JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 199)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 199):

======================================================


LEE OSWALD, MARINA OSWALD, AND VINCE BUGLIOSI:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=60#entry268963


GARY MACK:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=60#entry268958


CAPTAIN FRITZ:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=90#entry269136


COMMISSION EXHIBIT 399:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,7894.msg229083.html#msg229083
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=2400.msg41807#msg41807


IDENTIFYING OSWALD:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=105#entry269231


OSWALD'S PALMPRINT:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=120#entry269315
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=135#entry269436


J.D. TIPPIT:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=135#entry269431


VINCENT BUGLIOSI:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/deabb5064d0cbf72


THE WARREN REPORT AND THE 26 VOLUMES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/03e2ddcd92e0fe9d


BATTLING THE KOOK NAMED DiEUGENIO (AGAIN):
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=105#entry269237
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=105#entry269239
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20034&#entry269351


MORE STUFF:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a0e1b8976a90e63
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/969f8ab6df49a0f6
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=75#entry269033
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20023&#entry269138
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19977&st=90#entry269212
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20034&#entry269363


======================================================

[aeffects]

On Mar 15, 10:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
...

why are you so damned unsure of yourself and your sources... LONE NUT-
SBT panic setting in? LMFAO! Carry on!

Oh, and no advertising, winky.

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cf364aa428f751ad/f6243f5801f3ac37?#f6243f5801f3ac37


TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Markham...even denied it was her voice on the tape." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. That's only what Mark Lane wanted his audience of
conspiracy-thirsty fans to believe, as he attempted to make Markham
look like an even bigger idiot by not giving the audience the complete
story about the female voices heard on the tape recording of the Lane/
Markham interview.

According to Lane, Markham seemed to be saying she couldn't recognize
her own voice. But she knew the OPERATOR'S voice wasn't hers (and this
is brought out in Markham's Warren Commission testimony).

And when she said in her WC testimony--"this lady never talked to me"--
she obviously had just simply forgotten that she had talked briefly
with the female operator when she testified in front of the
Commission.

Just listen to how Mark Lane tries to make Mrs. Markham look like an
even bigger boob in this December 4, 1964, appearance at Beverly Hills
High School, wherein he doesn't bother to tell the large audience that
there WAS, in fact, another woman's voice on that tape:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-85.html#Lane-Vs-Markham

[David Von Pein]

Several new books coming out for the 50th:

http://kennedy-books-videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#New-Releases

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cf364aa428f751ad/97411ac15106e4fc?#97411ac15106e4fc


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Helen Markham's story is the KEY component in the contention that Lee
Oswald was the murderer of officer Tippit. .... If they admit that
Markham was a nut, their entire case against Oswald as Tippit's killer
goes swirling down the drain.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Walt, as usual, is dead wrong. Helen Markham's testimony could easily
be tossed out the window and Lee Oswald's guilt in Tippit's murder
would still be proven without any problem...and beyond all possible
doubt.

The other things that prove Oswald killed Tippit are the bullet shells
(matched to the SAME GUN Oswald was still holding when he was
arrested) and the many OTHER witnesses who swore it was OSWALD--not
somebody else--who was running from the crime scene, with several of
those OTHER witnesses also saying that OSWALD was dumping shells on
the ground as he ran.

And among those OTHER witnesses, how many of them would be described
as "screwballs" by anyone?

Was Ted Callaway a "screwball", Walt?
What about Barbara Davis?
And Virginia Davis?
And Sam Guinyard?
And Bill Scoggins?

Dump Markham's testimony in the trash can if you want to. Doesn't
change a thing. Oswald's still just as guilty as ever. And there's
NOTHING Walt (or anyone) can do about it.

[aeffects]

On Mar 20, 10:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

David Von Pein proves once again he's a worn out, wee-little, Bugliosi-
ite wannabe. Whom never tires at making a damn fool of himself....
Carry on ttroll, by all means..... Bwaaaahaahaaa--LMFAO!

[David Von Pein]

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3355.msg230778.html#msg230778

Of course, to a reasonable person, the best way to know that Bob
Harris is full of nothing but hot air when it comes to his theory
about a bullet being recovered in John Connally's operating room is
this fact:

No extra bullet from John Connally's leg exists in this case.

If such a WHOLE bullet HAD been placed in an envelope and turned over
to someone in Captain Fritz' office, then that bullet WOULD EXIST IN
THE EVIDENCE PILE connected to the JFK/JBC case.

But no such bullet exists, Bob. So how can I possibly even begin to
believe your theory?

Yes, yes, I know. You think I'm as naive as a 2-year-old child -- just
imagine, that disinfo specialist DVP is saying that since there's no
such whole bullet from JBC's leg in evidence, this MUST mean that
there was NEVER any such bullet at all, with DVP saying that any such
bullet couldn't possibly have been swept under the rug by the evil
authorities after it was learned that the EXTRA bullet would destroy
everybody's favorite pastime, which is, of course -- LET'S ALL FRAME
OSWALD TODAY! What a fool that Von Pein is for placing such faith in
the EXISTING EVIDENCE in this murder case.

But, sue me Bob, I guess I'm just a naive fool. There is NO EXTRA
BULLET in evidence. Therefore, I cannot believe your theory.

Anyone and everyone who might have used the word "bullet" to describe
the contents of CE842 (e.g., Wade, Nolan, et al) really should have
said "fragments", because that's what CE842 contains--fragments only.
Not a whole bullet.

It's the exact same mistake that Sibert & O'Neill made in their FBI
report regarding a supposed "missile" being recovered from JFK's body
during the Bethesda autopsy. But, as we all know, the Sibert and
O'Neill report is wrong in that regard. There was no whole bullet
recovered from JFK, and even James Sibert HIMSELF admitted to that
fact (on the radio) in 2005:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

The exact same thing applies in the case of a supposed whole "bullet"
being recovered from Connally in the operating room. But to a
conspiracy theorist, the evidence we DON'T have (and will never lay
our eyes on) is always MUCH more valuable and important than the
evidence we DO have.

If you could only produce that bullet, Bob Harris. If only....

[aeffects]

On Mar 21, 4:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3355.msg230778.h...

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert....

>
> The exact same thing applies in the case of a supposed whole "bullet"
> being recovered from Connally in the operating room. But to a
> conspiracy theorist, the evidence we DON'T have (and will never lay
> our eyes on) is always MUCH more valuable and important than the
> evidence we DO have.
>
> If you could only produce that bullet, Bob Harris. If only....

ya can't convince anyone here Bugliosi's Reclaiming History doesn't
stink to the high heavens, after all troll, it's regurgitated Warren
Commission bullshit!

So post by the to hon, fantasy is your thing..... LMFAO!

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8e13e707a59bd940/f672eff7fd41f67e?hl=encd85d0937b020a4&#f672eff7fd41f67e


JOHN FIORENTINO ASKED:

Then why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] agree with Wecht in the
interview??


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Probably because Vince's memory sucks. (And mine is getting almost as
bad, and I'm only 51.) :(

In short, Vince just flat-out doesn't remember that he wrote these
words on page 424 of his book:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the
entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit
wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of
the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his
head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not
the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer
from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the
exit wound in the throat."

-------

Mr. Bugliosi suffers brain cramps quite often. To illustrate that
fact, have you heard Vincent's extremely embarrassing gaffe during a
radio interview in November 2007? It's a dilly. I talk about it here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html#11-21-07-Radio-Interview

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8e13e707a59bd940/f672eff7fd41f67e?hl=encd85d0937b020a4&#f672eff7fd41f67e


JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

Geez, I wonder if ol Vinny ripped ol Johnny (me) off?

Anyway, no further comment for now, other than I had (have) this same
comparison in my 1st draft manuscript copyright 1993.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think Vince had to "rip off" anyone. He has had access to the
same autopsy photo that everyone else has. He could have merely come
to the same conclusion on his own after just turning that autopsy
picture sideways. Heck, who WOULDN'T come to the conclusion that the
throat wound was anatomically lower than the back wound after just one
brief glance at that picture?

In fact, several months prior to Bugliosi's book being published, I
wrote the post below regarding the wound locations. I hope you don't
think that *I*, too, ripped you off, John. :-) I certainly haven't
been privy to your book manuscript, have I?.....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800

What is it they say --- Great minds.... :-)


JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

I also discovered that the HSCA FPP used only the scans of the X-rays
in making their determinations.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is all the more reason to suspect that the HSCA people never
even bothered to turn this autopsy picture sideways:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s1600/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

[David Von Pein]

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8e13e707a59bd940/9cd85d0937b020a4?hl=encd85d0937b020a4


JOHN CANAL SAID:

If that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the
throat wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It makes me wonder if the HSCA/FPP ever even bothered to turn this
autopsy photo sideways, such as below:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

If they had, do you think ANYONE could have really thought that
visible throat wound was HIGHER on the body than the back wound?
Impossible.


JOHN CANAL SAID:

You don't think Baden thinks (for once) like I do that the head rest
undermines any attempt to accurately gleen from that photo whether
(when he was erect--no stirrup--sort of like when he was shot) the
back wound was higher than the throat wound or vise-versa, do you? Not
even a tiny bit?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. Not even a tiny bit.

Do you REALLY think that if the metal headrest was removed from this
picture, it would mean that the upper back of JFK (and, hence, the
place where the bullet hole in his back was located) would DROP a
considerable distance when compared with the wound that is fully
visible in Kennedy's throat?:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

If the headrest were to be removed, then JFK's head (which is attached
to a pivoting neck) would fall flat against the autopsy table, yes.
But would the removal of the headrest affect his UPPER BACK a great
deal--if at all?

Also: Do you think JFK's BACK is touching the table in that photo? I
say it is. How could it NOT be (unless somebody was physically
propping it up off the table--which nobody is doing in that autopsy
photograph)?

That throat wound is LOWER than the back wound--without a speck of a
doubt. The HSCA was wrong on this point.

And even Dr. Humes, in 1964, said the back wound was higher (although,
granted, he never measured the height difference of the two wounds)--
but Humes did say this to the Warren Commission:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is
physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." -- J.J.
Humes

Should everybody just IGNORE the above testimony, which comes from one
of the very few people in the world who actually had the opportunity
to SEE President Kennedy on the autopsy table on the night of
11/22/63?

If I am supposed to just toss aside Dr. James Humes' above testimony
about the throat wound being "physically lower" than the upper-back
wound, please tell me WHY I should toss it in the trash.