info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Some Criticism of David Von Pein
175 views
Skip to first unread message
Christopher Strimbu
May 25, 2022, 7:29:57 PM5/25/22
to
Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list. The reason being that: none of those items point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me explain.
With #10, it proves nothing relating to the guilt of Oswald. All it does prove is that someone was firing from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. And while that certainly is *indicative* of Oswald's guilt, I do not think it should count as evidence. It doesn't come within those bounds, at least to me. What I do think is this: Who is more likely to have been firing from the School Book Depository window, given the sum total of the evidence? Oswald, or some unknown gunman?
#16-20 do not belong on the list at all, because they do zilch to prove Oswald killed Kennedy. They just prove that he *could've* killed Kennedy. And "he could've done it" and "he did do it" are two very, very different things.
For example, it was possible for Oswald to run down the Book Depository stairs in the 90 seconds the Warren Commission estimated that he had. And? How does that come within 50 nautical miles of proving Oswald's guilt? It only proves he could've done it.
And as much as the Walker episode is important into understanding the reasons why Oswald killed Kennedy, it shouldn't count as evidence. A past history of violence *indicates* Oswald was guilty, but it certainly doesn't prove it.
And I think that while numbers 16-20 were more meant to debunk conspiracy nonsense, that shouldn't be on a list meant to prove Oswald's guilt.
I also take issue with #4 and #14-15. With #4, I feel that it can be counted as evidence against Oswald, given how it ties him to the Carcano rifle. However, Von Pein doesn't explicitly mention this, which I feel can lead to confusion as to why it should be on the list. I think he should clarify that point.
And #14-15 are the same piece of evidence listed twice, IMHO. Bringing up the Tippit murder case brings in the built in question of why, so I feel he should merge those two together.
So those are my problems with his evidence. Let's criticize some of his views on the assassination.
One popular theory in the lone gunman community is that Lee Harvey Oswald wouldn't have assassinated President Kennedy if Marina hadn't turned Oswald down on his offer to buy an apartment. Von Pein propounds that theory here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html
However, and this is just me personally, I think this theory is wrong. And the reasons for that are Oswald's words and actions on November 21st.
Oswald on November 21st bought an expensive breakfast that morning instead of making it at home. CE 3009 proves this fact:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0286b.htm
Also, there is that pesky lie of the never found curtain rods. If Oswald was going to reconcile with Marina, then what about that curtain rods lie he told Frazier? Was he going to go tell Frazier that he didn't need them anymore? That his home was out of stock? Or was he going to come clean and tell him that he was planning to murder Kennedy, but since his wife said she wanted to be with him, he didn't? That pesky lie is a flaw in the theory, as I see it.
Plus, I don't think that if you are planning to murder the president of the United States, you don't leave that decision up to whenever your wife decides to say yes to your offer of buying her a washing machine.
Plus, I don't think Oswald's actions were very indicative of this theory. He begged Marina to come back with him, even going as far as to offer her to buy her a washing machine. And with Lee being very tight on the money he had, that was a big deal. I don't think this spells a guy who thought there was a chance that she would say no and then he'd get his chance to murder Kennedy.
So why did Oswald do that, IMO? I think this ties into his motivation. Oswald was a dedicated Marxist. This was a man who tried to kill himself when they wouldn't let him stay in Russia and had a picture of Fidel Castro on his mantle during his stay in New Orleans. This was a man who was absolutely, 100% dedicated to the Marxist dream. And I think that is why he killed Kennedy. Kennedy was harsh on Cuba, as he had given the green light on the Bay of Pigs invasion and started Operation Mongoose. Oswald was trying to score some points for his beloved Fidel.
So I think the reason why he did that with his wife was because he wanted to make peace with her before he did what he did. He wanted to end things off on a good note, per say. I think my hypothesis is the best one that holds under scrutiny.
Another quibble I have with Von Pein is with Oswald and suicide. Von Pein consistently maintains that Oswald was not a suicidal man, or that the Dallas PD would've found him in a pool of his own blood on the sixth floor. However, I think Von Pein is again wrong.
I think Oswald was trying to commit suicide in the Texas Theater when he pulled his gun on all those cops. He didn't want to be in custody, so he figured that he would rather die than go to jail. This is often known as suicide by cop, and it is not the rarest thing in the world to say the least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
Quoting from the article:
There are two broad categories of "suicide by cop". The first is when someone has committed a crime and is being pursued by the police and decides that he would rather commit suicide than be arrested. These people may not otherwise be suicidal but may simply decide that life is not worth living if they are incarcerated and thus will provoke police to kill them.
This explanation I think best explains Oswald's actions in the Texas Theater. What sane, rational person would pull a gun when the officers also have guns and outnumber them 10 to 1?
That would be some of the criticism I have against Mr. Von Pein. There are more, but those are the three I feel like talking about.
I'll say it again: I like David Von Pein. I just think he's got it wrong on some parts.
Yours Truly, Christopher Strimbu
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list. The reason being that: none of those items point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me explain.
With #10, it proves nothing relating to the guilt of Oswald. All it does prove is that someone was firing from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. And while that certainly is *indicative* of Oswald's guilt, I do not think it should count as evidence. It doesn't come within those bounds, at least to me. What I do think is this: Who is more likely to have been firing from the School Book Depository window, given the sum total of the evidence? Oswald, or some unknown gunman?
#16-20 do not belong on the list at all, because they do zilch to prove Oswald killed Kennedy. They just prove that he *could've* killed Kennedy. And "he could've done it" and "he did do it" are two very, very different things.
For example, it was possible for Oswald to run down the Book Depository stairs in the 90 seconds the Warren Commission estimated that he had. And? How does that come within 50 nautical miles of proving Oswald's guilt? It only proves he could've done it.
And as much as the Walker episode is important into understanding the reasons why Oswald killed Kennedy, it shouldn't count as evidence. A past history of violence *indicates* Oswald was guilty, but it certainly doesn't prove it.
And I think that while numbers 16-20 were more meant to debunk conspiracy nonsense, that shouldn't be on a list meant to prove Oswald's guilt.
I also take issue with #4 and #14-15. With #4, I feel that it can be counted as evidence against Oswald, given how it ties him to the Carcano rifle. However, Von Pein doesn't explicitly mention this, which I feel can lead to confusion as to why it should be on the list. I think he should clarify that point.
And #14-15 are the same piece of evidence listed twice, IMHO. Bringing up the Tippit murder case brings in the built in question of why, so I feel he should merge those two together.
So those are my problems with his evidence. Let's criticize some of his views on the assassination.
One popular theory in the lone gunman community is that Lee Harvey Oswald wouldn't have assassinated President Kennedy if Marina hadn't turned Oswald down on his offer to buy an apartment. Von Pein propounds that theory here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html
However, and this is just me personally, I think this theory is wrong. And the reasons for that are Oswald's words and actions on November 21st.
Oswald on November 21st bought an expensive breakfast that morning instead of making it at home. CE 3009 proves this fact:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0286b.htm
Also, there is that pesky lie of the never found curtain rods. If Oswald was going to reconcile with Marina, then what about that curtain rods lie he told Frazier? Was he going to go tell Frazier that he didn't need them anymore? That his home was out of stock? Or was he going to come clean and tell him that he was planning to murder Kennedy, but since his wife said she wanted to be with him, he didn't? That pesky lie is a flaw in the theory, as I see it.
Plus, I don't think that if you are planning to murder the president of the United States, you don't leave that decision up to whenever your wife decides to say yes to your offer of buying her a washing machine.
Plus, I don't think Oswald's actions were very indicative of this theory. He begged Marina to come back with him, even going as far as to offer her to buy her a washing machine. And with Lee being very tight on the money he had, that was a big deal. I don't think this spells a guy who thought there was a chance that she would say no and then he'd get his chance to murder Kennedy.
So why did Oswald do that, IMO? I think this ties into his motivation. Oswald was a dedicated Marxist. This was a man who tried to kill himself when they wouldn't let him stay in Russia and had a picture of Fidel Castro on his mantle during his stay in New Orleans. This was a man who was absolutely, 100% dedicated to the Marxist dream. And I think that is why he killed Kennedy. Kennedy was harsh on Cuba, as he had given the green light on the Bay of Pigs invasion and started Operation Mongoose. Oswald was trying to score some points for his beloved Fidel.
So I think the reason why he did that with his wife was because he wanted to make peace with her before he did what he did. He wanted to end things off on a good note, per say. I think my hypothesis is the best one that holds under scrutiny.
Another quibble I have with Von Pein is with Oswald and suicide. Von Pein consistently maintains that Oswald was not a suicidal man, or that the Dallas PD would've found him in a pool of his own blood on the sixth floor. However, I think Von Pein is again wrong.
I think Oswald was trying to commit suicide in the Texas Theater when he pulled his gun on all those cops. He didn't want to be in custody, so he figured that he would rather die than go to jail. This is often known as suicide by cop, and it is not the rarest thing in the world to say the least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
Quoting from the article:
There are two broad categories of "suicide by cop". The first is when someone has committed a crime and is being pursued by the police and decides that he would rather commit suicide than be arrested. These people may not otherwise be suicidal but may simply decide that life is not worth living if they are incarcerated and thus will provoke police to kill them.
This explanation I think best explains Oswald's actions in the Texas Theater. What sane, rational person would pull a gun when the officers also have guns and outnumber them 10 to 1?
That would be some of the criticism I have against Mr. Von Pein. There are more, but those are the three I feel like talking about.
I'll say it again: I like David Von Pein. I just think he's got it wrong on some parts.
Yours Truly, Christopher Strimbu
David Healy
May 25, 2022, 7:34:18 PM5/25/22
to
Bud
May 25, 2022, 7:42:03 PM5/25/22
to
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
>
> THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
>
> We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
>
> However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
>
> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
>
> THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
>
> We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
>
> However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
>
> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list. The reason being that: none of those items point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me explain.
>
> With #10, it proves nothing relating to the guilt of Oswald. All it does prove is that someone was firing from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. And while that certainly is *indicative* of Oswald's guilt, I do not think it should count as evidence.
Christopher Strimbu
May 25, 2022, 8:25:09 PM5/25/22
to
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:42:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
> >
> > THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
> >
> > We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
> >
> > However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
> >
> > http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
I am fully aware of that. However, each and every item on the list should bring us closer to that picture. We're not going to include Oswald drinking a Coke on the second floor because that doesn't help build a picture of his guilt.
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
> >
> > THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
> >
> > We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
> >
> > However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
> >
> > http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
> > I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list. The reason being that: none of those items point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me explain.
> >
> > With #10, it proves nothing relating to the guilt of Oswald. All it does prove is that someone was firing from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. And while that certainly is *indicative* of Oswald's guilt, I do not think it should count as evidence.
> Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". For Oswald to be guilty he would have to be at a location that makes it possible he was the shooter.
What I do think is this: Who is more likely to have been firing from the School Book Depository window, given the sum total of the evidence? Oswald, or some unknown gunman?
Bud
May 25, 2022, 8:31:40 PM5/25/22
to
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:25:09 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:42:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
> > >
> > > THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
> > >
> > > We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
> > >
> > > However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
> > >
> > > http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> > I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
> I am fully aware of that. However, each and every item on the list should bring us closer to that picture. We're not going to include Oswald drinking a Coke on the second floor because that doesn't help build a picture of his guilt.
They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house, they are meant to build one.
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:42:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
> > >
> > > THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
> > >
> > > We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
> > >
> > > However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
> > >
> > > http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> > I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
> I am fully aware of that. However, each and every item on the list should bring us closer to that picture. We're not going to include Oswald drinking a Coke on the second floor because that doesn't help build a picture of his guilt.
> > > I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list. The reason being that: none of those items point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me explain.
> > >
> > > With #10, it proves nothing relating to the guilt of Oswald. All it does prove is that someone was firing from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. And while that certainly is *indicative* of Oswald's guilt, I do not think it should count as evidence.
> > Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". For Oswald to be guilty he would have to be at a location that makes it possible he was the shooter.
> Yes, he would. Which is why I wrote this below:
> What I do think is this: Who is more likely to have been firing from the School Book Depository window, given the sum total of the evidence? Oswald, or some unknown gunman?
> So while I think it is *indicative* of his guilt, I don't think it should be on the list.
Christopher Strimbu
May 25, 2022, 8:40:28 PM5/25/22
to
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:31:40 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:25:09 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:42:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
> > > >
> > > > THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
> > > >
> > > > We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
> > > >
> > > > However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
> > > >
> > > > http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> > > I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
> > I am fully aware of that. However, each and every item on the list should bring us closer to that picture. We're not going to include Oswald drinking a Coke on the second floor because that doesn't help build a picture of his guilt.
> They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house, they are meant to build one.
Exactly. Ben looks at the evidence isolated in their own little worlds and then complains how we can't prove Oswald's guilt.
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 8:25:09 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:42:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
> > > >
> > > > THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
> > > >
> > > > We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
> > > >
> > > > However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
> > > >
> > > > http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
> > > I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
> > I am fully aware of that. However, each and every item on the list should bring us closer to that picture. We're not going to include Oswald drinking a Coke on the second floor because that doesn't help build a picture of his guilt.
> They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house, they are meant to build one.
> > > > I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list. The reason being that: none of those items point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me explain.
> > > >
> > > > With #10, it proves nothing relating to the guilt of Oswald. All it does prove is that someone was firing from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. And while that certainly is *indicative* of Oswald's guilt, I do not think it should count as evidence.
> > > Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". For Oswald to be guilty he would have to be at a location that makes it possible he was the shooter.
> > Yes, he would. Which is why I wrote this below:
> > What I do think is this: Who is more likely to have been firing from the School Book Depository window, given the sum total of the evidence? Oswald, or some unknown gunman?
> > So while I think it is *indicative* of his guilt, I don't think it should be on the list.
> It is a requirement of his guilt that he be in a place where it was possible for him to commit the crime.
Message has been deleted
David Von Pein
May 26, 2022, 2:23:58 AM5/26/22
to
Christopher,
Lists like the one I made at my Oswald-Is-Guilty blog can always be picked apart and critiqued by critics who don't think certain items should be on such a list. You and I, as "LNers", have done similar "picking apart" with lists created by various conspiracy theorists. But I happen to think my 21-item list is a pretty good one. And, as Bud said...
"I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead to the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald's guilt."
Bud is exactly right there. I'm certainly not saying that *each* point individually is *proof* that Oswald killed Kennedy. It's that glorious "Sum Total" of *everything*, when added together, that proves Oswald's guilt. Which is the point I tried to hammer into Ben Holmes in 2017 when he attempted to dismantle my then-20-item list of things that lead to LHO's guilt:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html
And any list like mine (or Vincent Bugliosi's 53-item "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" book chapter*), which are lists that attempt to string together all of the physical and circumstantial things that go in the direction of Lee Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination, simply *must* include my 16th item that Chris thinks shouldn't be on my list at all---the Walker shooting. That item, in fact, is (IMO) one of *the* most important pieces of circumstantial evidence against Oswald for JFK's murder, as I discuss at these various pages on my website:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Harvey+Oswald+General+Edwin+Walker+Oswald+Had+Murder+Running+Through+His+Veins
* Although, incredibly, Oswald's attempt to murder another human being (Walker) is *not* one of the 53 things that Bugliosi lists in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", but it certainly *should* be listed (IMO). Vince lists some things that are far less compelling and far less important than the Walker shooting (such as Oswald changing his pants at his roominghouse on 11/22/63, which is something I doubt ever happened in the first place), but Oswald's attempt to take a human life on April 10, 1963, by pointing a loaded rifle at the head of Edwin A. Walker and pulling the trigger isn't considered important enough in Vincent's mind to occupy a spot on his list of fifty-three things that leads toward Lee Oswald's guilt in JFK's killing. ~smh~
Lists like the one I made at my Oswald-Is-Guilty blog can always be picked apart and critiqued by critics who don't think certain items should be on such a list. You and I, as "LNers", have done similar "picking apart" with lists created by various conspiracy theorists. But I happen to think my 21-item list is a pretty good one. And, as Bud said...
"I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead to the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald's guilt."
Bud is exactly right there. I'm certainly not saying that *each* point individually is *proof* that Oswald killed Kennedy. It's that glorious "Sum Total" of *everything*, when added together, that proves Oswald's guilt. Which is the point I tried to hammer into Ben Holmes in 2017 when he attempted to dismantle my then-20-item list of things that lead to LHO's guilt:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html
And any list like mine (or Vincent Bugliosi's 53-item "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" book chapter*), which are lists that attempt to string together all of the physical and circumstantial things that go in the direction of Lee Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination, simply *must* include my 16th item that Chris thinks shouldn't be on my list at all---the Walker shooting. That item, in fact, is (IMO) one of *the* most important pieces of circumstantial evidence against Oswald for JFK's murder, as I discuss at these various pages on my website:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Harvey+Oswald+General+Edwin+Walker+Oswald+Had+Murder+Running+Through+His+Veins
* Although, incredibly, Oswald's attempt to murder another human being (Walker) is *not* one of the 53 things that Bugliosi lists in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", but it certainly *should* be listed (IMO). Vince lists some things that are far less compelling and far less important than the Walker shooting (such as Oswald changing his pants at his roominghouse on 11/22/63, which is something I doubt ever happened in the first place), but Oswald's attempt to take a human life on April 10, 1963, by pointing a loaded rifle at the head of Edwin A. Walker and pulling the trigger isn't considered important enough in Vincent's mind to occupy a spot on his list of fifty-three things that leads toward Lee Oswald's guilt in JFK's killing. ~smh~
Sky Throne 19efppp
May 26, 2022, 4:13:10 AM5/26/22
to
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
Gil Jesus
May 26, 2022, 10:29:00 AM5/26/22
to
On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein.
We know.
Christopher Strimbu
May 26, 2022, 10:45:44 AM5/26/22
to
Scrum Drum
May 26, 2022, 12:04:22 PM5/26/22
to
Gil Jesus
May 26, 2022, 4:00:26 PM5/26/22
to
> All Gil can do is lay a turd on any thread with my name on it and run. What a waste of air.
Honey, any post with your name on it is already a turd
because you don't post evidence. You post shit.
ROFLMAO
Christopher Strimbu
May 26, 2022, 9:19:38 PM5/26/22
to
Gil Jesus
May 27, 2022, 1:46:46 PM5/27/22
to
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:19:38 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So Gil decides to basically admit he's been laying turds on threads with my involvement on them and then resorts to ad hominem and projection. All is fine and dandy.
Just like you do to me.
> So Gil decides to basically admit he's been laying turds on threads with my involvement on them and then resorts to ad hominem and projection. All is fine and dandy.
An eye for an eye.
If you can't catch, don't pitch.
ROFLMAO
Christopher Strimbu
May 27, 2022, 10:52:27 PM5/27/22
to
Let's note that Gil has never bothered to address anything I wrote in the above, and is only here to shit out turds and make bad jokes. Basically, Gil is becoming the next David Healy.
<snicker> Not that I'm complaining. It is fun for Gil to expose himself for being the same moron who believes that Oswald never owned a gun, JFK was attempting to cough up a bullet, and that I'm secretly a girl.
And people call him a researcher. Oy vey.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:06 AM6/3/22
to
On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:29:55 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein.
> I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy
> assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of
> information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the
> assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
Even before reading I know that this will not be a real critique...
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein.
> I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy
> assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of
> information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the
> assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
because believers don't correct other believers.
>THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
>
> We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey
> Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case
> points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining
> aside.
Or perhaps this moron was only talking about the evidence that the WCR
was willing to post.
>However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
>http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
>
> I do not think that #10, and numbers #16-20 should be on the list.
you're just trying to up his website traffic stats.
No thankyou.
> Also, there is that pesky lie of the never found curtain rods.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49811/
You're going to look stupid when it's this easy to prove you a liar.
I deleted the rest of your speculative quibbling. I deal with
evidence, not wacky speculation.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:10 AM6/3/22
to
On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Exactly. Ben looks at the evidence isolated in their own little
> worlds and then complains how we can't prove Oswald's guilt.
Logical fallacy... where's Huckster?
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Exactly. Ben looks at the evidence isolated in their own little
> worlds and then complains how we can't prove Oswald's guilt.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:13 AM6/3/22
to
On Wed, 25 May 2022 23:23:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Christopher,
>
> Lists like the one I made at my Oswald-Is-Guilty blog can always be
> picked apart and critiqued by critics who don't think certain items
> should be on such a list.
And rightfully so. Even *YOU* don't believe all items should be on the
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Christopher,
>
> Lists like the one I made at my Oswald-Is-Guilty blog can always be
> picked apart and critiqued by critics who don't think certain items
> should be on such a list.
list.
>* Although, incredibly, Oswald's attempt to murder another human
> being (Walker) is *not* one of the 53 things that Bugliosi lists in
> his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming
> History", but it certainly *should* be listed (IMO).
Because it's simply the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:16 AM6/3/22
to
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:19 AM6/3/22
to
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:30 AM6/3/22
to
threads with anyone's involvement on them, and then resorts to ad
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:55:36 AM6/3/22
to
them what *THEY* first do to us.
Why is that difficult to understand???
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:51:40 AM6/10/22
to
On Wed, 25 May 2022 16:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
>>
>> THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
>>
>> We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
>>
>> However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
>>
>> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
>
> I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
He can say it, it's not, however, true.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:29:57 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Now before I start, let me get one thing straight: I like Von Pein. I think he is a very intelligent and brilliant student of the Kennedy assassination, and hhis blog is a brilliant and excellent source of information. However, I disagree with several of his viewpoints on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Let's see here:
>>
>> THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD
>>
>> We and Von Pein agree on lots of things. The main one is: Lee Harvey Oswald was a very guilty man. All the evidence in the Kennedy case points to the obvious guilt of Mr. Oswald, conspiracy cultist whining aside.
>>
>> However, I take issue with his list on the evidence leading to Oswald's guilt:
>>
>> http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
>
> I think DVP is saying the cumulative effect of these items (point by point) lead the the unmistakable conclusion of Oswald`s guilt.
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:51:41 AM6/10/22
to
Anyone remember that she *STILL* can't list the evidence to help
somone determine when JFK's body arr
Ben Holmes
Jun 27, 2022, 10:59:37 AM6/27/22
to
On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a
> list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually
> and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house,
> they are meant to build one.
Actually, although Bugliosi was the original author, the list came
from a believer.
And Chickenshit is COMPLETELY aware of this fact. Here's a prior post
pointing out this fact:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/NgtHjSgjTPU/m/lU81oE_3CgAJ
You can't build a house based on lies.
wrote:
> They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a
> list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually
> and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house,
> they are meant to build one.
from a believer.
And Chickenshit is COMPLETELY aware of this fact. Here's a prior post
pointing out this fact:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/NgtHjSgjTPU/m/lU81oE_3CgAJ
You can't build a house based on lies.
BT George
Jun 27, 2022, 1:46:02 PM6/27/22
to
Hank Sienzant
Jun 28, 2022, 6:42:59 AM6/28/22
to
There are an infinite number of wrong answers possible. CTs seem intent on exploring every possible permutation of wrong answer.
Bud
Jun 28, 2022, 6:01:47 PM6/28/22
to
Bud
Jun 28, 2022, 6:03:30 PM6/28/22
to
On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 10:59:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a
> > list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually
> > and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house,
> > they are meant to build one.
> Actually, although Bugliosi was the original author, the list came
> from a believer.
Yet you treated them like they were Bugliosi`s ideas.
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a
> > list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually
> > and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house,
> > they are meant to build one.
> Actually, although Bugliosi was the original author, the list came
> from a believer.
Ben Holmes
Jul 5, 2022, 10:48:10 AM7/5/22
to
running from it.
Ben Holmes
Jul 5, 2022, 10:48:11 AM7/5/22
to
Ben Holmes
Jul 5, 2022, 10:48:11 AM7/5/22
to
On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 10:59:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a
>>> list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually
>>> and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house,
>>> they are meant to build one.
>>
>> Actually, although Bugliosi was the original author, the list came
>> from a believer.
>
> Yet you treated them like they were Bugliosi`s ideas.
There you go molesting Huckster's Grandmother again.
>On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 10:59:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> They are bricks with which to build the house. Ben did this with a
>>> list that Bugliosi put together, looking at each brick individually
>>> and saying they are not a house., They aren`t meant to be a house,
>>> they are meant to build one.
>>
>> Actually, although Bugliosi was the original author, the list came
>> from a believer.
>
> Yet you treated them like they were Bugliosi`s ideas.
0 new messages