David Von Pein

Attention forum moderators.... Please give Joseph McBride the warning and/or suspension he so clearly deserves for making the stupid and unwarranted comment quoted above. Thank you. Here's the forum rule (which I will now cite every time I again see this crap being directed at me). After a few suspensions, maybe this nonsense will cease.... Accusations of Member Credibility:- Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum may be paid to post on this forum... Action:- Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum.

Correct. He was on the sixth floor----where his gun was, where his paper bag was, where his prints were (right IN the Sniper's Nest, which CTers have no problem with whatsoever), and where shells from his gun were located. A failing first-grader could figure out the solution to this crime. CTers, however, can't seem to do it.

Lee was all out of grenades on 11/22. All he had left was his Carcano and his Smith & Wesson. (Damn the luck.)

The TSBD roof was not a feasible location for an assassin.....as we find out in the WC testimony of policeman Marrion L. Baker, who said this.... "I immediately went around all the sides of the ledges up there, and after I got on top I found out that a person couldn't shoot off that roof because when you stand up you have to put your hands like this, at the top of that ledge and if you wanted to see over, you would have to tiptoe to see over it."

Oh sure. That's why the following two facts existed after JFK's death---because "everyone" hated him so much.... "In a large-sample national poll in March of 1964...an astonishing 53 percent of those interviewed said they had wept when they heard the news of Kennedy's death (New York Times, March 7, 1964, p.11). This percentage is remarkable by itself, and becomes even more so when you factor in the number of people who, though grieving as much, cannot bring tears to their eyes." [...] "With respect to President Kennedy's grave site, in 1962, the year before Kennedy was assassinated, one million people visited Arlington National Cemetery. During the six months following the assassination, NINE million came." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 142 and 1504 of "Reclaiming History"

Excellent images of the Plaza, Rick. You've provided a perfect reason for me to update and expand my "Dealey Through The Years" webpage with a "2019" entry. Thanks. Here's my Dealey Plaza page below. I think you'll enjoy looking through it (if you haven't already)....

JFK rides in the SS-100-X limousine with the President of Ecuador, July 23, 1962. Note the different configuration of the Lincoln limousine in this photo, lacking the "handhold bar" that was usually in place when the President rode in this car. (And somebody famous must also be located in the second car in this motorcade too, given the press attention focused on that vehicle as well.) .... Photo Source: JFK Library.org

My brother shot the video below on October 30, 2012.... --------------------------------------------- HD still photos: http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com / Dealey Plaza Pics (Oct. 30, 2012)

Another "FWIW' re: Tip O'Neill.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/09/14/tip-told-a-whopper-about-us

FWIW.... Quoting from a Usenet Newsgroup post.... ---Quote On:--- "O'Donnell vehemently denied ever telling O'Neill that. "The story is an absolute lie…whoever gave that story is lying. It’s an absolute, outright lie." – Kenneth O’Donnell, Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975. But I guess he lied about lying? To help cover up the murder of the president and his close friend? The number of people that you conspiracists are willing to accuse of crimes is stunning. Not just ordinary people but JFK's closest friends." -- Steve M. Galbraith https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/8dcckSI7ntI/nAzODCzOBQAJ

Yeah, all of this stuff is 100% fake and should be completely ignored and tossed out the window, right?....

So it's really Tip O'Neill's quote, right? O'Neill quoting O'Donnell? I'd love to have heard that quote coming straight from O'Donnell's mouth, to see how it might have differed from "The O'Neill Version". Think there might be a tad bit of difference?

Bzzzzz!! Forum Violation Alert!! Looks like Healy is not aware of this forum rule: ---Quote On...--- "Accusations of Member Credibility: Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at [this] forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum. Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum." ---Quote Off.--- David G. Healy, Please very carefully read all of these Forum Rules before you ever again attempt to speak to me via the pages of this forum, lest the Wrath Of Gordon befall you.

What a bunch of ridiculous hoops to have to jump through....just in order to avoid violating a forum rule that shouldn't be on the books in the first place. Geez Louise.

............

You're missing the basic point (and principle) too, Derek. I'm not saying I have a burning desire to go all around the Internet saying rotten things about The Education Forum and its members. That's not the case at all. But the EF forum should have no right to dictate what I can say at non-EF localities. And I shouldn't have to make a special effort to always "watch what I say" at other sites whenever the topic of an EF member comes up. I should be able to say what I think. But that's not currently possible (if I want to stay an active EF member, that is)----especially after today, because Kamp's spies will now be on the constant lookout for any "anti-EF" remark that I might make anywhere on the Internet. But I guess I'll just have to accept this ridiculous situation if I want to be able to continue to post here (which, I'll admit, I do).

Well, Duh!! I wonder why there wouldn't be a forum rule saying: "Forum members are prohibited from saying really nice things about other EF forum members and its admins. on other Internet forums."

I can only sit here and shake my head in disbelief that someone who owns and moderates an Internet forum in the year 2019 AD could possibly utter the words that James R. Gordon just uttered above. Absolutely incredible (and pathetic).

Greetings Kathy Becket, Yes, James Gordon explained to me in his 2/24/19 Private Message that even when EF members get banned, their past forum messages will stay put in the forum's archives---and I was very glad to hear that because it wasn't like that at all under John Simkin's pre-2013 ownership. And I'm not staying and posting here merely because I want my previous posts to remain available here at this site (I archive almost all of my EF discussions at my own website anyway)....but I'd like to stay here because I want to continue to add future discussions to my website archives too. I've been able to add several interesting new Education Forum discussions to my site in just the last two months. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the participation of this forum's members (both CTers and LNers alike). So, in short, I like this forum. I disagree with nearly everything that's uttered by the "CTers" in this place. (And I'm sure that comes as no big shock to you.) But, just the same, I like being able to post here and share my views. And the EF site has good functionality too. It's simple to navigate and I like the look of the design and the pages. So that's another "plus". Also --- Even though I've had a couple of heated disagreements in the last four years with this forum's owner, James Gordon, he is a person I haven't really had all that much contact with. And he doesn't really post too many messages, which makes any contact somewhat minimal anyway. Most of my discussions here have been with people other than James. So I really can't see why my problems with Mr. Gordon should make me want to quit the forum entirely. That doesn't make sense to me. I've been able to archive many good EF discussions (covering several different JFK sub-topics), and 99% of those discussions haven't included a single post by James R. Gordon at all. Plus, I think you missed my main point, Kathy. Which was (again) --- I don't think The Education Forum should have a right to, in effect, tell its members what they can or cannot say at other Internet sites. That's not fair, in my view. And I do think it's an infringement on the Freedom of Speech rights of this forum's members. And my opinion in this regard has got nothing to do with my disagreements with Mr. Gordon as far as the Single-Bullet Theory or any of the other evidence in the JFK case.

I totally agree. .... DVP Facebook Post

Just "for the record".... James R. Gordon has posted 935 times [as of this moment on 2/25/2019 AM] since he registered here on August 1, 2004.

Thanks for your opinion on this matter, Andrej. I will respectfully disagree with you, however. The rule that is in place here [below] restricts freedom of speech at other Internet locations, and this forum's owners do not (or at least should not) have a right to place such restrictions on anyone outside the purview of The Education Forum (IMO).... "Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum – may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."

Jim DiEugenio, deep down, has got to know that I'm right about this "Posting At Other Forums" matter, but I guess he feels obligated to stick up for the EF owner anyway because DiEugenio apparently doesn't possess the gonads to speak up for what everybody knows is right concerning this situation, which is --- this forum has no right to dictate what I (or anyone else, including you, James DiEugenio) have to say at any other forum or website. If you, Jim Di., want to rip me a new anal cavity at the Deep Politics Forum (which you have done on occasion, and I have the links to prove it), then you have every right to do that without having to walk on the eggshells created by a silly rule that exists at a different forum. And I'm not sure if such a rule is even constitutionally legal. It might not be legal. (Any lawyers present?) But even if such a rule is constitutionally legal, it is still an unfair, petty, and downright childish rule to have on the books of any Internet forum. And even James Gordon himself realizes that it is a rule that probably doesn't belong in the "Terms Of Forum Use" at the EF site, otherwise he would not have said this to me yesterday: "Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule, I have no intention of doing so. .... You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forums and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them. If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019 So, as we can easily see, Mr. Gordon has come right out and admitted that pretty much the only reason he's keeping the "Do Not Cast Aspersions At Other Forums" rule on his Rules page is to simply spite me. What a sweet guy!