GLENN NALL SAID:
You're a shill, DVP, a troll, whose only interest, and I'm just going on observation here, is to argue and stir things up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong (of course). But you're free to believe that if you so desire. I'm accustomed to the slings and arrows by now.
But just exactly HOW would you recommend an "LNer" like myself go about the task of presenting my "LN" side of things at an almost "All CT" forum without "arguing" or "stirring things up"? I'd like to know how that can be done. Or if it's even something that's DESIRABLE at a forum that's entitled "JFK Assassination Debate".
Definition...
DEBATE --- "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points."
So the very definition of "debate" is "argument". So what's the problem with "arguing" at a debate forum? ~shrug~
GLENN NALL SAID:
I'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE I'm not here to argue.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd.
GLENN NALL SAID:
Do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of Lee Harvey Oswald's own actions on both November 21 and 22, 1963?
Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?)
By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like....
1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving.
2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?)
3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd.
4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination).
5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22.
6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus.
7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.)
8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22.
9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.
10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind.
Things like that.
Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963?
I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree?
GLENN NALL SAID:
The accusation is NOT that Oswald acted mysteriously, or that he lied, or that he left work early, or even that he shot Tippit (this is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK).
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on November 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"?
Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald?
In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly ---
Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
What's truly embarrassing for you, Glenn, is your complete dismissal of virtually all of the evidence because you can't classify it as "Direct Evidence". Your repeated claims that my points regarding LHO's odd behavior on 11/21 and 11/22 are ALL "irrelevant" is something you should have been embarrassed to write.
In fact, given the OTHER evidence which all points in one way or another to Oswald (whether it be "direct" or "circumstantial" in nature), the ten items on my "Out Of The Ordinary Behavior" list are entirely relevant. Crucial, in fact. You even dismiss the Tippit murder on my 10-point list! A murder committed by Oswald is just brushed aside by Glenn Nall as if it's totally unimportant when talking about the events of 11/22/63....
[Quoting an earlier exchange:]
DVP SAID:
9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.
GLENN NALL SAID:
NOT proven, AND irrelevant.
[Unquote.]
Now THAT'S not only embarrassing for you, Glenn. It's just plain ridiculous.
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is right there before your eyes. It's not my fault you can't (or won't) add up the pieces.
You say you want the truth. I say "the truth" has been staring you in the face since 11/22/63. Unfortunately, you choose to look the other way.
And I'd love to hear a conspiracy theorist try to logically explain to a jury Oswald's actions (and his utterances) in the theater within the context of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody On Nov. 22" framework. Would ANY of the jurors not be doubling over from laughter? I doubt it.
HERE is just a sample of the type of silliness a defense lawyer would have to present to a jury if Lee Oswald had lived long enough to stand trial for J.D. Tippit's murder.
MARK KNIGHT SAID:
Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing. .... Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark.
I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing.
But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD.
Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man.
But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz:
"He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister." -- Via Will Fritz' written report (Warren Report; Page 605)
Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?
David Von Pein
June 20-22, 2015
