DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I doubt very much that the agents standing on the running boards [of the Secret Service follow-up car] posed any kind of a serious obstacle for Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shooting at the President from the TSBD.
TOM NEAL SAID:
DVP,
Where is the word "allegedly" in your statement above? He was never tried, let alone convicted. Once again your personal opinion becomes a fact.
Never let the truth stand in the way of the dissemination of propaganda, right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I agree with William Manchester. Given the evidence that exists against Oswald, there's no "allegedly" about it.
Quoting Manchester:
"Lee Oswald has been repeatedly identified here [in the 1967 book "The Death Of A President"] as the President's slayer. He is never "alleged" or "suspected" or "supposed" or "surmised"; he is the culprit. Some, intimidated by the fiction that only judges may don the black cap and condemn, may disapprove. .... But enough is enough. The evidence pointing to his guilt is far more incriminating than that against Booth. .... He is the right man; there is nothing provisional about it. .... From the instant he dropped his mail-order rifle on the top floor [actually the next-to-top floor] and fled down the enclosed stair well--leaving a tuft of fibers from his shirt wedged in the butt plate and a profusion of finger and palm prints on the weapon, on the paper bag which he had used to conceal the gun during the drive from Irving with Wesley Frazier, and on one of the cartons he had stacked as a gun rest--there could be no doubt of his ultimate conviction. .... Because of Oswald's epic stupidity--and his panic; it is highly likely that he lost his head when Officer Tippit beckoned to him--the assassin's movements after the murder can be reconstructed with precision." -- William Manchester; Pages 278-279 of "The Death Of A President"
TOM NEAL SAID:
I'd like to see the Manchester defense at work if you were sued by Marina, June and Rachel. If you knew anything at all about the law, you'd know you would lose. He wasn't convicted, so legally he is allegedly guilty.
Even you must know that, but of course facts and legal issues are not in your MO, anyway. Nor is an admission you are wrong.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?
TOM NEAL SAID:
My point, which you have missed entirely, is that you refuse to admit a simple fact that is unquestionable: LHO will forever be the *alleged* assassin. That is reality. However, in your universe you have tried and convicted him and he's guilty beyond any doubt...simply because you say so: "The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt..."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The evidence DOES clearly indicate his guilt. And there's NOTHING on this Earth that you or I can do to change that basic of all facts.
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
TOM NEAL SAID:
This displays your complete denial of the reality that the evidence does NOT *clearly* indicate LHO's guilt. What the evidence does CLEARLY indicate is that it has been tampered with to create the illusion of Oswald's guilt.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So, it must have been, in effect, The World Against The Patsy, is that correct? Because there's a LOT of evidence pointing to a certain Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, which is evidence that was discovered in MULTIPLE places (hospital, limousine, TSBD, 10th Street, the Paine garage, Oswald's roominghouse). Was all of that stuff gathered up AFTER it was "planted", or was it gathered and then switched?
The idea that all of the evidence against Oswald is phony is beyond silly, and is an outrageous theory that should be embarrassing to anyone who suggests such a thing. And yet many Internet CTers are charter members of the "Everything's Fake" club. But don't expect me to join. It's way too embarrassing. And, besides, my bladder is far too weak to be a member of that fraternity.
TOM NEAL SAID:
Anyone who could accept reality as it is, would simply have replied; "Yes, legally he is the *alleged* assassin. This implies neither guilt nor innocence - it only indicates that he was never tried." However, in DVP's world, a *perfect* case against LHO exists. To accept ANY fact, even legally speaking, that LHO will never be declared guilty destroys your frail fantasy universe.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
When did I ever state that the case against Oswald is "perfect"? Answer -- Never.
The case against Oswald is extremely strong, yes. But the world is never "perfect". Just ask your bumbling patsy framers for proof of that. They certainly weren't "perfect" either (according to CTers anyway). They decided to frame their patsy in the TSBD, but then went ahead and shot at the President from the opposite direction--from the Grassy Knoll. Brilliant!
Thank goodness your patsy-framing conspirators had the whole world of law enforcement jumping on board the "Let's Frame Oswald" train on Day 1 to help them out of this mess, huh? Because, per the conspiracists, the DPD jumped right on board and started switching/planting evidence, and so did the Secret Service and the FBI. And then the Warren Commission jumped on board to frame the patsy too!
Whoever planned that assassination must have had Lady Luck on his/their side on November 22, 1963 -- in spades! Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Neal?
David Von Pein
April 22-24, 2016
