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 Historical content remains viewable.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

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 43)

16 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 10, 2008, 1:25:27 AM2/10/08
to
ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 43):

=====================================================

"RECLAIMING HISTORY" IS NOMINATED FOR AN "EDGAR ALLAN POE AWARD":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d7796b694f1e8e47


ROBERT STONE'S "OSWALD'S GHOST":
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=2&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx950FZPQIOXEY#Mx950FZPQIOXEY


DEBATING ACOUSTICS (VIA THE HUGHES FILM):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccd7b455be68aa1d


THE ABSURD VS. THE RATIONAL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4a44858db01d1ad


CONNALLY'S POSTURE, KENNEDY'S BACK, ABRASION COLLARS, AND RULERS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c78ffa72b0b018fc
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/905483a397112f69
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f92226e96c68fbb6


THE SNIPER'S NEST, THE BOXES, AND OSWALD'S "ACCOMPLISHMENT":
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/after-hours-lounge/150533-jfk-assassination-40th-anniversary-thread-11.html#post3310999


WEITZMAN, HUMES, AND CBS NEWS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a2bc3288ac6af4d


BLOOD SPOTS, BULLETS HOLES, AND THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a34e04924f0879cd


IT'S NOT MY LONE-ASSASSIN "THEORY", YOU IDIOT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fda44cfa9718d3e8


LOOK, MA! A BUNCH OF CONSPIRACY KOOKS ARE RUNNING AROUND LOOSE
(AGAIN)!:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aea1dae873917e2c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1ba0f06abfb0f363
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f57ffe901f3ec5e4


BUGLIOSI, LANE, FRITZ, AND OSWALD:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=8&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx35S5HP4CVJ3J4#Mx35S5HP4CVJ3J4


A CONSPIRACY "TOO BIG"? NOT FOR SOME CTers APPARENTLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5ce669af74155c6f


WHERE DID THE BULLET GO?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e31e0b423a8c755b


PROBING THE MINDSET OF A RABID "ANYBODY BUT OSWALD" CONSPIRACY
THEORIST....IS IT A FUTILE ENDEAVOR? YEAH, PROBABLY SO:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb303c5115e2200b


IN ITALY, IT EVIDENTLY TAKES 19 SECONDS TO DO WHAT OSWALD DID IN 8 (GO
FIGURE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e19890a18a9fc1cd


A "COLLECTOR'S" MENTALITY?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2559693361b25a85

=====================================================

Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 10, 2008, 10:06:40 AM2/10/08
to

OHMIGOD!!! How exciting!

I think I'll start at the top and work my way down and then read 'em
again from the bottom up!

On second thought, I think I'll just go for the truth, instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

Robert Harris


In article
<a574afe7-0e2f-454e...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 10, 2008, 10:26:18 AM2/10/08
to

>>> "On second thought, I think I'll just go for the truth, instead." <<<

Then you'll be interested in this (below) for sure -- right, Bob?:

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html

aeffects

unread,
Feb 10, 2008, 1:00:28 PM2/10/08
to

nah.... pick and choose from below -- somewhere in there you'll find a
response for all (latter day) Lone Nut postings...

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation)
rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional
disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly
by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the
criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you
know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news
anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never
have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also
known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all
charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild
accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may
work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press,
because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through
such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the
Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no
basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/
opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the
weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way
which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike,
while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or
other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to
imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or
other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on
the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make
any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or
support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the
straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily
dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw
man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial
contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new
ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original
charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address
current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was
involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter
or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with
candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that
opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so."
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this
can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to
your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of
events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events,
paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those
otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly
without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents
to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for
items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative
thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in
place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not
fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other
ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with
abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a
new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions
who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do
anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue,
you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive
they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps
a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be
presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material
irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to
come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a
murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may
require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as
valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or
relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues
designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as
useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This
works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the
purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the
fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret
when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting
attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that
the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators.
Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find
the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when
seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered
officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony
which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address
issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be
working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger
news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider
removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so
that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by
their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their
character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly
illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the
issues, vacate the kitchen.

Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 10, 2008, 4:51:52 PM2/10/08
to
In article
<babc53f9-bb43-43fa...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

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

I recommend that interested lurkers go to that site, and then go to mine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

That first one is fatal, David. None of your friends can ever refute it.
And you can't even pretend that you don't see the reactions, because too
many of your fellow deniers have already confirmed them.

So far, the best attempt to refute it has been Chuck's claim that I'm a
bore at parties (which is only true if I am sober).

I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to
believe that folks like you are at the very least, sincere in your
belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker.

Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed they
heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have NO
business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists,
until you are able to prove that they weren't.


Robert Harris

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 10, 2008, 11:59:41 PM2/10/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8acdb7692c7dfd45

>>> "Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed they heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have NO business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists, until you are able to prove that they weren't." <<<

Robert, you are in your own little dream world, entitled: "I BELIEVE
THAT A GUNSHOT OCCURRED AT Z285 AND I'M GOING TO STICK BY THAT THEORY
FOREVER, DESPITE THE ONLY "EVIDENCE" BEING THE LIMO OCCUPANTS'
MOVEMENTS ON A SILENT PIECE OF MOVIE FILM THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE
EVALUATE IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE
GUNSHOTS WERE OCCURRING IN DEALEY PLAZA".

In short -- There is NOTHING concrete or definitive or absolute about
any of the movements of the people in that limousine that could
possibly make any REASONABLE person want to declare--with FINALITY--
that a gunshot positively occurred at exactly frame #285 of Abraham
Zapruder's home movie.

But Robert wants to believe that his subjective analyses of the
peoples' "reactions" (i.e., movements) within the car are PROOF of a
gunshot at exactly Z285.

Quite obviously, however, Robert Harris is only fooling himself -- for
there are certainly no definitive signs of a PROOF-POSITIVE gunshot
occurring at Z285 within that silent motion picture.

Bob will probably next claim that I am talking out of both sides of my
mouth when I claim that Oswald's first shot occurred at approx. Z160
on the same silent home movie (which is, indeed, what I think
occurred).

But there is one significant difference there -- and that is the fact
that we can KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that Governor Connally
was not struck by a bullet until a few seconds AFTER THE FIRST SHOT
WAS FIRED.

John Connally's own testimony after the shooting tells us this fact,
and it's something that isn't merely "subjective" on a researcher's
part. It's evidence being based on a VICTIM'S first-hand account of
WHEN he was hit (i.e., per Connally: "The first shot did not hit me; I
had time to think; I had time to react [to the first gunshot]; then I
was hit").

Connally is really sort of 'two witnesses in one' in a way, due to the
fact that he had the unique ability to "time" the first shot in his
own mind by way of comparing the sound of it to when he, himself, FELT
the impact of the bullet that hit him in the upper back.

And since the overwhelming evidence (including all of the non-Zapruder
Film evidence, of course) indicates that only three shots were fired
and that ALL three shots came from the Book Depository's 6th-Floor
Sniper's Nest (and from Oswald's own rifle)....it's then fairly easy
to piece together a reasonable "timeline" of the three shots when
looking just at the Zapruder Film.

And via the above type of evidence-based starting point before ever
even looking at the Zapruder Film (utilizing the entire SUM TOTAL of
the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists in this case,
plus throwing in some common sense for good measure), there simply is
NO ROOM FOR A GUNSHOT AT Z-FILM FRAME #285.

Based on the "sum total" of evidence, a shot at Z285 could not and did
not occur (Robert Harris' subjective analysis of the film
notwithstanding).


Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:

"To be cruel to the {conspiracy} buffs, THEY SIMPLY RAN OUT OF
BULLETS FOR THEIR SECOND-GUN THEORY. There was no other bullet flying
through the air that could have ONLY hit Connally.

"To accept the position of the conspiracy theorists, one would
have to reject the physical evidence (only three cartridge casings),
but accept the hearing acuity of 3.5 percent of the people in Dealey
Plaza over that of around 75 percent of the witnesses.

"Actually, the percentage of people the theorists would have to
thumb their noses at would be 85 percent, since 10 percent of the
witnesses in the HSCA study only heard two shots." [Emphasis
Bugliosi's.] -- VB; Page 464 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

Of course, Vince goes into even greater detail in other parts of the
book (plus on page 464 too) to support the fact that THREE and only
THREE gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And such fact-based "Only Three Shots Were Fired" analysis only helps
to support and reinforce the logical and common-sense nature of Mr.
Bugliosi's "THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS" quote all the more.

>>> "I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to believe that folks like you are, at the very least, sincere in your belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker." <<<


LOL. Gee, that's mighty kind of you.

I'm now trying to think of a single thing that matters less to me than
whether or not a conspiracy-happy individual is willing to give me the
"benefit of the doubt" regarding the sincerity of my lone-assassin
beliefs.

As I ponder that quandary, only one other thing comes close to
mattering less with respect to the overall topic of John F. Kennedy's
tragic assassination --- and that would be a CTer's subjective and
unsupportable opinions that guide that particular CTer to the notion
that a conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 and/or
that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy" that day in
Dallas.


So, Bob.....

1.) Would you like to now dance another time 'round the mulberry bush
with respect to this wholly-subjective "Z285" crap that you've locked
yourself into?

2.) Or would you rather admit that your analysis regarding this
subject is, as mentioned, WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE and is YOUR THEORY
ALONE...without any HARD PROOF to support it (other than your own
HARDheadedness)?

(Which will Bob choose -- #1 or #2? I think everyone knows already.)


www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520


www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html

aeffects

unread,
Feb 11, 2008, 12:25:19 AM2/11/08
to
On Feb 10, 8:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8acdb7692c7dfd45
>
> >>> "Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed they heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have NO business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists, until you are able to prove that they weren't." <<<
>
> Robert, you are in your own little dream world, entitled: "I BELIEVE
> THAT A GUNSHOT OCCURRED AT Z285 AND I'M GOING TO STICK BY THAT THEORY
> FOREVER, DESPITE THE ONLY "EVIDENCE" BEING THE LIMO OCCUPANTS'
> MOVEMENTS ON A SILENT PIECE OF MOVIE FILM THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE
> EVALUATE IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE
> GUNSHOTS WERE OCCURRING IN DEALEY PLAZA".

oh really...?

Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 11, 2008, 10:13:49 AM2/11/08
to
In article
<4f7cb348-58aa-4a4e...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

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

> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8acdb7692c7dfd45
>
>
>
> >>> "Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed they
> >>> heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have NO
> >>> business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists,
> >>> until you are able to prove that they weren't." <<<
>
> Robert, you are in your own little dream world,

Why are you talking about me, rather than the evidence, David? And why
do you always delete the links to my videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

If my arguments are as bad as you claim, you should be eager for people
to see those vids:-)


> entitled: "I BELIEVE
> THAT A GUNSHOT OCCURRED AT Z285 AND I'M GOING TO STICK BY THAT THEORY
> FOREVER, DESPITE THE ONLY "EVIDENCE" BEING THE LIMO OCCUPANTS'
> MOVEMENTS ON A SILENT PIECE OF MOVIE FILM THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE
> EVALUATE IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE
> GUNSHOTS WERE OCCURRING IN DEALEY PLAZA".

That is simply not true, David.

I also talk about the analysis of one of the greatest scientists of the
20th century. And I talk about the overwhelming majority of other
witnesses who confirm that there was only one audible noise prior to
Z285, and closely bunched shots at the end.

But even if the limo passengers were my ONLY support, you would still
need to deal with them. Your problem is, that they not only SAID they
heard a shot then, but they reacted to it, very dramatically and in
perfect unison with one another and with Zapruder, as described by
Alvarez.

David, did you notice that Clint Hill leaped from the running board of
the followup car, right after 285? Did you know that he stated he did
so, in direct reaction to the first of two gunshots?

Did you know that Greer accidentally hit the brake, immediately after
Z285, and feeling the "concussion" of the bullets shockwave??

David, the reason the secret service seemed "sluggish" that day, was
that they heard nothing that sounded even remotely like a real gunshot,
prior to frame 285. They heard that "firecracker" sound when the bullet
at 160 shattered on the pavement, but they couldn't go jumping on the
President every time some kid set off a firecracker.

Z285 is NOT about just the people in the limo. It is part of an cohesive
explanation that covers almost ALL aspects of the shooting that day.

It even explains the Tague wound, with an absolutely perfect trajectory
and explanation for the near miss that struck the pavement in front of
Tague.

>
> In short -- There is NOTHING concrete or definitive or absolute about
> any of the movements of the people in that limousine that could
> possibly make any REASONABLE person want to declare--with FINALITY--
> that a gunshot positively occurred at exactly frame #285 of Abraham
> Zapruder's home movie.


David, that is absolute and total bullshit!

If those same reactions occurred at Z160 or 223, there would be NO
debate about it, whatsoever. And the witness confirmations, from all
over DP would never even need to be discussed, because the visible
reactions alone would seal the deal.

The ONLY reason people have a hard time with this, is that it wasn't
what they have been told for 40 years.

>
> But Robert wants to believe


Here we go again, changing the subject to "Robert Harris".


> that his subjective analyses of the
> peoples' "reactions" (i.e., movements) within the car are PROOF of a
> gunshot at exactly Z285.

Two questions, David:

1. What do you think was the REAL cause of those reactions.

2. Why do you suppose, that all four of them reacted within 1/18th of a
second of Zapruder's reaction?


>
> Quite obviously, however, Robert Harris is only fooling himself -- for
> there are certainly no definitive signs of a PROOF-POSITIVE gunshot
> occurring at Z285 within that silent motion picture.

Strange, isn't it that the people who were there, totally disagree with
you eh David:-)

Don't forget to answer those questions, David.


>
> Bob will probably next claim that I am talking out of both sides of my
> mouth when I claim that Oswald's first shot occurred at approx. Z160
> on the same silent home movie (which is, indeed, what I think
> occurred).

David, I pay very little attention to you, since ad hominem attacks are
not my thing. But of course, there was a shot at Z160.

The problem is, that it didn't startle anybody, like the high powered
rifle shots at 285 and 312 did. That's because the first two shots were
fired from a weapon bearing a suppressor. The only sound people heard,
was the "firecracker" noise, created when the bullet shattered on the
pavement.

The second shot, which passed through both victims wasn't heard by
anyone, which is why almost no-one claimed to have heard more than a
single, early noise, prior to the closely bunched shots at the end.

Haven't you ever wondered why John Connally never heard the shot that
hit him, David??

And why Jackie, Nellie, Kellerman and Greer, ALL reported only a single
noise, prior to shots at the end, or shots that came well after JFK was
first hit?


>
> But there is one significant difference there -- and that is the fact
> that we can KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that Governor Connally
> was not struck by a bullet until a few seconds AFTER THE FIRST SHOT
> WAS FIRED.

That's true, David.

And that shot was dead silent, to the witnesses in the limo and all over
DP. THIS NOT A DEBATABLE ISSUE, DAVID. Would you like me to go over the
statements of every person in the limo?

David, did you know that NO, that is, ZERO law enforcement professionals
reported that the first two shots were close than the final ones, as is
required in the Posner/Bugsy/WC scenario??

Those were our best witnesses, David. Why do you think that not even one
of them support your theory??


>
> John Connally's own testimony after the shooting tells us this fact,
> and it's something that isn't merely "subjective" on a researcher's
> part. It's evidence being based on a VICTIM'S first-hand account of
> WHEN he was hit (i.e., per Connally: "The first shot did not hit me; I
> had time to think; I had time to react [to the first gunshot]; then I
> was hit").

Who are you arguing with, David:-)


>
> Connally is really sort of 'two witnesses in one' in a way, due to the
> fact that he had the unique ability to "time" the first shot in his
> own mind by way of comparing the sound of it to when he, himself, FELT
> the impact of the bullet that hit him in the upper back.

Whatever.

And why do you suppose he never heard that second shot, despite
retaining total consciousness at the time?

Do you think it was for the same reason that no-one else in DP heard
that shot either:-)


>
> And since the overwhelming evidence (including all of the non-Zapruder
> Film evidence, of course) indicates that only three shots were fired

I'm sorry, David but I missed that evidence.

Would you mind refreshing my memory and posting the evidence that proves
that "only" three shots were fired?

Are you referring to the fact that most of those same witnesses you
don't trust, only heard 3 audible shots?


> and that ALL three shots came from the Book Depository's 6th-Floor
> Sniper's Nest (and from Oswald's own rifle)....


Well, since you are going to post that other evidence, why don't you
also post your proof that all of the shots came from that window?

> it's then fairly easy
> to piece together a reasonable "timeline" of the three shots when
> looking just at the Zapruder Film.

David, have you ever noticed that you base your conclusions almost
entirely on unsupported assertions and sweeping generalizations that you
couldn't prove to save your proverbial life.

>
> And via the above type of evidence-based starting point before ever
> even looking at the Zapruder Film (utilizing the entire SUM TOTAL of
> the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists in this case,
> plus throwing in some common sense for good measure), there simply is
> NO ROOM FOR A GUNSHOT AT Z-FILM FRAME #285.

I'm sorry David. I am having trouble staying awake through this. Do you
realize that throughout this entire, long-winded posting, you have yet
to cite a single piece of evidence or testimony?

Why don't we just cut to the chase, David.

Why don't you tell us the REAL reason that those four limo passengers
decided to react within 1/18th of a second of Zapruder's reaction?

>
> Based on the "sum total" of evidence, a shot at Z285 could not and did
> not occur (Robert Harris' subjective analysis of the film
> notwithstanding).

I'm struggling with whether this, or "the driver did it", wins my award
for the most illogical argument to ever appear in the JFK case. This
will require some consideration, although my first thought is, that you
are the frontrunner, since TDDI at least tries to present visual
evidence, and I guess you could say that terrible evidence beats none at
all:-)

What do you think, David?


>
>
> Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:
>
> "To be cruel to the {conspiracy} buffs, THEY SIMPLY RAN OUT OF
> BULLETS FOR THEIR SECOND-GUN THEORY. There was no other bullet flying
> through the air that could have ONLY hit Connally.

WOW!!

He's just like you! ZERO evidence, ZERO analysis - and endless
unsupported, sweeping generalizations.

>
> "To accept the position of the conspiracy theorists, one would
> have to reject the physical evidence

Utter nonsense.

There is NO physical evidence that contradicts any aspect of my argument.


> (only three cartridge casings),
> but accept the hearing acuity of 3.5 percent of the people in Dealey
> Plaza over that of around 75 percent of the witnesses.

More bullshit!!

Bugliosi is challenging the "acuity" of nearly every witness in DP who
reported on the spacing of the shots!

Is this some kind of joke, David???


>
> "Actually, the percentage of people the theorists would have to
> thumb their noses at would be 85 percent,

ROFLMAO!!


> since 10 percent of the
> witnesses in the HSCA study only heard two shots." [Emphasis
> Bugliosi's.] -- VB; Page 464 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

Bugliosi used to have a sharp mind.

Why is he no longer capable of grasping that some shots were fired from
a silenced weapon, which has been available to criminals since the early
1920's???


>
> Of course, Vince goes into even greater detail in other parts of the
> book (plus on page 464 too) to support the fact that THREE and only
> THREE gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

Of course, you can't cite any of these magnificent rebuttals, just tell
us that they settle the issue, right David:-)


>
> And such fact-based "Only Three Shots Were Fired" analysis only helps
> to support and reinforce the logical and common-sense nature of Mr.
> Bugliosi's "THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS" quote all the more.

You seem to be seriously infatuated with this old man, David.

Why don't your hero to the newsgroup - hell, make it mcadams group.

Maybe .john will reserve a time and thread for us, and repost in real
time. Ask Bugsy if he's interested, but be sure to warn him that he is
gonna get thoroughly humiliated if he tries to defend the SA theory.

But give him a heads up, so he at least has a fighting chance:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

The only problem might be, that mcadams won't do it, because he knows
how it would turn out:-)


>
>
>
> >>> "I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to
> >>> believe that folks like you are, at the very least, sincere in your
> >>> belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker." <<<
>
>
> LOL. Gee, that's mighty kind of you.
>
> I'm now trying to think of a single thing that matters less to me than
> whether or not a conspiracy-happy individual is willing to give me the
> "benefit of the doubt" regarding the sincerity of my lone-assassin
> beliefs.

Then explain why those people reacted in perfect unison with one another.


>
> As I ponder that quandary, only one other thing comes close to
> mattering less with respect to the overall topic of John F. Kennedy's
> tragic assassination --- and that would be a CTer's subjective and
> unsupportable opinions that guide that particular CTer to the notion
> that a conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 and/or
> that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy" that day in
> Dallas.

(yawning, and wishing David would give the needle a nudge)


>
>
>
>
> So, Bob.....
>
> 1.) Would you like to now dance another time 'round the mulberry bush
> with respect to this wholly-subjective "Z285" crap that you've locked
> yourself into?
>
> 2.) Or would you rather admit that your analysis regarding this
> subject is, as mentioned, WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE and is YOUR THEORY
> ALONE...without any HARD PROOF to support it (other than your own
> HARDheadedness)?
>
> (Which will Bob choose -- #1 or #2? I think everyone knows already.)

So, David....

1.) Would you like to continue making a total ass out of yourself?


2.) Or would you prefer to admit that you are totally full of shit?


(Which will David choose -- #1 or #2? I think everyone knows already.)


Tell Bugsy to get his butt over here, that is if he can still remember
what a newsgroup is:-)


Robert Harris


>
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>
> www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
>
>
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html

aeffects

unread,
Feb 11, 2008, 10:26:38 AM2/11/08
to
Top Post

O-U-C-H

On Feb 11, 7:13 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4f7cb348-58aa-4a4e-b891-e2677ca3a...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,


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

[...]

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 2:27:22 AM2/12/08
to

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ba719cf9dd03781


>>> "Why do you always delete the links to my videos?" <<<


You really have to ask?

>>> "David, I pay very little attention to you." <<<


Which is why your last lengthy post exists (which is in direct
response to a person that Robert H. pays "very little attention to").

Go figure the irony.

>>> "What do you think was the REAL cause of those reactions." <<<


You're confusing "reactions" (to a gunshot) with "movements".

As for the two ladies' "movements" (not "gunshot reactions"), they
were obviously moving the way they are moving in the Z-Film as a
result of discovering that each of their husbands has just been shot
and is in distress.

Duh.


>>> "He's {VB} just like you! ZERO evidence, ZERO analysis - and endless unsupported, sweeping generalizations." <<<

LOL time. Spoken by Mr. Harris as if the quote I supplied by Mr.
Bugliosi is THE ONLY QUOTE in his whole book that addresses the issues
at hand (i.e., how many shots were fired?, who fired them?, from where
were they fired?, etc.).

>>> "David, have you ever noticed that you base your conclusions almost entirely on unsupported assertions and sweeping generalizations that you couldn't prove to save your proverbial life." <<<

The above bullshit-filled utterance by Robert H. deserves an
industrial-sized "LOL" icon placed next to it. (Who's got the monster-
sized LOL thingie today?)

LOL.

~Bigger LOL.~


>>> "So, David, would you like to continue making a total ass out of yourself? Or would you prefer to admit that you are totally full of shit? .... Tell Bugsy {aka Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.} to get his butt over here; that is, if he can still remember what a newsgroup is." <<<

Mr. Bugliosi probably doesn't even know what a "Newsgroup" is. He's
never owned a computer (as far as I can deduce). And that's probably a
blessing in disguise...since by not owning one he never has to listen
to the insane ramblings of conspiracy-happy nuts like Robert Harris,
et al.


Footnote --- I never previously considered Robert Harris a "kook". But
his last few posts (complete with virtual arm-waving idiocy to try and
support his silly unsupportable theories) have officially elevated
Bobby H. to the status of "Kook".

Congrats, Robert.

Never thought you'd make the Kook List, did you? I'm glad you've made
it. Have a beer and celebrate your triumph.


Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 10:41:37 AM2/12/08
to

You need to stop running, David.

I asked you a LOT of good questions, which you deleted. Let's put them
back in and give you another chance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

Two questions, David:

That's true, David.

Whatever.

WOW!!

Utter nonsense.

More bullshit!!

ROFLMAO!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

So, David....


Robert Harris


In article
<80f27304-a0fd-40cd...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,


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

> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ba719cf9dd03781
>
>
> >>> "Why do you always delete the links to my videos?" <<<
>
>
> You really have to ask?
>
>
>
> >>> "David, I pay very little attention to you." <<<
>
>
> Which is why your last lengthy post exists (which is in direct
> response to a person that Robert H. pays "very little attention to").
>
> Go figure the irony.
>
>
>

> >>> "What do you think was the REAL cause of those reactions." <<<
>
>

> You're confusing "reactions" (to a gunshot) with "movements".
>
> As for the two ladies' "movements" (not "gunshot reactions"), they
> were obviously moving the way they are moving in the Z-Film as a
> result of discovering that each of their husbands has just been shot
> and is in distress.
>
> Duh.
>
>
>
>

> >>> "He's {VB} just like you! ZERO evidence, ZERO analysis - and endless
> >>> unsupported, sweeping generalizations." <<<
>

> LOL time. Spoken by Mr. Harris as if the quote I supplied by Mr.
> Bugliosi is THE ONLY QUOTE in his whole book that addresses the issues
> at hand (i.e., how many shots were fired?, who fired them?, from where
> were they fired?, etc.).
>
>
>

> >>> "David, have you ever noticed that you base your conclusions almost
> >>> entirely on unsupported assertions and sweeping generalizations that you
> >>> couldn't prove to save your proverbial life." <<<
>

> The above bullshit-filled utterance by Robert H. deserves an
> industrial-sized "LOL" icon placed next to it. (Who's got the monster-
> sized LOL thingie today?)
>
> LOL.
>
> ~Bigger LOL.~
>
>
> >>> "So, David, would you like to continue making a total ass out of
> >>> yourself? Or would you prefer to admit that you are totally full of shit?
> >>> .... Tell Bugsy {aka Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.} to get his butt over
> >>> here; that is, if he can still remember what a newsgroup is." <<<
>
> Mr. Bugliosi probably doesn't even know what a "Newsgroup" is. He's
> never owned a computer (as far as I can deduce). And that's probably a
> blessing in disguise...since by not owning one he never has to listen
> to the insane ramblings of conspiracy-happy nuts like Robert Harris,
> et al.
>
>

> Footnote --- I never previously consider Robert Harris a "kook". But

Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 10:43:25 AM2/12/08
to

Why are you posting a repeat of your own message, in reply to your own
message??

More importantly, why do you continue to evade the most critical
questions?

Here they are again, David. Let's see if this time, you have the
testicular abundance to answer them:

> Robert, you are in your own little dream world,

Why are you talking about me, rather than the evidence, David? And why

do you always delete the links to my videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

Two questions, David:

That's true, David.

Whatever.

David, have you ever noticed that you base your conclusions almost

entirely on unsupported assertions and sweeping generalizations that you
couldn't prove to save your proverbial life.

>

WOW!!

He's just like you! ZERO evidence, ZERO analysis - and endless
unsupported, sweeping generalizations.

>

Utter nonsense.

More bullshit!!

ROFLMAO!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

So, David....

Tell Bugsy to get his butt over here, that is if he can still remember
what a newsgroup is:-)


Robert Harris


In article
<61e0f04d-ae0e-463f...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,


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

Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 10:44:27 AM2/12/08
to

Answer the questions David:

STOP RUNNING!


> Robert, you are in your own little dream world,

Why are you talking about me, rather than the evidence, David? And why
do you always delete the links to my videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

If my arguments are as bad as you claim, you should be eager for people

Two questions, David:

That's true, David.

Whatever.

WOW!!

Utter nonsense.

More bullshit!!

ROFLMAO!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

The only problem might be, that mcadams won't do it, because he knows

how it would turn out:-)


>
>
>

> >>> "I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to

> >>> believe that folks like you are, at the very least, sincere in your

> >>> belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker." <<<
>
>

Robert Harris

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 10:45:39 AM2/12/08
to

Answer the questions, David.

When you keep running like this, you prove my case, even better than I
can:-)

> Robert, you are in your own little dream world,

Why are you talking about me, rather than the evidence, David? And why
do you always delete the links to my videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

If my arguments are as bad as you claim, you should be eager for people

Two questions, David:

That's true, David.

Whatever.

WOW!!

Utter nonsense.

More bullshit!!

ROFLMAO!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa1C_gwSFMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

The only problem might be, that mcadams won't do it, because he knows

how it would turn out:-)


>
>
>

> >>> "I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to

> >>> believe that folks like you are, at the very least, sincere in your

> >>> belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker." <<<
>
>

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 11:01:27 AM2/12/08
to
>>> "I asked you a LOT of good questions, which you deleted. Let's put them back in and give you another chance..." <<<

I'm not going to be told what I need to respond to by a rabid
conspiracy theorist, whose analysis is wholly subjective and does not
fit any of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case (e.g., the bullets, the
shells [all found under Oswald's window], the wounds on the victims,
and the vast number of "3 Shots" witnesses).


So, take a flying leap, Bob. (And pick a window that's exactly "285"
feet above street level. You like that number...put it to good use.)

aeffects

unread,
Feb 12, 2008, 12:17:09 PM2/12/08
to

what-a-man.... LMFAO!

oh, and really?

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or
other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

disinfo agent!

0 new messages