KOOK ALERT!!
David Von Pein
RE-LIVING VARIOUS BATTLES WITH CONSPIRACY-LOVING MORONS (it's a fun
thing to do, and 4 out of 5 doctors recommend it for drastically
lowering cholesterol)......
=======================================================
>>> "You have a major failing, David." <<<
Yeah, I know. I'm speaking to you.
~spit~
>>> "Why would I give credence as what is purported to be a piece of celluloid fiction?" <<<
Break out the "LOL" icons...I need a bunch of 'em!
>>> "Bugliosi CAN'T validate the film." <<<
He doesn't need to. Already been done, kook.
Next....
>>> "I could carless [care less?] about WHAT bullshit Bugliosi publishes." <<<
Bullshit. You'll eat it up just like I will.
Hypocrite.
By the way, you really meant to say "I couldn't care less". Typical
mistake by someone who can't write correctly.
>>> "He {Bugliosi} has an agenda..." <<<
Hope so. And I hope it's "KOOK BASHING"...like my agenda. ;)
>>> "Like you..." <<<
Yep. Just like I said above.
>>> "And those Lone Nut creeps who kiss your ass around here..." <<<
Including you, of course.
You're an LNer in CT drag and you know it. You just won't admit it.
But you will soon enough.
(Healy's getting testy it seems. That Z-Film thing hit him hard I
guess. Time for din-din. He's hungry.)
>>> "Half way down {probably some kooksite I shall never visit} the right column: Altering the Zapruder Film by David Healy..." <<<
Who the fuck cares??
~yawn~
Only the most rabid of rabid kooks still cling to the Z-Film Hoax
nonsense. I guess you're one of them. Congrats. You've made "ULTRA
MEGA-KOOK" status via such idiocy. Nice job, Healy!
The next kook plateau is occupied by very few....Garrison among them.
Shooting for that level too?
>>> "No Nutter has challenged it yet." <<<
LOL. No reason to challenge your kookshit re. the Z-Film. It's an
ultra-nutty assertion to begin with (for oh so many obvious reasons
that you won't admit).
>>> "Download it right to your desktop..." <<<
No thanks. I'd rather toss my computer out the window. Downloading
"kookshit" gives my computer a virus...every time I do it. Tried it
with Fetzer junk one time. The screen exploded into a thousand pieces.
(I'm still removing the glass from my many wounds daily.)
Who needs more of that agony??
>>> "Until the alleged in-camer Zapruder film currently housed at NARA film is forensically tested, you'll have to deal with CT/Z-film issues.
>>> "Your [sic; yawn] sounding errily [sic, again] familiar, like Bill Miller (aka: too many to list) praytell, he's disappeared..... Wonder where..... LMAO!
Am I now supposed to be performing double-duty as Bill "Photo KOOK
Expert" Miller too?? Shit! I'm already accused of being Bugliosi, some
guy named Nick @ IMDB, some other guy at Lancer too....and now
Miller???
(I'm asking Vince for a raise. Being four people should garner me 4
checks. Right?)
>>> "Chowtime!" <<<
Enjoy your crow. I hear it goes down well once you get your feet out
of your yap. (Yours are in pretty deep though...so it'll prob'ly take
surgery to get them out.)
Oh, btw, after your din-din, give my best to Jimmy Fetzer as you crawl
back into bed with him. Okay?
Night.
================================================
>>> "Because there's nurse Audrey Bell's testimony." <<<
No, it's really because you WANT a conspiracy of some kind in this
case. That's why you want to "challenge" Gregory. Duh.
>>> "It's called investigative research. When done properly..." <<<
I doubt you can do anything "properly". You probably need help
steering your tricycle in daddy's driveway each day.
>>> "Evidence...{that the CT timeline is fucked-up}?" <<<
LOL.
Would posting it for the 455th time suffice? Or is 456 times the
prerequisite number in order to get you to read it?!
Fucking kook.
>>> "Gawd, man, that's textbook circular: "Oswald MUST HAVE got there in time because witnesses saw him there"." <<<
LOL. Yeah, just imagine THAT type of silly reasoning (PLUS THOSE PESKY
BULLET SHELLS!) trumping subjective "timeline" evidence? LOL.
>>> "In other words, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply tossing it out." <<<
In favor of better, firmer evidence. Yes.
Kook.
>>> "And that's not all ..." <<<
Shit. I was hoping it was. Your crap is starting to make me quite ill.
>>> "In other words, David, you select the evidence that supports your case and discard that which does not, which is to say you do exactly what crackpots or kooks do." <<<
Are you really retarded? Or just pretending (again)? All of that stuff
re. Tippit has been re-hashed to death. Just Google it, you moron.
~Tums Break~
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a993300371e44ac5/2c44c45783e787da?#2c44c45783e787da
>>> "Look, bird brain, you don't throw testimony out because other testimony contradicts it." <<<
Therefore, via this lovely "Never Throw Out Testimony" declaration
(which equates to: ALL testimony MUST be equal in Ric's world,
evidently), we could never solve any murder case that includes wildly-
varying testimony and discrepancies in the evidential record.
Right?
So we're destined to remain stuck in neutral FOREVER, due to the fact
I am being FORCED to accept Audrey Bell's testimony re. the Connally
bullet fragments (and her testimony about JFK's neck wound being a
wound of entrance too, don't forget...you didn't mention that earlier;
probably because you didn't know about it)...and I'm forced to also
accept Dr. Gregory's "postage stamp" size fragment testimony right
alongside Bell's words.
So...where do we go from here? Do we twiddle our thumbs and let the
case grow weeds under our feet as we accept BOTH versions as the truth
(somehow)?
Or: Should we use these testimonies and weigh them and balance them
against the SUM TOTAL of evidence in the whole case to determine which
person has the most credible testimony?
The latter, of course, should be done....with Gregory winning that
particular battle for the reasons already given. Gregory removed the
fragments himself and saw the Governor's X-rays, and testified in
detail in front of the WC under oath. Bell did not.
True, it wasn't her fault she never appeared before a Govt. inquiry
panel. She was never called. Which will also send CTers to their
computers to type out more "sinister" meanings behind that move by the
WC re. Bell.
>>> "When in doubt call names, huh?" <<<
Oh, no. I can do that when I'm not in doubt about anything...like now.
And my last post. ~wink~
>>> "Posting what? Your own posts as sources? No, don't bother doing that again. No one took them serious when you posted them a year ago, why do you think anyone take them serious now?" <<<
The truth and some CS&L always go further than a CTer's doubts and
lack of common sense. And my posts always contain an abundance of CS&L
(Common Sense & Logic). About that fact I don't think I need to be
overly modest.
Did you bother to take note that WITHIN my own posts that I link I
have included OFFICIAL SOURCE MATERIAL? (I.E., links to WC testimony
and official WC exhibits for reference.)
Like right here (which I linked previously as well):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3959008382f45641
>>> "Oswald leaves the house at 1:03 or 1:04. Helen Markham arrives at the bus stop at 1:06 and sees Tippit get shot. The distance is 0.85 miles." <<<
ALL TIMES ARE ONLY APPROXIMATIONS, which the Warren Commission firmly
states in CE1119A:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0058b.htm
BTW, Ric, here are Helen Markham's exact words re. the "1:06" timeline
the CT-Kooks love so much. Just have a look:
Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it wasn't 6 or 7 minutes
after 1.
Please note that no CTer ever uses the LATER time of 1:07 when
speaking of Markham's testimony. Granted, it's only 60 seconds
difference...but if you give a CTer a choice...guess which exact
minute they'll pick from Mrs. Markham's choice of two?
In any event, Markham wasn't looking at any watch or clock when
she arrived at the corner and saw Oswald shoot Tippit. She was
GUESSING re. the time. And she was pretty close actually. Because the
BEST GUESS would have been about 1:14 (per Dale Myers' detailed study
of the shooting...which includes studying the DPD Radio tapes and
Bowley's/Benavides' initial "keying" of Tippit's microphone).
So Markham's only off by about 7 or 8 minutes. That's all. And the CT
fanatics think that those 7 or 8 minutes trump everything else that
says Oswald killed a man on Tenth Street.
And that's just flat-out stupid.
>>> "A component of the scientific method is challenging your hypothesis by attempting to disprove it. This means the last thing you do is throw out evidence. .... Thanks for finally admitting throwing out contradictory evidence is what you do. We've been saying this all along about you, but it's amusing hearing you admit it." <<<
"All along"? You mean for the whopping 1.5 months you've been gracing
us with your presence thus far at The Asylum? Or have you been
operating under a different username prior to mid-March 2007?
In the final analysis, when confronted with contradictory witness
testimony, a person must ultimately decide WHO IS RIGHT and WHO IS NOT
RIGHT when they are talking about the VERY SAME incident in history.
Like, say, the murder of a policeman on 10th Street in Oak Cliff.
Obviously, not ALL the witnesses can be 100% right about ALL the
things they said...now can they?
But to hear Ric tell it, we have NO CHOICE but to accept as TRUE all
of the contradictory evidence!
How idiotic is that? As I said earlier, if this were required when
evaluating evidence, no case could EVER get "solved"...because every
case would be bogged down by its own inconsistencies and
contradictions forever....because RICLAND says we can't ever throw ANY
of it aside.
Lovely policy there. I guess Charlie Manson, Jeff Dahmer, and Ted
Bundy were innocent after all, huh?
>>> "I'd be vomiting too right about now were I you." <<<
Yep. I am.
Looks like a red-letter day for the makers of TUMS. I definitely need
some more after talking with you every time.
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm glad to see you take DVP to task for his mish-mash and gobbleygook. It gets tedious showing him to be a liar time after time....{further bullshit excised}..." <<<
Somebody take a picture of the above text....it's needed for the next
edition of "Pot & Kettle" magazine.
>>> "Von Pea Brain is using the same methods the Warren Commission taught him over 40 years ago." <<<
Yeah, the WC taught me their methods in the early '60s....when I was 3
years old. (I learned pretty well for such a young-un, huh?)
>>> "He {Von Pea Brain} has nothing original or new." <<<
And why in this world would I need something "original or new"? The
case was solved by the DPD (for all intents and purposes) the very
weekend the assassination occurred in November 1963.
Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, shot and killed 2 men in Dallas, using
his own guns to do so. Mark VII.
Why do I need to add something "new" here? Or is it your opinion that
I should somehow be able to come up with the missing (Tague) bullet?
Or maybe I'm supposed to come up with a new tape recording taken in
DP, wherein we can hear Oswald's distinct voice yelling out, "Take
THAT, John Kennedy! This one's for Fidel!"?
What type of "new" LHO-did-it stuff should I be unearthing, circa
2007, do you think?
It's the CTers who feel the need for a "new" batch of guesswork every
so often. Take Don Willis as a good example, and Don's wild fairy tale
about how 18-year-old kid Danny Arce killed JFK from the FIFTH floor
of the TSBD, while other Depository employees ran around waving
useless rifles out of the WRONG windows as they complicated their
crazy plot to absurd heights of complexity.
For the full "ARCE DID IT" laughfest, click the link below (and ya
GOTTA love this...if for only the SHEER BALLS it took to write this
fantasy!):
That's just one example, among many, of CTers stepping up to the plate
and striking out on three straight pitches (every time).
Although I must give Donald at least a teeny bit of credit, in that at
least he had the gonads to actually place that crackpot theory on the
Internet CT table for all to read (and laugh at).
A good many (most, in fact) CTers fail to EVER state their precise
scenarios of how JFK met his death at the hands of these sinister
forces that supposedly surrounded him that November day.
Ben "Mega Kook" Holmes being a prime example of an "isolationist" type
of CTer who lives in a piecemeal world of shadowy conspiracy 24/7. But
he's smart enough to never, EVER put on the table a shot-by-shot,
detailed CT scenario re. the way things really went down on 11/22/63.
Because if Holmes ever DID do that, he'd be laughed at even harder
than we laugh at Mr. Willis' "Arce" theory.
In summary...nothing "new" is required to solve the JFK and Tippit
murder cases. The Dallas Police solved both of those cases back in
'63. All the Warren Commission did was to verify the guilt of one Lee
Harvey Oswald (beyond all reasonable doubt).
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/69c5d41ca433a770/888bde2d1ddf0fb6?#888bde2d1ddf0fb6
>>> "Let them enjoy their knee-jerk circle-jerk, they have nothing else." <<<
Yeah, nothing except every last gun and bullet and fragment and spent
shell in the whole case. Plus a dozen "Oswald Committed At Least One
Murder On 11/22/63" witnesses. Plus, there's also the 95%+ of the
witnesses who heard less than 4 shots.
The CT side has...let's see...Badge Man, Umbrella Man, no bullets, no
fragments, no shells, no guns, no identifiable assassins, and no
witnesses who saw anyone but Oswald shooting anybody with a gun on
November 22nd.
Great case for a multi-gun conspiracy there. If you're a "zany/kook",
that is.
David Von Pein
>>> "IN EFFECT; Moore Lies & David Swears to it." <<<
Yeah, that must be why I gave Jim Moore's book a wishy-washy (i.e.,
somewhat negative) rating when I reviewed it in December 2006...right
kook? ....
BTW, I never once mentioned Moore's "Dr. Pepper vs. Coke" theory in my
review of his book. (And that's because I think that theory is kinda
silly; so I simply ignored Moore's guesswork regarding that particular
soft-drink point.)
And I also never once mentioned the name "Marrion Baker" in my review
either. So, the two things that Tom The Kook specifically mentions
above in his post are two things that I NEVER even bring up in my
review. And yet The Sack berates me for something I never said.
~shrugs~
Oh well, I guess that kind of CTer idiocy is something for the
psychiatrists at Tom's hospital to sort out.
BTW #2, Jim Moore (although he definitely has the bottom-line
conclusion of "Oswald Did It Alone" correct in his 1990 book
"Conspiracy Of One") is going to look all the sillier regarding his
claim that LHO's nervousness made him purchase a Coke by mistake
(instead of a Dr. Pepper) once Mr. Bugliosi's book streets.
This due to the revelation that the Dr. Pepper machine wasn't even ON
the second floor--it was on the first floor. (Unless Moore, or
somebody, can prove that Dr. Pepper was available in BOTH soft-drink
machines on 11/22/63.)
David Von Pein
May 2, 2007
David Von Pein
>>> "You endorse someone {Jim Moore} even you know is a LIAR. That makes both of you AFRAID to address {Marrion L.} Baker's lies." <<<
Jim Moore didn't lie, you wretched sack of conspiracy-thirsty gutter
slime.
Moore gave his OWN interpretation of the "soft drink" matter. I don't
agree with it. But Moore's entitled to believe what he wants. (Just as
gutter slime like The Nutsack is entitled to believe in the stupid
kookshit he ejaculates here regularly.)
And Officer Baker didn't lie either. Any slight discrepancies in his
account can be resolved with three simple words: He Was Human.
And the 9/23/64 document (signed by M.L. Baker) was obviously not
WRITTEN by Baker himself. It was written by the FBI agent, with Baker
CORRECTING the document and initialling it. ....
http://whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen9.jpg
The question I have now is -- Is Tom-Sack "human"? Or does he look
something like this?....
http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/images/060419_gort_lg.jpg
"Klaatu-Barada-Nutsack."
"The choice is yours -- join us (the LNers) and live in peace....or
follow your present course and face (VB) obliteration. The choice
rests with you. We will be waiting for your answer." -- Klaatu
David Von Pein
>>> "Tell yer hero Da Bug that it's not at all obvious that Lee carried that rifle into the TSBD that day in a paper bag." <<<
Yes, it is obvious. To all reasonable people who aren't in NEED of a
"conspiracy", that is.
You, of course, don't qualify under such a "reasonable" heading. You'd
rather believe, instead, in a string of "Incredible Coincidences"
regarding the paper bag (similar in nature to the "Incredible
Coincidences" that you're forced to accept via any type of anti-SBT
scenario as well). .....
E.G.:
COINCIDENTALLY, Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky brown paper bag into
the TSBD on the very same day that a similarly-styled, homemade-
looking, taped-up EMPTY bag was found underneath the very same window
where a man who was IDed by a witness as Lee Harvey Oswald was seen
firing "some kind of high-powered rifle" at President Kennedy.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, that empty brown paper bag just happens to have
two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it (one being a RIGHT PALMPRINT,
which perfectly aligns with the testimony of witness B.W. Frazier as
to how LHO carried a bag into the building that same morning, i.e., in
Oswald's CUPPED RIGHT HAND).
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Mr. Oswald feels compelled to lie to the police
about this paper bag, as he denies its existence altogether (a lie
which REEKS of a guilty state of mind)!
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from the Paine
garage on Nov. 22nd. And (voila!) it just happens to turn up on Nov.
22nd on the very same floor where that empty brown bag is located.
And, COINCIDENTALLY, no NON-RIFLE paper-bag contents (curtain rods or
otherwise) turn up anyplace after the assassination.*
* = Unless you'd like to believe that Oswald had curtain rods or some
other innocent/innocuous item in that bag, and then decided he didn't
want that item anymore, and decided to toss it in the trash someplace
before noontime on Nov. 22nd...and then, on top of that, he STILL
decided he'd lie about the whole "paper bag" incident to the police by
denying ever taking a large (non-lunch) bag into the Book Depository,
even though (per this scenario) it's NOT A RIFLE, but some other
"innocent" object of some ilk.
Anybody willing to buy this kind of shit (or any subtle variation
thereof)? I'm not.
Oswald's LYING about carrying ANY large (non-lunch) paper package into
work on 11/22 is devastating circumstantial evidence of Oswald having
carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository Building and using it to
shoot a man named Kennedy from the sixth floor.
So, what was in the bag that Oz DID carry into work, if not Rifle
C2766? Was it a 17-course heavy-duty "lunch" perhaps? (He was really
hungry that day, huh?)
I think we can all agree that Lee Oswald DID, indeed, carry some type
of bulky/larger-than-a-sandwich bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.
So...what was in it? And why was Oswald compelled to lie about this
bag and its contents after his arrest if he was innocent of shooting
JFK and had nothing to hide re. the bag and its contents?
So, as I said, it's obvious to a reasonable person (who has examined
these points of evidence and testimony with a dose of COMMON-SENSE
INFERENCES) that Lee Harvey Oswald carried his own rifle into the TSBD
on Nov. 22nd with the obvious intention of using it as a tool by which
to end the life of the nation's 35th Chief Executive.
Any other explanation re. the sum total of paper-bag evidence lacks
all semblance of reasoned, logical thinking.
So, we're now back to this quote (again) from my main LN man, V. Bug,
which is as true today as the day Vince uttered it in 1986.....
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious."
-- V. Bugliosi
David Von Pein
>>> "Here is the live radio coverage the LN'ers do not hear:
http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/mysite/curryndecker.wav " <<<
=========================
It just goes to show that Jesse Curry and Bill Decker were fooled into
thinking that ALL of the gunshots had come from the "railroad yard"
area or the "Triple Underpass" area.
And just exactly how many CTers believe that ANY shots came from
either of those two places (railroad yard or Underpass)?
Likely answer: Zero.
Just like Holland, Dodd, Simmons, et al....Curry and Decker seemed to
think (initially) that ALL of the shots came from a location further
WEST than they actually did come from.
It seems fairly obvious to me that when the sound of Oswald's three
shots from the TSBD reached the ears of many of the people who were
very close to the Underpass, those west-end witnesses were fooled into
thinking that ALL of the shots had come from a place further west than
the Book Depository.
Otherwise, many more witnesses would have said they heard shots from
BOTH the Knoll area AND from the corner of Elm & Houston.
And the fact that so MANY different witnesses (95% total approx.; both
east-end and west-end DP witnesses) claimed to hear all the shots from
the same ONE location (be it front or rear locale in DP) tells me one
thing.....THERE WAS ONLY *ONE* SINGLE SOURCE (LOCATION) OF GUNFIRE ON
11/22/63.
And that one source HAD to be the TSBD, since even most CTers agree
that at least SOME of the shots definitely came from there.
Plus, the double-pronged earwitness account of Harold Norman, alone,
puts a definitive stamp on the "Shots Positively Came From The
Depository's Sixth Floor" scenario.
"Double-Pronged" = "I heard three shots" and "I heard three hulls
{shells} hitting the floor" -- Harold Norman (paraphrased). .....
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"
HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired
directly above you?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound
of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
from directly above you?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I
call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the
rifle being pushed back and forward."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Three."
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm going to give you a clue, David, because I like you." <<<
I await your "clue" like a kid awaits Christmas! Have at it....
>>> "I'm your pal." <<<
Then why didn't I get that birthday present from you I was expecting?
(Cheapskate!)
>>> "First thing, Bugliosi is a has-been." <<<
You're not off to a very good start here, "clue"-wise. Better try
again...
>>> "Hadn't Charles Manson dropped too much acid that day and gone on to kill all those people, Bugliosi would be unknown retiree somewhere in Florida walking around in a Hawaiian shirt and plaid shorts checking the mail for his Social Security checks." <<<
Yeah, I guess Vincent's additional non-Manson 104-1 DA's record
(including 20-0 in non-Manson MURDER CASES) should be ignored
entirely. Right?
BTW, Charles Manson actually killed ZERO of the 7 Tate-LaBianca
victims in August 1969. His minions did the killing....which made it
all the more difficult (quite obviously) to convict Manson himself.
Next "clue" please. (It's gotta be better than this first one. The
"Social Security check" thing was a nifty touch though. Cute.)
>>> "Second thing, the Kennedy Assassination is a has-been. Nobody really cares anymore." <<<
Most people don't, I agree. But many people still do "care". And
Vincent Bugliosi is one of them.
Next?....
>>> "Hadn't Kennedy been murdered he'd be 90 years old in a nursing home sitting on the porch with diapers that need to be changed and a rat in his mouth." <<<
This is just plain vulgar and offensive. Why would anyone want to
write the above crap? Why?
Next?....
>>> "Third thing, Bugliosi is a has-been." <<<
I thought this was your "first thing"???
It was so nice you had to say it twice??
~shrugs~
>>> "Fourth thing, what exactly does he mean by "Reclaiming Our History"? The title makes no sense. Can you explain it?" <<<
Really a "third thing", but why should I quibble? ;)
And the word "Our" isn't in the title. Can't you get a simple two-word
main title right?
And the title makes total sense. It's an absolutely-perfect title too.
Vince is "reclaiming history" from the conspiracy kooks of the world
who thought it was wise to skew the truth re. JFK's death in every way
imaginable since 1964 (and especially since Mark Lane showed up with
"Rush To Judgment", circa 1966).
Here's a dictionary "clue" for Ricland. It appears it's needed.....
http://webster.com/dictionary/reclaim
Those "clues" were really bad, Ric. Maybe you should re-organize your
anti-Bugliosi feelings and start again. (Which you no doubt will do,
when your next "Bugliosi Is A Bad Guy" thought crosses your
mind....right?)
David Von Pein
April 11, 2007
David Von Pein
>>> "Serious assassination scholars will read it with the kind of morbid curiosity we thumb through the National Enquirer while in the check-out line..." <<<
Translation = Rabid asylum-residing kooks will read it in such a
fashion....while they continue to skew the evidence and while they
ignore the hard physical evidence of Oswald's sole guilt. Nothing new
there.
I'm really enjoying the "BUILD-UP" of the anti-Bugliosi sentiments
that I'm finding in the weeks/months just prior to "Reclaiming
History" coming out.
Prior to early 2007, very rarely did I hear even the most rabid of the
CT-Kook faction daring to say a negative thing about Mr. Bugliosi, his
impeccable character, his writing skills, or his JFK investigative
skills (with the possible exception of Ben Holmes, who said negative
things re. VB's JFK book a bit earlier than that timeframe mentioned).
But as the ultimate JFK bible gets ever closer to actual readable
PAGES OF FACT IN PRINT FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AND EVALUATE, the anti-VB
shit is now flowing like the kookcrap that infests this place daily.
An interesting turnaround just prior to the release of VB's book
indeed.
IOW -- Attack the LN messenger IN ADVANCE, and get a one-up on other
people.
Obviously, I have done the same thing in reverse, i.e., pre-praising a
book I've never seen either. Which, granted, is not normally a very
prudent or wise thing to do either (in a "going out on a limb" type of
fashion).
But in this particular instance only, I feel my pre-praise is
justified for several reasons I have stated in the past, and that the
21 years VB has put into his massive JFK book will bear out my advance
praise.
Of that, I have very, very little doubt.
But, by all means, continue to rake a good and decent man/lawyer/
author over the hot coals for no legit reason whatsoever. After all,
it's what conspiracy kooks do best (i.e., tear down the CS&L of the
bulk of the LN scenario in the JFK and Tippit cases). Some CT-Kooks
have made a living out of doing that.
But hurling such invective toward Vincent T. Bugliosi shall only make
you look more foolish than you already look re. your pro-CT posture in
the JFK assassination case.
David Von Pein
April 10, 2007
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't wait for Ric to look up anything." <<<
Damn right. Ric didn't even know Vince Bugliosi was involved in the
Lee Oswald TV Docu-Trial until just last month when he joined this
asylum of a forum. No way he had the slightest idea that VB was in any
way at all involved in the JFK case.
But after about a month (and via a few YouTube clips), Ric has now
become an EXPERT on the history and methods of Vincent T.
Bugliosi....enough of an expert, in fact, that Ric feels comfortable
enough to resort to calling Mr. Bugliosi names like: "guttersnipe",
"schlock lawyer", "a loathesome creature", "an embarrassment to the
legal profession", "a money-grabbing rock-star wannabe", "a glorified
cop with a law degree", and "a cheap-shot artist" .... among other
lovely terms being used by a kook who doesn't know what the hell he's
talking about.
Plainly, Ric WANTS a conspiracy in the JFK case....and he's willing to
tear down anybody who gets between him and that "conspiracy" that so
many OTHER people have built up for him since 1963. It's certainly
nothing that Ricland has built up HIMSELF in any way at all, since
he's a totally-lazy researcher who even admits that he has no
intention of looking stuff up himself--i.e., "Someone will supply the
link shortly" -- Ric.*
* = Unless, of course, it's taking a very few minutes to look up some
brief info on Mr. Bugliosi....in which case he'll start numerous new
anti-VB smear threads here in order to promote the "JFK conspiracy"
that he (Ric) knows virtually nothing about at all....and knew even
less about (by far) prior to mid-March 2007 when he joined the CT
ranks here.
Despicable is too kind a term for someone of Ric's ilk. Can someone
think of the proper term for Ric's ilk? I'm kind of embarrassed to
even type out those words.
aeffects
> RE-LIVING VARIOUS BATTLES WITH CONSPIRACY-LOVING MORONS (it's a fun
> thing to do, and 4 out of 5 doctors recommend it for drastically
> lowering cholesterol)......
trying to change the subject will NOT delay or DIVERT the 45 questions
and the 16 smoking guns.... best do your best and answer yourself,
hold Bugliosi's jockstrap is so unbecoming....
Carry on troop!
David Von Pein
Hi druggie! Good to see ya, Scrotumhead!
It's a little after 3:30 AM EDT. Time for all "JFK Alterationists/
Losers/Crackheads" to rise from their vomit and face another glorious
day searching the dumpster.
Have you got enough needles to last out the day?
I worry about my favorite kook's well-being. I hate to think of Healy
rooting around in the dumpster behind Denny's for used syringes and
half-eaten Grand-Slam breakfasts to support his habit.
So I'm going to use my next DisInfo check (coming at the end of the
month from the person whose jockstrap I've been accused of handling)
to send Healy-Kook a whole gross of brand-new heavy-duty needles
(that's 12-dozen, btw, Mr. Crackpipe).
The cocaine and other drugs that your withering frame are dependent
upon will have to come through Healy's regular wino dealer, though.
After all, you can't expect a jockstrap-holder like me to provide you
with ALL the staples of life, can you?
aeffects
David you're upset, so sorry to hear that...... you need to gird those
loins, suck-it-up, shed your un-suredness, walk the walk, talk the
talk and above post in your OWN words. Can you do that, son? Only 42
questions left, oh, and the 16 smoking guns....
Hammering on me about nonesese drug/alcohol baloney only puts cowards
such as your self in piss poor light with the lurkers. Perhaps your a
member of the same brigade Justme1952 belongs to, eh? Do they have VA
hospitals in Indiana where you can go and spit at the veterans
too..... perhaps you have a relative (like Justme1952 that) works at a
VA Hospital too. Perhpas Justme1952 is your brother Tim, eh? David
your deveoloping all sorts of piss poor partners here.... Your
reputation is heading for the shitter (actually its already there),
so, carry on troop
I love watching a Lone Nut-TROLL fall on he/she/its sword. If you
would of only asked, I'd of 'dulled' the blade for you... ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
Oh, btw, Crackpipe, I forgot to ask you before.....
Exactly how big are the needles you normally shoot up with?
I want to buy the right size, you see. I wouldn't want you to get sick
by buying a syringe too small to hold the large amount of brain-frying
drugs that your system is accustomed to.
When you can rise from your vomit long enough to post your next say-
nothing post here in the asylum, maybe you can just jot down the "CC"
capacity of your regular needles.
Ten-Four?
Wilco.
Healy better take a break too. He's surely worn down after that last
attempt at humor. I'm just sorry I wasn't worthy of at least one token
"hon" in that last post.
After my generous offer to supply you with your much-needed drug
supplies and all, the least I could've gotten was one "hon". That must
be a weekend thing only (i.e., calling guys "hon"), huh, C-pipe?
aeffects
Davie, your trying to sound the tough guy..... You don't even know
what asphalt smells like..... the closest you came to drugs is when
you stole a joint from your brother, smoked it and Julie from next
store offered you a blow job you got oput the old bubble machine....
can the tough, been around guy nonsense son, your a fucking dweeb
loser....
those 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns.....get cyber-handlers off
their asses
David Von Pein
>>> "you need to gird those loins..." <<<
Being told to "gird" one's loins by a person who thinks Zapruder was
never on the pedestal is akin to a blind man helping a person with
20/20 vision across the street.
Nurse Ratched approaches!
But, Crackpipe, at least they probably have lots of syringes that you
can try to steal in Ratched's cuckoo's nest. That's at least something
for you to look forward to after you're put away....right?
aeffects
show up son, the questions..... do you have the nads? Does Vinnie have
the nads? HBO *HAS* the nads!
David Von Pein
>>> Davie [sic], your [sic, as per usual] trying to sound the tough guy.....You don't even know what asphalt smells like....." <<<
But if I ever need to know, I'll be sure and shoot you an e-mail real
quick.
>>> "...the closest you came to drugs is when you stole a joint from your brother, smoked it and Julie from next store [sic; "door" perhaps?; who knows? the 1st batch in the crackpipe is taking hold I see] offered you a blow job you got oput [sic] the old bubble machine...." <<<
Her name was Jennifer. Get it straight, Mr. Syringe.
And she had a sister named Tanya. And two tongues are always better
than one.
>>> "...can the tough, been around [sic; no hyphen] guy nonsense son, your [sic; as per usual] a fucking dweeb loser." <<<
But at least I'm a dweeb who doesn't wake up each morning in his own
vomit. Too bad you can't boast of such accomplishments.
>>> "those [sic] 45 questions and the 16 smoking guns....." <<<
.....MUST be answered (ALL of them!) to meet a CT-Kooks' satisfaction*
or else the kooks get to believe in stupid shit! Right, C-pipe?
* = As if this is even remotely possible, since we're dealing with
mega-kooks here.
>>> "...get cyber-handlers off their asses." <<<
Whatever this means. Must be the drug-induced haze (as usual) that's
producing more incoherent drivel from the kook who sleeps in his own
vomit--and he's still smoking his first batch of the day too! Imagine
what lunchtime will bring in the way of super-intelligence from Mr.
Crackpipe. I can't wait!
But at least the druggie only made half-a-dozen errors in his post
that time. He usually averages 11.
David Von Pein
>>> "HBO *HAS* the nads!" <<<
As if HBO gives a Flying Philly about 45 questions (or 245) coming
from this asylum.
Back to the dumpster, C-pipe. Another hit awaits you.
aeffects
> >>> "HBO *HAS* the nads!" <<<
>
> As if HBO gives a Flying Philly about 45 questions (or 245) coming
> from this asylum.
rotflmfao.... another display of pure amateurism. When it comes to
millions of dollars, HBO is awake, son.....the project is in
trouble......
Why are you here if this is an asylum, David? Looks like YOU'RE the
REAL KOOK, son?
David Von Pein
>>> "Why are you here if this is an asylum, David?" <<<
Already told you (several times previously) ---
To make "ZAPRUDER WAS NEVER THERE" kooks like you look bad.
Why else?
aeffects
where is the Nov 22nd 1963 photo that positively ID's Abe Zapruder
standing on that pedestal during the Elm St. assassination sequence
David
> Why else?
when it comes to hiding in this corner, how about avoiding at all
costs, the 45 questions? Waiting for authorization? LMAO? That's
alright son, the topic has been raised already, I'll refer any further
inquiries to Justme1952's posts....
Jump in son show us YOUR skills, no more regurgitating copy&paste
specials, eh? Water is fine.....
muc...@gmail.com
> On Apr 17, 2:56 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Why are you here if this is an asylum, David?" <<<
>
> > Already told you (several times previously) ---
>
> > To make "ZAPRUDER WAS NEVER THERE" kooks like you look bad.
>
> where is the Nov 22nd 1963 photo that positively ID's Abe Zapruder
> standing on that pedestal during the Elm St. assassination sequence
> David
What a kooky thing to say (let us hope that HBO isn't monitoring this
thread too closely).
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let us hope it is Mark, they can use the posts of Healy and Holmes as
a comedy blooper special at the end of the mini series.
Hey junkie, have you posted how Zapruder is a fake on the Education
Forum yet? You bumbling idiot!
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And, COINCIDENTALLY, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from the Paine
garage on Nov. 22nd. And (voila!) it just happens to turn up on Nov.
22nd on the very same floor where that empty brown bag is located.
And shockingly, the brown paper bag contains blanket fibers from the
blanket in the Paine Garage.....I'll be damned!
aeffects
> On 17 Apr., 18:58, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 2:56 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Why are you here if this is an asylum, David?" <<<
>
> > > Already told you (several times previously) ---
>
> > > To make "ZAPRUDER WAS NEVER THERE" kooks like you look bad.
>
> > where is the Nov 22nd 1963 photo that positively ID's Abe Zapruder
> > standing on that pedestal during the Elm St. assassination sequence
> > David
>
> What a kooky thing to say (let us hope that HBO isn't monitoring this
> thread too closely).
eh, your side is selling the concept, son..... I simply have HBO
contacts. Are you published re the subject matter, Mark?
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd21800f-f9ab-4bf5...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
WELL;
At least the Last partt is TRUE ! ! ! !
muc...@gmail.com
> On Apr 18, 9:55 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 17 Apr., 18:58, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 2:56 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "Why are you here if this is an asylum, David?" <<<
>
> > > > Already told you (several times previously) ---
>
> > > > To make "ZAPRUDER WAS NEVER THERE" kooks like you look bad.
>
> > > where is the Nov 22nd 1963 photo that positively ID's Abe Zapruder
> > > standing on that pedestal during the Elm St. assassination sequence
> > > David
>
> > What a kooky thing to say (let us hope that HBO isn't monitoring this
> > thread too closely).
>
> eh, your side is selling the concept, son..... I simply have HBO
> contacts. Are you published re the subject matter, Mark?
Refreshingly candid of you to admit that you are lobbying for a cozy
consultancy gig for you and your boy.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> eh, your side is selling the concept, son..... I simply have HBO
> contacts. Are you published re the subject matter, Mark?
The only 'contact' you have with HBO is through the collection agency
trying to get you to pay your cable bill.
aeffects
> On 18 Apr., 20:18, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:55 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Apr., 18:58, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 17, 2:56 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> "Why are you here if this is an asylum, David?" <<<
>
> > > > > Already told you (several times previously) ---
>
> > > > > To make "ZAPRUDER WAS NEVER THERE" kooks like you look bad.
>
> > > > where is the Nov 22nd 1963 photo that positively ID's Abe Zapruder
> > > > standing on that pedestal during the Elm St. assassination sequence
> > > > David
>
> > > What a kooky thing to say (let us hope that HBO isn't monitoring this
> > > thread too closely).
>
> > eh, your side is selling the concept, son..... I simply have HBO
> > contacts. Are you published re the subject matter, Mark?
>
> Refreshingly candid of you to admit that you are lobbying for a cozy
> consultancy gig for you and your boy.
Admit, consltancy? Why do I get all the amateurs? 40 years of
experience and I still get the dolts, sigh..... Do you know anything
about the tv industry, you silly guy (you are a guy right?)... Son,
you have me mistaken with the lone nut Von Pein side...
You don't seriously think HBO walks blindly into ALL projects do you?
Especially "docu's", eh?
aeffects
sitdown Chuck, you didn't raise your hand.
muc...@gmail.com
> On Apr 18, 11:33 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 18 Apr., 20:18, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 9:55 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 Apr., 18:58, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 17, 2:56 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> "Why are you here if this is an asylum, David?" <<<
>
> > > > > > Already told you (several times previously) ---
>
> > > > > > To make "ZAPRUDER WAS NEVER THERE" kooks like you look bad.
>
> > > > > where is the Nov 22nd 1963 photo that positively ID's Abe Zapruder
> > > > > standing on that pedestal during the Elm St. assassination sequence
> > > > > David
>
> > > > What a kooky thing to say (let us hope that HBO isn't monitoring this
> > > > thread too closely).
>
> > > eh, your side is selling the concept, son..... I simply have HBO
> > > contacts. Are you published re the subject matter, Mark?
>
> > Refreshingly candid of you to admit that you are lobbying for a cozy
> > consultancy gig for you and your boy.
>
> Admit, consltancy? Why do I get all the amateurs? 40 years of
> experience and I still get the dolts, sigh..... Do you know anything
> about the tv industry, you silly guy (you are a guy right?)... Son,
> you have me mistaken with the lone nut Von Pein side...
>
> You don't seriously think HBO walks blindly into ALL projects do you?
> Especially "docu's", eh?
What are you mumbling about? Still chewing on that she-male? Spit it
out, man!
Walt
Yes, indeed you will if you don't stop lyin..... But It's not
shocking that there were a couple of blanket fibers on the brown paper
bag.....because the blanket and paper bag were touching when the
evidence photo was taken BEFORE the FBI checked the bag of evidence
that the rifle had ever been in that bag. What's shocking is that
the FBI lab could not find an iota of evidence that the rifle had ever
been in that bag.
But the real shocker is:.... There wasn't even a single blanket fiber
found on the rifle!! What you're are suggesting is that the rifle
was removed from the blanket, disassembled, and then placed in a 27
inch paper sack. Then some blanket fibers that were clinging to the
rifle fell off in the bag.
Do you understand what a big nitwit you're making of yourself??
First off the rifle had many many rough surfaces that would snag the
blanket and pick up fibers...... But NO fibers were found on the
rifle, so if there were no fibers on the rifle how could it transfer
any fibers to the bag??
Secondly... The sack was too small to hold the disassembled rifle.
The minumum lenght the rifle could be reduced to by disassembly is 35
inches, but the bag that Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry was only
27 inches long.
Third ... The FBI found not even an iota of gun oil or oily dirt or
any scrapes or scratches that would have indicated a rifle had been in
that bag.
Do you enjoy playing the village idiot??