Part 1364 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of May 1—31, 2023. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here are a couple of old photos showing Main Street in Dallas, Texas, around the turn of the century. Click on the first picture for some high-quality zoomed-in close-ups:
AND A LITTLE HUMOR TO START OFF THE MONTH:
David Von Pein
May 1, 2023
================================
AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST
("SKY THRONE") SAID:
12. Bugliosi KNOWS that "the assassin" was at the 6th floor window. We know somebody was there, yes. It was Billy Lovelady and he was not "the assassin." Lovelady had a photographic alibi provided by James Altgens, and he was in the window because he looked like Oswald and the plan was to blame Oswald as the lone nut. But Lovelady did not shoot JFK. Bugliosi is in over his head, the poor hopeless blackmail victim. He should never have let the Boy Scouts into the cabin!
[...]
32. Marina "knew" her husband was guilty by looking into his eyes. C'mon now, Vinny! He also told her that he was being treated alright, which Marina knew meant that he had murdered the President. And these revelations were revealed by Marina after being locked away in a cabin for weeks with CIA spook Priscilla Johnson. C'mon now, Vinny! Do try to be serious!
33-35. Here the Bugmeister recites the rifle and bullet and palm print evidence presented by the murderers, to prove that Oswald is "guilty." And if you believe the evidence presented by the fox which proves that the mouse ate the chickens all by himself, then that should be good enough for you, pathetic sap that you are.
36. Now Bug Boy says that the bag "found" "inside" the "sniper's nest" was "undoubtedly" the same bag "seen" by Frazier that morning, without mentioning that the bag is more than a foot too long to have been the bag which Frazier claimed to see. Details!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If only the conspiracy-happy fantasists could learn how to add things up. Just think of the heavy burden that could be lifted off of them if just once they could perform such a basic skill of addition. But, I guess it's just too much to ask.
Ben Holmes has never been able to do it. And now I see that Mr. "Sky Throne" (whoever he or she might be) is going to pretend that most of the things on Vincent Bugliosi's 53-item list are pretty much worthless. It's evidently a terminal anti-math disease that cripples all conspiracy fantasists.
THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
24. "Oswald shot Tippit." I say that Tippit was shot in Dealey Plaza, not on 10th Street, and that the Oak Cliff action was a staged shooting, a fake shooting, with conspiracy-supplied witnesses. I'm not going to try to explain that here. I've got videos for that.
I don't know who shot Tippit in Dealey Plaza. It might have been Oswald, but I think that Black Dog Man (of the Betzner photo), AKA Shadow Man (of the Bothun photo) is the most likely suspect, and that could possibly be Jack Ruby. But I don't know.
It's possible that Oswald did play Tippit's shooter on 10th Street, though I tend to think it was some Dallas police officer working with Gerald Hill, and that Acquilla Clemmons, not a conspiracy-supplied witness, saw them both. But, if you want to accept the honesty of the Oak Cliff witnesses, and you want to ignore the possibility of Tippit being shot in Dealey Plaza, then Bugliosi's explanation is plausible, and shooting Tippit would implicate him in the JFK shooting.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Conspiracy-supplied witnesses"? Get real.
At what point do conspiracy theories cross over into areas of the totally absurd? If you're in league with Mr. Anonymous ("Sky Throne"), apparently that never occurs. All theories are evidently worthy of some respect and attention---even the ones which feature the ever-so-convenient "conspiracy-supplied witnesses".
And the CTer nonsense continues unabated.
THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
39. Bugliosi says that "experts" said that one of the Tippit bullets was fired from Oswald's gun "to the exclusion of all other guns." And the other 3 could have been fired from Oswald's gun. I never have been able to find out which bullet was the special one. Was it the one in his head? Details! Anyway, If the experts are right, then Oswald's gun fired one of the bullets. Okay.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No. If the experts are right, then Oswald's revolver definitely fired all four of the bullets removed from the body of Officer Tippit. We know this is true because ALL FOUR of the bullet shell casings found at the Tippit murder scene matched Oswald's gun "to the exclusion". (See #40 on Mr. Bugliosi's list, captured in the image below.)
And matching up the bullet shells is just as definitive and solid as matching up the slugs themselves (despite the constant whining of CTers who say differently).
THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
Well, what the experts said means that Oswald's gun definitely fired one of the bullets in Tippit and 4 of the cartridges in evidence. But the experts did not say that the cartridges in evidence were part of the cartridges from which the bullets in Tippit came. In other words, the bullets in Tippit could have come from two or more guns. If the experts are right.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But we know (from the witnesses who were there) that there was only ONE gunman firing bullets from ONE single gun at Officer Tippit on Tenth Street. And I kinda doubt that Tippit was shot at more than one location on 11/22/63 (despite your fantastically ludicrous theory which has Tippit being shot in Dealey Plaza instead of at 10th & Patton).
Therefore, the "two or more guns" theory regarding Tippit's murder must be discarded by all reasonable people looking at the evidence in this case.
The anonymous conspiracy theorist ("Sky Throne"), of course, told us earlier in this discussion that he believes all the Tippit witnesses were "conspiracy-supplied witnesses" to a "staged/fake shooting" on Tenth Street. But, of course, such an absurd theory must also be placed in the "fantastically ludicrous" file drawer, and therefore must also be discarded by any and all reasonable and sensible people.
THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
I disagree. You too easily dismiss anything that contradicts your ridiculous
Lone Nut Theory. I have an explanation for the evidence you refuse to
explain. [Click Here]
But the Nutters would rather keep their blinders on and bow to their beloved authorities.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mr. Anonymous,
Did you know that J.D. Tippit's body was still lying in the middle of Tenth Street as late as 1:18 PM (CST) on Nov. 22nd?
So how could Tippit possibly have been pronounced dead at Methodist Hospital at 1:15?
Do you think the ambulance call slip is a fake too? Dudley Hughes filled out the ambulance call slip, put it into a time clock, and stamped it "1:18 PM, November 22". (See Dale Myers' book, "With Malice", pages 101-104; 1998 Edition.)
Also see:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/Tippit Timelines
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Proving that a shell was fired from a particular weapon HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A PARTICULAR BULLET WAS FIRED FROM THAT WEAPON!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
We're talking about the situation that exists in THIS case (the Tippit case), Ben. Not other cases.
And since we know that in THIS (Tippit) case there was only ONE gunman firing bullets from ONE gun on Tenth Street on Nov. 22, then the fact that the bullets themselves could not be tied conclusively to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver is immaterial and irrelevant.
Why?
Because: The four bullet shells that Oswald was kind enough to dump in the Davis girls' yard WERE matched to the gun Oswald had on him in the theater just minutes later. Ergo, Oswald cannot be innocent of killing Tippit.
But maybe conspiracy theorist/fantasist Ben Holmes now wants to pretend that there was a second gunman firing bullets from a second Smith & Wesson revolver at the Tippit murder scene on 11/22/63.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
[Quoting Lord Patrick Devlin...]
"A defense counsel who was given free leave by the courts to invent any explanation which would account for the facts in this case and yet be consistent with his client’s innocence would have had a desperate task.
The best tribute to the solidity of the [Warren] report comes from its critics. It would, I should have thought, have been obvious even to an amateur that he could not make much impression on the structure of this report unless he had a charge of high explosives to put under some parts of it. But all that the critics seem to be doing is to clamber about on the surface, chipping away with a hammer and chisel as if the height of their ambition were to deface the exterior slightly.
It is no doubt distressing to the logical mind when after an immense investigation, two extraordinary murders occurring in the course of the same story are explained only as disconnected and senseless actions. But life is more distressing than logic. And what is the alternative? Perhaps one day the critics will produce one. If they can suggest one that is even faintly credible, they will deserve more public attention than they are likely to get by making charges of suppression that are more than faintly ridiculous." -- Lord Patrick Arthur Devlin; 1964
http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
Yeah, well, Bugliosi's theory can only be possible if he changes the evidence from a 24-inch bag to a 38-inch bag. I allow the evidence to be as it is, and my theory works.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, well, the fact is that an empty 38-inch paper bag (with Oswald's prints on it) was, indeed, found near the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63. That's what the PHYSICAL piece of "paper bag" evidence is in this case.
And the only way that the conspiracy theorists can sidestep that 38-inch physical piece of evidence is to assume (or pretend) that that 38-inch bag (with two of Oswald's prints attached to it) was planted by the cops.
So I ask --- is the "planted bag" theory more reasonable than the LNer conclusion which has Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle simply mistaken as to the exact length of the paper bag they each saw Lee Oswald carrying on Nov. 22?
[FYI -- Lots of discussion concerning "The Paper Bag" can be found HERE.]
THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
Maybe the 38-inch bag is the one Yates saw Oswald with on Wednesday. That works. That fits the evidence. There's a whole lot of difference [between] 2 and 3 feet. And we also have Frazier describing the way Oswald carried the bag, which is possible with 2 feet but not with 3.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The tall tale told to the FBI on December 10, 1963, by 27-year-old refrigeration service man Ralph Leon Yates can be found in its entirety in this FBI report.
Yates claimed that he picked up hitchhiker Lee Harvey Oswald and drove him to the corner of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas (the location of the TSBD) on Wednesday, November 20, 1963, two days before JFK's assassination.
But none of the things that Oswald allegedly said to Yates come even close to ringing true in any way at all. Yates' story, in my opinion, has all the earmarks of a totally made-up tale that was created by Yates in the days following the murders of Kennedy and Oswald.
Conspiracy theorists who choose to believe Mr. Yates' fantastic tall tale can always, of course, choose to also believe that Yates really encountered an "imposter" Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/20/63, and this fake "Oswald" was therefore part of an elaborate plot to frame the real Lee Oswald for President Kennedy's murder two days later.
Or those conspiracists can choose to believe as I do --- that Mr. Ralph Leon Yates invented his story from whole cloth.
Anyone who chooses to accept Ralph Yates' story as the truth should also be made aware of the five other FBI reports regarding Mr. Yates, some of which deal with Yates' deteriorating mental condition as of late 1963 and early 1964:
1. In this statement made by Yates on January 4, 1964, Yates backpedals on some of the details concerning his alleged encounter with Oswald that he originally told the FBI on 12/10/63, including the part which supposedly had Oswald mentioning to Yates the name of Jack Ruby.
2. January 9, 1964.
3. January 9, 1964.
4. January 15, 1964.
5. January 16, 1964.
Addendum:
I find it interesting (but not altogether surprising, given the information that can be garnered in the multiple FBI reports I just linked above) that author Vincent Bugliosi thought so little of Ralph Yates' story that Vince decided not to utter one single word about Yates or his tall tale in his massive JFK book. Vince didn't even think it was worth mentioning, even though he covered just about every other crackpot theory imaginable within his huge 2,800-page tome.*
* It's possible, however, that Mr. Bugliosi wasn't even aware of the Yates story when Reclaiming History was published in 2007. But I think that's highly unlikely, given Vincent's vast scope of knowledge concerning nearly every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case.
David Von Pein
May 1-3, 2023
================================
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not at all. The favored LN scenario is, of course, three shots in 8+ seconds, with the first shot occurring at circa Z160. And, of course, there is some evidence to support such a Z160 first shot, in the form of Rosemary Willis' reaction and her subsequent comments on the subject, plus Governor Connally's right turn starting at about Z164.
Yes, there are several (many) witnesses who seemed to think JFK was reacting to his wounds right after the first shot. I don't deny such witness testimony exists. But it's my opinion—based on the accumulated evidence that has convinced me beyond all doubt that the Single-Bullet Theory is most certainly true and occurred at circa Z224—that those witnesses who thought JFK was struck by Shot #1 are simply wrong.
After the shocking and fast-moving shooting event took place, those eyewitnesses were asked to try and piece together a timeline of the shots in order to discern which of the shots hit the two victims, and I think a lot of those witnesses fall into the same category that Nellie Connally falls into (even though those witnesses don't realize it), which is this category (IMO):
A witness who heard an unexpected noise (the first rifle shot), then started looking around to see if they could locate the source of that noise, then heard a second gunshot, then (and only then) caught a glimpse of President Kennedy in the limousine with his hands coming up to his throat.
Given the fact that I (along with about 95% of all other Lone Assassin believers in the world) think that Shot #1 missed everybody in the limousine, and Shot #2 was the SBT shot that struck both Kennedy and Connally, and Shot #3 was the fatal head shot that struck only JFK....this combination of beliefs concerning the shot sequence, therefore, has to mean (per LNers like myself) that many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses were simply mistaken in their belief that Shot #1 struck the President.
Ergo, in reality (IMO), those witnesses really heard TWO gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza prior to the point in time when they noticed President Kennedy reacting to being hit. In attempting to re-create the sequence of events, however, many of the witnesses thought they saw Kennedy reacting to being hit by Shot #1, when (in reality) two rifle shots had been fired prior to their taking note of JFK's reactions.
If put in the same position that those Dealey Plaza witnesses were put into on 11/22/63, could anybody here at this forum (or anywhere else) guarantee that they would be able to precisely piece together the brief shooting timeline accurately enough so that they would be able to confidently say that they know with 100% certainty which of the gunshots first struck John F. Kennedy?
Given the sudden and wholly unexpected nature of those gunshots that were fired on November 22nd, if anyone answers "Yes, I could very easily do that" to the question I just asked above, I would have my doubts as to whether that person was telling me the full truth (unless they were related to Superman).
David Von Pein
May 5, 2023
================================
ALAN J. FORD SAID:
Despite officialdom's purposely misleading hastily contrived script mired in the stench of horse manure, the wrongly accused is not responsible for President Kennedy's nor Mr. Tippitt's [sic] shooting either. In fact, the wrongly-accused did not leave Dealey Plaza amid a hasty escape on a phantom bus ride nor an equally phantom cab ride either.
The self-serving lies of those truly responsible for the events surrounding November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas has run its course. It's now time for truth.
They say "pictures don't lie", so thank goodness for photographic evidence that places the wrongly-accused still in Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12PM on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, nowhere near 10th & Patton let alone responsible for Mr. Tippitt's [sic] shooting.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Prior to this minute, I had never once heard of any conspiracy theorist who ever claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was still hanging around Dealey Plaza as late as 1:12 PM (CST) on 11/22/63.
Such a claim, of course, is ludicrous (and provably wrong) in light of the information gleaned from several witnesses in Oak Cliff, plus the words that came from Lee Oswald's own mouth after he was arrested. Oswald himself admitted during his interrogations that he had, indeed, left the Book Depository Building a very short time after the assassination and took a bus and a cab to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff. (But CTers probably think it was Captain Fritz who was the liar during that interrogation of Oswald, right Alan?)
And if LHO had been in Dealey Plaza at 1:12 PM, it would mean that housekeeper Earlene Roberts was lying when she said all of the things she said about seeing Oswald at the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on Nov. 22 [see the video linked below].
Or, maybe the CTers who don't want to come out and call Mrs. Roberts a bald-faced liar would like to pretend that Oswald hurried back to Dealey Plaza with lightning-like speed after being seen by Roberts at the roominghouse.
I think it's time for JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists to stop playing their silly games with the evidence and to start making at least a halfway decent effort at evaluating the sum total of evidence and testimony in the JFK and Tippit murder cases in at least a somewhat reasonable, sensible, and proper fashion. Because if they don't, then we're always going to be subjected to preposterous discussions like this one authored by Alan J. Ford.
(KLIF-Radio)(Thumbnail).png)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Do you also accept her [Earlene Roberts'] story about a police car honking twice in front of the house?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, that's another matter entirely. The topic I was referring to earlier was whether or not Earlene Roberts had really seen Lee Harvey Oswald enter and leave the Beckley roominghouse at about 1:00 PM on November 22.
Apparently the originator of this discussion, Alan J. Ford, thinks Mrs. Roberts did lie about that subject (or maybe Alan thinks Roberts saw one of the many "Oswald doubles" that so many CTers think were running around Dallas in circa 1963).
But whether or not Mrs. Roberts was telling the truth about the police car honking its horn outside the roominghouse has no bearing on whether she was telling the truth about seeing Oswald on 11/22, and that's because her story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
Regarding Mrs. Roberts and the alleged horn-honking incident, here's what I had to say about that subject several years ago:
---------------------------
"It must be kept in mind that Mrs. Roberts testified that it was not unusual at all for a police car to stop in front of the roominghouse and toot its horn. It happened on multiple OTHER days, according to Roberts. So even if such an occurrence DID take place on November 22nd, it could be looked upon as a NORMAL occurrence, not an ABNORMAL or unusual one.
Or do some conspiracy theorists think that the Dallas Police were so shrewd in their advanced planning of the so-called "Frame-Up" of Lee Harvey Oswald that they had a police car stop in front of 1026 N. Beckley Avenue every so often in the weeks and/or months BEFORE the assassination, just so the car could honk its horn in front of the house...in order to make it look like an ordinary occurrence?
I'd like to know how the conspiracy theorists who think that a police car was "signalling" to Oswald on November 22 can possibly explain away the very same kind of horn-honking which took place at that exact same residence on multiple OTHER days when Presidents WEREN'T being murdered?
When we look at the horn-honking topic from that point-of-view, it makes any 11/22 horn-honking incident seem much less sinister. And if it WAS "sinister", then it's an awfully strange coincidence that the horn was honked ("tip-tip", says Roberts) in the exact same manner in which it was honked by other policemen on OTHER days prior to November 22nd. Wouldn't you agree?"
-- DVP; April 17, 2008
---------------------------
BTW, here's how author Vincent Bugliosi handled Earlene Roberts' story about the police car. Click to enlarge:
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
If she [Earlene Roberts] doesn't completely tell the truth on everything, how do you know what is true and what isn't?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Re: the topic of "Did Mrs. Roberts Actually See Oswald Enter The Roominghouse On 11/22/63?"....
There are multiple ways to verify that she was telling the truth about that. Besides Oswald's own admission (see my next two comments), there's also cab driver William Whaley, who took Oswald to the general area of his roominghouse on 11/22. (Am I now supposed to believe that Whaley took some Oswald look-alike to Oak Cliff instead of the real LHO?)
Given all the things that verify Oswald went to 1026 Beckley on 11/22, is it truly reasonable to believe otherwise? I think not.
REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
[Mrs. Roberts'] story about seeing Oswald that day was verified by Lee Oswald himself, who told the police after his arrest that he had, indeed, gone to his Beckley room shortly after the assassination occurred.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Who did Oswald tell that?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Captain Fritz. (See Page 601 of the Warren Report.)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Oswald's presence at the rooming house is one of the most crucial issues in the Tippit case. If Oswald was there, but only a few minutes later than "just after 1", he could not have been at 10th & Patton on time to kill Tippit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Conspiracy theorists never seem to want to evaluate ALL of Earlene Roberts' testimony concerning the time that Oswald spent in his room. It's true that Mrs. Roberts testified that Oswald "went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes" [6 H 438], but it's also a fact that she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440].
No CTer ever wants to add in that last important statement made by Roberts.
And does it really take 3 or 4 minutes to wander around a closet-sized bedroom and grab a jacket, a gun, and a few bullets?
Also....if Oswald was walking faster than the WC investigators who timed the trip from Neely St. to 1026 Beckley at 5 min./45 sec., then Oswald would have reached his room prior to 1:00. That fact, coupled with the almost certain fact that he was only in that room (per Mrs. Roberts) "just long enough to go in there and get a jacket", plus the additional unknown factor of Oswald possibly walking very fast or even running at least part of the way from Beckley to 10th Street (we'll never know his speed for certain), gives LHO ample time to make it to the site of J.D. Tippit's murder by approx. 1:14 to 1:15 PM CST (which is the time when the sum total of evidence indicates Tippit was very likely shot).
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
If he didn't leave the rooming house with a jacket, or left it with a darker color jacket (as Roberts testified)....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Maybe you'd better listen again to this 11/22 interview with Mrs. Roberts. If you fast-forward to 2:40 you'll hear Roberts say that Oswald left his room wearing a "short gray coat".
Yes, Roberts said something different later on regarding the jacket color. But on Day One, she said "short gray coat".
Of course, we could now start discussing the various shades of "gray" that exist in the color spectrum—light gray vs. dark gray vs. medium gray, etc.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Fritz wrote his report from memory after Oswald's death.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
With the aid of his handwritten notes, of course. You're not going to pretend Fritz' notes were written up days later, are you?
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Fritz, in my mind, lost all credibility when he presented Buell Wesley Frazier with a pre-written "confession" on Friday evening, which Frazier refused to sign.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have some serious doubts as to whether that event took place.
It's not surprising, though, to see the conspiracy theorists jumping for joy after Buell Frazier came up with that story about Captain Fritz 39 years after it allegedly occurred (while never saying a word about it prior to 2002).
But, what do I know? Maybe it did happen. But the 39-year delay should make a person at least wonder about it a little bit.
More about Mr. Frazier's multiple late-arriving bombshell tales here.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
You're using a very vague time estimate of Earlene Roberts to make some sort of point. Even worse, you are doing so while ignoring the fact the Roberts said that she was concentrating on the television as she wanted to see the 1 PM news, just as Oswald walked in. That places his arrival at just about 1 PM and his departure at around 1:03 or 1:04.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The one and only source for the "1:03" or "1:04" departure time for Oswald is Earlene Roberts' absurdly long (IMO) estimate of the length of time Oswald was inside his room ("3 or 4 minutes").
But if the actual time that LHO spent in that room was along the lines of 30 to 60 seconds (which is very likely much more accurate, especially given the "hurried" nature that Oswald was said to have exhibited during both his arrival and his departure from the roominghouse that day), then that would have provided Oswald with up to 3 additional minutes to travel the 0.85 mile from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton.
But a CTer named Martin Weidmann, who just said in his last post that he thinks Mrs. Roberts is an "unreliable witness", seems to want to embrace Roberts' "3 or 4 minutes" testimony as the absolute truth. Therefore, per many CTers, Mrs. Roberts' estimate is now written in stone and has (somehow) been turned into a rock-solid and proven fact. (Pot meets Kettle once more, it would seem.)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The total evidence does not indicate that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15.
A simple example:
[Helen] Markham testified that she left her home a little after 1 PM, perhaps 1:06. She needed to walk two blocks to get to the bus stop on Jefferson. According to their timetable there were busses at 1:12 and 1:22. Markham estimated that she would catch her usual bus at 1:15, which could be either one of the busses mentioned. To walk two blocks, Markham would have needed no more [than] 6 minutes, which means that she would have passed by 10th and Patton no later than 1:09 or 1:10 and she would have arrived at the bus stop at around 1:12 or 1:13. It is physically impossible for Markham to have been at 10th and Patton when Tippit was killed, if that indeed happened at 1:14 or 1:15. It does, however, match a timeline where Tippit is killed between 1:08 and 1:10.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Helen Markham's Bus --- Click Here.
Also See --- Tippit Timelines.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
At her WC testimony, she [Earlene Roberts] was shown the jacket and she denied that it was the jacket she had seen.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, she didn't. When Mrs. Roberts was shown Oswald's gray zipper jacket (CE162), she did say "It seems like the one he put on was darker than that", but she didn't flat-out "deny" that CE162 was the jacket she saw Oswald wearing on Nov. 22nd. In fact, she said "Well, maybe it was". And she also said "I won't be sure, because I really don't know." (Source: 6 H 439.)
REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're not going to pretend Fritz' notes were written up days later, are you?
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
They absolutely were. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, you're correct. After seeing your post, I refreshed my memory on this topic by revisiting Captain Fritz' WC testimony [at 4 H 209], and Fritz did, indeed, say his notes were created "several days later".
I had totally forgotten about that Fritz testimony, even though I know I've read it in the past when this same topic has come up at the various JFK forums.
So, I officially stand corrected on this point regarding J.W. Fritz' notes.
Thank you.
David Von Pein
May 11-14, 2023
================================
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As per usual, James DiEugenio has everything backwards. Because Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" is actually a very very good book. It's easily one of the Top 5 books ever written concerning the events of 11/22/63.
Kudos go out to Mr. Posner for his book's 30th birthday here in 2023. It's a publication that has held up extremely well during these last thirty years. (The constant gripes of conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, of course.)
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here are some comments I made while talking to some conspiracy theorists at Amazon.com in 2016 (when the Amazon forums were still alive and well). I think these remarks still apply today:
---------------------------
"Tell me why the smell of Oswald's gunpowder couldn't have drifted down to street level after just a few seconds? Any reason why conspiracy theorists totally disregard that possibility altogether?
Dealey Plaza is a very small place. I can easily envision Oswald's gun producing odors that would be noticeable within the entire Plaza a few seconds after the shots were fired from the sixth floor. Has such a thing ever been disproved? I think not.
I think some witnesses did smell gunpowder. But a gun was being fired in the small Plaza that day. So, in my opinion, the gunpowder they smelled was from the ONE GUN that was KNOWN to have been fired that day---i.e., Oswald's Carcano from the sixth floor. I see nothing so impossible about people smelling OSWALD'S gunpowder. And [Ralph] Yarborough was certainly not ON THE GRASSY KNOLL when he smelled the gunpowder. He was in a car in the middle of Elm Street.
Also -- Tom Dillard said he smelled the odor of gunpowder while he was right "at the corner" of Elm and Houston Streets during the time the assassination was occurring or very shortly after the shots were fired."
-- DVP; March 2016
---------------------------
David Von Pein
May 12, 2023
================================
GIL JESUS SAID:
Unarmed witnesses' hesitation to call police until they are sure the gunman is long gone is nothing out of the ordinary.
BUD SAID:
Oswald was long gone 30 seconds after the shooting.
As usual, your ideas make zero sense. There was a crowd around Tippit's body after the shooting. So why are they there if they are so afraid?
Your ideas require them to stand around Tippit's dead or mortally wounded body for six to ten minutes before thinking to use the radio. That is a long time. Makes much more sense that it was a minute or so...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Indeed. I discussed that absurdly long delay with some CTers several years ago:
"Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike? And via the most commonly believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio. Frankly...that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't. Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15." -- DVP; Nov. 26, 2011
More HERE.
David Von Pein
May 14, 2023
================================
AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST
("SKY THRONE") SAID:
How Could Tippit Have Been Pronounced Dead Before The Shooting On Tenth Street?
Do the Nutters have the courage to answer such a question? No, they do not.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
http://DVP's JFK Archives/Tippit Timelines
THE ANONYMOUS CTer SAID:
David Von Pein does not have the courage and can only spam for his website. At least he is rational!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I will link to previously-written material at my site regarding a given sub-topic whenever possible. That keeps me from having to write out the same responses over and over again dozens of times.
That's what a website's archive is for, for Pete sake. To use as a future reference source (if possible). So....that's what I do.
If CTers want to call that "spamming", well, they can think whatever they want. But my method of linking to already archived material sure makes a whole lot of sense to me. I can only wonder why it doesn't make sense to CTers??
David Von Pein
May 14, 2023
================================
AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST
("SKY THRONE") SAID:
It was the FBI who said they couldn't narrow down the Tippit-shooting gun to fewer than 2.5 million revolvers, not I.
The FBI can't prove a thing about what gun shot Tippit, other than that there are 2.5 million possibilities.
JOHN CORBETT SAID:
Unlike you ["Sky Throne"], the FBI wasn't stupid enough to limit themselves only to bullet ballistics. The knew they had the spent shells from the same shooting and those could be positively matched to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all others.
Since the shells came from Oswald's gun, they knew the bullets did as well, because they had eyewitnesses who saw Tippit's killer dump the shells on the ground right after shooting Tippit. Given that fact, it is not possible the Tippit bullets could have come from any other gun.
There is more than one way to connect the Tippit bullets to Oswald's gun, but it requires an IQ above 70 to figure that out. No wonder this confuses you.
THE ANONYMOUS CTer ("SKY THRONE") SAID:
Funny you Nutters never mention the fact that the FBI could narrow down the Tippit weapon only to 2.5 million weapons. That's one way that Nutters lie; they leave out important information. Of course, Liar Myers just lies about everything.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
With respect to the bullet/ballistics evidence connected to the murder of Police Officer J.D. Tippit, Mr. "Sky Throne" is, quite obviously, merely pretending to be the king of all Super Stumps when he keeps bringing up ONLY the Tippit bullets, all the while totally ignoring those pesky shell casings that are also a part of the evidence in the Tippit murder case.
Mr. Throne, who I'm guessing has an I.Q. that's at least a tad bit higher than a roll of Charmin, knows full well, of course, that the four bullet shells that littered Tenth Street in Oak Cliff on 11/22/63 were, indeed, tied conclusively to the revolver that Lee Oswald pulled out of his pants in the Texas Theater just half-an-hour after Tippit was shot with that very same gun. And, therefore, it's impossible for Mr. Oswald to be innocent of murdering Mr. Tippit.
No "Internet" conspiracy theorist in the world who belongs to the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity will admit (in public) that my last paragraph above is the truth, of course. But they all know it is the truth nonetheless (despite pretending that there are major problems with the chain of custody for ALL FOUR of the Tippit bullet shells, which is most certainly not the case at all).
Obligatory Reprise....
The DVP Digital Reminder (yet again)....
(I'm going to see if I can have the above image/logo manufactured as a refrigerator magnet, which can then be distributed to every conspiracy theorist in North America and Europe. Because CTers need to be reminded of that important message....daily.)
THE ANONYMOUS CTer ("SKY THRONE") SAID:
You don't deal with the evidence that Tippit was shot in Dealey Plaza, you simply dismiss the idea.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Since there is ZERO "evidence" that J.D. Tippit was shot in Dealey Plaza, then of course I "simply dismiss the idea". Only a fantasist would accept such a notion.
Really stupid theories deserve to be dismissed out of hand. I know you think you've discovered some fantastic "evidence" buried in the DPD radio files or in the testimony of some witness or in some FBI report, etc., that you think you can use to support your idiocy about Tippit being killed in Dealey Plaza rather than on 10th Street. But your warped interpretation of the "evidence" will never be enough. And that's because all sensible people know that the police officer driving Car #10 on Nov. 22 was shot and killed on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff, and not on Elm Street.
And please tell us again WHY anyone would want to carry out such a crazy charade regarding the location of Tippit's demise? What possible advantage did such a charade serve for the plotters/schemers/henchmen?
And whose dead body was really lying on 10th Street for several minutes on Nov. 22nd---if not Tippit's?
You, "Sky Throne", have a lot in common with the late David Lifton....because Lifton, just like you, endorsed absurd and outer-fringe conspiracy theories that have always had zero chance of being true (or proven).
And, very similar to David Lifton's "outer fringe" approach to the JFK case, Sky Throne also seems to have a desire to (as I said to Lifton ten years ago) "treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not".
(My original remarks aimed at Mr. Lifton are copied below. Maybe Sky Throne is related to Mr. Lifton. Their mutual affection for bizarre theories would certainly seem to indicate as much.)
-------------------------
"Are you, David S. Lifton, so wedded to the impossible notion that President John F. Kennedy's body was secretly stolen off of Air Force One and his wounds altered by an unknown group of conspirators on November 22, 1963, and so wedded to the additional foolish belief that every shot that hit the two limo victims came from in FRONT of the car, that you cannot even conceive (for even a moment) that your outlandish theories just MIGHT be inaccurate?
The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.
Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.
And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.
Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful"."
-- DVP; May 5, 2013
-------------------------
"You, David S. Lifton, actually seem to think it's surprising that a person (like me) who strongly believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK would dare to assert that the various pieces of ballistics evidence associated with JFK's murder are actually legitimate (i.e., non-phony) pieces of evidence in this case—such as the C2766 Carcano rifle and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's car.
And despite the popular trend among JFK conspiracists to believe that virtually all of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases is fake and worthless, there hasn't been a speck of PROOF to substantiate that ANY of that evidence was actually manufactured, planted, or fraudulent (including the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the two front-seat bullet fragments).
And the last time I checked, the massive amount of SPECULATION and ACCUSATIONS and WISHFUL THINKING being done by JFK conspiracy theorists does not come close to rising to the level of PROOF.
Get real, DSL! You're the one beating the dead horse. Not me."
-- DVP; May 21, 2019
David Von Pein
May 23, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The latest addition to my "Quoting Common Sense" website:
"To frame Oswald for killing Tippit, they [the Dallas Police Department] need to allow Tippit's actual killer to get away with the murder, there is no other way. I've never seen anything anywhere in all my years that would make me believe cops would be okay with the killer of one of their own getting away scot free." -- Bud; May 27, 2023
-------------
Similar comments made by me fourteen years earlier:
"A 5-year-old child could have solved the Tippit murder. Given the evidence, there's no human way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of killing Officer J.D. Tippit. .... There's not a single conspiracy theorist in the world who can logically (and believably) answer the following question:
Why on Earth would the Dallas Police Department have had any desire whatsoever to want to frame and railroad an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of one of their FELLOW OFFICERS AND FRIENDS, all the while not caring at all that they were allowing the real killer or killers of Officer Tippit to get off scot-free?
Conspiracy theorists have their imaginations and crazy assertions. Reasonable people, however, have the hard evidence. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit. And Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy too."
-- DVP; December 18, 2009
-------------
Just for fun....
Let's have a gander at the current tally sheet [as of May 27, 2023] showing the individuals who are quoted the most times at my "Quoting Common Sense" site (not counting my own contributions, which far outnumber everybody else's; but, after all, it's my own site):
Vincent Bugliosi -- 92
Bud -- 33
Jean Davison -- 16
John McAdams -- 8
John K. Lattimer -- 8
David Belin -- 6
John Corbett -- 4
Dale Myers -- 4
Gerald Posner -- 4
Richard B. Trask -- 3
Gary Mack -- 2
Chuck Schuyler -- 2
Mark Fuhrman -- 2
William Manchester -- 2
GREG PARKER SAID:
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- JFK
It is unreasonable not to consider that Fritz et al, who provably and routinely framed the guilty and innocent alike in order to boost his public profile, did not do the same in the biggest case to come his way.
Some quotes about Fritz for you [extracted from this 1949 document]. And unlike your quote, they are in context:
"He [J. Will Fritz] constantly seeks publicity and on any case, whether his Department has jurisdiction or not..."
"Solved 656 murders of the 666 committed during the past ten years."
No reasonable person could believe those figures were obtained any other way than by framing many of those people.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Typical overblown response coming from an outer-fringe conspiracy fantasist who has no evidence at all to back up anything he ever says. Who would expect anything less?
GREG PARKER SAID:
"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963
What IS sickening, though not ironic, is how quickly the media jumped on the bandwagon based on leaked and often exaggerated or misleading "evidence". Case in point, the paraffin test. This absolute cunt has just compromised the chance of a fair trial. Well done on claiming that as "common sense".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
WTF are you yammering about? The one and only reference (to date) to Oswald's paraffin test on my lengthy "Quoting Common Sense" webpage is this quote by Gary Mack, in which Mack even emphasizes the UNreliability of paraffin tests:
"Hoover properly deemed the paraffin tests unreliable." -- G. Mack; 6/8/2015
So, who is the "absolute cunt" you're referring to in your last post? You seem to be referring to someone I've quoted directly regarding "paraffin tests", which, as I just said, is impossible.
But you're probably talking about something that Chief Jesse Curry said to the press in one of his many hallway press gatherings at City Hall on 11/23/63. Right? If that's the case, what has that got to do with all the quotes I've assembled on my website? Or did you just feel like venting tonight....and I was the nearest LNer to scream at?
GREG PARKER SAID:
Do let us know if you ever find a quote actually living up your ["Common Sense"] claim.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Every quote on this site lives up to the "Common Sense" claim. That fact couldn't be more obvious to any and all reasonable people. You're just buried too deep in conspiracy excrement to realize what "common sense" truly is in the JFK case.
Here are just a few more Common Sense samples that I've accumulated from various LNers over the years:
------------------------------------
"I am convinced that three shots were fired from the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository Building. .... No convincing or compelling evidence from the photographs or films or from credible witnesses strongly supports the idea that a shot or shots were fired from the grassy knoll area. .... Lee Harvey Oswald appears, from the evidence derived at the scene, to be the likely assassin. .... From this specifically focused study, I cannot say that others did not conspire with or assist Oswald, or that others absolutely were not present at the scene the day of the assassination. I can say, however, that the evidence of the sixth floor sniper, in all probability Oswald, is compelling."
-- Richard B. Trask; Page xx of "Pictures Of The Pain: Photography And The Assassination Of President Kennedy" (1994)
------------------------------------
"It's quite humorous to read all of the lame excuses that conspiracists can come up with in order to deny the obvious truth about what we are seeing in Zapruder frames 225 and 226. The average conspiracy theorist is so accustomed to rejecting the Single-Bullet Theory that even when confronted with Zapruder Film clips like the ones seen here, those CTers will still pretend that what they are seeing with their own eyeballs in those movie clips must be the result of "something else" other than the two victims in the car reacting simultaneously to being hit by a bullet.
And most conspiracy theorists I've encountered over the years won't even allow for the remote POSSIBILITY of the Z224-Z230 reactions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally being the result of a single bullet hitting both men. And even the sudden "flinching" of Connally's shoulders at exactly Z225 is totally ignored by most CTers.
Instead, the conspiracy theorists will insist that other things must be considered first and given top priority. The SBT, in other words, is sort of a last resort, and should be avoided at all possible costs. And this is so even though those same CTers know full well that BOTH victims in that car WERE, indeed, struck in their respective UPPER BACKS by a BULLET at just about that same time on the Zapruder Film.
And yet, even though the CTers (save David Lifton, of course) will stipulate to the fact that both Kennedy AND Connally were hit by a bullet in their BACKS within about ONE SECOND of Z-frame #224, the simultaneous arm-jerking reactions exhibited by both JFK and John Connally starting at precisely Z226 are not, per the CTers, to be associated in any way at all with the bullet wounds in the BACK that each victim sustained on November 22, 1963.
That, my friends, is called Serious Denial."
-- DVP; November 2014
------------------------------------
"It isn't a requirement that CTer theories make sense. Besides the conspiracy's magical ability to make anyone at any time say or do anything it requires, it is also incredibly lucky, in that it has Oswald visit the two lunchrooms at lunchtime and get no alibi witness. And of course this omnipotent conspiracy always opts to do things the hard way: they elaborately kill Kennedy instead of torpedoing his presidency with scandal. They let Oswald run loose after the murder, and allow him to talk afterwards, instead of killing him at the scene of the crime."
-- Bud; January 2010
------------------------------------
"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead."
-- DVP; October 2006
David Von Pein
May 27-29, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's a photo showing President Kennedy's schedule for November 21-22, 1963. Click to enlarge:
[Source: Former Secret Service Agent Paul Landis' new book, "The Final Witness", scheduled for release on October 10, 2023.]
David Von Pein
May 30, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
If you cannot refute my refutations right here in open forum, doesn't it embarrass you to reference Bugliosi's 53 reasons??
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As Ben already knows, of course, what he just said above --- "you cannot refute my refutations right here in open forum" --- is a blatant and provable lie....
BEN HOLMES SAID:
I don't know that. You're incapable of proving it to me.
Citing a website isn't "right here in open forum," is it?
Run coward... RUN!!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh good! Ben's now going to play the little game where he pretends not to know that every last bit of my "Part 1227" blog page was derived from posts that were first written HERE at this alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup.
And Ben will also pretend that I haven't linked back to each of the original ACJ discussions at the bottom of my Part 1227 page (confirmed here).
I guess Ben expects me to repeat my arguments and write them out again and again--in full--every single time the subject of "Bugliosi's Big 53" comes up (or any other JFK topic that I've already covered in the past). Which, of course, would be a time-consuming and needless thing to do. Hence, my multi-topic "JFK Archives" site exists--to be used as a reference when various JFK sub-topics are discussed in the future.
I wonder how many times Ben has already been told these things by me? Too many to count, I know that.
David Von Pein
May 25-30, 2023
================================
BUD SAID:
Where's Ben?
It's Monday [May 22, 2023] and Ben [Holmes] hasn't swamp posted the forum yet. Let's hope he hasn't had his head crushed by a twenty ton press like the guy in the movie "The Fly".
Fingers crossed.
[...]
I am concerned. What if Ben got his arm caught in a candy dispensing machine and he spent all weekend with his fingers just short of that elusive Baby Ruth?
[...]
What if he fell into a 55 gallon deep fryer on high, or something equally horrific I will think up tomorrow if he doesn't show up?
[...]
I'm genuinely concerned. What if he fell face first into a pool of hungry piranhas?
ON MAY 30, 2023, BEN HOLMES
SURFACED AND SAID:
I generally make about two new posts each day. The "swamp posting" you refer to is me simply RESPONDING to you and other believers.
So if I'm swamp posting, the original swamp posting is on you.
BUD SAID:
So it only looks like you are swamp posting but you really aren't. Just like when it looks like you are lying and you actually aren't. Good thing you are back around to decide such things for everyone else.
REPLAY....
BEN HOLMES SAID:
I generally make about two new posts each day. The "swamp posting" you refer to is me simply RESPONDING to you and other believers. So if I'm swamp posting, the original swamp posting is on you.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What an incredibly stupid lie this is. (Even more incredibly stupid than usual for Ben, that is.)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Then simply cite all the new posts I made today...
Try not to be stupid and include any RESPONSES to other's posts, since I clearly specified "NEW POSTS".
Jump to it, coward...
PROVE THAT YOU TOLD THE TRUTH... CITE ALL NEW POSTS MADE TODAY BY ME.
Or refuse to answer, proving yourself both a liar and a coward.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You knew exactly what Bud meant by "swamp posting". But now you want to turn it into something else. As if it's not to be considered "swamping" the forum unless the posts are all THREAD-STARTERS. LOL. How silly. Posting is posting, "new" threads or otherwise.
But since Ben (in his mind) has never lost an argument---even the peripheral ones---he now has to pretend that his "swamp posting" (which he definitely does do every Monday) isn't really swamping at all. It's something he can now blame the LNers for --- that is, it's something he's being forced to do by the evil LN crowd, whether he wants to or not!
Incredible. But par for Ben's warped course.
REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You knew exactly what Bud meant by "swamp posting".
BEN HOLMES SAID:
No, I still don't. *NO-ONE* is willing to define the term.
Now, **YOU** called my statement a lie.
**YOU** refuse to support that claim.
AND LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE, YOU REFUSE TO DEFINE "SWAMP POSTING".
You're now admitting that my new posts aren't "swamp posting"... so because I RESPOND to other's posts, **I'm** swamp posting, and they aren't.
Your logic simply isn't there.
You're a proven coward and liar.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're so full of shit, I doubt there's a toilet big enough to handle all your feces.
You knew (and know now) PRECISELY what Bud means by "swamp posting". You're lying through your teeth by pretending not to know.
When you do your weekly Monday "swamping" and I see 15 to 20 consecutive fresh posts by Ben Holmes---and ALL with the exact same timestamp (e.g., 12:44 PM or 1:36 PM or whatever) [16 examples provided here]....I'd certainly call that "swamp posting" (i.e., writing a bunch of posts at just about the very same time).
And in your case, many times it's not just "about" the same time, it's exactly the same minute....which I've always wondered how you were able to accomplish, because nobody can type out 15 separate posts in less than sixty seconds; it's impossible.
So I guess you've got the posts written in advance, and then your news reader allows you to do some kind of "bulk post", in order for all 15 of the posts to have an identical time-of-day timestamp on them. (Google Groups, which I use, won't allow that sort of "swamping", I don't think.)
How exactly do you accomplish that "Identical Timestamp" type of posting that you manage to perform and swamp the forum with every Monday, Benny? Care to tell us? I'm just curious (from a technical standpoint, you understand).
Re: "Swamping"....
In fact, you (Ben) are "swamping" the forum right now---today. And probably will be all day tomorrow too. Because, as we know, you have that "Anthony Marsh" gene in you, which means you are compelled to respond to each and every post anyone makes, no matter what. It's a very silly hobby/habit, but Benny's got it. And apparently there's no losing it, because Benny's been swamp-posting here at ACJ ever since he decided to take Saturdays and Sundays off. (When did that "No Weekends" thing first start, Benji? Was it one year ago? Two? I forget.)
David Von Pein
May 30, 2023
