Jump to content
The Education Forum

DVP. Time to be real.


Recommended Posts

Dear David,

I haven't spent more than a year on this forum, but I have noticed that you cling to the WCR like an evangelistic preacher clutches his bible. Your argument for any discussion is that the evidence gathered by the WC is truth. An inescapable trail of evidence.

You dismiss any evidence uncovered by 50 years of investigation by independent investigators because the WC says it isn't so. You balk at any evidence that contradicts your WCR bible, but yet wasn't there another government investigation that admitted to a conspiracy? One that came after the WCR? One that acknowledged 4 shots and thus more than one shooter?

Based on your complete belief and adherence to the official government proclamation, that all its findings are truth, shouldn't you be spending all of your time defending the HSCA? This is the latest and greatest findings from the government investigations you so defend. So shouldn't your posts be based on defending the HSCA findings? Seeking truth, looking for the second gunmen?

You can't toss out the audio recordings of Dealey Plaza because these were verified by an investigating body of the United States Government, just like the Magic Bullet. If CTer's can't question Mauser or Carcano, automatic shells or revolver shells, eyewitness reports of shots from the grassy knoll, then you can't possibly question evidence that has been supported by a sanctioned US investigation as righteous as the WC?

In short your evidentiary support of the WC, has for many years been usurped by the findings of the HSCA. And if you are going to uphold all of the official government findings, shouldn't you be looking for the second shooter? Or does this not fit your theory?

Good Day Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DVP. Time to be real.

You dismiss any evidence uncovered by 50 years of investigation by independent investigators because the WC says it isn't so.

Dear David,

The Warren Commission didn't collect any of the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. The DPD collected most of it. And I still haven't heard a single response from any conspiracist to this question I asked recently:

"If there is absolutely no evidence against Oswald (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think), then what made the Dallas Police Department decide to charge Lee Harvey Oswald with two murders before midnight on November 22, 1963? Do people usually get officially charged with TWO murders by the police department if there is absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever?"

So I don't really need the Warren Commission at all in order to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion in this case. Yes, I think the WC did a darn good job in the 9 or 10 months they had to investigate the case. But they merely evaluated the already-collected evidence. The WC didn't just MAKE UP the evidence (such as the bullets, the guns, Oswald's prints all over the place, the paper bag, etc.).

You balk at any evidence that contradicts your WCR bible, but yet wasn't there another government investigation that admitted to a conspiracy? One that came after the WCR? One that acknowledged 4 shots and thus more than one shooter?

Based on your complete belief and adherence to the official government proclamation, that all its findings are truth, shouldn't you be spending all of your time defending the HSCA? This is the latest and greatest findings from the government investigations you so defend. So shouldn't your posts be based on defending the HSCA findings? Seeking truth, looking for the second gunmen [sic]?

Why would anyone in their right mind have any desire at all to continue to defend the acoustics evidence after it has been shown to be in extreme doubt? But it's just like a conspiracy theorist to want someone to cling to a position even when it's been totally discredited. The CTers are known for such stubborn behavior. They exhibit it all the time. They adhere themselves to a theory (aka: myth) and they wouldn't let go of it if their life hung in the balance.

Examples:

The "Motorcade route was changed at the last minute" myth .... and the "Mauser" myth .... and the myth about the WC saying that Oswald positively had no more than "5.6 seconds" to accomplish the assassination .... and the myth about Oswald being a "lousy shot" .... and the myth about the "Secret Service standdown" at Love Field .... among dozens of other myths believed to be the Gospel truth in this case by many conspiracy advocates, but which no conspiracy theorist could possibly back up with hard evidence in a thousand years.

Back to the Dictabelt for a minute -- The shortcomings in the "4th shot" Dictabelt evidence are immense. Surely you're aware of those problems and shortcomings, are you not David Redemer?

I can debunk the HSCA's acoustics theory in about two minutes--by just taking a good look at Robert Hughes' film. Just watch it and see:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

You can't toss out the audio recordings of Dealey Plaza because these were verified by an investigating body of the United States Government.

The National Academy of Sciences effectively UNverified those acoustics findings. (Surely you know all this, don't you David R.?)

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics_5.htm

And, as I just said, the Hughes Film all by itself throws a monkey wrench into the HSCA's Dictabelt findings. There is no way around this fact (unless you'd like to claim that the HSCA was dead wrong when it said the stuck-open microphone definitely HAD to be located at the corner of Elm & Houston at the time of the first shot).

It's interesting, isn't it, that every time a "new" (i.e., "better/more complete") investigation is done to look into various aspects of the JFK case, the results (invariably) always favor the notion that the Warren Commission was right after all. From the Clark Panel to the Rockefeller panel to the HSCA (not counting their 11th-hour Dictabelt farce, which must be discarded for the reasons previously mentioned). There's been nothing substantial in any of those investigations that would undermine or tear apart the WC's lone-asssassin determination.

Now, why do you suppose that is? There are two probable reasons for that:

1.) All of the subsequent investigations were cover-up operations, with just one goal at hand -- to rubber-stamp the Warren Commission's lone-gunman conclusion.

Or:

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin.

Which of those options is likely the correct one?

As you said in the title of this thread, David (and I totally agree with you on this) -- "Time to be real."

Good day, sir.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of my post was that anyone can cherry pick the evidence to reach their conclusions. You are picking gnat xxxx out of pepper to quote the JFK film, when you suggest that the DPD collected the evidence regarding the JfK and Tippett murders. The WC used this evidence to establish their findings.

The fact that LHO was charged with two murders within 24 hours, before a complete investigation could be conducted and included the assassination of the President of the United States, seems awfully quick to me. With the ramifications of the political atmosphere, shouldn't there have been a complete investigation (especially since Oswald had CIA and FBI files open at the time), even if the Patsy was killed before a trial could be conducted?

And I can defend the acoustic evidence because it was the finding of the HSCA, just like the WC evidence...if you are going to question one, then question both. Hence, the reason for my original post.

What I want to know, is do you think nothing good has come from the public's investigation of the JFK assassination? That through the JFK assassination research that light hasn't been shone on the corruption present since? Do you think LBJ was a criminal? That J E Hoover was being manipulated by organized crime? That foreign policy was being dictated outside the Whitehouse and Congress by the CIA? That like minded individuals haven't since prospered by taking their cue's since this momentous event?

The assassination is important because it marked a sea change in the way government was run and those who aspired to be a politician. Do you not see a connection with what occurred in '63, to what has happened since?

Your answer will be very telling. And no offense, but the way you say my name after every paragraph is disturbing.

Regards,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent questions Dave. The more I research (or anyone honestly for that matter) the more I truly wonder about those who take DVP's position when you come across facts such as the FBI deliberately neglecting to document eyewitness testimony or altering it to fit (Dodd, Simmons, Mercer et al.) what many of us today, consider the 'official story' or the WC intentionally neglecting to call a myriad of witnesses to testify who's testomony would have been utterly damaging to the official line.

It is unfathomable the crazy and confusing (or lack thereof) amount of evidence to suggest (at the very least) an "uncertain" response on whether or not Oswald did it, whether or not he even ordered the rifle given the absolutely insane chain of custody (the mileage he allgedly walked which makes absolutely no sense, missing financial instrument numbers) and this is dealing with the rifle order alone. You choose a scenario in this complex plot and it has its oddities and complexities and yet, we're told so damned quickly "yeah he did it, beyond a reasonable doubt" and frankly, it is not...in fact it is far from reasonable to accuse Oswald when there is so much that is not clear. Evidence has been most likely destroyed, apprehended (FBI's quick acquisition of his School records in LA is just one example of many) and so on, so forth. My point is, it is terribly difficult to say "Oswald did it" when, with proper and very careful research of this vast case, one is at least left with a verdict of "not guilty" if anything.

I believe it also takes far greater research work to conclude that Oswald is guilty for just a few reasons stated above. Botched autopsy (illegal I might add) ballistics evidence was very poor, the WC's handling of witnesses was very poor (some of the WC's senior members are absolutely questionable beyond a reasonble doubt firstly), disappeared or planted evidence, etc. One would have to credibly and rationally make sense of what seems to be so many errors or inconsistencies. If Oswald was innocent until proven guilty, and evidence today seems to circumstantially exonerate him, then he's most likely not guilty and the killers are/were still at large but with that statement I digress into darker, more complex territory.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Time to be real"? I learned some time ago that arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. This is not meant as any ad hominem attack, as young-Earth creationists are Christian, God-fearing people. But I spent a good deal of time and effort arguing with them, as I wrote a couple of books on the creation/evolution debate, and young-Earth creationists simply can't be argued with. In their methodology, their standard repetitive talking points, their changing the subject ("Yeah, but what about this?"), young-Earth creationists and lone nutters are virtually indistinguishable. Simply stated, no amount of evidence (the telltale bullet hole in the clothes and the back, for example), or no new findings of independent researchers, or no new release of documents (not to mention dogged government withholding of documents), will change lone-nutter minds. Their view is set in stone. It is what it is. And if that comes across as disrespectful, well, that's why I quit arguing with young-Earth creationists, and why I won't argue with lone nutters: I don't want to seem disrespectful.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of my post was that anyone can cherry pick the evidence to reach their conclusions. You are picking gnat xxxx out of pepper to quote the JFK film, when you suggest that the DPD collected the evidence regarding the JfK and Tippett murders. The WC used this evidence to establish their findings.

Of course the WC used that evidence. Why wouldn't they use the evidence collected at the crime scenes? But, again, the WC didn't invent the evidence. It was collected mostly by the Dallas Police. Was the DPD supposedly part of the plot too? Even to frame Oswald for Policeman Tippit's murder too?

In short, the evidence is what it is. And it all points to Oswald--and to no one else.

The fact that LHO was charged with two murders within 24 hours, before a complete investigation could be conducted and included the assassination of the President of the United States, seems awfully quick to me. With the ramifications of the political atmosphere, shouldn't there have been a complete investigation (especially since Oswald had CIA and FBI files open at the time), even if the Patsy was killed before a trial could be conducted?

So does that response mean you think the DPD manufactured the evidence which enabled them to officially charge Lee Oswald with two murders before midnight on 11/22/63?

Quite obviously, the DPD felt they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with Tippit's and Kennedy's murders. Should I disbelieve the DPD and disbelieve the evidence they collected? If so, why?

And I can defend the acoustic evidence because it was the finding of the HSCA, just like the WC evidence...if you are going to question one, then question both.

Apples and oranges. Why do I have to believe the HSCA's conclusions, even though I just talked about how that Dictabelt evidence is seriously flawed? Why should seriously flawed evidence be treated the same as evidence that has not been proven to be seriously flawed?

What I want to know, is do you think nothing good has come from the public's investigation of the JFK assassination?

That's correct. IMO, nothing positive or constructive (or true) has come from ANY of the conspiracy researchers or their books. Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. People like Mark Lane and David Lifton and Jim Garrison and Doug Horne have done far more harm than good when it comes to arriving at the truth regarding JFK's murder. How can that fact even be questioned?

That through the JFK assassination research that light hasn't been shone on the corruption present since?

I don't necessarily "connect" the JFK case to any "corruption" that might exist in the Government since 1963. I think too many people try to trace all the evils and the wrongs of the world back to the events of 11/22/63. It's a convenient excuse is all it is. (IMHO.)

>>> "Do you think LBJ was a criminal?" <<<

Of course not. Why on Earth would any sensible person even begin to think such an outrageous thing?

>>> "That J E Hoover was being manipulated by organized crime?" <<<

I have no idea. But even if he was, IMO that's apples and oranges too (as far as the JFK case is concerned). Oswald killed Kennedy. Not organized crime.

>>> "That foreign policy was being dictated outside the White House and Congress by the CIA?" <<<

I have no idea. But--again--what has that got to do with whether or not a loner named Oswald took his own rifle to work on November 22nd and shot the President? (And any "CIA" connections to Oswald are very dubious ones--at best. Even Harold Weisberg could find no connection there.)

>>> "That like minded individuals haven't since prospered by taking their cue's since this momentous event?" <<<

This, again, has nothing to do with Kennedy's murder. Not EVERYTHING in history is connected to the way John Kennedy met his demise.

>>> "The assassination is important because it marked a sea change in the way government was run and those who aspired to be a politician. Do you not see a connection with what occurred in '63, to what has happened since?" <<<

See my last reply.

Regards,

DVP

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the mileage he allegedly walked which makes absolutely no sense...

That myth has been pretty much debunked. At the very least, the postmark on Oswald's envelope very likely does not mean what the CTers think it means. More .... The Postmark On CE773

You still here, Dave? I thought everything was shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP. Time to be real.

You dismiss any evidence uncovered by 50 years of investigation by independent investigators because the WC says it isn't so.

Dear David,

The Warren Commission didn't collect any of the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. The DPD collected most of it. And I still haven't heard a single response from any conspiracist to this question I asked recently:

"If there is absolutely no evidence against Oswald (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think), then what made the Dallas Police Department decide to charge Lee Harvey Oswald with two murders before midnight on November 22, 1963? Do people usually get officially charged with TWO murders by the police department if there is absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever?"

So I don't really need the Warren Commission at all in order to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion in this case. Yes, I think the WC did a darn good job in the 9 or 10 months they had to investigate the case. But they merely evaluated the already-collected evidence. The WC didn't just MAKE UP the evidence (such as the bullets, the guns, Oswald's prints all over the place, the paper bag, etc.).

You balk at any evidence that contradicts your WCR bible, but yet wasn't there another government investigation that admitted to a conspiracy? One that came after the WCR? One that acknowledged 4 shots and thus more than one shooter?

Based on your complete belief and adherence to the official government proclamation, that all its findings are truth, shouldn't you be spending all of your time defending the HSCA? This is the latest and greatest findings from the government investigations you so defend. So shouldn't your posts be based on defending the HSCA findings? Seeking truth, looking for the second gunmen [sic]?

Why would anyone in their right mind have any desire at all to continue to defend the acoustics evidence after it has been shown to be in extreme doubt? But it's just like a conspiracy theorist to want someone to cling to a position even when it's been totally discredited. The CTers are known for such stubborn behavior. They exhibit it all the time. They adhere themselves to a theory (aka: myth) and they wouldn't let go of it if their life hung in the balance.

Examples:

The "Motorcade route was changed at the last minute" myth .... and the "Mauser" myth .... and the myth about the WC saying that Oswald positively had no more than "5.6 seconds" to accomplish the assassination .... and the myth about Oswald being a "lousy shot" .... and the myth about the "Secret Service standdown" at Love Field .... among dozens of other myths believed to be the Gospel truth in this case by many conspiracy advocates, but which no conspiracy theorist could possibly back up with hard evidence in a thousand years.

Back to the Dictabelt for a minute -- The shortcomings in the "4th shot" Dictabelt evidence are immense. Surely you're aware of those problems and shortcomings, are you not David Redemer?

I can debunk the HSCA's acoustics theory in about two minutes--by just taking a good look at Robert Hughes' film. Just watch it and see:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

You can't toss out the audio recordings of Dealey Plaza because these were verified by an investigating body of the United States Government.

The National Academy of Sciences effectively UNverified those acoustics findings. (Surely you know all this, don't you David R.?)

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics_5.htm

And, as I just said, the Hughes Film all by itself throws a monkey wrench into the HSCA's Dictabelt findings. There is no way around this fact (unless you'd like to claim that the HSCA was dead wrong when it said the stuck-open microphone definitely HAD to be located at the corner of Elm & Houston at the time of the first shot).

It's interesting, isn't it, that every time a "new" (i.e., "better/more complete") investigation is done to look into various aspects of the JFK case, the results (invariably) always favor the notion that the Warren Commission was right after all. From the Clark Panel to the Rockefeller panel to the HSCA (not counting their 11th-hour Dictabelt farce, which must be discarded for the reasons previously mentioned). There's been nothing substantial in any of those investigations that would undermine or tear apart the WC's lone-asssassin determination.

Now, why do you suppose that is? There are two probable reasons for that:

1.) All of the subsequent investigations were cover-up operations, with just one goal at hand -- to rubber-stamp the Warren Commission's lone-gunman conclusion.

Or:

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin.

Which of those options is likely the correct one?

As you said in the title of this thread, David (and I totally agree with you on this) -- "Time to be real."

Good day, sir.

Your approach to the evidence is inconsistent, David. YOUR embrace of the single-bullet theory, as you know, is related to your BELIEF the back wound was well above the throat wound. The WC came to this conclusion based on a drawing created by the doctors for the WC. This drawing was later determined to be grossly inaccurate--by a panel of forensic pathologists working in an official capacity. Heck, when shown the autopsy photos by the ARRB, even Dr. Boswell came to agree that the back wound was as low as T2, inches away from C5 or so, where it was shown in the drawing he created for the Warren Commission and where it would have to have been to be well above the throat wound.

In short, there's no there there. YOUR claim the back wound is well above the throat wound has NO NADA ZERO ZIP support in the official record, and yet you hug it as if it were life itself. The only doctors to agree with your bizarre take on the back wound photo were Lattimer, an obvious kook claiming Kennedy's back wound was at the level of his chin, Artwohl, an emergency room doctor with no known expertise in anatomy, who has refused to defend his position, and Zimmerman, a chiropractor who left aaj after I started pushing him on this and other issues. You have no official support, and no even remotely "expert" support for your take on the back wound photo.

So, what do you do when confronted on this? Like someone claiming the moon is made of cheese and posting a picture of a yellowish moon to prove it, you most always post a photo of the back wound and claim you don't need to defend your (clearly indefensible) position because it's self-evident.

You're entitled to your opinions regarding the evidence, IMO. I even agree with you much of the time. But your Bugliosi-influenced attitude that LNs are inherently more logical than CTs is absolute smoke and a hindrance to your arguments (many of which are valid) being taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your approach to the evidence is inconsistent, David. YOUR embrace of the single-bullet theory, as you know, is related to your BELIEF the back wound was well above the throat wound.

[...]

YOUR claim the back wound is well above the throat wound has NO NADA ZERO ZIP support in the official record, and yet you hug it as if it were life itself. The only doctors to agree with your bizarre take on the back wound photo were Lattimer, an obvious kook claiming Kennedy's back wound was at the level of his chin, Artwohl, an emergency room doctor with no known expertise in anatomy, who has refused to defend his position, and Zimmerman, a chiropractor who left aaj after I started pushing him on this and other issues. You have no official support, and no even remotely "expert" support for your take on the back wound photo.

So, what do you do when confronted on this? Like someone claiming the moon is made of cheese and posting a picture of a yellowish moon to prove it, you most always post a photo of the back wound and claim you don't need to defend your (clearly indefensible) position because it's self-evident.

It's not an indefensible position in the slightest, Pat. There is photographic evidence to back up my position.

Yes, the HSCA says something different about the relative locations of JFK's back and throat wounds. But you'd think an LNer like me would score at least a couple of bonus points with the CTers on this particular issue, since my position on this most certainly indicates that an LNer (me) won't accept every single thing being uttered by an official Government entity as the Gospel truth all the time.

I'm always being told by the conspiracists: "Think for yourself. Think outside the box. Don't always accept what the Government shills are feeding you." Well, in this instance, I'm not accepting the Government's conclusions. But I still easily COULD accept the HSCA's position on this issue and still endorse the SBT at the same time. But I have not done so, because I think the HSCA's "version" of the SBT is not entirely accurate.

1.) The HSCA places the SBT shot at Zapruder Frame 190. I disagree.

2.) The HSCA says Governor Connally is already reacting (with his body "stiffening") at Z222. I disagree.

3.) The HSCA says JFK's throat wound was located anatomically higher on his body than the wound in his upper back. I firmly disagree with that assessment, and I think Chad Zimmerman's on-camera experiment in the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", plus the autopsy photos shown below, make it quite clear that the HSCA was incorrect on that point.

JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

So, should I get any credit at all for "thinking outside the proverbial box"? Or should I now be scolded for not believing what the HSCA has told me with respect to the above-mentioned three points, even though I disagree with all three?

Looks like an LNer like me can't win with conspiracy theorists--no matter which "box" he's currently thinking in.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron has set out above the proper approach for dealing with these types of "thinkers".
Is thinking outside of a crayon box classified as thinking outside the box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your approach to the evidence is inconsistent, David. YOUR embrace of the single-bullet theory, as you know, is related to your BELIEF the back wound was well above the throat wound.

[...]

YOUR claim the back wound is well above the throat wound has NO NADA ZERO ZIP support in the official record, and yet you hug it as if it were life itself. The only doctors to agree with your bizarre take on the back wound photo were Lattimer, an obvious kook claiming Kennedy's back wound was at the level of his chin, Artwohl, an emergency room doctor with no known expertise in anatomy, who has refused to defend his position, and Zimmerman, a chiropractor who left aaj after I started pushing him on this and other issues. You have no official support, and no even remotely "expert" support for your take on the back wound photo.

So, what do you do when confronted on this? Like someone claiming the moon is made of cheese and posting a picture of a yellowish moon to prove it, you most always post a photo of the back wound and claim you don't need to defend your (clearly indefensible) position because it's self-evident.

It's not an indefensible position in the slightest, Pat. There is photographic evidence to back up my position.

Yes, the HSCA says something different about the relative locations of JFK's back and throat wounds. But you'd think an LNer like me would score at least a couple of bonus points with the CTers on this particular issue, since my position on this most certainly indicates that an LNer (me) won't accept every single thing being uttered by an official Government entity as the Gospel truth all the time.

I'm always being told by the conspiracists: "Think for yourself. Think outside the box. Don't always accept what the Government shills are feeding you." Well, in this instance, I'm not accepting the Government's conclusions. But I still easily COULD accept the HSCA's position on this issue and still endorse the SBT at the same time. But I have not done so, because I think the HSCA's "version" of the SBT is not entirely accurate.

1.) The HSCA places the SBT shot at Zapruder Frame 190. I disagree.

2.) The HSCA says Governor Connally is already reacting (with his body "stiffening") at Z222. I disagree.

3.) The HSCA says JFK's throat wound was located anatomically higher on his body than the wound in his upper back. I firmly disagree with that assessment, and I think Chad Zimmerman's on-camera experiment in the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", plus the autopsy photos shown below, make it quite clear that the HSCA was incorrect on that point.

JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

So, should I get any credit at all for "thinking outside the proverbial box"? Or should I now be scolded for not believing what the HSCA has told me with respect to the above-mentioned three points, even though I disagree with all three?

Looks like an LNer like me can't win with conspiracy theorists--no matter which "box" he's currently thinking in.

As stated, David, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong. You are not entitled, however, to pretend that you (and those who think like you) are inherently more logical than those who think Kennedy was killed by more than just Oswald. You have demonstrated over and over again that you are just as willing (and maybe more) to throw out evidence and ignore official findings when they are inconvenient to your beliefs. So what's behind your beliefs? Not science.

In my experience, many if not most people adopting a hard-line Oswald did-it pose are people that are angry, very angry, with liberals, and desperate to believe Kennedy was killed by a crazy commie. Somehow, I don't think this is your story. Maybe someday you can explain it to me over a beer...or soda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As stated, David, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong. You are not entitled, however, to pretend that you (and those who think like you) are inherently more logical than those who think Kennedy was killed by more than just Oswald.

Oh really? That must be a brand-new rule here at the Edu. Forum. Is it on the TOS page now?

You have demonstrated over and over again that you are just as willing (and maybe more) to throw out evidence and ignore official findings when they are inconvenient to your beliefs.

Bull. And you surely have to know what you just said is pure BS, Pat. CTers do nothing BUT toss aside inconvenient evidence--day and night, 24/7. That's how the CTers get to pretend Oswald was snow-white innocent when the evidence indicates precisely the opposite. LNers rarely throw away HARD evidence. (I mean verifiable evidence. I don't mean speculative stuff, which is the kind of stuff the CT foundation of mush is built on--and has been built on since 1963.)

In my experience, many if not most people adopting a hard-line Oswald did-it pose are people that are angry, very angry, with liberals, and desperate to believe Kennedy was killed by a crazy commie. Somehow, I don't think this is your story.

You're right there. That's not my story. In fact, I hate the political labels people hang on other people -- liberal, conservative, right-wing, left-wing. I hate those labels. And I truly think that most of the time such labels don't even really apply to most people. And even in Lee Oswald's case, the term "left-wing" might not explain his entire political philosophy. Because even Oswald disliked a lot of things about the Russian ("Leftist") way of life. And he said so in his own diary.

Maybe someday you can explain it to me over a beer...or soda.

I'm an open book. No hidden mysteries or agendas at all. If some CTers want to believe otherwise, I can't control that. In fact, Vince Palamara asked me just two days ago (on Facebook) a similar question. Here's what I told him:

VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

Dave, I am curious (and I do NOT mean this in a jerky way--honest): why are you interested in the case? If the official story is correct, wouldn't this be a big yawn after a while?

To make an analogy: I am 100 percent convinced (since day one) John Hinckley acted alone. I couldn't get into conspiracy newsgroups (etc) on that subject. Why are you interested?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vince, the best answer I can come up with to your very good question is --- It's engrained in me. My interest in JFK and his assassination has been with me for more than 3 decades now, and that interest has not waned. It's just there....even though I firmly believe the case was solved in 1963 by the DPD.

And the audio/video aspects of the coverage of the assassination has been of great interest to me too. So that's another aspect of it.

And, as Vince Bugliosi said (and I totally concur): "The JFK case is the most fascinating story ever told" -- and it continues to get told (and re-told) every day. And some of those "tellings" of the story also keep me interested, as I want to debunk the lunacy of most of the conspiracy theories.

And even you, Vince, must agree that if there was a plot, only ONE conspiracy theory can possibly be correct. So that means 99% of the stuff being written about this case (from the POV of specific "conspiracy theories") is dead wrong. It has to be.

But the evidence isn't lying to us, Vince. And back in 2007, you thought the evidence was telling the true story--Oswald did it--and did it alone. Too bad the Doug Hornes and Jim Douglasses and Jesse Venturas of the world have tainted your 2007 reasoned thinking. But the evidence IS the truth. And that's telling us who killed JFK---and it sure wasn't George H.W. Bush or Mac Wallace or Jimmy Files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...