Sometimes Things Really Are As They Appear To Be

[Brad Milch]

Quote:

'Mrs. Rodgers would tell you it was more than Oswald & it was done to start WWIII. I know she would, David.

Well, that's certainly good enough for me, Brad. That's all I need to hear. If Mrs. Rodgers said it, it's got to be true.

Thanks, Brad. The case is solved.

Edited by David Von Pein'

Actually, it was Pat Speer & his website that convinced me the most that 'there was more to it than Oswald ', David. Pat presents a galaxy worth of material Mrs. Rodgers did not have access to post-assassination that expands on in great detail & drives home more forcefully just what Mrs. Rodgers was explaining to her class of adolescents had happened to President Kennedy in the weeks following his ambush & death in Dallas. What Mrs. Rodgers (an adult from the WWII era) did was analyze the initial reporting on the crime & came to a conclusion that the story being disseminated by the media about what happened & who was responsible was 'fishy'.

According to Mrs. Rodgers, what your book is about is no less 'fishy' than the original story it is derived from. I was using my personal experience with Mrs. Rodgers as a metaphor to illustrate that the suspicion about the original 'Official explanation' of JFK's death was not a phenomenon that began with the 'Beatles', Disco, Hip-Hop, Rap or newer 'generations'; it began with adults that had experienced WWII directly or indirectly and were existing under the constant fear that communist nations could & would attack the USA at any moment & strip any survivors of their freedoms.

I did not use it to mean that I am incapable of doing my own thinking.

I don't find you or others who argue your position as any type of 'enemy' of the people; you do, after all, argue the 1st 'Official explanation' of JFK's death (Oswald did it solo). That's an obsolete argument. That determination was rescinded by the HSCA in 1978 that changed things to 'Oswald did it with some really lousy help'.

As I stated before, I find your presence & those who mimic you (prosecutor) a necessary element of the US judicial system, regardless if I agree with your position or not. Some may question what authority do you have to ignore the HSCA & its determination that Oswald had some help in the assassination & stick with the WC's version of events? The HSCA WAS the authority that replaced the WC's earlier determination that LHO acted alone. In the military, one can be court martialed for following a rescinded order & ignoring the authority that replaced it.

Mrs. Rodgers gives you a 1 in 3 chance of being right by arguing the WC determination that LHO did it alone & a 2 in 3 chance of being wrong.

You can better your odds to 50/50 by dropping the 'Oswald did it alone" WC conclusion & arguing the HSCA conclusion that 'Oswald did it with some really inefficient help'.

What a lot of the public missed during the onslaught of the JFK 50 TV specials pushing the 'Oswald did it alone' position is that position was replaced by the HSCA in 1978 & is no longer officially valid. IOW, 'Oswald did it alone' was taken off the table by the HSCA in 1978 & that determination has not been modified by the US Government since. Those who continue to argue the WC contention that 'Oswald did the crime alone' & ignore the Official report that replaced it (HSCA - 'Oswald did it with a helper') in essence become their own worst enemies in the moment they begin to preach (paraphrasing Bob Dylan). By not supporting the conclusions of the HSCA & working against the US Government's explanation of the death of President Kennedy, they become CT'ers in the process.

Working within the confines of the HSCA, former Justice Department attorney John T. Orr submitted to Janet Reno in the late '90's his analysis concluding that not only did Lee Oswald have excellent help, but Oswald's 'help' actually killed JFK. Mr. Orr's entire report can be read & downloaded from the Fox news JFK 50 website.

Best,

BM

edited to correct typos (several times)

Edited April 28, 2015 by Brad Milch

[James R Gordon]

Gentlemen,

The administration has hidden a number of posts. I would point out that - although I disagree with his position on the assassination - David Von Pein is a reputable assassination researcher.

By all means attack his position and approach to the assassination but associating his position to the Holocaust and other comments does not represent the ethos of this forum.

James

[Steve Logan]

If I could travel back to late 1963 and early 1964 in a time machine, one of the things I would be most anxious to do would be to sit in on a few of the executive sessions of the Warren Commission (in a "fly on the wall" manner), just to hear for myself what was being discussed (even "off the record") during those Commission meetings.

maryferrell.org / WC Executive Sessions

And if such "fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the Warren Commission could be accomplished in a handy time machine, I have a feeling that every single bogus cloud of suspicion that many conspiracy theorists have decided to hang over the heads of the entire Commission would evaporate very quickly.

And the reason that such suspicions would disappear in very quick order is because people like Burt Griffin and David Belin were telling the truth -- they really did want to find a conspiracy. But they couldn't do it....because Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and Jack Ruby really was a second "lone nut" in Dallas in November 1963.

Sometimes things really are as they appear to be.

David Von Pein

October 29, 2009

==========================================

COLIN CROW SAID:

History shows that the Warren Commision [sic] ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was it's [sic] prime objective...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie, that old canard again.

Any chance you can prove that the "prime objective" of the Warren Commission was to whitewash things? Any chance of that at all?

A conspiracy theorist believing that somebody (or some group) was up to no good is meaningless. What the CTers need is some kind of proof that people were conspiring with each other to do the following:

1.) Kill JFK.

2.) Make Oswald the patsy.

3.) Whitewash ALL of the various post-assassination investigations so that everybody would think Oswald (and Ruby) did it alone -- including the Dallas Police Department's initial investigation on the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, plus the Warren Commission's investigation, plus the HSCA's probe into the murder.

And to believe that ALL THREE of those individual investigations into President Kennedy's murder were "whitewash" jobs is just too ridiculous a thought to consider for more than two seconds.

And yet, a goodly number of conspiracy theorists think that ALL THREE of those investigative agencies were, indeed, part of a "cover-up". Such thinking is silly beyond all tolerance.

To date, none of the above three things has been proven by the conspiracy believers of the world. And they never will be proven, because none of the extraordinary things that conspiracists think happened in this case really happened. Nor could they have happened in the real world in which we live.

David Von Pein

January 13, 2010

David,

Colin Crow, who is not a member here, asked me to respond to your post with the following response:

Dear David,

I do not post on the ED forum but occasionally browse through the threads. I was amused you used a quote attributed to me in this recent thread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21855

As a courtesy I would appreciate that you update the thread with the following quote that I posted just a day later. I feel that this more accurately reflects my thinking than the quote from the previous day. I have added the (sic)s for you.....I think there may be more....who knows.

Colin Crow:

Yesterday I posted the following....

"History shows that the Warren Commission ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was its prime objective and therefore must be deemed a failure."

Upon relection (sic) I have reconsidered this view.......maybe this is more accurate...

History shows that the Warren Commision (sic) ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. However its prime objective was to placate and reassure the public (and world) that there was no conspiracy at that time and for the immediate future. Therefore must be deemed a success.

Here is the link to that post....

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1635.20;wap2

While I have your attention I would appreciate your thoughts on the following threads......they seem to have passed by without any meaningful comment from the LN team. Perhaps they are waiting for some leadership. Perhaps you have not noticed them.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12165.0.html

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12183.0.html

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12191.0.html

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12212.0.html

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12154.0.html

Take your time. There is a bit more reading on this topic than Vince managed. I await your considered response.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Steve.

And my thanks to Colin Crow too, for the extra links.

FYI...

I put in my two cents' worth about the "Bags & Bones" subjects just last month. I've archived much of those discussions at my site, here....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html

Edited April 28, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Dawn Meredith]

David,

I ask myself, why does DVP post here? I say to myself, he's not informative, and it's highly unlikely he'll change any minds here. So why does DVP post here.

Only you, David, can answer the question with certainty.

I guess you like sparring.

If I were a cynic, I'd say you like draining energy away from the core debates.

Wow. What a strange question.

Stephen: Why is the question strange? Do you support DVP's no- conspiracy view?

Dawn

[Stephen Roy]

I think it's strange because he's the only one ever asked that question. Nobody asks Jon, you or me that question.

[Dawn Meredith]

I think it's strange because he's the only one ever asked that question. Nobody asks Jon, you or me that question.

That only answers the strange part, but not if you support DVP's view. Why do you not answer that question.

My views are well known, so there is no reason to ask me this question.

Dawn

[Stephen Roy]

Are you asking why I come to this group? To share research and discussion, and I often learn stuff or get insights from hearing all different points of view. That's one of the things I like about this forum. And I share stuff about my area of interest, New Orleans, from time to time.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I would ask why would Dawn post here, when she has had so many bad things to say about the place.

[Dawn Meredith]

Are you asking why I come to this group? To share research and discussion, and I often learn stuff or get insights from hearing all different points of view. That's one of the things I like about this forum. And I share stuff about my area of interest, New Orleans, from time to time.

Third try: Do you agree with DVP's LN views? THAT is what I asked both times above. The question you have ignored.

Dawn

[Stephen Roy]

Are you asking why I come to this group? To share research and discussion, and I often learn stuff or get insights from hearing all different points of view. That's one of the things I like about this forum. And I share stuff about my area of interest, New Orleans, from time to time.

Third try: Do you agree with DVP's LN views? THAT is what I asked both times above. The question you have ignored.

Dawn

No, I defend his right to make his case and be treated fairly.

Do you think he should be treated differently?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Are you asking why I come to this group? To share research and discussion, and I often learn stuff or get insights from hearing all different points of view. That's one of the things I like about this forum. And I share stuff about my area of interest, New Orleans, from time to time.

Third try: Do you agree with DVP's LN views? THAT is what I asked both times above. The question you have ignored.

Dawn

No, I defend his right to make his case and be treated fairly.

Do you think he should be treated differently?

Of course she does. That's why she and the rest of that bunch created their own Amen Choir at DP. You can see how well that's working out for them.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Given that it was my post -- why do you post here? -- that derailed the comment thread, a couple of comments:

First, no one in the administration is treating DVP differently. The administration has made clear it's a level playing field here for everyone.

Second, my post was directed to DVP, no one else, because I was and am interested in why a prominent Oswald-did-it author and advocate chooses to present views here that are rejected by almost everyone here. Almost. In fact, I enjoy DVP's diaries and comments and am glad he posts here, FWIW.

Third, in the spirit of disclosure and given that Stephen Roy has stated why he posts here, I hereby disclose that I like posting here because doing so sharpens my my thinking about the JFK case by allowing me to interact with true experts in the case and because I want to share my personal experience to the extent I think doing so will advance the cause of understanding the JFK assassination.

[David Von Pein]

Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014:

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13107-Education-Forum-closing-yet-again&p=83084#post83084

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Jon.

In case you missed my answer to "WHY DO YOU POST HERE?" -----> EducationForum.com/entry301550

---------

Edited April 28, 2015 by David Von Pein