Who supports/promotes the shills?

[Kenneth Drew]

And we've all got to keep that balance between "chips-fall free expression" and responses "in a calm and polite way." Otherwise we're YouTube.

I can sure agree with you on that, David. The "YouTube Comment" world is almost like a completely different universe. People say things there that I doubt they'd say to their worst enemy on any given day--ever. But for some crazy reason, I guess when people make comments on YouTube, they decide that all rules for decorum and decency have to be thrown out the window.

It's really a remarkale phenomenon at times. And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap. The CTers seem to like to gather at YouTube---for JFK stuff and my 9/11 videos too. The 9/11 gutter talk is even worse than the JFK talk. (Hard as that might be to believe.)

But even with all the filth and "Von Pein is a shill and CIA agent" crap I see every day at YouTube, I should also point out that there are some very nice and non-offensive comments made quite often too. But the good ones are far outdistanced by the trash talkers.

And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap. DVP, wouldl you re-state that so it makes sense? Do you allow comments without moderation, or do you use the delete button? Is a comment without moderation the same as a comment with a deletion?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

You know very well there was no 'brown paper bag' ever found in the Snipers nest. It only turned up much later.

Maybe you should try reading the testimony of these police officers--all of whom testified to seeing the bag in the SN before it was picked up off the floor....

Bob Studebaker

J.C. Day

Marvin Johnson

L.D. Montgomery

All liars, Ken?

The only fingerprints found in the nest belonged to Mac Wallace. Care to explain that?

You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? Is there ANY crackpot conspiracy theory you don't embrace? Any at all?

Try reading the last paragraph of CE3131, Ken....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm

More lies, Ken? (The part about only a single PALMprint being unidentified, I mean.)

BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~

BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~

You're welcome. Don't know if I would consider it advertisement, unless you're selling something, of course. And you think that makes me look bad? I'm not the one that said I don't have the freedom to think for myself.

[David Von Pein]

You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken?

May as well, David, with the rapidity that you turn myths into facts.

Boy, that makes a whole lot of sense. ~large shrug~

[Glenn Nall]

We both know that the boxes making up the barricade did not have his fingerprints "all over them"... they found prints much later on ONE box - in fact since the crime scene was not kept clean at all we have no idea what transpires from the time Day leaves and returns later to dust for prints... and even that palm print is suspect.

Turns out that by the time he returns the DPD has multiple, fresh palmprints and fingerprints from Oswald fromhis arrest...

Mr. BELIN. Could you relate what transpired to cause 649 to be torn from 648?

Mr. DAY. After I returned to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after delivering the gun to my office, we processed the boxes in that area, in the area of the window where the shooting apparently occurred, with powder. This particular box was processed and a palmprint, a legible palmprint, developed on the northwest corner of the box, on the top of the box as it was sitting on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other processing that you did with the rifle?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the FBI?

Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and taken from the office.

Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

Also turns out that these vital pieces of evidence are left there for days, positioned and repositioned, photographed as the "At the time of shots" window when it was nothing of the sort.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when that was placed on there?

Mr. DAY. That was placed there November 26. The box was not removed, just the cardboard was removed on November 22 excuse me, November 25 I should say that he put his name on there. I returned to the School Book Depository on November 25 and collected this box.

The rest of that BS about it being his rifle, ... you can't prove. As proven repeatedly and again in my next essay, the trail of C2766 stops at Harborside... there is no proof other than for a June 1962 shipment, that C2766 ever left that depot.

Point to one other box in the SN barricade where they supposedly found his prints....... the boxes "on the window sill" as mentioned above, cannot even be authenticated as the same...

"OSWALD'S rifle.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142)."

Since no one can physically get that bag into and out of that corner that day... you'll need to do much better than CE142... There is no proof that bag was ever even there, no proof that it's the same as the one CLAIMED to be carried by Oswald ala Wesley and his sister... but helluva nice try Dave

Between the last time Oswald was seen, 12:10 on the first floor without a 3+ foot paper bag in his hands and the shots, Mr. W here is on the 6th floor.

Without tools and without being seen, Oswald retrieves the bag and assembles the weapon

WHERE and HOW David?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.

Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.

Mr. McCLOY. What floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.

Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?

Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.

Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to ask one question here. When you were on the sixth floor eating your lunch, did you hear anything that made you feel that there was anybody else on the sixth floor with you?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything.

Mr. DULLES. You did not see anything?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not see anything.

Mr. DULLES. You were all alone as far as you knew at that time on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. During that period of from 12 o'clock about to--10 or 15 minutes after?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I felt like I was all alone. That is one of the reasons I left--because it was so quiet.

the tactic of the defeated is to ignore the challenge by changing the subject to a counter-challenge. the obligation rests here for the challenged (no pun intended) to respond, otherwise what credibility he has is further damaged.

the irony in arguing with people of this nature is that they very clearly don't seem to place much value on their own credibility, yet still expect others to.

it reminds me of the knight who was tasked with protecting the bridge in The Holy Grail. He's had both arms and both legs detached and still thinks he's in the battle.

[Kenneth Drew]

You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken?

May as well, David, with the rapidity that you turn myths into facts.

Boy, that makes a whole lot of sense. ~large shrug~

You're gonna wear your shoulders out with all that shrugging. Do you have the freedom to stop shrugging if you desire? But just a few comments back, you took a myth and in about 2 sentences, turned it into one of 'your' facts. Anyone that can turn a myth into a fact in about two sentences should welcome more myths to feed their 'fact creating' machine. Right? ~small shrug~ added for emphasis.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[David Von Pein]

And you think that [silly signature] makes me look bad?

You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it.

I'm not the one that said I don't have the freedom to think for myself.

I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind".

That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear as to what I meant.

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

And you think that [silly signature] makes me look bad?

You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it.

I'm not the one that said I don't have the freedom to think for myself.

I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind".

That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear.

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

[David Von Pein]

And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap.

DVP, would you re-state that so it makes sense? Do you allow comments without moderation, or do you use the delete button? Is a comment without moderation the same as a comment with a deletion?

I guess to those who don't understand how the YouTube comments system works, that comment of mine might seem a bit contradictory.

What I meant was....

I allow all comments to go through to my YouTube video pages automatically (sans any "moderation" on my part). But after then reading the allowed comments, I sometimes have to delete some of them (because of the pure filth that many of them contain).

Ten-Four?

[Kenneth Drew]

And you think that [silly signature] makes me look bad?

You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it.

I'm not the one that said I don't have the freedom to think for myself.

I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind".

That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear.

Your exact quote was "I wish I had your total freedom" You have yet to tell us why you don't have freedom. If you don't have total freedom, there must be a constraint. You should be free to believe what you choose to believe, to believe what you think the evidence shows and to explain that evidence. But you don't have that freedom, you say. I do. I have all the freedom I need to state what I really believe. I don't have to say something different because I don't have freedom. If you think that me fighting for your freedom to state your mind makes me look bad, then I'll just take it that you're stating that because you don't have the total freedom to say what you really think.

[Kenneth Drew]

And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap.

DVP, would you re-state that so it makes sense? Do you allow comments without moderation, or do you use the delete button? Is a comment without moderation the same as a comment with a deletion?

I guess to those who don't understand how the YouTube comments system works, that comment of mine might seem a bit contradictory.

What I meant was....

I allow all comments to go through to my YouTube video pages automatically (sans any "moderation" on my part). But after then reading the allowed comments, I sometimes have to delete some of them (because of the pure filth that many of them contain).

Ten-Four?

So you do not allow comments without moderation. You only pretend you do?

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[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.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[David Von Pein]

...

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

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?