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 Historical content remains viewable.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

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 163)

31 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 2, 2011, 10:58:29 PM6/2/11
to
ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 163):

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

1964 JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE WITH MARK LANE:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mark-lane-debate-1964.html


IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW WITH MARY MOORMAN (MAY 24, 2011):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html
http://Box.net/shared/c8m38ckjik


MORE MARY MOORMAN:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17664&st=45&p=226570&#entry226570
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17664&st=45&p=226575&#entry226575
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7c1cffd987ec7371


OSWALD'S PRINTS ON THE DEPOSITORY BOXES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/07b9bbc726f37f2d


DAVID LIFTON:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=0&p=226776&#entry226776
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=15&p=226939&#entry226939
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=45&p=227164&#entry227164
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=60&p=227206&#entry227206


CE399:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17626&st=45&p=224338&#entry224338


PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S CRANIUM:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=0&p=226842&#entry226842
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=30&p=227101&#entry227101
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=45&p=227108&#entry227108
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=45&p=227116&#entry227116
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=60&p=227184&#entry227184


JFK-RELATED BLOGS:
http://DVP-JFK-Blogs.blogspot.com


ADDITIONAL MISCELLANY:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17547&st=60&p=223015&#entry223015
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=0&p=226751&#entry226751

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

aeffects

unread,
Jun 3, 2011, 2:24:31 PM6/3/11
to
On Jun 2, 7:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

no advertising moron -- you KNOW the rules

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 4, 2011, 12:23:10 AM6/4/11
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17752&st=75&p=227494&#entry227494


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:


>>> "I think the argument that [Josiah] Thompson makes based upon Dave Wimp is better. Namely that the frame [Z313] is smudged or blurred [and it's this blurring that is making it look like JFK's is moving forward between frames 312 and 313, when his head isn't really moving forward at all]." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

IMO, that is a ridiculous argument, and for this reason:

Frame 312, which is just an instant before the bullet hits JFK in the
head, is probably the clearest frame in Mr. Zapruder's whole film
(it's certainly one of the very clearest and non-blurred frames in the
whole 26-second home movie, at any rate).

Z312:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oLO255Eztuc/TemzCmAr2FI/AAAAAAAAZ94/-omlRfFVqR4/s1600/Zapruder%2BFrame%2B312.jpg


So, to believe that the forward head movement between Z312 and Z313 is
caused by the film being "blurred" or "smudged" (smudged? WTF?), we'd
have to believe that this blurring occurred immediately after one of
the very clearest of all frames in the entire Zapruder film had just
been exposed through Mr. Z's camera.

Now, I'm no photography expert, and I suppose such blurring is
possible under the right circumstances, but I think a key to knowing
that the "blurring" theory at Z313 is not valid is by looking at Z312,
which is a beautiful frame, with no blurring whatsoever. It would seem
to me, therefore, that BOTH Z312 and Z313 would need to contain some
degree of substantial blurring in order for any such theory to be
plausible concerning the forward head movement being caused by merely
blurring of the film frames.

Also: What do you suppose the odds are of such a theory being
accurate? I.E., a separate "blurring" event occurs on the film at the
exact instant when President Kennedy just happens to get struck in the
head by a bullet and his head appears to be moving forward slightly.

It appears to me that certain conspiracy theorists will do anything
and propose virtually any alternate theory in order to deny the
obvious fact that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the head by
just one bullet--which was a bullet that came from behind.


http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?

aeffects

unread,
Jun 4, 2011, 3:58:37 AM6/4/11
to
On Jun 3, 9:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip> no advertising moron.....

HBO must be slumming here these day's and Davey Von Pein needs a bit
of exposure.... LMFAO!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 9, 2011, 10:54:57 PM6/9/11
to

VIA AN E-MAIL CONVERSATION, MARK THOMPSON SAID:

I was just viewing your JFK Archives regarding Oswald's room at 1026
North Beckley [linked below].

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html

Can't help but notice that the room has curtains. Was Oswald planning
an extreme makeover?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

MARK THOMPSON SAID:

What ever became of the "curtain rods" that he supposedly carried into
the TSBD that morning?

DVP SAID:

Well, since the curtain rods were a complete invention of LHO's to
begin with--obviously no "rods" could have been found anywhere. And
they weren't--except if you want to include the wrapped package of
curtain rods stored in Ruth Paine's garage, which were still there
weeks after November 22nd.

MARK THOMPSON SAID:

I posed this question to Robert Groden, the Soothsayer of Dealey
Plaza, and he stated very matter-of-factly that they were recovered
shortly after the shooting but later turned up missing (nod, nod,
wink, wink).

What are your thoughts on the missing curtain rods?

DVP SAID:

See above answer.

Plus: Groden probably wants to twist the facts regarding the rods. He
likely wants people to think that Ruth Paine's curtain rods (which I
talk about in more depth at http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com) were
really somehow Oswald's rods.

But you must also realize that Groden is a kook who thinks that up to
11 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, and he also thinks it's likely
that ZERO of those shots came from the window where the conspirators
were framing their patsy from. (Talk about a plot designed by morons.
I guess they WANTED to get caught.)

MARK THOMPSON SAID:

Dave,

I was just reading your Motive section [linked below], and I couldn't
agree with you more.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Lee-Harvey-Oswald

It is interesting to note that when Oswald had ample time and
opportunity, he was a meticulous planner. He told Priscilla Johnson
McMillan that he had planned his defection to the Soviet Union for
several years. He may have been embellishing a bit, but he had
obviously been saving his money for some long-term goal.

His attempt on Major General Edwin Walker was very carefully planned
out, with maps, photos, bus schedules, and detailed instructions for
his wife in the event of capture.

Ironic that his carefully planned attempt on Walker failed, while his
plan to shoot President Kennedy, which was thrown together hastily at
the last possible moment, actually succeeded.

It must have really bothered Oswald that he was unable to retrieve his
rifle until the night before the assassination. It had been sitting
in that garage for weeks in cold weather, and he had no time to
inspect it or test fire it. The fact that he was willing to take a
chance like that shows just
how desperate he had become by the Fall of 1963.

I have always believed that Oswald played his cards very close to the
vest following his arrest because he was looking forward to being the
centerpiece of his own international show trial, like the 1951 trial
of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. He once claimed that as a youth
skipping school and hanging out on the New York subway, someone handed
him a leaflet about the Rosenbergs and that was what first opened his
eyes to Marxism.

Based on the massive swarm of reporters who converged upon Dallas and
hung on his every word, Oswald must surely have anticipated a huge
trial that he would be able to turn into a public forum for his views
on social injustice and the evils of capitalism. He must have dreamed
of the day when he would get his big close-up and impress the world
with his revolutionary vision.

In the end, all he was able to deliver was a weak clenched fist salute
as he was being loaded into an ambulance.

The conspiracy buffs who continue to insist that Saint Oswald had no
motive to kill the president conveniently overlook the fact that
housepainter Richard Lawrence fired at Andrew Jackson because he
believed Jackson was somehow preventing him from becoming the King of
England or that saloonkeeper John Schrank shot Theodore Roosevelt on
orders from William McKinley's ghost or that John Hinckley Jr shot
Ronald Reagan in an effort to impress a lesbian. And don't even get
me started on Arthur Bremer...

And for those who cling to the belief that Oswald was some kind of
super-spy leading a double life in New Orleans and infiltrating rival
groups, I refer to the statement of Marina Oswald, who said in essence
that Oswald wanted to go to Cuba, and that all the rest was window
dressing.

Your website is very thorough and well-researched, and I really enjoy
reading it. Thank you for all of the time and effort you have put
into it. I'm sure that as a "Lone Nutter" you must sometimes feel like
Mr. Douglas on Green Acres. At times I think I'm the only person in
Dallas who believes that Oswald was even remotely connected to the
crime.

Respectfully,
Mark

DVP SAID:

Thank you for your latest e-mail, Mark. Some very good observations in
there, indeed.

And I enjoyed your quip about "Mr. Douglas" of Green Acres fame.
That's the first time I've ever been linked to Oliver Wendell Douglas,
in some fashion. (I always liked him, too. "Lisaaaaa!")

Maybe another analogy on this could be to use Dr. Richard Kimble of
"The Fugitive" (my all-time favorite drama television series). Of
course, it would have to be a reverse analogy in Dr. Kimble's case,
because he couldn't convince a jury that he was INNOCENT of murdering
his wife. But innocent he was. And Lee Harvey Oswald is just as guilty
as Dr. Richard Kimble was innocent.

Yes, Kimble's plight was only depicted on a fictional television
program. But there are many times when it seems as though the
conspiracy theorists have slipped into the world of total fiction as
well. In fact, in my opinion, the conspiracists are immersed in
fiction MOST of the time.

Hey, maybe the CTers should consult Dr. Kimble for some tips! Perhaps
Kimble could convince Oliver Stone and Mark Lane that there was a one-
armed man with a rifle seen running from the Grassy Knoll in Dealey
Plaza right after JFK's murder.

Of course, just exactly how a one-armed individual was able to
accurately fire a rifle at President Kennedy's head might be a tough
scenario for the conspiracists to reconcile. But given their track
record for believing in everyone's guilt--except Oswald's, of course--
such a "one-armed" problem shouldn't be too difficult to overcome at
all. :)

Regards,
David Von Pein

http://The--Fugitive.blogspot.com

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 1:54:02 PM6/10/11
to
If we could go back into a time machine to the morning of 11-22-63 and
talk motive...I'll take Marcello, Hoffa,Hoover, Giancana, Roselli ,
Trafficante , LBJ and Dulles, Cabell, Lansdale, Hunt for motive over LHO
anyday.

Jason Burke

unread,
Jun 10, 2011, 2:06:27 PM6/10/11
to

Probably. Too bad the only one to act on that day was Ozzie, huh?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 11:30:22 AM6/15/11
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c8e792d74e2bb9f3/0724c459c82bdedd?#0724c459c82bdedd


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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

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

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

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

You're hilarious.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jun 15, 2011, 3:54:29 PM6/15/11
to
Hey..at least 4 of the above confessed..don't forget it...Laz

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 16, 2011, 4:49:29 AM6/16/11
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c8e792d74e2bb9f3/78c8c76e82789911?#78c8c76e82789911


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

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

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


>>> "At least I don't use someone's claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do." <<<


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

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

Surely you jest.


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

And just exactly why did he kill Tippit, Tony?

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 3:22:22 AM6/17/11
to

DVP SAID THIS TO BOB HARRIS:

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

BOB HARRIS THEN SAID:

>>> "Prove it." <<<


DVP NOW SAYS:

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

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 4:54:59 PM6/17/11
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=45&p=228850&#entry228850


TOM WILSON SAID:


>>> "Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical
evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease?

And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee
Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in
the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing,
plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766
were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words,
Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures).

All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?

Sad.

>>> "Of Course he worked there. So did many others. But you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he fired those shots. You cannot." <<<


That fact was proven on the day the assassination occurred, Tom. I'm
surprised you're not aware of that fact. Just listen to D.A. Henry
Wade, on the evening of 11/24/63, run down the laundry list of stuff
that proves Oswald's guilt. It would make any prosecutor's mouth
water:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/henry-wade-press-conference-11-24-63.html

>>> "The rifle did not have his prints on it." <<<


Dead wrong.

There's CE637 (never proven to be planted there); and there are the
oft-overlooked trigger guard fingerprints which were positively
Oswald's, per print expert Vincent Scalice. He's a liar too?

>>> "It [Rifle C2766] could not be matched to the "paper bag." etc, etc, etc, etc." <<<


But that paper bag (with Oswald's own prints on it, of course) was
tied to the blanket that we know held that rifle in Ruth Paine's
garage. (The fiber experts were liars too, Tom?)


>>> "His fingerprints on boxes in the sniper's nest? That is what you want to hang him with? He toted boxes, that was his job. Sad." <<<


I always get a kick out of conspiracy theorists like Tom Wilson here.
They'll go to the ends of the Earth, it seems, to avoid the obvious
implications of ALL of the Oswald-did-it evidence -- from the rifle,
to the paper bag, to the bullet shells by the window, to the two large
bullet fragments FIRED FROM OSWALD'S GUN that were found in the
President's car, to CE399, to the fibers, to the Tippit evidence (I'm
not sure if the Tippit stuff applies to Tom Wilson or not, but it sure
applies to a lot of other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on
the Internet these days), and to the fingerprints on the boxes too.

Just how much evidence is necessary to have a guilty Lee Oswald in
this case?

For conspiracy theorists, it would appear the answer to my last
inquiry is: There can never be enough. Sad.

And those fingerprints and palmprints of Oswald's on those boxes deep
inside that Sniper's Nest should not just be tossed aside (as all
CTers want to do), as discussed here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

Gil Jesus

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 10:35:03 PM6/17/11
to
On Jun 17, 4:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=45&p=2...

>
> TOM WILSON SAID:
>
> >>> "Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical
> evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease?
>
> And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee
> Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in
> the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing,
> plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766
> were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words,
> Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures).
>
> All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?
>
> Sad.


WHAT'S EVEN SADDER IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN SCHOOLED ON ALL OF THIS AND YOU
CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE "HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" THAT THE RIFLE WAS NOT
OSWALD'S.

THAT MAKES YOU A COWARD AND A LIAR FOR IGNORING IT.

YOUR DAYS OF SPREADING DISINFORMATION ARE COMING TO AN END BECAUSE THE
TRUTH IS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED.

It's time you came out of your fairy-tale land and addressed the rifle
evidence posted here:

http://www.giljesus.com/JFK/rifle.htm

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 17, 2011, 11:34:42 PM6/17/11
to

Bud

unread,
Jun 18, 2011, 6:06:53 AM6/18/11
to
On Jun 17, 10:35 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17614&st=45&p=2...
>
> > TOM WILSON SAID:
>
> > >>> "Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle." <<<
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical
> > evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease?
>
> > And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee
> > Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in
> > the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing,
> > plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766
> > were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words,
> > Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures).
>
> > All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?
>
> > Sad.
>
> WHAT'S EVEN SADDER IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN SCHOOLED ON ALL OF THIS AND YOU
> CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE "HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE" THAT THE RIFLE WAS NOT
> OSWALD'S.

A retard saying "This looks like a side sling mount to me" isn`t
hard physical evidence. It`s retard opinion.

> THAT MAKES YOU A COWARD AND A LIAR FOR IGNORING IT.
>
> YOUR DAYS OF SPREADING DISINFORMATION ARE COMING TO AN END BECAUSE THE
> TRUTH IS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED.
>
> It's time you came out of your fairy-tale land and addressed the rifle
> evidence posted here:

Gil, why don`t you get a side mount M-C and hold it as it shown in
the BY photo and show us that a side mount M-C is the same as what is
shown. You know, support your retard claim.

> http://www.giljesus.com/JFK/rifle.htm

0 new messages