The "Kook Klassics" Series --- Revisiting Classic Battles With Assorted Conspiracy-Loving Kooks
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089ee8b738cad76
===============================
>>> "By Saturday afternoon, Lee {AKA: THE SAINT BOYS LOVE TO ADMIRE} had started to come to grips with the fact that his handler and his agency had abandoned him." <<<
Connected with Ringling Brothers perhaps?
And Oswald had his own "agency" now, eh? He was smarter than we all
thought. I always pictured him as a member of a 1-member FPCC chapter.
>>> "He had seen a fake photo that seemed to show him with the alleged murder weapon in his hands." <<<
Oz had a memory problem too (evidently). Seeing as how he SIGNED ("To
George") one of the SAME BATCH of B.Y. photos....they cannot be
"fake", now can they?
The cops forged Ozzie's signature on the DeMohrenschildt pic...right
kook? Right.
>>> "After seeing that photo he realized that he was being framed." <<<
Only AFTER seeing the photo, eh? Then I guess he was checking his
pistol to see if it was in working order on 10th Street, and J.D.
Tippit just accidentally got in the way of the four shots. Otherwise,
why would Oz START killing people BEFORE he even "realized that he was
being framed"?
Think up another lie, Walt. Or just revise this one. Either will do.
Neither will be factual anyway...so what the hay.
>>> "On Saturday evening, he {SAINT O-MAN} placed a long distant phone call to a Mr. Hunt
in (Atlanta?)." <<<
Don't ask me -- this is your made-up conspiracy/patsy plot. So you
tell me. Atlanta? Alright...go with that. (I'd have said Chicago
though. It's that Toddlin' Town, after all.)
>>> "Of course Mr. "Hunt" could have been anywhere in the country, because the intelligence community had the capability to make it appear the call was received in at Atlanta when in reality the the call had actually been received in Langley, Va." <<<
And with the WAYBACK MACHINE, Oswald should have been able to
transport himself quickly back in time to October 1929....just in time
to prevent the Stock Market Crash (similar to his heroic actions of
trying to SAVE THE PRESIDENT in Dallas in '63, you see).
This is fun -- just makin' shit up.
Continue, kook.....
>>> "At anyrate....The Warren Commission painted a picture of Oswald as a tight lipped, unsociable, loner, who talked only in grunts and terse statements..." <<<
Yep. That's our boy. No question about it. Except when he gets talky
with shady lawyers from Atlanta (or Langley, or Walla Walla, or
Kooksville...where was Hunt again?).
>>> "One only has to listen to his debate with Bringuier to know that he was pretty damned smart and could easily carry a conversation and debate." <<<
Yep. He sure could. And one only need to listen to that debate to also
know that Oswald was a total fruitcake/screwball -- just the type of
nut to want to murder JFK on behalf of brilliant Fidel.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/stuck3.htm
>>> "The phone call to Mr."Hunt" lasted about a half hour (that's a long
time for some one who was antisocial)..." <<<
Is this anything like your proven "OSWALD COULDN'T HAVE KILLED TIPPIT"
timeline. You know, full of undefined, shitty parameters that can
never be tied together cohesively?
Yeah, thought so.
Continue, kook...
>>> "...so you can bet that Lee didn't call Mr."Hunt" to discuss the weather." <<<
Junie DID need shoes. Perhaps that was discussed.
>>> "Since it was obvious to Lee that he was being railroaded..." <<<
Oh, obviously. He should have realized that he was being railroaded
when that bitch Ruth Paine and that other fucking whore Linnie Mae did
Oswald that awful favor of recommending him for that Depository job.
>>> "As Whaley described the situation..." <<<
The cab driver? WTF?
Oh, well...maybe the kook can unravel this for the weak-minded LNers.
>>> "...he wanted to know why, "Someone" had not come forward to his defense..." <<<
Of course, a lawyer DID come to the DPD to aid Oswald (without Oz
sending for anybody). Oswald told the man he wasn't needed. Go figure.
>>> "It was obvious to Lee that he was in hot water..." <<<
Yeah, he probably did think that. Normally when you murder 2 people
(esp. a President), they don't start hangin' medals on you. But maybe
Oswald was only worried about not having lawyers banging at his jail
cell to defend his sorry ass, huh?
>>> "...and his agency was doing nothing to help him." <<<
Federal Aviation Agency? Or was it an Agricultural Agency of some ilk?
Or is this the made-up agency you spoke of earlier?
>>> "During that long conversation he must have warned Mr "Hunt" that he
hadn't spilled the beans yet..." <<<
And wasn't about to spill any, even though he now KNOWS he should
(what with his sudden realization that he's been made the "patsy" by
Mr. Eyebrows, David Ferrie (and his goon squad).
(Or did you want to pick out your own Patsy-Framing Crew in this post,
Walt-Kook? By all means...wind up from the rubber, and let rip a good
one.)
>>> "...but if they didn't get off their ass and send some help quickly he was gonna start talking..." <<<
Even though he'd already made his "I'm just a patsy" hallway
declaration by this time. He was just tossing out a few "clues" to the
cops, reporters, and the millions watching on TV. Right? He was gonna
save the big "Ferrie Did It" salvo for 11:22 AM on Sunday. But he was
popped 1 minute before he could talk. Poor patsy.
>>> "This phone call was his death warrant..." <<<
I thought Marrion Baker had Oz's Death Warrant in his pocket (in the
form of Baker's gun) when Baker stormed the TSBD on Friday?
And wasn't it you who also said just yesterday that Gerald Hill ALSO
was supposed to rub out the patsy in the theater?
Question --- How many brain-dead plotters does it take to rub out just
one simple-minded patsy before the bastard can talk??
Answer --- A good-sized number, per the CT-Kooks. Baker failed, Hill
failed, Ruby failed on his first attempt (probably).
The Patsy Crew finally had to go with Plan 9 From Kooksville, and kill
the bum in the police station on LIVE TELEVISION.
THAT did the cover-up a lot of good, huh?
Continue, kook....
>>> "They sealed his lips for good the next morning." <<<
Oh well...he had unattractive "tight lips" anyhow. So, who cares.
Walt's post is CLASSIC kook stuff -- i.e., take a vague reference to a
phone call and build a conspiracy around something that's TOTALLY
UNKNOWN IN NATURE!
You can't beat these kooks. They'll give you a laugh....every time.
aeffects
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089ee8b738cad76
<snip>
nobody reads your nonsense anymore David.... Too self serving, btw,
how do you debate with yourself? Think baseball, champ -- leave the
Lone Nut losers behind, its time!
David Von Pein
I don't. I debate with CT-Kooks.
You actually think I've just made up the stuff I'm responding to in
these posts?*
* = Oh, yes, you're up Ben's ass 24/7...and he once said I just made
up the remarks I placed under the "CTer" moniker in many of my
threads....which must mean that you think so too. How silly of me to
forget that you're in bed with Holmes every night. Sorry. My error.
YoHarvey
Outstanding thread!! And whom do the kooks SEND out to
demean you? The weakast kook of all!!! David "lmao" Healey,
the KING of kooks! Hot fitting.
David Von Pein
Can the color of the lettering in "Yo's" name in each post be a hint
maybe? Because I've noticed THREE different shades of color to Yo's
moniker.
But I'm wondering how the "kook" version of "Yo" somehow gets his/her
profile go to the LN version of Yo? Weird. Must be a Yo Conspiracy of
some ilk.
aeffects
> >>> "How do you debate with yourself?" <<<
>
> I don't. I debate with CT-Kooks.
we've noticed, you debate with yourself and most of the times you lose
-- go figure......
> You actually think I've just made up the stuff I'm responding to in
> these posts?*
of course you make up stuff, David -- Lone Neuter's stock in
trade...... we feel for you but your stuck with the
WCR David -- You're Damocles Sword if you will....
> * = Oh, yes, you're up Ben's ass 24/7...and he once said I just made
> up the remarks I placed under the "CTer" moniker in many of my
> threads....which must mean that you think so too. How silly of me to
> forget that you're in bed with Holmes every night. Sorry. My error.
My goodness David... what would daBugliosi say about your nastiness?
All you Lone nutter's seem to be preoccupied with getting brown, why
is that David? Is it true David, Lone Nutter's don't have normal sex,
they voyeur on USNET boards looking for dates? Is that what its got
down too? Debate with oneself, trolling the internet for dates.....
not a good legacy David Von Pein, not good at ALL.
Carry on troop!
aeffects
aeffects
YoHarvey is a troll -- plain and simple.....back to baseball, or did
you sell your soul?.....
David Von Pein
If you mean when the nastiness is being aimed at a "ZAPRUDER MIGHT NOT
HAVE EVEN FILMED THE MOTORCADE AT ALL!" conspiracy-loving kook like
you....Vincent's reaction would probably be:
More Power To Ya, DVP!
Ben Holmes
says...
It amuses me to see what a fascination all these killfiled trolls have with me.
(or, more accurately, with the constant stream of evidence & citation that I
bring up...)
Hey, DVP... ask your pal Bugliosi why he was too afraid to tackle the 16 smoking
guns? He can't argue that he didn't know they exist...
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <1187554268.233408.316...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh Please....don't break your freaking arm patting yourself on the
back Holmes. If you haven't noticed we're here to make fun of you and
the Pink Panty Prick named Healy. By the way, that yellow strip down
your back fits you perfectly....COWARD!
aeffects
wrote:
sitdown down you silly wanker, no one is speaking to you... Didn't
your mother teach you manners....
David Von Pein
Spoken like a true CT-Kook (i.e., a person who, if Catholic, wouldn't
trust a thing the Pope said).
For the record (as if this even needs to be said)......EVERY single
"Debate" post I have made includes comments (next to the moniker
"CTer") that were actually spoken by various conspiracy theorists over
the last several years. The posts were culled from a variety of places
(mostly this forum) and assembled into my "Debate" threads.
Any and all of the "CTer" remarks I have used can easily be traced
back to the "CTer" who originally wrote them, by simply copying-&-
pasting a particular passage into the search engine here.
But, naturally, a kook like Mr. Healy would rather just arbitrarily
accuse a person of faking something (or, in this instance, "making up
stuff") instead of going to the trouble of trying to prove that the
accusation has any merit.
Can there be any better (recent) example of out-&-out CTer laziness
than Healy's post above, when he says I "make up stuff" when it comes
to my series of "Debates" threads??
It's another classic example of how CTers operate --- Accuse Now; And
Prove NEVER!
Nice job, D. Healy. Every time you write something, you make Mr.
Bugliosi's point for him:
"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
{conspiracy} theorists is that they rarely ever carry their
suspicions, which are based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or
contradiction they find, to their logical conclusion. ... For them, if
something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of asking, "Where
does this go?"--that is, where does the discrepancy, contradiction, or
whatever, lead them?--they immediately give their minds a breather and
conclude that what they find is itself proof of a conspiracy (or proof
that Oswald is innocent). The discrepancy or contradiction is the
ENTIRE story. And being the entire story, it by itself discredits the
entire twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission. Nothing else has
to be shown or even argued." -- VB
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
Lone
Van "Peinlichs" usual BLABLA
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
David,
There's no point in trying to defend yourself against Healy, he is
unable to comprehend anything he reads.
These comments made by him come from someone who knows EVERYTHING
about the assassination of JOHN FRANCIS KENNEDY!!!!!!!! Yep, thats
correct...Healy called JFK John Francis Kennedy. Then he has the balls
to tell us to shut up because we know nothing about the case. Ummm
nuff said, carry on David your posts are very well written and
informative to those of us that care. The rest of them are irrelevent
trash...pretending to be researchers. (Maybe John Francis Kennedy is
related to John Welsh Hodges)
justme
David Von Pein
"16 smoking guns"????
(Who's got the industrial-sized "LOL" icon today? Did I give it to
you, Ed? Bud? I can't find it. But I sure need it here. Big-time!)
Ben thinks there are "16 smoking guns" that (I guess) must ALL prove a
conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
In-cred-ible!
And just think---EVERY Government investigation somehow missed seeing
each and every one of those SIXTEEN smoldering conspiratorial-leaning
embers.
And Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq., also somehow missed seeing (and
subsequently reporting on) every one of the SIXTEEN smokers too.
(You'd think that only a mere THIRTEEN would have been convincing
enough for most people; but I guess not, huh? The magic number must
have been "17" for Vince and the U.S. Government.)
But, somehow, only Ben "The CT God" Holmes has managed to uncover
these SIXTEEN smoking guns of conspiracy.
We can now only be left to wonder one thing -- Where's Holmes' best-
selling book, "THE 16 SMOKING GUNS IN THE KENNEDY CASE"??
You'd think that tome would have been marketed by this time. I mean,
SIXTEEN smokers is a pretty good start toward proving a conspiracy,
isn't it?
Dammit....where's that "Bursting With Laughter" icon?
aeffects
wrote:
Hey, I heard your a girl -- you been lying to us? btw, what's my IP
address?
aeffects
> >>> "Hey, DVP...ask your pal Bugliosi why he was too afraid to tackle the 16 smoking guns?" <<<
>
> "16 smoking guns"????
>
> (Who's got the industrial-sized "LOL" icon today? Did I give it to
> you, Ed? Bud? I can't find it. But I sure need it here. Big-time!)
>
> Ben thinks there are "16 smoking guns" that (I guess) must ALL prove a
> conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
>
> In-cred-ible!
>
> And just think---EVERY Government investigation somehow missed seeing
> each and every one of those SIXTEEN smoldering conspiratorial-leaning
> embers.
>
> And Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq., also somehow missed seeing (and
> subsequently reporting on) every one of the SIXTEEN smokers too.
> (You'd think that only a mere THIRTEEN would have been convincing
> enough for most people; but I guess not, huh? The magic number must
> have been "17" for Vince and the U.S. Government.)
>
> But, somehow, only Ben "The CT God" Holmes has managed to uncover
> these SIXTEEN smoking guns of conspiracy.
don't read much do you?
> We can now only be left to wonder one thing -- Where's Holmes' best-
> selling book, "THE 16 SMOKING GUNS IN THE KENNEDY CASE"??
wrong title, wrong author champ -- guess again.
> You'd think that tome would have been marketed by this time. I mean,
> SIXTEEN smokers is a pretty good start toward proving a conspiracy,
> isn't it?
>
> Dammit....where's that "Bursting With Laughter" icon?
We know, we know, I can hear you weeping, all the way out west....
you've had a bad turn, David, one that conceivably rests at your
feet.... Your internet RC book PR was fucking horrible. That aside,
40+ years - 16 smoking guns.... 45 questions, whew..... everywhere you
fools turn your being slapped up the side of the head with not only
promoting questionable evidence (WCR).....even GAWD forbid, lying and/
or promoting lies......
Ben Holmes
>> back Holmes. If you haven't noticed we're here to make fun of you and
>> the Pink Panty Prick named Healy. By the way, that yellow strip down
>> your back fits you perfectly....COWARD!
>
>sitdown down you silly wanker, no one is speaking to you... Didn't
>your mother teach you manners....
Strange that "Justme" is so ignorant that he doesn't know that Bugliosi failed
to answer the "16 Smoking Guns". On the other hand - trolls are killfiled
because they *are* ignorant.
David Von Pein
What's "RC", Mr. Kook?
Only 6 or 7 grammar/spelling mistakes in your last post, Healy. You're
improving.
justm...@gmail.com
WTF are you talking about Holmes? I never mentioned a word about any
smoking guns. You have me confused with someone else...how appropriate
for you. Moron!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Aug 19, 2:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Hey, DVP...ask your pal Bugliosi why he was too afraid to tackle the 16
>>smoking guns?" <<<
>>
>> "16 smoking guns"????
>>
>> (Who's got the industrial-sized "LOL" icon today? Did I give it to
>> you, Ed? Bud? I can't find it. But I sure need it here. Big-time!)
>>
>> Ben thinks there are "16 smoking guns" that (I guess) must ALL prove a
>> conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
>>
>> In-cred-ible!
Then Bugliosi must have lied... for he mentions the "16 Smoking Guns" in his
tome. But failed to respond to them.
How strange that DVP doesn't know this!!?
>> And just think---EVERY Government investigation somehow missed seeing
>> each and every one of those SIXTEEN smoldering conspiratorial-leaning
>> embers.
Of course they did... you didn't think that they were *real* investigations, did
you?
>> And Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq., also somehow missed seeing (and
>> subsequently reporting on) every one of the SIXTEEN smokers too.
Actually, not true.
I find it funny that you don't know that "16 Smoking Guns" are referenced in his
tome - but not responded to.
How stupid do you want to look, DVP? You've been hyping Bugliosi for a long
time, yet you don't even know what he said...
>> (You'd think that only a mere THIRTEEN would have been convincing
>> enough for most people; but I guess not, huh? The magic number must
>> have been "17" for Vince and the U.S. Government.)
That's merely the number the author came up with. Nothing special about it.
>> But, somehow, only Ben "The CT God" Holmes has managed to uncover
>> these SIXTEEN smoking guns of conspiracy.
>
>don't read much do you?
Clearly not... and what's truly funny, is that DVP doesn't even read his bible.
>> We can now only be left to wonder one thing -- Where's Holmes' best-
>> selling book, "THE 16 SMOKING GUNS IN THE KENNEDY CASE"??
>
>wrong title, wrong author champ -- guess again.
Yep... wrong author, wrong title, AND ALREADY PUBLISHED.
(as well as mentioned in Bugliosi's tome - yet strangely enough, not answered or
refuted)
>> You'd think that tome would have been marketed by this time.
I bought it seven years ago... Bugliosi has had *at least* that much time to
respond to it... yet he failed to do so. Why is that?
Would you like to try?
>> I mean, SIXTEEN smokers is a pretty good start toward proving a conspiracy,
>> isn't it?
Yep... it surely is. And because Bugliosi hauled up the yellow flag - you won't
have any answers to give.
>> Dammit....where's that "Bursting With Laughter" icon?
>
>We know, we know, I can hear you weeping, all the way out west....
>you've had a bad turn, David, one that conceivably rests at your
>feet.... Your internet RC book PR was fucking horrible. That aside,
>40+ years - 16 smoking guns.... 45 questions, whew..... everywhere you
>fools turn your being slapped up the side of the head with not only
>promoting questionable evidence (WCR).....even GAWD forbid, lying and/
>or promoting lies......
Well, I don't blame Bugliosi for not answering my 45 questions, he probably
never heard of 'em. And he probably wouldn't fare any better than the LNT'ers
who've tried already.
But it's *INDISPUTABLE* that Bugliosi knew of the "16 Smoking Guns", yet failed
to respond to them in a book that was allegedly dedicated to answering
"Conspiracy Theories"...
(After all, he *did* claim to have conducted a "comprehensive and fair
evaluation of the *entire* case, including all of the conspiracy theories"...
yet he didn't!!)
I wonder why DVP can't simply answer the question??? "Why was Bugliosi too
YoHarvey
> In article <1187563230.180774.280...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
Is Holmes truly this ignorant or just playing? I wonder.
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Hey, DVP...ask your pal Bugliosi why he was too afraid to tackle the 16 smoking guns?" <<<
>
> "16 smoking guns"????
>
> (Who's got the industrial-sized "LOL" icon today? Did I give it to
> you, Ed? Bud? I can't find it. But I sure need it here. Big-time!)
>
> Ben thinks there are "16 smoking guns" that (I guess) must ALL prove a
> conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
Heres what the kook is referring to. I found it on
assassinationscience, amongst the moon-landing hoax crap and the 911-
conspiracy crap, and the Wellstone was killed by aliens crap. It`s
written by Fetzer, so you know it`s credible.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
> In-cred-ible!
>
> And just think---EVERY Government investigation somehow missed seeing
> each and every one of those SIXTEEN smoldering conspiratorial-leaning
> embers.
>
> And Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq., also somehow missed seeing (and
> subsequently reporting on) every one of the SIXTEEN smokers too.
> (You'd think that only a mere THIRTEEN would have been convincing
> enough for most people; but I guess not, huh? The magic number must
> have been "17" for Vince and the U.S. Government.)
>
> But, somehow, only Ben "The CT God" Holmes has managed to uncover
> these SIXTEEN smoking guns of conspiracy.
What Ben doesn`t understand is that Bugliousi doesn`t need to
refute all kookshit, he has written the definative book on the
assassination. The tail doesn`t wag the dog, you don`t dictate
conditions to the emperor,. Time is on the side of the LN now, Bugs`s
book is in the catbird seat, and kook grumbling is destined to be
background noise unless a conspiracy book can be written using the
information Bugs worked with (unless they want to try a book with
every page filled with "thats faked, thats coerced, that contrived),
but come to a conspiacy conclusion.
> We can now only be left to wonder one thing -- Where's Holmes' best-
> selling book, "THE 16 SMOKING GUNS IN THE KENNEDY CASE"??
Kooks are very impressed with their lists. Healy gets all girly
over Ben`s list of oft-answered questions, Tomnln used to post his
same list over and over, now this "smoking guns" list. These aren`t
even skirmishes anymore, Bug`s book commands the field.
> You'd think that tome would have been marketed by this time. I mean,
> SIXTEEN smokers is a pretty good start toward proving a conspiracy,
> isn't it?
Goggle "proves conspiracy" in this group to get thousands of hits.
Everything proves conspiracy, every single piece of evidence, to hear
kooks tell it. Amazing that the fingerprints of conspiracy are
everywhere, yet the kooks can`t show conspiracy. You`d think just by
shear frequency they`d come up with something substantial.
David Von Pein
How can you "tackle" something that doesn't exist (and never did
exist)?
Oh....I know the answer to that last question:
BE AN "INVENT A THEORY" CONSPIRACY KOOK.
Whatever the silly "16 smoking guns" are that Ben-Kook refers to are
all obviously "guns" that only exist in the fertile minds of
CTers....and VB knows this full well.
It's funny, too, isn't it? -- "16 smoking guns" and not a single non-
C2766 bullet or fragment to be found when all that dust settled.
Very curious indeed. But to a JFK conspiracy kook, a complete lack of
physical evidence like that is to be EXPECTED. It's the norm/rule in a
CT world, instead of the exception. Go figure.
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187556484....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
This is pretty lame even for you Grandad. I think we're getting to you. By
the way, I could show a Charlton Heston movie on your forehead. Ever been
asked to join the circus?
>
David Von Pein
Here's the link again (just in case you need another really good
laugh)......
http://www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture
and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming
History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted
every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns".
And all of that garbage had already been debunked long before VB's
book came along anyway. But, to a conspiracy-loving kook, evidently
ALL of the silly and already-destroyed theories are "new" again with
each day's sunrise.
Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items
on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure
out a CT-Kook from one day to the next.
I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO
FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has
IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items.
They are all answered very well in various places throughout
"Reclaiming History".
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187552244....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
With a vocabulary like yours and, you upset about the word "cunt"?????
Musta brought back memories.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187555838.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
For the Dyke.
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:46c8e58b$0$18464$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
RUN SPIFFY RUN
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187566318.0...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
the cheap Putz is still outta scotch.
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187566318.0...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Healy is NOT a cunt.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187556983.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/83169584?d=83199134#83199134
>>> "It is interesting that I have put up two threads with the sole purpose of engaging CT's and giving them an opportunity to explain and debate what they believe occurred, and the best I have gotten from them is insults. But I am not deterred. I will have more threads coming and hopefully someone will take the opportunity to discuss the issues of this case." <<<
Good luck with that. But very unlikely.
Rabid CTers WANT a conspiracy. Always have. Always will. And they will
always be better at asking questions rather than answering them.
As a prime example: I've talked to dozens (or hundreds possibly) of
"CTers" and I've yet to hear ONE of them come up with a reasonable
answer to this question.....
IF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS A PIECE-OF-SHIT MADE-UP DAYDREAM,
WHAT'S THE CORRECT SHOOTING SCENARIO?
About the best response I've gotten to date is: "More than one
shooter, of course."
Brilliant, huh?
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/932542f222f02a12
tomnln
never allowed.
Your Inability to answer them illustrates WHY.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187758288.2...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/83169584?d=83199134#83199134
>
>>>> "It is interesting that I have put up two threads with the sole purpose
>>>> of engaging CT's and giving them an opportunity to explain and debate
>>>> what they believe occurred, and the best I have gotten from them is
>>>> insults. But I am not deterred. I will have more threads coming and
>>>> hopefully someone will take the opportunity to discuss the issues of
>>>> this case." <<<
>
> Good luck with that. But very unlikely.
>
> Rabid CTers WANT a conspiracy. Always have. Always will. And they will
> always be better at asking questions then in answering them.
aeffects
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/83169584?d=83199134#83199134
>
> >>> "It is interesting that I have put up two threads with the sole purpose of engaging CT's and giving them an opportunity to explain and debate what they believe occurred, and the best I have gotten from them is insults. But I am not deterred. I will have more threads coming and hopefully someone will take the opportunity to discuss the issues of this case." <<<
>
> Good luck with that. But very unlikely.
>
> Rabid CTers WANT a conspiracy. Always have. Always will. And they will
> always be better at asking questions rather than answering them.
Want hon? It was delivered to us with a pretty pink WCR bow attached
-- We aren't running from it, like the Lone Nutter's of yore and today
do..... Gird those loins David Von Pein it ain't going away.....
> As a prime example: I've talked to dozens (or hundreds possibly) of
> "CTers" and I've yet to hear ONE of them come up with a reasonable
> answer to this question.....
>
> IF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS A PIECE-OF-SHIT MADE-UP DAYDREAM,
> WHAT'S THE CORRECT SHOOTING SCENARIO?
As a life long Lone Nutter and dis-informationalist, you know who to
ask, but you can't, can ya? Didn't employees at NPIC come up with more
than one Dealey Plaza Nov 22nd 1963 shooting scenario?
> About the best response I've gotten to date is: "More than one
> shooter, of course."
>
> Brilliant, huh?
better than the SBT? Of course..... Try the above on for size --
> www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/932542f222f02a12
aeffects
> Thanks for the "Smoking Guns" link, Bud.
>
> Here's the link again (just in case you need another really good
> laugh)......
>
> http://www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
>
> Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture
> and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming
> History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted
> every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns".
>
> And all of that garbage had already been debunked long before VB's
> book came along anyway. But, to a conspiracy-loving kook, evidently
> ALL of the silly and already-destroyed theories are "new" again with
> each day's sunrise.
>
> Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items
> on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure
> out a CT-Kook from one day to the next.
>
> I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO
> IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items.
> They are all answered very well in various places throughout
> "Reclaiming History".
Are YOU, David Von Pein stating there is NO dispute over CE399 and the
JFK assassination? Is that what your saying to the lurkers?
They (the 16 smoking guns) have never been answered, David Von Pein.
We know why you can't! Not in your script, eh?
Reclaiming History, its failure and your inability to press forward
Bugliosi's Nutter-PR position is evident...
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
nah Sammy, the circus was created by the defunct WC (do you know who
they are, Sammy?) Tell us who headed up the investigation.... we need
to see something, ANYTHING from Sammy from down-undah the TROLL!
Keep BOTH hands on the keyboard, hon!
>
aeffects
and it took the wanker Bugliosi 20 years to write his doomed classic?
ROTFLMFAO
the conclusion stands: the Nov '63 assassination of JFK was a
conspiracy -- the WCR, your hero Vin Bugliosi and his boat, er, book
anchor (Regurgitating 'WCR' History) failed
An reasonable "logical" conclusion
aeffects
wrote:
your in love hon -- we know! both hands on the keyboard, NOW!
Rich DellaRosa
aeffects <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here: http://www.jfkresearch.com/prologue.htm
give it your best. Don't let the Bugl-sh*t sway you.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
aeffects
> In article <1187806430.135704.115...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
thanks, Rich.....
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Aug 22, 12:51 pm, Rich DellaRosa <richd...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <1187806430.135704.115...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 5:53 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > > Thanks for the "Smoking Guns" link, Bud.
>>
>> > > Here's the link again (just in case you need another really good
>> > > laugh)......
>>
>> > >http://www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
>>
>> > > Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture
>> > > and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming
>> > > History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted
>> > > every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns".
Then it would be simple to simply cite the page numbers, wouldn't it?
But such a citation will never be seen on this forum... there's too many people
that *have* Bugliosi's tome, and can quickly discover what anything cited really
says.
>> > > And all of that garbage had already been debunked long before VB's
>> > > book came along anyway. But, to a conspiracy-loving kook, evidently
>> > > ALL of the silly and already-destroyed theories are "new" again with
>> > > each day's sunrise.
>>
>> > > Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items
>> > > on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess.
Perhaps because it's the truth?
>> > > But, then too, it's hard to figure
>> > > out a CT-Kook from one day to the next.
>>
>> > > I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO
>> > > FETZER'S are you denying there's dispute about CE399?, that must mean to
>> > > Ben-Kook that VB has
>> > > IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items.
>> > > They are all answered very well in various places throughout
>> > > "Reclaiming History".
Page cites... anytime...
>> > Are YOU, David Von Pein stating there is NO dispute over CE399 and the
>> > JFK assassination? Is that what your saying to the lurkers?
>>
>> > They (the 16 smoking guns) have never been answered, David Von Pein.
>> > We know why you can't! Not in your script, eh?
>>
>> > Reclaiming History, its failure and your inability to press forward
>> > Bugliosi's Nutter-PR position is evident...
>>
>> Here: http://www.jfkresearch.com/prologue.htm
>> give it your best. Don't let the Bugl-sh*t sway you.
>>
>> --
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/http://www.jfkresearch.com
>
>thanks, Rich.....
Trolls lie... that's what trolls do... DVP is lying, yet again... nothing
unusual here.
David Von Pein
What a kook you are. Every single one of Fetzer's silly "Guns" is
debunked (and then some) in VB's book. Many of them in multiple
chapters within the book.
Just because you can't read...don't blame me.
Of course, I suspect you haven't read a single page of RH....so you
aren't even worth talking to on this matter re. VB's book.
(Alzheimer's. Gotta be.)
aeffects
you know what you gott'a do.... do you enjoy being battered around
like this?
> (Alzheimer's. Gotta be.)
I'd say your suffering from a over inflated ego, just like your hero!
Addictive not to mention foolish!
Post the cites....
David Von Pein
>>> "Post the cites." <<<
Look them up yourself, you lazy asswipe. I'm not doing your work for
you.
Or....you could merely read the many VB cites I present below. I'm
pretty sure some of the silly "Smoking Guns" are mentioned here
someplace......
http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
The "Smoking Guns" numbered 10, 13, and 16 are particularly insane
(even for Fetzer), and, of course, are all covered throughout
Bugliosi's comprehensive tome.
Unfortunately, Healy and kooks like him are allergic to common sense
and the truth re. JFK's death. Will that ever change? CAN it change?
It's doubtful.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Aug 22, 3:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "They (the 16 smoking guns) have never been answered." <<<
>>
>> What a kook you are. Every single one of Fetzer's silly "Guns" is
>> debunked (and then some) in VB's book. Many of them in multiple
>> chapters within the book.
DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever...
He can't... Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page
number *to* cite.
>> Just because you can't read...don't blame me.
Tell us the page number, liar...
>> Of course, I suspect you haven't read a single page of RH....so you
>> aren't even worth talking to on this matter re. VB's book.
>
>you know what you gott'a do.... do you enjoy being battered around
>like this?
>
>
>> (Alzheimer's. Gotta be.)
>
>I'd say your suffering from a over inflated ego, just like your hero!
>Addictive not to mention foolish!
>
>Post the cites....
He won't... he can't.
aeffects
> A KOOK DEMANDED:
>
> >>> "Post the cites." <<<
>
> Look them up yourself, you lazy asswipe. I'm not doing your work for
> you.
David,
I understand your angst. The difficulty of dealing with failure.
However let remind you, again, you're a cut&paste cross-posting artist
who spends an inordinate amount of time quoting his-self.... So,
please, when you get off of the daBugliosi merry-go-round, don't go
back to baseball it doesn't need another blackeye....
> Or....you could merely read the many VB cites I present below. I'm
> pretty sure some of the silly "Smoking Guns" are mentioned here
> someplace......
>
> http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
>
> The "Smoking Guns" numbered 10, 13, and 16 are particularly insane
> (even for Fetzer), and, of course, are all covered throughout
> Bugliosi's comprehensive tome.
>
> Unfortunately, Healy and kooks like him are allergic to common sense
> and the truth re. JFK's death. Will that ever change? CAN it change?
> It's doubtful.
Well hon, batter up -- answer them with cites, or do you need a memo
from on-high? LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Aug 22, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> A KOOK DEMANDED:
>>
>> >>> "Post the cites." <<<
>>
>> Look them up yourself, you lazy asswipe. I'm not doing your work for
>> you.
>
>David,
>
>I understand your angst. The difficulty of dealing with failure.
>However let remind you, again, you're a cut&paste cross-posting artist
>who spends an inordinate amount of time quoting his-self.... So,
>please, when you get off of the daBugliosi merry-go-round, don't go
>back to baseball it doesn't need another blackeye....
LNT'ers never seem capable of SUPPORTING THEIR OWN ASSERTIONS...
DVP is willing to assert that Bugliosi dealt with the 16 smoking guns, yet he
can't cite a *SINGLE* example.
DVP lied... it's just that simple.
David Von Pein
There is no possible (human) way that two kooks (Healy, Holmes) can be
this stupid. Not possible.
Just because the "16 guns" aren't dealt with in a separate "16 Guns"
chapter, these kooks seem to think VB has not "dealt" with ANY of them
in any portion of his book.
But, of course, Vince has. Every one. Without a shred of a doubt. I've
read the entire book, and all of Fetzer's nonsense is dealt with in
"RH" (with appropriate source notes, among the 10,000+ such
citations).
If you think I'm going to dig through the whole book to satisfy
eternally-unsatisifiable "16 Guns" kooks like H&H, you're nuts. Go
look them up yourself. Which you won't do, of course...because you
don't want to admit that VB has dealt with every CT assertion you
claim he has not addressed.
What a life it must be, being a conspiracy-loving kook. And what a
motto to live by too -- "ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER!"
Sam Brown
Hi Grandad, this from a kook who thought Kennedys' middle name was "FRANCIS"
Sit down and be quiet stump.