is any one person on this group that needs psychological help (besides
Healy who needs detox) it's you. You're paranoia which results in
everyone being someone else, your continual comments about others
doing the same exact things you do, yet you condemn them for it....and
just your all around STUPIDITY about everything you type. You run like
Holmes the coward when you are proven wrong...ignore postings that
prove you wrong and then have the nerve to say that the "Trolls" can't
answer your stupid questions. If you wanted to be like Holmes, then
your doing a good job of being the arrogant ass that he is. Oh and
btw, how many more times are you going to announce you have us all on
killfilter and then respond to our posts? It's apparent you also like
proving to everyone what a liar you are too.
You've outdone yourself on this post Detective Duf-ass. I vote this is
the laugh of the day, do I hear anyone second the motion?? LOL
Gil Jesus
yoharvey/justme1952 accused an "imposter" of posting a post of hers to
other newsgroups, when in fact HE/SHE was the one who cross-posted
it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1714b6d2ffd26fd
then when she found out that his/her post was on other newsgroups, he/
she flipped out, blaming the "imposter" for creating "bogus"
newsgroups :
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/55eea239ebd9c15d
These unbelievable posts from a self described "Information
Technology" EXPERT with over 12 years experience. Since, then, he/
she's seen Gil Jesuses everywhere. Every new poster using AOL has been
accused of being me. In addition, she was so convinced that I was the
imposter, she complained to AIOE, the news server that I was using at
the time, then announced that she had received an e-mail from them
advising that I had been banned from the newsserver.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6ffb12116db4645
When she announced I had been banned, I went to my newsreader to
connect to AIOE and it asked me for a screenname and password, so
naturally, I thought they had changed to a pay server. During that
general timeframe, I must have used another server in search of other
newsgroups (not all servers carry ALL newsgroups) because I found out
months later that my newsreader was configured for a screenname and
password. Once she announced that the server was still free, I went to
my newsreader and found the glitch. Then I posted from the AIOE server
to prove that her claim that I was banned wasn't true, she flipped out
and sent another letter of complaint to the newsserver.
Once again she announced that I had been re-banned.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ba22348fc749b3a9
I once again posted from the newsserver 5 hours after her announcement
in order to prove that I had, in fact, NOT been re-banned.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6ffb12116db4645
Not only has this nutcase LIED about getting me bounced off of a
server, she's also accused me of being Robcap and provided "evidence"
to support her contention, something that I have already proven to be
false.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a13cb7015cb7f9ab
THE LIES OF JUSTME 1952
LIE #1
We know that he's not a 55 year old woman.
How do we know ?
55-year old women are the "grandma" types.
They don't troll newsgroups.
They don't insult people.
They don't talk like longshoremen.
They don't search the internet for people's personal information and
then post it in newsgroups.
In short....they don't act like adolescents.
LIE #2
We know he's not an Information Technology Tech with 12 years'
experience.
How do we know ?
No one with 12 years experience in IT would have panicked like he did
when he cross-posted to several newsgroups and blamed it on an
"imposter" he said had created "bogus newsgroups". If he had 12
years experience in IT, he would have known the procedure for
starting a new newsgroup and never would have made that statement.
When he panicked, did he call a colleague for advice ? Did he
search the internet where EXPERTS could have answered his questions ?
Nope. He sought out John Mc Adams, hardly one who might be considered
expert enough to advise one with 12 years experience in IT such as
Joey Justme.
And then McAdams checked and said that the posting had come from HIS
server (Roadrunner) , no one else's.
I still chuckle when I read that response of his.
That episode pretty much showed how little he knew about computers
and the internet.
LIE #3
We know that he didn't get ME bounced from AIOE, and I doubt that he
got ANYBODY bounced from AIOE.
How do we know ?
Newsservers don't e-mail complainants with the results of
disciplinary
actions against users. They may e-mail complainants to verify their
complaint or if additional information is needed regarding the
complaint. But they are prohibited BY LAW from notifying complainants
about disciplinary action against other users.
It's called internet PRIVACY.
All they can say is that they are investigating.
Meaning that his little e-mail from AIOE was a fake. Just like him.
In addition, I'm still able to post from AIOE, an IMPOSSIBILITY if I
were on their "banned" list. To suggest that I or anyone else could
fool their servers, again, shows how little he knows about the
internet or the usenet.
LIE #4
We know that he's a 20-year old atheist named "Joe" from Liverpool,
New York.
How do we know ?
When he said that he couldn't post a comment on one of my videos, I
went back to my e-mail list. You see, Youtube always e-mails me when
someone wants to comment on my videos. The only one I rejected was
from a youtube user "Boyoben" AND IT WASN'T REJECTED FOR CONTENT, IT
WAS REJECTED FOR VULGARITY.
I went back and checked on "Boyoben's " Youtube profile and come to
find out, he was a 20-year-old atheist named "Joe". Verry strong
atheist, even to the extent of advocating atheism for children. The
amazing thing about this youtube channel was that the following day
after I revealed Justme's Youtube "identity", as Boyoben, the Youtube
account was closed.
I understand that like AIOE, this "Boyoben" sent him an e-mail that
seemed to clear the whole matter up as to why he closed the Youtube
account. However, his e-mail, is probably as fake as the one Justme
said
had been sent to him from AIOE.
Seems like everybody e-mails JUSTME.
In addition, this lying mental case from Liverpool, NY has his own
opinions
about other topics as well.
JUSTME IMPLIES THAT AMERICAN VETERANS ARE DRUG ABUSERS
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/547f9d650b435b33
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/71cc811985a632b8
BIGOT JUSTME's USE OF THE WORD "FAGGOT"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f6f01f17e7576000
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80
BIGOT JUSTME'S USE OF THE TERM "SISSY"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6f13999639fc587
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f94449ca6cb9b275
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ee148ec2ece0a2d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5496d84d37e49a9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e446a3f76ab693ce
GARBAGE-MOUTHED JUSTME
Chico? KISS MY ASS!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/95aa53d256afdb6b
----------------------------------------------------
Healy? Even your ebonics don't make any sense....just shows how
fucking stupid you really are. You know nothing about the internet
asshole, I've worked in IT for 12 years...now go sit in a corner
somewhere and stfu!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b946643ba77b9449
-------------------------------------------------------
I have all the proof i need, shit for brains and its been sent to the
proper authorities. As I said before go find a corner to sit in and
stfu...this doesn't concern you.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0446347a2e4d4f1c
--------------------------------------------------------
The cloned posts and emails are coming from that server...got it
fucktard??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7711bee62d00a4cb
---------------------------------------------------------
I receive my email back I'll make sure and post it for the entire
newsgroup to see who the asshole is that started something as a game
and now is in deep shit.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7711bee62d00a4cb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico can stuff the other foot in his mouth now for accusing YoHarvey
and I of being the same person. Shit for brains that he is.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b809c36b0bcdacf
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two words for you Rossely...FUCK OFF!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/99e4a71907a439ee
---------------------------------------------------------------
I could have cared less that someone was posting with my name or any
other LN's on this newsgroup UNTIL they used the word "Cunt" in their
last post. That was where I drew the line. I can tolerate any other
cuss word there is, name calling and insults, but that one was the end
of the road...and it wouldn't have mattered who was being called it.
That post was downright disgusting and the person that posted it will
pay.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5efe57ff9a4455ab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have cared less that someone was posting with my name or any
other LN's on this newsgroup UNTIL they used the word "Cunt" in their
last post. You can see what a fucking moron Rossely is as hes
mentioned the word at least 12 times in his repeated posts that say
nothing
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5efe57ff9a4455ab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holmes uses Healys ass to park his tricycle now...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f7339640cb6b21e
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigdog thinks you're a fucking asshole, so do the rest of the LN's on
this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/94a5c013c9cde673
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*sniff, sniff*...got that nose right up Bens ass again huh Healy??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81d9781ab384e808
SOUND LIKE A 55 YEAR OLD WOMAN TO YOU ?
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>Tell me
> hypocrite, what is the difference in DVP calling you idiots "kooks" as
> opposed to you idiots calling LN's "Trolls"???????
Von Pein calls individual people "Kooks" just for their opinons.
I refer to "trolls" as a group based on this definition:
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online
community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the
intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to
generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
^1. trolling definition from PC Magazine Retrieved on 28 May 2007.
^2. "What is a troll?" - Indiana University Knowledge Base
Might I suggest that "if the shoe fits, wear it." We're still waiting
for you to post something ON-TOPIC.
> DVP has a group where only he is allowed to post, that doesn't ring a
> bell to your youtube channel where only YOU are allowed to post videos
> or make comments and no one else is allowed??? Again showing what a
> hypocritical fool you are.
The comment sections of my videos are open to posts and will remain so
unless they get spammed by porn sites.
> Oh and btw, how many more times are you going to announce you have us all on
> killfilter and then respond to our posts? It's apparent you also like
> proving to everyone what a liar you are too.
I have two newsreaders, Joey. Outlook Express has a killfilter and
Google doesn't.
Bud
> >>> "pearls before swine, Tom.... KUTGW!" <<<
>
> Says the kook named Healy (aka Crackpipe) who doesn't believe a single
> thing that Thomas H. Purvis believes in regarding the way President
> John Kennedy died in 1963.
>
> Purvis thinks that only bullets fired by Lee Oswald killed JFK.
Really? I think this shows the dangers of looking too deeply into
something, people seem to have a tendency to look past the obvious,
looking for deeper truths. I noticed Purvis uses much of the same
testimony that Bob Harris uses to support his shooting scenario, yet
both people come up with vastly different conclusions. You see this
with Walt, dw, a few others (Cliff uses the clothing, dw uses
discrepancies in the testimony, ect), they have themselves convinced
they have the aptitude to be the one to rummage through the evidence,
and hit on the significant bits. It seems similar to those people who
go on American idol, and have themselves convinced they actually have
talent. Most times these junior sleuths are trying to cut diamonds
with cinderblocks, using crude information to draw precise
conclusions.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9637a68dba701f78
>>> "EVALUATING VON PEIN'S EMOTIONAL STABILITY" <<<
I wouldn't trust Gil Jesus to evaluate the "emotional stability" of a
dead cricket.
But, then too, perhaps Gil just graduated from Psychiatric School or
something and now is fully qualified to "evaluate" my "emotional
stability". (Ya think?)
I think somebody named "Gil" is obsessed a little bit lately -- with
me. And that's kind of a scary thought all by itself.
The next thing I expect to see out of Gil is a new YouTube video on
Gilbert's channel, entitled "THE DVP LONE-NUT SYNDROME: AN IN-DEPTH
STUDY OF A MAN IN DENIAL".
I'd love that, in fact. Did I plant a good idea in your head just now,
Gil? I'll bet I did. I'll be watching out for that top-rated video
production from "GJJdude".
But at the same time, it's also flattering in a way, to have a person
(G. Jesus) looking up my prior posts from months (or years) ago and re-
posting them himself, both here and at The Education Forum (which I
really do appreciate, Gil, because I very much like having my stuff
posted over there; and since I've been booted from that location and
can't post anything there myself, it's nice that you've copied some of
my stuff into that forum's archives; so, thanks very much for that
extra "LN/CS&L" exposure).
It's also interesting that the two "example" articles of mine that Gil
displayed earlier are two very good articles, riddled with lots of
common sense....such as my "WHAT DOES 'BACK AND TO THE LEFT' PROVE?"
article, which has lots of good logical inferences (and evidence) in
it:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/32668ce6dd515ced
Although that article does have something in it that I just despise --
a broken weblink. I hate broken links more than I hate Oliver Stone's
"Triangulation Of Crossfire" idiocy!
The broken link in that article is the autopsy photo from "JFK
Lancer". Lancer, about 1.5 years ago I think, changed around their
links in some fashion, and now some of the autopsy links sdon't work
(which ticks me off). So, I just added the pictures on my own to my
"Files" section of my "Reclaiming History" bulletin-board announcement
site. The broken Lancer link should be displaying this photo below
(just for the record):
The other article that Gil mentions in his last post is one with my
comments regarding any other potential (though never proven) rifles
that might have been stamped with the same serial number as the gun
Oswald received from Klein's.
In the long run, of course, that whole topic of "Multiple Guns With A
C2766 Serial Number" is, indeed, a "So what?" topic, as I alluded to
previously. And I fully explain why it's a "So what?" topic. But CS&L
rarely resonates with any of these Anybody-But-Oswald nuts (like Gil).
Let's proceed to some more of Gil's fantastic remarks about me; this
oughta provide a few more belly-laughs, I'm quite sure......
>>> "In Von Pein we have a man who is a fanatical supporter of the WC..." <<<
Well, yes, I suppose you might say that, Gil. Although "fanatical" is
a tad overdone. But seeing as how the WC's investigation was very,
very good and thorough and sourced with 6,500 citations within its 888-
page main summary volume, and seeing as how that document known as the
"WCR" has withstood the wrath of 45 consecutive years of kooks like
Gilbert Jesus, who have tried like the dickens to tear its conclusions
to pieces (and failed miserably at doing so)....
I'd say that my devotion to the words printed within the 888 pages of
the Warren Commission's 1964 Final Report is well-placed devotion,
since the WCR is by far the best document ever written when it comes
to the true facts surrounding the manner in which JFK died in 1963
(with Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" being a very close #2, of
course).
As Mr. Bugliosi has said on various 2007 radio interviews: "This book
["RH"] could not have been written without the Warren Report. .... The
Warren Commission is the granddaddy of all investigations. .... In my
opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered
the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history." -- VB
>>> "...who uses himself as a source for his research..." <<<
Gil loves to continually make this crazy charge. He thinks that since
I often like to re-post my previously-posted articles and Internet
Forum messages (which I fully admit, I enjoy doing), this repetition
constitutes my utilizing "myself" as a "source" for the subject matter
that's being discussed within these repeated postings.
When, in fact, it's simply RE-POSTING previously-posted material which
I believe to be pertinent to the discussion of the Kennedy
assassination. (And most of the repeated posts, btw, have sources
cited within them, of course. So I'm certainly not relying on just
MYSELF as the official "source" for any claim I make in most of my
repeated posts.)
If you want to know the Gospel Truth as to why I enjoy re-posting a
lot of my stuff here.....here is that truth (and I'm sure this
explanation is going to sound like a very egotistical one to some
people here, but it's the honest truth just the same) --- I sometimes
will go through my collected "archives" (for lack of a better term for
the "posts" that I've amassed at my Blog at www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com)
and just pick one out at random for the enjoyment of reading it again.
And then, after reading it, I'll say to myself, "Gee, that was a darn
good post/article". And I then think it's worth re-posting here at The
Google Forums. So, I do just that sometimes -- re-post it, because I
think some people (other than me) might enjoy reading it again.
If that type of activity supposedly constitutes using myself "as a
source", well, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. (But I will point
out, once again, that almost all of these "re-posts" have other source
citations and source links in them, to back up the evidence presented
within them.)
>>> "...locks out the opinions of others..." <<<
Oh, sure....as if this "acj" forum we're talking on right now doesn't
have enough bandwidth and forum space for everyone to post freely
24/7?
I've explained previously that my "RH" forum was created as a kind of
"Bulletin Board" site. Nothing more. Nothing less. And I certainly
don't need my "bulletin board" littered with the slings and arrows and
stray CT attacks of some of the kooks that can be found in this acj
forum. Heck, that's what THIS forum is for.
So, for unrestricted "Discussion" and/or "JFK Debate" (and for all the
fun Kook-Bashing a person could possibly want), bring it here.
>>> "...refuses to post his photograph online..." <<<
I never refused to post my photograph online at John Simkin's
"Education Forum". I explained to John that I had no picture available
for posting at that time (July 2006). I was even "bargaining" a little
with him about a possible "place-holder" type of "generic" photo that
I could use instead. And it seems to me that John was kind of
receptive to that idea for a day or two.
But then, Simkin decided to fully enforce the rule that had apparently
been part of that forum for many months (or even years) prior to July
2006 (although several members had never complied with this
regulation), and required everyone to update their "avatars"/
(pictures) immediately, or risk getting expelled from the classroom.
>>> "...engages in childish name-calling with those he disagrees with..." <<<
Well, I try to stay away from some of the super-heavy invectives (most
of the time; although, granted, the dreaded F word slips out every now
and again, I'll admit).
But Gil surely must realize that this Asylum/Forum is just ripe for
the labels that have been bestowed upon CTers like himself, Walt,
Donald, Rob, and several others over the last few years.
Doesn't he?
If Gil doesn't realize this basic fact of life, then perhaps it's he
who is in "denial", and not I. ;)
>>> "...and abnormally worships Vincent Bugliosi." <<<
I have a feeling that Gil "abnormally worships" Mark Lane and Jim
Garrison (in tandem). Another scary vision there.
And the more Gil continues to harp on me and my total failures in
life, I'm beginning to get the feeling that Gil's hanging around my
own back stoop as we speak.
Is that you, Gil, who keeps calling my house and hanging up? You know,
the person with the 000-0000 number I keep seeing constantly on my
Caller ID box?
God, this guy with the "all-zeroes" number is annoying. Anybody else
bothered with this mystery caller almost every day? Gil?
>>> "This is a man with serious unresolved issues." <<<
I know. I agree. I've yet to "resolve" the problem with you CT-Kooks
-- i.e., I can't yet figure out why you guys are the way you are? Is
it a birth defect? Or is it JUST this JFK case?
My guess is: it's the latter. There's something about this
assassination that makes people who ordinarily possess extremely-good
common sense and logic go off the "CT" deep end of the diving board,
and they'll start believing in crazy, impossible scenarios with
respect to this murder case that they would completely dismiss out of
hand if it were any other criminal case in history.
A strange phenomenon indeed. And I think Gil is part of this
strangeness.
>>> "Delusional and in denial." <<<
Yeah...I kinda figured we'd get to an "in denial" comment from Gil
sooner or later. Good job, Gil. You've just raised the "Pot Meets
Kettle" bar to absurd heights of hilarity with your "in denial"
remark.
>>> "I really feel sorry for him." <<<
Aw, how nice. Isn't that sweet of Gil? He feels sorry for the poor
delusional lil' lost-in-the-woods LNer named Davey. <sniff>
Should I reciprocate here and feel sorry for him too?
Nah. Who could feel sorry for a kook like that?
>>> "He needs help." <<<
I agree with you. I still can't figure out how to change the damn oil
in my car myself. I always need help with that. I have to have my
butler do it for me. (His name is Vincent. Last initial: B.)
aeffects
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
hey, the skank Samantha Slamm'in Brown of Four Elephants fame has
returned from another SEAsia puff piece assignment! Saffron Tea and
crumpets high on the list, troll?
aeffects
> On Sep 14, 2:35 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "pearls before swine, Tom.... KUTGW!" <<<
>
> > Says the kook named Healy (aka Crackpipe) who doesn't believe a single
> > thing that Thomas H. Purvis believes in regarding the way President
> > John Kennedy died in 1963.
>
> > Purvis thinks that only bullets fired by Lee Oswald killed JFK.
>
> Really? I think this shows the dangers of looking too deeply into
> something, people seem to have a tendency to look past the obvious,
> looking for deeper truths. I noticed Purvis uses much of the same
> testimony that Bob Harris uses to support his shooting scenario, yet
> both people come up with vastly different conclusions. You see this
> with Walt, dw, a few others (Cliff uses the clothing, dw uses
> discrepancies in the testimony, ect), they have themselves convinced
> they have the aptitude to be the one to rummage through the evidence,
> and hit on the significant bits. It seems similar to those people who
> go on American idol, and have themselves convinced they actually have
> talent. Most times these junior sleuths are trying to cut diamonds
> with cinderblocks, using crude information to draw precise
> conclusions.
oh, dudster... that tin-foil beannie of yours is rotating a mile a
minute -- rest son, REST! When CT's are ready for court they'll trot
out a case even your law school professors will think, PROFOUND!
> >Healy
> > obviously doesn't believe that's true. But, Healy will slap Purv on
> > the back anyway and give him a "KUTGW" just for the heck of it.
hey troll, you still following me around this USENET?
> > There's nothing like telling somebody whom you (Healy) think is
> > virtually 100% wrong about everything relating to the JFK case to
> > "keep up the good work", huh?
LMFAO -- ya can't get passed the DP plaza surveyor's plat can ya
pukester!
> > That makes about as much sense as my telling Walt, Don W., and Ben to
> > "keep up the good work" (and meaning it).
>
> > Hilarious.
you're running in overdrive, its palpable...
Bud
> On Sep 14, 6:32 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 2:35 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "pearls before swine, Tom.... KUTGW!" <<<
>
> > > Says the kook named Healy (aka Crackpipe) who doesn't believe a single
> > > thing that Thomas H. Purvis believes in regarding the way President
> > > John Kennedy died in 1963.
>
> > > Purvis thinks that only bullets fired by Lee Oswald killed JFK.
>
> > Really? I think this shows the dangers of looking too deeply into
> > something, people seem to have a tendency to look past the obvious,
> > looking for deeper truths. I noticed Purvis uses much of the same
> > testimony that Bob Harris uses to support his shooting scenario, yet
> > both people come up with vastly different conclusions. You see this
> > with Walt, dw, a few others (Cliff uses the clothing, dw uses
> > discrepancies in the testimony, ect), they have themselves convinced
> > they have the aptitude to be the one to rummage through the evidence,
> > and hit on the significant bits. It seems similar to those people who
> > go on American idol, and have themselves convinced they actually have
> > talent. Most times these junior sleuths are trying to cut diamonds
> > with cinderblocks, using crude information to draw precise
> > conclusions.
>
> oh, dudster... that tin-foil beannie of yours is rotating a mile a
> minute -- rest son, REST! When CT's are ready for court they'll trot
> out a case even your law school professors will think, PROFOUND!
<snicker> Court? You kooks can`t muster enough evidence to get a
hearing. You retards have wasted enough of the taxpayer`s money on
snipe hunts, stoner, even you must realize those windmills are kicking
your ass.
aeffects
DVP is a ghost, albeit a Lone Nut Ghost/TROLL. Alas, CT's need him,
he's the only Lone Nut/WCR supporter that has any sense of selling
propoganda. He's also an expert SBT disinfo specialist. Not to mention
premiere shill for Vinnie Bugliosi (aka: Reclaiming History)
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that comparable to you being an ass licker of Ben Holmes? Bugliosi
is wealthy and intelligent, also a well known and respected man. Your
idol Holmes can't compare to Bugliosi's garbage man who probably is
wealthier and more intelligent too. Carry on Toots....you're
constantly good for a laugh LOL
aeffects
wrote:
good gosh joey... Am I the only one still responding to you? Must of
got another swaztika tattoed on your ass, eh son? Testy this morning...
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9637a68dba701f78
>
> >>> "EVALUATING VON PEIN'S EMOTIONAL STABILITY" <<<
>
> I wouldn't trust Gil Jesus to evaluate the "emotional stability" of a
> dead cricket.
>
DVP = Old-time Television Program DVD & CD salesperson, rose to
heights of self proclaimed Internet PR agent for Reclaiming History,
which alas, proved to be one of book publishings most colossal
failure. So much so, the publisher re-edited the book (down to a
mangable size), reissuedit as Four Days in November, and surprise-
surprise, it ALSO failed miserably...
Think it through son, talk it over with your brother.... for the
record, I don''t think your insane Dave, just delusional - with
moments of grandeur. (Typical Lone Nut-wingnut) Carry on!
aeffects
son, it the ONLY reason you're here... get over yourself! LMFAO
aeffects
oh, we need you David Von Pein, like AM radio needs Rush Limpdick, er
Limbaugh...
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does anyone every respond to the junkie other then to humiliate him? I
think not LOL
Time for another lite of the crackpipe junkie, you're talking to
yourself again and as usual it's incoherent and illiterate.
Gil Jesus
homosexuality) there is no truth in you.
Period.
justm...@gmail.com
Nice of you to confess what your life is all about Jesus....I thought
you would never own up to the fact that you are a kiddy chaser and a
gay one to boot. God will be pleased ROFLMAO
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c10abff-72f6-44d3...@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Nah, been hanging out in your neck of the woods. Did the US Open, went to a
wedding in LA, then went shopping for a base in London. We'll be spending
half the year there from next year. What have you been up to Junkie?
Freebasing? Snorting? Injecting? My what an exciting life you lead. Loser.
ROTFLMAO
Sam Brown
> When your life revolves around lies and unnatural acts (sodomy/
> homosexuality)
Lesbians and sodomy? Perhaps some time back at high school would be
beneficial to you Nazi boy. You really are a stupid lttle man aren't you
Gilbert?
there is no truth in you.
Says the "man" who impersonated an 11 year old boy. Idiot.
>
> Period.
>
Gil Jesus
justm...@gmail.com
> Sam will be judged according to God's Word. Period.
Oh boy, the hypocritical Christian bigot must have put on his nuns
habit this morning and decided to try his bible preaching approach
again *Gag*. Fortunately Jesus you have shown everyone what a lying
piece of white trash you are, so your bible blabbing as about as much
clout as Healys junkie street talk. What a fine couple you two make,
have you ever thought of hooking up? It would be a match made in
Heaven, again God would be so pleased with you ROFLMAO
Gil Jesus
justm...@gmail.com
>
> BIGOT JUSTME's USE OF THE WORD "FAGGOT"
>
>
> BIGOT JUSTME'S USE OF THE TERM "SISSY"
>
Thanks for the advertising once again...I love when you show lurkers
and newbies how I've exposed you and your
pals for the morons you are....KUTGW bigot!
Brokedad
> Von Pinhead! Pay Attention and you just may learn something..
>
> Provided of course that you have someone read this to you and repeat
> it sufficientely enough that you can then "Parrot" it back.
>
> > 1. The first shot struck!
>
> This happens to be CE399 which only penetrated a short distance into
> the back of JFK and lodged.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
>
> "I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I
> immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker,
> looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit
> the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.
>
> > 2. The second shot struck!
>
> This happens to be the shot impact to the head of JFK at Z313/aka the
> "Cowlick entry" of which a fragment from this bullet travelled forward
> striking the right wrist of JBC, as well as the windshield and
> windshield molding of the limousine.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
>
> " a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of
> the Boss's head"
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
>
> When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could
> see
> the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was
> leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant
> what
> appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the
> President
> seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded
> and
> the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when
> the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the
> President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs.
> KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
>
> Mr. HUDSON -I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I
> happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the
> second shot.
> Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
> correct?
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
> little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
> Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
> Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in
> the
> head; is that right?
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
> Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
> in your mind about that, was there?
> Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
> Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
> another shot?
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
> Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
> Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
>
> > 3. The third shot struck!
>
> This happens to be the impact to the head of JFK at survey stationing
> 4+95/aka directly in front of James Altgens position.
> It is the "EOP" entry in which the bullet struck and entered the scalp
> at the base of the hairline at the rear of the head/neck, tunnelled
> through the soft flesh of the rear of the neck/head, and thereafter
> struck the skull in the EOP region at a point on the skull which was
> higher than was the entry into the scalp.
>
> Oh, and by the way, the bullet also passed through the coat of JFK at
> the edge of the coat collar, prior to having struck JFK in the scalp.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
>
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
> close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
> right along in there.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
>
> BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could
> notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side,
> as
> Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
>
> BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were
> relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military
> service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he
> expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as
> quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim,
> and fire three shots.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took
> place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last
> shot,
> but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not
> another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That
> was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of
> certainty.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER - Could you tell us approximately how many shots there
> were between the first and the last shot--as you well know--there
> were
> supposed to have been three shots, but how many shots did you hear?
> Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I wouldn't want to say--I don't want to guess,
> because facts are so important on something like this. I am inclined
> to feel like that there were not as many as I have heard people say.
> I
> think it's of a smaller denomination, a smaller number, but I
> cannot--
> I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
> least one shot in between.
> Mr. LIEBELER - At least one?
> Mr. ALTGENS - I would say that--I know there was one in between. It
> is
> possible there might have been another one I don't really know, but
> two, I can really account for.
> Mr. LIEBELER - And that's the first one and the last one?
> Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.
> Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went
> down the street; isn't that right?
> Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
> Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
> just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the
> very
> instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
> wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
> why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had
> prefocused
> in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
> and that's as far as I got with my camera.
>
> Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came
> from
> behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just
> as
> he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if
> at
> the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
> upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
> just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
> something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
> right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
> his head in my direction from where I was standing
>
> ===========================================================================
> =============
>
> Now! Lets see if we can assist Von Pin/Parrothead in figureing this
> out!
>
> 1. The first shot struck JFK in the back.
> 2. The Second shot struck JFK in the head.
> 3. There were three shots fired.
> 4. The last shot fired struck JFK in the head directly in front of
> James Altgens.
>
> OH! This is so confusing!
>
> Hey Pin/Parrothead! Perhaps you should make an attempt at reading
> and understanding the testimonies and evidence for yourself.
> When one merely "Parrots" what others have fed to him, he is quite
> subject to ultimately appear quite stupid.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arowland.htm
>
> the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when
> I
> heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire [sic]. In fact some
> of
> the people around laughed and then in about 8 seconds I heard another
> report and in about 3 seconds a third report.
> ----------------------
>
> ===========================================================================
> =============
>
>
>
> > Actually, one must question as to exactly what level of stupidity one
> > must achieve to have believed that whoever the shooter was, that if he
> > could hit JFK at least two out of three times, that he could have at
> > least hit a relatively large limousine and/or someone else in it with
> > the third shot.
> > Care to explain exactly why you fell for and believed THE SHOT THAT
> > MISSED?
> > P.S. Don't get caught driving through our County, with that County
> > wide ordnance against STUPIDITY, you could easily be locked up.- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
Mr. HUDSON - I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet
hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a
little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty
close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere
right along in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no
more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that
you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the
President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot
was fired.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.
Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went
down the street; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as
to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the
picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely
sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot
was fired and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that
there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.
Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third
shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third
shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot
did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that
was made after that.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jfk.org/Oral_Histories/Oral_His…st.asp?Letter=s
Malcolm Summers
Well, then the car kept coming, and then the second shot rang out. And
then the third was just about where I was at, rang out
------------------------------------------------------------
From Nellie Connally’s book and her handwritten notes which were
written 10 days after the assassination.
“I reached there and pulled him to me & tried to get us both down in
the car. Then came a third shot. With John in my arms & still trying
to stay down I did not see the third shot hit. But I felt something
falling all over me.”
---------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm
Mr. CONNALLY: I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was
fired. I only heard two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I
wasn’t conscious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious
of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very
pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that
loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound.
Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior
of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain
tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little
finger.
Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard three shots, I had three reactions, three
separate reactions. The first shot, then I looked and saw the
President, the second shot, John, and third, all this matter all over
us
Mr. DEVINE. And then after you knew that he was hit, and you
pulled him over in your lap, you then heard the third shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
----------------------------------
Now! For the $24.00 question?
If JFK was struck in the head at frame Z313 of the Zapruder film, at a
point which has clearly been identified by multiple witnesses as
Shot#2, and, the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot was fired some 30-feet farther
down Elm St. directly in front of James Altgens, and close to Malcolm
Summers, and, James Altgens personally observed the impact of this
shot to the head of JFK, and Nellie Connally personally felt the
cerebral tissue of someone in the back seat being blown all over them,
and, assuming that Jackie had no brain damage caused by impact of a
bullet.
Exactly who’s head did that third shot also strike, in that it too
blew cerebral tissue out towards James Altgens as well as blowing it
all over Nellie Connally and JBC?
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________
Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of
that evidence.
As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the
evidence.
Tom Purvis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see
the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was
leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what
appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President
seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and
the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when
the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the
President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs.
KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were
relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military
service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he
expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as
quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim,
and fire three shots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm
"A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of
the Boss's head."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH ME! This is truly so difficult to figure out!
At least for a "Parrot" anyway!
Gil Jesus
knowledge of the JFK assassination, or for that matter, anything else.
justm...@gmail.com
> Joey Justme's 3,716 off-topic posts are a smokescreen for his lack of
> knowledge of the JFK assassination, or for that matter, anything else.
ROFLMAO....it's killing you cause you haven't got a damn clue who I am
or what I do. You're a paranoid misfit and one of the most incapable
researchers I have ever seen. I don't need to post about JFK, I'm too
busy making a fool out of you over and over again. Now please, let's
see that wonderful copy and paste you have of me tearing you and the
other idiots apart one more time. LOL
Sam Brown
> Sam will be judged according to God's Word. Period.
Bugger off Bigot. Don't you have a cross to burn somewhere?
Sam Brown
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81ec4c79-aff2-48d4...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I love watching Gilbert self-destruct. He always reverts back to his foaming
at the mouth fundamentalism. He is the archetypical kook. Hilarious.