David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) How does that ["JFK-Archives..." URL] tell me it's yours, David? 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? Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Mr. Von Pein, My biggest complaint with your arguments regards the ones that begin with "Anyone could see...." Back in the 15th century, "anyone could see" that the world was flat, too. So how's that "flat-earth" thing workin' out for ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing. 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. DVP you've said something similar to this several times: "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?)...." and yet you still don't provide any evidence that LHO owned a rifle, was ever in the sniper's nest, ever fired a rifle. Oh sure you can prove he was in Dallas that day and even that some people there knew him and even evidence that he was a tool of the US intelligence services, but as of this date NOT ONE PIECE of evidence that he was involved in the assassination of JFK. NOTHING. So you can drop the dramatics and concentrate on finding that first little tidbit. Edited June 20, 2015 by Kenneth Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Mr. Von Pein, My biggest complaint with your arguments regards the ones that begin with "Anyone could see...." Any examples, Mark? So how's that "flat-earth" thing workin' out for ya? 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". Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) As of this date NOT ONE PIECE of evidence that he [saint Oswald] was involved in the assassination of JFK. NOTHING. So you can drop the dramatics and concentrate on finding that first little tidbit. ~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.) Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing. 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. Just to show you how useless your 'setup' is: I'll answer. LHO was being set up as one of several options for a patsy depending on how the conspiracy worked out. If it shook out that it might could be blamed on one person, then he would be the patsy. Gunmen fired from several positions, including front and rear. Since first appearances to the public was that it might could be blamed on one person, LHO was a go. However, when it came down to a 'magic bullet' was needed for it to be a one person deal, and that didn't work out then they had to tell massive lies and omit and cover up a huge amount of evidence. One helluva a lot has since come to light, making it obvious that LHO was only a patsy and that the conspirators, even with their powerful offices were not able to keep the conspiracy covered up. Fortunately Nutters exist that don't have an open mind and can't see the forest for the trees. But the main characteristic of a Nutter is that he has to be be the most gullible, accepting people on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 As of this date NOT ONE PIECE of evidence that he [saint Oswald] was involved in the assassination of JFK. NOTHING. So you can drop the dramatics and concentrate on finding that first little tidbit. ~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.) before I even go to that site DVP, why haven't you taken up Barry Krusch's challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) I'd like to ask you David... 1. What could actions performed by Oswald prior to 11/22/63 having to do with pro-Cuba, pro-Castro groups in order to illicit names of supporters be later turned into evidence incriminating Oswald as a Castro sympathizer and/or Castro directed to kill JFK so the US military could justify invading Cuba, be considered... ? 2. If you could direct the actions of Oswald, in the name of the protection of the USA, to put himself in contact with these pro and anti Cuban groups, as he obviously did, how are we to know whether this was the plan related to JFK in Dallas all along or a contingency serving dual purposes, planned all along, in case Chicago or Tampa was successful Chicago, Tampa, Dallas... ?? 1963. JFK dies in Chicago, Lee Harvey continues to infiltrate Cuban groups as an XYZ informant wherever he goes for spending money and the lifestyle. (and maybe to get away from Marina... lol) ----------------- David, I don't know either. but to believe what those men told us happened, as they said it did is simply too far a leap of faith for a thinking person to be asked to give for that time and those people. Faith is wonderful. It makes you right, regardless. No hard feelings DJ Edited June 20, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Time for a word or two in defense of the people who usually and predictably get slagged in threads like these: They are not stupid, they do not have a lesser knowledge of the evidence and they are not shills, agents or paid agents. They are sincere people who, whether you like it or not, interpret things differently than you, and they deserve the same courtesies as you, like not being constantly called names and put down. And if you believe that, I have some real estate you might be interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Why haven't you taken up Barry Krusch's challenge? 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 Edited June 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 DVP, okay I read that. I will take the time tomorrow to briefly discuss each, but I can tell you from just reading over it, it was clearly written by someone that was only writing for a fantasy book. It was written from the perspective of, "I can write anything I want to and claim it is proof and that everyone should just take my word for it because there is nothing else that can be used for proof, but I'm a nice guy and think I can BS my way through it" So, I'll write more about that tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Why haven't you taken up Barry Krusch's challenge? Here's the discussion I had with Barry regarding his "Challenge" in April 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 In other words, you don't even believe your BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 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! What is there to keep you from believing what you want to believe? Why don't you have total freedom? What constrains you? This is the USA, there is no law against you believing what you choose to believe. You don't seem to have any problem with the " just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as 'truth'. You seem to be able to produce 'evidence' out of nothing. For example you, nor anyone else has proven LHO ordered a rifle. You know it, I know it. Stop pretending. So tell us, why don't you have total freedom to believe the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) I'll write more about that tomorrow. 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? -------------- Edited June 20, 2015 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