Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Online DVP Interview

15 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 10:58:47 PM6/10/11
to

I had a lot of fun recently talking with a fellow by the name of
Mitchell Hadley, who maintains multiple blogs and websites pertaining
to television and American culture.

Mitchell interviewed me about my collection of TV coverage on the JFK
assassination, plus some other stuff. So, I thought I'd share the link
to the article:

http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.html

Island

unread,
Jun 13, 2011, 8:16:26 AM6/13/11
to

David,
I was amazed at what you put online concerning the TV coverage of
JFK’s murder, burial and the reports & subsequent inquiries that
followed it. One can experience the assassination today as it happened
then as a result of your tremendous efforts without having to mess
with the rabbit ears that sat atop mostly black and white 3 channel TV
sets back then to surf the coverage available..

Those oldies folks like me that remember the fear of an imminent
national attack that swept through the administrators that first
notified middle school students like me and sent us home when JFK’s
death was announced can now compare the story’s infancy to the tangled
mess conspiracy writers have turned it into for self profit.

I do believe in the overall analysis of the tragedy you will be judged
one of the ones, if not THE one, who did the best job in keeping the
truth of the tragedy together for generations to study and ponder
without being spoon-fed mind warping conspiracy BS.
Your efforts protect the same gullible young minds those shameful
older scavengers exploit to weaken their confidence in our government
while fattening their wallets at youth’s expense.

For any serious student of the JFK assassination your online video
library is a must place to start.

bigdog

unread,
Jun 13, 2011, 4:27:07 PM6/13/11
to

I appreciate DVP's efforts as well. I was in 7th grade and can almost
recite the announcement from our principal word for word. We were told
both the President and governor had been shot in Texas and both were
in serious condition. We had no idea how serious. My initial reaction
was that surely JFK would recover. I had no idea that wasn't even a
remote possibility. He was effectively dead the instant the head shot
struck.

Our teacher immediately turned on the radio and it seemed like it was
just a few minutes later that they announced that JFK was dead. Since
I attended a Catholic school, instead of being sent home immediately,
we all walked across the street and one of our priests led us in a
rosary before we were sent home. By the time I got home, Oswald was in
custody.

I am fascinated by the early coverage since that is the part I missed.
I was glued to the TV the rest of the weekend. Ironically, about the
only time I wasn't was when Oswald got shot.

The video record is a valuable resource, even given the fact that so
many of the early reports were just plain wrong. It gives a real sense
of what was in everyone's minds as events were unfolding.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 13, 2011, 4:27:19 PM6/13/11
to

Questionin

unread,
Jun 13, 2011, 5:39:36 PM6/13/11
to
Isn't this drivel? The WC version of events is the only version that is
televised! These so-called documentaries ALWAYS conclude with the same old
conclusions. There are many unanswered questions. We in the doubting
department are ridiculed because we don't have the pre-programmed answers
you-all seem to depend! Why should we. Don't it bother you guys that all
the critical evidence is missing or lost or stolen? Adolph Hitler would
have done a much better job of covering up than you guys.

Some of us know the functions of government was taken over by the Nazi
criminals evacuated after the war. It was just the scientist who were
smuggled down the "RATLINES." It is a slap in the face to those Americans
who fought and died to clean up the mess the political made. After all the
Germans were America's friend until Pearl Harbor.

It is no coquensidence the generals in the American government are from
German decent. In the 1960's, more prevalent than even today. These German
criminals were smuggled and placed in high positions in order to fight the
dreaded communists. When Stalin had good cause to distrust his allies. The
OSS inducted many German Nazi comrades into the CIA. Many remained for
years. Nixon ran for the president's office with one in toe, AND WON. Even
today the US government is violating international law while conducting
"NATION-BUILDING" all over the world. Not to advance "democracy" as
claimed, but actually to advance "Capitalism." The very ideals Kennedy was
fighting. It is a slap in the face, not just for those who were killed;
but for the injured causalities who returned and had to live with these
horrible wounds and shunned by the very society they defended.

AND as it goes it is a slap in face for those who don't blindly believe
the king has no clothes. Maybe if there was even one of you who could
represent a more plausible case, maybe more than 5% of the public would
believe in the government's scenario.

EXAMPLE - the November 29th LBJ-JEH conversation outlining the events six
days earlier. Hoover told the exact story the WC concluded. Do the
research fellows. Before you claim to "protect the same gullible young

minds those shameful older scavengers exploit to weaken their confidence

in our government while fattening their wallets at youth?s expense." Cause
I too remember than "air raid warning" and training.

"Island" <rayne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7545ee45-4af8-45e7...@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...


On Jun 10, 9:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I had a lot of fun recently talking with a fellow by the name of
> Mitchell Hadley, who maintains multiple blogs and websites pertaining
> to television and American culture.
>
> Mitchell interviewed me about my collection of TV coverage on the JFK
> assassination, plus some other stuff. So, I thought I'd share the link
> to the article:
>
> http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.html

David,
I was amazed at what you put online concerning the TV coverage of

JFK?s murder, burial and the reports & subsequent inquiries that


followed it. One can experience the assassination today as it happened
then as a result of your tremendous efforts without having to mess
with the rabbit ears that sat atop mostly black and white 3 channel TV
sets back then to surf the coverage available..

Those oldies folks like me that remember the fear of an imminent
national attack that swept through the administrators that first

notified middle school students like me and sent us home when JFK?s
death was announced can now compare the story?s infancy to the tangled


mess conspiracy writers have turned it into for self profit.

I do believe in the overall analysis of the tragedy you will be judged
one of the ones, if not THE one, who did the best job in keeping the
truth of the tragedy together for generations to study and ponder
without being spoon-fed mind warping conspiracy BS.
Your efforts protect the same gullible young minds those shameful
older scavengers exploit to weaken their confidence in our government

while fattening their wallets at youth?s expense.

Robert Harris

unread,
Jun 13, 2011, 9:14:32 PM6/13/11
to
In article
<7ed787dd-a97f-48d8...@b21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 13, 8:16?am, Island <raynefa...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> > On Jun 10, 9:58?pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I had a lot of fun recently talking with a fellow by the name of
> > > Mitchell Hadley, who maintains multiple blogs and websites pertaining
> > > to television and American culture.
> >
> > > Mitchell interviewed me about my collection of TV coverage on the JFK
> > > assassination, plus some other stuff. So, I thought I'd share the link
> > > to the article:
> >
> > >http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.html
> >
> > David,
> > I was amazed at what you put online concerning the TV coverage of

> > JFK?s murder, burial and the reports & subsequent inquiries that


> > followed it. One can experience the assassination today as it happened
> > then as a result of your tremendous efforts without having to mess
> > with the rabbit ears that sat atop mostly black and white 3 channel TV
> > sets back then to surf the coverage available..
> >
> > Those oldies folks like me that remember the fear of an imminent
> > national attack that swept through the administrators that first

> > notified middle school students like me and sent us home when JFK?s
> > death was announced can now compare the story?s infancy to the tangled


> > mess conspiracy writers have turned it into for self profit.
> >
> > I do believe in the overall analysis of the tragedy you will be judged
> > one of the ones, if not THE one, who did the best job in keeping the
> > truth of the tragedy together for generations to study and ponder
> > without being spoon-fed mind warping conspiracy BS.
> > Your efforts protect the same gullible young minds those shameful
> > older scavengers exploit to weaken their confidence in our government

> > while fattening their wallets at youth?s expense.


> >
> > For any serious student of the JFK assassination your online video
> > library is a must place to start.
>
> I appreciate DVP's efforts as well.

LOL! We need to pass out airbags around here:-)

Hey .john! Remember when you wanted to make a rule against cheerleading?

Mr. VP is a cherry picker. He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell
from the evidence that proves conspiracy. I love how he is only interested
in being "interviewed" by someone who is 100% in agreement with him.

Oswald did not act alone, if at all. The evidence which proves that is far
beyond conclusive, and David knows it.


Robert Harris

Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 14, 2011, 5:25:31 PM6/14/11
to
On 6/13/2011 6:14 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <7ed787dd-a97f-48d8...@b21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> bigdog<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 8:16?am, Island<raynefa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 9:58?pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had a lot of fun recently talking with a fellow by the name of
>>>> Mitchell Hadley, who maintains multiple blogs and websites pertaining
>>>> to television and American culture.
>>>
>>>> Mitchell interviewed me about my collection of TV coverage on the JFK
>>>> assassination, plus some other stuff. So, I thought I'd share the link
>>>> to the article:
>>>
>>>> http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.html
>>>
>>> David,
>>> I was amazed at what you put online concerning the TV coverage of
>>> JFK?s murder, burial and the reports& subsequent inquiries that

Ya always know that you're dealing with someone who has a serious bent
when they start a reply with "LOL!"


David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 14, 2011, 5:26:25 PM6/14/11
to

>>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker." <<<

And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.


>>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that proves conspiracy." <<<

How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?


>>> "I love how he is only interested in being "interviewed" by someone who is 100% in agreement with him." <<<

Bull. The fact that Mitchell Hadley is an LNer is a coincidence (from
my POV). He approached me about that interview. I didn't approach him.
I had never even heard of him prior to him e-mailing me with his
request for an interview.


>>> "Oswald did not act alone, if at all." <<<

Then why does ALL of the physical evidence point to Oswald?

And why do ALL of Oswald's OWN ACTIONS immediately after the
assassination reek with GUILT, Bob?

LHO must have been one eager and willing patsy, huh? Because he did
things and said things after 12:30 on Nov. 22 that only a GUILTY
person would do and say.


>>> "The evidence which proves that is far beyond conclusive, and David knows it." <<<

You're incredibly silly.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 14, 2011, 5:33:37 PM6/14/11
to
On 6/13/2011 5:39 PM, Questionin wrote:
> Isn't this drivel? The WC version of events is the only version that is
> televised! These so-called documentaries ALWAYS conclude with the same old
> conclusions. There are many unanswered questions. We in the doubting
> department are ridiculed because we don't have the pre-programmed answers
> you-all seem to depend! Why should we. Don't it bother you guys that all
> the critical evidence is missing or lost or stolen? Adolph Hitler would
> have done a much better job of covering up than you guys.
>


And when someone does produce conspiracy documentaries the government
stooges get them taken off the air with threats of lawsuits and
government regulations.

> Some of us know the functions of government was taken over by the Nazi
> criminals evacuated after the war. It was just the scientist who were
> smuggled down the "RATLINES." It is a slap in the face to those Americans
> who fought and died to clean up the mess the political made. After all the
> Germans were America's friend until Pearl Harbor.
>

There is a lot more to it than that. The CIA picked up the Nazi spy
apparatus and used it. Gehlen was kept in place in charge of
intelligence in West Germany. He gave us a lot of important information
on the Soviet spy networks, our new joint enemy.
Germany was attacking and killing us before Pearl Harbor.

> It is no coquensidence the generals in the American government are from
> German decent. In the 1960's, more prevalent than even today. These German

That's racist and makes no sense.

> criminals were smuggled and placed in high positions in order to fight the
> dreaded communists. When Stalin had good cause to distrust his allies. The

Nazis were not smuggled into the US and place in high positions the way
you describe it.

> OSS inducted many German Nazi comrades into the CIA. Many remained for

Not that many. Only a handful.

> years. Nixon ran for the president's office with one in toe, AND WON. Even
> today the US government is violating international law while conducting
> "NATION-BUILDING" all over the world. Not to advance "democracy" as
> claimed, but actually to advance "Capitalism." The very ideals Kennedy was
> fighting. It is a slap in the face, not just for those who were killed;

Kennedy was not fighting capitalism. Imperialism is a different thing.

> but for the injured causalities who returned and had to live with these
> horrible wounds and shunned by the very society they defended.
>
> AND as it goes it is a slap in face for those who don't blindly believe
> the king has no clothes. Maybe if there was even one of you who could
> represent a more plausible case, maybe more than 5% of the public would
> believe in the government's scenario.
>

About 15% of the public believes in the WC version.

> EXAMPLE - the November 29th LBJ-JEH conversation outlining the events six
> days earlier. Hoover told the exact story the WC concluded. Do the

Both Hoover and LBJ believed it was a conspiracy. That was the reason
for the cover-up.

> research fellows. Before you claim to "protect the same gullible young
> minds those shameful older scavengers exploit to weaken their confidence
> in our government while fattening their wallets at youth?s expense." Cause
> I too remember than "air raid warning" and training.
>

I remember well in fourth grade being taught the stupid duck and cover
and reminding the teacher of how pointless it was when we lived so close
to ground zero that we'd be fried in minutes.
And Scientific American published a study showing the likely targets and
circle of damage.

> "Island"<rayne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7545ee45-4af8-45e7...@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 9:58 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I had a lot of fun recently talking with a fellow by the name of
>> Mitchell Hadley, who maintains multiple blogs and websites pertaining
>> to television and American culture.
>>
>> Mitchell interviewed me about my collection of TV coverage on the JFK
>> assassination, plus some other stuff. So, I thought I'd share the link
>> to the article:
>>
>> http://www.ItsAboutTV.com/2011/06/its-about-tv-interview-jfk.html
>
> David,
> I was amazed at what you put online concerning the TV coverage of

> JFK?s murder, burial and the reports& subsequent inquiries that

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 10:12:30 AM6/15/11
to
On 6/14/2011 5:26 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker."<<<
>
> And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.
>
>
>>>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that proves conspiracy."<<<
>
> How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?
>
>
>>>> "I love how he is only interested in being "interviewed" by someone who is 100% in agreement with him."<<<
>
> Bull. The fact that Mitchell Hadley is an LNer is a coincidence (from
> my POV). He approached me about that interview. I didn't approach him.
> I had never even heard of him prior to him e-mailing me with his
> request for an interview.
>

You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured out
that you are a WC defender?

>
>>>> "Oswald did not act alone, if at all."<<<
>
> Then why does ALL of the physical evidence point to Oswald?
>

To frame him.

> And why do ALL of Oswald's OWN ACTIONS immediately after the
> assassination reek with GUILT, Bob?
>

Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes?
Calm and collected when confronted by Baker?
Buying a Coke and drinking it?

> LHO must have been one eager and willing patsy, huh? Because he did
> things and said things after 12:30 on Nov. 22 that only a GUILTY
> person would do and say.
>

A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at
the time.
Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot anyone.
Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent, to you
that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?

Robert Harris

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 10:14:26 AM6/15/11
to
In article
<c9773e6a-f5cc-4845...@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker." <<<
>
> And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.
>
>
> >>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that
> >>> proves conspiracy." <<<
>
> How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?

You mean the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP said the
final shots were closely bunched, which was totally inconsistent with
the alleged murder weapon?

Or the analysis by a Nobel prize winning physicist that a loud noise
startled the limo passengers 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot?

And the reactions by every surviving passenger in the limousine to that
shot at frame 285 which all began within the same 1/6th of a second?

Is that the evidence that you claim doesn't exist?

If so, then why did you hightail it out of here the last time I
challenged you?


And why did you evade the facts related to CE-399?

Why did you evade the statements by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas
District attorney, the officer who delivered the actual bullet from
Connally's leg to the DPD and the supervisor Audrey Bell, who gave an
envelope containing fragments from Connally's wrist to an FBI agent?

Why did you instead, try to change the subject to the irrelevant
question of whose initials were in a particular part of CE-842?

Wasn't it so that you could pretend that you "won", without having to
address the infinitely more important issues which proved exactly the
opposite???

David, you will win when you explain to everyone, why Bell placed "three
to five" fragments into an envelope, then labelled it as "fragments"
from Connally's "right arm", and then minutes later, told the Dallas
District Attorney as well as officer Nolan that it contained a single
"bullet" that came from Connally's gurney.

And while you are doing that, please also explain the amazing
coincidence that Governor Connally said the same thing - that the bullet
fell from his gurney and was recovered by a nurse.


Oh and speaking of your evasions, why haven't you discussed SA Odums,
whom the FBI told the WC, interviewed Tomlinson and Wright, who
allegedly told him that CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet?

Why do you suppose there is no documentation in the archives for such an
interview? And why did Odums himself, flatly deny conducting such an
interview or even seeing CE-399?

I think the FBI lied, David. I think the records and Odum, confirmed the
fact that no such interview was ever conducted.

And that brings us to the question of WHY the FBI lied to the Warren
Commission.

I could be wrong David, but I think I can answer that question.

>
>
> >>> "I love how he is only interested in being "interviewed" by someone who
> >>> is 100% in agreement with him." <<<
>
> Bull. The fact that Mitchell Hadley is an LNer is a coincidence (from
> my POV). He approached me about that interview. I didn't approach him.
> I had never even heard of him prior to him e-mailing me with his
> request for an interview.

Well David, let's try a simple test.

I've already started interviewing you myself. Let's see how you do with
that:-)

>
>
> >>> "Oswald did not act alone, if at all." <<<
>
> Then why does ALL of the physical evidence point to Oswald?

It is an outrageous logical error to make an unsupported assertion like
that David. You first, need to prove that all of the physical evidence
does indeed, point to Oswald. So far, I have never seen you even try.

There is certainly no evidence that Oswald fired any of the early shots,
which went almost entirely unheard, and provoked no startle reactions.
Oswald's rifle has been tested by experts for the HSCA, who determined
that it generated sound levels 16 times greater than is required to
cause involuntary startle reactions.

We only see such reactions, within a third of a second following frames
285 and 312. Those were the only shots that could have come from the
alleged murder weapon or any other high powered rifle.

And due to the proximity of those shots, Oswald could only have fired
one.

>
> And why do ALL of Oswald's OWN ACTIONS immediately after the
> assassination reek with GUILT, Bob?

Another unsupported, sweeping assertion.

Oswald went home, grabbed a gun and was heading directly toward Jack
Ruby's apartment at the time Tippit found him. That certainly doesn't
prove that he killed Kennedy.

>
> LHO must have been one eager and willing patsy, huh? Because he did
> things and said things after 12:30 on Nov. 22 that only a GUILTY
> person would do and say.

Or a person who was remaining in character, pretending to be a guilty
communist, whose denials were pathetically lame and contrived.

"They only arrested me because I lived in the Soviet Union.".

Think about it David:-)

The Texas states attorney stated that Oswald was an informant for the
FBI, as did a multitude of others, including the Dallas chief of police,
Orest Pena, a confirmed FBI informant, Adrian Alba, and John Elrod whose
recollections have been totally confirmed.

>
>
> >>> "The evidence which proves that is far beyond conclusive, and David knows
> >>> it." <<<
>
> You're incredibly silly.


Prove it.

Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 12:03:14 PM6/15/11
to

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured
out that you are a WC defender?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're humorous, Anthony. You think the whole world knows I even
exist?

99.999999999999999+% of the Earth's population has never heard of DVP,
and they've never heard of Tony Marsh either.

>>> "Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
<<<

Oswald left the building as fast as he could. You think THREE MINUTES is a
long time for LHO to stay in the building after shooting JFK from an upper
floor of the Book Depository, and then having to go to the opposite side
of the building to get to the stairs, and then crossing the building again
to get to the front door?

You're hilarious.


>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
<<<


Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
on November 22nd. And you should know why.


>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?" <<<

He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
assassinated.

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

>>> "A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at
the time. Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot
anyone. Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent,
to you that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?"
<<<

Yeah, let's just scrap all of the LHO-did-it evidence. Right, Tony?
None of that stuff proves a damn thing, does it? (Why even HAVE any
evidence at all in a murder case then, if it's just going to be
ignored--which is exactly what most conspiracy theorists do with it?)

And Tony apparently thinks that most murderers will confess to their
crimes no matter how desperately they want to get away with those
criminal acts.

After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
serious as a double-murder charge, would he?

And, naturally, he'd never tell any falsehoods about that curtain rod
package either. Would he, Anthony?

Are you sure you're on the right planet, Tone?

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 5:53:57 PM6/15/11
to
On 6/15/2011 12:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured
> out that you are a WC defender?"<<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're humorous, Anthony. You think the whole world knows I even
> exist?
>
> 99.999999999999999+% of the Earth's population has never heard of DVP,
> and they've never heard of Tony Marsh either.
>
>
>
>>>> "Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> <<<
>
> Oswald left the building as fast as he could. You think THREE MINUTES is a
> long time for LHO to stay in the building after shooting JFK from an upper
> floor of the Book Depository, and then having to go to the opposite side
> of the building to get to the stairs, and then crossing the building again
> to get to the front door?
>

Ridiculous. He did not run out of the building. He went into the lunch
room and got a coke. Stopped to talk to a secretary. Was confronted by a
policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could. I
didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
employees.

And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.

> You're hilarious.
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> <<<
>
>
> Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
> guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
> on November 22nd. And you should know why.
>

Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black. When we point
out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect,
the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for the shooter shooting
at a moving target down on Elm. When someone claims he is innocent, you
use that to prove that he is guilty.

>
>>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?"<<<
>
> He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
> he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
> an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
> been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
> like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
> floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
> assassinated.
>

Master of deflection. You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of
Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of
coke. You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone.
If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY
when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the
shots were fired?

> More:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html
>
>
>
>>>> "A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at
> the time. Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot
> anyone. Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent,
> to you that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?"
> <<<
>
> Yeah, let's just scrap all of the LHO-did-it evidence. Right, Tony?

Yeah, let's just believe all the Drefyus did it evidence, Right? Because
the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam must have
nuclear weapons because the government says so.

> None of that stuff proves a damn thing, does it? (Why even HAVE any
> evidence at all in a murder case then, if it's just going to be
> ignored--which is exactly what most conspiracy theorists do with it?)
>

Why bothering having trials at all if you've already convicted the
person in the press and killed him?

> And Tony apparently thinks that most murderers will confess to their
> crimes no matter how desperately they want to get away with those
> criminal acts.
>

I never said anything like that. But at least I don't use someone's
claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do.

> After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
> tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
> serious as a double-murder charge, would he?
>

What are you mumbling about now? Misrepresenting my position because you
can't challenge it. I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.
That doesn't make him a sweet golden person. It does make YOU the opposite.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 5:59:01 PM6/15/11
to
On 6/15/2011 10:14 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <c9773e6a-f5cc-4845...@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker."<<<
>>
>> And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.
>>
>>
>>>>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that
>>>>> proves conspiracy."<<<
>>
>> How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?
>
> You mean the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP said the
> final shots were closely bunched, which was totally inconsistent with
> the alleged murder weapon?
>

There you go again, misrepresenting the facts to promote your wacky
theory.

> Or the analysis by a Nobel prize winning physicist that a loud noise
> startled the limo passengers 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot?
>

That is not what Alvarez said. He said that a loud noise, probably the
siren, startled the DRIVER and that's what caused the slow down of the
limo. He said nothing about the passenger hearing a loud noise. You added
that to promote your wacky theory.

> And the reactions by every surviving passenger in the limousine to that
> shot at frame 285 which all began within the same 1/6th of a second?
>

That is YOUR idea, not his.

> Is that the evidence that you claim doesn't exist?
>
> If so, then why did you hightail it out of here the last time I
> challenged you?
>
>
> And why did you evade the facts related to CE-399?
>
> Why did you evade the statements by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas
> District attorney, the officer who delivered the actual bullet from
> Connally's leg to the DPD and the supervisor Audrey Bell, who gave an
> envelope containing fragments from Connally's wrist to an FBI agent?
>
> Why did you instead, try to change the subject to the irrelevant
> question of whose initials were in a particular part of CE-842?
>
> Wasn't it so that you could pretend that you "won", without having to
> address the infinitely more important issues which proved exactly the
> opposite???
>
> David, you will win when you explain to everyone, why Bell placed "three
> to five" fragments into an envelope, then labelled it as "fragments"
> from Connally's "right arm", and then minutes later, told the Dallas
> District Attorney as well as officer Nolan that it contained a single
> "bullet" that came from Connally's gurney.
>
> And while you are doing that, please also explain the amazing
> coincidence that Governor Connally said the same thing - that the bullet
> fell from his gurney and was recovered by a nurse.
>

Maybe because it wasn't Connally who said that, it was his ghost writer.

Silly. A general direction is not "directly."

>>
>> LHO must have been one eager and willing patsy, huh? Because he did
>> things and said things after 12:30 on Nov. 22 that only a GUILTY
>> person would do and say.
>
> Or a person who was remaining in character, pretending to be a guilty
> communist, whose denials were pathetically lame and contrived.
>
> "They only arrested me because I lived in the Soviet Union.".
>
> Think about it David:-)
>
> The Texas states attorney stated that Oswald was an informant for the
> FBI, as did a multitude of others, including the Dallas chief of police,
> Orest Pena, a confirmed FBI informant, Adrian Alba, and John Elrod whose
> recollections have been totally confirmed.
>
>

They were lying to stick it to the meddling Feds. They already admitted
that they were lying.
Elrod was an alcoholic and proven liar.

Bud

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 6:59:57 PM6/15/11
to
On Jun 15, 5:53 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/15/2011 12:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >>>> "You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured
> > out that you are a WC defender?"<<<
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > You're humorous, Anthony. You think the whole world knows I even
> > exist?
>
> > 99.999999999999999+% of the Earth's population has never heard of DVP,
> > and they've never heard of Tony Marsh either.
>
> >>>> "Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> > <<<
>
> > Oswald left the building as fast as he could. You think THREE MINUTES is a
> > long time for LHO to stay in the building after shooting JFK from an upper
> > floor of the Book Depository, and then having to go to the opposite side
> > of the building to get to the stairs, and then crossing the building again
> > to get to the front door?
>
> Ridiculous. He did not run out of the building.

How long after the shots was he out of there, Tony?

>He went into the lunch
> room and got a coke.

He went into the lunchroom to avoid the people coming up the stairs.

>Stopped to talk to a secretary.

Reid didn`t say he stopped. In fact she said he mumbled something as
he walked.

>Was confronted by a
> policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could.

He didn`t jump out a window if thats what you mean.

> I
> didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
> employees.

Oswald was the only employee who was in the building during the
shooting that quickly left the vicinity.

> And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.

He was pointing out evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter.

> > You're hilarious.
>
> >>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> > <<<
>
> > Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
> > guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
> > on November 22nd. And you should know why.
>
> Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black. When we point
> out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect,
> the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for the shooter shooting
> at a moving target down on Elm.

Like most conspiracy mongers you drag out a strawman or go off on an
irrelevant tangent rather than address what was said.

> When someone claims he is innocent, you
> use that to prove that he is guilty.

Are you saying Baker claimed Oswald was innocent?

> >>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?"<<<
>
> > He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
> > he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
> > an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
> > been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
> > like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
> > floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
> > assassinated.
>
> Master of deflection. You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of
> Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of
> coke.

Funny that you would see Baker`s rejection of the idea that Oswald
had a coke as evidence that Oswald had a coke.

> You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone.
> If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY
> when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the
> shots were fired?

An innocent person would be desperately trying to acquire details
of the crime so he could show that he was not involved. I don`t see
any indication of Oswald doing this.

> > More:
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-...


>
> >>>> "A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at
> > the time. Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot
> > anyone. Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent,
> > to you that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?"
> > <<<
>
> > Yeah, let's just scrap all of the LHO-did-it evidence. Right, Tony?
>
> Yeah, let's just believe all the Drefyus did it evidence, Right? Because
> the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam must have
> nuclear weapons because the government says so.

The government said Saddam killed people, conspiracy mongers would
figure he didn`t because our government said he did.

> > None of that stuff proves a damn thing, does it? (Why even HAVE any
> > evidence at all in a murder case then, if it's just going to be
> > ignored--which is exactly what most conspiracy theorists do with it?)
>
> Why bothering having trials at all if you've already convicted the
> person in the press and killed him?

They don`t try dead people Tony.

> > And Tony apparently thinks that most murderers will confess to their
> > crimes no matter how desperately they want to get away with those
> > criminal acts.
>
> I never said anything like that. But at least I don't use someone's
> claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do.

The evidence says Oswald killed Kennedy regardless of what Oswald
said.

> > After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
> > tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
> > serious as a double-murder charge, would he?
>
> What are you mumbling about now? Misrepresenting my position because you
> can't challenge it. I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.

This isn`t a strong indicator he killed Kennedy?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 16, 2011, 5:53:19 AM6/16/11
to
On 6/15/2011 6:59 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Jun 15, 5:53 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/15/2011 12:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>>>>>> "You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured
>>> out that you are a WC defender?"<<<
>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>>> You're humorous, Anthony. You think the whole world knows I even
>>> exist?
>>
>>> 99.999999999999999+% of the Earth's population has never heard of DVP,
>>> and they've never heard of Tony Marsh either.
>>
>>>>>> "Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
>>> <<<
>>
>>> Oswald left the building as fast as he could. You think THREE MINUTES is a
>>> long time for LHO to stay in the building after shooting JFK from an upper
>>> floor of the Book Depository, and then having to go to the opposite side
>>> of the building to get to the stairs, and then crossing the building again
>>> to get to the front door?
>>
>> Ridiculous. He did not run out of the building.
>
> How long after the shots was he out of there, Tony?
>

4 minutes. Not exactly a run. Not exactly Olympic.

>> He went into the lunch
>> room and got a coke.
>
> He went into the lunchroom to avoid the people coming up the stairs.
>

Speculation.

>> Stopped to talk to a secretary.
>
> Reid didn`t say he stopped. In fact she said he mumbled something as
> he walked.
>

Mumbling is talking. Didn't she also talk to him?

>> Was confronted by a
>> policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could.
>
> He didn`t jump out a window if thats what you mean.
>

Not many windows to jump out of on the first floor.

>> I
>> didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
>> employees.
>
> Oswald was the only employee who was in the building during the
> shooting that quickly left the vicinity.
>

False.

>> And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.
>
> He was pointing out evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter.
>

Yeah, if you are going to frame someone for murder you have to plant
SOME evidence.

>>> You're hilarious.
>>
>>>>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
>>> <<<
>>
>>> Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
>>> guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
>>> on November 22nd. And you should know why.
>>
>> Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black. When we point
>> out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect,
>> the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for the shooter shooting
>> at a moving target down on Elm.
>
> Like most conspiracy mongers you drag out a strawman or go off on an
> irrelevant tangent rather than address what was said.
>

I am citing actual things that WC defenders here have said.

>> When someone claims he is innocent, you
>> use that to prove that he is guilty.
>
> Are you saying Baker claimed Oswald was innocent?
>

Where do you get that?

>>>>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?"<<<
>>
>>> He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
>>> he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
>>> an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
>>> been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
>>> like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
>>> floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
>>> assassinated.
>>
>> Master of deflection. You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of
>> Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of
>> coke.
>
> Funny that you would see Baker`s rejection of the idea that Oswald
> had a coke as evidence that Oswald had a coke.
>

Huh?

>> You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone.
>> If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY
>> when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the
>> shots were fired?
>
> An innocent person would be desperately trying to acquire details
> of the crime so he could show that he was not involved. I don`t see
> any indication of Oswald doing this.
>

You are making up things from your imagination.

>>> More:
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-...
>>
>>>>>> "A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at
>>> the time. Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot
>>> anyone. Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent,
>>> to you that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?"
>>> <<<
>>
>>> Yeah, let's just scrap all of the LHO-did-it evidence. Right, Tony?
>>
>> Yeah, let's just believe all the Drefyus did it evidence, Right? Because
>> the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam must have
>> nuclear weapons because the government says so.
>
> The government said Saddam killed people, conspiracy mongers would
> figure he didn`t because our government said he did.
>

Unfortunately some do that because the government lies all the time.
The art is in separating the lies from the truth.

>>> None of that stuff proves a damn thing, does it? (Why even HAVE any
>>> evidence at all in a murder case then, if it's just going to be
>>> ignored--which is exactly what most conspiracy theorists do with it?)
>>
>> Why bothering having trials at all if you've already convicted the
>> person in the press and killed him?
>
> They don`t try dead people Tony.
>

You do.

>>> And Tony apparently thinks that most murderers will confess to their
>>> crimes no matter how desperately they want to get away with those
>>> criminal acts.
>>
>> I never said anything like that. But at least I don't use someone's
>> claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do.
>
> The evidence says Oswald killed Kennedy regardless of what Oswald
> said.
>

You would say that no matter what the evidence was.

>>> After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
>>> tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
>>> serious as a double-murder charge, would he?
>>
>> What are you mumbling about now? Misrepresenting my position because you
>> can't challenge it. I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.
>
> This isn`t a strong indicator he killed Kennedy?
>

No.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 16, 2011, 11:50:55 AM6/16/11
to

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "He [LHO] did not run out of the building. He went into the lunch room
and got a coke." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Very likely because he heard people coming up the stairs to the second
floor. So he ducked into the lunchroom. Perfectly consistent with his
guilt.

Now, prove he was coming UP from the first floor.


>>> "Stopped to talk to a secretary." <<<

Dead wrong. Oswald never "stopped" to talk to anybody in the second- floor
office area. Mrs. Reid TALKED TO HIM. Not the other way around. And he
didn't stop:

MRS. REID -- "I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the
back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several
feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe
they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking. He did,
too."


>>> "Was confronted by a policeman. All that took time. That is not
leaving as fast as he could." <<<

Yes, it is leaving as he could. That is, he left as fast as he could
WITHOUT DRAWING UNNEEDED ATTENTION TO HIMSELF.

Or maybe you think he should have jumped out of the sixth-floor window
after shooting the President. (Oh, yeah, you're in denial about Oswald's
guilt. I forgot.)


>>> "And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the
shooter." <<<


I don't assume he was the shooter. The evidence proves he was the shooter.
(Oh, I forgot, all of the evidence is fake, right Tony? Including: the
gun, the prints, the bullets, the shells, the paper bag with LHO's prints,
and the fibers.)

>>> "Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black." <<<

You've got things backwards again, Anthony. The CTers are the "black is
white" experts. You're back on Neptune again today I see.


>>> "When we point out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and
call that a defect, the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for
the shooter shooting at a moving target down on Elm." <<<

I don't know if it was truly an "advantage" in Oswald's case, but I do
think that the "high and to the right" factor was possibly the reason why
Oswald's first shot missed the entire automobile:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html

>>> "When someone claims he is innocent, you use that to prove that he is
guilty." <<<

You're silly, Tony. The evidence amply proves Oswald was guilty of
shooting both Kennedy and Tippit, and you know it. You just like to argue.
Simple as that.

>>> "You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of Baker's statement in
which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of coke." <<<

What statement are you talking about? Because if you're referring to the
9/23/64 document with the "Coke" crossed out, you know darn well that that
document was NOT written by Marrion Baker. Baker only CORRECTED the
incorrect data in that document and then uinitialed it.

All of that is explained in a common-sense manner here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

>>> "You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone. If
Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY when
the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the shots
were fired?" <<<

What in the world are you babbling on about now? Whose perjury? Marrion
Baker's? Roy Truly's? Neither man perjured himself--ever.

And since Oswald was obviously on the sixth floor at 12:30, the rest of
your abiove comment is worthless.

>>> "Yeah, let's just believe all the Dreyfus did it evidence, Right?

Because the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam
must have nuclear weapons because the government says so." <<<

Why not stick to the subject at hand, Tony? Namely: the JFK assassination
and Lee Harvey Oswald's involvement.


>>> "Why bothering having trials at all if you've already convicted the
person in the press and killed him?" <<<

I didn't kill him, Tony. Jack Ruby did that.

And since there was no trial (due to Ruby's handiwork), does that mean we
can never arrive at a reasonable conclusion about who killed President
Kennedy?

Or do you want to pretend Oswald is innocent because of the ol' "Innocent
Until Proven Guilty In A Court Of Law" excuse?

IOW--To hell with the evidence. ONLY a jury in a courtroom can declare
Oswald guilty. Is that correct, Mr. Marsh?


>>> "I never said anything like that. But at least I don't use someone's
claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do." <<<


I only use Oswald's claim of innocence against him because it was
obviously a desperate lie on LHO's part. And the evidence proves he was
lying. You know that, Tony.

Or should we just chuck all of that evidence out the nearest window (yet
again), just because a bunch of conspiracy theorists have a feeling it was
all tampered with?

Surely you jest.


>>> "I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit." <<<

And just exactly why did he kill Tippit, Tony?

In other words: If he HADN'T just killed JFK, then what was the burning
motive for Oswald to START KILLING PEOPLE just 45 minutes later?

Robert Harris

unread,
Jun 16, 2011, 7:33:09 PM6/16/11
to
In article
<bobharris77-DDF1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:


David?

ROFLMAO!!

Deja vu all over again!

Robert Harris

Bud

unread,
Jun 16, 2011, 7:41:29 PM6/16/11
to

Quite supportable.

> >> Stopped to talk to a secretary.
>
> >    Reid didn`t say he stopped. In fact she said he mumbled something as
> > he walked.
>
> Mumbling is talking.

No, mumbling can be mumbling. But walking isn`t stopping. Didn`t you
claim he stopped and talked with Reid? But it doesn`t seem you can
support the talking or the stopping.

> Didn't she also talk to him?

This was no discussion between employees sharing what they knew
about what was going on. It`s not like Oswald was going to share with
Reid what he knew.

> >> Was confronted by a
> >> policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could.
>
> >    He didn`t jump out a window if thats what you mean.
>
> Not many windows to jump out of on the first floor.

And the one he shot from was too high, so it was prudent of him to
take the stairs.

> >> I
> >> didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
> >> employees.
>
> >    Oswald was the only employee who was in the building during the
> > shooting that quickly left the vicinity.
>
> False.

Name another.

> >> And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.
>
> >    He was pointing out evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter.
>
> Yeah, if you are going to frame someone for murder you have to plant
> SOME evidence.

But when they are guilty you don`t.

> >>> You're hilarious.
>
> >>>>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> >>> <<<
>
> >>> Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
> >>> guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
> >>> on November 22nd. And you should know why.
>
> >> Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black. When we point
> >> out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect,
> >> the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for the shooter shooting
> >> at a moving target down on Elm.
>
> >    Like most conspiracy mongers you drag out a strawman or go off on an
> > irrelevant tangent rather than address what was said.
>
> I am citing actual things that WC defenders here have said.

But you weren`t addressing what DVP said, and that is who you were
responding to.

> >> When someone claims he is innocent, you
> >> use that to prove that he is guilty.
>
> >    Are you saying Baker claimed Oswald was innocent?
>
> Where do you get that?

"When someone claims he is innocent..." Who did you have in mind if
not the person being discussed, Baker? Are you inserting an idea from
a conversation you had with Billy in the fourth grade?

> >>>>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?"<<<
>
> >>> He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
> >>> he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
> >>> an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
> >>> been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
> >>> like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
> >>> floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
> >>> assassinated.
>
> >> Master of deflection. You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of
> >> Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of
> >> coke.
>
> >    Funny that you would see Baker`s rejection of the idea that Oswald
> > had a coke as evidence that Oswald had a coke.
>
> Huh?

Crossed out = rejection.

> >> You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone.
> >> If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY
> >> when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the
> >> shots were fired?
>
> >     An innocent person would be desperately trying to acquire details
> > of the crime so he could show that he was not involved. I don`t see
> > any indication of Oswald doing this.
>
> You are making up things from your imagination.

Then you can show in the evidence where Oswald tried to get
information about the crime?

> >>> More:
> >>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-...
>
> >>>>>> "A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at
> >>> the time. Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot
> >>> anyone. Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent,
> >>> to you that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?"
> >>> <<<
>
> >>> Yeah, let's just scrap all of the LHO-did-it evidence. Right, Tony?
>
> >> Yeah, let's just believe all the Drefyus did it evidence, Right? Because
> >> the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam must have
> >> nuclear weapons because the government says so.
>
> >    The government said Saddam killed people, conspiracy mongers would
> > figure he didn`t because our government said he did.
>
> Unfortunately some do that because the government lies all the time.
> The art is in separating the lies from the truth.

An art practiced by those with no aptitude for it.

> >>> None of that stuff proves a damn thing, does it? (Why even HAVE any
> >>> evidence at all in a murder case then, if it's just going to be
> >>> ignored--which is exactly what most conspiracy theorists do with it?)
>
> >> Why bothering having trials at all if you've already convicted the
> >> person in the press and killed him?
>
> >    They don`t try dead people Tony.
>
> You do.

Of course I judge historical figures by their actions.

> >>> And Tony apparently thinks that most murderers will confess to their
> >>> crimes no matter how desperately they want to get away with those
> >>> criminal acts.
>
> >> I never said anything like that. But at least I don't use someone's
> >> claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do.
>
> >    The evidence says Oswald killed Kennedy regardless of what Oswald
> > said.
>
> You would say that no matter what the evidence was.

I would say it if the evidence was overwhelming like it is in this
case.

> >>> After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
> >>> tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
> >>> serious as a double-murder charge, would he?
>
> >> What are you mumbling about now? Misrepresenting my position because you
> >> can't challenge it. I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.
>
> >    This isn`t a strong indicator he killed Kennedy?
>
> No.

<snicker>

The conspiracy monger position is a stinking pile of bad thinking
and bad ideas.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 11:20:58 AM6/18/11
to

DVP SAID THIS TO BOB HARRIS:

>>> "You're incredibly silly." <<<

BOB HARRIS THEN SAID:

>>> "Prove it." <<<


DVP NOW SAYS:

Here's just one example (and it's not even about Bob's imaginary Z285
gunshot):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f5f97b3215f2f151

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 11:25:50 AM6/18/11
to

I have yet to see you support it.

>>>> Stopped to talk to a secretary.
>>
>>> Reid didn`t say he stopped. In fact she said he mumbled something as
>>> he walked.
>>
>> Mumbling is talking.
>
> No, mumbling can be mumbling. But walking isn`t stopping. Didn`t you
> claim he stopped and talked with Reid? But it doesn`t seem you can
> support the talking or the stopping.
>

I just did.

>> Didn't she also talk to him?
>
> This was no discussion between employees sharing what they knew
> about what was going on. It`s not like Oswald was going to share with
> Reid what he knew.
>

That's ridiculous. Most employees were talking about what had just
happened.

>>>> Was confronted by a
>>>> policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could.
>>
>>> He didn`t jump out a window if thats what you mean.
>>
>> Not many windows to jump out of on the first floor.
>
> And the one he shot from was too high, so it was prudent of him to
> take the stairs.
>

What about the fire escape? If he wanted to get away unnoticed by fellow
workers he could have gone down the fire escape.

>>>> I
>>>> didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
>>>> employees.
>>
>>> Oswald was the only employee who was in the building during the
>>> shooting that quickly left the vicinity.
>>
>> False.
>
> Name another.
>

Charles Givens. The DPD put out an APB on him, yet not on Oswald.

>>>> And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.
>>
>>> He was pointing out evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter.
>>
>> Yeah, if you are going to frame someone for murder you have to plant
>> SOME evidence.
>
> But when they are guilty you don`t.
>

You presume guilt, you don't prove it. You hang people without a trial.

>>>>> You're hilarious.
>>
>>>>>>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
>>>>> <<<
>>
>>>>> Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
>>>>> guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
>>>>> on November 22nd. And you should know why.
>>
>>>> Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black. When we point
>>>> out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect,
>>>> the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for the shooter shooting
>>>> at a moving target down on Elm.
>>
>>> Like most conspiracy mongers you drag out a strawman or go off on an
>>> irrelevant tangent rather than address what was said.
>>
>> I am citing actual things that WC defenders here have said.
>
> But you weren`t addressing what DVP said, and that is who you were
> responding to.
>
>>>> When someone claims he is innocent, you
>>>> use that to prove that he is guilty.
>>
>>> Are you saying Baker claimed Oswald was innocent?
>>
>> Where do you get that?
>
> "When someone claims he is innocent..." Who did you have in mind if
> not the person being discussed, Baker? Are you inserting an idea from
> a conversation you had with Billy in the fourth grade?
>

A lot of people do that and especially in this case.

>>>>>>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?"<<<
>>
>>>>> He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
>>>>> he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
>>>>> an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
>>>>> been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
>>>>> like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
>>>>> floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
>>>>> assassinated.
>>
>>>> Master of deflection. You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of
>>>> Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of
>>>> coke.
>>
>>> Funny that you would see Baker`s rejection of the idea that Oswald
>>> had a coke as evidence that Oswald had a coke.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> Crossed out = rejection.
>

Crossed out = censored.

>>>> You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone.
>>>> If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY
>>>> when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the
>>>> shots were fired?
>>
>>> An innocent person would be desperately trying to acquire details
>>> of the crime so he could show that he was not involved. I don`t see
>>> any indication of Oswald doing this.
>>
>> You are making up things from your imagination.
>
> Then you can show in the evidence where Oswald tried to get
> information about the crime?
>

Your sentence makes no sense.

You would cite the most trivial things to bolster your case.

>>>>> After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
>>>>> tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
>>>>> serious as a double-murder charge, would he?
>>
>>>> What are you mumbling about now? Misrepresenting my position because you
>>>> can't challenge it. I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.
>>
>>> This isn`t a strong indicator he killed Kennedy?
>>
>> No.
>
> <snicker>
>
> The conspiracy monger position is a stinking pile of bad thinking
> and bad ideas.
>

In other words no dissent is allowed in your world.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 11:29:46 AM6/18/11
to
On 6/16/2011 11:50 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "He [LHO] did not run out of the building. He went into the lunch room
> and got a coke."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Very likely because he heard people coming up the stairs to the second
> floor. So he ducked into the lunchroom. Perfectly consistent with his
> guilt.
>
> Now, prove he was coming UP from the first floor.
>
>
>>>> "Stopped to talk to a secretary."<<<
>
> Dead wrong. Oswald never "stopped" to talk to anybody in the second- floor
> office area. Mrs. Reid TALKED TO HIM. Not the other way around. And he
> didn't stop:
>
> MRS. REID -- "I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the
> back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several
> feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe
> they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking. He did,
> too."
>
>

Oswald talked to her. She didn't understand what he said.
Oswald was in her office at her desk. Not running out the back door.
Doesn't sound like a fleeing suspect to me.

>>>> "Was confronted by a policeman. All that took time. That is not
> leaving as fast as he could."<<<
>
> Yes, it is leaving as he could. That is, he left as fast as he could
> WITHOUT DRAWING UNNEEDED ATTENTION TO HIMSELF.
>

Stopping to buy a Coke. Most killers do that?

> Or maybe you think he should have jumped out of the sixth-floor window
> after shooting the President. (Oh, yeah, you're in denial about Oswald's
> guilt. I forgot.)
>

What's the matter with the fire escape?
Why didn't the three black men immediately run up to the sixth floor to
catch the assassin?

>
>>>> "And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the
> shooter."<<<
>
>
> I don't assume he was the shooter. The evidence proves he was the shooter.
> (Oh, I forgot, all of the evidence is fake, right Tony? Including: the
> gun, the prints, the bullets, the shells, the paper bag with LHO's prints,
> and the fibers.)
>

I have never said that the evidence is fake. Stop trying to put words in
my mouth.

>
>
>>>> "Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black."<<<
>
> You've got things backwards again, Anthony. The CTers are the "black is
> white" experts. You're back on Neptune again today I see.
>
>
>>>> "When we point out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and
> call that a defect, the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for
> the shooter shooting at a moving target down on Elm."<<<
>
> I don't know if it was truly an "advantage" in Oswald's case, but I do
> think that the "high and to the right" factor was possibly the reason why
> Oswald's first shot missed the entire automobile:
>

But if I were to say that you would call me a kook.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html
>
>
>
>>>> "When someone claims he is innocent, you use that to prove that he is
> guilty."<<<
>
> You're silly, Tony. The evidence amply proves Oswald was guilty of
> shooting both Kennedy and Tippit, and you know it. You just like to argue.
> Simple as that.
>
>

I don't argue about Tippit.
You make up false arguments.

>
>>>> "You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of Baker's statement in
> which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of coke."<<<
>
> What statement are you talking about? Because if you're referring to the
> 9/23/64 document with the "Coke" crossed out, you know darn well that that
> document was NOT written by Marrion Baker. Baker only CORRECTED the
> incorrect data in that document and then uinitialed it.
>

Of course I know he did not write it. He dictated it and the FBI agent
wrote down exactly that he heard.
Baker was told to "correct" it.

> All of that is explained in a common-sense manner here:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html
>
>
>
>>>> "You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone. If
> Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY when
> the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the shots
> were fired?"<<<
>
> What in the world are you babbling on about now? Whose perjury? Marrion
> Baker's? Roy Truly's? Neither man perjured himself--ever.
>

Baker.
And suborning perjury can be a Federal crime.

> And since Oswald was obviously on the sixth floor at 12:30, the rest of
> your abiove comment is worthless.
>

Obvious? No proof. You always assume things because you can't prove them.

>
>
>>>> "Yeah, let's just believe all the Dreyfus did it evidence, Right?
> Because the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam
> must have nuclear weapons because the government says so."<<<
>
> Why not stick to the subject at hand, Tony? Namely: the JFK assassination
> and Lee Harvey Oswald's involvement.
>

So, you don't know what an analogy is?

>
>>>> "Why bothering having trials at all if you've already convicted the
> person in the press and killed him?"<<<
>
> I didn't kill him, Tony. Jack Ruby did that.
>
> And since there was no trial (due to Ruby's handiwork), does that mean we
> can never arrive at a reasonable conclusion about who killed President
> Kennedy?
>

Could be.

> Or do you want to pretend Oswald is innocent because of the ol' "Innocent
> Until Proven Guilty In A Court Of Law" excuse?
>

I have never said that Oswald was innocent.

> IOW--To hell with the evidence. ONLY a jury in a courtroom can declare
> Oswald guilty. Is that correct, Mr. Marsh?
>
>
>>>> "I never said anything like that. But at least I don't use someone's
> claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do."<<<
>
>
> I only use Oswald's claim of innocence against him because it was
> obviously a desperate lie on LHO's part. And the evidence proves he was
> lying. You know that, Tony.
>

Lying about what?

> Or should we just chuck all of that evidence out the nearest window (yet
> again), just because a bunch of conspiracy theorists have a feeling it was
> all tampered with?
>
> Surely you jest.
>

We have to consider it.

>
>>>> "I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit."<<<
>
> And just exactly why did he kill Tippit, Tony?
>

Because he was paranoid and thought that law enforcement was out to get
him. And he had tried to kill Walker. That always hung over his head.

> In other words: If he HADN'T just killed JFK, then what was the burning
> motive for Oswald to START KILLING PEOPLE just 45 minutes later?
>

Why do criminals kill a cop who just stops them for a routine traffic
violation?

Oswald was a criminal. He was also paranoid.


Questionin

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 3:44:32 PM6/18/11
to
Sorry it took so long to reply. It seems that the server was down for
awhile.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4df7a3f4$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

The first gripe Stalin had was that Roosevelt and Churchill had already
worked out the details of the "Yalta" conference before Stalin entered
into the picture. The US was suppose to stop advancing at Munich. But they
pushed all the way to Berlin. Stalin had to place troops and tanks behind
the Brandenburg gate to stop the US advancements. Patton wanted to attack.
But Truman thought better. American aggression started the cold war, not
the Russians.

The
>
> Nazis were not smuggled into the US and place in high positions the way
> you describe it.
>
>> OSS inducted many German Nazi comrades into the CIA. Many remained for
>
> Not that many. Only a handful.
>
>> years. Nixon ran for the president's office with one in toe, AND WON.
>> Even
>> today the US government is violating international law while conducting
>> "NATION-BUILDING" all over the world. Not to advance "democracy" as
>> claimed, but actually to advance "Capitalism." The very ideals Kennedy
>> was
>> fighting. It is a slap in the face, not just for those who were killed;
>
> Kennedy was not fighting capitalism. Imperialism is a different thing.

The thing here is not capitalism. That is our form of government. NOT
democracy!

>
>> but for the injured causalities who returned and had to live with these
>> horrible wounds and shunned by the very society they defended.
>>
>> AND as it goes it is a slap in face for those who don't blindly believe
>> the king has no clothes. Maybe if there was even one of you who could
>> represent a more plausible case, maybe more than 5% of the public would
>> believe in the government's scenario.
>>
>
> About 15% of the public believes in the WC version.

So you say. But there are many surveys that don't hold such a high reguard

for your form of information.

Bud

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 8:10:39 PM6/18/11
to
On Jun 18, 11:25 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/16/2011 7:41 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 5:53 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2011 6:59 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 15, 5:53 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/2011 12:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >>>>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >>>>>>>> "You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured
> >>>>> out that you are a WC defender?"<<<
>
> >>>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >>>>> You're humorous, Anthony. You think the whole world knows I even
> >>>>> exist?
>
> >>>>> 99.999999999999999+% of the Earth's population has never heard of DVP,
> >>>>> and they've never heard of Tony Marsh either.
>
> >>>>>>>> "Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> >>>>> <<<
>
> >>>>> Oswald left the building as fast as he could. You think THREE MINUTES is a
> >>>>> long time for LHO to stay in the building after shooting JFK from an upper
> >>>>> floor of the Book Depository, and then having to go to the opposite side
> >>>>> of the building to get to the stairs, and then crossing the building again
> >>>>> to get to the front door?
>
> >>>> Ridiculous. He did not run out of the building.
>
> >>>     How long after the shots was he out of there, Tony?
>
> >> 4 minutes. Not exactly a run. Not exactly Olympic.

Still very, very fast.

> >>>> He went into the lunch
> >>>> room and got a coke.
>
> >>>     He went into the lunchroom to avoid the people coming up the stairs.
>
> >> Speculation.
>
> >    Quite supportable.
>
> I have yet to see you support it.

A witness saw Oswald on the sixth floor shooting. He was next seen
in the second floor lunchroom. We know (from Oswald) that he didn`t
have the handgun in the TSBD, thus preventing him from taking the
actions with Baker that he later did to Tippit. Since murder wasn`t an
option and he obviously did not want to be apprehended, this only left
subterfuge.

> >>>> Stopped to talk to a secretary.
>
> >>>     Reid didn`t say he stopped. In fact she said he mumbled something as
> >>> he walked.
>
> >> Mumbling is talking.
>
> >    No, mumbling can be mumbling. But walking isn`t stopping. Didn`t you
> > claim he stopped and talked with Reid? But it doesn`t seem you can
> > support the talking or the stopping.
>
> I just did.

I get it, it`s the fastest gun in the west routine ("Want to see it
again?").

But anyone following our discussion knows you didn`t offer anything
in support of your claim that Oswald stopped and talked with Reid.

> >> Didn't she also talk to him?
>
> >    This was no discussion between employees sharing what they knew
> > about what was going on. It`s not like Oswald was going to share with
> > Reid what he knew.
>
> That's ridiculous. Most employees were talking about what had just
> happened.

Most employees didn`t kill Kennedy. Why would Oswald stop and come
clean to Reid?

> >>>> Was confronted by a
> >>>> policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could.
>
> >>>     He didn`t jump out a window if thats what you mean.
>
> >> Not many windows to jump out of on the first floor.
>
> >    And the one he shot from was too high, so it was prudent of him  to
> > take the stairs.
>
> What about the fire escape? If he wanted to get away unnoticed by fellow
> workers he could have gone down the fire escape.

Impossible to say he would have been able to flee the scene where he
murdered people had he used the fire escape. What is known is that he
was able to flee the scene where he had murdered people using the
stairs.

> >>>> I
> >>>> didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
> >>>> employees.
>
> >>>     Oswald was the only employee who was in the building during the
> >>> shooting that quickly left the vicinity.
>
> >> False.
>
> >    Name another.
>
> Charles Givens.

He wasn`t in the building during the shooting. Try again.

>The DPD put out an APB on him, yet not on Oswald.

Givens can`t flee the building after the murder if he wasn`t in the
building during the murder. These concepts aren`t beyond you, are
they?

> >>>> And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.
>
> >>>     He was pointing out evidence that indicates Oswald was the shooter.
>
> >> Yeah, if you are going to frame someone for murder you have to plant
> >> SOME evidence.
>
> >    But when they are guilty you don`t.
>
> You presume guilt, you don't prove it. You hang people without a trial.

I do not, Ruby does. I just approve.

> >>>>> You're hilarious.
>
> >>>>>>>> "Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?"
> >>>>> <<<
>
> >>>>> Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of
> >>>>> guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time
> >>>>> on November 22nd. And you should know why.
>
> >>>> Like most WC defenders you call black white and white black. When we point
> >>>> out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect,
> >>>> the true WC defender says no it is an advantage for the shooter shooting
> >>>> at a moving target down on Elm.
>
> >>>     Like most conspiracy mongers you drag out a strawman or go off on an
> >>> irrelevant tangent rather than address what was said.
>
> >> I am citing actual things that WC defenders here have said.
>
> >    But you weren`t addressing what DVP said, and that is who you were
> > responding to.
>
> >>>> When someone claims he is innocent, you
> >>>> use that to prove that he is guilty.
>
> >>>     Are you saying Baker claimed Oswald was innocent?
>
> >> Where do you get that?
>
> >    "When someone claims he is innocent..." Who did you have in mind if
> > not the person being discussed, Baker? Are you inserting an idea from
> > a conversation you had with Billy in the fourth grade?
>
> A lot of people do that and especially in this case.

A lot of people bring up conversations they had with Billy in the
fourth grade?

> >>>>>>>> "Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?"<<<


>
> >>>>> He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew
> >>>>> he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely
> >>>>> an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also
> >>>>> been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on,
> >>>>> like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second
> >>>>> floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being
> >>>>> assassinated.
>
> >>>> Master of deflection. You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of
> >>>> Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of
> >>>> coke.
>
> >>>     Funny that you would see Baker`s rejection of the idea that Oswald
> >>> had a coke as evidence that Oswald had a coke.
>
> >> Huh?
>
> >    Crossed out = rejection.
>
> Crossed out = censored.

In either case the idea was removed by the person who was there. Why
should conspiracy mongers who weren`t there be able to reinsert it?

> >>>> You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone.
> >>>> If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time how would be know EXACTLY
> >>>> when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the
> >>>> shots were fired?
>
> >>>      An innocent person would be desperately trying to acquire details
> >>> of the crime so he could show that he was not involved. I don`t see
> >>> any indication of Oswald doing this.
>
> >> You are making up things from your imagination.
>
> >    Then you can show in the evidence where Oswald tried to get
> > information about the crime?
>
> Your sentence makes no sense.

Really, what word is giving you trouble?

Lets see if I can simplify it to within your grasp...

Where in the evidence do you see Oswald trying to gather information
(from friends, family, police, newspeople or whoever) about the
particulars of this crime so as to be able to present information
indicating his innocence?

Many of Oswald`s actions after the assassination aren`t trivial,
they are indications of his guilt.

> >>>>> After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never
> >>>>> tell a LIE, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so
> >>>>> serious as a double-murder charge, would he?
>
> >>>> What are you mumbling about now? Misrepresenting my position because you
> >>>> can't challenge it. I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.
>
> >>>     This isn`t a strong indicator he killed Kennedy?
>
> >> No.
>
> >    <snicker>
>
> >    The conspiracy monger position is a stinking pile of bad thinking
> > and bad ideas.
>
> In other words no dissent is allowed in your world.

You can dissent all you want Tony. You can say radio controlled
planes were rammed into the WTC buildings, you can say we didn`t land
on the moon and you can say that Oswald killing Tippit is no
indication that he killed Kennedy. But these are all very bad ideas.

Robert Harris

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 8:15:32 PM6/18/11
to

Stop dodging my questions David.

When you do that you only prove that you know you are wrong.

Another unsupported, sweeping assertion.


Prove it.

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 10:33:49 PM6/18/11
to
On 6/18/2011 8:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Stop dodging my questions David.
>
> When you do that you only prove that you know you are wrong.
>
> In article
> <c9773e6a-f5cc-4845...@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker."<<<
>>
>> And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.
>>
>>
>>>>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that
>>>>> proves conspiracy."<<<
>>
>> How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?
>
> You mean the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP said the
> final shots were closely bunched, which was totally inconsistent with
> the alleged murder weapon?
>

Illogical. Why are two shots closely bunched together at the end
inconsistent with the rifle? Any more than two shots closely bunched at
the beginning of the shooting.

> Or the analysis by a Nobel prize winning physicist that a loud noise
> startled the limo passengers 1.5 seconds prior to the fatal head shot?
>

He didn't say passengers plural. Stop making up crap.

> And the reactions by every surviving passenger in the limousine to that
> shot at frame 285 which all began within the same 1/6th of a second?
>
> Is that the evidence that you claim doesn't exist?
>

You are making up evidence out of whole cloth.

> If so, then why did you hightail it out of here the last time I
> challenged you?
>

Why do you always run away when I show you making up things?

>
> And why did you evade the facts related to CE-399?
>
> Why did you evade the statements by the Governor of Texas, the Dallas
> District attorney, the officer who delivered the actual bullet from
> Connally's leg to the DPD and the supervisor Audrey Bell, who gave an
> envelope containing fragments from Connally's wrist to an FBI agent?
>

Which is it, a whole bullet or a fragment?

> Why did you instead, try to change the subject to the irrelevant
> question of whose initials were in a particular part of CE-842?
>
> Wasn't it so that you could pretend that you "won", without having to
> address the infinitely more important issues which proved exactly the
> opposite???
>
> David, you will win when you explain to everyone, why Bell placed "three
> to five" fragments into an envelope, then labelled it as "fragments"
> from Connally's "right arm", and then minutes later, told the Dallas
> District Attorney as well as officer Nolan that it contained a single
> "bullet" that came from Connally's gurney.
>

Any chance that they didn't understand her correctly?

> And while you are doing that, please also explain the amazing
> coincidence that Governor Connally said the same thing - that the bullet
> fell from his gurney and was recovered by a nurse.
>

Because maybe it wasn't Connally saying that. Maybe it was his ghost
writer making up a story. Just like the story of all the SS agents
jumping off the Queen Mary and running to the TSBD. There's yourn clue.

>
> Oh and speaking of your evasions, why haven't you discussed SA Odums,
> whom the FBI told the WC, interviewed Tomlinson and Wright, who
> allegedly told him that CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet?
>

Oh, and speaking of your evasions, why haven't you discussed Six Seconds
in Dallas and the photo of the pointed bullet?

> Why do you suppose there is no documentation in the archives for such an
> interview? And why did Odums himself, flatly deny conducting such an
> interview or even seeing CE-399?
>
> I think the FBI lied, David. I think the records and Odum, confirmed the
> fact that no such interview was ever conducted.
>

Of course the FBI lied. Want to amaze everyone by telling them that the
run rises every day? Wow, news. The problem is separating the truth from
the lies. And it helps to know WHY they lied. And especially WHO ordered
them to lie.

> And that brings us to the question of WHY the FBI lied to the Warren
> Commission.
>

Why shouldn't they? What's the WC going to do, put them in jail?

> I could be wrong David, but I think I can answer that question.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> "I love how he is only interested in being "interviewed" by someone who
>>>>> is 100% in agreement with him."<<<
>>
>> Bull. The fact that Mitchell Hadley is an LNer is a coincidence (from
>> my POV). He approached me about that interview. I didn't approach him.
>> I had never even heard of him prior to him e-mailing me with his
>> request for an interview.
>
> Well David, let's try a simple test.
>
> I've already started interviewing you myself. Let's see how you do with
> that:-)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Oswald did not act alone, if at all."<<<
>>
>> Then why does ALL of the physical evidence point to Oswald?
>
> It is an outrageous logical error to make an unsupported assertion like
> that David. You first, need to prove that all of the physical evidence
> does indeed, point to Oswald. So far, I have never seen you even try.
>
> There is certainly no evidence that Oswald fired any of the early shots,
> which went almost entirely unheard, and provoked no startle reactions.
> Oswald's rifle has been tested by experts for the HSCA, who determined
> that it generated sound levels 16 times greater than is required to
> cause involuntary startle reactions.
>

Define early. What do you think the SS agents were doing looking back
over their right shoulders? Searching for a girlfriend?

> We only see such reactions, within a third of a second following frames
> 285 and 312. Those were the only shots that could have come from the
> alleged murder weapon or any other high powered rifle.
>

Did you even bother reading the HSCA jiggle analysis?

> And due to the proximity of those shots, Oswald could only have fired
> one.
>
>>
>> And why do ALL of Oswald's OWN ACTIONS immediately after the
>> assassination reek with GUILT, Bob?
>
> Another unsupported, sweeping assertion.
>
> Oswald went home, grabbed a gun and was heading directly toward Jack
> Ruby's apartment at the time Tippit found him. That certainly doesn't
> prove that he killed Kennedy.
>

You can't prove where Oswald was headed.

>>
>> LHO must have been one eager and willing patsy, huh? Because he did
>> things and said things after 12:30 on Nov. 22 that only a GUILTY
>> person would do and say.
>
> Or a person who was remaining in character, pretending to be a guilty
> communist, whose denials were pathetically lame and contrived.
>

Silly.

Robert Harris

unread,
Jun 20, 2011, 7:56:52 PM6/20/11
to
In article <4dfd502d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 6/18/2011 8:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > Stop dodging my questions David.
> >
> > When you do that you only prove that you know you are wrong.
> >
> > In article
> > <c9773e6a-f5cc-4845...@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker."<<<
> >>
> >> And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that
> >>>>> proves conspiracy."<<<
> >>
> >> How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?
> >
> > You mean the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP said the
> > final shots were closely bunched, which was totally inconsistent with
> > the alleged murder weapon?
> >
>
> Illogical. Why are two shots closely bunched together at the end
> inconsistent with the rifle? Any more than two shots closely bunched at
> the beginning of the shooting.

They aren't Tony. Two closely bunched shots anytime, prove that Oswald
didn't act alone.

You really need to let Mr. Von Pein reply to this. He has the smarts to
at least put up a fight.

Unfortunately, he's also smart enough to know when to run:-)

Robert Harris

Jean Davison

unread,
Jun 20, 2011, 11:52:05 PM6/20/11
to

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4dfba8a1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Untrue, Tony. Reid said he *didn't* stop, he kept on walking,
mumbling something as he went:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0496-001.gif

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm


>>> Didn't she also talk to him?
>>
>> This was no discussion between employees sharing what they knew
>> about what was going on. It`s not like Oswald was going to share with
>> Reid what he knew.
>>
>
> That's ridiculous. Most employees were talking about what had just
> happened.
>
>>>>> Was confronted by a
>>>>> policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he
>>>>> could.
>>>
>>>> He didn`t jump out a window if thats what you mean.
>>>
>>> Not many windows to jump out of on the first floor.
>>
>> And the one he shot from was too high, so it was prudent of him to
>> take the stairs.
>>
>
> What about the fire escape? If he wanted to get away unnoticed by fellow
> workers he could have gone down the fire escape.
>
>>>>> I
>>>>> didn't say he stayed there all afternoon. Neither did some other
>>>>> employees.
>>>
>>>> Oswald was the only employee who was in the building during the
>>>> shooting that quickly left the vicinity.
>>>
>>> False.
>>
>> Name another.
>>
>
> Charles Givens.

Untrue again, as Bud said. Givens was outside when the
shooting took place, and he didn't leave the area.

Jean

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 21, 2011, 9:41:48 PM6/21/11
to
On 6/20/2011 7:56 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4dfd502d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2011 8:15 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Stop dodging my questions David.
>>>
>>> When you do that you only prove that you know you are wrong.
>>>
>>> In article
>>> <c9773e6a-f5cc-4845...@k16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> "Mr. [Von Pein] is a cherry picker."<<<
>>>>
>>>> And you WANT a conspiracy. Admit it, Bob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> "He refutes the goofy stuff and runs like hell from the evidence that
>>>>>>> proves conspiracy."<<<
>>>>
>>>> How can I "run" from "evidence" that simply does not exist?
>>>
>>> You mean the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP said the
>>> final shots were closely bunched, which was totally inconsistent with
>>> the alleged murder weapon?
>>>
>>
>> Illogical. Why are two shots closely bunched together at the end
>> inconsistent with the rifle? Any more than two shots closely bunched at
>> the beginning of the shooting.
>
> They aren't Tony. Two closely bunched shots anytime, prove that Oswald
> didn't act alone.
>

I never specified Oswald. But your argument assumes that two closely
bunched shots can not be fired from the same rifle.

Robert Harris

unread,
Jun 23, 2011, 7:02:47 PM6/23/11
to
In article <4e001eaa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

OIC, so you thought I was talking about any old rifle, eh? This is what
I said,

"You mean the fact that the large majority of witnesses in DP said the
final shots were closely bunched, which was totally inconsistent with
the alleged murder weapon?"

That's "the alleged murder weapon".

If you go to Wikipedia you can learn about the "alleged murder weapon"
so that you won't have to embarrass yourself like this, again :-)

Robert Harris

0 new messages