David Von Pein

[Raymond]

David Von Pein: I would appreciate your opinion and a comment on the
following:

Why would Jack say that he entered the basement of the jail via the
ramp if he entered the building by another entrance? What difference
would it make? Everyone knows that he was in the basement and shot
Oswald. Because , he would have needed inside police help and he
didn't want to involve his friends in the police department.

There is no genuine evidence , other than Jack's own story, that
proves that he entered via the ramp. If there is, I sure would like to
see it. Even the Warren Wizards doubted the tall tale. After claiming
that Ruby entered the basement by way of the ramp, the Report adds: .
".... Although the sum of the evidence tends to support Ruby's claim
that he entered the Main Street ramp, there is other evidence not
consistent with Ruby's story. If Ruby entered by any other means, he
would have had to pass through the Police and Courts Building, and
then secondly through one of the five doors into the basement, all of
which, according to the testimony of police officers were secured .
The testimony was not completely positive about one of the doors. "
(Report, pp. 221-222)

Both the police and the Commission were concerned about the one
door. But they were careful not to investigate the issue to a positive
conclusion because it would almost surely implicate one or more
members of the Dallas police force.

The door in question was near the passenger elevator that opens into
the Municipal Building.

"Despite the thoroughness with which the search was conducted,
there still existed one and perhaps two weak points in controlling
access to the garage. Testimony did not resolve positively whether or
not the stairway door near the public elevators was locked both from
the inside and outside as was necessary to secure it effectively. "
(Report. p. 212)

In his book Conspiracy, Anthony Summers deals with this particular
door:
"In 1979, the Assassination Committee rejected the old story that
Ruby got in down the ramp from the street. Following its own research
on the spot, it plumped instead for a brand-new hypothesis. The
Committee found that Ruby could have got into the basement by
slipping down an alleyway at the side of the police station. In the
middle of the alley is a door opening onto the ground floor of the
building which houses the police station, and from there Ruby could
have reached the basement. It was a far less conspicuous means of
entry than the ramp route and therefore a better choice for a
premeditated approach. The Committee had to consider whether, if he
indeed took this route. Ruby would have been stopped by a locked
internal door leading to the basement. On this point, it once again
encountered the ubiquitous voice of Sergeant (Patrick) Dean. It turned
out that he had vacillated in his statements as to whether the door
could be opened from the outside. On one occasion he had not answered
the question and then said he had been assured by the maintenance man
that the door was secure from both sides. Two maintenance men and a
porter said the opposite. They asserted it could be opened without
using a key, from the direction Ruby would have entered."
( p. 469, 1991 edition)

The Warren Report provides us with a diagram of the basement of
the Dallas Police Building (CE 2179), which shows the three elevators
opening into the garage, and the steps, by the elevators that Ruby
would have used to gain entrance to the basement. They do not however
provide a floor plan of the main floor that would show the alleyway
door that Jack surely used to enter the building.

The truth about the door can be seen by anyone who visits the
corner of Pearl and Main streets, in Dallas. Standing in front of the
former Western Union Office Building, the door to the Municipal
Building can be seen . It is less than a child's stone throw away from
the door to the Western Union.

Additionally, there are over 20 windows on the side of the Municipal
Building that could have been used to signal Jack that the transfer
was in progress.

I wrote an article in PROBE. March-April, 1999 titled Ruby and the
Ramp. I included pictures of the scene showing the door to the side
of the police building and the front of the Western Union Office.
Perhaps Probe would provide a copy of the article.

SEE Western Union where Jack mailed the MO and the door where he
entered the police station (see arrow)
.http://www2.snapfish.com/snapfish/viewsharedphoto/
p=98617123490107826...

SEE plan of basement:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0435a.htm

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Why would Jack [Ruby] say that he entered the basement of the jail

via the ramp if he entered the building by another entrance?" <<<

Good question. It's one I have pondered as well. And my answer can be
found in a very long discussion on my website entitled "How Did Jack Ruby
Get Into The Police Basement?":

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-did-jack-ruby-enter-basement.html

Excerpt:

"As for Ruby possibly wanting to protect a policeman that he knew --
yes, I'll admit that such a scenario is possible. But I'd still say it's
quite unlikely as well. Why? Because after he killed Oswald, Ruby was
trying desperately to CLEAR HIS NAME of any alleged conspiratorial
implications....which would mean that it's very unlikely (in my opinion)
that he would want to jeopardize any such name-clearing on his part by
making up a false story about how he actually gained access into the DPD
basement. Any such false story told by Ruby would have been an untrue tale
that Ruby really couldn't have had any way of knowing with certainty
WOULDN'T be exposed as a lie by someone in the future, thereby making
anything else that came out of Mr. Ruby's mouth the subject of additional
scrutiny and suspicion if his false story was proven to be a lie." -- DVP

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you assume that conspirators are anxious to spill the beans when
they are caught? Ruby was working on an insanity defense. Telling them WHO
let him into the basement would indicate premeditation and conspiracy,
elevating the charges against him.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Why do you assume that conspirators are anxious to spill the beans
when they are caught?" <<<

Does that rule also apply to totally innocent "patsies" named Oswald, who
never shot anyone (per the CT kooks of the world)?

Did Oswald keep totally silent about having any co-conspirators, even
though he really shot nobody (per many CTers, not necessarily Marsh)?

Was Oswald willing to go to the gallows to protect his fellow plotters? Is
that why he never uttered the names "Shaw", "Ferrie", or "Banister" (or
anyone else's name either) during his 2 days in custody?

I've got to admit one thing --- If Oswald was an innocent patsy who never
fired a shot at anyone on 11/22/63, then he was the best "patsy" the Mob
could buy.

Even Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement wasn't aimed at anyone except
the DPD. (Was he merely "deflecting" the patsy remark to keep his Mob
buddies out of trouble?)

[Mike]

People who murder are more than capable of telling a lie.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "People who murder are more than capable of telling a lie." <<<

Of course. No argument there. Oswald is proof of that.

But in Ruby's case, it would have been much better for him not to lie.
If he lies about his means of basement entry, how is anybody supposed
to believe anything else he says about him not being part of a plot?

[Raymond]

Thank you Gentlemen We have a healthy disagreement'
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings unintentionally.

The rules are as follows:

1. Don't call people names. That includes generalizing that all
conspiracy people are "kooks" or all LN advocates are "trolls", or
other similarly derogatory names. Do not call anyone a "liar" even if
they are.

2. Do not insult people. Don't tell us that somebody is an idiot or is
F.O.S. Feel free however, to PROVE that he/she is. It is acceptable to
state that a public figure lied about a specific issue. That includes
witnesses, authors and government figures who are not actively posting
in this forum. But it is still not OK to call them derogatory names.
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=1328.0

WE HAVE HERE AN ANTINOMY
Definition of ANTINOMY
1: a contradiction between two apparently equally valid principles or
between inferences correctly drawn from such principles
2: a fundamental and apparently unresolvable conflict or contradiction
<antinomies of beauty and evil, freedom and slavery — Stephen Holden>
— an·ti·nom·ic \ˌan-ti-ˈnä-mik\ adjective

Origin of ANTINOMY
German Antinomie, from Latin antinomia conflict of laws, from Greek,
from anti- + nomos law — more at nimble
First Known Use: 1592

Learn More About ANTINOMY
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about "antinomy"

I side with the HSCA opinion that Jack entered through the side
door ...The Ruby Door

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the
assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the
shooting of Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until
1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President
John F. Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. However, the committee noted that it believed that the
conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or
Cuba. It also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized
by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it
could not rule out individual members of any of those groups acting
together.

I agree with:
MembersThomas N. Downing, (Virginia) First Chairman
Louis Stokes, (Ohio), Second Chairman
L. Richardson Preyer, (North Carolina)
Walter E. Fauntroy, (District of Columbia)
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, (California)
Christopher Dodd, (Connecticut)
Harold Ford, Sr., (Tennessee)
Floyd Fithian, (Indiana)
Robert W. Edgar, (Pennsylvania)
Samuel L. Devine, (Ohio)
Stewart McKinney, (Connecticut)
Charles Thone, (Nebraska)
Harold S. Sawyer, (Michigan)

Committee staffG. Robert Blakey was Chief Counsel and Staff Director
to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations. After completing
his work on the HSCA, Blakey went on to become the William J. and
Dorothy K. O'Neill Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame,
and is considered the foremost expert on the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

See my picture see arrow of side dood to jail
http://www2.snapfish.com/snapfish/viewsharedphoto/p=986171234901078260/l=443172864/g=1613

HSCA Volume IX: V.... Sunday Nov. 24, 1963
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol9/pdf/HSCA_Vol9_5A_ShootingLHO.pdf

(602) FIGURE 2
148
BASEMENT
DALLAS POLICE DEPT
DALLAS TEXAS

Conclusion
597) The evidence available indicates that Jack Ruby did not come own
the Main Street ramp when Lieutenant Pierce's car exited . The weight
of the eyewitness evidence belies this route, and the testimony of
various witnesses who supported this route was often inconsistent and
inconclusive. Further, the fact that 55 seconds had elapsed between
the time the police car cleared the crowd at the bottom of the ramp
and the moment of the shooting militates against the Main Street ramp
route. This interval would had to have included driving the car up the
ramp, hesitation at the ramp entrance before pulling out into the
street, Ruby's walk down the ramp (312) and his momentarily
positioning himself behind Detective Harrison's shoulder before
darting out to shoot Oswald (a movement which is evident from the
video tapes and photographs of the incident) . (313) While this amount
of
action is possible in that time, it is improbable.

(598)

The alley route was the most likely alternative because of the factors
of time and distance, the lack of security in the garage area and
along the entire route, and the testimony concerning the security at
the doors along the route. This possibility was not considered or
investigated by the FBI or the Dallas Police Department and was
virtually
ignored by the Warren Commission.

(599)

However Ruby got into the basement, there was no concrete evidence to
show that he received any assistance in doing so from a
Dallas Police Department member(314) or anyone else. Ruby himself
denied receiving any assistance. (315) The coincidence of the tuning
of his visit to Western Union and the shooting seems to preclude any
of the assistance theories,(316) as did the uncertainty of officials
as to exactly when and how Oswald would be transferred. Chief Curry
said that there was no possible way for anyone to have known when
Oswald was to be moved, including Chief Curry himself. (317) These
factors made warnings or signals highly improbable.

(600) Nevertheless, the timing was so perfect that it made it
difficult to accept mere coincidence, and it is unlikely that Ruby
entered the basement without some sort of assistance. Thus might have
been in the form of knowledge of the Oswald transfer plans, direct
help in entering the basement, or direct help in both entering and
shooting
Oswald.

(318)

The HSCA reached a different conclussion to that of the Warren
Commission regarding how Ruby gained entrance to the basement ,

"However, the HSCA reached different conclusions and stated in its
report: “The evidence available indicates that Jack Ruby did not come
down the Main Street Ramp when Lieutenant Pierce exited.” It also
stated: “The alley route was the most likely alternative…”

The HSCA went on to conclude: “…it is unlikely that Ruby entered the
basement without some form of assistance. This might have been in the
form of knowledge of the Oswald transfer plans, direct help in
entering the basement, or direct help in both entering and shooting
Oswald.”

"The HSCA also said: “The possibility that Ruby entered via the alley,
went down the stairs and through the basement door is logistically
attractive. Through his knowledge of Dallas Police Headquarters, Ruby
may have been aware of the alley, the stairs and the door, and this
mode of entry would have been much less conspicuous than the others.
It would have enabled Ruby to get into position without having to pass
many persons, since the route went through a fairly empty parking lot
in the basement. Further, most, if not all, people were probably
focusing on the area nearest to the jail office and the ramps,
awaiting Oswald’s appearance.

This path would also have taken Ruby across the garage area through a
railing at a point near the bottom of the Main Street ramp. With
respect to timing, Ruby could have entered the basement via this route
in the four minutes that elapsed between his visit to Western Union
and the shooting. On June 26, 1964, an FBI agent walked through the
route (including going through the railing near the bottom of the
ramp) in response to a request from the Warren Commission; he found it
required 189 steps and 2 minutes and 25 seconds.”

The HSCA went on further to look at the doors Ruby would have had to
go through and whether or not they would have been locked had he
chosen this alternative route:

“Although there were at least three doors along this route, it is
possible they were not or could not be secured. The Warren Commission
noted that there were doubts about whether the door at the bottom of
the fire escape was secured. John O. Servance, the head porter for
these buildings in 1963, said that even when the bottom of the door of
the fire escape is locked in such a way as to prevent egress from the
basement, a person could still open it from within the stairwell. This
was corroborated by two other maintenance employees, Edward Pierce and
Louis McKenzie.”

The HSCA reviewed the statements from several people on this matter
concluded: “...this information raises the possibility that the alley
door was left open, albeit inadvertently, and that if Ruby had gone
through this door, he would have been able to continue to the basement
without locked barricades."

"EVENTS AT THE TOP OF THE MAIN STREET RAMP

At the time of Oswald’s murder, the Main Street ramp was guarded by
Patrolman Roy E. Vaughan. Most of the time he was standing in middle
of the ramp at the top making sure those only persons with the correct
identification could go past him. About a minute before the shooting a
police car came up the ramp and Roy Vaughan had to move out of
position to allow the car to exit the building. Jack Ruby left the
nearby Western Union office a few minutes prior to this event.

If Ruby did enter the basement of Dallas Police Department (DPD)
headquarters via the Main Street ramp then logically there are only
two periods of time during which he could have done this. Firstly,
when there was no car in the process of exiting the building via the
ramp and secondly, when there was a car in the process of exiting via
the ramp. We shall examine these two periods of time separately.

(1) When no car was exiting via the Main Street ramp

Patrolman Vaughn was interviewed twice by the FBI in the month
following the murder of Oswald. He told them that he allowed members
of the police department that he knew to go down the ramp and other
individuals that he had checked their identification before deciding
that it was appropiate to allow them access to the basement. The
interview dated the 2nd of December 1963 states: "Vaughn advised he is
positive Jack Ruby did not enter the Main Street entrance to the ramp
of the Dallas Police Department between 9:30am and 12:45pm. November
24 1963. He says he does Know Jack Ruby by sight as he met him on
official business in 1959..."

At about 11am that morning Vaughn was joined by a former police
officer by the name of Napoleon Daniels. He stood on the east side of
the entrance to the ramp and remained there until after the shooting.
He spoke with Vaughn from time to time as he stood there. His presence
that morning was confirmed by Roy Vaughn in his formal FBI statements.

On the 29th of November 1963 Daniels signed an Affidavid. In this he
stated that nobody went down the main street ramp at the time that a
police squad car was exiting and Roy Vaughn was out of position.
However, he went on to say that he saw a man go down the ramp shortly
after this when Vaughn was back in position on the ramp. Daniels
stated that the man passed between Vaughn and the east side of the
ramp and continued down the ramp. He stated that Vaughn did see him
but did not challenge him or show any signs of recognising him.

This sounds as if Daniels could have witnessed Ruby going down the
Main Street ramp. However, the authorities soon became aware of many
problems with the Affidavid made by Daniels and later statements he
made to the authorities. Firstly, the description of the man given in
the Affidavid, made only 5 days after the event, does not fit how Ruby
would have appeared that day. Daniels stated that the man was "..a
white male approximately 50 years of age, 5'10'', weighing about 155 -
160 pounds, wearing a dark (blue or brown) single breasted suit ,
white shirt and dark coloured tie, this man was not wearing a hat he
had light coloured hair thinning on top, round face, kind of small
head, fair complexion..." The famous photograph of Jack Ruby shooting
Oswald shows a man wearing a hat with dark coloured hair visible below
the brim of his hat.

When interviewed by the FBI on the 4th of December 1963, Daniels
described the man he saw as now being a little shorter at 5' 8-9" and
"he also seemed to recall that he was partly bold" according to the
report which made it a little awkward in the interview when he stated
that he could not recall whether or not the individual was wearing a
hat (if he was wearing a hat how could he tell he was partly bold?)

Secondly, the timing of events given by Daniels was completely wrong.
When the Dallas Police Department Studied tapes of TV recordings made
in the basement that morning they calculated that between the police
car driven by Lieutetenant Pierce leaving the basement and the
shooting of Oswald was 56 seconds. If we allow six seconds for the car
to drive up the ramp and turn on to Main Street then the interval
between Ray Vaughn getting back into position and the shooting of
Oswald would be about 50 seconds. However, in his Affidavid, Daniels
states that Vaughn got back into position and then "several minutes
later" the unknown man appeared and walked down the ramp. He went on
to say that he heard the shot being fired in the basement 2 minutes
after that.

Daniels was later informed by the Dallas Police about the 56 second
time interval between the squad car leaving the basement and the
shooting but when he was interviewed by the Warren Commission a few
months later he still thought that there was 3 or 4 minutes interval
between the car exiting and the shooting. When questioned by Mr Hubert
of the Warren Commission as to when he saw a man go down the ramp,
Daniels said "..I am not sure it was before or after the car came out.
I am not sure I have run that in my mind a thousand times, but I can't
place one before the other."

The following exchange occurred shortly after this when Mr. Hubert
asked him about the time he saw a man walk down the ramp:

Mr. Hubert: "Do you know how long that was before the shot was fired?"

Mr Daniels: "3 or 4 moinutes I guess."

Mr. Hubert: "But what you say is confusing you, is it as to whether or
not that was after the Rio Pierce car came out?”

Mr. Daniels: “I’m not sure I can’t place one before the other if I had
to guess at it I would say it was before.”

Mr. Hubert: “In other words you now think you saw the man go down past
Vaughn before the Rio Pierce car came?”

Mr. Daniels: “Right.”

At this point Mr. Hubert made Napoleon Daniels look through all the
previous statements that he made to the authorities. Daniels then
said:”Well I said I think I have changed my mind now I believe it was
after the car was gone out when I saw him.”

It was obvious to the Warren Commission that there were
inconsistencies in Daniels’s various statements and even within the
same statement as we have just seen. In addition, the timing of events
he described did not correspond with the timing of events worked out
by the police. The Commission expressed the view that Daniels’s story
“merits little credence.”

It should also be said that Mr. Daniels’s version of events does not
fit with Jack Ruby’s claims. Ruby made clear statements that he had
gained access at the time the police car was exiting and Vaughn was
out of position. If Ruby had arrived even just a few seconds after the
car pulled out onto Main Street he would not have been able to tell
the police about Lieutenant Pierce driving out of the building.

We can also note that it contradicts Patrolman Roy Vaughn’s version of
events. If Vaughn had let Ruby walk right past him less than 50
seconds before the shooting without challenging him in any way, then
it would suggest some form of collusion between the two men. However,
Vaughn consistently stated that he only allowed people with proper
authorisation go down into the basement. He also stated that he never
saw Jack Ruby that morning.

Vaughn underwent a polygraph (lie detector) test and he was assessed
as being truthful in all his replies when questioned about his time
guarding the ramp. In contrast, Daniels was subjected to a polygraph
test and he was assessed as being untruthful in all but one of his
responses. This is probably another reason the Warren Commission was
keen to reject his testimony completely."

« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 02:27:20 PM by piopat » Logged

Let us all prey
--- Raymond

[Raymond]

On Jan 11, 9:45 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "People who murder are more than capable of telling a lie." <<<
>
> > Of course. No argument there. Oswald is proof of that.
>
> > But in Ruby's case, it would have been much better for him not to lie.
> > If he lies about his means of basement entry, how is anybody supposed
> > to believe anything else he says about him not being part of a plot?
>
> Thank you  Gentlemen  We have a  healthy disagreement'
> A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone’s feelings unintentionally.
>
> The rules are as follows:
>
> 1. Don't call people names. That includes generalizing that all
> conspiracy people are "kooks" or all LN advocates are "trolls", or
> other similarly derogatory names. Do not call anyone a "liar" even if
> they are.
>
> 2. Do not insult people. Don't tell us that somebody is an idiot or is
> F.O.S. Feel free however, to PROVE that he/she is. It is acceptable to
> state that a public figure lied about a specific issue. That includes
> witnesses, authors and government figures who are not actively posting

> in this forum. But it is still not OK to call them derogatory names.http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=1328.0

.http://www2.snapfish.com/snapfish/viewsharedphoto/
p=986171234901078260/l=443172864/g=161362164/otsc=SHR/otsi=SPIClink
>
> HSCA Volume IX: V.... Sunday Nov. 24, 1963http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol9/pdf/HSCA_V...

> two periods of time during which he could have done this. Firstly, ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2012 2:06 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Why do you assume that conspirators are anxious to spill the beans
> when they are caught? Ruby was working on an insanity defense. Telling
> them WHO let him into the basement would indicate premeditation and
> conspiracy, elevating the charges against him."<<<
>

> So?
>


So it would be a statement against interest.
It would open up a new can of worms.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2012 2:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Why do you assume that conspirators are anxious to spill the beans
> when they are caught?"<<<
>
> Does that rule also apply to totally innocent "patsies" named Oswald, who
> never shot anyone (per the CT kooks of the world)?
>

I thought we were talking about Ruby?
Who said that Oswald knew the conspirators? Is that YOUR theory? Not mine.

> Did Oswald keep totally silent about having any co-conspirators, even
> though he really shot nobody (per many CTers, not necessarily Marsh)?
>

I can't speak for what each and every other conspiracy believer thinks. I
am sure some think that Oswald was a willing participant in the
conspiracy. Why would be keep silent AFTER he realized he had been set up
as the patsy? Some criminals do. Maybe it's their code of ethics? Maybe
their families are either threatened or protected by the conspirators?

> Was Oswald willing to go to the gallows to protect his fellow plotters? Is

You are assuming that Oswald was a witting member of the conspiracy. Why
does the CIA have a category called UNWITTING COLLABORATOR?

> that why he never uttered the names "Shaw", "Ferrie", or "Banister" (or
> anyone else's name either) during his 2 days in custody?
>

How can you assume anything when there is no honest record of what he
said? Maybe he said it in code. Maybe he did mention Ferrie. Why was
Ferrie worried about Oswald having his library card? Why would Oswald
mention Shaw or Banister? Did Oswald mention George DeMohrenschildt and
say he put him up to it?

> I've got to admit one thing --- If Oswald was an innocent patsy who never
> fired a shot at anyone on 11/22/63, then he was the best "patsy" the Mob
> could buy.
>

Maybe one of the best agents the CIA ever used.

> Even Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement wasn't aimed at anyone except
> the DPD. (Was he merely "deflecting" the patsy remark to keep his Mob
> buddies out of trouble?)
>

He said it to the reporters to send a message out to the public. BTW, a
patsy CAN sometimes be part of the plot, but left behind to take the fall.

[Mike]

That is a totally ridiculous argument.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "That is a totally ridiculous argument." <<<

Why, Mike?

[Raymond]

On Jan 12, 12:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "That is a totally ridiculous argument." <<<
>
> Why, Mike?

Who hasn't heard that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter" - a relatively moral axiom employed by Reuters and other
progressive news agencies? Very few, however, realize that it was modeled
on an earlier idiom - "one man's trash is another man's treasure" - which,
being a legitimate pearl of people's wisdom, lends some of its gloss to
Reuters' counterfeit product. We like to call it "truth by association":
if it sounds like what we believe is true, it probably is true. The
propaganda value of this logical device cannot be overstated - but it must
be handled with caution, lest someone writes: "one man's Reuters is
another man's Party organ" or "one man's head is another man's hole in the
ground." That's why, as a public service, we are offering an exercise
designed to teach the masses to generate quality "truths" in bulk and on
the fly, without thinking. One man's truth is another man's invention,
everything is a matter of opinion, and one man's opinion is another man's
truth.

After only five minutes of training you will learn how to throw seemingly
true statements in the faces of your colleagues, parents, or other class
enemies. Watch ideological adversaries writhe in agony as they try to
disprove the very formula you're imitating. One man's pain is another
man's hobby!

The unstoppable advancement of the daily "truths" generated on a massive
scale is going to bring the concept of moral relativity into every living
room in America ahead of schedule. The arms on the clock of the revolution
will start moving even faster towards midnight than it is warranted by the
historical inevitability. Remember: one man's clock is another man's time
bomb!

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/one-man-s-reuters-is-another-man-s-al-jazeera-t1076.html

[David Von Pein]

We're all back in school, I see. And Raymond is our teacher. (Bless
him.)

A few more Freudian posts like Ray's last one and I'll be forced to
puddle up. (And if it's not with tears, it'll be from my notoriously
weak bladder.)

:-)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2012 11:02 AM, Raymond wrote:
> On Jan 12, 12:24 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "That is a totally ridiculous argument."<<<
>>
>> Why, Mike?
>
> Who hasn't heard that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
> fighter" - a relatively moral axiom employed by Reuters and other
> progressive news agencies? Very few, however, realize that it was modeled

It's what Reagan said about the Taliban. "They're not terrorists,
they're freedom fighters."