MARTIN HAY SAID:
>>> "You're quick to jump on me for calling Marina a liar, so I assume that it is your opinion that Marina has always been entirely honest?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, not at all. When she jumped shipped and did her 180 after spending 20+ years in the "MY HUSBAND'S GUILTY" camp, she showed a little dishonesty....or, at the very least, quite a bit of bad judgment (which was undoubtedly brought on by reading and/or being exposed to the wealth of kooks who were telling her that her wonderful hubby was nothin' but a patsy).
So, you're right, Marina isn't ALWAYS 100% correct in what she says.
>>> "Just out of curiosity, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy?" <<<
No. I stopped believing in them the same day I stopped believing in David Lifton's fable. (I decided to shed all the "Couldn't Have Happened" fables all at once, you see.)
You conspiracy kooks believe in a fairy tale that's even more miraculous than Santa though -- you believe that THREE separate rifle bullets did the work of the single bullet of the Single-Bullet Theory, with this trio of missiles performing so many SBT-like parallels (plus the fact all of these bullets VANISHED without a trace), it SHOULD make any conspiracy theorist blush at the thought of actually buying into such a three-shot replacement for the SBT.
But will it make the kooks blush? No. Because in order to be embarrassed by something, you must first possess some common sense and realize that the thing you're believing in is just plain silly and impossible. And kooks can't elevate themselves to that common-sense level with respect to the Single-Bullet Theory (even AFTER watching a bullet similarly slice through two mock "victims" in slow motion in 2004 on TV, via the Discovery Channel's well-done documentary "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet").
Go figure kooks. They're harder to believe in than Kris Kringle.
>>> "Only a complete idiot would come to Marina's defence, Mr. Von Pein." <<<
But you'll do it today, I'll bet. (Due to that 180 she did with respect to her husband's guilt.) Do you "defend" her current belief that LHO was just a "patsy", or not?
>>> "And, to be honest, I don't think you are an idiot. Which I guess makes you a first-class cherry-picker." <<<
Actually, my current title is this one......
HARVESTER OF JFK WHEAT; DISPOSER OF CHAFF.
>>> "BTW, your hero-worship of Bugliosi is sickening." <<<
Would you say the same thing if my allegiance was placed mainly in the basket of one Harold Weisberg? Or Mark Lane? Would you find such allegiance "sickening" then? I'd bet not.
So, it's all in how you look at things, isn't it? You kooks prefer Weisberg, Marrs, Fetzer, Garrison, Stone, Waldron, Lane, and Armstrong, etc.
I, OTOH, prefer non-kooks like Mr. Bugliosi who can assess and evaluate the SUM TOTAL of the hard evidence (and the circumstantial evidence) in the JFK case. And Vince has done just that, over the course of 21 years and 2,792 pages.
>>> "I seem to remember a little over a decade ago, you lone-nutters felt the same adoring admiration for Gerald Posner before honest researchers ripped his book to shreds." <<<
I still have a HUGE amount of respect and admiration for Gerald Posner. All the more so since he decided, in 1993, to buck the enormous "Oliver Stone" tide after Stone's fairy-tale motion picture came out in December 1991.
Posner had to know, of course, that "Case Closed" was going to be ridiculed incessantly by the "Stone Got It Right" crowd. And "CC" was still a national best-seller and proceeded to make a lot of people see the LN light and to realize that Stone's film was filled with unsupportable non-evidence and NONsense from start to finish.
>>> "But don't worry, I'm sure once the same has been done to Bugs, there will be another "definitive" lone-nut book for you to take to bed at night while you sleep safe in the knowledge that you alone know the answer to the "Great American Murder Mystery"." <<<
That's odd....I seem to recall (via recent Forum postings [linked below]) that it is some kook named Thomas H. Purvis who (alone) knows the answer to the JFK "mystery".
Don't tell me that Tom "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purv-man is wrong??? Surely not!
http://google.com/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bac6812ff9d8f836
http://google.com/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bbcd3f516de37fa
REALITY BREAK........
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others." -- Vincent Bugliosi
~~~~~~~
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi
[END: REALITY BREAK.]
>>> "Us "kooks" will just have be content with actively searching for the truth." <<<
The "truth", of course, was arrived at in November of 1963. But when someone as rabid as a CT-Kook doesn't like the taste of something, they usually spit it out and place something in their mouth that's a little more tasty. And "chaff" seems to be a kook's delicacy of choice when it comes to things relating to the death of the 35th U.S. President (and has been their favorite food for 40+ years).
David Von Pein
October 21, 2007
