Jump to content
The Education Forum
Bruce Fernandez

Who supports/promotes the shills?

Recommended Posts

I'll write more about that tomorrow.

I'll save you the trouble, Ken....

[simulated Ken D. post:]

"All of the evidence DVP talks about at that link is fake. End of story."

[End CTer Fantasy Simulation.]

Related discussion with another CT Fantasist who resides in the popular "All The Evidence Is Fake" club....

Amazon.com/forum/history/Who Killed JFK?

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP refuses to take the JFK Challenge, so I wouldn't rely on anything he reports.

As if accepting Barry's "JFK Challenge" is required to convict Oswald.

I guess if I don't take Barry's "challenge", then all of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (which was firmly established long before I was three years old) will completely cease to exist.

Somebody better check on Barry....because I doubt he's able to leave his house anymore. His inflated head won't fit through the front door.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean this personally, like golly i think you're not a nice person kind of "personally" -I can't help but wonder why you're not hanging out with like minded persons who would welcome your input.

there is not a chance in hades of you changing a person's mind in a forum designed for the discussion of conspiracy theories (unless I'm wrong there), so the only conclusion i can enjoy is that you either like to argue or like to be out down. seriously, i'm not trying to be mean, just simplifying things.

i'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE i'm not here to argue. i'm here to learn. (don't even ask the next question that comes to your mind on that one).

Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT attempt to kill the President of his own accord, there is little, if any, concrete forensic or other direct evidence that can place him on the 6th floor, and there's not likely a soul in any of these forums that's going to change their position on that any time soon.

so really - do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility?

I'm all ears. really. I'll listen. (ask Paul T. - he's got my attention, and i agree with him hardly at all.) But i won't argue with you. I don't enjoy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong (of course). But you're free to believe that if you so desire. I'm accustomed to the slings and arrows by now.

But just exactly HOW would you recommend an "LNer" like myself go about the task of presenting my "LN" side of things at an almost "All CT" forum without "arguing" or "stirring things up"? I'd like to know how that can be done. Or if it's even something that's DESIRABLE at a forum that's entitled "JFK Assassination Debate".

Definition...

DEBATE --- "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points."

So the very definition of "debate" is "argument". So what's the problem with "arguing" at a debate forum? ~shrug~

I'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE i'm not here to argue.

And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd.

Do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility?

Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963?

Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?)

By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like....

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

Things like that.

Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong (of course). But you're free to believe that if you so desire. I'm accustomed to the slings and arrows by now.

But just exactly HOW would you recommend an "LNer" like myself go about the task of presenting my "LN" side of things at an almost "All CT" forum without "arguing" or "stirring things up"? I'd like to know how that can be done. Or if it's even something that's DESIRABLE at a forum that's entitled "JFK Assassination Debate".

Definition...

DEBATE --- "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points."

So the very definition of "debate" is "argument". So what's the problem with "arguing" at a debate forum? ~shrug~

I'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE i'm not here to argue.

And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd.

Do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility?

Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963?

Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?)

By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like....

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

Things like that.

Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree?

a) you overlooked the "concrete forensic or other direct evidence" part...

B) you overlooked the "unique and different that I've not likely heard" part...

c) you expectedly are not well attuned to probative values and the rules of evidence in legal settings. not a single one of those 'points' gets anywhere near proof of his being on the 6th floor firing that rifle, which is the accusation in question. The accusation is NOT that Oswald acted mysteriously, or that he lied, or that he left work early, or even that he shot Tippit (this is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK, which he was never officially charged with anyway).

The charge, by you and your rightful attempts to prove it, is that Oswald fired a rifle from the 6th floor at 12.30 that day of his own accord and planning. Right?

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

not probative whatsoever. Any lawyer and any juror will say "So what?" - irrelevant to the charge

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

irrelevant to the charge

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

irrelevant to the charge

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

not even proven [edit - maybe i'm wrong here - terrifically irrelevant either way]

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

irrelevant - a DOUBLE so what

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

irrelevant - a TRIPLE so what - more like a "WHAT?"

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

irrelevant

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

irrelevant

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

NOT proven, AND irrelevant

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

shows consciousness of guilt. but of WHAT?

you said something earlier about his guilt of something - by saying that you've defeated your own argument (charge). not ONE of those items goes to the charge in question. and you know that. half of that stuff wouldn't even be admissable. the other would be humorous.

i was looking for direct evidence of his guilt, and something unique. you failed fabulously on both counts. sorry.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong (of course). But you're free to believe that if you so desire. I'm accustomed to the slings and arrows by now.

But just exactly HOW would you recommend an "LNer" like myself go about the task of presenting my "LN" side of things at an almost "All CT" forum without "arguing" or "stirring things up"? I'd like to know how that can be done. Or if it's even something that's DESIRABLE at a forum that's entitled "JFK Assassination Debate".

Definition...

DEBATE --- "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points."

So the very definition of "debate" is "argument". So what's the problem with "arguing" at a debate forum? ~shrug~

I'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE i'm not here to argue.

And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd.

Do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility?

Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963?

Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?)

By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like....

1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.

2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)

3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.

4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).

5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.

6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.

7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)

8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.

Things like that.

Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree?

most people agree that "debate" is different than "argue," and that a "shill" is a person pretending to prefer the latter over the former, usually for an alternate motive. this is the reason i felt that calling someone a shill was not overly insulting.

this is a thread about shills. i'm wondering if it has strayed far from its point, or if it has proven it. I'm possibly guilty of promoting them at this point by keeping the damn thing alive... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accusation is NOT that Oswald acted mysteriously, or that he lied, or that he left work early, or even that he shot Tippit (this is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK).

But don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on Nov. 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"?

Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald?

In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly ---

Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could ask you a very similar question, Dave. Wouldn't it be wise to evaluate all of the evidence available in light of the possibility there was a conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[The Tippit murder] is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK, which he was never officially charged with anyway.

What an odd thing to say. Why are you saying Oswald was "never officially charged" with JFK's murder? That's not true at all. Oswald was charged with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM CST on 11/22, and LHO was arraigned on the JFK murder charge at 1:35 AM CST on 11/23.

If you got the idea from Sylvia Meagher's book that Oswald was never arraigned, Meagher was definitely incorrect. More here -----> Lee Harvey Oswald's Arraignment

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could ask you a very similar question, Dave. Wouldn't it be wise to evaluate all of the evidence available in light of the possibility there was a conspiracy?

And you think no LNer has ever done that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accusation is NOT that Oswald acted mysteriously, or that he lied, or that he left work early, or even that he shot Tippit (this is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK).

But don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on Nov. 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"?

Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald?

In my opinion, it's a package deal that fit together perfectly ---

Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

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

AGAIN. "all that physical evidence that came out..."

this is what i've asked for, Direct Evidence, and what you've avoided. NO. Those items do NOT prove anything but that Oswald was weird, a xxxx, lazy, whatever, but they DO NOT put him on the 6th floor at 12.30, and if you in any way think they can, then you've proven my point, that you know NOTHING about probative evidence (you' e proven it anyway).

Joe Pesci in south Georgia would destroy your case.

We're looking for evidence that puts Oswald on 6 at 12.30. Even the paraffin tests can't do that.

NOTHING can put him on 6 at 12.30. NOTHING.

and, OTH, MUCH puts a - others there, and b - him somewhere else. I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about WHAT puts him on 6 at 12.30. Don't change the subject. Ignore it or answer it.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

he has deferred to the preordained defense which he himself has bored of repeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...