DVP'S ASSASSINATION POLL
David Von Pein
I'm interested in finding out just how far away from the "mainstream"
the JFK conspiracy theorists are at the alt.assassination.jfk and
alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroups, with the "mainstream" being
represented, at least in part, by the ABC News poll shown below (as
far as the specific question of "Did Lee Oswald Shoot JFK With A
Gun?", that is).
Here are the results of the ABC News poll, which was conducted in
November 2003:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
Poll Source:
http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
---------------
My poll in this thread is (quite obviously) designed for conspiracy
believers only, because the answers to my two questions are always
going to be "Yes" when answered by any and all lone-assassin
proponents.
If everyone who responds to my poll in this thread would answer the
two questions in the following brief and concise manner, I'd
appreciate it:
1.) Yes or No.
2.) Yes or No.
No other commentary is needed (unless you feel compelled to provide
additional remarks).
==========================================
THE QUESTIONS:
1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
==========================================
Thanks in advance to everyone who decides to participate in my poll.
aeffects
troll elsewhere moron.....
NO advertising
David Von Pein
Why don't you answer the two questions, aeffects? It won't take long.
aeffects
> Why don't you answer the two questions, aeffects? It won't take long.
It makes no difference who fired the shots, moron. A conspiracy
murdered JFK. The Warren Commission LIED!
David Von Pein
Why not take a crack at answering the two questions in my poll,
aeffects?
It won't take too long to type "No" twice.
mucher1
Perhaps you should have included "Beats me" and "Who gives a sh!t?" in
the set of options.
aeffects
English your second language, troll?
David Von Pein
>>> "English your second language, troll?" <<<
Come again.
I don't speak "retard", Mr. aeffects, so you'll have to guide me
through your latest hunk of incoherence.
Gil Jesus
You spend all your time insulting people, then you seek to ellicit
responses from them.
People are not going to dignify your silly posts with responses.
Stick your poll up your a$$.
David Von Pein
THE A.A.J. VERSION OF MY POLL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33da925fd0c7ab
>>> "We've discussed that ABC poll before and you know full well it was [a] flawed poll with incredibly misleading results." <<<
Nonsense, Pat Speer. The following question from the ABC poll (which
twice includes the key word--"GUNMAN") is about as cut-and-dry (and
NON-misleading) as you can get:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
http://PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
So, unless the 1,031 people who took part in that ABC News poll were
completely retarded, it means that 83% of those 1,031 people are of
the opinion that OSWALD SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY. Period. And that's an
opinion that a large percentage of the people who post at the acj &
aaj forums do not agree with.
And as we can see via just the first-day "returns" in this poll of
mine, only 25% of the conspiracy theorists who offered up a firm
opinion about my #1 question ("DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED
ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?") think that
Lee Oswald fired any shots at JFK....1 out of 4 people.*
* = Not counting Tony Marsh, who answered "Unknown", or Steve Barber
(because he's an LNer, and I specifically stated that I really didn't
want any LNers to respond to my poll's questions, because it's obvious
what their answers are going to be).
Obviously, just 4 people isn't a very large representative sample, but
it's something to build on, and (as I fully expected) the 75% of the
four respondents thus far who fall into the "OSWALD DID NOT SHOOT
KENNEDY" category is not even close to the mere 7% who occupied that
category in the 2003 ABC News poll.
===================================================
ABC'S 2003 ASSASSINATION POLL--83% THINK OSWALD WAS SHOOTING AT JFK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2
===================================================
mucher1
I guess a straight answer to a straight question was a bit much to
hope for. People like Gil Jesus don't have a straight bone in their
entire body.
timstter
Why how very Christian of you, Verm.
Kicked off any threads calling people *nutcases* lately?
Looks like you dignified his post with a response, BTW.
KUTGW, Bald Verm!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
> On Feb 26, 9:29 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You spend all your time insulting people, then you seek to ellicit
> > responses from them.
>
> > People are not going to dignify your silly posts with responses.
>
> > Stick your poll up your a$$.
>
> Why how very Christian of you, Verm.
>
> Kicked off any threads calling people *nutcases* lately?
who let you in here you flatfooted *uppah-nu-yawk* dimwitted fatass...
are we suppose to be impressed with your losing ways.... noooooooooo,
you conjure nothing but pity here shithead!
KUTGW fatass
...
Gil Jesus
> who let you in here you flatfooted *uppah-nu-yawk* dimwitted fatass...
> are we suppose to be impressed with your losing ways.... noooooooooo,
> you conjure nothing but pity here shithead!
> KUTGW fatass
Doesn't look like his silly poll is going well in this newsgroup;.
David Von Pein
>>> "Doesn't look like his silly poll is going well in this newsgroup." <<<
What's silly about it? It goes to the basic core issues of this whole
case.
Why not just simply answer the two questions? That way, I'll have a
few additional pieces of data to feed to the computer at Langley when
my CIA Disinfo boss asks for them soon. (You don't want to get me in
Dutch with the Langley boys, do you Gil?)
===========================================
THE QUESTIONS:
1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
===========================================
Sam Brown
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cce3e9ec-a225-4ab6...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
A definite yes to both questions.
aeffects
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:cce3e9ec-a225-4ab6...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
definitley tuna....D-I-A-N-E
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f771b7fd-0619-46b1...@k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
definitley tuna....D-I-A-N-E
Nice wig.....J-U-N-K-I-E. Make your mind up you drug addled fool, I thought
I was four elephants Sam Brown. Do you need Girly's retarded investigative
skills to tell you what to think? Pathetic.
David Von Pein
>>> "The people answered based upon the question of whether or not Oswald was involved. You have extrapolated from this that ALL these people thought he was a shooter. Being involved does not equal being a shooter. It follows then that many responded in a manner indicating Oswald was a shooter because they didn't want to say he wasn't involved at all." <<<
To believe Pat Speer here, we have no choice but to believe that a
large number of the 1,031 people who responded to the question shown
below (which was part of a 2003 ABC News poll) decided to TOTALLY
IGNORE the key word "GUNMAN" which appears in the FIRST TWO-THIRDS of
the question. Patrick Speer must, indeed, be of the opinion that
almost all of the people who responded to this question were retarded
and/or complete idiots (because, per Speer, the majority of these
people should have really answered "No Opinion" to this question,
instead of answering as they did):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?":
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
http://www.PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "If, on the other hand, you continue to play this game, and continue to insist that the vast majority of those suspecting a conspiracy believe Oswald shot Kennedy as part of a conspiracy..." <<<
It's not a "game" at all, Pat. I think that ABC News poll is probably
pretty doggone accurate and likely represents the thoughts of the
"mainstream" in America fairly well regarding Oswald's involvement AS
A GUNMAN in JFK's murder.
It's only the outer-fringe conspiracy believers (like the CTers who
occupy forums such as acj and aaj) who represent a "majority" in the
Anybody-But-Oswald club. But I'd wager to say that the majority of
people in the world who have an opinion on the matter think Oswald
took some shots at Kennedy.
>>> "...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA? In which case Bugliosi and all other critics of Stone would also owe him an apology, as it would prove those suspecting a conspiracy had completely rejected Stone's proposition Oswald was a patsy, and had formed their own conspiracy theory based upon the films or writings of...no one. So, for which of these reasons does Bugliosi (and you, and every other LN on this forum claiming Stone had misled millions of people into believing a conspiracy in which Oswald was a patsy) owe Stone an apology? We're waiting..." <<<
Pat, you're resembling Mister Salty more every day -- i.e., you seem
to like to "twist" things all out of shape.
How many hours of pondering did it take you before writing that last
hunk of silliness about Bugliosi owing Oliver Stone an "apology" (of
all things!)?
Good Lord, you think that Bugliosi owes Stone AN APOLOGY for mangling
virtually all of the facts in the JFK case in his 1991 fantasy movie?!
And you think this "apology" is in order because the general public at
large (per the ABC poll at least) believes that Oswald really wasn't
the innocent patsy (i.e., a non-gunman) as portrayed in Stone's film,
even though most of that same general public still believes in a
conspiracy of some kind to kill Kennedy?
You must be kidding.
BTW, you think "no one" has ever written a book or magazine article or
newspaper story or movie or TV show that has Oswald being a gunman in
conjunction with a conspiracy? That's really a strange thing to say,
Pat, because not EVERY pro-conspiracy book or article advocates Oswald
as a non-gunman or innocent dupe.
A good thing for Pat (or anybody) to do would be to conduct a "poll"
of their own, and ask a whole bunch of strangers on the street (or
several friends and relatives) the two key questions that I asked in
my poll in this forum thread:
1.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
2.) DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED DALLAS POLICE
OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
After getting, let's say, about 40 or 50 firm "Yes" or "No" answers
(especially to question #1), what do you think the results would be?
Would the results be closer to ABC's 7% in the "OSWALD WAS NOT A
GUNMAN" category? Or would the percentage in that category be much
higher than ABC's 7% (like it is at every JFK forum on the planet)?
Might be interesting to find out, huh?
If the CIA didn't have me chained to this computer 24/7, I might even
try conducting that poll myself.
REPRISE:
>>> "...you should at least enlighten us as to who these people think Oswald was working for. Was it the mafia? .... Or was it the CIA?" <<<
For an answer, take a look at another section of that same Polling
Report link that I keep posting. That exact question was asked as part
of the Gallup Poll in November 2003, with 37% of the 471 respondents
saying the Mafia was involved, while 34% favored the CIA. And 18% said
Lyndon Johnson had a hand in the assassination:
aeffects
David Von Pein
>>> "troll elsewhere moron..." <<<
Why? Most of the kooks and retards are right here.
I doubt I could earn my CIA Disinfo salary by posting JFK-related
posts at http://cooking.com.
(Duh.)
David Von Pein
>>> "I bet you can't even think of a way that Oswald could be involved without being one of the shooters." <<<
Sure I can, Tony [Marsh]. But what's the point in doing that? All
sensible people KNOW that Oswald was a shooter. For REASONABLE and
sensible people, that particular fact is BEYOND debate. Oswald was
firing a rifle at Kennedy. Period.
And that's what the 2003 ABC News poll reflects--a mainstream belief
(83% of 1,031 people polled) that Lee Harvey Oswald had a gun in his
hands on November 22, 1963, and was firing that gun at President
Kennedy.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33da925fd0c7ab/1216450972710744?#1216450972710744
Oh, for Pete sake.
Via the above-linked post, Pat Speer has taken my simple question at
the beginning of this poll (i.e., a question to determine if the
"mainstream" figure of 7% who think Oswald was NOT A GUNMAN [based on
a 2003 ABC News poll only] is anywhere close to the thinking of the
people occupying these forums) and has extended and stretched it far
beyond what I designed it to be.
Go back to my first post, Pat, and see if you can figure out what I
was trying to really do with my "poll". I'm not typing out a bunch of
additional words to again explain something that should be quite
evident from Post #1.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33da925fd0c7ab/df84c1f007150149?#df84c1f007150149
>>> "Neither you nor...[Vincent Bugliosi] believes that poll. Not even for one second. And I wish you'd just admit it." <<<
I have absolutely no good reason to disbelieve or distrust that
particular ABC News poll. The question that TWICE has the word
"gunman" attached to it is as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's
face.
But if I WERE to disbelieve that "7%" ABC poll, where does that really
lead? I'll tell you where -- such a belief leads to a vast MAJORITY of
Americans actually falling into "Kookville". Because under such
conditions of totally disbelieving that ABC poll, the vast majority of
Americans (just like the majority of CTers at every JFK forum known to
man) really DON'T believe Lee Oswald fired even a single shot at
President Kennedy.
Do you REALLY want me to come out and say that I believe that MOST
Americans are kooks when it comes to their beliefs in the JFK case --
from the limited standpoint, that is, of the question that I asked in
my own poll in this thread: "DO YOU THINK LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED ANY
GUNSHOTS AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?"?
I guess I COULD come out and say that the majority of Americans (the
"mainstream", that is) are just exactly like all of the "Anybody But
Oswald" conspiracy theorists on the JFK forums, but the 2003 ABC News
poll linked again below is making it very difficult for me to believe
such a thing.
>>> "According to the [ABC News] poll...the arguments of most every conspiracy theorist, including Oliver Stone, have been thoroughly rejected by the public. If the public has already rejected these theories, then, WHY would Bugliosi spend 1500 pages or so trying to prove them wrong? What is he, a geriatric, with nothing better to do with his time than argue a case he has already won?" <<<
Huh? Are you high on conspiracy fumes or something, Pat??!
You think that Vince Bugliosi had already "won" the case, even with
these conspiracy numbers staring him in the face in 2003 (four years
before his JFK book was published)?:
GALLUP POLL:
ONE MAN ----------- 19%
OTHERS INVOLVED -- 75%
NO OPINION --------- 6%
=============
ABC NEWS POLL:
ONE MAN -------- 22%
BROADER PLOT -- 70%
NO OPINION ----- 8%
=============
Pat Speer seems to think that the ONLY thing that Mr. Bugliosi wanted
to accomplish in his book "Reclaiming History" was to show that Oswald
fired shots at JFK.
Yes, indeed, establishing that Oswald was guilty of shooting President
Kennedy was certainly one of Vince's goals when he wrote his book--no
doubt about that. But a large part of "RH" is called "BOOK TWO:
DELUSIONS OF CONSPIRACY: WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN", which takes up a little
more than 40% of the book (and CD-ROM of endnotes).
And in "Book Two", Bugliosi is not really talking about Oswald's
guilt, because he already establishes LHO's guilt in "Book One". The
last words that VB writes at the end of "Book One" are these words:
"Since we can be absolutely sure that Oswald killed Kennedy, he
could not have been a "patsy" (i.e., he could not have been "framed")
as many conspiracy theorists love to say. By definition, you can't
frame someone who is guilty; you frame INNOCENT people. To frame, per
the dictionary, means "to incriminate an innocent person through the
use of false evidence." Since we know Oswald was guilty, we thereby
know that no other person or persons killed Kennedy and framed Oswald
for the murder they committed. Therefore, the only remaining issue
worthy of discussion is whether Oswald acted alone, that is, whether
he was a part of a conspiracy to murder the president." -- VINCENT
BUGLIOSI; PAGE 969 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
--------
So, even if a large number of people (83% via the ABC News poll) do
agree with Vince that Oswald was firing shots at JFK in Dealey Plaza,
that doesn't mean that Bugliosi's job in "Reclaiming History" was
completed. Not by a longshot. Because, as another question in that
same ABC poll vividly demonstrates, there's still the 70% of Americans
who believe in a conspiracy (whether they believe Oswald was a shooter
or not).
aeffects
out of curiosity, why are you (and your other alias[es]) so hostile to
the possible concept: a conspiracy murdered JFK?