JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 911)

[David Von Pein]

"TLR" SAID:

Would you like me to tell you what clothes the shooters were wearing and
what they had for breakfast too?

There are some things we will never be sure of. The outlines of the plot
are clear: elements within the military and intelligence community, with
help from their blood brothers in the mob and some Cuban exiles, hated
JFK's foreign policy and wanted to remove Castro and escalate the Cold
War.

The plotters were not trying to create a "lone nut" scenario. They were
trying to create a "Communist conspiracy." So they set up a guy who could
feasibly be linked to Castro and the KGB. Then they hoped to make Oswald
disappear (the story would have been that he had been flown to Mexico and
then to Cuba - actually he would have been killed). The public would
believe that the assassin was hiding in Cuba, and demand a new invasion of
the island.


J. P. SULLIVAN SAID:

TLR:

You have;

No forensic evidence.
No medical evidence.
No physical evidence.
No ballistic evidence.

You can't tell us where the shooter(s) were precisely positioned.
You don't know the type of weapons that were fired.
You don't know the make or type of ammunition that was fired.
You don't know how many shots were fired.
You don't know how the shooter(s) managed to escape from Dealey Plaza undetected while carrying there firearms.

I'd say you have a firm foundation for a case of conspiracy.

Whenever you and the dissenting bands of conspiracy breathers get around
to ironing out your differences, let us know which theory you all support.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bingo, J.P.!

But a complete lack of evidence never stopped a good conspiracy advocate.
And probably never will.


ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

Again, where is the irrefutable evidence that Oswald didn't do it? And
where is the giant leap made from having a suspicious motive or reason for
doing something to connecting that with what Oswald actually did?

Do the "Best Books" have these answers? (by the way, Kennedy actually
increased the Pentagon budget, even a few months before his death and it's
still debatable whether or not the Vietnam War would have happened if he
lived. I, personally, think it would have. Kennedy was an avid opponent of
Communist expansion and he doesn't like to lose. He would have honored our
treaty commitment to Vietnam, but would have tried his best to do it
without going to war).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

TLR,

What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is there that you think proves conspiracy?

Anything? Anything at all?


TLR SAID:

David, you (like Bugliosi, Posner and McAdams) have known very well for
years that the official story is wrong. Only you know your motivation for
continuing to defend it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just what I thought, TLR. You've got no physical evidence. Thanks.


TLR SAID:

How many hours a day do you spend arguing with people all over the web,
and then collecting these 'debates' on your blogs? I really can't fathom
it. It's pretty scary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You get scared pretty easily then, don't you, TLR?

You think it's "scary" that I choose to archive my posts and discussions
on my websites? That's a curious thing to be frightened of.

But I'm not always obsessed 24/7 by the JFK case. I've got lots of other
non-JFK sites too that focus on different things that shouldn't scare you
(unless you like scary movies and creepy OTR radio shows).


TLR SAID:

Yes, your taste in old movies, TV shows and radio is very similar to mine.
I'm a horror fiction fan too. We probably have a lot in common if we keep
away from the JFK assassination.


ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

So are you [TLR] saying that this sinister Military-Industrial
establishment chose to murder the President of the United States because
they didn't get their way or disagreed with his policies? If this
connection is still in existence, and was around even before Kennedy, then
why haven't any other Presidents been eliminated in this matter? Is it
because they agreed with the policies of every other President?

And they chose the loser Oswald to carry out this murder in public, using
a mail order rifle, shooting it from a distance, at a moving target with
only the head and top of the shoulders visible. The "Confederacy of
Dunces" scenario is in play here. Was this their only option? There was no
other way to kill him? If they wanted to remove him from office they could
have just played a political game or blackmailed him or just threaten to
reveal his personal life, have the press do it for them.


J. P. SULLIVAN SAID:

Allan;

Don't be absurd! Your way is much too simplistic!

It's much better to eliminate the president through a complex set of
procedures by an unknown group of people that left not a scrap of paper
behind to track their movements, to be shot by an unknown group of gunmen
that were unseen before, during and after the assassination and covered up
by a super-secret shadowy government that was in cahoots with the media to
keep everything hush-hush. Now THAT makes way more sense! Don't you agree?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And always remember this too ---

According to nearly 100% of the "Internet" conspiracy theorists, the
plotters who killed President Kennedy thought it was a GOOD IDEA to shoot
at the President from both the FRONT and the back in order to (somehow)
frame the lone patsy located in the Book Depository Building on Elm
Street.

Multiple guns, but a lone patsy.

Brilliant plan, huh?

Such a plot is almost 100% guaranteed to fail once the first frontal shot
strikes any victim in the limousine. And yet most conspiracy supporters
actually believe the assassination was PRE-planned that way. Go figure.

EDIT -- To illustrate what I just said about Internet conspiracists
believing in the "Patsy" silliness, just one hour after I wrote my comment
above, I ran across this comment elsewhere on Amazon (written by the
ubiquitous Ralph Yates).....

"Oswald was innocent and was set-up by the CIA as a patsy in their
assassination of Kennedy." -- Ralph Yates; March 8, 2015


TLR SAID:

David -

Yes, the ideal would have been a single shot fired from the rear in the
back of JFK's head (probably from the Dal-Tex building). No one would have
been able to tell it didn't come from the TSBD. But as I said before, the
plotters were interested in creating a "Communist conspiracy," not a "lone
nut" scenario.

Probably the first shot or two came from the rear. Perhaps a combination
of sabot charges (so a Carcano bullet could be fired from a different
rifle) and/or silencers on the rifles (the technology was still
questionable at the time) caused the shots to go wrong (hitting the
street, or hitting JFK in the upper back). The shooters in the front were
meant to be backups only.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You see, folks, this is what always happens when a conspiracy theorist
makes an attempt to explain (actually explain AWAY) all of the evidence
that shows Lee Oswald to be the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza. The result is
that the CTer is forced to make himself look very silly---which "TLR" just
did above in his feeble attempt to explain away everything via his
make-believe theory involving things like "sabots" and "silencers".

And the idea that such a goofy MULTI-SHOOTER, SINGLE-PATSY plan would have
even been CONSIDERED in the first place by anyone is something that
doesn't even pass the initial laugh test. (Except if you're a CTer like
TLR.)

And this part of TLR's narrative above is a huge riot....

"The plotters were interested in creating a "Communist conspiracy," not a
"jlone nut" scenario." -- TLR

Well, TLR, if that was really the case on 11/22/63, then why the need for
all the "sabots" and "silencers" and such in Dealey Plaza? If the plot was
to CREATE the appearance of a "Communist conspiracy", then why on Earth
would the "real killers" have cared if the evidence proved that more than
one shooter was involved? Your statements are contradictory.

On the one hand, you're saying it was the DESIRE of the plotters to create
a "Communist conspiracy"; but on the other hand, they jumped through many
hoops AFTER the assassination in order to make it appear as if there was
NO CONSPIRACY at all.

That's another problem with CTers (as J.P. Sullivan and Allan Johnson have
already pointed out several times previously) -- the conspiracy believers
don't know which way the conspiracy wind was blowing on November 22nd.
Hence, they can't put together any semblance of a reasonable or
semi-coherent theory that actually FITS all of the evidence in this case.

What the conspiracy advocates are forced to do, therefore, in order to
make everything "fit" (especially after someone like myself points out the
total absurdity of pre-planning an assassination by utilizing more than
one gunman while attempting to frame a single shooter), is to create
additional myths and theories to attach to other theories -- like TLR's
contradictory mess of an assassination plot that he talked about above.

"Oswald's Game" author Jean Davison said it so well in her book....

"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these
writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that
explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left
his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the
Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any
detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less
plausible than one that argues his guilt." -- Jean Davison; Page 276 of
"Oswald's Game" (W.W. Norton; 1983)


TLR SAID:

No one has been able to plausibly explain why Oswald, acting alone, didn't
shoot at the car coming up Houston Street, or while turning onto Elm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Simply not true, TLR. Many "lone assassin" advocates (including myself)
have placed on the table a very reasonable and logical answer to the
proverbial question that CTers never get tired of asking -- i.e., Why
didn't Oswald shoot when the limo was on Houston Street? (In fact, Allan
Johnson, just before me in this thread, provided yet another possible--and
reasonable--explanation.)

With just a tiny bit of thought (and common sense), several satisfactory
answers easily rise to the surface....

"The positioning of those boxes in that window also tends to answer
another of the conspiracy theorists' favorite questions -- the question of
why Oswald didn't take the "best shot", per the theorists, while the
President's car was on Houston Street.

In addition to the fact that by waiting until both JFK's car and the
Secret Service follow-up vehicle had turned the corner onto Elm Street
(thereby making sure that the majority of the "firepower" in the Plaza,
possessed by the Secret Service agents, all had their BACKS to the
assassin) -- there's also that pre-arranging of book cartons in the
sniper's window.

The cartons were placed in the window in such a way that we can pretty
much KNOW that the killer (Mr. Oswald) had every intention from the GET-GO
of only firing shots at the President AFTER the limousine had turned onto
Elm Street.

And I think it's fairly logical to assume that those book cartons were
PRE-positioned in such a "Rifle Will Always Point West" fashion prior to
the motorcade ever coming into Oswald's line of sight. For, Oswald surely
didn't want to have to deal with arranging his rifle rest AFTER the
President's car had already come into view, when seconds were precious to
him." -- DVP; April 2006

David Von Pein
March 9-11, 2015

Full Discussion:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R119KZ3PS3X9BA/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=1939521238&cdForum=FxCC3LCB21Q3SD&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3IPO74D8HUW8&store=books#wasThisHelpful

[BOZ]

EVEN THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS A CONSPIRACY (911).

[BOZ]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 9:46:15 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

David Von Pein delivers a KNOCKOUT PUNCH RIGHT HERE:"it was a GOOD IDEA to

shoot at the President from both the FRONT and the back in order to
(somehow) frame the lone patsy located in the Book Depository Building on

Elm." TEN COUNT!

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 9:46:15 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

As usual DVP has made himself the hero of the piece at the expense of
all the names he pulled in.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Becoming a "hero" amid a sea of irrational conspiracy theorists on the
Internet who don't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the
evidence in the JFK murder case is the easiest thing in the world to
accomplish. It's akin to----breathing.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Unlike Mark Lane, DVP didn't take anybody's remarks out of context or
otherwise distort what they actually said.

[BOZ]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 10:59:43 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

Do you think that he lost the argument?

[David Von Pein]

ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

The reenactment films and demonstrations I've seen about the view from the
6th floor show it was not a clear shot for most of the ride on Houston
Street, only when it was approaching and turning on Elm St.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's hard to say, since the Secret Service never used for the
re-enactments the same kind of stretch limousine that JFK rode in on
November 22. The SS only used a stock model Lincoln convertible, without
the jump seats in the middle of the car.

The three images below are ones I captured from the Secret Service film
while the "re-enactment car" was on Houston Street. If this had been a
stretch Lincoln Continental, like President Kennedy's, the back seat
would, of course, have been further AWAY from the windshield, due to the
presence of the extra jump seats in the center of the vehicle:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tHDz08ByraA/VQGQdqCftGI/AAAAAAABEpg/OlVcFeWvPgI/s1600/Screen-Captures-From-1963-Secret-Service-Film.png

[Ace Kefford]

David,

Appreciate as usual your efforts at trying to clear out the nonsense.

There is, however, a flaw in writing about those "who don't have the

slightest idea how to properly evaluate the evidence in the JFK murder

case". Most of them have no desire or intent to "properly evaluate the
evidence," but rather what they want to do is continue to support their
"faith" or "belief" regardless of where the evidence points or even
proves. They are fundamentalists and true believers, and other than the
occasional miracle conversion will never change or learn.

[mainframetech]

and then there's the guy that thinks what he knows is right regardless
of evidence. Probably a follower of the WC religion.

Chris

[bigdog]

I believe at some point on Houston St, Oswald would have had a clear line
of sight to JFK. The closer the limo got to the TSBD, the clearer that
line would have become as your photos suggest. However as the limo got
closer, the relative movement of his target in relation to his firing line
would have become greater, making his shot more difficult.

The biggest problem with taking the shot on Houston St. is not the
difficulty of the shot but the fact he would be facing his target as well
as the protection detail, increasing the likelihood not only that he would
be spotted before getting off a shot but be subject to return fire if he
did get a shot off without being spotted first. Leave it to a little
weasel like Oswald to be a back shooter.

Oswald had to make choices as to his best chance for success. Given that
he was apparently successful in accomplishing what he set out to do, I
don't think it is fair to second guess his choices.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:41:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

> >=20

> > The reenactment films and demonstrations I've seen about the view from

> > th=
> e=20

> > 6th floor show it was not a clear shot for most of the ride on

> > Houston=20 Street, only when it was approaching and turning on Elm St.
> >=20
> >=20
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >=20
> > It's hard to say, since the Secret Service never used for the=20
> > re-enactments the same kind of stretch limousine that JFK rode in on=20

> > November 22. The SS only used a stock model Lincoln convertible,

> > without=
> =20

> > the jump seats in the middle of the car.

> >=20

> > The three images below are ones I captured from the Secret Service

> > film=
> =20

> > while the "re-enactment car" was on Houston Street. If this had been

> > a=20 stretch Lincoln Continental, like President Kennedy's, the back
> > seat=20 would, of course, have been further AWAY from the windshield,
> > due to the=
> =20

> > presence of the extra jump seats in the center of the vehicle:

> >=20
> > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tHDz08ByraA/VQGQdqCftGI/AAAAAAABEpg/OlVcFeWvP
> > gI=

> /s1600/Screen-Captures-From-1963-Secret-Service-Film.png
>
> I believe at some point on Houston St, Oswald would have had a clear line
> of sight to JFK. The closer the limo got to the TSBD, the clearer that
> line would have become as your photos suggest. However as the limo got
> closer, the relative movement of his target in relation to his firing
> line would have become greater, making his shot more difficult.
>
> The biggest problem with taking the shot on Houston St. is not the
> difficulty of the shot but the fact he would be facing his target as well
> as the protection detail, increasing the likelihood not only that he
> would be spotted before getting off a shot but be subject to return fire
> if he did get a shot off without being spotted first. Leave it to a
> little weasel like Oswald to be a back shooter.
>
> Oswald had to make choices as to his best chance for success. Given that
> he was apparently successful in accomplishing what he set out to do, I
> don't think it is fair to second guess his choices.

===========================================================================
===== during the turn onto elm street, he could have crushed his head by
dropping a box of books out the window ! !

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[mainframetech]

You haven't second guessed anything. You're simply wrong as usual.
Oswald had no intention of using his MC rifle to shoot anyone, or he would
have found and corrected the faults in the MC rifle that made it
impossible to hit anything aimed at. As well, the evidence shows that he
refused to buy ammunition that was offered with the rifle, and he could
not be found to have bought any ammunition later. There wasn't even time
for him to get from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom where he was
found 90 seconds after the shots rang out. Your wild fantasies are
getting to be too much. Soon a white rabbit will run across your path.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Return fire? Are you insane or just never shot any guns? Who would be
able to return fire? Clint Hill on the running board? Where does he aim?
At the roof? At the people he can see hanging out of the 5th floor window?
Get real. Baker knew the shot came from the TSBD. Why didn't he pull out
his revolver and shoot Dorman?

By the time Hickey reacted it was too late. You have to remember that
almost half of the SS agents were drunk or hung over from a night of heavy
drinking. That's what SS agents do, because they're tough guys.

BTW, the steep downward angle and placement of boxes make a shot onto
Houston very difficult. The parade bar also blocks some angles.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 2:03:23 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> ===========================================================================
> ===== during the turn onto elm street, he could have crushed his head by
> dropping a box of books out the window ! !

In that case the SBT would stand for Single Book Theory.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:15:27 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> You haven't second guessed anything. You're simply wrong as usual.
> Oswald had no intention of using his MC rifle to shoot anyone, or he would
> have found and corrected the faults in the MC rifle that made it
> impossible to hit anything aimed at. As well, the evidence shows that he
> refused to buy ammunition that was offered with the rifle, and he could
> not be found to have bought any ammunition later. There wasn't even time
> for him to get from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom where he was
> found 90 seconds after the shots rang out. Your wild fantasies are
> getting to be too much. Soon a white rabbit will run across your path.
>

The Harris Award was created for posts such as this one.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2015 10:15 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 9:27:39 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:41:05 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:
>>>
>>> The reenactment films and demonstrations I've seen about the view from the
>>> 6th floor show it was not a clear shot for most of the ride on Houston
>>> Street, only when it was approaching and turning on Elm St.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> It's hard to say, since the Secret Service never used for the
>>> re-enactments the same kind of stretch limousine that JFK rode in on
>>> November 22. The SS only used a stock model Lincoln convertible, without
>>> the jump seats in the middle of the car.
>>>

Or the parade bar, which could block some shots.

>>> The three images below are ones I captured from the Secret Service film
>>> while the "re-enactment car" was on Houston Street. If this had been a
>>> stretch Lincoln Continental, like President Kennedy's, the back seat
>>> would, of course, have been further AWAY from the windshield, due to the
>>> presence of the extra jump seats in the center of the vehicle:
>>>
>>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tHDz08ByraA/VQGQdqCftGI/AAAAAAABEpg/OlVcFeWvPgI/s1600/Screen-Captures-From-1963-Secret-Service-Film.png
>>
>> I believe at some point on Houston St, Oswald would have had a clear line
>> of sight to JFK. The closer the limo got to the TSBD, the clearer that
>> line would have become as your photos suggest. However as the limo got
>> closer, the relative movement of his target in relation to his firing line
>> would have become greater, making his shot more difficult.
>>
>> The biggest problem with taking the shot on Houston St. is not the
>> difficulty of the shot but the fact he would be facing his target as well
>> as the protection detail, increasing the likelihood not only that he would
>> be spotted before getting off a shot but be subject to return fire if he
>> did get a shot off without being spotted first. Leave it to a little
>> weasel like Oswald to be a back shooter.
>>
>> Oswald had to make choices as to his best chance for success. Given that
>> he was apparently successful in accomplishing what he set out to do, I
>> don't think it is fair to second guess his choices.
>
>
>
> You haven't second guessed anything. You're simply wrong as usual.
> Oswald had no intention of using his MC rifle to shoot anyone, or he would

He bought it only to kill Walker.

[Mark Florio]

You're correct he bought it first to shoot Walker. And then when he had
the opportunity to kill JFK, it was right there at hand. Mark Florio.

[mainframetech]

Instead of making a wisecrack and running madly away, why not try
opposing the information that the MC rifle was not ready for use as a
weapon that could be aimed or fired rapidly while aiming? Or is that one
of the points that your running away from? That would be trying for
another 'bd' award.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 9:46:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Why did he bring it with him to New Orleans? And, according to Marina,
practice using it? I.e., dry firing it, taking it with him to target
practice? And why have numerous discussions with Alba about rifles and
ammunition?

And then bring it back to Ft. Worth/Texas when he returned in late
September?

All of this occurring _after_ the Walker attempt.

Seems to me he had more interest in firearms then just to shoot Walker and
be done with things.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one said it was a good weapon, but it could kill you if you were
standing 5 feet away.

[Anthony Marsh]

He took it to New Orleans so the Dallas cops or FBI wouldn't find it and
connect him to the Walker shooting.

> practice using it? I.e., dry firing it, taking it with him to target
> practice? And why have numerous discussions with Alba about rifles and
> ammunition?

You know how those Texas boys are about their guns.
Are you suggesting that Oswald was planning to assassinate President
Kennedy while he was still in New Orleans?

>
> And then bring it back to Ft. Worth/Texas when he returned in late
> September?
>

It was his damn rifle. Why can't he take his rifle with him wherever he
moves? Ever hear of the second amendment?

> All of this occurring _after_ the Walker attempt.
>
> Seems to me he had more interest in firearms then just to shoot Walker and
> be done with things.
>

Not much.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 9:09:23 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> No one said it was a good weapon, but it could kill you if you were
> standing 5 feet away.
>

Or sitting 88 yards away.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
======= not according to FBI TESTIMONY CORBETT ! ! !
BUT, YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH OFFICIAL TESTIMONY TO BEGIN WITH ARE YOU ! !
!
===========================================================================
=====

[Anthony Marsh]

Didn't kill at 120 feet away.

[bigdog]

Bullets aren't like handgrenades. They don't kill if you just get them
close to your target.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Oswald missed Walker at only 120 feet away.
Stop being silly.

[bigdog]

That's right. Oswald missed. The Carcano didn't miss.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, the Carcano missed.

[mainframetech]

Only if it could be aimed, and it couldn't.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Naah.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The interest is only in the eyes of Marina. And the faults that the
rifle had were never corrected at any time, so there's no way he did any
practicing with the rifle. The scope was misaligned probably from using 2
mounting screws instead of the 3 it needed. The army gunsmith had to shim
it up before they could sight it in properly. The rifle also had a
double-pull trigger and a sticky bolt, both of which would make it almost
impossible to aim and jack in a shell at the same time when trying to
rapid fire with the rifle. The army testers complained about that.

This on Marina:

"After the assassination of John F. Kennedy Marina was taken by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and kept at the Inn of the Six Flags
Hotel. Threatened with deportation, she agreed to give the authorities all
the information she had. Some of this was information was later used by
the Warren Commission to suggest that her husband was the lone assassin."

From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoswaldM.htm

Chris

[mainframetech]

Whatever his intention in regard to Walker, the DPD has said that the
bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker in their 'Offense
Report', and a DPD detective Ira Van Cleave said it looked like a .30.06
shell (Dallas Morning News). The bullet was not from the MC rifle, but
later a phony bullet was shown that looked more like an MC bullet.
Walker himself wrote to them and told them to withdraw the phony bullet,
since he had seen the one fired at him, and the one shown wasn't it.
They ignored him, so it must have been important to try and put some
violence on Oswald.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Which means absolutely nothing.