The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[John Iacoletti]

This is the guy who won't tell us who the 'you guys' he is referring to are, in his post charging these said 'you guys' with being lemmings.

You still need reading comprehension lessons. I didn’t charge “you guys” with being lemmings.

But even if I did, it’s nowhere near as bad as “OswaldAs I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day?  It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair.  His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate.  Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare.  There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'es” and “CTard”, so stop your whining.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Oh good! Another CTer who has decided he's going to play dumb and pretend not to understand what I'm talking about when it comes to James R. Gordon's dictatorial and (very likely) unconstitutional EF forum rule.

Anything else you want to pretend not to "get"?

"Very likely"?  You mean maybe or perhaps unconstitutional?  What is the problem Diamond Dave, you are not sure? LNers try to create laws on irrelevant side issues while dismissing laws in the actual JFK assassination.
 You are an amazing man one could even say well-read, a publisher, a plagiarist I have heard, a detective, and now a constitutional lawyer.  Did I miss anything? Plumber, Aerobic's instructor??

[David Von Pein]

"Very likely"?  You mean maybe or perhaps unconstitutional?  What is the problem Diamond Dave, you are not sure?

Exactly. I'm not sure. Hence the words "very likely" being utilized in my prior post. Anything wrong with that?

You are an amazing man one could even say well-read, a publisher, a plagiarist I have heard, a detective, and now a constitutional lawyer.  Did I miss anything? Plumber, Aerobic's instructor??

Yeah, you missed:

Purveyor of actual evidence and common sense relating to the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

The "plagiarist" crap is pure nonsense (of course).

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Exactly. I'm not sure. Hence the words "very likely" being utilized in my prior post. Anything wrong with that?


Yeah, you missed:

Purveyor of common sense and actual evidence regarding the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

The "plagiarist" crap is pure nonsense (of course). (And there probably should be a forum rule here that would discourage people from tossing around such serious allegations sans a stitch of proof to back them up. Just sayin'.)

Now the constitutional lawyer is on a "common sense"-happy tour Yesterday You said Bankrupt Baden's view was"probably correct"  and today you prove more doubt in your ideas by using "very likely", which you say is common sense.
Probably correct=very likely=common sense=The way DVP determines what a fact is. Forgive me Dave, now I understand how you come to be a LNer, you make up your own rules as you go along

Be honest I am, BTW I forgot to add Drama Queen to the list of occupations or characters you knowingly or possibly unknowingly act out in a peculiar effort to distract from the important topic.
 Last I heard it was the "JFK Assassination" not the "Poor me Diamond DVP Assassination"

[David Von Pein]

Probably correct=very likely=common sense=The way DVP determines what a fact is.

As opposed to the "CTer" way of solving the case, which would include:

Inventing conspiracy scenarios that make no sense (e.g., having FRONTAL gunmen shoot at Kennedy within a "LET'S FRAME ONLY OSWALD" plot)....

Pretending everybody's a liar (or pert-near everybody anyway)....

Pretending that Oswald's actions and movements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 weren't the slightest bit unusual or out of the ordinary....

Pretending Oswald never told any lies at all to the police....

Pretending that certain events just never happened at all (e.g., the Lunchroom Encounter....and Oswald carrying a large-ish brown package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63)....

Etc. (to CT infinity).

[David Von Pein]

As already exemplified in assortment #193, all Nutter-speak, zero evidence.

Good boy! Just pretend that each of the points I presented in my Part 193 are based on "zero evidence" whatsoever. After all, that's what CTers do best---ignore the actual verified evidence of Oswald's guilt. Why should Otto Beck be any different, right?

Coincidentally (or maybe not) the crushing rebuttal only two days later by Rob Caprio was not included in the installment.

I'll provide the link below to Caprio's "crushing rebuttal" that Otto Beck seems to have a hard-on for. It's actually an embarrassingly flimsy "rebuttal", with Caprio (as usual) merely ignoring the evidence once more. Plus, Caprio even flat-out lies at one point in that "rebuttal" (re: the prints of Oswald that were found on Rifle C2766, with Caprio lying and insisting that no LHO prints were found on the gun at all)....

Feel the Pein?

I'd have to be a member of the Houston Astros or the Chicago Cubs to do that. (See if you can figure that one out.)

[Colin Crow]

Refreshing to see some diversity from the LN's at long last......

"you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?"

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1266.msg30391.html#msg30391

Seems JohnM agrees with me that Williams and the others lied. If you like I can get some quotes from other LN's that agree that Jarman and Norman lied too.

David you might like to update your 914 entry for accuracy......

"I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.

I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found."

You need to include the numerous officers I have quoted on more than one occasion. Mooney was not the only one to make the claim as your entry implies. In addition a number of LN posters Have previously agreed that, given the circumstances, it was highly likely that Williams lied.

Your simplistic attempt at rebuttal to the suggestion that Williams lied......

"Beautiful. One more "liar" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a liar except Lee Harvey."

Is apparently a modified form of your response offered earlier in this thread and could be equally challenged by how many witnesses you believe were "mistaken" or lied without motive to do so. Can we start with those officers quoted who saw Williams lunch in the SN? We could add Arnold Rowland, Buell Frazier, Jack Dougherty, Earlene Roberts, Tom Alyea, Carolyn Arnold, Roger Craig....

[John Iacoletti]

Is apparently a modified form of your response offered earlier in this thread and could be equally challenged by how many witnesses you believe were "mistaken" or lied without motive to do so. Can we start with those officers quoted who saw Williams lunch in the SN? We could add Arnold Rowland, Buell Frazier, Jack Dougherty, Earlene Roberts, Tom Alyea, Carolyn Arnold, Roger Craig....

The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0