David von Pein & "Common Sense"

[Greg Parker]

Von Pein has a page at his blog dedicated to what he refers to as "common sense".

Clearly as we shall see, this is just code for "quotes that agree with my biases".

Displayed at the top of the page are what David obvisously decided were the two best examples which he falsely claims are "relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

Incredibly, the first one comes from JFK himself, in a 1961 address at the University of Washington!

The quote used by penishead is ""Reason does not always appeal
to unreasonable men." - which of course, has sweet fuck all to do with the assassination 2 years down the track. To see what it DID relate to, we need to put it back in context by showing the FULL quote.

"And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men--that it is not always true that a soft answer turneth away wrath"--and that right does not always make might."

In short, it was about the fucking arms race.

Penisbreath displays about as much "reason" as a headless chook, but is only half as elegant.

But maybe he hit paydirt with his second quote?

Let's take a look for shitz and giggles.

His second quote

"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little."
-- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963

The ignorance of PineCone is only exceeded by his lack of insight.

Firstly, irony and "common sense" are not synomous. In fact, "irony" ironically is often outside the bounds of common sense... which is often the place where the irony leaps out and pulls a monkey face .

Secondly, it appears that David believes that a media broadcast announcing someone as being guilty who not only has not been sent to trial, but is yet to even be charged with any crime, is not only "common sense" but appropriate.

What an absolute goose David is.

Call it dystopian.Machiavellian, Kafkaesque, authoritarian, Fascist. Call it anything BUT common fucking sense.

A relevant quote that does show what common sense looks like when it comes to what Wankhead applaudes.

(quoting LaVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 577, 304 S.E.2d 644, 651 (1983)). "`A change of venue based on pre-trial publicity is required when the defendant demonstrates that there is "widespread" prejudice against him and that such prejudice would, with reasonable certainty, prevent a fair trial.'"

Congratulations, David. You have overtaken Brian Doyle as favorite for the much sought after honor of being crowned Knobhead of the Year in November! Brian is going to have to put in a mighty effort to retake the lead.

[David Von Pein]

What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)

And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:

"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961

Congratulations, Greg. You win this month's trophy for "Denseness", barely nosing out Gil and Ben for first place.

http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

DVP is a "partisan hack."

Partisan Hack: someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 11:43:33 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:



>

> Congratulations, David. You have overtaken Brian Doyle as favorite for the much sought after honor of being crowned Knobhead of the Year in November! Brian is going to have to put in a mighty effort to retake the lead.

Keep in mind that Greg can be seen on this website cutting and running from every debate I have ever had with him...Greg is a person who controls his website with banning in order to make sure that no one who can disprove his false theories is ever given a fair chance to do so...

If you go to the Education Forum Denis Morissette posted his images of Sarah Stanton from the Owens Film...Robin Unger responded by posting images from Willis showing a woman on the steps near to the same time as Stanton in Owens...I am honestly not sure if the woman in Willis is Stanton or not...I previously scolded Morissette for posting that woman in Willis telling him that it was obviously not Stanton and he was not helping things by posting it...Morissette promptly put me on Facebook block...Now, however, on second look from Unger I am not 100% sure if that woman in Willis is Stanton or not...If you look closely she has Stanton's light-colored hair...If you go to Darnell she matches up exactly with Prayer Man's height as compared to the aluminum window frame behind her...So I might owe Morissette an apology, however the thin-skinned bastard put me on block so there's no way for me to do it...

The thread on the Education Forum needs me as a participant...Because I have been banned by that ignoramus James Gordon I am unable to go to that board and do what it was designed for...I cannot put the best interpretation on the evidence Morissette and Unger presented...That evidence was posted there exactly so a person like myself could come in and tell the members what that evidence is showing...If indeed the woman in Willis is Stanton then the research community needs to be shown that and how it relates to the rest of the Prayer Man evidence...It is only because of the gross incompetence and stupidity of James Gordon and his backwards moderation that the whole purpose of the conversation Morissette has initiated is disallowed with that moron Beckett bragging about it...If indeed the woman in Willis is Stanton then she lines-up with Prayer Man's height...Her light-colored dress also appears dark in the shadows in Darnell...I'm not 100% certain on this because Stanton's obesity is obvious in Owens...Not so much in Willis...Of course the obvious nut and charlatan Greg Parker will never allow this information on his website because it disproves his idiotic Prayer Man theory and the coward uses censorship to avoid accountability...

And so, as it stands, the current cutting edge of the Prayer Man issue lay in moronic non-response because the assholes who call themselves the moderators and members of the Education Forum are content with leaving those obvious begging points ignored while the correct intelligent, evidence-based solution goes unspoken...This, according to the intellectual criminal James Gordon, is good moderation that he is happy with and stays on in order to enforce...There is a core group that praises Gordon and his moderation and asks him to stay on...Those people show their rotten loyalty and duty by remaining faithfully absent from Morissette's thread that happens to prove me correct...Just like I was 7 years ago when I was banned - with that core group of cowards also staying silent (The same group that happened to be those who backed Prayer Man as Oswald)...

Certainly Jim DiEugenio, who praised Parker and his trolling "research" a few weeks ago on the EF, is not going to enter Morissette's thread to discuss this new confirming evidence that Prayer Man is Stanton...This is where Jim stays silent the most...It is also where my good evidence gets proven the most...There's a sick qualification on the EF of ignoring my proof that Stanton is Prayer Man...If you ignore it then you are accepted in to the clique...The requirement on the EF is that the normal conversation of intelligent evidence discussion that would happen with any other subject is disallowed and Morissette's very important evidence discovery is left to die of starvation...The dishonest members then ignore this giant rogue elephant in the room and pretend it isn't happening...It gives them power, which is what this is really all about...The research community, as represented on the Education Forum, is not about honest objective research...This is the English way...There's no shame or embarrassment amongst that wayward group...Let's be honest...They are staying silent because they know it proves me correct and they don't want to admit Gordon is an unqualified jackass who bans the best and brightest...

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 11:43:33 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

David Von Pein posts no evidence.

No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos

David Von Pein does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report
and others like Myers, Posner and his patron saint, Bugliosi.

What David Von Pein DOES post are comments, speculation, opinions, insults and links to his blog where the John Fettermans of the world
can cheer him on as he "argues" with the world's best JFK researchers.

David Von Pein has a reputation as an immature 10 year old brat in his interaction with others.

You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.

[Charles Schuyler]

That's a lie on your part.

>
> David Von Pein does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report
> and others like Myers, Posner and his patron saint, Bugliosi.

He's the only poster among us who is a published author, and of course there was plenty of research that went into his book with Mel Ayton, whether you like the book or agree with the book or not.

>
> What David Von Pein DOES post are comments, speculation, opinions, insults

This is an unmoderated discussion board, dummy, so of course there is going to be comments, speculation, and insults. When you start chastising Ben for his behavior, we'll take your whining about insults a little more seriously.

>and links to his blog where the John Fettermans of the world
> can cheer him on as he "argues" with the world's best JFK researchers.

That excludes you.

>
> David Von Pein has a reputation as an immature 10 year old brat in his interaction with others.

Greg Parker, above:

penishead.
Penisbreath.
The ignorance of PineCone.
Wankhead.
Knobhead of the year.

>
> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.

Pull your head out of your ass and notice the landscape has changed from twenty plus years ago when you first started posting at these discussion boards. The world has MOVED ON, and Team Oswald has N-E-V-E-R spelled out what they think happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and has yet to run any tests for any of the fantastic scenarios they've promoted.

Why?

One side has a fully formed case, historically accepted, and Team Oswald has....????????????????????????? More "questions" we're supposed to answer?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 May 2023 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

> Pull your head out of your ass and notice the landscape has changed
> from twenty plus years ago when you first started posting at these
> discussion boards. The world has MOVED ON, and Team Oswald has
> N-E-V-E-R spelled out what they think happened in Dealey Plaza on
> 11/22/63 and has yet to run any tests for any of the fantastic
> scenarios they've promoted.

You're lying again, Chuckles. More importantly, you KNOW you're
lying.

You accuse critics of doing PRECISELY what you do.

I can CITE my scenario... you've admitted you have no scenario.


>Why?


Dishonesty, of course...

> One side has a fully formed case, historically accepted,

"History" doesn't accept anything... it doesn't judge, it doesn't
think. You've been corrected on this lie multiple times, and you just
keep spouting it.

> and Team Oswald has....????????????????????????? More "questions"
> we're supposed to answer?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 12:10:48 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> David Von Pein posts no evidence. No citations. No documents. No testimony. No exhibits. No witness videos.

A bald-faced and provable falsehood like the one quoted above should guarantee Gil J. Jesus a permanent spot in the "Liars" Hall-of-Fame.

Geesh.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:18:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 12:10:48?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> David Von Pein posts no evidence. No citations. No documents. No testimony. No exhibits. No witness videos.
>

>A bald-faced and provable falsehood...


PROVE IT COWARD!!!

Cite the last time you posted any evidence, citations, documents,
testimony, exhibits, or witness videos...

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)

Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?

> And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:

Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.

Because I trealize what a poor educatiuon you must have had, I'll be patient and go through it again.

"And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men--that it is not always true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath"--and that right does not always make might."

Please concentrate as hard as you can. JFK was saying that being right and reasonable are mnot always sufficient to keep world order. Sometimes you have to back up being right and reasonable by carrying bigger guns than your antagonists.

In the correct context, it has sweet fuck all to do with assassination - or with common sense being the only thing needed by anyone.

Snipping it to change that context to make your dumbass point, is just dishonest. You don;t have to be a penishead. But it seems you just can't help it.

> Congratulations, Greg. You win this month's trophy for "Denseness", barely nosing out Gil and Ben for first place.

Jeesus H Christ. Did no one ever tell you that mimicking is the sincerest form of flattery?

> http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com

Ah yes...

You don't seem tooo keen on defending what I said about this quote.
-------------------

"What a sickening irony it is that this man
who came through so much should die
at the hands of a man worth so little."

-- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963

------------------
Just as a gentle reminder about what I said

Firstly, irony and "common sense" are not synomous. In fact, "irony" ironically is often outside the bounds of common sense... which is often the place where the irony leaps out and pulls a monkey face .

Secondly, it appears that David believes that a media broadcast announcing someone as being guilty who not only has not been sent to trial, but is yet to even be charged with any crime, is not only "common sense" but appropriate.

What an absolute goose David is.

Call it dystopian.Machiavellian, Kafkaesque, authoritarian, Fascist. Call it anything BUT common fucking sense.

A relevant quote that does show what common sense looks like when it comes to what Wankhead applaudes.

(quoting LaVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 577, 304 S.E.2d 644, 651 (1983)). "`A change of venue based on pre-trial publicity is required when the defendant demonstrates that there is "widespread" prejudice against him and that such prejudice would, with reasonable certainty, prevent a fair trial.'"

-----------------------------------------------
It is very simply, vonny.

Defend both quotes, or take them down. Your defense of the first one is name-calling and your defense of the second is currently non-existent.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:

> > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)

> Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?

I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

> > And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:

> Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.

Oh, the irony.

>
> Because I trealize what a poor educatiuon you must have had, I'll be patient and go through it again.

I'm not normally one to correct grammar or spelling at this dumb discussion board as we all make mistakes, but should you be criticizing someone's "educatiuon" when nearly every post you write is peppered with spelling and grammar errors?

> "And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men--that it is not always true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath"--and that right does not always make might."
> Please concentrate as hard as you can. JFK was saying that being right and reasonable are mnot always sufficient to keep world order. Sometimes you have to back up being right and reasonable by carrying bigger guns than your antagonists.
>
> In the correct context, it has sweet fuck all to do with assassination - or with common sense being the only thing needed by anyone.

You're the new Ben Holmes. Greg Parker argues to argue. Eristic argumentation. Like Ben Holmes, Greg Parker argues only for conflict, never for clarity.

>
> Snipping it to change that context to make your dumbass point, is just dishonest. You don;t have to be a penishead. But it seems you just can't help it.

> > Congratulations, Greg. You win this month's trophy for "Denseness", barely nosing out Gil and Ben for first place.

> Jeesus H Christ. Did no one ever tell you that mimicking is the sincerest form of flattery?
>
> > http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com
>
> Ah yes...
>
> You don't seem tooo keen on defending what I said about this quote.
> -------------------
> "What a sickening irony it is that this man
> who came through so much should die
> at the hands of a man worth so little."
>
> -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963
> ------------------
> Just as a gentle reminder about what I said
> Firstly, irony and "common sense" are not synomous. In fact, "irony" ironically is often outside the bounds of common sense... which is often the place where the irony leaps out and pulls a monkey face .
>
> Secondly, it appears that David believes that a media broadcast announcing someone as being guilty who not only has not been sent to trial, but is yet to even be charged with any crime, is not only "common sense" but appropriate.
>
> What an absolute goose David is.
>
> Call it dystopian.Machiavellian, Kafkaesque, authoritarian, Fascist. Call it anything BUT common fucking sense.
>
> A relevant quote that does show what common sense looks like when it comes to what Wankhead applaudes.
>
> (quoting LaVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 577, 304 S.E.2d 644, 651 (1983)). "`A change of venue based on pre-trial publicity is required when the defendant demonstrates that there is "widespread" prejudice against him and that such prejudice would, with reasonable certainty, prevent a fair trial.'"
> -----------------------------------------------
> It is very simply, vonny.
>
> Defend both quotes, or take them down. Your defense of the first one is name-calling and your defense of the second is currently non-existent.

Put up a JFK assassination case for examination by your critics or leave the board. How's that for a demand? Since you asked David to guess which JFK conspiracy theory you support, why don't you remove all doubt where you stand and present us with your specific findings? Surely your years of scholarship on the topic must have impressed upon you a specific theory about what occurred, no? What do you have? A poison dart firing umbrella? Agent Hickey with the "OOPS!" shot? Greer with the kill shot from the driver's seat? Reverse-engineered UFOs from Roswell reconfigured at Area 51 that fired a death ray into Dealey Plaza from low Earth orbit? Anti-Castro Cubans? Pro-Castro Cubans? Corsican Mobsters in pith helmets on the grassy knoll? Don't be shy, Greg Parker. Enlighten the two or three remaining lurkers who might accidentally stumble into this discussion with your brilliance, chock full of your very own ballistic tests, etc.

Or, you know....continue to criticize DVP's website. My bet is that the website will win. None of you guys seem to have any interest in discussing your unique JFK assassination theories.

[Greg Parker]

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:01:47 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
>
> > Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?
> I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Oh but your brother-in-arms, DVP begs to differ. Are are you admitting he labelled me a "conspiracy loving clown" without a single piece of evidence to back it up?

I am sensibly, neith CT or LN and a have a whole fucking subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no natter where they fall on your LN/CT chart. reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net

All you guys have is mudslinging.

> > > And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:
>
> > Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.

> Oh, the irony.

Oh please. Do tell. Give me specific examples of how that is ironic.

> >
> > Because I trealize what a poor educatiuon you must have had, I'll be patient and go through it again.

> I'm not normally one to correct grammar or spelling at this dumb discussion board as we all make mistakes, but should you be criticizing someone's "educatiuon" when nearly every post you write is peppered with spelling and grammar errors?

LOL, I'm not a racist, but...

The problem with what you say is, firstly, most of my spelling mistakes are genuine typos.

Second, amd more importantly, you assume that the rules of spelling and grammar are immutable. If that were the case, we'd all still be grunting at each other at worst, or speaking like a punctilious prude from 15th century at best.

Such assumptions indeed, lead me to conclude your own education was somewhat stilted.

> > It is very simply, vonny.
> >
> > Defend both quotes, or take them down. Your defense of the first one is name-calling and your defense of the second is currently non-existent.

> Put up a JFK assassination case for examination by your critics or leave the board.

LOL.

How's that for a demand?

Fucking hilarious.

> Since you asked David to guess which JFK conspiracy theory you support,

The fuck I did! I asked him to support his claim that I have one.

> why don't you remove all doubt where you stand and present us with your specific findings?

So again, you are acciusing David of labelling me a conspiracy theorist when he has no evidence for it. As a result of his lack of evidennce, you want me to make something up so he then has the evodence.

Brilliant! You're the Wile E Coyote of the board.

> Surely your years of scholarship on the topic must have impressed upon you a specific theory about what occurred, no? What do you have? A poison dart firing umbrella? Agent Hickey with the "OOPS!" shot? Greer with the kill shot from the driver's seat? Reverse-engineered UFOs from Roswell reconfigured at Area 51 that fired a death ray into Dealey Plaza from low Earth orbit? Anti-Castro Cubans? Pro-Castro Cubans? Corsican Mobsters in pith helmets on the grassy knoll? Don't be shy, Greg Parker. Enlighten the two or three remaining lurkers who might accidentally stumble into this discussion with your brilliance, chock full of your very own ballistic tests, etc.

No no no. If you want me to make shit up for David to justify his mudslinging, I don;t think it is reasonable to offer me such great clues on what I should make up!

> Or, you know....continue to criticize DVP's website. My bet is that the website will win. None of you guys seem to have any interest in discussing your unique JFK assassination theories.

So, I'll put you dowen as supporting David's contention that labelling Oswald as guilty in the media BEFORE he was even changed with anything, and thus jeopardizing a fair trial and providing grounds for appeal, was a damn fine idea!A COMMON SENSE THING TO DO, in fact! ROFL!

See ya round like a rissole, Shuckster.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:51:46 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:01:47 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > > > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
> >
> > > Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?

> > I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

> Oh but your brother-in-arms, DVP begs to differ. Are are you admitting he labelled me a "conspiracy loving clown" without a single piece of evidence to back it up?

You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT?

Yes or no.

The clock is ticking. This November, it'll be SIXTY years since the Greatest Hobby of All-Time was launched. Tell us what you think.

>
> I am sensibly, neith CT or LN and a have a whole fucking subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no natter where they fall on your LN/CT chart. reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net

Liar. You're a conspiracist. Wear it.

>
> All you guys have is mudslinging.

Greg Parker at this thread:

penishead.
Penisbreath.
The ignorance of PineCone.
Wankhead.
Knobhead of the year.

> > > > And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:
> >
> > > Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.
>
> > Oh, the irony.

> Oh please. Do tell. Give me specific examples of how that is ironic.

It's ironic because at the 'An exercise for Greg Parker' thread started by John Corbett you wrote, in reference to his point about witness statements, "And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence." This is true, but this is OUT OF CONTEXT and an attempt to CHANGE THE MEANING or negate those specific eyewitness accounts. The Oswald Alone side has CONSILIENCE in the evidence chain which makes the witnesses who identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD as the source of gunfire extremely powerful. It isn't just the witness accounts of shots from that location; it's the spent shells, Oswald's rifle being found there, and on and on. Different TYPES of evidence that point to the same CONCLUSION is called CONSILIENCE. Read, Learn. Get some "educatiuon" on what consilience is and why it's so important:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience


Team Oswald has no consilience for the various hobby points they trot out and treat the quest to figure out what happened that day as if Oswald is on trial, and as if they are raising "reasonable doubt" or something.

> > >
> > > Because I trealize what a poor educatiuon you must have had, I'll be patient and go through it again.
>
> > I'm not normally one to correct grammar or spelling at this dumb discussion board as we all make mistakes, but should you be criticizing someone's "educatiuon" when nearly every post you write is peppered with spelling and grammar errors?

> LOL, I'm not a racist, but...

LOL, you're not a conspiracist but...

>
> The problem with what you say is, firstly, most of my spelling mistakes are genuine typos.

We all make them. Perhaps you could grant your critics a measure of grace on spelling and grammar issues. Calling out someone for grammar or spelling mistakes at this comical discussion board and attributing the mistakes to a supposed lack of "educatiuon" when you're guilty of what you're pointing out about others seems a bit over the top, and it's a form of an ad hominem attack.

>
> Second, amd more importantly, you assume that the rules of spelling and grammar are immutable.

I assume no such thing.

>If that were the case, we'd all still be grunting at each other at worst, or speaking like a punctilious prude from 15th century at best.

How do you conclude we'd all be grunting at each other or speaking like it's the 15th century if there is an assumption that spelling and grammar is immutable? Did people in the 15th century speak like people in the 9th century?

>
> Such assumptions indeed, lead me to conclude your own education was somewhat stilted.

What does my level of education have to do with anything regarding the JFK assassination? Arguably the smartest man in the world believes 9/11 was an "inside job."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

So much for "educatiuon" I guess.

> > > It is very simply, vonny.
> > >
> > > Defend both quotes, or take them down. Your defense of the first one is name-calling and your defense of the second is currently non-existent.
>
> > Put up a JFK assassination case for examination by your critics or leave the board.

> LOL.

> How's that for a demand?

> Fucking hilarious.

Indeed it's hilarious. Countless hours on your end poured into a hobby that's nothing more than a Snipe hunt at this point, and you can't even define what you think happened. Hilarious.

> > Since you asked David to guess which JFK conspiracy theory you support,

> The fuck I did! I asked him to support his claim that I have one.

Remove all doubt right now and tell the rare lurker that may stumble upon this dusty corner of the internet what you think happened on 11/22/63.

> > why don't you remove all doubt where you stand and present us with your specific findings?

> So again, you are acciusing David of labelling me a conspiracy theorist when he has no evidence for it. As a result of his lack of evidennce, you want me to make something up so he then has the evodence.

The evidence that you're a conspiracist is in your own writings. You dismiss the items John Corbett challenged you to respond to at the 'An Exercise for Greg Parker' thread. Can you give us a lone gunman theory that works if the items you poo-pooed regarding the witness ID of the 6th floor in the TSBD as the source of gunfire, the rifle, the fibers, the arrangement of the shells in the SN, Oswald's signature, etc. are planted, forged, or whatever?

>
> Brilliant! You're the Wile E Coyote of the board.
> > Surely your years of scholarship on the topic must have impressed upon you a specific theory about what occurred, no? What do you have? A poison dart firing umbrella? Agent Hickey with the "OOPS!" shot? Greer with the kill shot from the driver's seat? Reverse-engineered UFOs from Roswell reconfigured at Area 51 that fired a death ray into Dealey Plaza from low Earth orbit? Anti-Castro Cubans? Pro-Castro Cubans? Corsican Mobsters in pith helmets on the grassy knoll? Don't be shy, Greg Parker. Enlighten the two or three remaining lurkers who might accidentally stumble into this discussion with your brilliance, chock full of your very own ballistic tests, etc.

> No no no. If you want me to make shit up for David to justify his mudslinging, I don;t think it is reasonable to offer me such great clues on what I should make up!

No, no, no, I don't want you to make up anything. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED ON 11/22/63. In your own words. Be as specific as possible.

> > Or, you know....continue to criticize DVP's website. My bet is that the website will win. None of you guys seem to have any interest in discussing your unique JFK assassination theories.

> So, I'll put you dowen as supporting David's contention that labelling Oswald as guilty in the media BEFORE he was even changed with anything, and thus jeopardizing a fair trial and providing grounds for appeal, was a damn fine idea!A COMMON SENSE THING TO DO, in fact! ROFL!

Where did DVP write that it was a damn fine idea to supposedly pronounce Oswald as guilty in the media and thus--in your non-legal opinion--supposedly jeopardize a fair trial and provide grounds for appeal?

How do you even know that had Oswald lived to stand trial he wouldn't have pleaded guilty and used a trial to take credit for his act and give a long soliloquy about his hatred for the US system and how his act was designed to strike a blow against the capitalist pigs and the US war machine, blah, blah, blah?

>
> See ya round like a rissole, Shuckster.

Flush.

[David Von Pein]

GREG PARKER SAID:

I am sensibly neither CT or LN and a have a whole subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no matter where they fall on your LN/CT chart.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll wait for the laughter to die down a bit before continuing.............

If Greg Parker was really "dedicated to debunking bad theories", then he should start with some of his own really bad ones, such as the one in which Parker tries to make people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald never rented a room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff in October of 1963. (It'd be hard to beat that one on the "really bad" scale.)

And as for Greg Parker declaring that he's "neither CT or LN", let's take a quick look at a few of the comments he's made at various forums in past years and see if that fence-sitting position he says he occupies is backed up by his own statements....

"Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. .... The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best -- make (up) a case against their suspect." -- G. Parker; March 2019

That sure doesn't sound like a middle-of-the-road, fence-sitting statement to me.

Let's try a couple more....

"On balance, I don't believe Oswald carried a gun into the TT [Texas Theater]." .... and .... "That Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is pure, unadulterated bunk." -- G. Parker; March 2008

But remember everybody....Greg R. Parker is "neither CT or LN".

Yeah, right. And Donald Trump is a virtuous saint.

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:34:59 AM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> GREG PARKER SAID:
>
> I am sensibly neither CT or LN and a have a whole subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no matter where they fall on your LN/CT chart.

Good to see you pop your g=head up, David.

Some quotes from my own site for you.

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” Robert M. Hutchins

“Both apathy and indifference regarding the assassination of JFK have been enabled and encouraged by decades of a false war between two camps… the defenders of the Lone Assassin myth and the inventors of elaborate and unfalsifiable theories. The resulting white noise has dulled public sensibilities, while those in authority can simply hit the “ignore” button. It is time for a new way forward.” Greg R Parker

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I'll wait for the laughter to die down a bit before continuing.............
>
> If Greg Parker was really "dedicated to debunking bad theories", then he should start with some of his own really bad ones, such as the one in which Parker tries to make people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald never rented a room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff in October of 1963. (It'd be hard to beat that one on the "really bad" scale.)

Ah yes, the ol' look over here scam to divert attention from what you know you cannot justify.

But I am lwalways happy to talk about this. It is not a theory any more than saying he lived there is a theory. The difference is, I rely on all of the evidence, not the chery-picked evidence from the Warren Commission,

Anyone who buys two "Mr Lee's" living simultaneously at that address - one who was born with that name and another who is using that name as an alias, is a schmuck. What confusion that must have caused - yet no one - not the housekeeper or the owners mentioned that another Mr Lee also lived there. Not only would NORMAL people mention that coincidence, they would comment about the confusion and comedy it must have generated. Yet not a peep. It is almost as if they were told not mention the OTHER Mr Lee. Almost as if they were told to destroy the ledgers - the only real evidence that would have proven there were TWO Mr Lee's staying there.

> And as for Greg Parker declaring that he's "neither CT or LN", let's take a quick look at a few of the comments he's made at various forums in past years and see if that fence-sitting position he says he occupies is backed up by his own statements....
>
> "Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. .... The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best -- make (up) a case against their suspect." -- G. Parker; March 2019

Yup. Not a theory. It is how the DPD operated.

> That sure doesn't sound like a middle-of-the-road, fence-sitting statement to me.

You are on about conspiracy theories as in the CIA did it or the Mafia did it. I am talking about a conspiracy to frame an innocent man. See the difference?

> Let's try a couple more....
>
> "On balance, I don't believe Oswald carried a gun into the TT [Texas Theater]." .... and .... "That Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is pure, unadulterated bunk." -- G. Parker; March 2008

Yup. Since he did not live at the boarding house, where could he have picked up a gun? Common sense.

The Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter has been thoroughly debunked See Bart's work, or this
https://pinboard.opera.com/view/297798f3-a48a-47a8-8d2a-d83cb70f45c5

> But remember everybody....Greg R. Parker is "neither CT or LN".

Exactly.Your chum Shuckster, cited many examples of what he thought might be my "theory" CIA. Mob, Secret Service etc etc.

YOu are DESPERATELY conslating a conspiracy to assassination with a routine and rather mundane conspiracy to pin it on an innocent person. I don't care who did it or planned. That is for thae authorities to work out - once they are forced to accept they nailed the wrong guy.

> Yeah, right. And Donald Trump is a virtuous saint.

And you are avoiding this. Why? Surely you can think of some way of justifying it?
-----------------------
You quote on your site:

[Greg Parker]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:01:23 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:51:46 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:01:47 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
> > >
> > > > Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?
>
> > > I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
>
> > Oh but your brother-in-arms, DVP begs to differ. Are are you admitting he labelled me a "conspiracy loving clown" without a single piece of evidence to back it up?
> You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT?
>
> Yes or no.

Of course I do.

I just don't have a theory about it, numbscull. Not interested i theories about it.

> The clock is ticking. This November, it'll be SIXTY years since the Greatest Hobby of All-Time was launched. Tell us what you think.

I think you are butt hurt because you can't put me in the CT box and killing you inside.

> > I am sensibly, neith CT or LN and a have a whole fucking subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no natter where they fall on your LN/CT chart. reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net
> Liar. You're a conspiracist. Wear it.

Okay. Again, I'm calling you out, Point to my conspiracy theory regarding the assassination.

> > All you guys have is mudslinging.

> Greg Parker at this thread:
> penishead.
> Penisbreath.
> The ignorance of PineCone.
> Wankhead.
> Knobhead of the year.

Yep. That's not mudslinging. It is name-calling. And it is far from all I have. Which is what you can't cope with. Mudslinging, name calling and logical fallacies are what you guys have.

> > > > > And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:
> > >
> > > > Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.
> >
> > > Oh, the irony.
>
> > Oh please. Do tell. Give me specific examples of how that is ironic.

> It's ironic because at the 'An exercise for Greg Parker' thread started by John Corbett you wrote, in reference to his point about witness statements, "And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence." This is true, but this is OUT OF CONTEXT and an attempt to CHANGE THE MEANING or negate those specific eyewitness accounts. The Oswald Alone side has CONSILIENCE in the evidence chain which makes the witnesses who identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD as the source of gunfire extremely powerful. It isn't just the witness accounts of shots from that location; it's the spent shells, Oswald's rifle being found there, and on and on. Different TYPES of evidence that point to the same CONCLUSION is called CONSILIENCE. Read, Learn. Get some "educatiuon" on what consilience is and why it's so important:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

There are many examples. Yours require an evidence chain. Unfortunately for you that chain is brokem.

Here is a workable example

Oswald said in his interrogations that he went out to watch the presidential parade.

He said he ate his lunch in the Domino Room after finishing his lunch

He also named/described two employees who re-entered the building - something he could only see from the 1st floor. They confirmed coming back inside circa 12:25. Oswald should have been up on the 6th at this time.

He was seen by a witness prior to that in the front doorway at 12:15

There is film showing a male of Oswald's proportions standing in the back corner of the stairs seconds after the shots. No one has been identified as being this person, and in fact, no one even ever admitted that there was a person there. Very odd since every other person has been named.

> Team Oswald has no consilience for the various hobby points they trot out and treat the quest to figure out what happened that day as if Oswald is on trial, and as if they are raising "reasonable doubt" or something.

Fuck off. What a thoroughly obnocious cunt yhou are,

> > > >
> > > > Because I trealize what a poor educatiuon you must have had, I'll be patient and go through it again.
> >
> > > I'm not normally one to correct grammar or spelling at this dumb discussion board as we all make mistakes, but should you be criticizing someone's "educatiuon" when nearly every post you write is peppered with spelling and grammar errors?
>
> > LOL, I'm not a racist, but...
> LOL, you're not a conspiracist but...

Let me finish that for you. "I do dismantle their conspiracies."

> >
> > The problem with what you say is, firstly, most of my spelling mistakes are genuine typos.
> We all make them. Perhaps you could grant your critics a measure of grace on spelling and grammar issues. Calling out someone for grammar or spelling mistakes at this comical discussion board and attributing the mistakes to a supposed lack of "educatiuon" when you're guilty of what you're pointing out about others seems a bit over the top, and it's a form of an ad hominem attack.

You fucking reprehensible lying arsehole.

I never called David out for spelling or grammar. Go back and read what I fucking said again. You cunts will make any shit up in order to sling mud. That and the extraordinary number of logical fallacies you use, are all you have.

> > Second, amd more importantly, you assume that the rules of spelling and grammar are immutable.
> I assume no such thing.
> >If that were the case, we'd all still be grunting at each other at worst, or speaking like a punctilious prude from 15th century at best.
> How do you conclude we'd all be grunting at each other or speaking like it's the 15th century if there is an assumption that spelling and grammar is immutable? Did people in the 15th century speak like people in the 9th century?

Like I said, your own education seems to have lacked... something.

If something is immutable, it does not follow that it always was.

> > Such assumptions indeed, lead me to conclude your own education was somewhat stilted.
> What does my level of education have to do with anything regarding the JFK assassination? Arguably the smartest man in the world believes 9/11 was an "inside job."

Really? Who gives a flying fuck? You are so stilted, you think formal education is somehow a measure or indicator of intelligence. Or you think I think that. Either way, you're a numbat

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
>
> So much for "educatiuon" I guess.

No - so much for ability to think logically about anything.

> > > > It is very simply, vonny.
> > > >
> > > > Defend both quotes, or take them down. Your defense of the first one is name-calling and your defense of the second is currently non-existent.
> >
> > > Put up a JFK assassination case for examination by your critics or leave the board.
>
> > LOL.
>
> > How's that for a demand?
>
> > Fucking hilarious.
> Indeed it's hilarious. Countless hours on your end poured into a hobby that's nothing more than a Snipe hunt at this point, and you can't even define what you think happened. Hilarious.

LOL. You laugh at conspiracy theories and then try and force a laugh becaiuse I don't have one to give you. Poor boy.

> > > Since you asked David to guess which JFK conspiracy theory you support,
>
> > The fuck I did! I asked him to support his claim that I have one.
> Remove all doubt right now and tell the rare lurker that may stumble upon this dusty corner of the internet what you think happened on 11/22/63.

Kennedy was assassinated. The wrong man was arrested.

> > > why don't you remove all doubt where you stand and present us with your specific findings?
>
> > So again, you are acciusing David of labelling me a conspiracy theorist when he has no evidence for it. As a result of his lack of evidennce, you want me to make something up so he then has the evodence.

> The evidence that you're a conspiracist is in your own writings. You dismiss the items John Corbett challenged you to respond to at the 'An Exercise for Greg Parker' thread. Can you give us a lone gunman theory that works if the items you poo-pooed regarding the witness ID of the 6th floor in the TSBD as the source of gunfire, the rifle, the fibers, the arrangement of the shells in the SN, Oswald's signature, etc. are planted, forged, or whatever?

I got a headache trying to make sense of that.

> > Brilliant! You're the Wile E Coyote of the board.

> > > Surely your years of scholarship on the topic must have impressed upon you a specific theory about what occurred, no? What do you have? A poison dart firing umbrella? Agent Hickey with the "OOPS!" shot? Greer with the kill shot from the driver's seat? Reverse-engineered UFOs from Roswell reconfigured at Area 51 that fired a death ray into Dealey Plaza from low Earth orbit? Anti-Castro Cubans? Pro-Castro Cubans? Corsican Mobsters in pith helmets on the grassy knoll? Don't be shy, Greg Parker. Enlighten the two or three remaining lurkers who might accidentally stumble into this discussion with your brilliance, chock full of your very own ballistic tests, etc.
>
> > No no no. If you want me to make shit up for David to justify his mudslinging, I don;t think it is reasonable to offer me such great clues on what I should make up!

> No, no, no, I don't want you to make up anything. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED ON 11/22/63. In your own words. Be as specific as possible.

Okay. Kennedy was assassinated. The wrong man was arrested.

> > > Or, you know....continue to criticize DVP's website. My bet is that the website will win. None of you guys seem to have any interest in discussing your unique JFK assassination theories.
>
> > So, I'll put you dowen as supporting David's contention that labelling Oswald as guilty in the media BEFORE he was even changed with anything, and thus jeopardizing a fair trial and providing grounds for appeal, was a damn fine idea!A COMMON SENSE THING TO DO, in fact! ROFL!

> Where did DVP write that it was a damn fine idea to supposedly pronounce Oswald as guilty in the media and thus--in your non-legal opinion--supposedly jeopardize a fair trial and provide grounds for appeal?

He labelled this quote as "common sense"

"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little."
-- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963

Alex Dreier should hang his head in shame. So should von penis-head.

> How do you even know that had Oswald lived to stand trial he wouldn't have pleaded guilty and used a trial to take credit for his act and give a long soliloquy about his hatred for the US system and how his act was designed to strike a blow against the capitalist pigs and the US war machine, blah, blah, blah?

Because he was fucking innocent. Doh!

> >
> > See ya round like a rissole, Shuckster.

> Flush.

Hey. Never waste a good rissole, arsehole.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:23:38 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> He [DVP] labelled this quote as "common sense" --- "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963
> Alex Dreier should hang his head in shame. So should [DVP].

Why? It's an excellent/very excellent/super excellent quote. And oh so accurate.

You can argue that perhaps Mr. Dreier, on Day 1 (Nov. 22), shouldn't have been so blunt and definitive regarding the guilt of Oswald (aka: "a man worth so little"). But, then too, that particular quote is still an excellent (and entirely ACCURATE) quote even if somebody else besides Oswald had killed President Kennedy. It's only an INaccurate quote if the assassin had been a female. Because *any man* (be it Lee Oswald or Joe Schmoe or John Doe from Omaha) who kills an American President can aptly be described as a "man worth so little".

And if Greg Parker is offended in some way by the fact that I've propped up Mr. Dreier's quote on my site, that's just too damn bad. What could possibly matter less than the opinion of an outer-fringe conspiracy nutjob, who, in recent days and weeks, has established himself to be one of the most unpleasant and obnoxious pricks on the planet?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:23:38 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

So they were invisible, and could only be seen by someone in that specific location?

>They confirmed coming back inside circa 12:25.

No, they really didn`t.

> Oswald should have been up on the 6th at this time.

Not necessarily.

> He was seen by a witness prior to that in the front doorway at 12:15

You pretend you have precise times for things so you can play your silly games.

> There is film showing a male of Oswald's proportions standing in the back corner of the stairs seconds after the shots. No one has been identified as being this person, and in fact, no one even ever admitted that there was a person there. Very odd since every other person has been named.

Very odd you would assume this was Oswald. Oswald was the person of interest, all the investigators were asking about him and all the news channels had his face on TV constantly. Yet Oswald`s presence is not mentioned by anyone at the time.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Here, von Penis renders meaningless with his interpretation the quotation which he calls "common sense." If any man who kills the president is of little worth, then why would Dreier say so about Oswald specifically? Obviously, Dreier's quotation bemoans the fact that *Oswald* is a man of little worth, and that *Oswald* killed a man who had "come through so much." Whatever you think of Oswald's worth, the quotation is elitist and silly, especially on Day One. How does "a man who has come through so much" even relate to "a man worth so little?" The only relation here is between the words "much" and "little," and it's "apples and oranges." The "irony" expressed is between "coming through much" and being "worth little." This is lame brained irony. What he apparently really means to say, is that a nobody killed a somebody. That's his irony, very poorly expressed. But this irony means that the elites, like JFK, are worth more than the common people. When a nobody kills an elite, that is tragic irony. When an elite murders nobodies, that is being "presidential." Maybe Oswald should have shot Dreier instead.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:23:38 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:01:23 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:51:46 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:01:47 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
> > > >
> > > > > Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?
> >
> > > > I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
> >
> > > Oh but your brother-in-arms, DVP begs to differ. Are are you admitting he labelled me a "conspiracy loving clown" without a single piece of evidence to back it up?

> > You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT?
> >
> > Yes or no.

> Of course I do.
>
> I just don't have a theory about it, numbscull. Not interested i theories about it.

So this is just sort of a hobby, like building R/C model airplanes or taking adult beginner guitar lessons at the local YMCA so you can play "Greensleeves" the next time you and your middle-aged, long-haired friends are at a park smoking dope? Why do you have a website devoted to promoting the idea that the case needs to be reopened if you're not interested in who did it, how it happened, and so on?

> > The clock is ticking. This November, it'll be SIXTY years since the Greatest Hobby of All-Time was launched. Tell us what you think.

> I think you are butt hurt because you can't put me in the CT box and killing you inside.

Not at all. You're just a garden variety kook. Actually, NONE of you have a "theory" about who killed JFK or how it happened. Asking you to lay out what happened jolts Team Oswald like an electric shock because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of your side expecting those who believe Oswald was the lone gunman to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members and lay out some perfect, flawless case against Oswald that meets your always changing collective standards, while Team Oswald simply gets to float above it all, immune from providing a shot scenario, solid suspects Oswald was involved with, etc. You guys get to throw out stuff like, "I think a guy in a sewer fired a shot at JFK and hit him in the head," and not provide any tests for your allegations and so on. You guys get to say, "I think the Zapruder film was altered in a lab by the CIA to hide shots from the grassy knoll," and not state what was edited out of the film and then provide the recreations with technology of the era to duplicate what you allege. You skip about like little girls on the playground playing JFK hop-scotch and N'E-V-E-R take any stands on what specifically happened or provide any research for what you allege.

You have the burden to provide something tangible, Greg Parker. The Warren Commission, the DPD, the FBI, the HSCA, all settled on Oswald as the shooter and couldn't pinpoint anyone he may have worked with, and they backed this up with forensic science, various tests, thousands of interviews that pointed towards a specific conclusion, and so on.

> > > I am sensibly, neith CT or LN and a have a whole fucking subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no natter where they fall on your LN/CT chart. reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net

> > Liar. You're a conspiracist. Wear it.

> Okay. Again, I'm calling you out, Point to my conspiracy theory regarding the assassination.

You said you don't have one, so how can I point it out? But your own words here state you're are a conspiracist. Above:

Me: You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT? Yes or no.

You: Of course I do.

So you're a JFK assassination conspiracy theory believer without a JFK assassination conspiracy theory? Cute. How clever.

> > > All you guys have is mudslinging.
>
> > Greg Parker at this thread:
> > penishead.
> > Penisbreath.
> > The ignorance of PineCone.
> > Wankhead.
> > Knobhead of the year.


> Yep. That's not mudslinging. It is name-calling.

Your logical fallacy here is called a distinction without a difference fallacy. Here:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Distinction-Without-a-Difference

Name calling is the definition of mudslinging. Here:

mudslinging
noun [ U ]
US /ˈmʌdˌslɪŋ.ɪŋ/ UK /ˈmʌdˌslɪŋ.ɪŋ/

The act of saying insulting or unfair things about someone, especially to try to damage their reputation:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mudslinging

>And it is far from all I have. Which is what you can't cope with. Mudslinging, name calling and logical fallacies are what you guys have.

Greg Parker's spelling mistakes are genuine typos. His critic's spelling mistakes he opines are a result of a lack of "educatiuon" or something. Greg Parker isn't mudslinging when he calls posters knobheads or ignorant, etc. He's simply name calling. Greg Parker is better than his critics. Greg Parker can be held to a different standard.

> > > > > > And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:
> > > >
> > > > > Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.
> > >
> > > > Oh, the irony.
> >
> > > Oh please. Do tell. Give me specific examples of how that is ironic.
>
> > It's ironic because at the 'An exercise for Greg Parker' thread started by John Corbett you wrote, in reference to his point about witness statements, "And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence." This is true, but this is OUT OF CONTEXT and an attempt to CHANGE THE MEANING or negate those specific eyewitness accounts. The Oswald Alone side has CONSILIENCE in the evidence chain which makes the witnesses who identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD as the source of gunfire extremely powerful. It isn't just the witness accounts of shots from that location; it's the spent shells, Oswald's rifle being found there, and on and on. Different TYPES of evidence that point to the same CONCLUSION is called CONSILIENCE. Read, Learn. Get some "educatiuon" on what consilience is and why it's so important:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

> There are many examples. Yours require an evidence chain. Unfortunately for you that chain is brokem.

Changing the subject by Greg Parker. I gave you a direct example of how you took something out of context and I made a case why the witness testimony of shots from the TSBD was damning, as it was backed by interlocking pieces of other evidence, called consilience. I provided a definition of consilience, and you blew right past it, fluttering on to the next thing for me to knock down.

>
> Here is a workable example

Deal with the above before extending your Gish Gallop.

>
> Oswald said in his interrogations that he went out to watch the presidential parade.
>
> He said he ate his lunch in the Domino Room after finishing his lunch
>
> He also named/described two employees who re-entered the building - something he could only see from the 1st floor. They confirmed coming back inside circa 12:25. Oswald should have been up on the 6th at this time.
>
> He was seen by a witness prior to that in the front doorway at 12:15
>
> There is film showing a male of Oswald's proportions standing in the back corner of the stairs seconds after the shots. No one has been identified as being this person, and in fact, no one even ever admitted that there was a person there. Very odd since every other person has been named.

Gish Gallop. Deal with the interlocking pieces of evidence that directly counter your assertion about taking things out of context. Are you surrendering the point? Just say "yes" and we can move on.

> > Team Oswald has no consilience for the various hobby points they trot out and treat the quest to figure out what happened that day as if Oswald is on trial, and as if they are raising "reasonable doubt" or something.

> Fuck off. What a thoroughly obnocious cunt yhou are,

Hurts to have your hobby dismantled, eh? I just stepped on the wings of your R/C model airplane and smashed your acoustic guitar into a thousand pieces before you could finish "Greensleeves" at the park and start puffing your joint.

> > > > >
> > > > > Because I trealize what a poor educatiuon you must have had, I'll be patient and go through it again.
> > >
> > > > I'm not normally one to correct grammar or spelling at this dumb discussion board as we all make mistakes, but should you be criticizing someone's "educatiuon" when nearly every post you write is peppered with spelling and grammar errors?
> >
> > > LOL, I'm not a racist, but...

> > LOL, you're not a conspiracist but...

> Let me finish that for you. "I do dismantle their conspiracies."

Whose conspiracy theory have you dismantled? Didn't you just write that you not interested in a specific JFK conspiracy theory? Wouldn't narrowing down what happened or didn't happen on 11/22/63 point you towards a particular solution for the crime? After all, it only happened one way, correct?

> > >
> > > The problem with what you say is, firstly, most of my spelling mistakes are genuine typos.
> > We all make them. Perhaps you could grant your critics a measure of grace on spelling and grammar issues. Calling out someone for grammar or spelling mistakes at this comical discussion board and attributing the mistakes to a supposed lack of "educatiuon" when you're guilty of what you're pointing out about others seems a bit over the top, and it's a form of an ad hominem attack.
> You fucking reprehensible lying arsehole.
>
> I never called David out for spelling or grammar. Go back and read what I fucking said again. You cunts will make any shit up in order to sling mud. That and the extraordinary number of logical fallacies you use, are all you have.

Arguing to argue by Greg Parker.

> > > Second, amd more importantly, you assume that the rules of spelling and grammar are immutable.
> > I assume no such thing.
> > >If that were the case, we'd all still be grunting at each other at worst, or speaking like a punctilious prude from 15th century at best.
> > How do you conclude we'd all be grunting at each other or speaking like it's the 15th century if there is an assumption that spelling and grammar is immutable? Did people in the 15th century speak like people in the 9th century?

> Like I said, your own education seems to have lacked... something.

And you're sure of this how, and why does it matter to you whether I'm a high school dropout or hold an advanced college degree?

>
> If something is immutable, it does not follow that it always was.
> > > Such assumptions indeed, lead me to conclude your own education was somewhat stilted.
> > What does my level of education have to do with anything regarding the JFK assassination? Arguably the smartest man in the world believes 9/11 was an "inside job."

> Really? Who gives a flying fuck?

Um, you apparently care, Greg Parker. You brought it up.

>You are so stilted, you think formal education is somehow a measure or indicator of intelligence.

Do I? Where did you get that idea? You're the one attacking someone's supposed level of education, and I'm the one pointing out it doesn't matter.

>Or you think I think that. Either way, you're a numbat


> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
> >
> > So much for "educatiuon" I guess.
> No - so much for ability to think logically about anything.
> > > > > It is very simply, vonny.
> > > > >
> > > > > Defend both quotes, or take them down. Your defense of the first one is name-calling and your defense of the second is currently non-existent.
> > >
> > > > Put up a JFK assassination case for examination by your critics or leave the board.
> >
> > > LOL.
> >
> > > How's that for a demand?
> >
> > > Fucking hilarious.
> > Indeed it's hilarious. Countless hours on your end poured into a hobby that's nothing more than a Snipe hunt at this point, and you can't even define what you think happened. Hilarious.

> LOL. You laugh at conspiracy theories and then try and force a laugh becaiuse I don't have one to give you. Poor boy.

So this is just sort of a hobby like building R/C airplanes and playing the acoustic guitar in the park while you fire up a doobie?

> > > > Since you asked David to guess which JFK conspiracy theory you support,
> >
> > > The fuck I did! I asked him to support his claim that I have one.
> > Remove all doubt right now and tell the rare lurker that may stumble upon this dusty corner of the internet what you think happened on 11/22/63.

> Kennedy was assassinated. The wrong man was arrested.

Greg Parker: "On 11/22/63, some people did something." What a stupid hobby. Greg Parker with a website to nowhere matched with the smugness of holding himself "above" ordinary JFK conspiracists because he doesn't have a particular JFK conspiracy theory. "Haha!" writes Greg Parker, "You can't pin me down!"

> > > > why don't you remove all doubt where you stand and present us with your specific findings?
> >
> > > So again, you are acciusing David of labelling me a conspiracy theorist when he has no evidence for it. As a result of his lack of evidennce, you want me to make something up so he then has the evodence.
>
> > The evidence that you're a conspiracist is in your own writings. You dismiss the items John Corbett challenged you to respond to at the 'An Exercise for Greg Parker' thread. Can you give us a lone gunman theory that works if the items you poo-pooed regarding the witness ID of the 6th floor in the TSBD as the source of gunfire, the rifle, the fibers, the arrangement of the shells in the SN, Oswald's signature, etc. are planted, forged, or whatever?

> I got a headache trying to make sense of that.

Irrelevant now as you've now left no doubt that you are a conspiracist; you just claim to not have a conspiracy theory.

> > > Brilliant! You're the Wile E Coyote of the board.
>
> > > > Surely your years of scholarship on the topic must have impressed upon you a specific theory about what occurred, no? What do you have? A poison dart firing umbrella? Agent Hickey with the "OOPS!" shot? Greer with the kill shot from the driver's seat? Reverse-engineered UFOs from Roswell reconfigured at Area 51 that fired a death ray into Dealey Plaza from low Earth orbit? Anti-Castro Cubans? Pro-Castro Cubans? Corsican Mobsters in pith helmets on the grassy knoll? Don't be shy, Greg Parker. Enlighten the two or three remaining lurkers who might accidentally stumble into this discussion with your brilliance, chock full of your very own ballistic tests, etc.
> >
> > > No no no. If you want me to make shit up for David to justify his mudslinging, I don;t think it is reasonable to offer me such great clues on what I should make up!
>
> > No, no, no, I don't want you to make up anything. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED ON 11/22/63. In your own words. Be as specific as possible.

> Okay. Kennedy was assassinated. The wrong man was arrested.

Decades of study and that's the best you have? What a stupid hobby. Go build that R/C airplane. Go take those adult beginner guitar lessons and strum it at the park while you're getting stoned.

> > > > Or, you know....continue to criticize DVP's website. My bet is that the website will win. None of you guys seem to have any interest in discussing your unique JFK assassination theories.
> >
> > > So, I'll put you dowen as supporting David's contention that labelling Oswald as guilty in the media BEFORE he was even changed with anything, and thus jeopardizing a fair trial and providing grounds for appeal, was a damn fine idea!A COMMON SENSE THING TO DO, in fact! ROFL!
>
> > Where did DVP write that it was a damn fine idea to supposedly pronounce Oswald as guilty in the media and thus--in your non-legal opinion--supposedly jeopardize a fair trial and provide grounds for appeal?
> He labelled this quote as "common sense"
> "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little."
> -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963
> Alex Dreier should hang his head in shame. So should von penis-head.

So you're backing away from your assertion that DVP claimed it was a damn fine idea to supposedly pronounce Oswald as guilty in the media and in your non-legal opinion jeopardize a fair trial and provide grounds for an appeal?

> > How do you even know that had Oswald lived to stand trial he wouldn't have pleaded guilty and used a trial to take credit for his act and give a long soliloquy about his hatred for the US system and how his act was designed to strike a blow against the capitalist pigs and the US war machine, blah, blah, blah?

> Because he was fucking innocent. Doh!

The evidence says otherwise. JFK's own library links interested visitors to the Warren Commission Report to learn more about the assassination. It does so here:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/november-22-1963-death-of-the-president

It even takes pains to educate visitors that the HSCA last minute findings of a fourth shot that was included in their report was debunked. It does that here:

"Note to the reader: Point 1B in the link below to the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations states that the committee had found "a high probability that two gunmen fired" at the president. This conclusion resulted from the last-minute “discovery” of a Dallas police radio transmission tape that allegedly provided evidence that four or more shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. After the report appeared in print, acoustic experts analyzed the tape and proved conclusively that it was completely worthless—thus negating the finding in Point 1B."

> > >
> > > See ya round like a rissole, Shuckster.
>
> > Flush.
> Hey. Never waste a good rissole, arsehole.

That's just name calling and not mudslinging, right?

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:16:45 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:23:38 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> > There is film showing a male of Oswald's proportions standing in the back corner of the stairs seconds after the shots. No one has been identified as being this person, and in fact, no one even ever admitted that there was a person there. Very odd since every other person has been named.
> Very odd you would assume this was Oswald. Oswald was the person of interest, all the investigators were asking about him and all the news channels had his face on TV constantly. Yet Oswald`s presence is not mentioned by anyone at the time.

Excellent point. Had any of Oswald's co-workers at the TSBD seen him standing on the steps, it
is inconceivable that they would not have come forward when Oswald was arrested and told the
investigators, "Lee couldn't have been the assassin. He was standing right next to me when the
shots were fired.". Why would anyone withhold vital information like that. There was only one
person in Dealey Plaza who saw Oswald when the shots were fired and that was Howard Brennan.
On its own, his identification of Oswald would not be very compelling evidence, but given the
forensic evidence all pointed to Oswald too, it is a slam dunk that Brennan got it right.

[robert johnson]

Dumber than a loaf of bread.
You checked out Molina?
Check out Buell Frazier?
Check out the blacks?

Of course not, it will destroy your lone nutter delusions.

Brennan got nothing right, he would not ID him. Only four months later. Oh sure.

Really, dumber than a loaf of bread.

[John Corbett]

Thank you for your contributions to the discourse. <chuckle>

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:19:58 AM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:23:38 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:01:23 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:51:46 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:01:47 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?
> > >
> > > > > I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
> > >
> > > > Oh but your brother-in-arms, DVP begs to differ. Are are you admitting he labelled me a "conspiracy loving clown" without a single piece of evidence to back it up?
>
> > > You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT?
> > >
> > > Yes or no.
>
> > Of course I do.
> >
> > I just don't have a theory about it, numbscull. Not interested i theories about it.
> So this is just sort of a hobby, like building R/C model airplanes or taking adult beginner guitar lessons at the local YMCA so you can play "Greensleeves" the next time you and your middle-aged, long-haired friends are at a park smoking dope? Why do you have a website devoted to promoting the idea that the case needs to be reopened if you're not interested in who did it, how it happened, and so on?

Really? I coulda swore you thought the theorists were the "hobbyists". Now suddenly it's the non-theorists. Points for flexibility Mr Shyster.

As for my website being devoted to having the case reopened.... ummm... reopening a case does not depend upon solving it. You get it reopened to HAVE it solved. Is that too difficult a concept for you, diddums? Cases are reopned all the time for a variety of reasons - one being that the main suspect at the time of the crime, has now been proven innocent.

> > > The clock is ticking. This November, it'll be SIXTY years since the Greatest Hobby of All-Time was launched. Tell us what you think.
>
> > I think you are butt hurt because you can't put me in the CT box and killing you inside.

> Not at all. You're just a garden variety kook.

Okay. whatever. But you're just flailing in the mud. Or at least i think/hope it's mud.

Actually, NONE of you have a "theory" about who killed JFK or how it happened. Asking you to lay out what happened jolts Team Oswald like an electric shock because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of your side

I don't have a "side", cunt. You NEED me too. Bad fucking luck sport,. I don't need to solve the case in order to have it reopened. Deal with it. Or keep flailing in the mud

expecting those who believe Oswald was the lone gunman to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members and lay out some perfect, flawless case against Oswald that meets your always changing collective standards, while Team Oswald simply gets to float above it all, immune from providing a shot scenario, solid suspects Oswald was involved with, etc. You guys get to throw out stuff like, "I think a guy in a sewer fired a shot at JFK and hit him in the head," and not provide any tests for your allegations and so on. You guys get to say, "I think the Zapruder film was altered in a lab by the CIA to hide shots from the grassy knoll," and not state what was edited out of the film and then provide the recreations with technology of the era to duplicate what you allege. You skip about like little girls on the playground playing JFK hop-scotch and N'E-V-E-R take any stands on what specifically happened or provide any research for what you allege.

I bet dumping that excetia was a real load off the mmind.

> You have the burden to provide something tangible, Greg Parker.

I don't have any burden at all, exect to be true to the evidence and to whatever historical accuracy comes from that.

The Warren Commission, the DPD, the FBI, the HSCA, all settled on Oswald as the shooter and couldn't pinpoint anyone he may have worked with, and they backed this up with forensic science, various tests, thousands of interviews that pointed towards a specific conclusion, and so on.

Science, like language, is not static. Yesterday's cutting edge forencis is todays junk science.

> > > > I am sensibly, neith CT or LN and a have a whole fucking subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no natter where they fall on your LN/CT chart. reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net
>
> > > Liar. You're a conspiracist. Wear it.
>
> > Okay. Again, I'm calling you out, Point to my conspiracy theory regarding the assassination.
> You said you don't have one, so how can I point it out? But your own words here state you're are a conspiracist. Above:
>
> Me: You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT? Yes or no.
>
> You: Of course I do.
>
> So you're a JFK assassination conspiracy theory believer without a JFK assassination conspiracy theory? Cute. How clever.

Were you standing behind the door during logic ?

A conspiracy was involved. I am not interested in theorizing about the nature if that conspiracy or those involved., That is for law enforcement and hitory to deal with.

Aknowledging there was a conspiracy is not equal to believing in conspiracy theories. Are you really that dumb?

> > > > All you guys have is mudslinging.
> >
> > > Greg Parker at this thread:
> > > penishead.
> > > Penisbreath.
> > > The ignorance of PineCone.
> > > Wankhead.
> > > Knobhead of the year.
>
>
> > Yep. That's not mudslinging. It is name-calling.
> Your logical fallacy here is called a distinction without a difference fallacy. Here:
>
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Distinction-Without-a-Difference

No, there is a clear distinction. Mudslinging is attacking character.

> Name calling is the definition of mudslinging. Here:
>
> mudslinging
> noun [ U ]
> US /ˈmʌdˌslɪŋ.ɪŋ/ UK /ˈmʌdˌslɪŋ.ɪŋ/
>
> The act of saying insulting or unfair things about someone, especially to try to damage their reputation:

Yeo. Character assassination. Not namecalling.

mud-sling
verbINFORMAL
gerund or present participle: mudslinging
make malicious or scandalous allegations about an opponent with the aim of damaging their reputation.

David may have a head shaped like a penis, but that does not mean, or insinuate that he is of bad character.

> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mudslinging
> >And it is far from all I have. Which is what you can't cope with. Mudslinging, name calling and logical fallacies are what you guys have.
> Greg Parker's spelling mistakes are genuine typos. His critic's spelling mistakes he opines are a result of a lack of "educatiuon" or something. Greg Parker isn't mudslinging when he calls posters knobheads or ignorant, etc. He's simply name calling. Greg Parker is better than his critics. Greg Parker can be held to a different standard.
> > > > > > > And, incredibly, Mr. Parker can't even seem to figure out *why* I placed this 1961 quote by JFK at the top of my "Quoting Common Sense" site:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which I have already pointed out, has been taken out of contezt in order to make your limp non-point. Anyone can take shit out of context to change the meaning.
> > > >
> > > > > Oh, the irony.
> > >
> > > > Oh please. Do tell. Give me specific examples of how that is ironic.
> >
> > > It's ironic because at the 'An exercise for Greg Parker' thread started by John Corbett you wrote, in reference to his point about witness statements, "And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence." This is true, but this is OUT OF CONTEXT and an attempt to CHANGE THE MEANING or negate those specific eyewitness accounts. The Oswald Alone side has CONSILIENCE in the evidence chain which makes the witnesses who identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD as the source of gunfire extremely powerful. It isn't just the witness accounts of shots from that location; it's the spent shells, Oswald's rifle being found there, and on and on. Different TYPES of evidence that point to the same CONCLUSION is called CONSILIENCE. Read, Learn. Get some "educatiuon" on what consilience is and why it's so important:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
>
> > There are many examples. Yours require an evidence chain. Unfortunately for you that chain is brokem.
> Changing the subject by Greg Parker. I gave you a direct example of how you took something out of context and I made a case why the witness testimony of shots from the TSBD was damning, as it was backed by interlocking pieces of other evidence, called consilience. I provided a definition of consilience, and you blew right past it, fluttering on to the next thing for me to knock down.
> >
> > Here is a workable example
> Deal with the above before extending your Gish Gallop.
> >
> > Oswald said in his interrogations that he went out to watch the presidential parade.
> >
> > He said he ate his lunch in the Domino Room after finishing his lunch
> >
> > He also named/described two employees who re-entered the building - something he could only see from the 1st floor. They confirmed coming back inside circa 12:25. Oswald should have been up on the 6th at this time.
> >
> > He was seen by a witness prior to that in the front doorway at 12:15
> >
> > There is film showing a male of Oswald's proportions standing in the back corner of the stairs seconds after the shots. No one has been identified as being this person, and in fact, no one even ever admitted that there was a person there. Very odd since every other person has been named.

> Gish Gallop. Deal with the interlocking pieces of evidence that directly counter your assertion about taking things out of context. Are you surrendering the point? Just say "yes" and we can move on.

Unlike Little Vonny, I took nothing out of contexr.

You need to look up what a gish gallop is.

David snipped a part of JFK's speech and used it out of its original context - which was that sometimes being right is not enough. Sometimes you need to back it up with firepower. Deal with that and quit your deiversions and goal post moving.

You're absolutely butt hurt.

LOL. Poor diddums has no idea what's going on.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:07:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:19:58 AM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:23:38 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:01:23 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:51:46 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 3:01:47 PM UTC+10, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28 PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22 PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?
> > > >
> > > > > > I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share. You're sensibly too embarrassed to put something out there that can be examined by your critics. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
> > > >
> > > > > Oh but your brother-in-arms, DVP begs to differ. Are are you admitting he labelled me a "conspiracy loving clown" without a single piece of evidence to back it up?
> >
> > > > You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT?
> > > >
> > > > Yes or no.
> >
> > > Of course I do.
> > >
> > > I just don't have a theory about it, numbscull. Not interested i theories about it.

> > So this is just sort of a hobby, like building R/C model airplanes or taking adult beginner guitar lessons at the local YMCA so you can play "Greensleeves" the next time you and your middle-aged, long-haired friends are at a park smoking dope? Why do you have a website devoted to promoting the idea that the case needs to be reopened if you're not interested in who did it, how it happened, and so on?

> Really? I coulda swore you thought the theorists were the "hobbyists". Now suddenly it's the non-theorists. Points for flexibility Mr Shyster.

No answer from Greg Parker. I'll try one more time: Why do you have a website promoting the idea that the case needs to be reopened if you're not interested in who did it, how it happened, and so on? Care to answer?

>
> As for my website being devoted to having the case reopened.... ummm... reopening a case does not depend upon solving it. You get it reopened to HAVE it solved. Is that too difficult a concept for you, diddums?

It was reopened diddums, and the HSCA found Oswald fired the shots, and an unnamed, unknown person fired a shot that missed everyone. The acoustics study was later debunked, so we're right back to where we were before: Oswald alone, no KNOWN help. Solved, but not to YOUR satisfaction, and as you've noted, you don't care about the who or how or why, so why reopen it? Greg Parker above: "I just don't have a theory about it, numbscull. Not interested i theories about it."

>Cases are reopned all the time for a variety of reasons - one being that the main suspect at the time of the crime, has now been proven innocent.

Strawman argument. That doesn't apply here. Oswald has been found historically guilty and we do not put dead people on trial.

> > > > The clock is ticking. This November, it'll be SIXTY years since the Greatest Hobby of All-Time was launched. Tell us what you think.
> >
> > > I think you are butt hurt because you can't put me in the CT box and killing you inside.
>
> > Not at all. You're just a garden variety kook.

> Okay. whatever. But you're just flailing in the mud. Or at least i think/hope it's mud.

Really? History records Oswald as JFK's killer and as JDT's killer. That will NEVER change. You're the one flailing in the mud. Or at least I think/hope it's mud.

> Actually, NONE of you have a "theory" about who killed JFK or how it happened. Asking you to lay out what happened jolts Team Oswald like an electric shock because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of your side

> I don't have a "side", cunt.

Stop lying. Greg Parker at this thread: I wrote: "You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT? Yes or no." You wrote: "Of course I do."

>You NEED me too. Bad fucking luck sport,. I don't need to solve the case in order to have it reopened.

It is solved historically, small child. Put up a better case and we can compare it to the WCR or HSCA findings, etc.

>Deal with it. Or keep flailing in the mud

Says the guy flailing in the mud. Greg Parker: A website to nowhere, no compelling case to offer that might interest people in reopening the case, and a boatload of logical fallacies and insults, all combined with with an admitted lack of interest in who did it and why and how. Good luck getting the case reopened, small child.

> expecting those who believe Oswald was the lone gunman to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members and lay out some perfect, flawless case against Oswald that meets your always changing collective standards, while Team Oswald simply gets to float above it all, immune from providing a shot scenario, solid suspects Oswald was involved with, etc. You guys get to throw out stuff like, "I think a guy in a sewer fired a shot at JFK and hit him in the head," and not provide any tests for your allegations and so on. You guys get to say, "I think the Zapruder film was altered in a lab by the CIA to hide shots from the grassy knoll," and not state what was edited out of the film and then provide the recreations with technology of the era to duplicate what you allege. You skip about like little girls on the playground playing JFK hop-scotch and N'E-V-E-R take any stands on what specifically happened or provide any research for what you allege.

> I bet dumping that excetia was a real load off the mmind.

The truth is a load on your mind.

> > You have the burden to provide something tangible, Greg Parker.

> I don't have any burden at all, exect to be true to the evidence and to whatever historical accuracy comes from that.

Then why should the case be reopened if, A.) it's already been reopened with Oswald reestablished as the shooter who did the killing, and B.) you haven't provided a more compelling case than the historical case that Oswald was the assassin and that no conspiracy could be pinpointed, or as you've already made apparent, C.) you don't care about who did it or why?

Should they reopen it just for fun or something? A guy with a website who makes lots of spelling mistakes and questions people about their level of education is going to convince people to reopen the case? A guy who posts HERE at this joke of a discussion board? The level of delusion you conspiracism-afflicted, guitar strumming, dope smoking Boomer hippies have is remarkable. Small child, you are NEVER going to get the case reopened. So NOW WHAT?

> The Warren Commission, the DPD, the FBI, the HSCA, all settled on Oswald as the shooter and couldn't pinpoint anyone he may have worked with, and they backed this up with forensic science, various tests, thousands of interviews that pointed towards a specific conclusion, and so on.
> Science, like language, is not static. Yesterday's cutting edge forencis is todays junk science.
> > > > > I am sensibly, neith CT or LN and a have a whole fucking subforum dedicated to debunking bad theories, no natter where they fall on your LN/CT chart. reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net
> >
> > > > Liar. You're a conspiracist. Wear it.
> >
> > > Okay. Again, I'm calling you out, Point to my conspiracy theory regarding the assassination.
> > You said you don't have one, so how can I point it out? But your own words here state you're are a conspiracist. Above:
> >
> > Me: You can provide the evidence right here, Parker. Do you believe a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK, wounding of JBC, and the murder of JDT? Yes or no.
> >
> > You: Of course I do.
> >
> > So you're a JFK assassination conspiracy theory believer without a JFK assassination conspiracy theory? Cute. How clever.
> Were you standing behind the door during logic ?
>
> A conspiracy was involved.

What conspiracy?

>I am not interested in theorizing about the nature if that conspiracy or those involved., That is for law enforcement and hitory to deal with.

It was dealt with. NOW WHAT?

>
> Aknowledging there was a conspiracy is not equal to believing in conspiracy theories. Are you really that dumb?

You gave an example above. You avoided answering me and listed a whole bunch of new things I'm supposed to jump through hoops for you and answer. That's a Gish Gallop.

Same thing is going that's been going on. Chuck is gunning, Greg is running.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 22:01:45 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:09:28?PM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:

>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:34:22?PM UTC+10, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>> What a goofy, worthless thread this is. (But, after all, it *was* started by a conspiracy-loving clown. So, who could expect anything else other than goofiness and worthlessness?)
>
>> Okay David. You persoist in lying, I'm calling you on it. Which conspiracy theory in regard to the Dealey killing zone,do you think I support?
>
>I'm guessing you don't have a conspiracy theory to share.

I know for a FACT that you don't have a scenario to share about what
happened on 11/22/63... you've admitted it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It was reopened diddums, and the HSCA found Oswald fired the shots,
> and an unnamed, unknown person fired a shot that missed everyone.

End of story.

> The acoustics study was later debunked...

And THAT study was debunked...

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 02:35:21 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:23:38?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>> He [DVP] labelled this quote as "common sense" --- "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963
>> Alex Dreier should hang his head in shame. So should [DVP].
>
>Why? It's an excellent/very excellent/super excellent quote. And oh so accurate.

Tell that to God when you try to justify your life...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 07:24:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:16:45?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:23:38?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>
>> > There is film showing a male of Oswald's proportions standing in the back corner of the stairs seconds after the shots. No one has been identified as being this person, and in fact, no one even ever admitted that there was a person there. Very odd since every other person has been named.
>> Very odd you would assume this was Oswald. Oswald was the person of interest, all the investigators were asking about him and all the news channels had his face on TV constantly. Yet Oswald`s presence is not mentioned by anyone at the time.
>
>Excellent point. Had any of Oswald's co-workers at the TSBD seen him standing on the steps, it

>is inconceivable..

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 07:19:57 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:


>So this is just sort of a hobby...

Pretty useless hobby you have here, Chuckles...

[Greg Parker]

These clawns falsely claim that

1. History is set in concrete, instead of the reality - it is in a state of perpetual flux.

2. A case can only be reopened once, regardless of any new evidence.

Corbett and Shyster et al epitimize why the Empire is crumbling.

[John Corbett]

The assassination of JFK only happened one way. It is not a multiple choice exercise. Just
because you don't like the right answer doesn't entitle you or anybody else to a different one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 18:29:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The assassination of JFK only happened one way. It is not a multiple choice exercise. Just
>because you don't like the right answer doesn't entitle you or anybody else to a different one.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

[David Healy]

Corbi is channeling John McMadman again...

[robert johnson]

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠛⢉⢉⠉⠉⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠠⡰⣕⣗⣷⣧⣀⣅⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⣠⣳⣟⣿⣿⣷⣿⡿⣜⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠄⣳⢷⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣝⠖⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠄⢢⡹⣿⢷⣯⢿⢷⡫⣗⠍⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⡏⢀⢄⠤⣁⠋⠿⣗⣟⡯⡏⢎⠁⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⠄⢔⢕⣯⣿⣿⡲⡤⡄⡤⠄⡀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⠇⠠⡳⣯⣿⣿⣾⢵⣫⢎⢎⠆⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⠄⢨⣫⣿⣿⡿⣿⣻⢎⡗⡕⡅⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⠄⢜⢾⣾⣿⣿⣟⣗⢯⡪⡳⡀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⠄⢸⢽⣿⣷⣿⣻⡮⡧⡳⡱⡁⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⡄⢨⣻⣽⣿⣟⣿⣞⣗⡽⡸⡐⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⡇⢀⢗⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣞⡵⡣⣊⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⡀⡣⣗⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⡯⡺⣼⠎⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣧⠐⡵⣻⣟⣯⣿⣷⣟⣝⢞⡿⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⢘⡺⣽⢿⣻⣿⣗⡷⣹⢩⢃⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠄⠪⣯⣟⣿⢯⣿⣻⣜⢎⢆⠜⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠄⢣⣻⣽⣿⣿⣟⣾⡮⡺⡸⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⡿⠛⠉⠁⠄⢕⡳⣽⡾⣿⢽⣯⡿⣮⢚⣅⠹⣿⣿⣿
⡿⠋⠄⠄⠄⠄⢀⠒⠝⣞⢿⡿⣿⣽⢿⡽⣧⣳⡅⠌⠻⣿
⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠐⡐⠱⡱⣻⡻⣝⣮⣟⣿⣻⣟⣻⡺⣊