Re: MISC. HOSTILE ENCOUNTERS WITH A VARIETY OF CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
David Von Pein
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1799.msg27775.html#msg27775
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "How is it that you put 100% faith in this witness [Howard Brennan]..." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've already said in this very thread (twice!) that Brennan's
observations are not even needed to hang Oswald for Kennedy's murder.
The physical evidence and Oswald's OWN actions and LIES hang him 101
times over. Brennan is merely a cherry on top.
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "How is this construction worker with bad vision better than all those doctors and cops?" <<<
DVP SAID:
Oh, goodie! A kook is going to revive CT Myth #403, the one about
Brennan having "bad vision" on the day of the assassination.
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "David, why do you continue to pretend that there was only one shooter, when you know you cannot prove that to save your life?" <<<
DVP SAID:
A better question for Robert "Z285" Harris ---
Why do you keep pretending you KNOW there were multiple shooters in
Dealey Plaza, when you know you cannot prove that to save your life?
The bottom-line FACT is this (and always will be) ---
There is EVIDENCE of ONE shooter. Bob WISHES there were two or more.
But the only way he can shoehorn any more shooters into his scenario
is via his totally-SUBJECTIVE analysis of the Zapruder Film.
Postscript:
I want to congratulate Bob Harris -- he actually went two consecutive
posts without inserting a series of annoying and incorrectly-used
commas. Yay!
RICK NEEDHAM SAID:
>>> "I don't think he [Jesse Curry] ever doubted his [LHO's] presence within the building." <<<
DVP SAID:
And, of course, Curry never doubted Oswald's guilt until several years
later when he wanted to write a conspiracy-slanted book on the
subject.
Just watch these six interviews with Jesse Curry from Nov. 22 and 23,
1963, and then try to tell me that Curry thought Oswald was innocent:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesse-curry-interviews.html
GARY HOLT SAID:
>>> "I do not believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, or even tried too [sic]." <<<
DVP SAID:
And that puts you, Gary Holt, in the EXTREME minority of Americans. In
fact, only 7% of Americans think Lee Oswald wasn't firing a gun at JFK
(per the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in November 2003). And, btw,
that number -- 1,031 -- is twice the number of people that were polled
by Gallup that same year on the same subject. Let's take a gander:
ABC NEWS QUESTION --- "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only
gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another
gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald
was not involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
http://www.PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
And yet, in my personal experience with them, a vast MAJORITY of
assassination theorists on the Internet (including Gary Holt) think
Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent of shooting John F. Kennedy.
Makes you think....doesn't it?
=========================
MORE:
ABC'S 2003 ASSASSINATION POLL -- 83% THINK OSWALD WAS SHOOTING AT JFK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2
=========================
GARY HOLT SAID:
>>> "So, now your [sic] considering polls as evidence/proof?" <<<
DVP SAID:
No, Gary, I'm just pointing out the fact that you "Anybody But Oswald"
kooks are actually in the VAST MINORITY when it comes to believing
that Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.
Would you like to now add the "ABC News Polling Service" to the long
list of alleged liars and/or conspirators who have been trying to
cover up the truth about JFK's murder since 1963?
JON HAMBLETON SAID:
>>> "LHO wasn't supposed to be connected to a conspiracy. He was supposed to take the fall. Be the patsy. Therefore there would be no connection to a conspiracy." <<<
DVP SAID:
Is that why (according to almost every conspiracy theorist in the
world) the proverbial "patsy" framers decided to shoot President
Kennedy from MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS and with MULTIPLE GUNS THAT COULD
NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS BE TRACED TO THEIR ONE AND ONLY "PATSY"?
Think about it, Jon. And after thinking about it for 20 seconds, admit
that a MULTI-GUN assassination attempt against the President of the
United States in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 does not, in any way, merge
with this statement you just made:
"LHO wasn't supposed to be connected to a conspiracy. He was
supposed to take the fall. Be the patsy. Therefore there would be no
connection to a conspiracy."
JON HAMBLETON SAID:
>>> "Well David, there is logic and there is logic. I don't care whether you believe it or not, just read it through. A group gets together to assassinate the POTUS. They have LHO in Dallas. They have had him buy a rifle. They have possesion of that rifle so they can leave it on the 6th floor of the building LHO works in. They kill the POTUS, leave the rifle, and it connects LHO. LHO takes the fall. .... If I was planning the assassination, I would want to have multiple gunmen, firing from multiple locations, to insure success. I would plan for extracting as many as possible. I would set up someone to take the heat off the rest by being set up as the patsy. I would use any contacts I had within the CIA/SS/Pentagon to help direct investigation away from my group. I would have the body removed to a secure/controlled site for an autopsy so I could control what was found and reported. I would especially have all documentation validate that the patsy did it. Of course I have no experience with covert/black ops, so I obviously have no concept of what it would take, or do I?" <<<
DVP SAID:
Wow, what a convoluted mess that is, Jon. What you've theorized above
is a combination of illogic, idiocy, foolish risk-taking, and the
absurd notion that gobs and gobs of people could be "controlled" after
the shooting (so they wouldn't spill any of the conspiracy beans).
And, incredibly, all of that speculative garbage makes MORE sense to
Jon Hambleton than just admitting that Oswald did it alone.
The power of Oliver Stone in the 21st century is remarkable, isn't it?
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/oliver-stone-speech-january-15-1992.html
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/oliver-stone-april-28-1992.html
http://Amazon.com/gp/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1
------------
GARY HOLT, WHO PROBABLY WROTE THIS WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE DECENCY OF
TURNING A LITTLE RED IN THE FACE, SAID:
>>> "Considering the fact that Oswald WAS connected to the CIA, WAS also likely the person who alerted the FBI there would be an attempt on Kennedy in Dallas...knew Rudy and many others, I think it far more likely he was acting to stop the assassination rather than as a shooter. You cannot prove your theory any more than I can prove mine...but perhaps someday when all the records are released.......??" <<<
DVP SAID:
Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano that he used to murder
President Kennedy --- $21.45.
Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver that he used to murder Officer J.D.
Tippit --- $31.22.
A conspiracy-happy kook who decides to turn all of the evidence in the
JFK murder case completely upside-down in order to believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald was trying "to stop the assassination" on November 22,
1963 --- Priceless!
==================================
http://Four-Days-In-November.blogspot.com
http://Google.com/profiles/DavidVonPein
==================================
David Von Pein
E-MAIL CONVERSATION WITH A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED KEVIN NIENHUIS:
>>> "Hello DAVID! You do have some pretty interesting videos and what not on the JFK assassination. I have a lot of that stuff myself. But Oswald acting alone killed JFK!?! Please! Not a chance! You ARE kidding, right?" <<<
Hi Kevin,
Why would I be kidding? The lone-assassin scenario is quite obviously
the truth (based on the evidence in the case that fully supports that
conclusion--which includes ALL of the physical evidence).
Is there any particular reason you want to toss every last piece of
"Oswald Did It" evidence in the nearest trash can, Kevin?
I'm sure that you and all of your super-sleuth brethren think you can
(or already have) debunked all of the following evidence that I lay
out at the webpage below, but in reality you haven't refuted any of
this evidence, not a shred:
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>>> "We now know scientifically there were at least two shooters, to a degree of certainty of 96.3 percent. Here’s a surprisingly honest 2001 Washington Post article on the infamous police audio tape, written by one-time rabid Warren Report defender George Lardner: check this out...[kook article excised]..." <<<
Anybody in 2001 who was still placing an ounce of faith in the silly
Dictabelt/Acoustics nonsense from 1978-1979 should have his head
examined, because that person is ignoring the best analysis of that
Dictabelt recording (the one done by the NAS in 1982, which determined
that the "4th Shot" and all the other "gunshots" supposedly heard on
the DPD recording cannot possibly be gunshots for a variety of
reasons).
Why is it that certain conspiracy theorists cannot accept the fact
that their precious Dictabelt recording is filled with nothing but
static instead of gunshots?
And what I find humorous about the people who still have faith in the
Dictabelt evidence is the fact that even the vast majority of THOSE
conspiracy theorists completely disagree with the HSCA's final
conclusion regarding the "4 shots" that they said were fired in Dealey
Plaza.
Those conspiracists (or at least 99% of them) don't believe for one
second that the HSCA got it RIGHT with respect to the 4-shot shooting
scenario. Those conspiracy theorists don't think that the only "Grassy
Knoll" shot completely missed JFK's body on 11/22/63 (which is what
the HSCA concluded).
Those theorists think that a Grassy Knoll gunman KILLED the President
with a rifle bullet to his head, despite the fact that there isn't a
speck of physical evidence to support such a conclusion.
But, as we all know by now, a lack of evidence never stopped a good
conspiracy kook, because when faced with the stubborn reality of ZERO
witnesses seeing ANY GUNMAN on the Grassy Knoll (and Jean Hill doesn't
count; she decided to make up her lie about SEEING a Knoll killer
years later, when Oliver Stone came into view), and the additional
very stubborn reality of there being NO AUTOPSY EVIDENCE at all that
would indicate that JFK was shot from the front....the merry band of
conspiracy-seekers that has taken an interest in this murder case has
decided to, in essence, say "Fuck The Evidence!", as they invent make-
believe "gunmen" all over Dealey Plaza. Like "Badge Man", to name but
one "make believe" example.
But regardless of the silly theories that are continually put forth by
the amateur sleuths, the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and the AUTOPSY REPORT are
not going to suddenly change after all these years. And the physical
evidence all points to a loon named Oswald; while the pesky autopsy
report that conspiracy nuts have attempted (but failed) to discredit
for decades is not going to miraculously change into a document that
supports multiple gunmen killing the President.
In short, the conspiracy-happy quacks of the world who have attempted
to rewrite the history of President Kennedy's death will never succeed
in accomplishing that goal, except in the minds of other conspiracy
theorists (which, granted, is a large number of people).
But, as the Warren Commission's David Belin said very nicely in March
of 1992 -- "The truth has a long fuse, and ultimately it prevails."
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-belin-march-1992.html
>>> "I assume you also are among the six per cent of the public who thinks the moon landing was faked??? Funny, isn’t it, because that’s about how many still believe the Warren Report –- six percent! Or that the earth is flat...or that there is ‘global warming’!" <<<
Why on Earth would I believe such things, Kevin? I think you're a
little mixed up (as most CTers are, of course). It's not the LONE-
ASSASSIN BELIEVERS who tend to believe in OTHER RETARDED CONSPIRACY
THEORIES -- it's the JFK CONSPIRACY THEORISTS who tend to also believe
in other half-baked, idiotic CONSPIRACY THEORIES too.
Maybe you should start your e-mail over again, Mr. Nienhuis. You're
not doing too well so far.
But, let's see what other gems await me as a conspiracy theorist named
Kevin tries to tell me that I'm all wet....
>>> "Good old Allan [sic] Dulles knew where the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ was pointing, and it sure as hell wasn’t to Oswald. As he said to his nervous Warren Commission colleagues in the infamous Jan. 27, 1964 Commission meeting: ‘In this country, the public only reads the headlines. If the headline says Oswald did it, that’s what they’ll believe...’ You know the rest. Which is why the Commission avoided telling us who Oswald really was[,] but DID provide Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental charts! Wow, now there’s a key piece of evidence in the crime of the century!!!!!" <<<
Anybody who actually thinks that the "preponderance of the evidence"
in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases did NOT lead straight to Lee
Harvey Oswald is a person who simply has no idea what that
"preponderance" consists of. Are you in that category, Kevin? Or are
you in the following category (occupied by many conspiracy nuts these
days)? It's the category labelled:
I THINK ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD HAS BEEN FAKED,
MANIPULATED, PLANTED, FORGED, AND/OR MANUFACTURED.
When it comes to the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case, the BEST that any
conspiracy theorist can possibly hope for is that ALL of that evidence
(dozens of pieces of it) was, indeed, somehow "faked" to make Lee
Oswald seem like the sole gunman who shot down both JFK and Officer
Tippit.
Because if that physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, bullet shell
casings, fingerprints, fiber evidence, and even the "direct evidence"
known as witness testimony) wasn't fake or fraudulent, then Lee Harvey
Oswald was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing on
November 22, 1963.
It's as simple as that.
So, Kevin, do you really think that ALL of the physical evidence was
"faked" in the Kennedy/Tippit murder cases?
If you do believe such an extraordinary (and nonsensical) thing, then
I pity you.
>>> "Good thing Arlen Spector [sic] wasn’t on the 911 Commission. He would have had us all believe that the plane that hit the first tower at 8:46am simply continued on, hung in mid-air for 17 minutes before hitting the second tower! Sadly, I’m only half joking...but our good friend Bugliosi would fall for that!" <<<
Oh, good! Kevin didn't disappoint me! He's going to drag Conspiracy
Myth #3 out of his stale CT closet once again -- i.e., the ridiculous
myth about how the Single-Bullet Theory is false because the bullet
had to "pause in mid-air" for XX number of seconds, per Oliver Stone's
fairy tale of a motion picture.
RE: The SBT....
The Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously the truth, it still amazes me
to this day as to WHY so many devoted conspiracy-happy kooks around
the globe feel the need to attempt to undermine it. For, even if those
kooks were to admit that the obviously-accurate SBT is the truth,
those same kooks could still pretend that the totality of evidence in
the case supports a shooter firing from the infamous Grassy Knoll.
So why the need to rewrite yet ANOTHER portion of the case too--the
SBT?
~shrug~
To believe in ANY other theory besides the SBT, a person must rely on
numerous things that are far more unbelievable and "magical" than is
the single-bullet conclusion. And WHY conspiracists don't seem to
realize that fact is something else that continually elicits another
one of these from this writer:
~shrug~
For a pretty decent "SBT" lesson, go to my blog below. It will never
convince hardcore CTers of the SBT's obvious truth, of course, but the
common sense and logic that exists within these SBT articles cannot be
denied:
http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>>> "Speaking of the infamous Mr. B[ugliosi], can you or that most esteemed blowhard prosecutor explain how the ‘magical mystery bullet’ got on the stretcher? Did Connally shake his pants leg before going into the operating room, or did the bullet hurl itself through the same small hole in his pants and land on the stretcher all by itself?" <<<
All of the important "SBT" questions are answered at the previously-
linked blog page. And even if a particular specific point isn't
addressed on that webpage, why aren't you smart enough to put the
"SBT" pieces together YOURSELF? It's not that hard. It's quite simple
actually. Vincent Bugliosi, in fact, was 100% right when he said this
in his JFK book:
"The single-bullet theory...was so obvious that a child could
author it."
Extension of the above VB quote (just for good measure):
"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
"Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew
that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through
soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally
was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging
from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the
simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among
many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only
Specter saw it? ....
"When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg."" -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
>>> "One of the best arguments against the Single Bullet Theory is that the bullet was not removed from Connally on the operating room table. If it had been, that might at least lend some credibility to it..." <<<
The path of Bullet CE399 through both Kennedy and Connally makes
perfect sense. And given the fact that Connally's left thigh only
suffered a very minor superficial wound, it means that WHATEVER OBJECT
HIT HIS THIGH DID NOT PENETRATE VERY DEEPLY.
Hence, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Bullet CE399 (which
was fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) could have worked
its way out of the shallow thigh wound Governor Connally sustained
before he was operated on.
To place the burden back onto the anti-SBT kooks, I want to now ask
this:
If the SBT is not true, then WHERE DID THE BULLET (OR BULLETS, PLURAL)
GO that struck Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63?
No bullets were found in his body at all, which is one of the things
that mystified one of Connally's doctors (Dr. Gregory) the most:
"We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was
our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him
of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that
someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had
been to see if it could be identified or found, rather." -- DR.
CHARLES F. GREGORY (WC Testimony)
Dr. Gregory also said this, BTW:
"That bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh
in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the
fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the
thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found
in the clothing."
Of course, the bullet wasn't found in Connally's "clothing", but the
main point is still intact in the above Gregory excerpt, with that
point being: one of Governor Connally's very own physicians testified
under oath that it was his opinion that Bullet CE399 could "very well
have struck" Connally's thigh and then "dislodged" itself from his
body before any medical personnel could retrieve it in the operating
room.
>>> "It [the SBT] is as phoney as the now-discredited Oswald ‘backyard’ photos!" <<<
Oh, yippee! Another conspiracy myth brought to the surface yet again--
the myth about the Backyard Photos being fake.
I guess Marina Oswald is a liar then, huh Kevin? Because she has
ALWAYS said she took the photos of LHO standing in their Neely Street
backyard.
But I somehow doubt that you want to call Marina Oswald a liar,
because later in this e-mail message you say that Marina thinks "the
official version [of the assassination] is crapola". And that's
obviously a sentiment you share as well.
Also: The photographic negative to one of the backyard pictures was
proven to have conclusively come from Oswald's very own Imperial-
Reflex camera. But I guess you want to throw that piece of PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE out the window too, right?
Or: perhaps you'd like to invent some more unprovable cloak-and-dagger
theories, such as this silliness: Somebody stole Oswald's camera, took
a picture with it while standing in the Neely St. backyard, and then
the photo-fakers used that real pic from the Reflex camera to create
the so-called fake montage image that we see here:
>>> "Oswald had no desire to kill JFK or anyone else." <<<
You couldn't be more wrong here if you tried. Oswald obviously DID
have a "desire" to shoot and kill President John F. Kennedy in late
1963 -- because we know from the evidence that Oswald DID kill
President Kennedy. And I kinda doubt he was totally unaware of WHO it
was he was aiming his rifle at that day.
Plus -- The shooting of General Edwin Walker on April 10th, 1963, is
too often overlooked or dismissed by members of the now-seemingly-
popular "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy club. Oswald certainly had an
additional "desire" to kill somebody else (Walker) seven months prior
to JFK's assassination.
We KNOW from the evidence that Oswald had such a desire, because
Oswald DID take a shot at General Walker on April 10th (just days
after he received his Mannlicher-Carcano weapon in the mail from
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago).
The precise motive(s) that Oswald had for taking shots at both Walker
and Kennedy can never be determined with definitive accuracy (since
Oswald was killed by another fruitcake named Ruby), but the evidence
cannot be ignored.
Let me rephrase those last six words -- The evidence SHOULD NOT be
ignored. It certainly HAS been ignored and/or misrepresented and
distorted for decades by conspiracy theorists, but it shouldn't be
ignored.
>>> "Someone who wanted the limelight as much as you guys insist he [LHO] did would have taken credit for it! He denied it to the bitter end...actually, he EMPHATICALLY denied it to the end as the record shows!!!" <<<
Well, Kevin, it's kind of hard to argue with success, isn't it?
Are you saying that by merely DENYING that he killed John F. Kennedy,
Lee Harvey Oswald DIDN'T achieve the fame and notoriety he likely
sought?
Oswald probably did want to become "famous" for something in his
lifetime. But whether or not he confessed to his evil crime or not,
Oswald knew that the EVIDENCE he left behind (in TWO murders!) would
convict him twenty times over. He simply HAD to know that.
In any event, no matter how you want to slice it, Lee Harvey Oswald
DID gain quite a bit of "limelight" and fame in November 1963 -- even
though he insisted he was "just a patsy".
>>> "I’ve met Marina Oswald, talked to her for 45 minutes. Equally emphatically, she also says the official version is crapola." <<<
But she only started believing that the official version was crapola
many YEARS after 1963. In early 1964, she said this: "Facts tell me
that Lee shot Kennedy".
But after hearing all of the self-proclaimed experts talk about her
murdering husband being only an innocent "patsy", Marina decided to
jump on that bandwagon of silliness too. And that's a shame, because
she had it right in the beginning when she thought her husband was a
killer.
1964 INTERVIEW WITH MARINA OSWALD:
http://media2.myfoxdfw.com/html/JFKvideo/video/jfk014.html
>>> "Anyway, Oswald or not, there was more than one gunman." <<<
And TO HELL WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that says otherwise, right
Kevin?
>>> "But keep posting those videos (and audio). Very informative for the kids at least." <<<
Thanks. (I guess.)
"For the kids at least"??
~shrug~
>>> "Regards, KEVIN in Canada" <<<
Limited Regards,
DAVID in the United States
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d7b7b7affb5834c5
DVP SAID (EARLIER):
>>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
DONALD WILLIS SAID:
>>> "And you are sure of this *how*?" <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Because the report EXISTS, Don. It's among us here on Earth, as seen
in the Warren Report on page 619, here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
DON WILLIS SAID:
>>> "You're saying that on 11/22 Bookhout signed off on a joint report with Hosty *and* on a solo report?" <<<
DVP SAYS:
Of course that's what I'm saying, you retard. Because that's exactly
what happened.
How do we KNOW that that is exactly what happened?
Because the two official FBI reports in question EXIST. They're HERE.
In black-and-white. In print. For all to see and read. (And also for a
kook like Donald Willis to mangle and misrepresent.)
DON WILLIS SAID:
>>> "As Hosty testified, the latter would go against FBI procedure--Hosty would have had to sign off on it too." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Bullshit. Hosty didn't need to "sign off" on Bookhout's solo report.
You're just looking for an excuse (any excuse) for Bookhout's solo
report to be "fake" in some way. That's what conspiracy kooks do, 24/7
-- they "find" stuff they think they can label "fake" or "fraudulent",
and TO HELL with the proof for such accusations.
Right, Don?
Suggestion -- Get a new hobby, Donald. This JFK-assassination hobby
has left you looking silly--time and time again. With this "Bookhout"
thing being just the latest example (among dozens).
aeffects
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
we have FINALLY given the *composite* David Von Pein a reason for
living -- I say that's a fine public service.
aeffects
aeffects
<snip the nutter-troll lunacy>
you ever hear of one Doug Horne -- you're lunacy is through
shithead...
David Von Pein
>>> "you ever hear of one Doug Horne[?]" <<<
Of course. He's the current "savior" (aka: mega-kook) who is supposed
to now guide the other conspiracy retards of the world into the CT
Endzone, with numerous hunks of pure idiocy, like these:
THE RIDICULOUS THEORIES OF DOUGLAS P. HORNE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0e2e36113ce98e6b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/155a3a578f5005f5
aeffects
<snip (the composite) David Von Pein's nutter-troll lunacy>
frankly shithead, its got nothing to do with you and everything to do
with HBO/Hanks/Bug