Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

1967 Debate: Mark Lane vs. Wesley Liebeler

Recommended Posts

let me see..... for 2 straight years and 450+ threads on ACJ re Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, Ben Holmes debating same literally cleaned lone nut clock. There wasn't one lone nut left standing... he took the debate to AAJ and did the same. He's doing the same right now on Amazon... and you dutifully post and hide behind a few videos, how convenient... You're a real charmer David Von Pein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for Healy's tantalizing promise.....

"My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums." -- David G. Healy; July 25, 2015

Well, it was nice while it lasted anyway.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for Healy's tantalizing promise.....

"My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums." -- David G. Healy; July 25, 2015

Well, it was nice while it lasted anyway.

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

Huh? What argument? Healy made no argument. He said nothing. Like always. (And I assume you weren't referring to Mark Lane's arguments.)

Healy was merely heaping praise upon a wholly unworthy recipient -- Ben Holmes -- who is a person I've destroyed with the facts on dozens of previous occasions--and Healy knows it.

Show me one argument made online by David G. Healy that isn't completely laughable on its face. I dare ya to find one. You'll be searching for a while.

In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

...

In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there.

right you are, son. I have no need to argue... facts and truth win out. Class researchers both here and other forums/boards are wiping their collective feet on the 1964 WCR. It's all over but the lone nut whining.

Those that now argue: a conspiracy did NOT murder JFK, do absolutely nothing else but argue and some build overweight websites to bolster their argument. Argue for argument sake, what a novelty, what a diversion.

Here's something startling: read Bob Tanenbaum's (HSCA's lead investigator into the assassination of JFK), Corruption of Blood (1995/6). It would be good for you soul, a real eye opener, if you can find it...the book's front cover blurb:

"His most enthralling legal thriller to date" --Vincent Bugliosi. (oh-my)

Within the first 100 pages of the book, after *Butch* read the 1964 WCR, as did his investigative team... *there's nothing there...* No case against Oswald? WHAT! A guy that has personally prosecuted hundred + and responsible in a supervising capacity prosecuting hundreds of other murder cases and he never, ever lost one personally, saying that after reading the entire WCR?

I don't have to argue dude...

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for Healy's tantalizing promise.....

"My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums." -- David G. Healy; July 25, 2015

Well, it was nice while it lasted anyway.

that's right David... "my time has come and now gone..." the debate is over for me... after 19 years, not bad, eh? It's simple: A conspiracy murdered JFK...

And yet, I can't prove the Zapruder film was altered. Was altering possible? Of course it was. Go figure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

...

In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there.

right you are, son. I have no need to argue... facts and truth win out. Class researchers both here and other forums/boards are wiping their collective feet on the 1964 WCR. It's all over but the lone nut whining.

Those that now argue: a conspiracy did NOT murder JFK, do absolutely nothing else but argue and some build overweight websites to bolster their argument. Argue for argument sake, what a novelty, what a diversion.

Here's something startling: read Bob Tanenbaum's (HSCA's lead investigator into the assassination of JFK), Corruption of Blood (1995/6). It would be good for you soul, a real eye opener, if you can find it...the book's front cover blurb:

"His most enthralling legal thriller to date" --Vincent Bugliosi. (oh-my)

Within the first 100 pages of the book, after *Butch* read the 1964 WCR, as did his investigative team... *there's nothing there...* No case against Oswald? WHAT! A guy that has personally prosecuted hundred + and responsible in a supervising capacity prosecuting hundreds of other murder cases and he never, ever lost one personally, saying that after reading the entire WCR?

I don't have to argue dude...

*there's nothing there...* No case against Oswald? Very true, almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. if you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. if you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.

Regardless of how many times you say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. And the above quote by Kenneth Drew is really stupid. And it's provably wrong.

But that fact won't keep Kenny Drew from telling me 101 more times that I have presented "no evidence" whatsoever of Oswald's (double) guilt. Ken will just gaze, unseeing and unfazed, at all of the many things in evidence that point directly to Lee Oswald....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

And after glancing at or just totally ignoring that list altogether, Ken will return to his keyboard to write tripe like this once more....

"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero."

-- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015

That's the type of fantasy world Ken Drew wishes to live in. Sad, isn't it?

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

Reality Break....

"During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language.

Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president. I meticulously examined every major conspiracy theory that had thus far been adduced, and although there were a few (a precious few) that at first blush seemed plausible, upon sober scrutiny they did complete violence to all conventional notions of logic and common sense. Though there are some notable exceptions, by and large the persistent ranting of the Warren Commission critics, some of whom were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had even come to rest, came to remind me, as H. L. Mencken said in a different context, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.

[...]

If Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin is as obvious as I suggest, why, one may logically ask, the need for this extraordinarily long book ["Reclaiming History"]? Make no mistake about it. The Kennedy assassination, per se, is not a complicated case. I've personally prosecuted several murder cases where the evidence against the accused was far more circumstantial and less robust than the case against Oswald. .... The case against Oswald himself is overwhelming and relatively routine. Earl Warren himself said, "As district attorney of a large metropolitan county [Oakland, California] for years . . . I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the prominence of the victim, the case against Oswald could have been tried in two or three days with little likelihood of any but one result." [Earl Warren, "Memoirs", p.367]

The allegation of conspiracy introduces an element of complexity into the case because it is inherently more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, and this complexity is compounded by the fact that Oswald was a deeply troubled person and a restless Marxist who traveled to Russia and Mexico. But the complexity is only superficial.

[...]

Throughout this book ["RH"], I will be referring to Oswald as Kennedy's killer, and conspiracy theorists, as well as legal purists, have maintained for years that the only proper way to refer to Oswald is "alleged assassin," on the rationale that under our system of justice in America, a suspect or defendant is presumed to be innocent until a jury finds him guilty in a court of law.

But this invests a power and legitimacy to a verdict of guilty or not guilty that it does not have. A verdict of not guilty, for instance, cannot change the reality of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That reality was established the moment of the crime, and nothing that happened thereafter can ever change it. If a courtroom verdict could, then if the defendant actually robbed a bank, but the three witnesses who saw him do it were unavailable to testify against him at the trial (e.g., the defendant's associates had either killed them or threatened them into not testifying), his subsequent not-guilty verdict means he didn't really rob the bank.

In other words, the jury verdict succeeded in doing something that God can't even do—change the past. Likewise, if someone did not rob a bank, but in a case of mistaken identity he was found guilty, the new reality is that he actually did rob the bank. To those who have challenged my calling Oswald guilty throughout the years by saying he was never found to be guilty in a court of law, I've responded that "under that theory, Adolf Hitler never committed any crimes, Jack the Ripper never committed any crimes, and the only crime Al Capone ever committed was income tax evasion." "

-- Vincent Bugliosi

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. if you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.

...

"During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language.

Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president.

[...]

- Vincent Bugliosi

DVP, that's even better yet... so, "not one speck of evidence that Oswald was framed" AND there was not one speck of credible evidence to charge LHO with the murder of JFK. Why are we dealing with LHO, son? Who was the next suspect, surely there was more than one, eh?

BTW, It's also easy to say Bugliosi was an unhinged, megalomaniac and malcontent based on what we now know of his, shall we say, 'dark side'.

In case English is a problem, Tannebaum suggests early in his book, Oswald would have never been put on trial based on the 1964 Warren Commission findings and report. He goes even further stating the WCR reads like a prosecutor's brief, a BAD one. The 1964 WCR stinks...Oswald need not of worried about walking out of a courtroom, murder charges would of been dropped.... What does that say about your "evidence?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for Healy's tantalizing promise.....

"My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums." -- David G. Healy; July 25, 2015

Well, it was nice while it lasted anyway.

nice dodge, spineless...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

Huh? What argument? Healy made no argument. He said nothing. Like always. (And I assume you weren't referring to Mark Lane's arguments.)

Healy was merely heaping praise upon a wholly unworthy recipient -- Ben Holmes -- who is a person I've destroyed with the facts on dozens of previous occasions--and Healy knows it.

Show me one argument made online by David G. Healy that isn't completely laughable on its face. I dare ya to find one. You'll be searching for a while.

In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there.

"he said nothing"

neither did you. you posted some videos, letting others do the speaking.

"...a person I've destroyed with the facts on dozens of previous occasions."

you've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."

your entire tactic is personal attack, in each of your attempts, and there's not a person in here who's in any way emotionally or literally susceptible to your comic volleys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."

And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy.

The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true.

I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence.

Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent?

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?

Edited by David Von Pein

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...