Re: A serious and public call to David Von Pein

[aeffects]

On Dec 19, 4:05 pm, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Some of you may remember me. I've been a JFK-assassination researcher
> for about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of
> some newsgroups a few years ago.

tell me moron, why should anyone give a fuck about what YOU, a faux
frenchman has to say, or THINK about the JFK assassination and the WCR
moronic conclusions, eh dipshit?

...

> /François Carlier/
> Esprit.criti...@yahoo.fr

[Walt]

On Dec 19, 6:05 pm, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Some of you may remember me.



Some of you may remember me.

Oui....nous se rappeler..... You're that nutty frog who vowed that
he would never ever croak in this NG again.

I've been a JFK-assassination researcher
> for about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of
> some newsgroups a few years ago.

> I am a defender of the Warren Commission conclusions. I firmly believe
> that Lee Oswald acted alone, that he was the sole assassin of John
> Kennedy, and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.
> Over the years I have come to know some conspiracy theorists rather
> well, either by meeting them or exchanging messages with them, or even
> just reading their books or articles or posts. I have learned that
> some of them are just stubborn and highly proud people who are just
> unable to admit they had been wrong all along, and who will sadly
> waste their whole life chasing conspirators who never existed in the
> first place.
> Whatever…
> Anyway, after Gerald Posner, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi published
> wonderful and enlightening books, we have to acknowledge the fact that
> the fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of
> people's minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet
> finished.
>
> I have bought and read John McAdams's book and must say I was
> disappointed by it. I found it too superficial, and not powerful
> enough in its display of Oswald-did-it evidence.
>
> Anyway.
>
> I want to say this : the very very very best person to defend the
> truth and logic and sound reasoning and critical thinking is by far
> David Von Pein. I have spent the last years reading his articles and
> posts and am a big fan of his.
> He is the best, no question.
> He is very good at debunking conspiracy theorists' nonsense.
> He has a unique style, very simple, direct, straight-to-the-point,
> logical, bright, clever, intelligent, enlightening, right-on-the-spot,
> and most of all so very true !
>
> This message is a public call to him, an appeal.
>
> Please, David, write a book on the JFK assassination. I'm serious. You
> must do it. I am sure it would be a marvelous book. I am convinced it
> would be a great work, that would be a blow to the conspiracy
> theorists and at the same time a springboard for the truth.
>
> I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> book on the Kennedy assassination.
>
> /François Carlier/
> Esprit.criti...@yahoo.fr

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, Francois.

It would be virtually impossible for anyone to write a "lone assassin"
book on the JFK case that could possibly go beyond the scope and sheer
common sense of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".

But I am certainly flattered that someone would actually think that
some nobody in Indiana named David Von Pein would be capable of
writing a book on the Kennedy assassination that anyone would want to
read (and pay money for). That's flattering enough all by itself. So,
thank you, Francois.

I've always thought of my Internet websites on the subject of JFK (and
a little bit about Jackie Kennedy too) as kind of a "virtual book" in
a way. And as you might know, Francois, I've recently created a "Table
Of Contents" on one of my main sites ("JFK Archives") that I think is
useful. It serves as some of the "Chapters" of my online JFK "book".

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html

And the nice thing about having an Internet "book" is that chapters
can be added to the book at any time in the future (unlike a physical
book, which can't be altered once it's been published; unless a "2nd
Edition" comes out later).

I'll tell you something that I find myself doing frequently since
Vince Bugliosi's book came out in 2007:

I like to just grab the book and open it up to a random page -- it
doesn't matter what page it is -- and then I'll just start reading.

I have found this to be a fascinating exercise, because (invariably)
each and every time I open Vincent's book to a random page, I find
myself totally immersed in Mr. Bugliosi's style of writing and his
inevitable common-sense approach to everything connected with the
Kennedy case. Which, in turn, makes me want to re-read the entire
chapter (and sometimes I do, even though I read the whole book when it
came out in '07). And when re-reading the chapter, I also often
remember something that I had totally forgotten since I first read it
a few years ago.

So, I find that the "Random Page" exercise is very good as a "memory
refresher" too. More people should try it. (Although it's doubtful
that any Internet conspiracy theorists would want to try it, however.
But most of those CTers on the Web are a lost cause anyway, as we all
know.)

:-)

[Ben Holmes]

In article <79af8078-de57-42e5...@h4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On Dec 19, 6:05=A0pm, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> Some of you may remember me.
>
>
>
>Some of you may remember me.
>
>Oui....nous se rappeler..... You're that nutty frog who vowed that
>he would never ever croak in this NG again.

And, of course, run from *ANY* substantive debate.

The man is a coward...


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

[aeffects]

On Dec 19, 5:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Francois.
>
...
<sniperoo>

careful troll, that frenchhie dingbat is looking to finance a TACO-
BERLL in a neighborhood near you.... LMFAO! ! ! !

[timstter]

Why don't you just PISS OFF, Healy?

You have absolutely NOTHING of value to add to the JFK assassination
debate and are little more than a jibbering, inebriated clown. And a
complete lap dog...

The JFK-CT hit absolute ROCK BOTTOM the sordid day YOU slithered over
the horizon and opened your vile, brain addled yap.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Gil Jesus]

On Dec 19, 7:05 pm, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
>
> I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> book on the Kennedy assassination.
>
> /François Carlier/
> Esprit.criti...@yahoo.fr

I see they're really lining up, aren't they ?

[Walt]

On Dec 20, 9:56 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:05 pm, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> > book on the Kennedy assassination.

Here's a suggestion for the title.....Lyndon's Big Lie.

[Bud]

On Dec 19, 8:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Francois.
>
> It would be virtually impossible for anyone to write a "lone assassin"
> book on the JFK case that could possibly go beyond the scope and sheer
> common sense of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".

I`ve always felt that Bug`s book was unnecessary, as all the people
who had common sense already knew the WC got it right. And I`ve also
always felt the WC was unnecessary, as what evidence the DPD developed
in the first 24 hours was plenty to figure out what occurred.

> But I am certainly flattered that someone would actually think that
> some nobody in Indiana named David Von Pein would be capable of
> writing a book on the Kennedy assassination that anyone would want to
> read (and pay money for). That's flattering enough all by itself. So,
> thank you, Francois.

The services you provide on the internet might be of more value to
the truth than Bug`s book. Most people have stopped reading newspapers
because they get the information they need from the internet. Having
the *really* important information available (and not the silly things
the conspiracy retards obsess about) serves two important roles, it
makes the information available for those who want to truly know what
happened, and secondly it is a bitter pill for the retards to swallow
when this information they would rather ignore is highlighted.

[Jason Burke]

A better suggestion: "Wally is a total idiot living in his mommy's
basement. And he's about the best the CTs can do".

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:


>>> "The services you provide on the internet might be of more value to the truth than Bug`s book. Most people have stopped reading newspapers because they get the information they need from the internet. Having the *really* important information available (and not the silly things the conspiracy retards obsess about) serves two important roles, it makes the information available for those who want to truly know what happened, and secondly it is a bitter pill for the retards to swallow when this information they would rather ignore is highlighted." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Bud.

The conspiracy theorists would, of course, say that Bud's last
sentence above is a classic Pot/Kettle statement, with the CTers
always saying that it is the LNers, not the CTers who would "rather
ignore" information associated with the JFK murder case.

But when we analyze the things that the CTers say are often "ignored"
by LNers, it's pretty much always something that GOES NOWHERE for the
CTers in their futile but non-stop efforts to prove that any
conspiracy existed in JFK's death (let alone proving that Lee Oswald
was an innocent patsy who never shot anyone on 11/22/63).

For example, off the top of my head, the kind of chaff that some CTers
like to highlight (which the CTers think the LNers have essentially
ignored or swept under the rug):

The claim that Lee Oswald could not possibly have taken a commercial
airline flight from London to Helsinki in October 1959 when Oswald was
en route to Russia.

That one above is chaff of the first order, mainly because it occurred
4 years prior to JFK's death (meaning it can't really GO ANYWHERE in
trying to prove Oswald was innocent of shooting Kennedy four years
later).

But even THAT hunk of chaff WAS dealt with by the Warren Commission.
They went into some depth, in fact, in attempting to reconstruct
Oswald's route to Helsinki, and they DID find a possible way for
Oswald to get there via commercial airline flights.

But the CTers never want to talk about the Commission's own findings
regarding that subject. They'd rather stick to their theory of it
being impossible for Oswald to have gotten there via any non-sinister
means.

Another thing the CTers totally distort is the "5.6 seconds" timeline
that they (the CTers) will insist the Warren boys were married to from
Day 1. But that just is not so. The Commission fully acknowledged the
possibility of either the first or third shot being the one "missed"
shot in the shooting sequence, thereby expanding the total timeline
for all three shots (up to as much as 7.9 seconds, which is fully laid
out on Page 117 of the Warren Report, my favorite page in the whole
WCR, which is a page the CT kooks stay away from as though it's a
terminal disease).

WR; Pg. 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

CTers also totally mangle the Warren Commission's precise location of
President Kennedy's upper-back wound, with the CTers insisting that
Gerald Ford verbally "moved" the wound up several inches, into JFK's
neck.

But as anyone can easily see in CE903, that allegation is just flat-
out dead wrong....because the wound in JFK's upper back (as depicted
in CE903) is just exactly where the real wound in Kennedy was located--
in his UPPER BACK, not in the "NECK". And as CE903 also vividly shows,
the SBT works perfectly with the wound being in the UPPER BACK of the
JFK stand-in, and not in his NECK.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

More....

I wonder how many CTers still think that Eddy Benavides died in 1964
(prior to Domingo's WC testimony)?

As was proven beyond all doubt in 2010, that 1964 date is incorrect,
with Eddy really dying in 1965, a year after his brother testified in
front of the WC:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c3dc4b1ee740c319


And then there's the recent debate I have had on The Education Forum
concerning Darrell Tomlinson's comments to Ray Marcus during a 1966
telephone interview.

It was, once again, the work of Jean Davison which steered me toward
this interesting fact: Tomlinson told Marcus that he (Tomlinson) was
shown a bullet by an FBI man at Parkland after the assassination, and
Tomlinson definitely told Marcus that the bullet he was shown looked
the "same" as the bullet Darrell found on a stretcher on the day of
the assassination.

There is some confusion about which FBI agent showed Tomlinson the
bullet, and a question about just exactly when he was shown the
bullet, but the key fact is still intact -- Tomlinson said that CE399
looked like the stretcher bullet. (And now CTers want to pretend that
the FBI man probably didn't show Tomlinson CE399 at all; they'll now
claim it was a different bullet that the FBI displayed to Tomlinson.
Note how the goal line must change locations whenever a conspiracy
theory becomes challenged.)

In three of the above topics, I have Jean Davison to thank (again).
She provided some very good information (and ordinary common sense)
when discussing some of these issues.

I'd love to see Jean write another JFK book. It could be called "JFK
Assassination Common Sense".

Or, maybe my "Quoting Common Sense" website would make a good book. I
think it might, seeing as how I've included (so far) ten excellent
quotes from Jean Davison, plus several more from people like Vincent
Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Bud too. It's a potpourri of
common sense when examining a large number of issues surrounding JFK's
assassination:

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein
December 20, 2011

[timstter]

Gil, have you thought of writing a book about your adventures in JFK
research and elsewhere?

BALD GOOSE: THE GIL JESUS STORY beckons as a prospective title.

Perhaps John Welsh Hodges could ghost write it!

Helpful Regards,

[aeffects]

On Dec 21, 11:28 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:56 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 7:05 pm, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
>
> > > I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> > > book on the Kennedy assassination.
>
> > > /François Carlier/
> > > Esprit.criti...@yahoo.fr
>
> > I see they're really lining up, aren't they ?
>
> Gil, have you thought of writing a book about your adventures in JFK
> research and elsewhere?
>
> BALD GOOSE: THE GIL JESUS STORY beckons as a prospective title.

what's an uneducated slob like YOU calling someone something
derogatory? sheeeeet fats, you only wish you had immigration statusin
the good old USofA, without it you're a simpleminded,
cantakerous. .john mcadam's worshiping, lone nut asshole eh, tootsie
roll?

[timstter]

Hi Dave,

Apparently some of the chapter titles from the new John Welsh Hodges
opus, BALD GOOSE: TGJS, have leaked and YOU get an honourable
mention!:

CHAPTER 9
SORDID SUMMIT: ME, BEN, DAVE, TOM, WALT & ROB @ KOOKFEST 2009

Apparently Hodges is fiddling with THAT as a chapter title, though
ultimately may go with APEX OF IDIOCY: ME, BEN, DAVE etc when the book
gets to galley proof stage.

Well, more news as it comes to hand!

[aeffects]

lose some weight loser, you too can THEN become famous .... lurking
behind all those lone nut winners (sic) has to be depressing, eh.....
LMFAO!

[timstter]

Provide some substance for your Z Film Alteration theory, loser.

The Lady In Yellow Pants In Nix and Officer Chaney Is In The Wrong
Spot In Zapruder scenarios have flopped in a HUMILIATING heap for you,
LOL!

STILL waiting for you and Benny to provide something, ANYTHING of
substance re this matter.

Informative Regards,