Who supports/promotes the shills?

[Kenneth Drew]

You should be free to believe what you choose to believe, to believe what you think the evidence shows and to explain that evidence.

Yes, exactly. I do have that freedom.

But keep trying to make your new signature look like something it's not. I'm used to CTers misinterpreting things. You do it every day (almost every post). So it's nothing new to me.

I'm used to CTers misinterpreting things. You do it every day (almost every post). Ahhh, now I have it figured out. If a CTer says it, they are misinterpreting it. If YOU say it then you are stating it correctly, (as you misinterpret it). So now are you officially changing your statement that you DO have the total freedom to say what you wish/think ? If so, if you'll make the corrections to my signature page, I will gladly make the suggested changes to reflect your 'real' objectives and freedoms. That should be a big help, cause we sure don't anyone misunderstanding what you said. Shoulder shrugs, tongue in cheek and all that.

[Kenneth Drew]

The fact that you ignored the six previous times he asked you about it says a lot more, Dave.

Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there.

And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well.

that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. So, in the future, you're going to tell us when you have tongue in cheek, and/or other mannerisms that we need to decipher what you 'really mean'? Well, you've already got your shrugging system working, so it shouldn't be too hard to add a few more symbols, statements etc. Maybe there's a modicon for tongue in cheek, shoulder shrugging, etc.

Shouldn't the last four words have given you just a TINY hint, Kenny?

Shouldn't the last four words have given you just a TINY hint, Kenny? I guess they were so 'tiny' that I didn't even see them. Where are they?

[Jon G. Tidd]

The only individual on either side of the current debate I've found disingenuous is Posner. Dale Myers might make my list; I'm not sure.

I don't think anyone here is disingenuous.

There's heated debate here. Accusations are hurled. I like Paul Trejo's approach, even though I don't agree with his core theory. He sticks to his theory and lets everything else roll off his back. He's criticized but doesn't respond in kind.

[Mark Knight]

I'm just wondering who Colin Crowe is, and when he commented on this thread. I never saw his avatar or his bio, and yet there seem to be a number of comments made by him...or at least attributed to him.

Oh, wait...I guessed I missed the thread title being changed to "Von Pein's Greatest Hits."

But that WOULD seem to promote the original thread title.

[David Von Pein]

Since when is a poster required to quote only members of the EF forum, Mark?

Is that a new rule you just made up?

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm just wondering who Colin Crowe is, and when he commented on this thread. I never saw his avatar or his bio, and yet there seem to be a number of comments made by him...or at least attributed to him.

Oh, wait...I guessed I missed the thread title being changed to "Von Pein's Greatest Hits."

But that WOULD seem to promote the original thread title.

Colin comments and is a regular on the JFK assassination Forum, by Duncan McRae. He's got a level head and is a CTer. Very knowledgeable.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm just wondering who Colin Crowe is, and when he commented on this thread. I never saw his avatar or his bio, and yet there seem to be a number of comments made by him...or at least attributed to him.

Oh, wait...I guessed I missed the thread title being changed to "Von Pein's Greatest Hits."

But that WOULD seem to promote the original thread title.

Colin comments and is a regular on the JFK assassination Forum, by Duncan McRae. He's got a level head and is a CTer. Very knowledgeable.

Colin Crowe is one of the great analytical minds researching the assassination, and it is a shame he does not frequent this forum, just as it is a shame that Sean Murphy has not been around here for a while.

However, the real shame is how DVP cherry picks Colin's comments, and attacks only part of his argument. And, of course, DVP feels quite safe attacking him here as he doesn't think Colin will respond.

DVP and Colin Crowe in a debate? I'd bet heavily on Colin, as I believe he's forgotten more about the evidence than DVP will ever know.

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm just wondering who Colin Crowe is, and when he commented on this thread. I never saw his avatar or his bio, and yet there seem to be a number of comments made by him...or at least attributed to him.

Oh, wait...I guessed I missed the thread title being changed to "Von Pein's Greatest Hits."

But that WOULD seem to promote the original thread title.

Colin comments and is a regular on the JFK assassination Forum, by Duncan McRae. He's got a level head and is a CTer. Very knowledgeable.

Colin Crowe is one of the great analytical minds researching the assassination, and it is a shame he does not frequent this forum, just as it is a shame that Sean Murphy has not been around here for a while.

However, the real shame is how DVP cherry picks Colin's comments, and attacks only part of his argument. And, of course, DVP feels quite safe attacking him here as he doesn't think Colin will respond.

DVP and Colin Crowe in a debate? I'd bet heavily on Colin, as I believe he's forgotten more about the evidence than DVP will ever know.

I'd say that would be a safe bet, Robert.

[Ray Mitcham]

Yes, Ray. Of course I believe Frazier on that "No Lunch Bag" point.

And you believe the accused double-murderer instead, right?

So you believe he was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken down Carcano.

No ? You just believe the parts you want to believe?

Your double murderer claim is just that. A claim. Nothing more.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[David Von Pein]

It'd be nice if Mark and Bob would have the decency to spell Colin Crow's name correctly. I have done so in all of my posts here. So why would anybody think there was an E in his name? ~shrug~

[David Von Pein]

Colin Crowe [sic] is one of the great analytical minds researching the assassination, and it is a shame he does not frequent this forum. ... However, the real shame is how DVP cherry picks Colin's comments, and attacks only part of his argument. And, of course, DVP feels quite safe attacking him here as he doesn't think Colin will respond.

FYI,

I always provide a direct link to the original source for the forum discussion's I put on my site. So anyone who wants to can read the entire discussion from top to bottom. Here's the 70-page-long full discussion involving Colin Crow that I already linked in one of my posts on Page 10 of this thread -----> jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12150.0.html

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

So you believe he [buell Frazier] was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken down Carcano.

No? You just believe the parts you want to believe?

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray?

You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag".

But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright xxxx) when he said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22.

I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars.

But you MUST think Frazier WAS a xxxx regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right?

And yet you don't seem to realize the hypocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me:

"You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham

Pot meets up with Kettle yet again.

There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is....

IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag?

If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right?

But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged xxxx has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existent bag way too small.

Brilliant, huh?

LOTS MORE "PAPER BAG" TALK AND DEBATES:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-the-paper-bag

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

So you believe he [buell Frazier] was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken down Carcano.

No? You just believe the parts you want to believe?

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray?

You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag".

But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright xxxx) when Frazier said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22.

I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars.

But you MUST think Frazier WAS a xxxx regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right?

And yet you don't seem to realize the hycrocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me:

"You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham

There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is....

IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag?

If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right?

But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged xxxx has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existen bag way too small.

Brilliant, huh?

LOTS MOR "PAPER BAG" TALK AND DEBATES:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html

The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag.

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Which is it "No bag" or "too short bag"

[David Von Pein]

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?)

I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy.

Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag.

Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed:

"If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size."

Hilarious.

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The bag was an invention, David.

So, you really DO believe what I suggested in my previous post --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it.

So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really xxxxty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options.

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein