David Von Pein Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) Once I get access to my notes I'll tell you what I mean, Dave. I wait with eager anticipation, Lord Farley. Undoubtedly, Mr. Farley will be citing something about Oswald's wealth from a conspiracy kookbook. Can there be any doubt of that? The Warren Commission and the HSCA are to be totally thrown out the window, per CTers. But Mark Lane and John Armstrong are to be taken as the Gospel. Go figure. Edited March 24, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Oh, give it a rest you Goddamn bore. You see why you have no friends? It must be nice to be able to say anything you want on a moderated forum and not have the moderators give a damn about it. Farley must have Edu. Forum immunity. Anyway, I love knowing that I'm getting under the skin of conspiracy-happy mongers like Farley and DiEugenio. It makes my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) He [Holy Saint Oswald] didn't order, take delivery of, or have the firearms in his possession[,] so you can add $52.67 back into his surplus funds for March. Yeah, that's why Marina was able to take pictures of him on March 31st holding two guns. And that's why LHO was caught with Revolver V510210 in his hands on 11/22/63. (Some plotter must have shoved it in Lee's hands just before the cops arrived in the theater, with this conspirator telling Lee to try and kill a cop with it. And, amazingly, Oswald agreed to do it.) In short, Lee Farley doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about (as usual). And the Mary Ferrell stuff about LHO's finances that Farley thinks proves something is a riot. In fact, those figures make it even WORSE for Oswald's financial condition as of January 31, 1963, with Ferrell deciding that Oswald had a deficit of over $100 to start February....whereas the WC at least had him with $8 in his pocket. But either way, the point made by Gary Mack in his e-mail message to me is still a valid one -- i.e., Oswald probably waited to order his guns until mid-March, because he was pretty much broke at the end of January. I guess Farley must think that the whopping difference of maybe $100 or so at the end of each month (when comparing Ferrell's data with the Warren Commission's) is supposed to prove that Oswald was really a big wheel with the CIA or something. Is that it, Farley? Because if that's NOT what you're getting at in some fashion by posting those laughable figures from Mary Ferrell's website (which still show Oswald to be very very poor in early 1963), then what is your point in highlighting Ferrell's data? Edited March 25, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) I've got better things to do with my time. Yeah, like taking the time to converse with a "bore" and an "odd little man" like me on an Internet forum. Right, Lee? Hilarious. Edited March 25, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) The thing with figures is they are either right or wrong.Why is there a discrepancy between the two sets of numbers? So, Lee, if Oswald really had--let's say--about $100 more at the end of a particular month than the Warren Commission estimated -- what does that mean to you? IOW -- Where are you going with that data? Are you going to suggest that the CIA or FBI paid Oswald that extra little sum of cash to be one of their operatives? And--again--if that type of thing isn't your main point about Oswald getting money from entities like the CIA or FBI or some other unknown party that you think the Government wanted to keep under wraps, then what IS your point? Do you really have one? Or do you just want to highlight the fact that a conspiracy theorist like Mary Ferrell arrived at figures that were just SLIGHTLY different than the ones printed by the Warren Commission regarding Saint Oswald's financial state? As I said, either set of figures still makes Lee H. Oswald a really poor man in early 1963. So I guess the next question I should ask you is --- So what? Edited March 25, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) If I'm in the National Gallery checking out a Cezanne or a Hopper, I can also quickly reach in my pocket and enter the wacky world of David Von Pein. Glad to see you can't live without my wackiness, Lee boy. You're even compelled to enter my wacky world when you're with your family, at the Gallery, or "on the Tube". You must be a glutton for punishment. And you must also love being bored to death, eh? What a strange little man. Edited March 25, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I simply brought it up to so you knew that the WC figures are not the same as Mary Ferrell's. Like all conspiracy theories that you CTers are in love with, this one about Lee Oswald's finances fizzles into obscurity before it even gets off the ground (just as I knew it would before you researched your prized "notes" on the subject). Try again, Lee. Maybe you'll find Oswald's millions hidden in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 If I'm in the National Gallery checking out a Cezanne or a Hopper, I can also quickly reach in my pocket and enter the wacky world of David Von Pein. Glad to see you can't live without my wackiness, Lee boy. You're even compelled to enter my wacky world when you're with your family, at the Gallery, or "on the Tube". You must be a glutton for punishment. And you must also love being bored to death, eh? What a strange little man. You see how your brain is fried? You think I come on here just to see what crap you're spouting? I come to see primarily what the intelligent members are discussing - and then once I'm through learning stuff I check out your nonsense. All whilst sitting outside Westminster Abbey... If you can't buy Kentucky Fried Chicken at Westminster Abbey, DVP will have no clue as to what, or where the place is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 You treat the financial question like you treated my question regarding CE875. You believe the first shot, as a best guess, missed, and yet your own Commission Exhibit demonstrates that you are insane. Oswald's first (missed) shot was likely deflected by the oak tree. Duh. And, of course, the whole HSCA must also be "insane" (per Farley), because they've got the first shot missing the whole car at even an earlier time--about Z157. Oh, those wacky HSCA guys. Right, Lee boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 You see how your brain is fried? Time to get bored again, eh Lee "I've Got Better Things To Do With My Time Than Talk To A Bore Named Von Pein" Farley? What a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) You think I come on here just to see what crap you're spouting? I come to see primarily what the intelligent members are discussing... Yeah, that must be why you've been discussing the case at length with David Lifton, huh?* What a hypocrite. * Mr. Lifton, in case anyone forgot, is a person who believes that JFK's body was altered before the official autopsy and also believes that all of the gunshots came from the FRONT of Kennedy's car. "Intelligent" theories, aren't they? Edited March 25, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) I knew you'd be pulling your Bugliosi out at some point. Oswald fired through the tree? Ha, yeah right. Maybe you should get your facts straight. Bugliosi doesn't believe Oswald shot through the tree. Vince doesn't think the bullet hit the tree at all. Vince believes in something much sillier, discussed here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html Edited March 25, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 And, like your discussion of the case, what are you leaving out concerning my discussions with Lifton? I haven't the foggiest, Lee. I haven't been following your discussions with Lifton closely at all. I just know you've engaged him in a CT v. CT cockfight recently. That's all. Now, back to Scotland Yard with ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Much sillier that the bullet hit the tree, all the copper tore off, disappeared, then the bullet lead carried on and *poof* that disappeared too. Oh my sweet Lord. This corset sure is coming in handy today... Here's a hint for Lee Farley: That bullet was moving REALLY REALLY FAST when it hit the curbstone. Did you expect it to just stick like Elmer's glue to the Main St. curb? Of course, a lot of goofy conspiracists seem to think that the "Elmer's Glue" theory IS a reasonable one when it comes to the so-called "whole bullet" that was supposedly plucked from the top of the grass on the south side of Elm Street in Dealey Plaza by an unknown detective (aka: the Buddy Walthers Bullet). I guess we're supposed to believe that a bullet being fired from a (presumably) high-powered weapon struck the Elm St. turf and then JUST STOPPED ON TOP OF THE GRASS, as if it had been dropped there by a bystander. Right? I need your corset now, Farley. Mine just busted. Edited March 26, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) You got one right, Jim. Vincent's theory about the "bouncing bullet" that hopped from curb to curb is not believable, as I discuss here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html Vince is dead wrong about Connally being hit prior to Z222 too. Edited March 26, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now