JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 192)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 192):

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


OSWALD'S RIFLE PURCHASE:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19330&st=45#entry261665
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/48131fbc692528ee
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3c0059c15b54bf9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc9d07f4b6a373ee


OSWALD'S ARRAIGNMENTS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19330&st=60#entry261692
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19330&st=60#entry261696
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19330&st=60#entry261700


PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S THROAT WOUND:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f542c09899c815e6


INDEXING THE WARREN REPORT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e91c259d2aa450b7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c024c7b87237a89f


DEALEY PLAZA EARWITNESSES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7f33bceac7224d47


DOORWAY MAN:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19621&#entry261915


DVP VS. MARSH:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3e4a9513dc8a546
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/08e37c0fe88e6ff7


MORE BATTLES WITH MORE CONSPIRACY NUTS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2cf2b72af2975fe1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/413b8243b8909855
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5042524d20a7721d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d65a78ee706e961b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d83e25cbd30dbc7d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cf2c5e840747e2b1


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

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/78901bcc0403a161?#78901bcc0403a161

>>> "It's implicit in the statements and behavior of the witnesses. How many looked back toward Houston and Elm after the first sound? Only a few." <<<

Pat,

The big (huge!) difference is:

There was CORROBORATING EVIDENCE (shells, rifle, Sniper's Nest) in the
place where the witnesses looked to their rear.

Doesn't the corroborating PHYSICAL evidence on the sixth floor of the
TSBD mean anything to conspiracists? Is it just totally ignored? Along
with Prof. McAdams' pie charts, which indicate, with near unanimity,
that ALL of the shots came from just ONE single direction:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Location-Of-Shots.jpg

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/bdff02c7f399ffda?#bdff02c7f399ffda

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "You are arguing in favor of zigs and zags." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I am certainly not.

I am not purporting some crazy zigging & zagging bullet going from
Kennedy's NECK to Connally's BACK. And that's what most CTers seem to
think MUST happen (a zagging bullet) in order for the SBT to be true.
A la Oliver Stone's movie. But such a theory is provably wrong.

Yes, the bullet almost certainly changed direction AFTER it got into
Connally's body. But, IMO, that's a "so what?" and "who cares?"
situation. Once the bullet goes from JFK to JBC (on a straight path,
not zigging or zagging), the work is pert-near done (from the POV of
-- one bullet can travel from Kennedy & into Connally on a straight-
line path).


>>> "No, we don't. Other doctors thought it could have been two bullets." <<<

Where's the other bullet then, Tony? Why isn't it in the National
Archives?

Answer (of course):

There was no second bullet to put into the Archives, because Gov.
Connally (just like Dr. Shaw said on Nov. 22) was struck by just "one
bullet".

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d3924d2cbeb0de5a/23bdd2aa6837ce6a?#23bdd2aa6837ce6a

Gee, guess who's right there ready to respond to EVERY post at a
moment's notice? -- Lookie, it's W. Anthony Marsh of Cambridge! What a
surprise!! ....

>>> "Got any straw men you want to dump before Halloween?" <<<

No straw, Tony. I've merely stated in my above 2007 post the things
that some conspiracy theorists have, indeed, advocated over the years.
I certainly hope you don't think my list of bumbling idiocy consists
of things that *I* myself concocted. (El-Oh-El.)

Every single item on my list of "stupid" things above has been
purported as being the absolute TRUTH regarding this case by some
conspiracists -- from TWO murderers on 10th Street to kill
Tippit....to an AUTOMATIC being used to murder Tippit (even though the
patsy owned a revolver)....to planting a Mauser in the TSBD (even
though the proverbial patsy owned a Carcano)....to the faking of some
of the Backyard Photos (even though, per some CT kooks, one REAL and
legitimate BY photo already existed at the time of the superfluous
fakery of the others)....and on and on.

IOW -- Why bother believing the actual evidence in a murder case, when
you can just as easily invent a bunch of crap out of thin air?

A nifty way to solve a case, huh Anthony? Just ask any Internet CTer.
They'll provide at least a dozen more "idiotic" items that aren't on
my list below. Guaranteed.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e6e27fd81ef7c734

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e88c2c519be924ba/8ed459c059f947fd?#8ed459c059f947fd


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

>>> "It doesn't have to be the exact day. The difference in the sun's position between November 21 and November 22 is irrelevant. Light and shadow conditions will be the same." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you're wrong about that, Ralph. According to professional
photographer and photo analyst Lawrence Schiller, in order to do a
proper re-creation of a photo involving light and shadows (etc.), you
would need to go to the location on the "same day of the year" and at
the "same time". Check out the video below (featuring Schiller's very
good and spot-on re-creation of one of the Neely Street Backyard
Photos):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#Backyard-Photo-Recreation

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e88c2c519be924ba/cfb397a8f7dfd2b7

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

>>> "It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it. And now we'll let the new pictures do the talking. We'll see about the vee-shaped shadow that people have been claiming and relying on to avoid admitting that Doorman is wearing Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. Do you think it was just a v-shaped shadow? Well, we are putting it to the test, and when the results come in, we're all know the truth." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a question for Ralph Cinque that I don't think has surfaced in
the past (has it?).....

Why couldn't Lovelady have been wearing a V-neck T-shirt on 11/22/63?

Was Lovelady ever asked precisely what type of T-shirt he was wearing
that day? Isn't it possible that he could have owned some V-neck T-
shirts as well as some that had a "round" neck?

Granted, I suppose most men would buy and wear just one type of T-
shirt (whatever their preference might be), but isn't it possible that
Lovelady wore a "V" type once in a while? And can Ralph prove that
Lovelady never wore (or owned) such a "V"-neck T-shirt?

I'll admit, I have no answers to those T-shirt questions, but, then
too, I don't think it matters at all -- because Billy N. Lovelady is
Doorway Man. That fact was proven for all time by Lovelady HIMSELF in
1964.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

[aeffects]

On Oct 25, 6:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

no advertising moron! you know the rules.

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx2SEUBQC1O5TRE&cdMsgNo=84&cdPage=9&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx2SEUBQC1O5TRE


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

As for being who you [John R. King] say you are, okay, but I repeated
that more to tweak DVP than anything, as he is known to do such a
thing even though he vigorously denies it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

This is nothing but a lie. "Known to do such a thing"?? By whom?
Where? On what websites? What names do I supposedly use? Any chance
you'll tell me any of these things? Or would you prefer to remain
wishy-washy and perpetually vague?

But here's a hint: The whole "DVP Is Posing As Somebody Else" crappola
was, AFAIK, started by Dave Healy at the acj forum/newsgroup. That
kook's lies about me then spread to the Black Op Retard Radio Network,
where James DiEugenio and Len Osanic declared that I was probably Dave
Reitzes. Nothing to back up such a belief, of course. Just the
mindless allegation spouted by Dave "Zapruder Wasn't Even On His
Pedestal" Healy. Nothing more.

A false rumor that has been started by a JFK conspiracy theorist is
like a batch of weeds in your backyard -- unwanted, ugly, and hard to
get rid of. And, in the case of this stupid rumor about me -- it's
just plain wrong. Nobody can ever prove I have used "aliases" in any
of my online articles or posts, and that's because I have never once
done such a thing. And never will.

Re: Garrison's despicable case vs. Shaw:

A little bit of ordinary common sense can go a long way when talking
about Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie. I have displayed that
common sense in my series of online battles with Jim DiEugenio. And
that common sense has never been defeated.

In short: Nobody has EVER proven that any of the individuals in the
New Orleans gang of purported "conspirators" had anything whatsoever
to do with the murder of President Kennedy.

For some reason, that basic, simple fact I just stated above doesn't
seem to make a bit of difference to certain people in the "conspiracy
community". They'll ignore that basic truth until the pallbearers come
to fetch them.

And that basic truth really has little or nothing to do with Jim
Garrison himself. It's about the EVIDENCE. And there is NO EVIDENCE
that links the New Orleans gang to the assassination of JFK. None.

[aeffects]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:26:09 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

<snip the nonsense>

uh-uh-HUHHHHH you know the rules, flake'o....

[David Von Pein]

>>> "And What About Jackie's Pink Chanel Suit? .... Did the FBI examine that dress? Before it was put into the Archives, I mean. I'm sure somebody has dealt with it by now. But, what was the intent of stashing it away until we're all dead? Until it's all just academic? Until it doesn't really matter anymore?" <<<

Jackie's pink suit is being kept from the prying eyes of the public
for reasons of taste only. Isn't this obvious? Why do CTers always
suspect something sinister when it comes to anything regarding the JFK
case--even Jackie's blood-stained dress? Is Caroline supposedly
involved in the "cover-up" too? You CTers are too much.

>>> "It is evidence, Herr von Pein [sic], evidence in a murder case." <<<

Jackie's dress is not "evidence" in this murder case. You're cracked
if you think it is.

The dress is no more significant as "evidence" than Clint Hill's
jacket, which was also stained with JFK's blood.

>>> "The pink Chanel dress worn by the person sitting next to him when he was murdered, has a special marker on it, JFK's blood." <<<

So what? Everybody knows the only blood on that dress belonged to JFK.
So how is the dress the least bit important?

>>> "They can probably fake anything, but that's a pretty good marker nonetheless. Cleaning the dress would remove the blood, so, in theory, it can't be cleaned without it being known." <<<

Huh?

>>> "Perhaps there is another marker present which somebody might want to get rid of; they wouldn't be able to get rid of one without the other." <<<

So, you think somebody ELSE besides just JFK bled all over Jackie on
11/22/63?

You conspiracy kooks were all born with a major birth defect -- an
imagination.