David Von Pein's "evidence" deconstructed

[Charles Collins]

I agree completely.  This case might have been a bit more of a "whodunnit" if Oswald had remained in the TSBD.  But he didn't.  He left in a hurry, got his revolver and shot the first person who tried to stop him. The firing pin marks on the shells establish conclusively that they were fired from Oswald's revolver.

Then, in the Texas Theatre, he assaulted his arresting officer and pulled his gun from his waist band, said "Well, it's all over now" and pressed the trigger.  Not the actions of someone who had no reason to fear arrest.

It turns out that upon the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre for the murder of Officer Tippit it is learned that he is the same person identified as a suspect in the JFK assassination.  Hmmm....  Now the shooting of Officer Tippit begins to make some sense.  Then you have the link of Oswald to the rifle in the TSBD, the taking of a long package to work that morning, the previous use of that rifle to attempt a similar assassination corroborated by photographs and a letter, etc. etc.  The murder of JFK and of Officer Tippit tied to the same person in these circumstances become inextricably linked.

All of these things just happened independently and coincidentally? That is the only other possibility.  Most would say that is not a reasonable possibility.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?

And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?

A kindergarten student with massive learning disabilities could easily tie these two crimes together. But, for some reason known only to a higher power, conspiracy theorists can never manage to do it.

John was right when he said that the only thing that links the two murders is your belief that the same person committed both crimes. You have just demonstrated that it is.

It doesn't matter what your belief is based on, it's still only your belief.

And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?

Don't know about John, but those witness identifications during a pathetically conducted line up mean very little. The biggest give away is that normally when 5 people watch the same car accident, you will get five different versions of what actually happened. Here, in this case, we are supposed to believe that all the witnesses made the exact same identification. If you believe that for a second then I have a bridge in London to sell you.

I once watched a robbery happening before my eyes. I saw the guy walking behind a girl and instantly knew something was up. He then ran up to her and pulled her phone out of her hands. It all happened very quickly and when the police asked me if I would be able to positively identify the man, I said no simply because it all happened so quickly. Yet, in this case, the Davis sisters who only saw the killer run past their front door for no more than two or three seconds made a positive identification? Give me a break!

And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?

Assumes facts that have in no way been conclusively proven. There is no conclusive evidence that proves that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, nor has it ever been proven that this particular rifle was ever fired on 11/22/63.

It's easy to build a fairytale narrative based on assumptions and unproven evidence. Trump is proving that every single day since he lost the election but that doesn't mean it's true or that it will withstand scrutiny.

[David Von Pein]

There is no conclusive evidence that proves that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, nor has it ever been proven that this particular rifle was ever fired on 11/22/63.

Above we have two of the most ridiculous (and provably false) statements ever made by a JFK conspiracy believer.

[Bill Chapman]

'

Weidmann

'Don't know about John, but those witness identifications during a pathetically conducted line up mean very little.
_Either Oswald looked like the guy they saw or he didn't. And nothing short of a set of Oswald clones would get you guys to finally stop p*ssing yourselves

The biggest give away is that normally when 5 people watch the same car accident, you will get five different version of what actually happened.
_Are you ever going to say something original?

Here, in this case, we are supposed to believe that all the witnesses made the exact same identification.
_We already know what you lot believe.. that nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.

I once watched a robbery happening before my eyes. I saw the guy walking behind a girl and instantly knew something was up. He then ran up to her and pulled her phone out of her hands. It all happened very quickly and when the police asked me if I would be able to positively identify the man, I said no simply because it all happened so quickly. Yet, in this case, the Davis sisters who only saw the killer run past their front door for no more than two or three seconds made a positive identification? Give me a break!
_You are pitting your reactions/observations against two other individuals. Are you some sort of comic-book hero to be measured against? Besides, others said that he was trotting away, not running.. and had to scale a hedge to vacate that yard, iirc.

[John Iacoletti]

I agree completely.  This case might have been a bit more of a "whodunnit" if Oswald had remained in the TSBD.  But he didn't.  He left in a hurry, got his revolver and shot the first person who tried to stop him. The firing pin marks on the shells establish conclusively that they were fired from Oswald's revolver.

Then, in the Texas Theatre, he assaulted his arresting officer and pulled his gun from his waist band, said "Well, it's all over now" and pressed the trigger.  Not the actions of someone who had no reason to fear arrest.

Well, you’ve done a good job parroting the narrative. Demonstrating that it’s actually true…not so much.

[John Iacoletti]

And the fact that more than half-a-dozen witnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as either the man who shot J.D. Tippit or as the man they saw leaving the immediate area of the shooting with a gun in his hand doesn't mean anything to you, does it John?

It doesn’t mean much, given how egregiously unfair and biased the lineups were.

And the fact that this same man named Lee Harvey Oswald was also the Book Depository employee whose rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, which was proven to be the rifle that murdered President Kennedy, also means zilch to you, correct John?

That means absolutely nothing because you’re wrong about any weapon being proven to have murdered Kennedy. And you have no evidence whatsoever that C2766 was ever in Oswald’s possession.

A kindergarten student with massive learning disabilities could easily tie these two crimes together.

Only if they’re naive enough to believe the stuff you make up.

[John Iacoletti]

Above we have two of the most ridiculous (and provably false) statements ever made by a JFK conspiracy believer.

Then let’s see your proof. Not your assumptions— PROOF.