Some JFK Debate Traps (see if you recognize anyone)

[David Von Pein]

He wasn't suggesting that Givens is guilty, David. Damn. He was pointing out that, by your reasoning, if someone was missing from roll call, then he must be guilty.

That's not my reasoning at all, Glenn.

I was merely pointing out to Mark Knight that the situations that existed on 11/22/63 when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald with Charles Givens are not even remotely the same.

As I said in the list of things I'm repeating below (which is a list that needs to be looked at in its TOTALITY, instead of each item being isolated from the sum total), Oswald "leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination", which is not at all what Givens did. Givens had already left the building many minutes BEFORE the shooting. Givens then tried to get BACK INTO the building, but could not. So he eventually left the area. (Who wouldn't?)

Reprise.....

"I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,

...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.

...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.

...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.

...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)

...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".

...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package)." -- DVP; 8/4/15

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

but you so often say that "such and such" proves his guilt, when it does not. as i just posted, your own definition of evidence shows that none of what you call evidence proves anything of its own.

you should choose your words more carefully.

[David Von Pein]

your own definition of evidence shows that none of what you call evidence proves anything of its own.

you should choose your words more carefully.

But I've never claimed that just ONE piece of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt. It's when ALL of the evidence is evaluated that Oswald's guilt becomes "proven", IMO. Not by just isolating one piece of it.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

And I think I do choose my words carefully.

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

"But I've never claimed that just ONE piece of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt."

a statement you will come to regret, i predict...

[Glenn Nall]

"And, btw, I think I do choose my words carefully."

and, therefore, another one...

[David Josephs]

Dave... we all appreciate you being able to quote the company lines... but you never take the next step and PROVE anything. We must have FAITH in what you say... and sorry, you simply do not carry that much credibility to take your word for it... So when you can not only offer the evidence which supports your conclusions, but AUTHENTICATE this evidence as factual and real... you've made your point.

the following is just your "I wish these were all fact" list... Saying the earth is the center of the universe is true, until proven false. Here is the proof that what you offer here is minor league fluff easily discredited by a simply look at the evidnece offered...

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

Reprise.....

"I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,

...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.

So did many ,many people Dave... they all guilty? and what evidence are you using to prove such a thing Dave?

Bledsoe describing the arrest shirt before he's gone home to change?

Whaley who after 37 years driving a cab in Dallas drops him off at Beckley and Neches... a corner that doesn't even exit?

The CHAIRMAN. The witness has been driving a taxicab in Dallas for 36 years.
Mr. WHALEY. Thirty-seven, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven.
Mr. WHALEY. You name an intersection in the city of Dallas and I will tell you what is on all four corners.
Mr. BALL. Did you stop and let your passenger out on this run on the north or south side of the intersection?
Mr. WHALEY. On the north side, sir.
Mr. BALL. North side?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. That would be--
Mr. WHALEY. Northwest corner.
Mr. BALL. Northwest corner of Neches and Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Northwest corner of Neches and Beckley....He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.

How about the Baker affidavit... who is the unamed employee Truly and Baker run into on the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors...

"I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

If that was Oswald and he was closer to the 6th floor window here than in the lunchroom, why did Baker not ID this man as Oswald?

You mean another man was coming down the stairs as Baker/Truly were running up? Who?

Finally, after the police take the names and addresses of the people in the TSBD, they are told they can leave... who is FIRST on the list and why does it say Elsbeth? and listed as HARVEY LEE?

...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.

Based on the expert Johnny Brewer who we come to find did not see Oswald at all but another employee at the store did... A friend of Jack Ruby named Tommy Rowe claims it was he ooops

...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)

Maybe Dave, his is not so stupid as to believe if the plan he has been hearing about with JFK went down, he may be in danger for his life... if we're allowed to guess what his state of mind is, it is not necessarily in line with the WCR's pre-conceived conclusions... when you can prove he ever had the rifle or that pistol in his possession we can proceed with this tidbit

...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".

Wesley is the SOURCE for that lie... not Oswald. Oswald denies ever saying anything to Welsey about curtain rods. Prove who's right. There are no witnesses to Oswald bringin anything into the TSBD that morning, in fact the evidence states the opposite. We can't talk about a bag in a car until you show how and when this bag was made and transported...

As you said Dave, it's not just one thing that proves the evidence is crap, it's ALL of it.

...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package)." -- DVP; 8/4/15

So not only does the only witness to his walking in the door not see anything in his hands, he confirms that Oswald was on the 6th floor possibly touching boxes as he was removing stock...

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did you see him again that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; just one more time.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - On the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was about 11 o'clock-that was the last time I saw him.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing up there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, as far as I could tell, he was getting some stock---as far as I could tell.
Mr. BALL - What were you doing there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was getting some stock also.
Mr. BALL - And were there some other workmen up there at the time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Not that I know of.
Mr. BALL - Well, do you remember Shelley, Dan Arce, Bonnie Williams, Bill Lovelady, and Charlie Givens who were working up there that morning---laying floor on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; they were laying floor---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And were they there at the time you were there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes, sir; they were there---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the same time you saw Oswald?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; just about that time.

Dan Rather was 5'10"

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Josephs

[Glenn Nall]

Saying the earth is the center of the universe is true, until proven false

the other day i saw a bumper sticker, said:

"The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."

[David Josephs]

."The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."... unless it contradicts what's in this report....

or has to do with what LBJ did while sitting waiting for the delivery...

[David Von Pein]

As you said Dave, it's not just one thing that proves the evidence is crap, it's ALL of it.

Yeah, yeah, Dave. We all know you think all of the evidence is fake. You made that quite clear recently when you bellowed this to me....

"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- D. Josephs

So what else is new? Oswald was a patsy?

~Yawn~

~Stretch~

~Snooze~

[David Josephs]

As you said Dave, it's not just one thing that proves the evidence is crap, it's ALL of it.

Yeah, yeah, Dave. We all know you think all of the evidence is fake. You made that quite clear recently when you bellowed this to me....

"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- D. Josephs

So what else is new? Oswald was a patsy?

~Yawn~

~Stretch~

~Snooze~

You'll have to excuse me Dave... I thought you had the ability to present corroborated evidence and then Authenticate it' as real evidence.

"~Yawn~

~Stretch~

~Snooze~"

I realize this is your best effort to defend the indefensible... but I'm thinking those here who are looking to you to be their voice are a bit disappointed by your inability to address the simpliest of rebuttals...

Who again saw him enter the TSBD with a 4 foot rifle in a package and where did you store it until he retrieved it when? Where did he reassemble it Dave? Why would he trust the scope when it had not yet been sighted in? BEFORE you reach conclusions you have some work to do.

The FBI knew via their postal contacts that Oswald had been receiving communist Magazines for months/years and moving his mailing address repeatedly since his return from Russia... yet not a single FBI report is generated in March or April when a 5 foot carton from Klein's Sporting Goods arrives at his PO Box in the name of HIDELL?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=112&tab=page is a link to a FBi report of a postal employee asset who states that the Oswalds moved to Neely (at least their mail was being sent there) and that the FBI went to Neely and see the M/M Oswald nameplate on the mail box... This is March 11, 1963.

And now you are going to claim that this same postal asset does not inform the FBI that a 5 foot carton from Kleins arrived in the wrong name? That there is no record of anyone filling out the paperwork to pick up such a mail order rifle...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57690#relPageId=119&tab=page is a link to the August 23, 1963 report stating that Oswald and family moved from Neely... and he has a PO Box in New Orleans based on a July New Orleans FBI report...

Seems to me they were keeping tabs on this man... and neither a rifle or pistol mail order is mentioned during this entire time?

And when they try to find anyone who remembers the Money Order, who picks up the rifle, who puts a note in Oswlad's POBox to pick up the rifle, ANY REA paperwork, who finds the Stub, who Holmes calls, who finds the PMO by Noon Dallas time, who finds it in Kansas City, and the two different sets of people who find it twice later that evening.

This is work I posted in my Rifle Article at CTKA.net if you'd like to see what real research and evidence authentication looks like.

Thanks again for the sleepy cat impression - maybe you can post a youtube video? but for here it is woefully inadequate and completely commensaurate with your POV.

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Josephs

[Glenn Nall]

."The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."... unless it contradicts what's in this report....

or has to do with what LBJ did while sitting waiting for the delivery...

DJ, i hope you didn't take that out of context - i value your input. the quote was just that, a quote, and appropriate as referred to other contributors, not yours.

sorry about that.

[David Von Pein]

David Josephs' fevered attempts at poking holes in the rock-solid case of Oswald's guilt only further help to illustrate precisely what Vince Bugliosi was talking about when he said this in his JFK book....

• "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

David Josephs' fevered attempts at poking holes in the rock-solid case of Oswald's guilt only further help to illustrate precisely what Vince Bugliosi was talking about when he said this in his JFK book....

• "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB

Vinnie B. is gone DVP, you have my permission to think for yourself.

Make your own argument for a change. After all, it's your name you're posting under, and no one else's including your idol worship Vinne daBug...

[David Von Pein]

How could I possibly top this, though, Mr. Healy? .....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB

Edited August 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

David Josephs' fevered attempts at poking holes in the rock-solid case of Oswald's guilt only further help to illustrate precisely what Vince Bugliosi was talking about when he said this in his JFK book....

• "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB

Vinnie B. is gone DVP, you have my permission to think for yourself.

Make your own argument for a change. After all, it's your name you're posting under, and no one else's including your idol worship Vinne daBug...

in fact, you had permission to think for yourself before he was gone. you just may not have realized it, it seems...