info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CE2011 Vs. FD-302
21 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Dec 14, 2011, 9:23:13 AM12/14/11
to
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "CE 2011 has none of these identifying marks on it. Because there is
no writer attributed and no date on it. Therefore it is not traceable."
<<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're nuts. The only differences between the contents of CE2011 and an
individual FD-302 form are the "File Number" that appears at the
lower-right of the FD-302 form, and the "Date Dictated" line that appears
on each FD-302. Big deal.
Otherwise, every substantial thing that is contained in an FD-302 is also
present in the individual paragraphs in CE2011, including:
1.) The date of each interview -- (present in CE2011 and present in an
FD-302 report).
2.) The name of the FBI agent who did the interview -- (present in CE2011
and present in an FD-302).
3.) The location of the interview -- (present in most instances in CE2011
and also present in most instances in an FD-302). This item isn't
important anyway. But it is there in most of the interviews seen in
CE2011.
4.) A brief synopsis of each interview -- (present in CE2011 and present
in each FD-302 report).
So, as always, the conspiracy therorists are making huge boiling volcanos
out of minor wet-weather springs, because--in substance-- CE2011 serves
exactly the same purpose and conveys the EXACT same information as an
FD-302 report conveys. They are, therefore, essentially identical.
>>> "I mean as far as a legal document, I don't even think it would be
admitted in court." <<<
You're deranged.
Robert Harris
Dec 14, 2011, 2:54:32 PM12/14/11
to
In article
<b765e368-745d-4371...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David, you seem to rely on a LOT of personal insults these days.
An FD302 is filled out by the interviewing agent, who in this case would
have been Bardwell Odum. But Odum stated very clearly, that he never
conducted such an interview. That's why there is no such FD302 report.
The issue we are bickering about is whether the FBI lied when they claimed
in ce2011 that Odum conducted the interview. Your argument that they must
have been honest because of what they said in the suspect document, is the
most ridiculous case of circular reasoning I have ever seen.
This is reminiscent of theists who argue that the bible must be true,
because the bible says it is :-)
The Tomlinson corroboration seems to be pretty much shot, since he was
talking about an interview back in 11/63, NOT June 12, 1964. And of
course, he never said that Odum talked to him.
So, you're back to ZERO corroboration and ZERO witness support.
Let's talk about issues that really can be supported, by the evidence and
by witnesses who are infinitely more reliable and significant than
Tomlinson.
But you're insulting everyone's intelligence by arguing that we should
believe CE2011, because of CE2011.
Robert Harris
<b765e368-745d-4371...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
An FD302 is filled out by the interviewing agent, who in this case would
have been Bardwell Odum. But Odum stated very clearly, that he never
conducted such an interview. That's why there is no such FD302 report.
The issue we are bickering about is whether the FBI lied when they claimed
in ce2011 that Odum conducted the interview. Your argument that they must
have been honest because of what they said in the suspect document, is the
most ridiculous case of circular reasoning I have ever seen.
This is reminiscent of theists who argue that the bible must be true,
because the bible says it is :-)
The Tomlinson corroboration seems to be pretty much shot, since he was
talking about an interview back in 11/63, NOT June 12, 1964. And of
course, he never said that Odum talked to him.
So, you're back to ZERO corroboration and ZERO witness support.
Let's talk about issues that really can be supported, by the evidence and
by witnesses who are infinitely more reliable and significant than
Tomlinson.
But you're insulting everyone's intelligence by arguing that we should
believe CE2011, because of CE2011.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Dec 14, 2011, 10:30:50 PM12/14/11
to
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm
Question for Bob Harris:
Do you think that ALL of the dozens of interviews that are seen in
CE2011 (above) are phony interviews?
If you answer "No" to that question, then I'm asking you to produce an
FD-302 for ANY of the dozens of interviews that appear in CE2011. Can
you do that?
BTW/FYI, I scoured the Mary Ferrell site for hours a couple days ago,
searching for a Warren Commission Document (CD) dated approx. June or
July 1964 (or later), in order to find ANY FD-302 reports for ANY of
the June/July '64 interviews that appear in CE2011, and I had no luck.
Maybe you'll have better luck, here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1008
And if you've got 16 more years to spare, try this DPD site:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
Anthony Marsh
Dec 14, 2011, 11:55:13 PM12/14/11
to
Robert Harris
Dec 15, 2011, 12:03:40 AM12/15/11
to
In article
<40338ff2-6a06-49e7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Odum flatly denied interviewing those guys and the guy you thought was
your star witness, also confirmed that he wasn't interviewed by the FBI
in 1964.
And Wright obviously, would not have verified the two bullets because as
he told Thompson, they were very much different.
It's still unanimous David, every man who handled the stretcher bullet
prior to it going to the FBI, refused to verify it. And the FBI agent
who did try to verify it, obviously lied about his initials being on the
bullet.
And five extremely credible witnesses confirmed that the actual bullet
was the one that Nolan delivered to the DPD.
That's EVERY relevant witness David.
You have no supporters, no confirmations. You have nothing, except
excuses and a great deal of audacity, going around, pretending that
you've made your case.
Sometime when you're off your soapbox David, think about why the FBI
felt compelled to phone Tomlinson after midnight and shortly after
testing CE399 against Oswald's rifle, and told him to keep quiet about
finding the bullet.
Fortunately for Tomlinson, they obviously found a better way to deal
with the problem.
Robert Harris
<40338ff2-6a06-49e7...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm
>
> Question for Bob Harris:
>
> Do you think that ALL of the dozens of interviews that are seen in
> CE2011 (above) are phony interviews?
David, this gets tiresome.
>
> Question for Bob Harris:
>
> Do you think that ALL of the dozens of interviews that are seen in
> CE2011 (above) are phony interviews?
Odum flatly denied interviewing those guys and the guy you thought was
your star witness, also confirmed that he wasn't interviewed by the FBI
in 1964.
And Wright obviously, would not have verified the two bullets because as
he told Thompson, they were very much different.
It's still unanimous David, every man who handled the stretcher bullet
prior to it going to the FBI, refused to verify it. And the FBI agent
who did try to verify it, obviously lied about his initials being on the
bullet.
And five extremely credible witnesses confirmed that the actual bullet
was the one that Nolan delivered to the DPD.
That's EVERY relevant witness David.
You have no supporters, no confirmations. You have nothing, except
excuses and a great deal of audacity, going around, pretending that
you've made your case.
Sometime when you're off your soapbox David, think about why the FBI
felt compelled to phone Tomlinson after midnight and shortly after
testing CE399 against Oswald's rifle, and told him to keep quiet about
finding the bullet.
Fortunately for Tomlinson, they obviously found a better way to deal
with the problem.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Dec 15, 2011, 9:49:33 AM12/15/11
to
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=120&p=240947&#entry240947
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "And when you say every agent's name is the same..." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Huh? When did I ever say that? This makes no sense at all.
>>> "...well I hope you are not including Odum are you? I mean please
Davey. He never showed any bullet to anyone." <<<
Sure he did. He took 399 to Parkland on 6/12/64 and showed it to
Tomlinson and Wright.
Odum's memory had obviously failed him by the year 2001. Simple as
that.
And I still want to know if Wright ever DENIED being shown CE399 by
the FBI?
>>> "And also, whoever did write the memo never saw CE 399 right? Since
Todd's initials are not on it." <<<
Yes, they are. They just cannot be discerned in the NARA photos. In fact,
as anyone can easily see, the OTHER initials on CE399 are also very hard
to discern in those NARA photos. I can't make out ANY of the initials
(Frazier's, Killion's, or Cunningham's). And there's no way you can look
at these pictures and tell me with a straight face that you CAN positively
make out the specific markings of all three of those FBI agents (Frazier,
Killion, Cunningham). If you say you CAN do that by looking at these
photos, you're not being honest:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet
>>> "It [CE2011] is [a] blind memo. In more ways than one. Not anything
like a 302." <<<
Bullshit. The SUBSTANCE of CE2011 is IDENTICAL to what we find in an
FD-302 report. There is NO substantial difference at all. And you know
it.
>>> "Give it up, will you." <<<
Not a chance. Because I like watching you dig yourself a deeper hole with
each passing day regarding all the shit you think was "fake" and
"fraudulent".
And the disgusting "grunting pigs" comment that you recently made
concerning the very honorable men who sat on the Warren Commission just
shows how low-class you truly are.
I wish Arlen Specter would sue your ass for $20-million. And Wesley
Frazier and Linnie Randle should probably sue your sorry ass for
defamation too.
But before the lawsuits begin, perhaps you can dig up even ONE FD-302 for
any interview seen in CE2011. Any chance you can do that, Jimbo?
And, remember, in order for you to have a "case", you've really got to
come up with proof that FD-302s were made out for EACH AND EVERY "NON-
PHONY" interview that is represented in CE2011 -- and there are dozens of
them in there too; you surely don't want to embarrass yourself even
further by claiming that ALL of those interviews are "frauds", do you,
Jimmy?
Good luck finding all of those FD-302s to prove your case. I definitely
tried...and I found this many -- Zero.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html
David Von Pein
Dec 15, 2011, 9:50:14 AM12/15/11
to
>>> "Odum flatly denied interviewing those guys and the guy you thought
was your star witness, also confirmed that he wasn't interviewed by the
FBI in 1964." <<<
>>> "And Wright obviously would not have verified the two bullets because
as he told Thompson they were very much different." <<<
That's not what I asked. I asked if O.P. Wright ever denied being shown a
bullet by the FBI.
>>> "It's still unanimous David, every man who handled the stretcher
bullet prior to it going to the FBI, refused to verify it. And the FBI
agent who did try to verify it, obviously lied about his initials being on
the bullet." <<<
on the bullet on 6/24/64.
If you think that Killion's, Frazier's, and Cunningham's initials are
easily seen in these photos, you're not being honest. I can't make out ANY
of them in these pictures (and the initials are still hard to make out
even when you blow up the pictures):
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet
>>> "Think about why the FBI felt compelled to phone Tomlinson after
midnight and shortly after testing CE399 against Oswald's rifle and told
him to keep quiet about finding the bullet." <<<
I have:
"It's possible, I suppose, that the authorities might have called up
Tomlinson and asked him to keep what he knew about the stretcher bullet
under his hat, so to speak, until Oswald's trial. After all, on the night
of Nov. 22nd, Oswald was still alive, and he had just officially been
charged with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM CST on 11/22/63. Thus, everyone at
that time expected him to go to trial. And perhaps the FBI didn't want
Tomlinson to say very much to anyone about the specific evidence in the
case until the trial. But that type of situation, if it did occur, would
certainly not be an indication of an FBI "cover-up" or of a conspiracy of
any kind." -- DVP; Dec. 2011
David Von Pein
Dec 15, 2011, 9:52:09 AM12/15/11
to
>>> "So, have you uploaded Todd's FD-302?" <<<
up with an FD-302 for EVERY "non-fake" interview that is seen in
CE2011, then their argument about CE2011 being fake because no FD-302
exists for Odum's interviews with Tomlinson & Wright goes right down
the toilet.
And surely there's not a CTer alive who thinks that ALL of the many
interviews seen in CE2011 are phony, is there?
Anthony Marsh
Dec 15, 2011, 7:57:13 PM12/15/11
to
On 12/15/2011 9:52 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "So, have you uploaded Todd's FD-302?"<<<
>
> My point was, in case it escaped you, that unless the CTers can come
> up with an FD-302 for EVERY "non-fake" interview that is seen in
> CE2011, then their argument about CE2011 being fake because no FD-302
> exists for Odum's interviews with Tomlinson& Wright goes right down
>
>>>> "So, have you uploaded Todd's FD-302?"<<<
>
> My point was, in case it escaped you, that unless the CTers can come
> up with an FD-302 for EVERY "non-fake" interview that is seen in
> CE2011, then their argument about CE2011 being fake because no FD-302
> the toilet.
>
> And surely there's not a CTer alive who thinks that ALL of the many
> interviews seen in CE2011 are phony, is there?
>
Is this your very first attempt to create a straw man argument. You'd
>
> And surely there's not a CTer alive who thinks that ALL of the many
> interviews seen in CE2011 are phony, is there?
>
better go back to that class and try again.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 15, 2011, 7:59:43 PM12/15/11
to
On 12/15/2011 9:49 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=120&p=240947&#entry240947
>
>
> JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
>>>> "And when you say every agent's name is the same..."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Huh? When did I ever say that? This makes no sense at all.
>
>>>> "...well I hope you are not including Odum are you? I mean please
> Davey. He never showed any bullet to anyone."<<<
>
> Sure he did. He took 399 to Parkland on 6/12/64 and showed it to
> Tomlinson and Wright.
>
> Odum's memory had obviously failed him by the year 2001. Simple as
> that.
>
> And I still want to know if Wright ever DENIED being shown CE399 by
> the FBI?
>
>
>>>> "And also, whoever did write the memo never saw CE 399 right? Since
> Todd's initials are not on it."<<<
>
> Yes, they are. They just cannot be discerned in the NARA photos. In fact,
This is an interesting new tactic by the WC defenders. You assert that
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=120&p=240947&#entry240947
>
>
> JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
>>>> "And when you say every agent's name is the same..."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Huh? When did I ever say that? This makes no sense at all.
>
>>>> "...well I hope you are not including Odum are you? I mean please
> Davey. He never showed any bullet to anyone."<<<
>
> Sure he did. He took 399 to Parkland on 6/12/64 and showed it to
> Tomlinson and Wright.
>
> Odum's memory had obviously failed him by the year 2001. Simple as
> that.
>
> And I still want to know if Wright ever DENIED being shown CE399 by
> the FBI?
>
>
>>>> "And also, whoever did write the memo never saw CE 399 right? Since
> Todd's initials are not on it."<<<
>
> Yes, they are. They just cannot be discerned in the NARA photos. In fact,
something is true and then admit that you can't prove that it is true. But
it MUST be true because you WANT it to be true. So now your excuse is that
you did your homework, but the dog ate your homework.
> as anyone can easily see, the OTHER initials on CE399 are also very hard
> to discern in those NARA photos. I can't make out ANY of the initials
copies does not mean that an honest person could not see them on the
original bullet. Even a conspiracy researcher. So you are proving that you
are not a reliable source.
> (Frazier's, Killion's, or Cunningham's). And there's no way you can look
> at these pictures and tell me with a straight face that you CAN positively
> make out the specific markings of all three of those FBI agents (Frazier,
> Killion, Cunningham). If you say you CAN do that by looking at these
> photos, you're not being honest:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet
>
We conspiracy types prefer to look at the original evidence rather than
the WC defender habit of relying on poor quality 12th generation copies.
>
>>>> "It [CE2011] is [a] blind memo. In more ways than one. Not anything
> like a 302."<<<
>
> Bullshit. The SUBSTANCE of CE2011 is IDENTICAL to what we find in an
> FD-302 report. There is NO substantial difference at all. And you know
> it.
>
>
>>>> "Give it up, will you."<<<
>
> Not a chance. Because I like watching you dig yourself a deeper hole with
> each passing day regarding all the shit you think was "fake" and
> "fraudulent".
>
> And the disgusting "grunting pigs" comment that you recently made
> concerning the very honorable men who sat on the Warren Commission just
> shows how low-class you truly are.
>
> I wish Arlen Specter would sue your ass for $20-million. And Wesley
> Frazier and Linnie Randle should probably sue your sorry ass for
> defamation too.
>
> But before the lawsuits begin, perhaps you can dig up even ONE FD-302 for
> any interview seen in CE2011. Any chance you can do that, Jimbo?
>
> And, remember, in order for you to have a "case", you've really got to
> come up with proof that FD-302s were made out for EACH AND EVERY "NON-
> PHONY" interview that is represented in CE2011 -- and there are dozens of
> them in there too; you surely don't want to embarrass yourself even
> further by claiming that ALL of those interviews are "frauds", do you,
> Jimmy?
>
> Good luck finding all of those FD-302s to prove your case. I definitely
> tried...and I found this many -- Zero.
>
because you can't find them in the WC volumes so you figure they don't
exist?
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html
>
David Von Pein
Dec 15, 2011, 9:37:09 PM12/15/11
to
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "So, you've never in your life figured out how to find an FD-302. Is
don't exist?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Go tell that to CTers like DiEugenio and Harris. Because that's exactly
one of the excuses they are using to bolster their claim that CE2011 is a
fraud.
Maybe FD-302s DO exist for all of the interviews found in CE2011. I don't
know for sure, because I haven't been able to find a single one. And
apparently nobody else has either--even CTers. And that was one of the
points I was making in my previous posts regarding this matter (which you
evidently refuse to let sink into your head, W. Anthony).
I.E.,
Unless the CTers can come up with FD-302s for EVERY interview in CE2011
(and surely most CTers think at least SOME of those many interviews are
legit), then they have no right to argue that Odum's interviews with
Tomlinson & Wright are "frauds" based on the fact that (to date) no FD-302
forms have been found for those two interviews.
And, as an addendum:
If it COULD somehow be proven that no FD-302 reports were written for any
of the interviews seen in CE2011, then the CTers who continue to argue
that CE2011 is a phony document based on the "No FD-302s" argument are
defeated as well.
Because if no 302s were written (for whatever reason) for ANY of the
CE2011 interviews, then why would any CTer expect to find a 302 report for
Odum's interviews with Tomlinson and Wright?
Get my point now, Tony? Or do you still think that my very valid and
logical point is nothing but a "strawman"?
Anthony Marsh
Dec 16, 2011, 7:45:54 AM12/16/11
to
On 12/15/2011 9:37 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "So, you've never in your life figured out how to find an FD-302. Is
> that because you can't find them in the WC volumes, so you figure they
> don't exist?"<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Go tell that to CTers like DiEugenio and Harris. Because that's exactly
> one of the excuses they are using to bolster their claim that CE2011 is a
> fraud.
>
> Maybe FD-302s DO exist for all of the interviews found in CE2011. I don't
> know for sure, because I haven't been able to find a single one. And
> apparently nobody else has either--even CTers. And that was one of the
> points I was making in my previous posts regarding this matter (which you
> evidently refuse to let sink into your head, W. Anthony).
>
But I thought you said that CE2011 is exactly the same as the FD-302s.
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "So, you've never in your life figured out how to find an FD-302. Is
> that because you can't find them in the WC volumes, so you figure they
> don't exist?"<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Go tell that to CTers like DiEugenio and Harris. Because that's exactly
> one of the excuses they are using to bolster their claim that CE2011 is a
> fraud.
>
> Maybe FD-302s DO exist for all of the interviews found in CE2011. I don't
> know for sure, because I haven't been able to find a single one. And
> apparently nobody else has either--even CTers. And that was one of the
> points I was making in my previous posts regarding this matter (which you
> evidently refuse to let sink into your head, W. Anthony).
>
Now you admit that no FD-302s exist.
Maybe you can't find them because they are still being kept secret. Or
they were releases in the Bulkies unindexed which you refused to look at
because you might break a nail. Or maybe they do exist and you are just
too lazy to look for them. Or maybe they did exist and were destroyed.
> I.E.,
>
> Unless the CTers can come up with FD-302s for EVERY interview in CE2011
> (and surely most CTers think at least SOME of those many interviews are
> legit), then they have no right to argue that Odum's interviews with
> forms have been found for those two interviews.
>
We don't need no damn stinkin 302 to know that Odum was lying.
>
> And, as an addendum:
>
> If it COULD somehow be proven that no FD-302 reports were written for any
> of the interviews seen in CE2011, then the CTers who continue to argue
> that CE2011 is a phony document based on the "No FD-302s" argument are
> defeated as well.
>
that there are some lies in it.
> Because if no 302s were written (for whatever reason) for ANY of the
> CE2011 interviews, then why would any CTer expect to find a 302 report for
> Odum's interviews with Tomlinson and Wright?
>
> Get my point now, Tony? Or do you still think that my very valid and
> logical point is nothing but a "strawman"?
>
David Von Pein
Dec 16, 2011, 7:47:45 AM12/16/11
to
>>> "An FD302 is filled out by the interviewing agent..." <<<
So where, then, are the FD-302s for all of the other FIFTY-NINE
(that's 59!) interviews the FBI did for CE2011 (not counting Odum's
6/12/64 interview with Tomlinson)? (Yes, I counted them.)
Have you ever seen ANY of those 59 FD-302s, Bob Harris? I sure
haven't. And you surely don't think ALL of these other 59 interviews
are phony, do you?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm
David Von Pein
Dec 16, 2011, 6:11:28 PM12/16/11
to
>>> "We don't need no damn stinkin 302 to know that Odum was lying." <<<
Marsh thinks Bardwell Odum lied to Aguilar and Thompson in 2002.
Therefore, Marsh must believe that Odum did interview Tomlinson (as
seen in CE2011).
Or was Odum "lying" in CE2011, Tony? Is that what you meant when you
said he was "lying"? Which, if so, would mean that Odum forgot about
his "lie" from 1964 and decided to tell the truth to Aguilar &
Thompson in 2002. Oops.
Which is it?
Anthony Marsh
Dec 17, 2011, 9:23:45 PM12/17/11
to
On 12/16/2011 6:11 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "We don't need no damn stinkin 302 to know that Odum was lying."<<<
>
> Well, at least it's nice to know that conspiracy theorist Anthony
> Marsh thinks Bardwell Odum lied to Aguilar and Thompson in 2002.
> Therefore, Marsh must believe that Odum did interview Tomlinson (as
> seen in CE2011).
>
Where did I say that? Lying about what?
>
>>>> "We don't need no damn stinkin 302 to know that Odum was lying."<<<
>
> Well, at least it's nice to know that conspiracy theorist Anthony
> Marsh thinks Bardwell Odum lied to Aguilar and Thompson in 2002.
> Therefore, Marsh must believe that Odum did interview Tomlinson (as
> seen in CE2011).
>
> Or was Odum "lying" in CE2011, Tony? Is that what you meant when you
> said he was "lying"? Which, if so, would mean that Odum forgot about
> his "lie" from 1964 and decided to tell the truth to Aguilar&
> Thompson in 2002. Oops.
>
> Which is it?
>
Someone can lie several times, each time about several different things.
0 new messages