Why is this Kooky, David

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 6:20:17 AM4/28/07

to

In an effort to better understand what can only be called your kooky use
of the term "kooky," I'll be presenting key conspiracy theory beliefs
so that you will be able to point out the "kooky" in each.

Let's start with Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell. Her testimony,
which is on audio on the link below, invalidates your single bullet
theory. Please tell us why the following assertion made by an conspiracy
theorist is "kooky."

Start:

One of those who spoke of the Friday night calls to Dallas was Nurse
Audrey Bell of Parkland Hospital. This nurse also drew for the ARRB
diagrams of bullet fragments she remembered were taken from Governor
Connally—greater in number and size than those held at the Archives.
Fragments of that size could also not have come from CE399, the "magic
bullet," thus invalidating the single bullet theory and the entire
Warren Report. The ARRB declined to take her drawings back to Washington.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm
--

ricland

Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com

Bud

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 6:38:33 AM4/28/07

to

RICLAND wrote:
> In an effort to better understand what can only be called your kooky use
> of the term "kooky," I'll be presenting key conspiracy theory beliefs
> so that you will be able to point out the "kooky" in each.
>
> Let's start with Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell. Her testimony,
> which is on audio on the link below, invalidates your single bullet
> theory. Please tell us why the following assertion made by an conspiracy
> theorist is "kooky."
>
> Start:
>
> One of those who spoke of the Friday night calls to Dallas was Nurse
> Audrey Bell of Parkland Hospital. This nurse also drew for the ARRB
> diagrams of bullet fragments she remembered were taken from Governor

> Connally-greater in number and size than those held at the Archives.

> Fragments of that size could also not have come from CE399, the "magic
> bullet," thus invalidating the single bullet theory and the entire
> Warren Report.

Yah, in answer to your question, thinking that a sketch made (if it
was, you haven`t established this as fact) by a nurse of fragments she
may have held decades earlier invalidates the SBT or the WCR is kooky.

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 6:52:36 AM4/28/07

to

It's kooky because Audry Bells testimony isn't worth a
shrivelled scrotum in Rossley mouth or 4 balls on his
chinny chin chin ! So how long will you be in denial of
the simple fact that EMP are not trained to tell if a bullet
hole is one of exit or entrance :

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound4.txt

Or are you going to play your silly ass games and try to
ruin what was once a great NG before you got here and
decided your jealousy could somehow over ride Rossleys
over blown ego .

He also blows a lot of other things , butt that's a subject
for another time ! ...................tl

PS 1 : Below is what makes you a hot air balloon full of bullshite :
Cheers ! ...........:-)

PS 2 : Conspiracy books describe the Dallas doctors as being
absolutely sure that the wound in Kennedy's throat was an entrance
wound. What they usually omit is the fact that the doctors who
actually saw the wound speculated that it was an exit wound from a
fragment from the head shot. They also imply that ER personnel can
easily tell whether a wound is an entrance wound or an exit wound.
This essay consists of two parts. The first documents the speculations
of the Dallas doctors about the wound, and the second is a passage
from the JAMA describing a careful study of the ability of ER
personnel to make judgments about the forensic aspects of wounds.

On Apr 28, 3:20 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> In an effort to better understand what can only be called your kooky use
> of the term "kooky," I'll be presenting key conspiracy theory beliefs
> so that you will be able to point out the "kooky" in each.
>
> Let's start with Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell. Her testimony,
> which is on audio on the link below, invalidates your single bullet
> theory. Please tell us why the following assertion made by an conspiracy
> theorist is "kooky."
>
> Start:
>
> One of those who spoke of the Friday night calls to Dallas was Nurse
> Audrey Bell of Parkland Hospital. This nurse also drew for the ARRB
> diagrams of bullet fragments she remembered were taken from Governor

> Connally-greater in number and size than those held at the Archives.

> Fragments of that size could also not have come from CE399, the "magic
> bullet," thus invalidating the single bullet theory and the entire
> Warren Report. The ARRB declined to take her drawings back to Washington.
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/au...

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 8:10:28 AM4/28/07

to

Bud wrote:
> RICLAND wrote:
>> In an effort to better understand what can only be called your kooky use
>> of the term "kooky," I'll be presenting key conspiracy theory beliefs
>> so that you will be able to point out the "kooky" in each.
>>
>> Let's start with Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell. Her testimony,
>> which is on audio on the link below, invalidates your single bullet
>> theory. Please tell us why the following assertion made by an conspiracy
>> theorist is "kooky."
>>
>> Start:
>>
>> One of those who spoke of the Friday night calls to Dallas was Nurse
>> Audrey Bell of Parkland Hospital. This nurse also drew for the ARRB
>> diagrams of bullet fragments she remembered were taken from Governor
>> Connally-greater in number and size than those held at the Archives.
>> Fragments of that size could also not have come from CE399, the "magic
>> bullet," thus invalidating the single bullet theory and the entire
>> Warren Report.
>
> Yah, in answer to your question, thinking that a sketch made (if it
> was, you haven`t established this as fact) by a nurse of fragments she
> may have held decades earlier invalidates the SBT or the WCR is kooky.

The link also provides nurse Audry Bell's testimony. And it should be
pointed out, Ms Bell was the hospital's top supervising nurse at the time.

But to make sure we have you right, Bud. Your point is that only a kook
would believe her testimony.

That's what you're saying, right?

ricland

--

YoHarvey

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 8:31:43 AM4/28/07

to

> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ricland? Both JAMA and the American Academy
of Science both endorse the SBT. You choose
instead to believe a nurse. Why?

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 10:14:41 AM4/28/07

to

What nurse are you talking about?

Nurse Audrey Bell has made no SBT claims I'm aware of.

YoHarvey

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 10:45:41 AM4/28/07

to

> >> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ricland? Both JAMA and the American Academy
> > of Science both endorse the SBT. You choose
> > instead to believe a nurse. Why?
>
> What nurse are you talking about?
>
> Nurse Audrey Bell has made no SBT claims I'm aware of.
>
> ricland
>
> --
> Reclaiming History ...???
> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not referring to Bell's lack of SBT claims. I'm
commenting on her comments on the JC fragments.
At best, Bell is/was a neophyte on bullet fragments.
Are you that conspiracy driven to believe her comments
to be accurate enough to dispel the SBT?

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 10:55:48 AM4/28/07

to

I think I see what you're saying.

You're saying her testimony should be rejected because it doesn't square
with the Single Bullet Theory.

That it?

YoHarvey

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 11:02:58 AM4/28/07

to

> >>>> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -

> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Ricland? Both JAMA and the American Academy
> >>> of Science both endorse the SBT. You choose
> >>> instead to believe a nurse. Why?
> >> What nurse are you talking about?
>
> >> Nurse Audrey Bell has made no SBT claims I'm aware of.
>
> >> ricland
>
> >> --
> >> Reclaiming History ...???
> >> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>

> > I'm not referring to Bell's lack of SBT claims. I'm
> > commenting on her comments on the JC fragments.
> > At best, Bell is/was a neophyte on bullet fragments.
> > Are you that conspiracy driven to believe her comments
> > to be accurate enough to dispel the SBT?
>
> I think I see what you're saying.
>
> You're saying her testimony should be rejected because it doesn't square
> with the Single Bullet Theory.
>
> That it?
>
> ricland
>
> --
> Reclaiming History ...???
> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ricland? At one time I thought you had some
intelligence. Proves even I can be wrong.

aeffects

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 11:06:17 AM4/28/07

to

> > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ricland? Both JAMA and the American Academy
> of Science both endorse the SBT.

Based on what?

You choose
> instead to believe a nurse. Why?

Why NOT? Without eyewitnesses, no justice system

aeffects

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 11:08:59 AM4/28/07

to

> > >>>> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequotedtext -

> > >>>> - Show quoted text -
> > >>> Ricland? Both JAMA and the American Academy
> > >>> of Science both endorse the SBT. You choose
> > >>> instead to believe a nurse. Why?
> > >> What nurse are you talking about?
>
> > >> Nurse Audrey Bell has made no SBT claims I'm aware of.
>
> > >> ricland
>
> > >> --
> > >> Reclaiming History ...???
> > >> The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>

> > > I'm not referring to Bell's lack of SBT claims. I'm
> > > commenting on her comments on the JC fragments.
> > > At best, Bell is/was a neophyte on bullet fragments.
> > > Are you that conspiracy driven to believe her comments
> > > to be accurate enough to dispel the SBT?
>
> > I think I see what you're saying.
>
> > You're saying her testimony should be rejected because it doesn't square
> > with the Single Bullet Theory.
>
> > That it?
>
> > ricland
>
> > --
> > Reclaiming History ...???
> > The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> Ricland? At one time I thought you had some
> intelligence. Proves even I can be wrong.

Gott'a love it when Lone Nutters (and a poor class this year at that)
run the other way --

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 11:30:43 AM4/28/07

to

Right, but answer the question if you would.

Is your point that Audrey Bell's testimony should be dismissed because
it doesn't square with the Warren Report?

Bud

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 11:34:26 AM4/28/07

to

Yah, only completely different. Why do you feel the need to reword
my points? I choose the right ones when I wrote it originally.

.

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 12:49:39 PM4/28/07

to

You're dodging the question again, Bud.

Why is the CT Oswald-Tippit timeline kooky?

Either tell us or concede there's nothing kooky about it at all.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 12:54:28 PM4/28/07

to

JAMA got the shit beat outta them in a Law Suit by Dr. Charles Crenshaw.

Kinda like I beat the shit outta you with evidence/testimony.

You NEVER quote any source that's Credible.

WHO is Yo(Momma)Harvey?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177763503....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 12:56:39 PM4/28/07

to

Your own words Prove you WRONG Yo(Momma)Harvey>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1177772578.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 12:58:27 PM4/28/07

to

LN's "ALWAYS RUN"

The Best part is that they
RUN from their own evidence/testimony.

http://whokilledjfk.net/

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177772939.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 1:15:23 PM4/28/07

to

Can anyone guess WHY Lousy spends 60 hours a week on insults and NOT
one minute a week on Evidence/Testimony?

WHO is tom lowery?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177757556.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 1:41:13 PM4/28/07

to

Ric,

A much better source for the size of the Connally bullet fragments is
Dr. Charles Gregory (who physically removed some very, very small
fragments from the Governor's wrist).

Gregory testified that the TOTAL weight of ALL fragments taken from
Connally's body and LEFT INSIDE Connally weighed "less than the weight
of a postage stamp".

GREGORY'S TESTIMONY:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm

CTers like to spit on Gregory's "postage stamp" weight estimate...but
it was Gregory's professional medical opinion nonetheless...and he had
a better view of the fragments (what with being JBC's surgeon, who
also examined the Governor's X-rays).

Vincent Guinn in 1978 also determined that a bullet fragment from
JBC's wrist was very likely a piece of bullet CE399.

And let me ask: How likely is it that such NAA analysis would yield a
"very likely" conclusion with respect to a fragment from Connally
actually having come from CE399 if 399 really HADN'T been inside
Connally's body at all on 11/22/63 (as almost all CTers believe)?

Pretty fortunate for those plotters, wasn't it? I mean, to have shot
Connally with a Carcano bullet that PERFECTLY MATCHES the NAA analysis
of a bullet from Oswald's gun that was planted on a hospital stretcher
(per CT beliefs)?

Did the plotters' luck EVER run dry?

The "too many fragments in Connally" argument is an invalid argument.
More.....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61fe27a14fb7dd35

======

I guess Ric decided to ignore my lengthy response to his arguments
yesterday, including the debunking of the "Tippit Timeline" CT
argument. ~shrug~

VARIOUS POSTS RE. THE TIPPIT MURDER "TIMELINE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9456c10c7229bbd
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/038d2ea4f25dc75a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9d499a8cd7d96909
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ef349732b8e8bdb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b76b91b5466cc213

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 2:12:58 PM4/28/07

to

http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:v46dnZK15uu65q7b...@comcast.com...

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 2:16:50 PM4/28/07

to

Ricland trys to be like that shyster laywer Mark Lane . He never
answers the question that's asked , he answers the question
that he wished were asked ............................tl

> >http://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 2:17:31 PM4/28/07

to

Someone should Revoke this Asshole's Green Card.

He's an Anti-Semite
He's a Racist
He's a Porno Queen
He's a Jeffrey Dahmer protege'
He's Anti-American
He's Anti Truth/Justice
He's a Felon Supporter
He's an Assassin Supporter
He's a Coward
He's a Provacatuer

ALL in his own words HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_lowery.htm

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1177784210....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

cdddraftsman

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 2:55:11 PM4/28/07

to

Getting hungry again Rosslenuts ? I thought we just gave you your
kibbles & bits ? ................Oh well ! :

Suck on these little tasty nuts Rossley !
AND ANSWER FOR YOUR CRIMES ! :

On Apr 28, 11:17 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -

Bud

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 3:45:50 PM4/28/07

to

How would you know?

> Why is the CT Oswald-Tippit timeline kooky?

More compelling information indicates otherwise.

> Either tell us or concede there's nothing kooky about it at all.

You can always tell an kook, but you can`t tell him much.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 5:26:49 PM4/28/07

to

Tell us WHY you never address evidence/testimony killer?

http://whokilledjfk.net/

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177786511.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 5:35:44 PM4/28/07

to

Hey Bud;

Name that "More compelling information".

HERE's what Proves you a LIAR>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1177789550....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 7:01:40 PM4/28/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
> Ric,
>
> A much better source for the size of the Connally bullet fragments is
> Dr. Charles Gregory (who physically removed some very, very small
> fragments from the Governor's wrist).
>

Fine. I read it and it seems to make sense; well-documented too. I've
got my work cut out for me if I'm going to challenge it.

But your Oswald-Tippit timeline response is typical David Pein
buffoonery. First, you use yourself as source. Second, you add 3 1/2
minutes to the timeline by simply saying:

"the best guess is that Oswald left his roominghouse at approx. 1:03
or 1:04 PM (CST). My guess is it was even earlier than that; because
there's no way in hell he was fiddling around in that shoebox of a room
for "3 or 4 minutes", per Mrs. Roberts' account. There would be
absolutely no reason (logically-speaking) for Oswald to have been in
that room for more than 30 seconds at most. Was Earlene Roberts lying?
Of course she wasn't. But people have a habit of stretching out time
estimates to (incorrect) lengthier guesses when they're asked to
re-create "timelines"

The operative text here is "there's no way in hell he was fiddling
around in that oof a room for 3 or 4 minutes."

In other words you simply dismiss a witness's testimony by claiming
there's no way in hell she could be right.

Well, why do you even bother going further? Why don't you simply say,
there's no way in hell the CT timeline is right, and be done with it?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 7:14:39 PM4/28/07

to

>>> "I read it {Gregory's testimony} and it seems to make sense; well-documented too. I've got my work cut out for me if I'm going to challenge it." <<<

But, by God, you feel a NEED and a DESIRE to "challenge" Gregory's
words....don't you?

Question is -- Why?

>>> "Why do you even bother going further? Why don't you simply say, there's no way in hell the CT timeline is right, and be done with it?" <<<

Okay.....

There's no way in hell (given the sum total of evidence) that the CT
timeline can POSSIBLY be spot-on 100% accurate.

How's that?

And only a goof would toss out the BEST EVIDENCE of ballistics and
many witnesses (and the BEST TIMELINE evidence too, the DPD Radio
logs) in order to prop up the idea that LHO didn't kill Tippit.

That's what you WANT to do, isn't it Ric? Prop up the notion that LHO
is innocent?

The bigger question is -- WHY would anyone want to do that?

The "timeline" stuff is based on ESTIMATES, Ric. And only ESTIMATES.
You don't let that type of indefinite evidence trump better
evidence...like multiple witnesses watching Oswald at the scene
killing a man. And the bullet shells. Why are you ignoring the FACT
that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the theater?

That fact alone would convict him in front of a jury.

BTW, my middle name isn't Von.

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 7:54:28 PM4/28/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "I read it {Gregory's testimony} and it seems to make sense; well-documented too. I've got my work cut out for me if I'm going to challenge it." <<<
>
> But, by God, you feel a NEED and a DESIRE to "challenge" Gregory's
> words....don't you?
>
> Question is -- Why?

Because there's nurse Audrey Bell's testimony.

DUH....

It's called investigative research. When done properly, evidence and
testimony is not simply thrown out because it contradicts other evidence
and testimony.

>
>
>
>>>> "Why do you even bother going further? Why don't you simply say, there's no way in hell the CT timeline is right, and be done with it?" <<<
>
> Okay.....
>
> There's no way in hell (given the sum total of evidence) that the CT
> timeline can POSSIBLY be spot-on 100% accurate.

Evidence ...?

>
> How's that?
>
> And only a goof would toss out the BEST EVIDENCE of ballistics and
> many witnesses (and the BEST TIMELINE evidence too, the DPD Radio
> logs) in order to prop up the idea that LHO didn't kill Tippit.

Gawd, man, that's textbook circular !: "Oswald MUST HAVE got there in
time because witnesses saw him there."

And here again, you simply throw out evidence that contradicts your
claim. "The landlady was wrong about the time Oswald left the house.
Why? Because witnesses saw him shoot Tippit."

In other words, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply tossing it
out.

And that's not all ...

This done you go on to edit out the testimony of the witnesses who said
there were two shooters neither of whom fit Oswald's description. You
pretend you've never heard of this testimony, or if you did, it's not
credible.

And speaking of ballistics, you ignore the testimony of the very officer
who found the shells and first said they were from an automatic. He also
said he initialed these shells, which is standard police procedure. and
the problem this presents is that the shells later presented as evidence
were from a revolver and not initialed.

Again, you pretend you've never heard this or if you have it's not
credible (although his other testimony is ...???)

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.

Bud

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 8:06:24 PM4/28/07

to

tomnln wrote:
> Hey Bud;
>
> Name that "More compelling information".

Say "please".

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 8:09:13 PM4/28/07

to

>>> "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~

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 9:21:59 PM4/28/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "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.

Look, bird brain, you throw testimony out because other testimony
contradicts it.

What part of that don't you understand?

>
>
>>>> "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.

When in doubt call names, huh?

>
>>>> "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.

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?

>
>
>>>> "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.

One thing at at a time, David, that way you won't get so confused.

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.

Now, my advice to you, David, is that you stop your histrionics and
address these facts. Also, don't put the cart in front of the horse. Get
Oswald to the Tippit crime scene in 3-2 minutes, then worry about those
PESKY BULLET SHELLS!

>
>
>>>> "In other words, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply tossing it out." <<<
>
> In favor of better, firmer evidence. Yes.

No, Einstein, that's not how the scientific method works. That's how
kooks work.

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.

But as we see above, you think there's nothing wrong with throwing out
contradictory evidence. You think it's fine and dandy.

Well, 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.

>
> Kook.
>
>>>> "And that's not all ..." <<<
>
> Shit. I was hoping it was. Your crap is starting to make me quite ill.

Perfectly understandable, David.

I'd be vomiting too right about now were I you.

ricland

Ricland:

"In other words, David, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply
tossing it out."

David Van Pein:

In favor of better, firmer evidence. Yes.

--

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 9:32:15 PM4/28/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "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.

Look, bird brain, you don't throw testimony out because other testimony
contradicts it.

What part of that don't you understand?

>
>

>>>> "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.

When in doubt call names, huh?

>

>>>> "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.

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?

>
>

>>>> "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.

One thing at at a time, David, that way you won't get so confused.

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.

Now, my advice to you, David, is that you stop your histrionics and
address these facts. Also, don't put the cart in front of the horse. Get
Oswald to the Tippit crime scene in 3-2 minutes, then worry about those
PESKY BULLET SHELLS!

>
>

>>>> "In other words, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply tossing it out." <<<
>
> In favor of better, firmer evidence. Yes.

No, Einstein, that's not how the scientific method works. That's how
kooks work.

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.

But as we see above, you think there's nothing wrong with throwing out
contradictory evidence. You think it's fine and dandy.

Well, 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.

>

> Kook.
>
>>>> "And that's not all ..." <<<
>
> Shit. I was hoping it was. Your crap is starting to make me quite ill.

Perfectly understandable, David.

I'd be vomiting too right about now were I you.

ricland

--
Ricland:

"In other words, David, you disprove the timeline evidence by simply
tossing it out."

David Van Pein:

In favor of better, firmer evidence. Yes.

Reclaiming History ...???

Message has been deleted

tomnln

unread,

Apr 28, 2007, 10:21:46 PM4/28/07

to

Caught Lying AGAIN.

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1177805184.7...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 2:51:40 AM4/29/07

to

>>> "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.

An odd hunk of phrasing by Markham actually. I know what she meant
there. But the word "wasn't" seems slightly out of place. But, anyway,
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 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.

RICLAND

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 3:32:40 AM4/29/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "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?

Amazing! And you're not faking, are you? You really don't know how
clueless your question is.

Throwing out evidence is like throwing out small pieces of a puzzle
after all the big pieces fit -- forty-five years later the puzzle
remains unsolved.

>
> 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.

You're forced to say you haven't solved the case until you tie-up all
the lose ends, which you clearly haven't done. In fact, Mark Lane called
your kind of justice exactly what it is 45 years ago: A Rush to
Judgment. The movie/book "The Ox Bow Incident" describes your kind of
justice too. That's the story of how they lynch an innocent guy based on
partial evidence.

You do the same thing to Oswald and now you've finally admitted it.

>
> 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)?

Readers, are you getting all this? David is admitting all the pieces of
the puzzle don't fit.

>
> 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?

You may do that if you wish (and you have), but to do so is to ignore
what scientists call the "scientific method."

Have you ever heard of the scientific method, David?

>
> 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.

Jeesus ...

And here I'll stop. Why continue when it's so astonishingly apparent you
have no idea the fool you're making out of yourself.

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 4:42:05 AM4/29/07

to

tomnln wrote:
> Caught Lying AGAIN.

I`d be glad to give you the information you requested. But first
you must say the magic word.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 2:56:51 PM4/29/07

to

TRANSLATION:

Bud has NO "More compelling information".

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1177836125.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 5:52:19 PM4/29/07

to

tomnln wrote:
> TRANSLATION:
>
> Bud has NO "More compelling information".

Oh, I have plenty of compelling information. Scads of it. And it
can be yours simply by asking me nicely. Just a simple "please, no
"pretty please", no "sugar on top", just "Bud, please divuldge this
compelling information to me, for I am a kook, with no compelling
information to call my own."

tomnln

unread,

Apr 29, 2007, 5:54:17 PM4/29/07

to

Ohhh I have PLENTY of my own;

It comes from the 26 volumes.

Information that you are TOO Shitscared to address;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1177883539.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Bud

unread,

Apr 30, 2007, 5:02:03 PM4/30/07

to

tomnln wrote:
> Ohhh I have PLENTY of my own;

Then why did you ask for mine?

> It comes from the 26 volumes.

Farmsex Digest.

> Information that you are TOO Shitscared to address;

You haven`t seen compelling information until you`ve seen mine.
Don`t be so proud, it could be yours for just a little begging.

tomnln

unread,

Apr 30, 2007, 5:43:27 PM4/30/07

to

Another Non-Denial Denial.

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1177966923....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...