David Von Pein

Right.

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. I have no idea what that means.

Brennan puts him on 6 at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22. I'm sure you hate Brennan. But his testimony is still there nonetheless. And it always will be. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Howard Brennan (Part 1)

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

And you think no LNer has ever done that?

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

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

I've got some "Zones" too. Great show.... dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/twilight-zone.html

Oh, the arrogance of the poster!

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

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? --------------

From April 13, 2012..... BARRY KRUSCH SAID: I would invite you, David, after reading the three volumes, to accept the JFK challenge. You have an extensive knowledge of the background of the case, and I believe that you would be the perfect person to accept that challenge. What do you say? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Not unless your arbitrator is a robot (i.e., someone who has never been exposed to any of the various myths and distortions about the evidence in the JFK case). But since any arbitrator is going to be human, and since more than 75% of all humans with any opinion about the JFK case favor the idea of conspiracy, and since virtually all of that opinion has been based on nothing but silly myths and conjecture (such as the still-favored myth about Oswald being a terrible shot and the myth about how the Warren Commission insisted that the shooting took place in only 5.6 seconds and the myth about how the WC had no choice but to "move" JFK's back wound up into his neck in order to make the SBT viable)....then I don't think I'd be willing to risk any cash on such a venture.* And that's because, all too often, I've run into people who claim to be totally unbiased about this case, only to hear the very same tired, worn-out conspiracy myths coming from their lips--over and over again. * = Or does the person accepting your challenge actually risk any cash at all in this venture? Or are you the only one who pays out the dough if you lose? But if your arbitrator is made out of metal and microchips (with its "CT Myths" mode set to the "Off" position), then I'd be more than willing to argue the case in front of such an unbiased machine. Original EF Post: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006#entry250522

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

~sigh~ There's no sense even trying to discuss "evidence" with Ken Drew, since Ken obviously has no idea what the word means, but I'll futilely try again nonetheless.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com ~~Awaiting Ken's proverbial "None of that stuff is evidence, Von Pein" retort~~ (Hey, I saved Ken the trouble of typing his next useless, say-nothing post. No need to thank me, Kenny.)

Any examples, Mark? If by "flat earth thing", Mark, you mean "Oswald is guilty and he probably did it alone", then I've got some news for you.... My "flat earth thing" has a heck of a lot more evidentiary support going for it than your "conspiracy thing".

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry. just for the record " jfk-archives.blogspot..." will not link you to anything.. just click on that and see where you go. Oh, for Pete sake, Ken. I just used the first part of my site URL in that post. (Hence, the "..." at the end.) You need everything spelled out in neon, don't you?

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct? IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy. There are many people properly convicted and in prison based solely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, most people who are being exonerated are the ones who were convicted on "eye-witness" testimony. a little perspective... But CTers have no "solid" circumstantial evidence that PROVES any conspiracy either, IMO. But, Glenn, you seem to be more reasonable than Ken "There is NO evidence against Oswald" Drew (can you even believe for one second anyone could utter such a thing?).... Anyway, I was just wondering if you, Glenn Nall, could answer two quick questions for me (because I haven't read enough of your online posts to know what your thoughts are on these two major points).... 1.) Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" as a fall guy for JFK's murder in advance of 11/22/63? 2.) Do you think that JFK was killed by gunmen firing at the President from both the front and the rear of JFK's limo? Thank you.

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry.

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct? IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy. Gotcha.

What was I just saying about "denial"? Ken is living, breathing proof of it.

I completely agree. Just check out the "SBT / Lapel Flip" thread for the true definition of "denial". It's vividly illustrated HERE. Hear, hear! Such as the type of bad reasoning possessed by many conspiracy theorists that allows them to consider the idea that Lee Oswald was being framed in advance of the assassination, but despite that alleged fact, the real assassins decided to shoot John Kennedy with at least TWO rifles (in both front and rear locations) on 11/22/63. Shouldn't THAT type of "bad reasoning" automatically "kill the credibility" of the person advancing such a cockeyed theory?

Boy, there's a real surprise, Ken. A CTer finding none of the actual evidence against Oswald "worthwhile". That's something brand new, huh?

Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...). But here's the translation of Glenn's post above.... Glenn DID click the link, but when he found out that it said "DVP's Archives", he immediately left the page without bothering to check any of the source links DVP provided to back up the things he was saying in the article regarding John Connally's bullet fragments. True or false, Glenn? Yeah, prob'ly. ~eyeroll~ But you don't like the idea of me doing the same thing, right? Nice double standard, Glenn.

If you would have bothered to click on the link, "dude", you'd find dozens of source links to support the things I talk about at my own site regarding the Connally fragments. And, BTW, I sure don't see Pat Speer being nailed to the cross for the many times we see these words in a post written by Mr. Speer himself.... "From Chapter 7b at PatSpeer.com..." But I would never fault Pat for citing stuff from his own website. Of course he's going to do that (and often). And that's because he has put a lot of time and effort into the things he places on his site. Just as I have done on my sites. And Pat, like me, is proud of the things he has written on his site. What website operator wouldn't want to prop up his own work and articles? And, as I said above, I normally provide tons of source links to back up my arguments.