Re: The Mentality Of LNers Vs. CTers

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 10:12:33 PM12/7/09
to

David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
between those who seek the truth and those who do not.

Sadly, those who do not, identify themselves by their closed minds, their
bigotry, and their hatred of those who prove them wrong.

Which "side" are you on David?


Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 12:24:59 AM12/8/09
to

>>> "David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which "side" are you on David?" <<<


I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.

And I'm on the side where all of the physical evidence resides too --
the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" side.

You, Robert Harris, have added in a bunch of gunshots that only exist
in your conspiracy-oriented mind, and nowhere else.

But at the end of the day you're still left having to explain the
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, which is physical evidence that does NOT support
"conspiracy" in the JFK murder case.

The physical evidence--all of it--conclusively supports the following
conclusion:

Lee Harvey Oswald took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and
fired three shots from that gun at John F. Kennedy, killing the
President with the third shot.

Period.

Your theory about a shooter in the Dal-Tex Building AND another
shooter in front of JFK's car doesn't make any logical sense at all,
especially your theory that has a series of SILENCED shots coming from
the Dal-Tex.

Here's why your theory is illogical from the get-go (no matter which
way you choose to go with respect to the question of: "Was Lee Harvey
Oswald just a patsy?"):

1.) If Oswald was being framed as a lone patsy for President Kennedy's
assassination, then your theory involving at least two other gunmen
(besides Oswald) falls to pieces right off the bat -- because there's
no way in the world that any sane and rational "plotters" are going to
risk shooting at JFK from at least THREE directions (using at least
THREE different guns, of course) and then expect all of the evidence
to lead back to JUST THE PATSY named Oswald in the Book Depository.
That idea is nuts on its face. (And somebody should go inform Oliver
Stone of this fact asap, too.)

2.) And if Oswald wasn't being "set up" to take the lone fall for
JFK's murder, then there would be absolutely no reason under the moon
for any of the Dealey Plaza shooters to be using SILENCERS on their
weapons. (Silencers, as you rightly point out in your video, can cause
serious problems with the guns they are attached to, often resulting
in the target being missed entirely.)

As a further reminder to Bob Harris and all other conspiracy
theorists, I offer up the following two images, which are images that
(in tandem) tell an important and often-overlooked story with respect
to where the evidence leads in the murder case of John F. Kennedy:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND+IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=KTWiOGkAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQfpQVYgpeh-HD5lx9-F_quOb4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh&gsc=t5yRRgsAAABY9A6lPbxVYJFdXpLLyMNG

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/120g.+NUMBER+OF+SHOTS?gda=NfskXUcAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQ_N_iIw9tV7Ur2Tn7AuZdBrcKqjfENqtvcpakP4Wj9PkVe7Cvjttfwe-VNM4IQOtseV4duv6pDMGhhhZdjQlNAw&gsc=t5yRRgsAAABY9A6lPbxVYJFdXpLLyMNG


Maybe it's time to face facts, Robert Harris -- your theories about
the way John Kennedy died simply do not mesh with the hard facts and
evidence connected to the President's assassination.

How many more years will you keep pretending that your subjective
theories are a legitimate substitute for the real facts and evidence
in the JFK case?


David Von Pein
December 7-8, 2009

http://www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:21:56 AM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 12:24�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> The physical evidence--all of it--conclusively supports the following
> conclusion:
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and
> fired three shots from that gun at John F. Kennedy, killing the
> President with the third shot.
>
> Period.


WRONG

I asked you to provide evidence that his rifle was in the Paine garage
on 11/21/63.
You could not.

I asked you to provide evidence that he took a 35+ inch package to
work that day.
You could not.

I asked you to provide evidence that he brought that 35+ inch package
into the building.
You could not.

I asked you to provide evidence that CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza.
You could not.


These are just some of the basic pieces of evidence essential to the
official version that you cannot provide.


AND YOU'RE ON THE SIDE "WHERE ALL COMMON SENSE RESIDES" ?

ROFLMAO.............no wonder you're the laughingstock of the
internet.

mucher1

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 9:27:12 AM12/8/09
to

"Common sense" forces a certified conspiracy kook to conclude that:

a) Oswald's rifle wasn't stored in the Paine garage
b) Oswald didn't bring a lengthy package to work / into the TSBD
c) the bullet found at the hospital wasn't fired in Dealey Plaza

Wow.

Btw, Gil, during your short and sweet career in law enforcement, were
you ever able to resolve evidentiary issues like the ones you
described above?

aeffects

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 1:06:08 PM12/8/09
to

the composite Von Pein is melting... ROTFLMFAO!

Sam McClung

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 2:45:17 PM12/8/09
to
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d11395b-4d25-4cb7...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

composite? there's more than one supervillian sharing the outfit with
V
P
on it ? how many heads does the monster have?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 2:48:33 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 2:45�pm, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> composite? there's more than one supervillian sharing the outfit with
> V
> P

> on it ? how many heads does the monster have?-

No matter how many heads the monster has, I can assure you they're all
empty.

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 3:26:54 PM12/8/09
to
In article
<7b905ca6-2e49-4c2f...@r31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
> >>> between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which "side"
> >>> are you on David?" <<<
>
>
> I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.


David, I have said the same thing to certain conspiracy people, but you
do not deal in any form of common sense. You are closed minded and
bigoted. Worse, you lie a lot. And you frequently substitute personal
insults for honest analysis.

You have turned yourself in to a pitchman, much like the late Billy
Mays, except he was a lot more honest.

Robert Harris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 3:58:37 PM12/8/09
to

Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.

aeffects

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 4:19:56 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 11:45 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message

at least 5..... probably more

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:16:57 PM12/8/09
to

The battle here is between those who THINK they know the truth and
those who are constantly asking questions and examining evidence.

JB

aeffects

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:22:21 PM12/8/09
to

battle? when will you *begin* the battle? begin with the WCR? carry on
shithead!

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:52:25 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 3:58�pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
> those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.

The battle is between those closed-minded individuals who believe a
lie that they're told to believe and those free-thinking people who
question that lie.

He who has blinders on never sees more than he who doesn't.


Speaking of battles, battling you is like having a battle of wits with
an unarmed person.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 6:20:33 PM12/8/09
to

>>> "I asked you to provide evidence that his rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21/63. You could not. I asked you to provide evidence that he took a 35+ inch package to work that day. You could not. I asked you to provide evidence that he brought that 35+ inch package into the building. You could not. I asked you to provide evidence that CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza. You could not. These are just some of the basic pieces of evidence essential to the official version that you cannot provide. AND YOU'RE ON THE SIDE "WHERE ALL COMMON SENSE RESIDES"? ROFLMAO.....no wonder you're the laughingstock of the internet." <<<


Gil,

It's not my fault that you cannot process the information and the
evidence that's in front of your face.

And it's not my fault that you cannot bring yourself to make this
obvious common-sense judgment (using simple math skills):

A. Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD on 11/22/63.

B. A rifle belonging to LHO was known to have been stored in the
Paine garage between Sep. and Nov. of 1963 (with Marina actually
seeing the rifle wrapped in a blanket in that garage sometime around
October 1963). And there is no evidence that LHO owned TWO different
rifles.

C. The rifle that was being stored inside the blanket in Ruth
Paine's garage was not there on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

D. Oswald took a long bag with him to work on 11/22/63.

E. Adding A through D = Lee Oswald's rifle was inside the Paine
garage on 11/21/63 and was removed from that location on the morning
of 11/22/63 by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Simple math. But to a kook like Gil, it's evidently impossible to
figure out. Go figure.

In summary -- It's not my fault that Gil is an Anybody-But-Oswald
kook.

So why blame your kookiness and lack of math skills on me, Gilbert?

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

Walt

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 7:10:03 PM12/8/09
to


As the old axiom goes.... Figures don't lie....but liars do
figure.....

Is this simple math or math from a simpleton??

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 7:33:06 PM12/8/09
to

>>> "Is this simple math or math from a simpleton??" <<<

How would you know the difference, Walt? You're retarded. You can't
even figure out the easiest of things--like the fact that Lee Harvey
Oswald ordered some guns in 1963 and shot some people with those guns
in November.

These simple and obvious conclusions have stumped you kooks for more
than 4 decades.

Go figure.

tomnln

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:35:35 PM12/8/09
to

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8eafbd9f-fcf7-4b6d...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 7, 10:12 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
> between those who seek the truth and those who do not.
>
> Sadly, those who do not, identify themselves by their closed minds, their
> bigotry, and their hatred of those who prove them wrong.
>
> Which "side" are you on David?
>
> Robert Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;

Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.


I write;

The battle is between the LN's who Repeat the "Charges/Conclusions" of the
WCR.
(Without benefit of evidence/testimony)
AND;

The CT's who Disagree with those "conclusions" WITH "Evidence/Testimony".

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walt

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 9:20:50 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 6:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Is this simple math or math from a simpleton??" <<<
>
> How would you know the difference, Walt? You're retarded. You can't
> even figure out the easiest of things--like the fact that Lee Harvey
> Oswald ordered some guns in 1963 and shot some people with those guns
> in November.

You're a naive simpleton..... A gutless fool, who in his heart knows
that the Warren Commission's decree is a garcantuan lie, but you're
terrified at facing the truth. That truth being that It's patently
obvious that the Lyin Bastard Johnson's administation lied and framed
a hapless dupe for the murder of President Kennedy.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 9:31:16 PM12/8/09
to

>>> "You're a naive simpleton..... A gutless fool, who in his heart knows that the Warren Commission's decree is a garcantuan lie, but you're terrified at facing the truth. That truth being that It's patently obvious that the Lyin Bastard Johnson's administation lied and framed a hapless dupe for the murder of President Kennedy." <<<

Introducing the 2009 poster child for "RETARDED PEOPLE" ---

Walt Cakebread.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:41:55 PM12/8/09
to

>>> "battle? when will you *begin* the battle? begin with the WCR? carry on shithead!" <<<


How on Earth did this get past the moderators?

Chalk one up for Healy. He slipped one past .John.

LOL.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:44:26 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 3:58�pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
> those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.


Battling you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


bigdog

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:09:11 AM12/9/09
to

Maybe someday "those who are constantly asking questions and examining
evidence" will be able to come up with some answers, but they never can
seem to get past the "asking questions" phase. But what the hell. It's
only been 46 years. No sense in rushing these things.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:09:42 AM12/9/09
to

Oops. I guess this one slipped by the moderators.

Jp.

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:50:17 AM12/9/09
to
> Oops. I guess this one slipped by the moderators.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Knowlton Nash's autobiography from 1984 ,in which he recounts his
encounter with Oswald when looking for a phone booth at the book
depository on Nov.22 to file his report after the shooting (as a young
Washington news correspondent) was called 'History on the Run'. Jp.

jbarge

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 5:39:57 PM12/9/09
to
> only been 46 years. No sense in rushing these things.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

They've just figured out Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with a
slave and that Napoleon died from arsenic poisoning.
The idea that a length of time is relevant to the truth is simply
absurd.

jas

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 9:46:28 PM12/9/09
to

Oh, au contraire, mon fraire!

It's not absurd.

Did "they" perform two separate exhaustive and in-depth investigations
within 20 years after this Jefferson "conception," and after Napoleon
died in order to find these facts out?

No.

Did "they" perform two exhaustive and in-depth investigations within
20 years after the JFK assassination with the conclusion that Oswald
acted alone?

Yes.

My point is made.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 11:08:41 PM12/9/09
to
> absurd.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You're right. In this case, the truth was determined within 12 hours.
Then there was the case of Zachary Taylor. They dug him up a few years
ago. Guess what they found out. He's still dead.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages