JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 180)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 180):

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

"FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER" (1964):
http://Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2011/01/four-days-in-november.html


"JOHN F. KENNEDY: YEARS OF LIGHTNING, DAY OF DRUMS" (1964):
http://Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-f-kennedy-years-of-lightning.html


"JFK" (1991):
http://Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2011/09/jfk.html


"LOVE FIELD" (1992):
http://Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2011/10/love-field.html


RADIO BULLETINS FROM NOVEMBER 1963:
http://Old-Time-Radio-Shows.blogspot.com/2012/02/jfk-assassination.html


AIR FORCE ONE TAPES:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18715&st=15&p=245293&#entry245293
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18715&st=15&p=245313&#entry245313
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18715&st=15&p=245318&#entry245318
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/aircraft-radio-transmissions-11-22-63.html#Air-Force-One-Tapes-CNN-Video


JAMES R. LEAVELLE:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/james-leavelle.html


JOHN CONNALLY AND KENNY O'DONNELL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c17fd6f04d3b8705
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=0&p=245684&#entry245684


JFK MOTORCADES:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=0&p=245736&#entry245736
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=0&p=245804&#entry245804


DAVID LIFTON:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=45&p=246287&#entry246287


PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac4002cf38774978


MORE:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=15&p=245850&#entry245850
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=30&p=246095&#entry246095
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18729&st=30&p=246098&#entry246098
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c17affaa58325424


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

[David Von Pein]

OSWALD ON THE WITNESS STAND, IN "THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1977
TV MOVIE):

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1977.html#Oswald-On-The-Witness-Stand

[aeffects]

On Feb 11, 8:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>
no advertising moron....

[aeffects]

On Feb 13, 9:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

that goes for this one too!

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/death-of-jfk-1994-documentary.html

[aeffects]

On Feb 15, 1:26 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

not this either....

[David Von Pein]

http://Amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1VLRED2TYB89B&cdMsgNo=14&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4&cdMsgID=Mx1X80T54KBW9AW#Mx1X80T54KBW9AW


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

All in all, I am even more convinced that Lovelady was NOT Doorman
[the man seen in the TSBD doorway in James Altgens' photo] and Oswald
was.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:


Ralph,

Doesn't it matter at all to you that Lovelady HIMSELF said that he was
the man in the doorway? Lovelady even drew an arrow to himself on WC
exhibit #369, with that arrow pointing to the man you say is Lee
Oswald.

Is Lovelady himself a liar?

And is Wesley Frazier a liar too when he said that Doorway Man was
Lovelady and not Oswald? (See the video below to hear Frazier say it
himself [at 8:25].)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

No, it doesn't matter to me at all what Lovelady said. We know for
certain that Lovelady either replaced his shirt OR he altered it, so
that makes him a conspirator.

And regarding Frazier, you notice in that video that when asked if
Lovelady and Oswald looked alike, he [Buell Wesley Frazier] indicated
no, that Lovelady was a much more stocky fellow, and of course he was
at the time.

But as for his mistaking Lovelady for Doorman, I attribute it to their
having moved Lovelady's face over. Frazier was looking at the face and
not at the body and the clothes. And when he saw Lovelady's facial
features, it never occurred to him that anyone could be so evil as to
move the face over in order to cover up the conspiracy and deceive the
entire world.

The bottom line is that Doorman has Oswald's build, and he is wearing
Oswald's clothes. And THAT MAKES HIM OSWALD REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY
SAID.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.


ROBERT MORROW SAID:

Ralph, I am going to give you a tip. You are conversing with multiple
personalties [sic] of David von Pein [sic] -- S.V. Anderson being the
primary one. Shaboo is another. Dale Hayes is definitely another.

I will not respond to any thread that David von Pein [sic] or any of
his numerous sock puppets start. He (and his multiple fake profiles)
are not looking for truth.

Occassionally [sic], I do make exceptions to my rule, but it is just
not productive to engage a disinformation artist. I personally don't
agree with your "Owald [sic] in the TSBD door theory" but at least you
believe what you say.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh goodie! I've now got at least three other "personalities" on the
Internet (per an insane person named Morrow).

Lovely. I wish my Langley bosses would pay me four times the Disinfo
salary then. Looks like I've earned it.

BTW, care to lose another $100, Morrow? I guess losing that first
hundred didn't faze the kook in the least. Even after I proved that
I'm not S.V. Anderson (to the point where Morrow actually had to cough
up a hundred bucks, which he did), Morrow is still sticking to his lie
about me having "multiple personalities" online.

But that's typical CT-Kook behavior, of course -- i.e., they'll stick
to the worn-out and proven-false theories until the day they join
their hero Oswald in the world beyond.

A great example of that strange mindset is being exhibited by Ralph
Cinque right now (regarding the Doorway Man issue). Regardless of how
many different ways he is shown to be 100% wrong--he'll still insist
on dragging out the old "Oswald Was In The Doorway" myth. And that's a
myth that essentially died in the 1960s even. But it's still not a
dead enough equine for Mr. Cinque. Go figure.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html


S.V. ANDERSON SAID:

David, Does it get any better than this? I'm you and you're Shaboo2
and you are also Dale Hayes and I am Vincent Bugliosi and I am John
McAdams and you are me.

Maybe Jim Garrison was right when he said getting involved in this
world means black is white and up is down. Maybe we really are through
the looking glass. Between Robert Morrow and Ralph Cinque I have been
accused of being five different personalities. See what you [are]
missing [by] not hanging around this nut house?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Steve. It looks like the acj nuthouse isn't the only place to
go to find the outer-fringe CT crazies, huh?

According to Dave Healy (another CT loon of the first order), I am
also supposed to be Dave Reitzes, Vince Bugliosi, and someone named
Steve Keating (plus many other people who serve as my "aliases").

Truth is, I've never used an alias at all on the Internet....except
for the username "LAX" at an aviation forum that I used to post at
several years ago. And even on that forum, my full name was visible in
my profile for all to see.

http://Airliners.net/profile/lax

I have always used my real name on Internet forums, or in the case of
IMDB, my initials ("DVP-1"). I have no reason to hide behind any
aliases or "multiple personalities" (to use Morrow's description).

That's silly, IMO, mainly because I want my own credit for my own
common-sense posts on the subjects I write about. Why should I want my
remarks attributed to some "alias" who doesn't even exist? And I truly
think that "common sense" resides in my posts, and on the LN side of
the JFK debate. I've always felt that way.

But if Mr. Morrow wants to get rid of another hundred bucks or so,
I'll gladly give him the chance. Because that's a bet I can't possibly
lose.

Addendum:

BTW, Steve (S.V.) -- I was re-introduced to this Amazon JFK forum by
way of a post you made recently that was attached to your review of
John McAdams' book here at Amazon.

http://Amazon.com/review/R6F3CW1OW0QFB

http://Amazon.com/review/R6F3CW1OW0QFB/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx17T9BHSIFUU0X&cdMsgNo=65&cdPage=7&asin=1597974897&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2TBR87F38BEQI&cdMsgID=Mx2DJA1XHSEJUG1#Mx2DJA1XHSEJUG1


After seeing your post, I was reminded of the many discussions at this
forum, and I then decided it would be a good idea to add a link to it
on two of my websites:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfk-forums.html

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/#JFK-Assassination-Forums

[David Von Pein]

http://www.box.com/s/a4121ab5b70c70829a2f

In Dr. David Mantik's pre-recorded appearance for the 3/22/12 "Black
Op Radio" program (linked above), Mantik devoted the whole program to
attacking John McAdams' 2011 book "JFK Assassination Logic: How To
Think About Claims Of Conspiracy".

Naturally, since Dr. Mantik is a devoted conspiracy theorist when it
comes to the topic of President Kennedy's assassination, it's no
surprise that he can find no worthwhile or redeeming features in
Professor McAdams' book whatsoever. So that's no real shocker.

I jotted down a few notes while listening to Dr. Mantik, and here are
a few observations that I think should be made:

1.) Mantik's comparison between McAdams' hypothetical 20 conspirators
in the JFK case and the real-life 19 conspirators who hijacked the
four jetliners that were used as flying bombs on 9/11 is not a valid
comparison at all.

McAdams' hypothetical example involving "20 conspirators" in the
Kennedy case was obviously referring to the likelihood of any of those
20 plotters spilling the beans AFTER the assassination had taken
place.

Whereas in the 9/11 instance, it's quite obvious to everybody on the
planet (except perhaps James Fetzer) that the 19 hijackers had no
intention or desire to "hide" their conspiracy from the world after
the four planes struck their targets in Washington and New York.

Since there were FOUR planes being used as terrorist bombs on 9/11,
does Dr. Mantik think that the hijackers themselves could have kept
their plot secret from the world after the planes reached their
targets (even though each hijacker would be silenced for all time when
they each died in their respective crashes)?

Mantik's "9/11 vs. JFK" comparison is simply laughable.


2.) Mantik berates McAdams for supposedly ignoring all of the so-
called "new" evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case that has surfaced
since the Warren Report came out in 1964.

But I want to know what "new" physical evidence Dr. Mantik or any CTer
has unearthed since '64 that would undermine the conclusion that
Oswald acted alone? I have yet to see any hard, physical evidence that
would prove the Warren Commission got it wrong.

And the reason we haven't seen any such "conspiracy" evidence (of a
physical nature) is because no such evidence exists--and it never did.
It didn't exist at the time of the Warren Commission's investigation
and it doesn't exist now.

All Dr. Mantik has are his suspicions and his theories about
conspiracy. But in the final analysis, the physical evidence hangs Lee
Harvey Oswald. That evidence proved Oswald was guilty of killing JFK
and Tippit in 1963; and that same evidence proves he was guilty
today.

The evidence against Oswald hasn't suddenly VANISHED in the
intervening 49 years, even though many conspiracy theorists seem to
believe there's no hard evidence against their prized patsy
whatsoever--in EITHER the JFK case or the Tippit case.

So if somebody wants to say that I, too, am "stuck in the 1960s"
regarding my views on this case, I don't really mind. Because being
stuck in the 1960s when it comes to the JFK assassination is being
stuck in the place where all the real evidence is.

[mainframetech]

On Mar 22, 4:18 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.box.com/s/a4121ab5b70c70829a2f
>
> In Dr. David Mantik's pre-recorded appearance for the 3/22/12 "Black
> Op Radio" program (linked above), Mantik devoted the whole program to
> attacking John McAdams' 2011 book "JFK Assassination Logic: How To
> Think About Claims Of Conspiracy".
>
> Naturally, since Dr. Mantik is a devoted conspiracy theorist when it
> comes to the topic of President Kennedy's assassination, it's no
> surprise that he can find no worthwhile or redeeming features in
> Professor McAdams' book whatsoever. So that's no real shocker.
>
> I jotted down a few notes while listening to Dr. Mantik, and here are
> a few observations that I think should be made:
>
> 1.) Mantik's comparison between McAdams' hypothetical 20 conspirators
> in the JFK case and the real-life 19 conspirators who hijacked the
> four jetliners that were used as flying bombs on 9/11 is not a valid
> comparison at all.
>

For a change I have to agree with DVP that the comparison is
foolish. The methods were different, the 'collateral damage' was
present on 9/11, however, the many facts that stick out in both events
are too obvious to avoid, so one similarity in evidence is the clear
cut facts that make them obvious. In the case of 9/11, you had the
situation where they couldn't find the ground up bodies of any of the
'terrorists', but they found a completely intact Driver's license of
one 'terrorist' and a passport from another, as if they had been
holding these items out in their hands so they wouldn't be burned and
ground up like everything else. With the JFK killing, the evidence
from Sam Holland needs to be addressed too.

> McAdams' hypothetical example involving "20 conspirators" in the
> Kennedy case was obviously referring to the likelihood of any of those
> 20 plotters spilling the beans AFTER the assassination had taken
> place.
>
> Whereas in the 9/11 instance, it's quite obvious to everybody on the
> planet (except perhaps James Fetzer) that the 19 hijackers had no
> intention or desire to "hide" their conspiracy from the world after
> the four planes struck their targets in Washington and New York.
>

Oh. I thought one of the 4 planes missed its target and fell in a
field in Pennsylvania leaving no wreckage to speak of...:)

> Since there were FOUR planes being used as terrorist bombs on 9/11,
> does Dr. Mantik think that the hijackers themselves could have kept
> their plot secret from the world after the planes reached their
> targets (even though each hijacker would be silenced for all time when
> they each died in their respective crashes)?
>

The secrets were kept by the government agencies, who bottled up
all evidence and kept it from the people. There are still about 80
videos that were taken of the Pentagon 'event' that have been walled
off from the people, including the evidence from a controlled
demolition expert who swore it was an explosive implosion.

> Mantik's "9/11 vs. JFK" comparison is simply laughable.
>
> 2.) Mantik berates McAdams for supposedly ignoring all of the so-
> called "new" evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case that has surfaced
> since the Warren Report came out in 1964.
>
> But I want to know what "new" physical evidence Dr. Mantik or any CTer
> has unearthed since '64 that would undermine the conclusion that
> Oswald acted alone? I have yet to see any hard, physical evidence that
> would prove the Warren Commission got it wrong.
>

Such baloney! The hard evidence is mentioned here frequently...is
someone not listening, or simply hoping they'll be believed?

> And the reason we haven't seen any such "conspiracy" evidence (of a
> physical nature) is because no such evidence exists--and it never did.
> It didn't exist at the time of the Warren Commission's investigation
> and it doesn't exist now.
>

Ah! On top of that we've all seen the autopsy photos and the X-
rays. There can't be any greater proof of fraud that those!

> All Dr. Mantik has are his suspicions and his theories about
> conspiracy. But in the final analysis, the physical evidence hangs Lee
> Harvey Oswald. That evidence proved Oswald was guilty of killing JFK
> and Tippit in 1963; and that same evidence proves he was guilty
> today.
>

Nope. The 'physical evidence' doesn't hang LHO at all. Especially
if it was placed where it would be found. Not to mention the illegal
destruction of evidence bty government agents. They stole the body
almost at gunpoint, and they illegally stole the limo and had it
pulled apart and completely refreshed and removed all evidence from
it.

> The evidence against Oswald hasn't suddenly VANISHED in the
> intervening 49 years, even though many conspiracy theorists seem to
> believe there's no hard evidence against their prized patsy
> whatsoever--in EITHER the JFK case or the Tippit case.
>

Oh yeah? Have you found his brain?

> So if somebody wants to say that I, too, am "stuck in the 1960s"
> regarding my views on this case, I don't really mind. Because being
> stuck in the 1960s when it comes to the JFK assassination is being
> stuck in the place where all the real evidence is.

Naah.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Have you found his brain?" <<<

Ask Groden. He's evidently got it hidden in his basement.

[Sam McClung]

"mainframetech" mentioned:

Oh. I thought one of the 4 planes missed its target and fell in a
field in Pennsylvania leaving no wreckage to speak of...:)

[and]

There are still about 80
videos that were taken of the Pentagon 'event' that have been walled
off from the people,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

the 4th plane and pentagoners (tm) imbibing in new "missile lite"?

less impactage, less craterage?

[Sam McClung]

"Sam McClung" wrote in message news:jkflo...@news7.newsguy.com...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

if certain wallstreetage knew of the nein juan juan plan beforehand, would
that put them in league with a certain segment of the "investing public" on
11-21-63 or the 1st quarter pre-gulfofmexico goldman sachs bp stock
dumpage/debacalage = insider raiding, insider trading, democracy fading?

[lazu...@webtv.net]

McAdams would never debate Mantik in a public forum. His flat earth
religion would be exposed, and knee jerk denials would make him look
like the all time jackass...Laz

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f74eaf34cc9951e3/0175fd41196cf60c?#0175fd41196cf60c

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

>>> "The actual solid science that has been done since the 60s had supported the lone assassin position." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Precisely. And a very good point.

Which means, of course, that a person "stuck in the 1960s" would be a
person who is stuck with the original evidence of Oswald's guilt which
has, as you mentioned, been authenticated and buttressed in multiple
ways since the '60s....making it much MORE likely (not less likely)
that Lee Oswald shot and killed JFK.

Amazingly, though, many CTers think just the opposite is true -- i.e.,
the MORE corroboration and authentication of Oswald's guilt that comes
down the pike (via Lattimer, Sturdivan, the HSCA, the Clark Panel,
Dale Myers' animation work, FAA, etc.), the MORE innocent Lee Harvey
Oswald becomes. That's just plain bizarre in my view.

In a conspiracy theorist's world, this formula seems to apply to the
JFK case:

"CORROBORATION AND AUTHENTICATION OF A LONE-ASSASSIN SCENARIO" equals
"MORE REASONS TO BELIEVE OSWALD IS INNOCENT".

That's a strange policy to live by. But it would seem as though many
conspiracists have, indeed, adopted the above policy.

http://kennedy-and-lincoln.blogspot.com

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

[aeffects]

On Mar 22, 7:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lone nut troll lunacy>

comedy isn't your suit, dipshit!

[mainframetech]

Actually, I thought his comments (and conclusions) were very
funny...:)

Chris

[Walt]

Yer warped, Chris..... You shouldn't laugh at the antics of the
insane.... :)

[mainframetech]

Laughing through my tears for the poor thing...:)

Chris

[David Von Pein]

http://Amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1VLRED2TYB89B&cdMsgNo=291&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4&cdMsgID=Mx2N4Q66OZ5CUX2#Mx2N4Q66OZ5CUX2

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

>>> "And I believe it was Mrs. Ruth Paine who told the story about the afternoon tea party nonchalantly leading to Lee's getting hired at the TSBD." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The person who most directly led to Lee Harvey Oswald getting hired at
the TSBD wasn't Ruth Paine -- it was Linnie Mae Randle. And it really
goes back to Wesley Frazier (even more so than Randle).

If Frazier did not have a job at the TSBD on October 14, 1963, then
it's very likely that President Kennedy would never have been
assassinated on 11/22.

Because if Frazier had not been hired at the Depository in early
September, then Randle would have had no reason to mention the Book
Depository while chatting with Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald at Dorothy
Roberts' house in mid-October.

And if the TSBD was never brought up at that coffee break, then Oswald
would almost certainly never have gotten a job in the TSBD. And if
Oswald hadn't got a job there, it's a good bet that he would have
never tried to kill JFK on Nov. 22. And that's because LHO's perfect
opportunity to murder the President from his workplace would not have
been a factor on 11/22. (Unless we want to postulate Oswald just
happening to get a job somewhere else along JFK's motorcade route
through Dallas, and then using his rifle to kill JFK from some other
building along the route.)

So it boils down to this: Buell Wesley Frazier's employment status as
of 10/14/63 was probably the #1 contributing factor that led to the
ultimate murder of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

I often wonder if Wesley ever has nightmares about the inescapable
truth I just wrote in the paragraph above?

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

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/was-oswald-planted-in-tsbd.html

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html

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

[bigdog]

On Mar 27, 12:05 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://Amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encod...

> http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-fraz...
>
> ======================================================

Spot on as usual. People don't want to believe that something so awful
could have been the result of a series of random events, but that is
the way life often works. I'll use a hypothetical. A guy is getting
ready to leave his office job for the day. Before leaving, he takes a
few minutes to check out how is stock portfolio performed that day. On
his way out, he to chat with the guard in the lobby for a few seconds.
On his walk to his car, something in a store window causes him to
pause for a few more seconds. On his drive home, a drunk driver runs a
read light and hits him broad side, killing him. Had he not done any
of those mundane things, or if he had spent a few more seconds at any
one of them, he likely would not have been in that intersection at the
exact moment that drunk driver ran the light. Something awful resulted
from a series of seemingly meaningless acts. Such is life.

[bigdog]

On Mar 27, 12:05 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> So it boils down to this: Buell Wesley Frazier's employment status as
> of 10/14/63 was probably the #1 contributing factor that led to the
> ultimate murder of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
>
> I often wonder if Wesley ever has nightmares about the inescapable
> truth I just wrote in the paragraph above?
>

I can't speak for him but I wouldn't think so simply because he would
have no way of knowing the awful turn of events that ensued. The
person I have always wondered about is Marrion Baker. Was he plagued
by second thoughts of letting Oswald go without checking him out more
thoroughly. That decision ultimately led to J.D. Tippit's death. Baker
of course couldn't have known at the time Oswald was the killer, but I
wonder if he ever thought he shouldn't have been so quick to let him
go.

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Which has to mean that Oswald is almost certainly guilty of killing
JFK and/or Tippit.

Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has
not been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty --
right Pat?

What other logical and reasonable conclusion can you arrive at via a
scenario that includes SOME legitimate, "non-faked" evidence against
Lee Oswald in the JFK/Tippit murder cases -- other than a conclusion
of Oswald's guilt?

This very topic about only SOME of the evidence being deemed valid and
legit by CTers is one of the many topics of discussion in Part 78 of
my "DVP vs. DiEugenio" Internet series. In fact, it's the very first
question I would have asked James DiEugenio in a radio debate that I
proposed back in 2010:

"Can I get you to admit, Jim, that if even a SMALL PORTION of
the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has not been
tampered with or planted or faked in some manner, then it's very
likely that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of shooting and killing
President Kennedy and/or Officer Tippit?" -- DVP; 2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html

[aeffects]

On Apr 9, 4:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> >>> "Few people think the evidence against Oswald is all faked or forged." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Which has to mean that Oswald is almost certainly guilty of killing
> JFK and/or Tippit.
>
> Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has
> not been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty --
> right Pat?

you're looking at the absurd Studley, might begin calling you: pie-in-
the-sky Oswald... best go back and re-read the WCR, no sense wasting
anyones time on this board.