The Ed Forum is having a total Meltdown and chicken bones!

[John Agee]

The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.

I don't think your claim is correct but pick any narrative and you have a long list of mistaken witnesses. Let's say you posit 3 shots fired. Then the 2 witnesses inside the TSBD who heard no shots are mistaken. As are witnesses who heard 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 shots, They are all mistaken. Suppose you think 4 shots were fired. Same long list of mistaken witnesses.

Choose your narrative John. You will have a long list of mistaken witnesses.

[John Iacoletti]

The above quote by Bonnie Ray Williams quite obviously indicates that the one place on the sixth floor where he definitely WAS NOT located was the Sniper's Nest (i.e., the far southeast corner).

So then how did his lunch bag get on top of a box by the "sniper's nest"?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes. And it's just exactly what many "CTers" do as well. I.E. --- the CTer will quote excerpts from somebody's posts [including mine] and put them on their own sites and then the CTer comments on those quoted excerpts.

Hi David.  Can you provide specific examples of websites that contain copies of posts that you have made?

Happens every day. And always will, of course. Such as at CTer Pat Speer's website.

Where?

http://www.patspeer.com/system/app/pages/search?scope=search-site&q=pein

I wish there were more sensible CTers like Pat Speer. Not that Pat doesn't have some really goofy notions about the JFK case at times too [he surely does]; but, overall, he's certainly one of the more reasonable and sensible "CTers" to occupy the planet. Such as when he said the following at the EF forum recently....

Uh, David.... did you notice this part of sensible Pat Speers' comment?

"But anyone who is not a public figure (i.e. the majority of those on this forum) is not fair game, and should only be quoted by name with permission, should they ask this to be the case."

[John Iacoletti]

Btw, who decided that I am a CT? Or does one automatically become a CT when one doesn't agree with LNs and their highly questionable arguments?

Yes.  That way they can demand that you prove that a conspiracy occurred or their narrative wins by default.

[Colin Crow]

I don't think your claim is correct but pick any narrative and you have a long list of mistaken witnesses. Let's say you posit 3 shots fired. Then the 2 witnesses inside the TSBD who heard no shots are mistaken. As are witnesses who heard 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 shots, They are all mistaken. Suppose you think 4 shots were fired. Same long list of mistaken witnesses.

Choose your narrative John. You will have a long list of mistaken witnesses.

Of course your claim is true John but let's put some context to the posting.

One of the two main themes of this thread involves David's use of selected quotes from a variety of sources, including this one, on his website. Essentially to promote the LN cause and also serve as a repository for rebuttal arguments to CT questioning.

I pointed out the use of a quote of mine relating to the chicken lunch originally discovered in the SN by Luke Mooney. His counter argument was to suggest that Mooney was simply mistaken and that Williams testimony was proof of that. I pointed out the numerous officers who supported Mooney's observation prior to the arrival of Fritz. This was obviously not one mistaken officer but now involves all sharing the same mistaken memory. David chose to ignore this fact completely.

I also pointed out that his reliance on Williams WC testimony was on shaky ground as his previous statements were indicative of him being less than truthful about his movements immediately prior to the assassination.

This was the only statement that he responded to. It was a throw away about how CTs require lots of people to lie. Neither observation, the original position of the lunch remnants or the (understandable) reluctance of Williams to admit his presence in the SN just prior to the shots to the WC, both backed up by substantial documented evidence was directly addressed.

Why do the vast majority of LN true believers (excluding JohnM here) have to religiously stick to the unlikely sequence of events trotted out by the WR? A security blanket that is unsupported by the assembled evidence of their own investigative efforts.

[David Von Pein]

The LN list of liars and/or “mistaken” witnesses is way more extensive than that of any CT.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0

No way. Not even close. (As far as the number of "liars" is concerned anyway. I haven't done the math on "mistaken" witnesses.) You must have a strange way of adding.

[David Von Pein]

Hi David.  Can you provide specific examples of websites that contain copies of posts that you have made?

Pat Speer admitted last week that he has done it "dozens if not hundreds" of times....

"I make dozens if not hundreds of references to online discussions on my website. I quote online discussions with LNers and CTs alike. Some of the quotes involve eyewitnesses (I met so and so and they told me such and such). But most of them reveal mind-set. I use McAdams' own words against him. I use DVP's own words against him. And yes, I use the words of CT's like Fetzer against them. It should be noted, moreover, that among the best quotes I've been able to get via the various JFK forums are quotes from Dale Myers, in which he (badly, IMO) defends his SBT animation. I received these quotes via a middleman who took my complaints about Myers' animation to the source, begged for a response, and then posted Myers' response on the forums. This middleman--David Von Pein." -- Patrick J. Speer [Emphasis DVP's]