James DiEugenio On David Von Pein (Who's The Real Comedian Here?)
David Von Pein
http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html
On the morning of Tuesday, April 13, 2010, conspiracy theorist James
DiEugenio (who believes, btw, that JFK's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
was completely innocent of shooting BOTH President Kennedy and Officer
J.D. Tippit) posted an article on his CTKA.net website entitled "David
Von Pein: Hosting Comedy Central Soon?" (linked above).
And I just want to take this opportunity to thank Jim for the article
(and for the plug).
Why do I want to THANK Mr. DiEugenio for an article that was designed
to rip my "lone assassin" position to shreds? Well, frankly, it's
because there is nothing in the article for me to get particularly
upset about. And, quite frankly again, the quoted excerpts from my
Internet writings that DiEugenio has chosen to include in the piece
are quotes that are 100% factual (based on the evidence in the JFK
case).
For example, DiEugenio actually has the immense gonads to try and use
the following quotes of mine against me (and against the Warren
Commission's conclusion of Oswald killing President Kennedy and acting
alone):
"For aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than
wild speculation and conjecture?"
"The Single-Bullet Theory has still not been proven to be an
impossibility."
"What does 'back and to the left' prove? Anything?"
"Let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are
several different Mannlicher-Carcano rifles with the exact same serial
number on them of C2766 ... my next logical question (based on the
totality of evidence in this Kennedy murder case) is this one: So
what?"
DiEugenio pulls one of his biggest boners of the article by making
this false claim:
"Only from The Pigpen [Jim is referring to the
alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup] could such wild nonsense be
allowed. .... He [DVP] realized he could not comport normally with the
great mass of the public who didn't buy the fantasy of the Single
Bullet Theory.
"He now made his way to the place where he belonged all along:
the John McAdams dominated Google group, alt.conspiracy.jfk. Why is
this important? Because historically speaking, McAdams was the first
person on the Internet to exhibit critical thinking skills so stilted,
comprehension skills so unbalanced, cognitive skills so impaired, all
combined with a basic dishonesty about these failings, to the degree
that he almost seemed the victim of a neurological disease.
"Any strong indication of conspiracy in the JFK case, no matter
how compelling, could not permeate his brain waves or synapses.
McAdams hates being an outcast or labeled as a propagandist – even
though he is. So he constructed a sort of hospice for people like
himself who normal thinking people could not tolerate. Actually two of
them. One is on his own site and one is a Google Group."
Hey, Jim! I thought this was supposed to be an article berating me--
not John McAdams!
Oh, well, I guess DiEugenio thought that he could kill two "lone
nutters" with one half-baked article of tripe, so that's what he has
tried to do here. Well, he's really attacking three LNers with a
single stone/article here, counting Vince Bugliosi too.
And Bugliosi is a person DiEugenio can't resist taking a swipe at when
the opportunity presents itself, which it constantly does, considering
the fact that DiEugenio is in the middle of a soon-to-be 11-part so-
called "review" of Mr. Bugliosi's masterpiece, "Reclaiming History".
And that review is filled with lots of over-the-top nonsense that Jim
D. says relates (somehow) to the JFK assassination and to Mr.
Bugliosi's fact-based book on that subject.
Part of Jim's never-ending attack on Bugliosi's book includes a
detailed (and dry-as-dust) analysis of three of the Warren Commission
members whom DiEugenio thinks were all evil, rotten liars and cover-up
artists. This "Troika", as DiEugenio continually calls them, includes
Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, and John McCloy.
Jim D., as you can tell by now, has a very vivid imagination.
And in addition to believing in some very curious things regarding
President Kennedy's assassination, Mr. DiEugenio is also of the false
impression that the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup is a MODERATED group
that is completely controlled by Professor John McAdams.
Jim, of course, has his Usenet newsgroups mixed up, because
alt.conspiracy.jfk is not a moderated group at all; and, in fact, Mr.
McAdams very rarely ever even makes a post on that forum. It's at the
alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup where McAdams serves as moderator.
I find it quite funny that Jim DiEugenio seems to think that I have to
have all of my Internet posts screened (and hence, approved) by Mr.
McAdams. Hilarious.
But if DiEugenio had bothered to read some of my articles that are
aimed directly at debunking and refuting a lot of the "Oswald Didn't
Shoot Anybody" nonsense that he spews weekly on "Black Op
Radio" (which are articles and Internet postings that I e-mailed to
him directly a year or so ago, but he apparently didn't read any of
them), he would have been corrected about his false belief concerning
the Usenet forums.
Plus, I find it even more humorous that a JFK-assassination researcher
like DiEugenio, who has studied the case for decades now, actually
thinks that those previously-mentioned quotes of mine contain "wild
nonsense".
As mentioned previously, DiEugenio also attacked Vincent Bugliosi and
his JFK book, "Reclaiming History", in his 4/13/10 article. Jim paid
particular attention to a conversation I had with Mr. Bugliosi in
August of 2009 (which took place via e-mail, through Vince's
secretary, Rosemary Newton).
That conversation with Bugliosi concerned the question of the
admissibility into a court of law of famous JFK bullet CE399, with
DiEugenio utilizing that conversation to demean and attack Vincent's
response to my two questions I posed to him regarding that topic.
DiEugenio said:
"In the Introduction to 'Reclaiming History', Bugliosi tries to
insinuate that the televised trial ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"]
that he (unwisely) chose to participate in was very close to an actual
trial. And that it followed the standard rules of evidence. The author
sidestepped the crucial fact that since the trial was in London and
the core evidence is at the National Archives, things like the alleged
rifle, the shells, the autopsy evidence, and CE 399, were not there to
be presented in court. This would not be the case at a real trial."
Well--Duh!
Of course the mock trial wasn't a "real trial" of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Everyone knows this right off the bat. And, therefore, it's not very
likely that the producers of the London Weekend Television program
would be able to get permission to present the actual physical
evidence in the London courtroom.
Does that mean that the mock trial should have been scrapped entirely,
due to the fact that the physical items of evidence were not available
for the jury to view? I think not.
There were, however, photographs of various exhibits and pieces of
evidence presented at the trial, and the bottom-line fact remains that
the judge at the 1986 television docu-trial in London DID, in fact,
allow Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 to be presented as evidence
during the mock trial.
Mr. Bugliosi told me this in 2009:
"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of
evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at
a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge
in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual
bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at
the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 08/22/2009
Here is a link to the full e-mail conversation I had with Mr. Bugliosi
in 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/0cb3e452a9b80933
Also -- It seems to me that most conspiracy theorists would definitely
WANT bullet CE399 to be admitted into evidence at any trial involving
the JFK murder case, instead of those same conspiracists attempting
desperately to keep the bullet from being admitted as evidence.
Why?
Because if that bullet was to be deemed INADMISSIBLE as evidence at an
Oswald trial, then the defense lawyers would never be able to argue
every conspiracy theorist's favorite fantasy theory: The one about
CE399 being a "planted" or "substituted" bullet.
And without that type of loony argument to fall back on in a court of
law at Oswald's trial, it would take a good deal of the wind out of
the sails of the defense team.
Here's another chunk of DiEugenio's article that had me grinning quite
a bit:
"To understand Von Pein, one has to go back to his online, forum
appearance on the JFK Lancer site back in 2003. Even though moderator
Debra Conway warned of submitting "trolling threads" there, Von Pein
couldn't help himself. In July of that year, he proclaimed Oswald
guilty through what he termed a "mountain of evidence." He then asked,
how much of this overwhelming tidal wave of proof would it take to
convince a person out of the notion of conspiracy? Quite a thunderous
build up eh?
"But as with Chaplin's cannon, the explosion fired the shell
about two feet away. For Von Pein's "mountain of evidence" consisted
of the mildewed litany of discredited Warren Commission data. Which,
of course, is not a mountain. It's more like the San Andreas Fault. He
began with the above noted specious notion that Oswald owned the
rifle; and he ended with the equally specious notion that Oswald could
have run down from the sixth floor to the second in time to be seen by
Marrion Baker and Roy Truly right after the assassination.
"Some of the gems in between were that Oswald definitely killed
Officer Tippit and that he also attempted to kill General Edwin
Walker. My favorite point was this: "the Single Bullet Theory has
still not been proven to be an impossibility." I guess he thinks that
if it's not impossible, that means it happened. ....
"Von Pein even wrote that at Z frame 224, both Kennedy and John
Connally were reacting to the same bullet. Which Milicent Cranor, in
her previously posted article "Lies for the Eyes", showed to be a
howler. In reality Kennedy is reacting and Connally is not [JIM BETTER
LOOK AT THE FILM AGAIN, BECAUSE HE'S MISSED A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF
THAT INDICATES CONNALLY IS REACTING TO A BULLET HITTING HIM AT Z224-
Z226]. With a straight face, at the end of this "mountainous" listing,
Von Pein wrote, "For aren't hard facts and evidence always more
believable than wild speculation and conjecture?" (Posted 7/17/03)"
---------------
Of the above comments, I especially enjoyed the ultra-hilarious part
where Jim says that my claim that Lee Oswald owned the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle that was shipped to him by Klein's Sporting Goods in
Chicago is a "specious notion".
And then there's the part when Jim D. embarrassed himself further by
saying: "...the equally specious notion that Oswald could have run
down from the sixth floor to the second in time to be seen by Marrion
Baker and Roy Truly right after the assassination."
Apparently Jim wants to totally ignore the multiple re-creations that
were done by the Warren Commission and the Secret Service in 1964,
which were reconstructions of Oswald's alleged movements right after
the assassination.
Those re-creations, which were performed in the TSBD by John Howlett
of the Secret Service, proved beyond ALL possible doubt that Oswald
had ample time to get from the sixth floor of the Depository to the
second-floor lunchroom in time to encounter Baker and Truly.
One of Howlett's two re-creations of Oswald's movements was done in 78
seconds; while the other was performed in just 74 seconds. And Howlett
wasn't running or jogging during either of those reconstructions [see
Warren Report Page 152, linked below].
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
In short, Jim DiEugenio's little essay, "David Von Pein: Hosting
Comedy Central Soon?", is actually one that I could prop up as being
HELPFUL to my lone-assassin position with respect to the JFK case. And
that's mainly because, within the article, DiEugenio proves himself to
be just exactly like a lot of other kooky "Anybody But Oswald"
conspiracy theorists that I have encountered on the Internet for the
last seven or eight years.
And, quite frankly, it is beyond my understanding how any reasonable
and rational person can place a single ounce of faith in someone who
actually believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was completely INNOCENT of
shooting both President Kennedy AND Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit.
And Mr. DiEugenio, in 2009, took his "Anybody But Oswald" religion to
a new level of absurdity when he announced on an episode of "Black Op
Radio" that he was of the opinion that Lee Oswald had not carried ANY
large bag into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. (No kidding, Jim actually said that in 2009.)
And such a "No Bag At All" theory is a really strange one for a
conspiracy theorist to be offering up, because it forces DiEugenio to
jettison a belief that is almost always embraced by the conspiracy-
happy crowd -- i.e., the belief that Oswald must be innocent because
the bag he carried into work on the morning of Kennedy's murder was
TOO SHORT to contain LHO's Carcano rifle.
But now, DiEugenio can't use that standard "too short" conspiracy
argument anymore, because he thinks Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie
Mae Randle were coerced by the authorities into MAKING UP the story
about Oswald having a large bag.
Jim doesn't seem to realize, however, that if the cops had forced
Frazier and Randle into creating a make-believe bag from sheer whole
cloth, those same evil cops would have surely told the two liars named
Buell and Linnie Mae to at least MAKE THE BAG BIG ENOUGH (VIA YOUR
LIES) SO THAT THE PROVERBIAL PATSY'S RIFLE COULD HAVE FIT INSIDE THAT
BAG!
<chuckle break>
Anyway, thanks again for the article, Mr. DiEugenio. It can only serve
to aid the "LN" cause in the long run by further exposing certain
conspiracy theorists (like James DiEugenio) to be people who couldn't
care less what the physical evidence shows in the JFK case.
No matter how much "Oswald Did It" stuff a conspiracist like DiEugenio
has to mangle and misrepresent, he's willing to do it. And he'll do
it, year after year, while pretending to be an advocate for the truth.
Well, Jim, I'm sorry, buddy, but it's not ME who is performing a
"Colbert"/Comedy Central act here -- it is you.
David Von Pein
April 13, 2010
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
============================================
RELATED DiEUGENIO LINKS:
http://Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
http://Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
============================================
pjsp...@aol.com
not being hit at this time, but from Kennedy's having been hit almost
two seconds earlier.
Now, try as you might, you can't argue he is wrong on this without
exposing yourself as a "theorist" at odds with "officialdom". You see,
the HSCA photography panel concluded as much back in the 70's and your
friend Vinnie pushed as much in his "mock" trial.
Of course, you won't find Vinnie acknowledging as much in his book,
now will you? After all, it might hurt his credibility a bit if he let
his readers know he'd misled the jury during the mock trial. Am I
wrong?
> http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/threa...
> http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/threa...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/threa...
>
> http://Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
>
> ============================================
Anthony Marsh
> David, Jim D's problem with the SBT at 224 comes not from Connally's
> not being hit at this time, but from Kennedy's having been hit almost
> two seconds earlier.
>
> Now, try as you might, you can't argue he is wrong on this without
> exposing yourself as a "theorist" at odds with "officialdom". You see,
The WC did not declare the official timeline for its SBT. It wasn't THAT
stupid.
> the HSCA photography panel concluded as much back in the 70's and your
> friend Vinnie pushed as much in his "mock" trial.
Don't drag the HSCA into this. Their SBT was at Z-190. And that was not
based on the photographic evidence, but their flawed timing of the
acoustical evidence.
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "David, Jim [DiEugenio's] problem with the SBT at 224 comes not from
Connally's not being hit at this time, but from Kennedy's having been hit
almost two seconds earlier [WHICH IS 100% INCORRECT, OF COURSE]. Now, try
as you might, you can't argue he is wrong on this without exposing
yourself as a "theorist" at odds with "officialdom". You see, the HSCA
photography panel concluded as much back in the 70's and your friend
Vinnie pushed as much in his "mock" trial. Of course, you won't find
Vinnie acknowledging as much in his book, now will you? After all, it
might hurt his credibility a bit if he let his readers know he'd misled
the jury during the mock trial. Am I wrong?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
I think it's fairly obvious why Vince Bugliosi endorsed the silly Z190
HSCA timing for the SBT at the 1986 TV docu-trial -- it was because the
person who testified for the prosecution during that "trial" was a member
of the HSCA's photographic panel, Cecil Kirk, and Kirk endorsed the Z190
SBT timing.
Over a period of time after 1986, while writing his book, Bugliosi quite
obviously realized the silliness of the Z190 timing for the Single-Bullet
Theory, and Vince adjusted the shot to a later Z-Film frame.
Vince, of course, is still 100% wrong about his "new" SBT time (around
Z210), but at least he got a lot closer to the correct frame of Z224 when
he shifted from Z190 to circa Z210.
Plus, I'll add this -- Even if Bugliosi, in 1986, had completely disagreed
with Kirk's Z190 time for the SBT, I'm guessing that Vince wouldn't have
made a huge issue out of the discrepancy during Vincent's questioning of
Kirk on the witness stand.
Why not?
Because whether the shot occurred at Z190 or Z210 (or whenever), the man
Vince had on the witness stand at the '86 TV trial was still testifying to
the likelihood of the SBT being true (which, of course, it is, regardless
of what EXACT Zapruder Film frame it occurred at).
Footnote -- I do think that Mr. Bugliosi should have explained in his 2007
book ["Reclaiming History"] the reason(s) he was endorsing a completely
different SBT Z-Film timeline in 1986 vs. the Z210 timeline that appears
in his book.
And if Vince had provided such an explanation in his book (which, as Pat
Speer says, I do not think he did), I believe that explanation would be
very similar to the one I just laid out above in this post.
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "Don't drag the HSCA into this. Their SBT was at Z-190. And that was
not based on the photographic evidence, but their flawed timing of the
acoustical evidence." <<<
DVP SAID:
Dead wrong.
Cecil Kirk (1986 Mock Trial Testimony):
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=oy_drdZrpsY
http://RapidShare.com/files/241374704/TESTIMONY_OF_CECIL_KIRK_AT_1986_TELEVISION_DOCU-TRIAL.wmv
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-1986.html
Karin
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/threa...
>
> http://Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
>
> ============================================
David,
Please explain why the theory that CE399 was planted is "loony."
Thanks.
pjsp...@aol.com
conclusions about when Kennedy was first hit. While they did not specify
frame 190 as the moment of impact, they nevertheless concluded Kennedy was
hit BEFORE he went behind the sign. Bugliosi pushed this scenario in the
mock trial. And now pretends not only that he didn't, but that the
evidence suggests Kennedy was not hit before he went behind the sign. Why
the sudden change, Vinnie?
From patspeer.com, chapter 12:
While many believe the HSCA identified frame 190 of the Zapruder film
as the first moment of impact based on a faulty understanding of a
dictabelt recording, few realize that the HSCA's photographic panel
studied the Zapruder film, and confirmed this conclusion.
A spokesman for the panel, Calvin S. McCamy, a former chairman of the
American Society of Photogrammetry, testified before the committee on
9-12-78. His words make it more than clear the panel believed Kennedy
turned to the left in reaction to a shot before Kennedy went behind
the sign around frame 210 of the Zapruder film. When describing the
film as Kennedy went behind the sign, he testified: "There is
considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a
waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point
there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head
is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the
left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the
next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right
ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking
directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one
another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a
fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a
gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person
who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I
would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat
wound."
The Panel's report was published in Volume 6 of the HSCA's 12 volumes.
It reads, in part:
"(61) The Zapruder film was studied with care at each of the Panel's
conferences..At the final conference, which took place in July 1978,
the film was closely scrutinized by 20 photographic scientists who
were either members of the Panel or contractors responsible for much
of the committee's laboratory work (i.e. photographic enhancement,
restoration, etc.)."
"(64) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President
Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by
Zapruder frame 207, as he is seen going behind a sign that obstructed
Zapruder's view."
(65) By a vote of 11 to 3, the Panel determined that Governor Connally
first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder
frame 224, virtually immediately after he is seen emerging from behind
the sign that obstructed Zapruder's view."
(70) At approximately Zapruder frame 200 , Kennedy's movements
suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a
waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the
direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by
the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is
evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus.
The acknowledgment by the panel that Connally showed no reaction to a
bullet purportedly striking himself and Kennedy until at least a
second after Kennedy was, of course, a problem. The reaction of many
single-assassin theorists, raised on the belief that Kennedy was hit
while behind the sign in the Zapruder film, was to dismiss this new
and improved time for their beloved theory out of hand.
When one looks at the Zapruder film in slow-motion, however, one can
see the photographic panel was almost certainly right. Kennedy DOES
appear to be hit before he heads behind the sign. In a paper delivered
to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in February 1971, and
published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in October 1971,
Physicist Don Olson and Criminalist Ralph Turner pre-cursed the HSCA
photography panel and observed that "Beginning as early as frame 194,
the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the
left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the
order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and
continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away
from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window
ledge...On the interval 194-200 the President's body is seen to narrow
somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the left
front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders
begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By
frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward."
During this visible jerk by Kennedy to his left, his wife turns to
look in his direction (as depicted in frame 206 on the slide up
above). They then go behind the sign. When he emerges he has clearly
been hit. When one reads the testimony of Abraham Zapruder and the
statements of his secretary Marilyn Sitzman, who stood beside him, one
finds, moreover, that both of them believed they saw him hit. Neither
of them mentioned his appearing to be hit as he came out from behind
the sign. When one recalls that Hugh Betzner stated he heard the first
shot just after he took a photograph (shown to be taken at 186), and
that Phil Willis said he heard the shot and it startled him into
taking a photograph (shown to be taken at 202) and that the Willis
photo shows Kennedy already starting to lean over, furthermore, it
seems clear Kennedy was first hit in the back around frame 190, before
he went behind the sign.
On Apr 14, 10:55 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea49ec5a7cbdfec6
"OL' LAZ" SAID:
>>> "Seems you got pegged Dave..live with it..you'll whine and bitch like
a little schoolgirl, But Jimmy D nailed your ass." <<<
DVP REPLIED WITH:
DiEugenio nailed nobody in his "Comedy Central" piece, as I amply
demonstrate in my rebuttal argument at the top of this thread.
But in Jimmy's obnoxious tirade aimed at John McAdams, I had to wipe
the foam that was coming from DiEugenio's mouth off of my computer
screen in order to continue on to the rest of the things DiEugenio
embarrassed himself with, like these classic moments of unintentional
hilarity:
"Von Pein's "mountain of evidence" consisted of the mildewed
litany of discredited Warren Commission data. Which, of course, is not
a mountain. It's more like the San Andreas Fault. He began with the
above noted specious notion that Oswald owned the rifle; and he ended
with the equally specious notion that Oswald could have run down from
the sixth floor to the second in time to be seen by Marrion Baker and
Roy Truly right after the assassination. Some of the gems in between
were that Oswald definitely killed Officer Tippit and that he also
attempted to kill General Edwin Walker. My favorite point was this:
"the Single Bullet Theory has still not been proven to be an
impossibility." I guess he thinks that if it's not impossible, that
means it happened. (As we shall see later, with CE 399, it is
impossible.) Von Pein even wrote that at Z frame 224, both Kennedy and
John Connally were reacting to the same bullet. Which Milicent Cranor,
in her previously posted article "Lies for the Eyes", showed to be a
howler. In reality Kennedy is reacting and Connally is not. With a
straight face, at the end of this "mountainous" listing, Von Pein
wrote, "For aren't hard facts and evidence always more believable than
wild speculation and conjecture?" (Posted 7/17/03)" -- J. DiEugenio
--------------
"After this second ejection, Von Pein came to his senses. He
realized he could not comport normally with the great mass of the
public who didn't buy the fantasy of the Single Bullet Theory. He now
made his way to the place where he belonged all along: the John
McAdams dominated Google group, alt.conspiracy.jfk. Why is this
important? Because historically speaking, McAdams was the first person
on the Internet to exhibit critical thinking skills so stilted,
comprehension skills so unbalanced, cognitive skills so impaired, all
combined with a basic dishonesty about these failings, to the degree
that he almost seemed the victim of a neurological disease. Any strong
indication of conspiracy in the JFK case, no matter how compelling,
could not permeate his brain waves or synapses. McAdams hates being an
outcast or labeled as a propagandist – even though he is. So he
constructed a sort of hospice for people like himself who normal
thinking people could not tolerate. Actually two of them. One is on
his own site and one is a Google Group.
"The important thing for Von Pein is that since McAdams controls
the halfway houses, almost anything goes as long as it supports the
Warren Commission. Here, Von Pein could now use his previously noted
wild man tactics with impunity. Another place that Von Pein frequents
is the IMDB forum on Oliver Stone's film JFK. There, to those not
familiar with the facts of the case, he tried to discredit the film as
a work of "fiction". Or those who have not read the accompanying
volume to the movie entitled JFK: The Book of the Film." -- J.
DiEugenio
--------------
Well, at least it's nice to be recognized (I guess) -- even by an
Anybody-But-Oswald kook like James DiEugenio.
BTW, I'm kind of curious to know what the conspiracy theorists here at
the aaj and acj forums think about DiEugenio's theory about Lee Oswald
having NO BAG AT ALL when he went to work on 11/22/63?
Is there anybody here willing to buy into Jimbo's "No Bag" and "The
DPD Coerced Linnie Mae Randle & Buell Frazier To Lie & Create A Make-
Believe Bag" theories, even though nearly every conspiracy theorist
that I'm aware of has spoken out about how the bag that Oswald DID
have with him was, itself, proof that Oswald was innocent, since those
CTers think that that bag was too short to house Oswald's Carcano?
=======================
MORE FUN & GAMES:
http://JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2227.msg38573.html#msg38573
=======================
David Von Pein
>>> "David, Please explain why the theory that CE399 was planted is
"loony." Thanks." <<<
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/afb30246ab698396
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
Anthony Marsh
> Not exactly true, Tony. The HSCA photography panel came to their own
> conclusions about when Kennedy was first hit. While they did not specify
> frame 190 as the moment of impact, they nevertheless concluded Kennedy was
> hit BEFORE he went behind the sign. Bugliosi pushed this scenario in the
That's wonderful. Thanks for saying that I was exactly right.
The frame Z-190 came ONLY from the acoustical evidence, their faulty
match-up.
> mock trial. And now pretends not only that he didn't, but that the
> evidence suggests Kennedy was not hit before he went behind the sign. Why
> the sudden change, Vinnie?
>
The Bug is so confused he doesn't even know what he actually believes or
what he is supposed to say that he believes.
pjsp...@aol.com
one, where we know that there has been a gunshot. And we see that
there is a very strong episode of this jiggling initiated at that
time. The lapse time the jiggles begin--of course one has to define
how do you detect when the jiggle really begins?
And perhaps the best way is to go, is to look at the frame group from
when the jiggle initiates to when it reaches a maximum. In this case
that is about 313 to 319. The shot was probably fired at 310, as I
mentioned before, and that number of frames is consistent with the
measures of startle reaction time that were reported in the book that
I mentioned. So I think that is a good confirmation that we are really
seeing here the reaction to both the sound of the gunshot and probably
the visual sight of what happened on that shot.
Mr. CORNWELL And would it be accurate to state that the second largest
area of blur or jiggle, apart from the one which occurred shortly
after the head shot, would be in the earlier portion of the film?
Dr. HARTMANN - That is correct.
Mr. CORNWELL - What frame is that associated with?
Dr. HARTMANN - About frames 190 to 200 there is a strong blur reaction
initiated. So having concluded that this is in fact, that the blur
sequence around 313 to 319 is in fact a response to the gunshots, I
would think that the logical inference would be that the blur
sequence, the blur episode, running typically from 190 to 200 is also
a response to a possible gunshot. And we know that the President
emerged from behind the sign somewhat later, some frames later,
showing in fact a reaction to such a wound. So this could very well be
the blur or startle reaction to the gunshot that caused the back wound
to the President.
Mr. CORNWELL - And what, if any, corroboration is provided by this
analysis to the Warren Commission's conclusion that the President and
the Governor may have been shot in the vicinity of frame 210.
Dr. HARTMANN - Yes, they picked 210. I would say that to pick 210 in
the face of this current evidence, to pick 210 as the time for that
first shot, which is the Warren Commission's conclusion, would not be
warranted from this evidence, because the blur before frame 210, from
190 to 200, is clearly much larger than any blur after frame 210. In
fact, there is really very little evidence for a blur in the
appropriate amount of time after frame 210.
On Apr 15, 9:25 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »