GIL JESUS SAID:
>>> "We noticed that you only post the FAVORABLE reviews [of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"]..." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, that must be why I just a few minutes ago posted this stuff, huh?:
"Bugliosi is a CIA asset doing disinfo cover-up of the JFK hit. .... His job is to infiltrate the 'internet left' that knows what crimes the CIA specializes in, neutralization of opponents and cover-up. .... The dot called 'JFK' must be fuzzied up so it doesn't connect to the dots called 'RFK' and 'MLK' that form a line that points at '9/11'. [~~LOL BREAK HERE~~] .... Bugliosi lies to protect the CIA, USG, LAPD, and Operation Mockingbird." -- Author: Some Kook; Nov. 2007
>>> "...And always attack those who express a different opinion from your own." <<<
Well....yeah....that's because I vigorously disagree with those people.
Duh!
Should I be endorsing a viewpoint I vehemently oppose, instead of "attacking" it?
Replay:
Duh!
>>> "You seem to have a problem with people expressing themselves freely." <<<
Express yourself all you want to. That still won't make your theories any less lame.
The "Anybody But Oswald" [ABO] crowd should try to wake up out of their 45-year slumber and realize just how much covert maneuvering of the evidence and massive after-the-fact covering up and "keeping quiet" would have really been required from so many people in order to make the "Blame It All On The Patsy" plot a reality.
Merely PRETENDING that Oswald was an innocent patsy is a far cry from making him one.
And, in addition to the huge amount of evidence manipulation that is essential in order for the ABO kooks to be correct about this case, there's also the so-called "patsy's" OWN ACTIONS on 11/22/63.
How in the wide, wide world of Covert Patsy Plots did the conspirators talk their INNOCENT PATSY (who killed nobody, per the ABO kooks) into ACTING LIKE A GUILTY KILLER immediately after SOMEBODY ELSE shot John Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit on November 22nd, 1963?!
How can an ABO conspiracy kook realistically answer the kind of question I just asked above?
How did Jim Garrison, who said the two incredibly stupid things I'm going to quote below, handle such a question (if he was ever confronted with it prior to his death)? I wonder. .....
"I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination...and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine...is in some ways the greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; 1988
==========
Common Sense Break! ---
"If you are innocent of a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But every once in a while there might be one or two or three things that point toward your guilt, even though you're completely innocent. But in this case [the JFK case], EVERYTHING pointed toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. And under those circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be innocent." -- Vince Bugliosi (paraphrased); 2007
David Von Pein
April 10, 2008
