>>> "I have to thank Paul May and David Von Pein and others. They have inspired me to want to know and learn more about those tragic moments on 11/22/63, and I thank them for it. [Sara's usual punctuation errors corrected by DVP. Don't you have a "shift" key, Sara? ~grin~]" <<<

DVP SAID:

Thanks, Sara. I appreciate that remark.

And for a quick lesson on Jim Garrison's craziness, I will recommend
the following three articles/blogs that I put together on the topic of
King Kook Garrison, which could be titled (in their aggregate) -- "DID
GARRISON *REALLY* SAY THAT STUPID CRAP I THINK I JUST HEARD HIM
SAY?!" .....

www.Garrison-Carson.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 28, 2009, 10:11:31 PM8/28/09

A MEGA-KOOK AT IMDB.COM UTTERED:

>>> "Well, [Mister Von Pein, my hero], it's so nice of you moron that you continue to wear your dress and express your views over the internet. Just like Len Osanic said last nite [sic], a moron who can't put his money where his mouth is. LMAO." <<<

You're an idiot (quite obviously).

>>> "It's so obvious to most everybody on the internet what a complete coward and chicken you are." <<<

Oh, you mean the three people in the world who give a damn about this
thing?

>>> "Continue on there[,] coward[,] with your suitcase of "paper debates"[,] and by all means keep promoting Vinny's [Bugliosi's] best selling book now." <<<

Don't worry, Mr. Kook, I shall.

>>> "We, the public[,] want to hear your trembling voice over the airwaves." <<<

Why?

No matter how much common sense I impart over the "airwaves", kooks
like you (the 3 who will be listening to Retard Radio) would just
dismiss it and declare DiEugenio the debate's winner, just as I have
already declared McAdams the victor against Jimbo. It's a predestined
conclusion that McAdams will win any such debate (if there is one),
because McAdams has all the evidence and DiEugenio has none.

Naturally, the actual evidence against Sweet Lee Harvey means nothing
to the conspiracy-giddy kooks of the Internet. Just ask Wim Dankbaar,
Walt Cakebread, Ben Holmes, Tom Rossley, Donald Willis, Gil Jesus,
Robert Harris, Herbert Blenner, Pamela Brown, Anthony Marsh, David
Healy, Pasquale DiFabrizio, John Simkin, Chris Messner, Robert Caprio,
Barb Junkkarinen, Peter Fokes, Greg Parker, Dean Jackson (he's a kook
who posts at Amazon.com), Miles Scull, Stuart Wexler, Gary Myers, Ken
Murray, William Kelly, Anthony Frank, John Snow, and Martin
Shackelford (just to name a few of the current crop of Internet-based
conspiracy theorists who continue to ignore every single piece of
evidence pointing irrevocably to the guilt of every kook's favorite
"patsy" -- Lee H. Oswald).

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 5:55:34 PM8/29/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1105.0.html

IAN LLOYD SAID:

>>> "Why did the FBI & the SS conclude that 3 shots were fired and there were 3 hits? They've never altered those conclusions." <<<

DVP SAID:

Why in the world are you saying this, Ian?

Of course the FBI altered its original "3 shots & 3 hits" conclusion.
They did so as of 5/24/64 when the FBI and Warren Commission did the
re-creation of the shooting in Dallas, with Robert Frazier of the FBI,
in effect, endorsing the Single-Bullet Theory during his WC testimony.

IAN LLOYD SAID:

>>> " "...in effect..."? " <<<

DVP SAID:

Yes, Ian, "in effect", which is why I utilized those precise words.

The FBI's Robert Frazier was very careful with his wording when he
testified in front of the Warren Commission in 1964. He didn't come
out and say he knew beyond ALL DOUBT that the Single-Bullet Theory was
true, but he was the man who was looking through Lee Oswald's
telescopic sight from where Oswald was firing that same rifle, and
Frazier's words are plain as day regarding the following critical
point:

President Kennedy and Governor Connally were positively LINED UP to
receive a single bullet from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest at ANY
POINT between Zapruder Film frame #207 and Z-frame #225.

If conspiracy theorists have a problem with that testimony -- that's
just tough, because Frazier was the man who was looking through that
scope and that's what he saw through that scope.

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

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What was the alignment of President Kennedy's stand-
in with Governor Connally's stand-in at frames 207 and 210?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "They both are in direct alignment with the
telescopic sight at the window. The Governor is immediately behind the
President in the field of view."

[Later...]

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Mr. Frazier, assuming the factors which I have asked
you to accept as true for the purposes of expressing an opinion
before, as to the flight of the bullet and the straight line
penetration through the President's body, considering the point of
entry and exit, do you have an opinion as to what probably happened
during the interval between frames 207 and 225 as to whether the
bullet which passed through the neck of the President entered the
Governor's back."

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "There are a lot of probables in that. First, we
have to assume there is absolutely no deflection in the bullet from
the time it left the barrel until the time it exited from the
Governor's body. That assumes that it has gone through the President's
body and through the Governor's body. I feel that physically this
would have been possible because of the positions of the Presidential
stand-in and the Governor's stand-in, it would be entirely possible
for this to have occurred. However, I myself don't have any technical
evidence which would permit me to say one way or the other, in other
words, which would support it as far as my rendering an opinion as an
expert. I would certainly say it was possible but I don't say that it
probably occurred because I don't have the evidence on which to base a
statement like that."

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

REPEATING:

"I feel that physically this would have been possible because of
the positions of the Presidential stand-in and the Governor's stand-in
[BETWEEN Z-FILM FRAMES 207 AND 225], it would be entirely possible for
this to have occurred." -- Robert A. Frazier [5H171]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0091a.htm

IAN LLOYD SAID:

>>> [Quoting Robert A. Frazier; emphasis Lloyd's:] "...I myself don't have any technical evidence which would permit me to say one way or the other, in other words, which would support it as far as my rendering an opinion as an expert. I would certainly say it was possible BUT I DON'T SAY THAT IT PROBABLY OCCURRED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT..." [End Frazier Quote] .... Thanks for posting that David." <<<

DVP SAID:

As I said previously, Robert Frazier was being very careful with the
words he used when he testified in front of the Warren Commission,
which is why it was perfectly reasonable for him to put that
disclaimer at the end of that last cited passage which appears in
Warren Commission Volume 5.

Which brings up another point for the CTers to chew on ---

If J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI boys were so deep into the "cover-up"
and so bent on pinning the assassination on just Lee Harvey Oswald (as
many conspiracy theorists believe is the case), then why didn't Bob
Frazier come right out and lie his ass off and say this?:

"Yes, Mr. Specter, it's my opinion that that bullet had to
definitely go through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
There is no doubt about it."

Instead, Frazier was being totally forthright and above-board when he
said that the bullet could certainly have gone through both victims,
but he could not say that the bullet POSITIVELY went through both men.

Plus -- Since Frazier also testified that there was no damage to the
interior of the car that could possibly be attributed to a whole
bullet that exited JFK's neck....the math then becomes fairly easy to
perform from that point forward. (Except, that is, for conspiracists
who continue to ignore the obviousness of the single-bullet
conclusion.)

"The single-bullet theory...[is] so obvious that a child could
author it." --Vincent T. Bugliosi

www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 7:27:34 PM8/29/09

On Aug 29, 2:55 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

making up posters as you continue the nutter-troll holy grail and
quest, eh troll? lmfao!

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 2, 2009, 5:13:25 AM9/2/09

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1125.msg15092.html#msg15092

>>> "That really is an unfair and unjust comment to make regarding Jim Garrison. .... Don't belittle the man, David." <<<

Don't ask me to go easy on King Kook Garrison, because that's not
going to happen. While Garrison might have been a good District
Attorney and courtroom prosecutor in other cases he handled, that
doesn't excuse his behavior in the Clay Shaw case (which was a case
that should have never gotten beyond the Grand Jury phase--if that).

Garrison knew damn well he was prosecuting a man he had absolutely no
evidence against.

How do we know this?

Because, as Vince Bugliosi points out in his book (and I'll admit, I
didn't know this fact prior to VB's book coming out in May 2007),
Garrison mentioned Clay Shaw's name just ONE SINGLE TIME in his
closing arguments to the jury. ONE time! And that one time was merely
to tell the jury something they obviously already knew--that they were
there to decide whether or not Shaw was guilty or not guilty. (Duh!)

But not once did Garrison lay out any EVIDENCE against the man whom he
was prosecuting. Not once did he say to the jury something along the
following lines (as any prosecutor undoubtedly would have done--dozens
of times!--if the prosecution had some evidence against the
defendant)---

[Vince Bugliosi Mode On:]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this piece of evidence and
this piece of evidence prove Clay Shaw's guilt beyond all reasonable
doubt. And then there's this piece of evidence that Mr. [so-and-so]
told you jurors about from the witness stand last week, which also
proves Mr. Shaw's guilt.

So, as we can easily see, ladies and gentlemen, Clay Shaw's
guilt has not only been proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt at this
trial....his guilt has been proven beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT at this
trial! Mr. Shaw is as guilty as SIN....and there's nothing that Mr.
Shaw's defense team can do about it!

[/Bugliosi Mode Off.]

Nothing like that escaped the mouth of Jim Garrison in February 1969
at the Shaw trial.

And the reason it didn't is because Garrison didn't have a speck of
evidence against the man who was on trial in that New Orleans
courtroom!

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

Lots more of Big Jim's hilarity below:

www.Garrison-Carson.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d4772fbe4df0bcd
www.JFK-Online.com/garrison.html

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

0 new messages