Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
  • Content count

    4,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. Finally! We get to hear from someone who works in a bank! I was beginning to think no one with your occupation would ever show up at this forum. Thank you, Jason.
  2. The "useful purpose" that is served via my "semi-random snippets" is to remind people who might be looking in for the first time just how ridiculous and dead wrong many of the theories espoused by JFK conspiracy theorists truly are --- such as the "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" theory, which has to be one of the silliest conspiracy theories of all time. Such common-sense reminders (via "semi-random snippets" or otherwise) are very much needed at any JFK forum, IMO, in order to provide a little "LN" balance to counteract the CTers' fantasies, if for no other reason.
  3. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: You don't want to deal with new evidence which shows the rifle was never ordered or picked up. Just like Vince [Bugliosi] did not. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Complete garbage. There is no "new" evidence that proves your goofy "No Rifle Was Ordered" theory, Jimmy. Only the CT INTERPRETATION of the Klein's evidence. And it's an interpretation that's about as believable as the moonbat "No Airplanes Hit The World Trade Center" theories. It's THAT ridiculous. You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the following words -- "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." [J. DiEugenio; 8/5/15] But evidently no theory is too fringe-like for Mr. DiEugenio. Joe Ball's 1964 retort to Mark Lane concerning Oswald's rifle purchase is just as true today as it was then. It's a great quote, and completely accurate: "I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-992.html
  4. JIM HARGROVE SAID: There is plenty of evidence at the National Archives incriminating “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and all of it is phony. [...] ...the FBI altered their statements. [...] ...FBI report falsifications. [...] ...the FBI and/or Warren Commission merely had to alter his testimony. [...] ...documents were fabricated. [...] ...I don't trust ANY report. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape. In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.) When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: I call this DVP land, which is similar to the territory that Rod Serling inhabited in his TV days. Consider: For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope! Were they all blind? And this included the local newspapers. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it. And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see the first video at the link below).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1102.html And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 on November 22 as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper. Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle. And yet another here. Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun. So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about. I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond November 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope". But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: I love it when Davey goes into one of his tantrums. As he did above. It shows you how exacerbated this issue gets him. See, that is not what I meant. Let me explain: If DVP is saying that the 12.78 price which was widely circulated was a mistake, because they did not realize the scope was a part of the purchase, then all they had to do was look at the rifle and see it had a scope. Which as he shows, many outlets did. OK, what is the price of the scope? But if he is saying that they knew it had a scope, then why did so many outlets still get it wrong? It's that simple. DVP wants to have it both ways. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The media kept getting it wrong because they simply kept repeating the main $12.78 price for the rifle (without the scope) that was originally reported by Chief Curry on TV on 11/23/63. Nobody in the media took the time in those first few days to seek out what the price was WITH the scope included. Big deal. There's no cover-up there. Just a lack of details regarding the "With Scope" price. Again....big deal. It's only a "big deal" to rabid conspiracy theorists like you, Jim. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Davey: Curry of the police said that the FBI reported that price [$12.78]. For a rifle with scope. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But keep in mind that when Curry told the press about the $12.78 price for the rifle, the complete information concerning the $21.45 money order had not been revealed to Chief Curry yet. I believe Curry provided the $12.78 info at about 7 PM Dallas time on 11/23, while the money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on 11/23. The Secret Service and FBI knew a little earlier than that, of course, that they were looking for a money order in the amount of $21.45 (see Commission Document No. 87), but the DPD wouldn't necessarily have been privy to the $21.45 price until much later (assuming they were ever provided that figure by the SS or FBI, which perhaps they weren't, I don't really know). So the press people went with the info they had available as of Curry's makeshift conference at DPD at 7:00 on Nov. 23 --- i.e., Oswald's handwriting was traced to the Klein's "order letter" (not the money order), with Curry telling the reporters this.... "I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that." JIM HARGROVE SAID THIS. SANDY LARSEN SAID: LOL, this is crazy! The FBI was initially going to go with the March 20 $21.95 money order purchase. Then later changed their minds and decided to fabricate their own money order! DVP, how do you explain the fact that the FBI got the wrong order from the microfilm? I mean, are they so inept that they thought they saw serial number C2766 on that order when in fact it wasn't there? Remember, this was not just one FBI agent... it was three! So all three hallucinated the C2766 serial number??? This is yet another smoking gun, Jim. But can DVP convincingly explain it away?? I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a reply! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Sandy, The FBI didn't get the "wrong order" from the microfilm. There WAS NO ORDER FOR $21.95 for the C2766 rifle. That was merely a slipped digit. And Harry Holmes talks about that mistake in his testimony too. That was one of the reasons it took a little longer to find the $21.45 Hidell money order --- because they were searching (in vain) for the wrong amount ($21.95). Once they realized what the correct figure was--$21.45--they found it very quickly. Do you think Waldman No. 7 is a fake document, Sandy? It clearly says $21.45 on it. And it also says C2766. And A. Hidell. And Italian Carbine. And William Waldman testified in detail about that order form. Was he a plotter too? JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: What a bunch of Von Peinian baloney. And by God in heaven, to use Holmes as your witness. As a famous lawyer said to Joe McCarthy, "Have you no shame sir?" Well, we know the answer to that don't we? In both cases. How anyone can write the above knowing they were looking for the serial number, not the price, is simply beyond the realm of normal thinking. He still has not read John's essay. But that is why Davey is Davey. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jimmy, When it came time to look for the money order, they were most certainly looking for the AMOUNT, not the serial number. (The serial number wasn't on the M.O.) And this sentence written by John Armstrong.... "They did, however, find documentation that showed Klein's sold a $21.95 rifle that was paid for with a postal money order issued on March 20, 1963." ....is just a flat-out distortion of the facts, because the FBI most certainly did NOT find any $21.95 Klein's order form for the C2766 rifle. They found the Waldman Exhibit No. 7 document, which is the ONLY document that has BOTH a price and the C2766 serial number on it--and Armstrong knows it. He's merely trying to turn an innocent error regarding the exact amount of the purchase ($21.95 vs. $21.45) into a mountain of conspiracy and cover-up. Silly beyond belief. SANDY LARSEN SAID: What specifically is the "order" anyway? Is it the coupon cut out from the magazine? The money order? Both? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The "order letter" that Chief Jesse Curry refers to in his hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 is CE773, which is the microfilm of the order form clipped by Oswald out of the Feb. '63 American Rifleman magazine. That's the microfilmed document that was the basis for the FBI's findings that the "order letter" had Oswald's writing on it. That order form, of course, doesn't have the $21.45 figure on it either. Nor does it have $12.78 on it. It has $19.95 on it. (Shall we dance some more over those three figures?) SANDY LARSEN SAID: David, can you write a quick summary for me so that I can understand what happened. I'll write one up right now to give you an idea of what I want: 1. The FBI has the serial number, C2766. (I'm not sure how they got that, but I'll try to understand that later.) 2. The FBI guys search the Klein's microfilm for seven hours and find what they THINK they are looking for... an order with C2766 printed on it. (Even though it wasn't.) 3. The order is dated March 20 (now we're talking about the money order, right?) for $21.95. 4. The FBI authenticated Oswald's handwriting. 5. They discover they had the wrong order. (But then how did they authenticate Oswald's handwriting??) David, I don't know how to fix the above with your solution to the problem. You say they were searching for an order with the wrong price. But I thought they were searching for an order with a given serial number, C2766, not with a given price. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: 1. The FBI did, indeed, have the serial number. (They had the rifle in their possession at 11:45 PM CST on Friday, you know. So why would you be surprised they knew the serial number? And even if they didn't have the rifle themselves, the FBI could have simply telephoned the DPD and gotten the number from them at any time on Nov. 22....couldn't they?) 2. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after finding out that Crescent had sold the "C2766" rifle to Klein's. 3. The Klein's records are searched and the "C2766" invoice is found (via what would soon become "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7"), which provides all the pertinent information about the sale of Italian rifle No. C2766 for $21.45 to one A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas (via "M.O." [Money Order]) on March 20, 1963 (which is the date the FBI goes with, instead of the date stamped at the very top of Waldman No. 7--March 13, 1963--which was the date Klein's put the Hidell order through their cash register, as William Waldman explained in his Warren Commission testimony; the March 20 date was, of course, the date the rifle was shipped to Hidell/Oswald). 4. Somebody connected with the discovery of the "Waldman No. 7" invoice must have transmitted the wrong purchase price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45), which led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order that was used to pay for the rifle. 5. In addition to the internal Klein's invoice (Waldman No. 7), the FBI also found the "order letter" (as Curry called it), which is CE773. They quickly determined that the writing on the order form was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. In short, there was no "wrong order". Somebody just wrote down or transmitted to somebody the wrong purchase price after the discovery of Waldman No. 7. But even though some officials had the wrong price, there were others who knew the correct price of $21.45 for the Hidell rifle order, because we find the correct figure being written in two separate reports (connected with the discovery of the money order) authored by both the FBI and the Secret Service on November 23 -- CD75 and CD87. David Von Pein February 17-20, 2016 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
  5. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Related discussion.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-879.html
  6. The networks didn't broadcast all night long. They signed off at about 1 AM each night (except for NBC on Sunday night/ Monday morning, which, I think, televised a static shot of the casket lying in the Rotunda all night long).
  7. I wish I had the complete day's TV coverage from 11/22. But my collection from all 3 networks doesn't go "wall to wall" after JFK's body departs Andrews. It's only partial coverage from all of the networks after about 6:30 PM. However, anyone who was able to (somehow) record and save the streamed coverage that CBS' website streamed online on 11/22/2013 would therefore have access to the material CBS aired at 7 PM on 11/22/63. I wasn't able to record that wall-to-wall 2013 stream, though.
  8. Well, I think the 4:30 AM coverage was probably not aired live (although I could certainly be wrong about that). I think it was taped and then aired later, such as the replay we see above on Mike Wallace's morning news show at 7 AM. And it was no doubt replayed many times on CBS throughout the day on Saturday. You probably saw any number of the replays.
  9. Ron, I wonder if perhaps you could have seen the footage of the gray ambulance arriving at the White House at 4:30 AM on Nov. 23rd (at 2:34:20 in the video below), and your memory has made the mistake of equating that footage with supposed TV coverage of that very same gray Navy ambulance arriving at Bethesda. Is that possible? Anyway, I'm nearly 100% certain there was no TV coverage of the ambulance arrival at Bethesda. I certainly have no such footage in my video archives at any rate. I know that this kind of "I think I saw it" phenomenon is quite common regarding various aspects of the JFK case. Some people insist they actually SAW the assassination of JFK on live television at the moment it happened. We all now know that's impossible, however. But the people who say they saw it LIVE have a hard time being convinced they didn't really see it live.
  10. David Von Pein

    Tube: Minimalist YouTube

    ........
  11. Trygve, The man in the red tie at Love Field is NBC reporter Robert MacNeil. (The same MacNeil who might very well have been directed to a phone by Lee Oswald just outside the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.) Here's a news report narrated by MacNeil on 11/22/63: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B294SBAT_oH6UUYzc0ZLY1dHQUk/view Also & BTW.... My thanks to Trygve for posting some fairly rare Love Field photos above that I have never seen before. You've provided me with a couple more images for my Kennedy Gallery. Much obliged. http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2018/04/kennedy-gallery-470.html
  12. David Von Pein

    Oswald's Wallet

    ............
  13. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    INTERVIEW WITH EVELYN LINCOLN (JANUARY 1964).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb2NNNWI1MlgtVVk/view
  14. There's no proof whatsoever that the woman you think is Gloria Calvery is really Calvery. It could very well be some unknown person. And it probably is an "unknown" person, given the precise time of that Couch/Darnell clip (coupled with the testimony of various witnesses as to their activities in the minutes following the assassination). In short .... How can anyone sincerely believe that the blurry frames extracted from a poor-quality film provide enough information to positively and unequivocally "prove" the identity of a woman near the TSBD steps? Proving the identity of ANYONE in those blurry frames—even the people who are KNOWN to have been standing near the TSBD doorway at 12:30 PM—is a tedious and difficult chore (right?), let alone attempting to identify a person (Calvery) who wasn't even standing near the Depository entrance when the shooting occurred.
  15. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Revised and revamped....
  16. Re: President Kennedy's necktie.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie
  17. Geoff, I said that Connally was the worst witness to WHEN KENNEDY WAS HIT by a bullet. And that's certainly true---because Connally was looking in the OTHER direction. So why would anyone go to Connally for the definitive truth about when KENNEDY was hit (as some people seem to want to do)? Anyway, thanks for truncating this statement of mine in order to make a claim that I never made.... "John B. Connally was unquestionably the very worst eyewitness in Dealey Plaza when it comes to answering this question...."When exactly was JFK first hit by a bullet?" "
  18. As for Governor Connally thinking he was not hit until Z231—Z234, it's fairly obvious (to me) that he was focusing only on his secondary (and more animated) reactions after he was shot. And that was upon Connally viewing blown-up still frames from the Zapruder Film. But I do not think that Mr. Connally was ever shown any kind of looped digital IN-MOTION Z-Film clip like the one below. If he had been shown this kind of repetitive motion clip, I have little doubt that Governor Connally could have easily been convinced that he was hit at circa Z224, instead of Z231—Z234.... Also.... John B. Connally was unquestionably the very worst eyewitness in Dealey Plaza when it comes to answering this question.... "When exactly was JFK first hit by a bullet?" And the reason he was the worst witness in the Plaza is because Connally never saw President Kennedy during the important time in question when JFK was first being struck by a bullet (as Governor Connally himself said over and over again). Click here ----> JOHN CONNALLY SAID THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS "POSSIBLE"
  19. John Connally never claimed to be hit by more than one bullet. Never.
  20. I challenge anyone watching the Zapruder Film clip below to still maintain after watching it that the Single-Bullet Theory is a Lone-Nutter's wild fantasy: Lots more on the SBT: http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
  21. That's a mighty weak argument for Z-Film Alteration, David. Mighty weak (IMO). And what about the OTHER films that show the SAME THING that the Zapruder Film shows? The Nix Film can be placed in perfect "sync" with the Z-Film (see video below), and they are identical as far as the limousine ALMOST coming to a stop but not quite coming to a complete stop. So, you must think Orville Nix's film has been altered too, right DSL? Or maybe you can now theorize that the person who put together the film comparison linked below (and it wasn't me who created that video) didn't know what the hell he was doing, or he was a crook and deliberately "altered" his digital versions of one film or another so that they would seem to be in perfect harmony.... FILM COMPARISON --- ZAPRUDER VS. NIX: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOR0p1ZFlqbTlKeDg/view I'll again refer to the words of Dr. McClelland (and the ARRB testimony of Dr. Perry as well). Do you think McClelland was just flat-out lying here?.... Skip to about the 10:00 mark in this 2009 interview with Dr. Robert McClelland to hear him talk in some detail about the "incision" that was made through the bullet wound in JFK's throat; and then go to 41:25, where McClelland says the large tracheotomy wound in the autopsy photos is exactly the same size as the trach wound he saw at Parkland on 11/22/63. [Also see this related article.] "Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009 And there's Dr. Perry's 1998 ARRB session (DVP's emphasis): MR. GUNN -- "Could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?" DR. PERRY -- "I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon, but my reply to that was that it was big enough. There are only two medical emergencies, airway and bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and [they were?] quite large with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound, I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea."
  22. Yes, I certainly did. IMO, it is, indeed, an outlandish/outrageous/ridiculous/preposterous (take your pick) theory. For the reasons I previously stated. Yes. I'd like to see that done too. Not that I think it's really necessary, because that 1967 tape hasn't been "altered" at all. And, as I keep saying, one of the best reasons we can know it hasn't been altered is because the key word that you, David Lifton, are most concerned about on the tape---"inviolate"---IS STILL PART OF THE EXISTING AUDIO on that tape --- although Dr. Perry is obviously not saying "inviolate" there, because that word makes no sense in the sentence in which it was used. But you, DSL, seem to think the word is undeniably "inviolate", even though you ALSO insist the same tape has been "altered". Go figure that strange dichotomy. ~shrug~ Now, can you think of ANY reason why the "Tape Alterers" would have wanted to LEAVE IN the word "inviolate", even though it comes right alongside the words "cutting through the wound", so that the end result of their tampering was an incoherent mess?! ------------------------------------------------------------- Reprise..... DAVID LIFTON SAID: We (Pat V. and I) were both astounded to hear Perry say, “I left the wound inviolate.” SANDY LARSEN LATER SAID: Well, this is certainly interesting. It appears that the 1967 CBS interview audio has two versions, one with Dr. Perry saying he "left the wound inviolate" and the other with him saying he "rendered it invalid." ("Inviolate" and "invalid" sound the same, but can be differentiated via he context in which the word is used.) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: There aren't two different "versions" of the CBS video/audio at all. David Lifton just misquoted what Dr. Perry said in the ONE and only version. Lifton is just wrong when he put these words in quotes --- "I left the wound inviolate". We know Perry never said those exact words because of this video I posted previously. In that video, Perry's lips match the audio perfectly. How can anyone doubt that fact---even David S. Lifton? And the words "I left" in Lifton's version of Perry's quote are very important too. And those are words--"I left"--that Dr. Perry never uttered in that CBS statement at all. Lifton simply misquoted Perry. The question that remains is --- Did David Lifton deliberately misquote Perry when it comes to the 1967 CBS interview? Or was DSL merely attempting to recall the exact quote from memory and incorrectly (but innocently) put the words "I left" in Dr. Perry's mouth by mistake? [...] Of course, it's possible that Robert Groden's taped version of the 1967 interview is out of sync for some reason. That's quite possible. But that certainly doesn't have to indicate any "monkeying around" with the original video. Any number of technical things could happen that can result in audio going out of sync with video on VHS tapes, DVDs, digital files, etc. I've had that happen to my video files all the time, and it's annoying as hell. But I don't think it has anything to do with somebody trying to "monkey around" with my files. It's just something that happens in the "A/V" world. Bottom Line (as usual) --- A conspiracy theorist is making a huge mountain out of something that doesn't even rise to the level of an anthill. [...] Regarding this comment [by David Lifton]: "A friend who has audio expertise...notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought NOT to be the sound of any words." And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-) If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever.
  23. I think my "style" is just fine, thank you. In fact, in many instances, I find it even more powerful and useful to repeat (i.e., "cut and paste") something I have already posted (such as the Feb./Mar. 2018 excerpts I repeated above regarding David Lifton's outlandish "altered 1967 CBS-TV tape" theory) in order to emphasize and reiterate things that I perceive to be obvious and which were not adequately (IMO) addressed and/or refuted by the CT defense counsel (i.e., Mr. Lifton). IOW, I felt the need to repeat a point (or points) I had previously made. And since a perfectly good written record of those points already exists in my saved archives, why shouldn't I use them again to reiterate my position (vs. typing out pretty much the exact same argument again, while utilizing just a few different words)? Perry....your witness. P.S. .... Another good "case in point" to illustrate the benefit of having a fairly large archive of JFK-related written material readily at hand occurred just 4 days ago in another thread at this forum --- here --- concerning the contradictory statements made over the years by Buell Frazier. BTW, I'm certainly not the only person who cuts & pastes their previously archived material at this forum. Many times in the past few years I've seen other members---such as Pat Speer and Jim DiEugenio---copy their verbatim quotes taken from their own websites (patspeer.com and JD's K&K site) into forum threads. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. In fact, as I stated, I think it's a good thing to do in many instances.
×