Re: JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 62)

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 26, 2008, 10:17:19 PM6/26/08

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/16455b4827c95aba

Pat [Speer],

Do you seriously expect me to totally change my viewpoint regarding
Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of JFK and Harold
Norman's observations surrounding that murder because of what you have
laid out in your lengthy post above?

It appears as though Patrick Speer is illustrating (once again) what
many CTers love to illustrate when discussing certain sub-topics
relating to November 22nd, 1963 -- CTers LOVE to latch onto that
chaff....even though a field loaded with wheat is also available for
the pickin'.

Bottom line is still this re. Harold Norman's observations (which are
observations backed up, for the most part, by Bonnie Ray Williams and
James Jarman Jr.):

Norman heard exactly THREE shots being fired from a rifle on the
Depository's 6th Floor (southeast corner window). And Norman heard
shells ("hulls") falling to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING ITSELF (not
later), which proves right there that the shells certainly weren't
"planted" in the Sniper's Nest...unless CTers want to go further off
the deep end of absurdity and theorize that somebody up on the sixth
floor was "planting" fake bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest in REAL
TIME, as the assassination was occurring!

Now, I suppose we can argue all day long about the exact SPACING of
the gunshots that Harold Norman heard coming from the PRECISE LOCATION
WHERE LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS SEEN PULLING THE TRIGGER BY ANOTHER (non-
Norman) WITNESS and where lots of additional "OSWALD WAS HERE SHOOTING
AT JFK" evidence was found just after the shooting.

But every time I ever saw Norman on TV re-creating the shots, he
always said the shots were pretty much evenly distributed. If you want
to think he was coerced or "coached" in those post-1963 "re-
creations", then by all means think it. You won't be the first.

But if Norman was "coached" by people like Vincent Bugliosi in 1986
(and several other people over the years too), I'd like to know WHY
Mr. Norman just didn't refuse to testify at the '86 Mock Trial, and
why he didn't merely refuse to talk to these TV people after the
assassination?

Nobody was FORCING Norman to take that witness stand in 1986 (no
subpoenas were issued for that Mock Trial in England; every witness
that appeared did so voluntarily)....and I doubt that any television
producer ever held a gun to Mr. Norman's head during all of those
other times he appeared on TV either.

In short -- Do CTers think Norman ENJOYED lying his ass off so much
re. the timing of the shots (etc.) that he would seek out such TV
attention for years on end? If he was covering up the truth about
something, does it seem logical he would have WANTED to appear on
camera to continue to tell his lies? Or would he want to probably stay
in the background, away from the cameras? (If I had even a shred of
self-respect left in my body, I think I'd choose the latter option.
But, YMMV I suppose.)

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but Harold Norman didn't seem like a
publicity seeker to me. He seemed to me like a very honest, reserved,
quiet individual. And he never struck me as a teller of wild or untrue
tales either.

But, regardless of the EXACT SPACING of the shots that Norman heard,
one thing is undeniably clear from the SUM TOTAL of all of the
comments Norman had to make about that tragic day in Dallas, and that
one crystal-clear thing is this --- Somebody fired three bullets from
a rifle at President Kennedy's car at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 from
directly above Harold Norman's fifth-story TSBD window.

And, IMO, it's very important to note that just that "THREE SHOTS WERE
FIRED ABOVE ME" portion of Norman's testimony ALONE totally
corroborates and confirms OTHER key assassination-solving facts that
were learned later on November 22nd (i.e., facts that Norman could not
possibly have known anything about as of 12:30 PM on 11/22)....such
as:

1.) Howard Brennan's observations from outside the building;

2.) The three spent cartridges FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE that were found
underneath the VERY SAME WINDOW from where Norman heard the shots
fired;

3.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle being found on that very same floor from
where Norman heard the shots fired;

4.) And Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being discovered on
various objects NEAR THAT EXACT SAME WINDOW.

Overall, Harold Norman was a very good witness and a very important
one, in that his "AS-IT-WAS-HAPPENING" earwitness observations at
12:30 PM on 11/22, and just those observations ALONE, drive a stake in
several different conspiracy theories, which are the crazy theories
that suggest the idea that three shots were NOT fired from the
southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository that
Friday (by Lee Oswald or by anybody else).

Robert Groden's wild theory, to name just one, is doomed for all time,
thanks to Mr. Norman all by himself.

It's obvious to anyone (except a rabid CTer who desperately wants a
conspiracy) that Harold Norman heard ONE gunman recycling a manual
bolt-action rifle and firing exactly THREE shots from ONE rifle
directly above Norman's head in the Book Depository.

And since the above facts are so obviously true....this means that the
TIMING (or "spacing") issue is a completely moot and unimportant one
FOR THE PURPOSES WITH WHICH CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WISH TO USE THE SO-
CALLED "SPACING PROBLEM" (i.e., the "problem" of ONE man with ONE
bolt-
action rifle being able to fire three shots from the Sniper's Nest
during the few seconds when JFK was on Elm Street).

That "problem" immediately vaporizes into thin air when looking at
Harold Norman's testimony all by itself.

And many, many other witnesses can be placed in the same "general"
category that Norman resides in -- i.e., "I HEARD EXACTLY THREE SHOTS
COMING FROM *ONE* LOCATION AT OR NEAR THE BOOK DEPOSITORY".

CTers, naturally, HAVE to believe that ALL of those many witnesses who
fall into the above category are 100% wrong about TWO things (the
total number of gunshots fired in the Plaza and the ONE general REAR
location for all of the three shots they said they heard)....but most
of those same witnesses are positively RIGHT (per CTers) about the
precise "spacing" between the shots they said they heard.

But if the majority of those "3-Shot, 1-Rear Direction" witnesses are
correct about those TWO things (number of shots and the location of
all the shots), and OTHER evidence gathered after the assassination
most certainly indicates that they were 100% correct about those two
things, then the spacing problem isn't a problem at all....because it
means that the lone gunman firing those three shots DID, indeed, fire
three shots from his one gun while JFK was below on Elm Street ---
REGARDLESS OF THE SPACING BETWEEN THOSE GUNSHOTS.

aeffects

unread,

Jun 27, 2008, 2:26:22 PM6/27/08

to

On Jun 25, 11:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST
[...]
>
You quoting yourself? Interesting to whom, praytell? Your Mom, Dad,
brother?

muc...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2008, 2:59:01 PM6/27/08

to

Isn't your hero Ben also "quoting himself" when he recycles his old
questions verbatim?

tomnln

unread,

Jun 27, 2008, 3:27:53 PM6/27/08

to

<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a8423ff-1306-40d9...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

No need to repeat questions AFTER you Answer them.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2008, 5:45:02 PM6/29/08

to

On Jun 26, 10:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/16455b4827c95aba
>
> Pat [Speer],

Dave, there are plenty CTers here to debate you, why do you insist on
"debating" Mr. Speer when he rarely comes to this board? This will
honest people wonder what you are up to.

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,

Jun 29, 2008, 7:06:45 PM6/29/08

to

On Jun 29, 3:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Dave, there are plenty CTers here to debate you, why do you insist on "debating" Mr. Speer when he rarely comes to this board?" <<<
>

> Merely for my JFK archives. (As if it's any business of yours.)
>
> I'll now ask Rob a similarly-phrased question:
>
> There are so many things you COULDS choose to get RIGHT regarding the
> JFK case. Why do you insist in getting almost all of them WRONG? This
> type of continual evidence-mangling can only tend to make honest
> people wonder what you are up to. (And it'll make them conclude that
> you're a Mega-Kook, to boot. And who'd want that?)
>
> >>> "This will [make] honest people wonder what you are up to." <<<
>
> Oh...you mean "honest" people like you, Rob? To that kind of "honest"
> person (Rob's kind), I say this:
>
> Fuck 'em.

tsk-tsk.... grab those nads son.... the water be 'aisen

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 29, 2008, 8:08:52 PM6/29/08

to

>>> "Dave, there are plenty CTers here to debate you, why do you insist on "debating" Mr. Speer when he rarely comes to this board?" <<<

Merely for my JFK archives. (As if it's any business of yours.)

I'll now ask Rob a similarly-phrased question:

There are so many things you COULD choose to get RIGHT regarding the
JFK case. Why do you insist upon getting almost all of them WRONG?

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2008, 1:25:34 PM6/30/08

to

On Jun 29, 8:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Dave, there are plenty CTers here to debate you, why do you insist on "debating" Mr. Speer when he rarely comes to this board?" <<<

"Merely for my JFK archives. (As if it's any business of yours.)"

Why do you need an archive when you just say the same thing the WC
said and their WCR and 26 volumes are a matter of record? What new
stuff (i.e. lies) do you bring to the table?

"I'll now ask Rob a similarly-phrased question:

There are so many things you COULD choose to get RIGHT regarding the
JFK case. Why do you insist upon getting almost all of them WRONG?"

From what I have read of the WC's theory I seem to get most things
right, I wonder the same thing, how can you read their report and
testimonies and believe it was ONE man? Not ONE piece of their
"evidence" would stand up to the rigors of a trial.

"This type of continual evidence-mangling can only tend to make honest
people wonder what you are up to. (And it'll make them conclude that
you're a Mega-Kook, to boot. And who'd want that?)"

I don't mangle the evidence, you FAIL to produce any!! Any honest
person will quickly realize when they read the WC's assertions and
theory that they make NO sense whatsoever.

> >>> "This will [make] honest people wonder what you are up to." <<<

"Oh...you mean "honest" people like you, Rob? To that kind of "honest"
person (Rob's kind), I say this:

Fuck 'em."

Spoken like a true liar!!!! IF you don't believe my lies, f--k you!
Way to go Dave, you keep on proving you are a phony and a liar for
hire.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 1, 2008, 4:54:55 AM7/1/08

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5b5e115c43b4f743/8ca1d1684cbdc500?#8ca1d1684cbdc500

>>> "Are you afraid to focus on the period from 1:00pm to 1:30pm?" <<<

Certainly not, Mr. Kook. I deal with that half-hour of Oz's movements
in my fully-reasonable timeline/chronology. (Naturally, the kooks will
ignore the common-sense nature of this timeline. But, that's to be
expected, since I'm dealing with kooks daily.)

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16

More details? Okay:

Approx. 1:00 PM on 11/22/63 (give or take) --- Oswald (everybody's
favorite "Patsy For Every Murder Committed On 11/22/63 In Dallas, Tx.)
hurriedly enters his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Ave., and is
observed being "in a hurry" by housekeeper E. Roberts.

Approx. 1:01 (give or take, but there's no way Oz was in that room
more than 1 minute, IMO; YMMV) --- Oswald, still "in a hurry" leaves
1026 Beckley while zipping up a jacket--a jacket he was not wearing
when he entered the residence.

Approx. 1:14 (give or take) --- Oswald encounters Officer J.D. Tippit
on 10th St.; Oswald takes out his revolver and shoots Tippit four
times, killing the officer. Oswald flees the scene down Patton Avenue,
then turns onto Jefferson Blvd.

Approx. 1:35-1:36 --- Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer in the entrance
to the Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson. Brewer can tell the man (whom
he later IDs as being LHO) is acting "funny", "scared", and has been
"running". Brewer follows the man (LHO) toward the Texas
Theater...where the man (LHO) enters without buying the cheap under-$1
ticket.

Approx. 1:50 --- Oswald resists arrest inside the Texas Theater and a
wild struggle for Oz's revolver ensues between Oz-man and the
arresting policemen. Oswald shouts out "This is it!" and/or "It's all
over now!" and is shoved into a police car, from where he immediately
begins to tell his wide assortment of lies to the authorities -- e.g.,
"Policeman been killed?" and "Why are you treating me this way? The
only thing I have done is carry a gun."

Ballistics evidence proves LHO murdered Tippit.

Eyewitness accounts prove that LHO murdered Tippit.

Oswald's own actions and LIES after his arrest provide circumstantial
evidence to show that LHO murdered Tippit.

So, there you have it -- a cop killer who is made into a completely-
innocent "patsy" by the CT-Kooks of Planet Earth. Go figure.

I wonder how the kooks "explain away" Oswald's BEING IN THE VERY SAME
GENERAL AREA of the shooting--on Jefferson Blvd., acting "funny",
"scared", and "running" from something--if Oswald is completely
innocent.

Prob'ly just a co-inky though. Lee was nervous and scared about going
to see Van Heflin at the movies. After all, Lee always did have kind
of a crush on ol' Van H.