David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzG4BT1RW08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzG4BT1RW08 Hi Dave Henry wade gets a mention here too :- http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_period/pre-wcr_reactions_to_assassination/pre-wcr_reactions_by_the_left/Oswald_and_FBI/Oswald_and_FBI.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Another Wade conference (featuring the voice of Jack Ruby in the background too): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JptiW_sk0aM Edited December 17, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7CKoJQrpT8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Wade: "I think he's (Oswald) a man that planned this murder weeks or months ago and has laid his plans carefully and carried them out, and had planned at that time what he's going to tell the police..." http://www.history-m...Vol24_0431b.htm He had a conviction rate other DAs could only dream of, so unless you want to accuse him or the police of rigging cases, he got those convictions by being a very astute judge of criminals and their crimes. If he was the latter, then the assassination had to be the result of a conspiracy because as you know little ol' Ossie had no way of knowing weeks or months in advance about the motorcade route. It was all just dumb luck. The dumbest ever, in fact. But if you want to go with the alternative (that he and/or the cops routinely rigged cases) I guess I can force myself to accept that. Edited December 17, 2011 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Wade: "I think he's (Oswald) a man that planned this murder weeks or months ago and has laid his plans carefully and carried them out, and had planned at that time what he's going to tell the police..." http://www.history-m...Vol24_0431b.htm He had a conviction rate other DAs could only dream of, so unless you want to accuse him or the police of rigging cases, he got those convictions by being a very astute judge of criminals and their crimes. If he was the latter, then the assassination had to be the result of a conspiracy because as you know little ol' Ossie had no way of knowing weeks or months in advance about the motorcade route. It was all just dumb luck. The dumbest ever, in fact. But if you want to go with the alternative (that he and/or the cops routinely rigged cases) I guess I can force myself to accept that. Yea, Dave, Wades not such a good example as more innocent men he convicted for murder have been let out of jail than any other prosecutor in the country, and based in part because he maintained the evidence that could be checked. If what he says is true, and the assassination was planned out months in advance, even to what the designated patsy was to say once he was caught, then that's some plan - and one that doesn't fit in very well with the portrait of the assassin/patsy that you portray - the crazy lone nut numbskul who couldn't hold a job. Which way is it? Also, Dave, can't you discuss a topic or write a sentence without mentioning or thinking about "conspiracy theorists"? I mean, can't we discuss the evidence without you first telling us what the idiot conspiracy theorists think and say first? BK JFKcountercoup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Also, Dave, can't you discuss a topic or write a sentence without mentioning or thinking about "conspiracy theorists"? I mean, can't we discuss the evidence without you first telling us what the idiot conspiracy theorists think and say first? BK JFKcountercoup No, Bill, he can't because that's not why he's here. David is not here to research, to learn, or to discuss. David is here simply because he gets his kicks out of needling "internet conspiracy theorists". Like all internet trolls, he comes to these forums to annoy, insult, frustrate and create conflict all for his own sick amusement. What amazes me is that no matter how often he dangles his little old worm out there, some guys just have to take the bait. And round and round and round we go. Martin, it's a "lessor of two evils" type situation. Ignore him and the casual observer with an interest in the case, but only basic knowledge, might think David has the better argument. I strongly doubt for that reason, ignoring him will make him go away. Reply and you are wasting time that could be spent on other things. I doubt anyone ever replies with the hope of having him learn anything. David, btw, doesn't annoy me in the slightest. You know exactly what you're getting with him. Unlike some others. Yes, going round and round can get tedious. But occasionally new topics arise and someone is pushed to improve the argument put forward by finding extra citations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Also, Dave, can't you discuss a topic or write a sentence without mentioning or thinking about "conspiracy theorists"? I mean, can't we discuss the evidence without you first telling us what the idiot conspiracy theorists think and say first? BK JFKcountercoup No, Bill, he can't because that's not why he's here. David is not here to research, to learn, or to discuss. David is here simply because he gets his kicks out of needling "internet conspiracy theorists". Like all internet trolls, he comes to these forums to annoy, insult, frustrate and create conflict all for his own sick amusement. What amazes me is that no matter how often he dangles his little old worm out there, some guys just have to take the bait. And round and round and round we go. Martin, it's a "lessor of two evils" type situation. Ignore him and the casual observer with an interest in the case, but only basic knowledge, might think David has the better argument. I strongly doubt for that reason, ignoring him will make him go away. Reply and you are wasting time that could be spent on other things. I doubt anyone ever replies with the hope of having him learn anything. David, btw, doesn't annoy me in the slightest. You know exactly what you're getting with him. Unlike some others. Yes, going round and round can get tedious. But occasionally new topics arise and someone is pushed to improve the argument put forward by finding extra citations. Greg, Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of people believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy and have done since the 1960s. I don't see a nobody like Dave changing that no matter how many times he calls us all "deranged" and invokes the "common sense" argument. I mean seriously, does anybody wanna waste any more time arguing over CE399 for chrissakes just because Dave keeps sticking his fingers in ears yelling "I'm not listening to you"? What an utter waste of time. While it's true that arguing with David is normally a journey going nowhere, most arguments with other CTs are equally round in nature. While I disagree with many of David's arguments and tactics, I recognize that he has made a great contribution to research of the case via his youtube channel, where dozens if not hundreds of hours of early news footage are congregated. I think he also contributes to our over-all knowledge by honestly answering questions about not only what he thinks, but why. While this last one might sound strange, one has to consider that I have spent far too much time arguing the case with LNs far more annoying than David, and that many of them use fake names and are always on attack. David, on the other hand, will occasionally let his hair down, and admit "I don't know why Bugliosi said such a thing" or "I have no choice but to believe such a thing, because a world where Mark Lane is more honest than Vincent Bugliosi is a world I can't live in." (Note: these are not actual quotes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 It's called a Hobson's Choice Greg. BTW, I understand Simkin let him on under strict rules that he could not use abusive language. I guess calling me "Deranged" does not qualify as abusive around here anymore. The sad fact is, Jim, that the moderators read only a small percentage of the posts, and normally only react to specific complaints. If you report the "Deranged" post, we will remove the offensive line. Or even better... David, when you read this, why don't you go back and replace "deranged" with something less inflammatory, like "off-base" or "ill-informed"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 While it's true that arguing with David is normally a journey going nowhere, most arguments with other CTs are equally round in nature. While I disagree with many of David's arguments and tactics, I recognize that he has made a great contribution to research of the case via his youtube channel, where dozens if not hundreds of hours of early news footage are congregated. I think he also contributes to our over-all knowledge by honestly answering questions about not only what he thinks, but why. While this last one might sound strange, one has to consider that I have spent far too much time arguing the case with LNs far more annoying than David, and that many of them use fake names and are always on attack. David, on the other hand, will occasionally let his hair down, and admit "I don't know why Bugliosi said such a thing" or "I have no choice but to believe such a thing, because a world where Mark Lane is more honest than Vincent Bugliosi is a world I can't live in." (Note: these are not actual quotes). Pat, I can speak only for myself but I must say that David Von Pein has contributed absolutely nothing to my knowledge of the case. If it hadn't been him posting that stuff on youtube it would've been somebody else. Of how much use it actually is is questionable to begin with. And as to why he thinks what he does, does anybody really care to possess that piece of useless (and probably disturbing) information? If you watch the early footage and listen to the early broadcasts on David's channel, you will, I suspect, learn quite a bit about the assassination. Here are two of the many things I've learned. 1) That, while Jesse Curry and Henry Wade both specified that the paraffin tests indicated Oswald had fired a gun, not a rifle, the media, either ON ITS OWN or at the behest of some outside source, began claiming the tests showed Oswald had fired a rifle. The New York Times, fortunately, revealed their source on this matter--FBI SAC for Dallas, J. Gordon Shanklin. I, for one, find this quite intriguing. 2) That the media had no clue what happened or how to go about figuring out what happened, beyond asking those in authority. This led to their reporting an "Oswald-did-it" scenario long before they had any basis for asserting as much. As far as your claim that someone else would have posted all this footage if Von Pein hadn't...well, youtube is filled with tons of overlap--(dozens of videos on the Zapruder film and theories regarding what is shown, for example)... and no one else has posted anywhere near the amount of news footage Von Pein has posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 While it's true that arguing with David is normally a journey going nowhere, most arguments with other CTs are equally round in nature. While I disagree with many of David's arguments and tactics, I recognize that he has made a great contribution to research of the case via his youtube channel, where dozens if not hundreds of hours of early news footage are congregated. I think he also contributes to our over-all knowledge by honestly answering questions about not only what he thinks, but why. While this last one might sound strange, one has to consider that I have spent far too much time arguing the case with LNs far more annoying than David, and that many of them use fake names and are always on attack. David, on the other hand, will occasionally let his hair down, and admit "I don't know why Bugliosi said such a thing" or "I have no choice but to believe such a thing, because a world where Mark Lane is more honest than Vincent Bugliosi is a world I can't live in." (Note: these are not actual quotes). Pat, I can speak only for myself but I must say that David Von Pein has contributed absolutely nothing to my knowledge of the case. If it hadn't been him posting that stuff on youtube it would've been somebody else. Of how much use it actually is is questionable to begin with. And as to why he thinks what he does, does anybody really care to possess that piece of useless (and probably disturbing) information? In all areas of the internet where the DVP's xxxxx in order to present conclusions as they see them... we have this dilemna... Refute with actual reference to the results of the analysis and SHOW the lack of value the evidence is based upon - or let it stand.... My salvation when I'm thru with DVP is that those who CARE, will search out the answers they want to find... those that believe, hook line and sinker after having stumbled upon his "stuff" are not the audience... will not question or be bothered... the bewildered herds... So Martin, he continuously contributes to my understanding of the futile effort defending the WCR and its successors has become... The BS meter flies off the chart when anyone with a brain reads that stuff.... When "we" stick to the evidence and lack of authenticity at every turn, we are taught once again, how those that disagree "DEAL" with it... Meet evidence with evidence.... ?? or ad hominem, misdirecetion and ridcule.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Or even better... David, when you read this, why don't you go back and replace "deranged" with something less inflammatory, like "off-base" or "ill-informed"? Good idea, Pat. I agree. I've now removed that remark completely in the post in question, below. (Plus, I eliminated my "you're nuts" comment to Jim in that same post.) http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=120&p=240879entry240879 However, I will say that it's not just me who has resorted to a few verbal swipes from time to time on this moderated forum. The CTers are certainly guilty of it too. And I kind of figured that it was "gloves off" time after Lee Farley called me a "Goddamn fool" on December 7, 2010: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17058&st=45&p=214123entry214123 And then we also have Bob Harris' recent "David, you are nuts" remark: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fIb_hz9PIIk/Tu0Fh-kFC7I/AAAAAAAAkrw/cgRbLoRlySk/s1600/xxxxxxxx.png Don't tell me that Mr. Simkin's "rules" about invective only apply to a lowly, worthless "LNer" like David Von Pein? Surely, there's no double standard on this "Education Forum" when it comes to verbally stabbing people in the back.....is there? ~wink~ Edited December 17, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) I stand by my comment. Gee, what a surprise. How will I be able to make it through another day knowing that Lee Farley thinks I'm a Goddamn fool? Such a crushing blow has never befallen me heretofore. ~sob~ Edited December 17, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) If you watch the early footage and listen to the early broadcasts on David's channel, you will, I suspect, learn quite a bit about the assassination. And one of the biggest things that should stand out like a great-big sore thumb when watching (or listening to) the 11/22/63 assassination coverage is this: There is no conceivable way in the world that a shooting scenario similar to the one purported in Oliver Stone's movie could have possibly taken place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. I.E., By watching the first-day live coverage, no reasonable person could possibly think that there were up to THREE different gunmen firing away at JFK on Elm Street, with those multiple gunmen firing SIX shots, per Oliver Stone's theory. And if CTers think Bob Groden has any credibility concerning the number of shots fired, they should watch the first-day TV coverage too. Because there's not a single witness who heard anywhere NEAR the number of shots Groden (and other CTers too) thinks were fired -- with Groden seemingly increasing the number of shots on a yearly basis. In fact, he's on record in April of this year (via a Canadian radio interview) as hinting that there might have been as many as FIFTEEN (15) shots fired. (And I don't think Groden thinks any of those shots were "silenced" shots.) Bill and Gayle Newman's live WFAA-TV interviews are very interesting to see too, especially since they were done within 25 minutes of the assassination itself. CTers have for years utilized Bill and Gayle Newman as solid "conspiracy" witnesses. But were they really good conspiracy witnesses at all? Take a look: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/becoming-lone-assassin-believer.html Edited December 18, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed LeDoux Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Wrong again. WFAA interview with William 'Bill' Newman. Shots were fired from the knoll. "Shots came from behind me....Up on top of the hill, the mound of ground, the garden" ~ Bill Newman http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/gknoll.mov David will not admit that witnesses near the knoll said shots came from there. He will have you think the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. Funny how the crowd all ran to the building to see what happened...but that did not happen, the rush was towards the knoll and the source of the shot that killed the president. Those who did not rush the knoll casually went back inside the TSBD. Funny, did they not assume the killer with a weapon would be coming downstairs. Unless they did not suspect ANY shots had been fired from that location. David will distort the record to help his pal Vince sell books and support the discredited Presidents Commission (Warren Commission). His distorted 1964 view has been ridiculed on almost every forum where this has been discussed. He gets kicked off of these forums because he is a propaganda shill artist promoting a slanted view and will bait people with innuendo and personal attacks. No matter how many posts, no matter how many websites, no matter how many reviews he does he is always wrong. But that is just my opinion BTW. Ed 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