Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[David Von Pein]

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name?

You're too much, Big K.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name?

You're too much, Big K.

methinks you've been in the wilderness way to long, son!

[Kenneth Drew]

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name?

You're too much, Big K.

methinks you've been in the wilderness way to long, son!

I see DVP's presence here as an 'orchestrated distraction' Rarely does he write about anything worth writing about and he spends an inordinate amount of time quibbling over pennies. Even he has admitted that some evidence is 'useless' such as Brennan's 'sworn statement' but nevertheless, he will bring it up time after time as if it means something. Even then he won't admit to the facts, such as Brennan could barely see beyond the tip of his nose and damn sure couldn't have identified a person on the 6th floor. So since he likes to be a distraction, I figure "what the hell" throw him some red meat. May as well play the same game as he does. He eats the red meat every time.

[Kenneth Drew]

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name?

You're too much, Big K.

"Tippit's" that's 'your' spelling, did you put an 's on it or not?

[David G. Healy]

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name?

You're too much, Big K.

methinks you've been in the wilderness way to long, son!

I see DVP's presence here as an 'orchestrated distraction' Rarely does he write about anything worth writing about and he spends an inordinate amount of time quibbling over pennies. Even he has admitted that some evidence is 'useless' such as Brennan's 'sworn statement' but nevertheless, he will bring it up time after time as if it means something. Even then he won't admit to the facts, such as Brennan could barely see beyond the tip of his nose and damn sure couldn't have identified a person on the 6th floor. So since he likes to be a distraction, I figure "what the hell" throw him some red meat. May as well play the same game as he does. He eats the red meat every time.

DVP has been an 'orchestrated distraction' since he stopped serving 'extra crispy'.

He is simply in conspiracy denial. A lone nut assassination website, even one the size of and having the content of the Library of Congress will NOT change that simple fact or conclusion the HSCA determined!

Edited July 17, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Mark Knight]

Mark,

Actually, that "anyone with half a brain" argument isn't too bad. Maybe I should have used those words. (But this being a moderated forum, I'm always walking on eggshells, of course, so such a comment might not fly too well here. So I'm always careful not to heap on the insults in large doses.)

But, yes, since the SUM TOTAL of the Baker & Truly & Oswald (through Fritz) statements positively indicates that the "encounter" did take place on the SECOND floor and no other floor of the Book Depository, you could, indeed, look upon that previous post of mine that you seem to have a problem with (where I put "second-floor encounter" in quotation marks) as representing substitute wording in lieu of using these precise words Mark Knight just now used....

" "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all." -- M. Knight; 7/17/15

Not bad, Mark. In fact, given the obvious fact that the encounter did occur on the second floor, that quote of yours above fits like a glove. Thanks.

Thank you.

You just demonstrated ONCE AGAIN how you take information out of context and twist the meaning into something the original poster never intended.

And you just reinforced the low opinion I already had for your skills of argument and debate. Anyone with half a brain can see how deceitful such an act is...so I stand by my original assessment of your and your INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL actions.

And PLEASE...I prefer NOT to be on a first-name basis you. In fact, I INSIST on it, Mr. Von Pein.

[David Von Pein]

Good for you, Mark.

Now go get your pitchfork.

[David Von Pein]

"Tippit's" that's 'your' spelling, did you put an 's on it or not?

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it.

Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

And PLEASE...I prefer NOT to be on a first-name basis [with] you. In fact, I INSIST on it, Mr. Von Pein.

No problem, Knight.

Please just ignore me from now on. In fact, I INSIST on it. And I'll ignore you too.

Okay, Knight? Life will be so much easier.

Thank you.

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Even he [DVP] has admitted that some evidence is 'useless' such as Brennan's 'sworn statement'...

When have I ever said anything like that about Brennan? Please provide the citation. You'll never find it.

You probably meant to say that I said that Ruby's polygraph was essentially worthless.

But, as always, Kenneth gets nothing right.

Brennan could barely see beyond the tip of his nose...

Dead wrong (as always). Brennan didn't suffer his eye injury that affected his eyesight until January of 1964, two months after he saw Oswald murder the President (3 H 147):

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?"

HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir."

BELIN -- "What has happened?"

BRENNAN -- "The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted."

BELIN -- "This is January of 1964?"

BRENNAN -- "Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours."

BELIN -- "How is your eyesight today [as of March 24, 1964]?"

BRENNAN -- "He says it is not good."

BELIN -- "But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?"

BRENNAN -- "Yes."

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

I notice that Mr. Von Pein did not challenge my assertion that his twisting of my words was meant to alter the meaning, and deceive anyone who might in the future want to refer to those words.

When Mr. Von Pein finds a modus operandi that fits his purposes, he is loath to change it. So deceit is your currency, it seems, Mr. Von Pein.

[David Von Pein]

You can't possibly be serious, Knight.

I was AGREEING with you when you said I should have done this in an earlier post....

"I'm simply surprised you didn't double down, and use your "anyone with half a brain" argument...as in, "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all. I'm totally SHOCKED that you failed to go there with your "explanation." That wasn't like you at all." -- M. Knight

And I guess you think nobody can follow a forum thread from post to post without having every last word of a prior post quoted (i.e., repeated) by the next poster. Is that correct?

You think someone who has read BOTH of our posts is going to think that *I* was ACTUALLY suggesting that you were REALLY advocating and supporting your "half a brain" quote? Which, btw, are posts that appear BACK-TO-BACK on Page 12 of this thread. They were CONSECUTIVE posts in the same thread, interrupted by ZERO other posts.

And yet you still think that my intent was to "alter the meaning" of your words and to "deceive"?

Get real.

Anyone who has read BOTH posts (one right after the other on Page 12) could not possibly think that I was intending to "deceive" anybody.

Edited July 18, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

I would not be surprised if the altered version of my quote is already posted on your website...the out-of-context, partial quote.

Or posted on another discussion board...perhaps to demonstrate to the unsuspecting how you "converted" a "nonbeliever."

The more I deal with you, the less faith I have in your integrity, Mr. Von Pein.

[Kenneth Drew]

"Tippit's" that's 'your' spelling, did you put an 's on it or not?

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it.

Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working.

I'm just demonstrating that no matter how silly or outrageous something is that is posted you have to weigh in as the "expert on that subject" even to attempting to be an elementary teacher and teach spelling techniques. So let me get this straight. Tippet's name doesn't actually have an s on the end it is just almost always spelled that way to make it correct, is that what you're saying? So if you were talking about his pistol, it would be correct to say the pistol of J.D. Tippet, not J.D. Tippet's pistol. Because then you would be putting an s on the end of his name and it doesn't have an s. Is that what you're saying?

[David Von Pein]

I would not be surprised if the altered version of my quote is already posted on your website...the out-of-context, partial quote.

Oh, yes. It's on my site. I archive almost everything there. But it's certainly not out of context at all. I copied both of our posts (yours then mine) verbatim from this forum thread. And, just like on Page 12 of this EF thread, the two posts appear back-to-back, with no other comments between them. Therefore, given what YOU wrote (which I posted in full), followed immediately by what I wrote right underneath your post, how could anybody possibly think I was trying to deceive anyone?

Answer -- They couldn't think such a thing.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

Or posted on another discussion board...perhaps to demonstrate to the unsuspecting how you "converted" a "nonbeliever."

Oh, come on, Mark. (Excuse me, make that just "Knight". No first names permitted. Sorry.)

You think that by posting those two posts BACK-TO-BACK, I could have possibly have had an intention of trying to show how I "converted" you?

You cannot possibly be serious.

The more I deal with you, the less faith I have in your integrity, Mr. Von Pein.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Because you are 100% incorrect about me. I'm not in the habit of "altering the meaning" of quotes or "deceiving" people. And I think you surely realize that my explanation about how our two posts appear back-to-back on the same forum page certainly eliminates any possibility that I was on some evil and dastardly mission to "deceive" all of those millions of EF lurkers out there.

It looks to me as if you are just inventing excuses to question my integrity without thinking your accusations through in a logical manner.

Edited July 18, 2015 by David Von Pein