Look Ma! Another Warren Commission Hater!
David Von Pein
>>> "The Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for its: Methods..." <<<
There was nothing wrong with the Warren Commission's methods. Did you
know they compartmentalized their investigation? They broke the
investigation into six basic "Areas", such as (in general terms):
"Who Shot JFK And Officer Tippit?";
"Was There A Domestic Conspiracy?";
"Was There A Foreign Conspiracy?;
"Did Ruby Act Alone?";
"Background Of JFK's Trip To Texas And Dallas Motorcade"; and
"Evaluating The Protection Provided For The President".
These different compartments (or "Areas") of the WC worked on their
individual tasks (and they overlapped with some of the other sections
too, as needed), and they ALL came to the mutual and undeniable
conclusion that Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby acted alone.
I'm also wondering how CTers who hate the WC with a passion can get
around the fact that ANOTHER, separate Govt. investigation (the HSCA),
helmed by a completely-different group of people from those who were
involved with the Warren Commission 15 years earlier, reached the
exact same conclusion as the WC with respect to the man who killed JFK
(Oswald). And they also supported the SBT too.
Do CTers REALLY think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA were full of
crooked, rotten scumbags who were bent on framing an innocent Oswald?
You DO realize how silly it sounds if you answer "Yes" to the above
question, right?
And please don't retort with: Well, the HSCA said there WAS a
conspiracy, you know.
The HSCA's "conspiracy" evidence has been completely smashed (in
multiple ways). Anyone who still clings to the HSCA version of
conspiracy should be locked up with R.P. McMurphy.
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
>>> "...Omissions..." <<<
What omissions? Spell 'em out. Some witnesses weren't interviewed,
true. And some angles of "potential conspiracy" probably weren't
explored as deeply as they could have been by the WC, true.
But a CTer will never, ever be fully satisfied. It can't happen,
because rabid CTers WANT a "plot" of some kind. Simple as that.
So, if the WC had gone to the ends of the Earth looking for the make-
believe "plot" that the CTers think occurred in Dallas, and the WC had
still come up dry (which they would have), the Commission would still
probably be frowned upon by conspiracists as "not good enough".
Can there be any DOUBT about that?
>>> "...Its conclusions..." <<<
The WC's conclusions are the ONLY reasonable conclusions based on the
evidence in the case.
If the WC had arrived at any other "conclusions" (other than the ones
they reached), such conclusions would have had been based on nothing
but guesswork.
Was the Warren Commission REALLY supposed to go down the crazy, kooky
path that CTers like Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison have chosen to go
down since 1963?
I.E.: A path that features NO physical evidence of conspiracy. None.
Only shadows and perceived-to-exist "plots" by various groups and
individuals who CTers say had a "motive" to kill JFK are presented by
the likes of Garrison, et al.
I can just see the last page of the Warren Report if they had decided
to ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-Alone evidence and followed the CT-
Kook course for a conclusion.....
"The Commission has determined (as the autopsy doctors determined)
that only two bullets struck the victims in Dealey Plaza....and the
bulk of the evidence indicates that three shots were fired....with
those shots (via the preponderance of credible evidence) coming from
the Sniper's Nest window on the TSBD's 6th Floor....and those three
shots, based on the wealth of overall evidence, came from Lee Oswald's
Carcano rifle....but....
The Commission also is forced to conclude that this raw evidence is
tainted in some fashion, and we also "feel" in our hearts that the
assassination of President Kennedy was probably due to a conspiracy
"of some sort".
We, the Commission, have found no hard evidence to support the notion
of any conspiracy in this case....but our GUT feeling is that the
"plot" exists....somewhere. We don't know exactly where....but we feel
it's there....somewhere.
Signed, Earl Warren; Hale Boggs; John Cooper; Gerald Ford (et al)...."
>>> "...Its complete and utter lack of comment on destruction of evidence by law enforcement and intelligence agencies." <<<
Name one thing that was "destroyed" (other than the "Hosty note").
>>> "Their star witness was bogus, Howard Brennan." <<<
I'll take Howard Brennan over Jean Hill, Ed Hoffman, and Gordon Arnold
any day.
BTW, you haven't even read the Warren Report, have you?
You can admit it. Most people have never read it.
========================
Common Sense Link:
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
========================
Papa Andy
David,
I read the WCR when it came out (Bantam edition cost $1)
found it very unconvincing
A
tomnln
He STILL Dodges these>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
His own evidence/testimony.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192477566.4...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
David Von Pein
Gee, what a surprise.
Found any of those non-LHO bullets yet, btw?
Just wondering.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Oct 15, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for its: Methods..."
>><<<
>>
>> There was nothing wrong with the Warren Commission's methods.
The things that *were* wrong with the WC's methods have had books written to
detail them. When the trolls must spout outright lies such as this - they
merely illustrate the depths to which they'll go to preserve their faith.
>> Did you
>> know they compartmentalized their investigation? They broke the
>> investigation into six basic "Areas", such as (in general terms):
>>
>> "Who Shot JFK And Officer Tippit?";
Sadly, an area with a pre-conceived conclusion. No *actual* search was done for
any other suspect.
>> "Was There A Domestic Conspiracy?";
>> "Was There A Foreign Conspiracy?;
>> "Did Ruby Act Alone?";
>> "Background Of JFK's Trip To Texas And Dallas Motorcade"; and
>> "Evaluating The Protection Provided For The President".
*NONE* of these areas utilized basic adversarial process to arrive at the truth.
The Commission *KNEW* that the FBI was biased, yet STILL refused to go around
that major problem. They had the power to hire their own investigators - yet
failed to do so.
>> These different compartments (or "Areas") of the WC worked on their
>> individual tasks (and they overlapped with some of the other sections
>> too, as needed), and they ALL came to the mutual and undeniable
>> conclusion that Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby acted alone.
Considering that polls have placed the numbers of Americans who BELIEVE in a
conspiracy as high as 90% - it must not have been a very convincing
"conclusion."
>> I'm also wondering how CTers who hate the WC with a passion
Why does anyone "hate" the Commission? If anyone should hate anything, it would
be LNT'ers ... after all, the Commission was careful enough to document, in
their 26 volumes, the evidence that LNT'ers have learned to despise.
>> can get
>> around the fact that ANOTHER, separate Govt. investigation (the HSCA),
>> helmed by a completely-different group of people from those who were
>> involved with the Warren Commission 15 years earlier, reached the
>> exact same conclusion
They didn't. The HSCA concluded that there had been a probable conspiracy... in
this, they were more in line with the majority of American society.
Also, their SBT was different, their medical evidence was different, many of the
conclusions they reached in different areas were different. It takes a liar
such as DVP to attempt to assert that these two different government
"investigations" reached the same conclusions. They didn't. On some individual
*POINTS*, they agreed.
>> as the WC with respect to the man who killed JFK
>> (Oswald). And they also supported the SBT too.
No, they didn't. The "SBT" proposed by the HSCA was a different one than that
proposed by the WC.
>> Do CTers REALLY think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA were full of
>> crooked, rotten scumbags who were bent on framing an innocent Oswald?
Do most Americans disagree with the "conclusions" reached by the WC?
>> You DO realize how silly it sounds if you answer "Yes" to the above
>> question, right?
You DO realize how silly it sounds if you answer "Yes to the above question,
right?
>> And please don't retort with: Well, the HSCA said there WAS a
>> conspiracy, you know.
Sadly, that's simply the truth.
>> The HSCA's "conspiracy" evidence has been completely smashed (in
>> multiple ways).
No, it hasn't been.
>> Anyone who still clings to the HSCA version of
>> conspiracy should be locked up with R.P. McMurphy.
>>
>> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
>>
>> >>> "...Omissions..." <<<
>>
>> What omissions? Spell 'em out. Some witnesses weren't interviewed,
>> true.
And, of course, DVP can't offer *ANY* reasonable explanation...
(That's non-conspiratorial, that is...)
>> And some angles of "potential conspiracy" probably weren't
>> explored as deeply as they could have been by the WC, true.
>>
>> But a CTer will never, ever be fully satisfied. It can't happen,
>> because rabid CTers WANT a "plot" of some kind. Simple as that.
Actually, we merely follow the evidence where it leads... simple as that.
This explains why LNT'ers and trolls such as DVP refuse to debate the
evidence... they *can't*.
>> So, if the WC had gone to the ends of the Earth looking for the make-
>> believe "plot" that the CTers think occurred in Dallas, and the WC had
>> still come up dry (which they would have), the Commission would still
>> probably be frowned upon by conspiracists as "not good enough".
They weren't even aware of the assassination attempt in Tampa THAT WAS COVERED
IN THE NEWSPAPER! (although, to be fair, it was only one article before getting
'hushed up')
>> Can there be any DOUBT about that?
>>
>> >>> "...Its conclusions..." <<<
>>
>> The WC's conclusions are the ONLY reasonable conclusions based on the
>> evidence in the case.
Then most of America is unreasonable.
>> If the WC had arrived at any other "conclusions" (other than the ones
>> they reached), such conclusions would have had been based on nothing
>> but guesswork.
Or it *could* have been based on the evidence that they had in front of them.
DVP can't explain the provable lies the WC told about it's own evidence.
>> Was the Warren Commission REALLY supposed to go down the crazy, kooky
>> path that CTers like Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison have chosen to go
>> down since 1963?
>>
>> I.E.: A path that features NO physical evidence of conspiracy. None.
Why lie?
>> Only shadows and perceived-to-exist "plots" by various groups and
>> individuals who CTers say had a "motive" to kill JFK are presented by
>> the likes of Garrison, et al.
>>
>> I can just see the last page of the Warren Report if they had decided
>> to ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-Alone evidence and followed the CT-
>> Kook course for a conclusion.....
>>
>> "The Commission has determined (as the autopsy doctors determined)
>> that only two bullets struck the victims in Dealey Plaza....and the
>> bulk of the evidence indicates that three shots were fired....with
>> those shots (via the preponderance of credible evidence) coming from
>> the Sniper's Nest window on the TSBD's 6th Floor....and those three
>> shots, based on the wealth of overall evidence, came from Lee Oswald's
>> Carcano rifle....but....
>>
>> The Commission also is forced to conclude that this raw evidence is
>> tainted in some fashion, and we also "feel" in our hearts that the
>> assassination of President Kennedy was probably due to a conspiracy
>> "of some sort".
>>
>> We, the Commission, have found no hard evidence to support the notion
>> of any conspiracy in this case....but our GUT feeling is that the
>> "plot" exists....somewhere. We don't know exactly where....but we feel
>> it's there....somewhere.
>>
>> Signed, Earl Warren; Hale Boggs; John Cooper; Gerald Ford (et al)...."
This sort of meaningless speculation is at the heart of all LNT'er posts...
>>>>> "...Its complete and utter lack of comment on destruction of evidence by law
>>enforcement and intelligence agencies." <<<
>>
>> Name one thing that was "destroyed" (other than the "Hosty note").
The military intelligence file of Oswald.
(You only requested one.)
>> >>> "Their star witness was bogus, Howard Brennan." <<<
>>
>> I'll take Howard Brennan over Jean Hill, Ed Hoffman, and Gordon Arnold
>> any day.
Yet you can't believe what Brennan said.
>> BTW, you haven't even read the Warren Report, have you?
Read and *re-read* it... the *REAL* question is have you read the testimony that
they relied on?
Bud
TOP POST: Ben is too big a pussy to engage DVP (or myself) in
discussion. He challenges what we say, asks us questions,ect, knowing
full way it`s likely he won`t see any counterpoints or answers to the
questions he poses.
David Von Pein
>>> "Whom disproved the HSCA's theory?" <<<
Steve Barber (for starters).
And the NAS (NRC).
And Dale Myers.
===========================================
"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the
place where he had to be, you would falsify {the acoustics evidence}."
-- G. Robert Blakey; 2003
===========================================
Well, Dale Myers has certainly done that, Mr. Blakey. ......
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
In fact, upon looking at the Robert Hughes film a few additional times
recently, it's very, very easy to debunk the HSCA's acoustics
(Dictabelt) evidence via JUST THE HUGHES FILM ALONE.
Why?
Because it's obvious from the Hughes Film that there is not going to
be a DPD police motorcycle in the area near the intersection of Elm &
Houston Streets by the time the first shot occurs (which the HSCA said
was fired at about Zapruder Frame #157).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0039a.htm
Robert Hughes' November 22 filmmaking vantage point (looking due north
from the corner of Main & Houston Streets) is ideal for determining
whether a police motorcycle was (or could have been) near the Elm/
Houston intersection at the time when the HSCA said it was essential
for a cycle to be located there.
The Hughes Film follows the President's car as it turns the corner at
Elm and Houston. This would be only a matter of about 2 to 3 seconds,
at most, before the first shot was fired, per the HSCA analysis. And
we can even see JFK's limo completely disappear from view around the
Elm corner before Hughes stops filming momentarily.
And guess what? -- THERE IS NO MOTORCYCLE ANYWHERE NEAR THE CORNER OF
ELM & HOUSTON AT THIS CRITICAL POINT IN TIME ON THE HUGHES FILM.
Nor, for that matter, is there any motorcycle visible on Houston
Street AT ALL in the crucial seconds after President Kennedy's car has
made its turn onto Elm.
Moreover, it's not until a few seconds AFTER Kennedy's limo turns the
corner onto Elm that we get our first glimpse of Officer H.B. McLain,
as he comes into Hughes' view in the foreground (with McLain having
just then started his turn from Main onto Houston). And it was McLain
who was supposed to be very near the Elm corner at the time of the
first shot, according to the HSCA.
So, while it's very nice, indeed, that Dale Myers has taken the time
and effort to synchronize all of the various films together (to prove
beyond any and all doubt that no motorcycle was near the Elm corner
when the HSCA needed the policeman's open microphone there), I think
it's fairly obvious that pretty much the very same acoustical
debunking can be achieved by watching JUST the Robert Hughes film.
The Hughes Film is linked below. Freeze the film at the 0:24 mark, and
take note of the left-hand lanes of the entire length of Houston
Street. There's not a police motorcycle to be seen. .....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEPyzR1c_mc
David Von Pein
And it takes a total moron to not see that the basic bottom-line
conclusions of both the WC and the HSCA (sans the Dictabelt crap) were
identical right down the line. Let's take a "WC/HSCA" inventory re.
this "bottom-line" matter:
1.) Three shots were fired (again, after the silly HSCA 4th Shot is
taken away due to the acoustical evidence being hopelessly flawed from
the get-go).
2.) Shot 1 is a miss.
3.) Shot 2 is the "SBT" shot.
4.) Shot 3 is the fatal shot to JFK's head.
5.) All three shots came from the TSBD (again, sans the Dictabelt
nonsense).
6.) All three shots were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.
7.) All three shots came from Oswald's Carcano rifle.
8.) No group or individual could be tied to LHO with respect to the
assassination. Hence, no specific "conspiracy" connections have ever
surfaced. Not from the WC. And not from the HSCA.
9.) Lee Oswald, alone, shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit.
~MARK VII time~
David Von Pein
===================================
>>> "The "SBT" proposed by the HSCA was a different one than that proposed by the WC." <<<
Ahhh, the Hair-Splitter's Convention is in town. Nice.
I guess Ben The Ultra-Kook must believe that the WC's SBT involved a
completely different bullet from the bullet that the HSCA used for its
SBT.
And I guess Ben thinks the wounds were all "different" on the two men
after the single bullet hit them both (depending on which
investigation you look at).
Kooky.
>>> "Then most of America is unreasonable." <<<
Only because the "Anybody But Oswald" kooks like you have made them
think the way the do.
It's called the "snowball" effect. (Plus the fact that only a tiny
handful of people who have been involved in the JFK Assassination
Polls have any idea what the real evidence is re. the case. They want
to believe Ollie Stone and not Earl Warren. It pretty much boils down
to that.
>>> "Considering that polls have placed the numbers of Americans who BELIEVE in a conspiracy as high as 90%..." <<<
Why lie?
>>> "Why lie?" <<<
Just what I asked.
>>> "The military intelligence file of Oswald {was destroyed}." <<<
Now all you have to do is prove there was a "Military Intelligence
File" on Oswald TO destroy.
Can you do that?
What's it feel like supporting a twin-killer every day of your life,
Mister Super-Kook? I would think that might get tiresome after several
decades of trying to prop up that obvious "Patsy"-tinged lie. Does it?
Just wonderin'.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192485863.4...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "A Rock n Roll Drummer and, a CARTOONIST." <<<
And don't forget our favorite Depends-wearing Grand Poobah named ----
Tommy Toenail!
Papa Andy
David
I would never dispute your 'right' to smirk
but remember
you were the one who brought up the argument that CTs did not read the
Warren Report
I pointed out that I did
and at a time when there were no CT books in mass circulation
A
PS it is still unconvincing
chuck schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
What part?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192506745.4...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...