JAMES DiEUGENIO ON DAVID VON PEIN (WHO'S REALLY THE 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
============================================
Gil Jesus
http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html
You're a legend in your own mind.
TOFLMAO
lazu...@webtv.net
little schoolgirl, But Jimmy D.....nailed your ass..Laz
P.S....can't find a picture of yourself?
Can't debate DiEugenio?
Gil Jesus
If DiEugenio is the comedian, then Von Pein is the joke.
And that's something EVERYBODY knows.
David Von Pein
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, what do all of you kooks here at acj (which is a forum that
DiEugenio thinks is run exclusively by John McAdams) think about
DiEugenio's new 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" theory,
even though nearly every kook here has spoken out about how the bag
that Oswald DID have with him was, itself, proof that Oswald was
innocent, since you kooks think that that bag was too short to house
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano?
Just curious to know how far the kooks here are willing to carry
DiEugenio's jock strap.
Gil Jesus
> ( nutter nonsense snipped due to lack of interest ) >
> Just curious to know how far the kooks here are willing to carry
> DiEugenio's jock strap.
One has to wonder what the mental state is of someone who is willing
to
post the link to a scathing critique of himself by someone else.
It's not about carrying jockstraps, it's about your manical love of
yourself.
Find evidence that a probe was entered into the back wound and came
out the throat wound, yet ?
CONCENTRATE
David Von Pein
http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html
I'd prop up that ridiculous DiEugenio article about me any day of the
week. It's absolutely hilarious (but the laugh is only on Mr.
DiEugenio, of course). It does me no harm whatsoever. It only shows
DiEugenio to be a really big "Anybody But Oswald" nutcase.
Let's take a quick inventory of the stupid things that DiEugenio
revealed about his beliefs regarding the JFK case in that article,
which is being billed on Jim's website as "an incisive overview of the
Internet career of the man many call Disinformation Dave". (That's
hilarious part #1 right there.)
In the article, DiEugenio thinks I am crazy for believing that each
and every one of the following KNOWN FACTS is true (this is almost too
funny for words):
1.) Oswald shot John F. Kennedy.
2.) Oswald shot J.D. Tippit.
3.) Oswald shot at General Edwin A. Walker in April 1963.
4.) The Single-Bullet Theory is true.
5.) Connally is reacting to a bullet wound at circa Z224. (Actually,
Z224 is the precise moment I believe the bullet struck both victims,
with Z225 being the first frame where a definite "reaction" on the
part of Governor Connally can be seen--which are observations that any
first-grader could easily see--but DiEugenio cannot. Go figure.)
6.) Oswald could make it down from the 6th to the 2nd floor of the
TSBD in less than 90 seconds.
7.) Oswald owned Carcano rifle C2766.
8.) If a gunshot fired from the Grassy Knoll had struck JFK in the
head, that bullet would have had no choice but to result in damage to
the LEFT side of Kennedy's cranium. (This is an inferred truth, based
on comments I made about the 2008 Discovery Channel documentary, "JFK:
Inside The Target Car", which DiEugenio mentions in his 4/13/10 CTKA
article. And, quite obviously, this is another blatantly-obvious and
common-sense truth that another first-grader could easily figure out
with no trouble at all. But, amazingly, Jim DiEugenio cannot. Go
figure.)
And yet *I* am the one who is supposedly "auditioning for Comedy
Central" here?
James DiEugenio has blown a "common sense" gasket. Perhaps several of
them.
Gil Jesus
<snipped the LN crying session>
> And yet *I* am the one who is supposedly "auditioning for Comedy
> Central" here?
Jim DiEugenio didn't get you booted off of Lancer
Jim DiEugenio didn't get you booted from the Ed Forum
It's time for you to grow up and take responsibility for your own
actions.
Your worst enemy is YOU.
People don't treat you with respect because you don't treat them with
respect.
You refer to experts with credentials as "kooks" while you yourself
have no credentials at all.
You're the world's biggest nutcase and joke on the internet.
The fact that DiEugenio points that out is a long time coming.
How many people have you "converted" since 2003, David ?
Whether you're auditioning for Comedy Central or not, the world is
laughing AT you.
And the funniest part is that you're the only one who doesn't seem to
know it.
David Von Pein
Gil, you're almost as funny (today) as Jim DiEugenio.
Almost.
(Damn, that bladder again!)
j leyden
> 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).
Let's face it,DVP: Being criticized by DiEugenio is a small step up
from being criticized by Gil Jesus. Almost aanyone would be.
JGL
> http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/threa...
> if it's not ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/215f3174c484b9d1
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.
aeffects
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
yeah sure.... should we thank mythological *Rosemary* for this latest
contribution? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! !
If your anything troll, you're one hell of an excuse maker..... carry
on!
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/215f3174c484b9d1/021a85771dc2d8d2?#021a85771dc2d8d2
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
lazu...@webtv.net
bully game, when they get some of their own medicine...they go all
defensive, and make more excuses than your average politician...Laz
David Von Pein
I don't suppose it bothers "Ol' Laz" when Healy The Crackpipe
continually refers to a real woman (and a really nice one at that)--
Mrs. Rosemary Newton--as "mythological". Right, Laz?
IOW -- It's been my experience (meager though it may be) that kooks
generally follow kooks. Period. Horne following Lifton is an excellent
example of this.
David Von Pein
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2227.msg38590.html#msg38590
IAN KINGSBURY ASKED:
>>> "Is any of this your own work[?]" <<<
DVP SAID:
Any of what?
[Then, a little later in another post, I said:]
Oh -- [slaps forehead] -- I get it now! Ian Kingsbury thinks I should
INVENT SOME NEW EVIDENCE in the John F. Kennedy murder case (kinda
like all conspiracy theorists do 24/7)! The "same old stuff" (Ian's
words) just isn't good enough.
IOW--The ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the case (e.g., the actual bullets from
Oswald's gun, the actual shells from Oswald's gun, Oswald's gun
itself, Oswald's prints being all over the place where the ACTUAL
KILLER of Kennedy was located, and Oswald's known & provable lies)
just isn't nearly enough stuff with which to solve the case.
We need new and fresh stuff every so many years--in order to MAKE
BELIEVE that Oswald didn't do it.
Is that a fair and relatively accurate overview of your mindset, Mr.
Kingsbury?
lazu...@webtv.net
Education Forum and JFK Lancer...for harassing people..Laz
lazu...@webtv.net
JFK Murder Solved Site...where I guess you were a manager, hey, I'm not
knocking that..as long as it is honest work, but Horne's, Lifton's and
Mantik's credentials far exceed that...laz
Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO.......THAT'S HIS CREDENTIALS ????
THAT HE USED TO BE A STORE MANAGER AT KFC ?????
THE GUY WHO'S CALLING ALL THESE PHD'S "KOOKS" ????????????
ARE YOU SERIOUS ????
No wonder why he's "chicken" to debate people.
Send me a link to that picture. I gotta see that.
timstter
LOL! Er, Verm, so because Fetzer has a PhD we have to believe his
opinions on 9/11 do we Verm?
It doesn't matter how much training you give a crackpot, Verm, they
are STILL a crackpot.
I mean, look at you.
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c1f3cbf-9ec8-4d22...@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XzGyn.169310$9b5....@newsfe01.iad...
> tim gets very defensive when his family is exposed on video ! ! !
LT
> 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).
>
>
> "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
> 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."
>
> 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/threa...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/threa...
>
> http://Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
>
> ============================================
I'd like to see you and your hero debate Mr. DiEugenio on the facts in
a public, formal, and civil fashion. The JFK Assassination has
intelligence fingerprints all over it, and you won't be able to cover
that up no matter how hard you struggle to, you hired, round-the-clock
troll/disinformer. Your childish condescending tactics reveal you as a
filthy propagandist. Someone like you would have worked hand-in-hand
with creeps like Sheridan and Phelan in the heat of the Garrison (RIP)
investigation.
The fact that the Agency has someone like you on these forums shows
that they are still interested in covering up the truth. Perhaps it's
because of the implications of the JFK conspiracy becoming well-known
(People's trust in the government goes down, They start to view things
like Bilderberg and 9/11 Truth with an open mind, etc.) or perhaps
it's because their former chief (George H.W Bush), who is still alive,
was deeply involved in the assassination.
David Von Pein
>>> "I'd like to see you and your hero debate Mr. DiEugenio on the facts in a public, formal, and civil fashion." <<<
Vincent Bugliosi will very likely never agree to do it, but on May 8,
2010, I sent the following e-mail to DiEugenio. If he's got the guts
to debate me on these terms, then I'm ready, willing, and very eager
(and these terms regarding the format should positively appeal to
DiEugenio too; there's every reason in the world for him to love this
type of format just as much as I do):
===============================================================
Subject: Attn.: James DiEugenio (Re: Debate With DVP)
Date: 5/8/2010 1:31:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
---------------------------
ATTN. JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Hi Jim,
If you are still willing to debate me about the JFK assassination, I
am now ready and eager to participate in such a radio debate with you.
The most convenient times in the near future for me to engage in such
a debate would be anytime between the dates of June 1 and June 15,
2010.
As for the format of any such radio debate (which I assume would take
place on the "Black Op Radio" program, with Len Osanic serving as
moderator/host), I have an idea that I think should probably appeal to
you as well:
Instead of taking questions from third parties (such as from "Black
Op" listeners who write in questions via e-mail, etc.), I'd prefer a
format where each of the two debaters (you and I) present various
questions to the other person.
That way, you can put together several questions that you would like
an LNer like me to answer, and I can ask you various questions that
I'd like to hear you answer.
Each of us would ask the other party the same number of questions, to
keep things fair from a "numerical" standpoint.
To give you a heads-up on the number of questions I would like to
present at any such debate, I have already put together a total of 23
questions [it's now up to 33, as of 5/22/2010] regarding the JFK case
(plus a couple of follow-up questions within those 23 [33]) that I
would like to ask you.
Therefore, for the sake of fairness and "equal time", you would get to
ask me the same number of questions.
If Len Osanic (or others) wanted to add a few questions too, I think
that would be okay as well. But for the bulk of the debate, I would
much prefer the format I just outlined--with you and I deciding what
questions we want the other person to answer.
I don't favor the idea of the parties being shown the questions in
advance, however. That would dilute the debate severely, in my
opinion. I won't know what questions you'll be asking me; and,
conversely, you won't know what questions are going to be coming from
my side of the fence either.
Sound fair to you?
If you have other ideas on the debate format, let me know. We can
probably work out something. But I feel that the format I just
outlined should appeal to both of us, inasmuch as it would keep the
"softball" type questions from being asked in the first place.
Let me know if you are agreeable to this proposition.
Thank you.
Regards,
David Von Pein
===============================================================
>>> "The JFK Assassination has intelligence fingerprints all over it..." <<<
Nope. Just Oswald's prints.
>>> "...and you won't be able to cover that up no matter how hard you struggle to, you hired, round-the-clock troll/disinformer." <<<
Oh, good! Another conspiracy-happy kook who thinks I've been hired by
the Big Bad Gummint!
What's not to love about kooks?
>>> "Your childish condescending tactics reveal you as a filthy propagandist." <<<
Sure is fun though.
>>> "Someone like you would have worked hand-in-hand with creeps like Sheridan and Phelan in the heat of the Garrison (RIP) investigation." <<<
Yeah, it figures. This kook prays over Garrison's grave, while (no
doubt) spitting on the grave of the man whose life was ruined by King
Kook Garrison -- Clay Shaw.
I'm guessing that Douglas "Two Brains" Horne is probably also a hero
of LT's.
>>> "The fact that the Agency has someone like you on these forums shows that they are still interested in covering up the truth." <<<
If I only had a dime of the CIA's loot for every time a kook has said
this. If only.
>>> "Perhaps it's because of the implications of the JFK conspiracy becoming well-known (People's trust in the government goes down, They start to view things like Bilderberg and 9/11 Truth with an open mind, etc.) or perhaps it's because their former chief (George H.W Bush), who is still alive, was deeply involved in the assassination." <<<
If only they had an over-the-counter drug available for delusional
idiots. If only.
David Von Pein
On May 8, 2010, I sent the following e-mail to James DiEugenio. If he
is willing to debate me on these terms, then I'm ready, willing, and
very eager (and these terms regarding the format should positively
appeal to DiEugenio too; there's every reason in the world for him to
love this type of format just as much as I do):
======================================================
Subject: Attn.: James DiEugenio (Re: Debate With DVP)
---------------------------
ATTN. JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Hi Jim,
questions [it's now up to 33, as of 5/25/2010] regarding the JFK case
David Von Pein
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2555.msg47630.html#msg47630
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2555.msg47689.html#msg47689
Miles Scull is correct about my amending my post concerning the
elevators. But I didn't hide the edit. In fact, I put the words "EDIT/
ADDENDUM" in bold text, right here:
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2552.msg47564.html#msg47564
I will fully admit, prior to editing that forum post, I had not been
aware of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney's testimony about the power to the
elevators being cut off. And, in effect, I was admitting that lack of
knowledge via my "EDIT/ADDENDUM" seen in the post linked above.
I make mistakes. Lots of them, in fact. And I certainly don't know
every last thing there is to know about the JFK case. Probably not
even close, due to the tens of thousands of pages of material that are
available on this subject. And I can tell you right now that Jim
DiEugenio undoubtedly possesses far greater knowledge about many areas
of this case than I do -- the "New Orleans/Jim Garrison" areas of the
case in particular.
But I certainly have studied the assassination enough over the last
several years to make a pretty decent case for Lee Harvey Oswald's
guilt in the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit (even though I
didn't spend a single day in law school).
I am not a dishonest person. And I do not go around the Internet
spreading "disinformation" regarding the JFK assassination (as some
conspiracy theorists seem to think I do).
If some people want to believe that the last two sentences I just
wrote above are merely empty, hollow words--so be it. I can't control
what other people say or think.
But if I truly believed that a conspiracy existed in JFK's
assassination, I would come out and say so. And I have, in fact, in
the past [see the 2007 post below] stressed that it is a good idea to
leave the door open for conspiracy (just a crack), because there's
always the slight possibility that Oswald had a "helper" or two on
November 22, 1963. Although the possibility of even a low-level
conspiracy involving Oswald and one or two other persons seems very
remote, in my opinion.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/490468f0068cbdbe
"Let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that
someone didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I
think it's very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at
all....but, as Ken [Rahn] said, the door should be left open just a
small crack, because it's just not possible to prove this particular
"negative" to a 100% certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob
Rubenstein, who certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking
down that basement ramp on Sunday)." -- David Von Pein; July 29, 2007
---------------
There is one particular comment made by Jim DiEugenio in this forum
thread that made me chuckle quite a bit. (And, incidentally,
DiEugenio's words that we find in this thread were posted via proxy by
one of Jim's lifetime fans and devotees, Ken Murray, who in addition
to posting occasionally at Duncan MacRae's forum, also posts regularly
at Wim Dankbaar's conspiracy-infested Internet asylum, at
http://JFKMurderSolved.com/forum.)
Anyway, the funny DiEugenio remark I was referring to is this one:
"Evidently, one part that really frazzled him [DVP] was when I
revealed that although Vincent Bugliosi's secretary has asked him to
debate Commission critics on cable, DVP has actually declined at least
two opportunities to do so on the radio, one by Len Osanic and one by
myself." -- James DiEugenio
For the record, Vince Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) was just
having a little bit of fun (i.e., she was kidding!) when she said this
to me in an e-mail in December 2008:
"Hi Dave, Thanks for the "Von Pein vs. DiEugenio" saga. I'll
give Vince [Bugliosi] his copy when I see him. Here's an idea--a cable
TV show called "The JFK Assassination" hosted by David Von Pein who is
ready, willing and able to take on any and all conspiracy nuts. Sound
good?" -- Rosemary Newton; December 16, 2008
I'm not quite sure from the tone of DiEugenio's comment about the
"cable" debate if Jim really thinks Rosemary was serious or not. But
if he does think Rosemary Newton was serious there, perhaps Jim
himself should audition for a gig on Stephen Colbert's program over at
Comedy Central.
And here's another howler from Jim:
"He [DVP]...says that it was me who has so much influence over
Len and it was me who came up with the debate concept anyway. This
last is typical Von Pein-Colbert. To the point it epitomizes why he
isn't worth talking to. If one was interested in finding out whose
idea the debate concept was, the question to pose would be: "Jim, why
did you offer that debate challenge out of the blue after being a semi-
regular on Len's show for many months?"" -- Jim D.
My response to the above is --- Huh??
Why in the world would I (or anyone) have asked Jim such a question
after listening to DiEugenio issuing his initial "debate challenge" on
Black Op Radio on July 2, 2009?
There is nothing in this Black Op broadcast to indicate that the
"challenge" was anything other than Jim's idea entirely:
http://www.box.net/shared/l6shoavg6l
Jim goes on to say:
"DVP never asked that question. The answer is this: I offered
the challenge because a regular listener to Black Op asked me to. ....
It was his idea, not mine. Left to my own devices, I would have never
thought up such a thing." -- J.D.
Oh, sure, Jim. Why would the idea of a "debate" with your opponent
ever enter your head? That idea is completely out in left field, isn't
it? That type of thing is never done, is it? [LOL.]
More Laughs:
I must say that I was very amused while reading Jim DiEugenio's two-
part "DVP" essay that he posted on his CTKA.net website recently (Part
1 went up on his site on April 13, 2010, and an "update" to the
original article was posted by Jim on his site on May 17, 2010).
My five responses to DiEugenio's 2-part essay are linked below, and
are rebuttals that DiEugenio has deemed "patented silly replies". Gee,
there's a surprise, huh? But, these rebuttals speak for themselves:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3ac48b4703ba1b1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/78e762a534fa835a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ba615dc23ce85e44
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/496efe3b34542770
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c83c0a0c659f9dd6
---------------
As far as any potential JFK assassination debate between myself and
James DiEugenio is concerned, I'm having a difficult time figuring out
why on Earth Mr. DiEugenio would have any problem whatsoever with my
proposed format for such a debate, which I first discussed with Jim
via e-mail [below].
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/337e879c779bb695
Jim evidently doesn't like the idea that I, myself, would be asking my
own questions. He apparently thinks that I'll just be making stuff up
out of thin air when I ask him my questions.
Such a complaint is total nonsense, of course. But even if it were
true--so what? Upon answering all of my worthless questions (worthless
from Jim's POV, that is), he would, of course, have ample opportunity
to TELL THE AUDIENCE THAT MY QUESTIONS ARE PURE BUNK.
Plus: Jim would get to ask his own questions too. He should be doing
cartwheels, instead of griping about this perfectly reasonable and
fair format I have proposed.
Jim is correct about my posting his e-mail replies to me on an
Internet forum (at alt.conspiracy.jfk). And I apologize to Jim for
that. But, however, I certainly didn't think that Jim would have any
beef with my doing that. I merely wanted to archive our e-mail
discussions in a manner that would allow me to save the messages on my
blog pages. (I always want to archive everything I write about the JFK
case in such a manner.) And since I had every intention of posting MY
OWN e-mails to Jim on the Internet, I wanted Jim's replies to me to be
included as well.
But, after learning about Jim's desire to not have his own words to me
published at a public forum, I immediately deleted all of those posts
containing all of Jim's e-mail messages to me. (And I deleted those
messages, btw, within ten minutes of learning that Jim was upset about
it.)
Below are some of the follow-up e-mails that I wrote to DiEugenio
concerning my proposed format for a JFK debate that should have him
jumping for joy at the chance to beat me into the ground with dozens
of questions THAT JIM DiEUGENIO HIMSELF WOULD BE ASKING ME.
I have not included any of DiEugenio's comments to me in the text
reprinted below, since, for some reason, Jim apparently doesn't want
his answers to be published on the Internet for everyone to see:
Subject: Re: Debate With DVP
Date: 5/10/2010 12:22:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
------------------------
Jim...it's a totally fair proposal and a fair format.
Why is it totally fair?
Because YOU would get to select YOUR OWN QUESTIONS too. Ask anything
you want. That should certainly appeal to you, Jim, especially since
you've already engaged in a previous debate with John McAdams which
had all the questions coming from outsiders (except the one that you
got to ask McAdams and the one single question that John was permitted
to ask you).
I really thought you would jump at the chance to debate under my
proposed format. And one of the main reasons I thought you'd like to
control your own questions is because you said yourself that during
Part 1 of your radio debate last September with John McAdams that the
questions weren't very challenging at all. You, in essence, considered
virtually all of the Part 1 questions to be softball type of
questions.
I'll give you a chance to answer some harder ones. Wouldn't that
appeal to you, Jim?
If that doesn't appeal to you, I can't help but scratch my head and
wonder to myself --- what's Jim afraid of?
Regards,
David Von Pein
==============================================
Subject: Re: Debate With DVP
Date: 5/14/2010 11:42:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
------------------------
Jim,
You should LEAP at the chance to take me up on this type of debate
format. And I can't believe you're actually balking at the prospect of
getting to ask YOUR OWN QUESTIONS--and dozens of them if you wish.
You can phrase YOUR questions any way you want. And likewise with my
questions. It will get down to the meat & potatoes of the issues,
instead of having to wade through the softball questions sent in by
other people.
In fact, it's positively THE BEST type of debate format there is, IMO.
A few outside questions would be fine too, but OUR questions to each
other would be the centerpiece of the debate.
It's unbelievable to me that you would be against this type of "ask
your questions" format.
DVP
==============================================
Subject: Re: Debate With DVP
Date: 5/17/2010 2:11:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
------------------------
Hi Jim,
Well, I also know that Len Osanic wasn't very enthusiastic at all
about moderating any kind of a debate featuring John McAdams either.
But Len ended up having McAdams on his show twice...for about four
hours total.
The McAdams debate was ALL your idea, Jim. There can be no question
about that fact. Len just went along for the ride. But you came up
with the idea yourself, via your "debate challenge" on July 2, 2009:
http://www.Box.net/shared/l6shoavg6l
But Len said the following (right after you extended your debate
challenge to me, McAdams, and Reitzes, at the 33:55 mark of the above-
linked Black Op show):
"I'm not really a fan of that, or I would have had more people
on from that [lone-gunman side]...the thing is, what you're debating
is: is the world flat or not?" -- Len Osanic; 07/02/09
But what happened 12 weeks later? Answer: Len Osanic was hosting a
lengthy two-part debate between John McAdams and James DiEugenio.
But if Len refuses to have me on his show, then I think I might be
able to arrange a radio debate on a small Detroit-area station, WHPR,
hosted by Anton Batey. (He hosted two previous JFK debates between
John McAdams and Tom Rossley in April 2009 [and March 2010]; you
remember, those were the debates that you didn't like at all, because
you said they were merely mud-slinging sessions, lacking any structure
or format.)
Anyway, if Black Op Radio doesn't want to do it, I could always get in
touch with Anton and ask him if he'd be willing to host a "DVP vs.
DiEugenio" debate.
Anton, btw, does archive his WHPR programs, either on YouTube or via
an audio streaming link that he can provide after he processes the
audio files.
I will say this, however: Even though I have hurled my share of
insults at Black Op Radio and its host and guests over the last few
years, I would still prefer debating on Len's Black Op show. Len's
system of archiving the programs is very good, IMO, and takes up
virtually no space on a computer hard drive.
Later,
DVP
==============================================
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4728961640e5b40e
>>> "I see DiEugenio takes exception that DVP calls Black Op Radio "retard radio". I think I might have coined that phrase. Nice to see David putting it to good use stinging the kooks." <<<
Yes, Bud, I think you're possibly right there re: the origins of the
phrase "Retard Radio". I think I might very well have swiped that from
you. (Just like I did with the "K" word in 2006.) So I want to give
you the credit right now. ;)
I will say, however, that after utilizing the "R" word a few times
(maybe more than a few) in recent months, I have cut back on my use of
that word after hearing people at various forums tell me that they are
personally offended by my use of it, because it is perceived by them
that I am making fun of the (literally) mentally handicapped.
But I can assure my critics that whenever I use that "R" word, it is
not done with the intent to belittle anyone with any REAL mental
deficiency. In fact, I had an aunt and an uncle in my own family who
suffered from severe mental retardation.
And after reading my last statement above, I'm sure several conspiracy
theorists would be eager to tell me that I suffer from the same mental
handicap as my late aunt and uncle. I'm quite sure James "OSWALD SHOT
NOBODY" DiEugenio would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly.
~grin~
Bud said:
>>> "Am I the only one who finds the idea of debating the assassination strange? I mean, all the issues have rote CTer and LNer viewpoints. Isn't it just a case of restating the viewpoint on each issue?" <<<
Yes, Bud, I think essentially you are exactly correct there.
But, for that matter, that is what we do every day at these JFK forums
too -- i.e., restate our LN vs. CT issues ad nauseam, day after day.
And how much good does it do? How many people are turned around by
anyone else's written words, or spoken words?
Answer: Very few (at most).
But my main interest in debating the JFK assassination with Jim
DiEugenio is so that I could confront him with EACH AND EVERY piece
of evidence that he has decided is NO GOOD or FAKE or MANUFACTURED
regarding BOTH the Kennedy murder and the J.D. Tippit murder too.
And that's why I want to be able to use my own questions on Jim. And,
to be totally fair, as I have emphasized when conversing with Jim D.
on multiple occasions recently, DiEugenio too would be able to ask his
own questions. And I don't give a damn what those questions are,
because Jim will never be able to tear down, piece by piece, my huge
wall of physical evidence that I want to throw at him.
Via such a debate format, I can guarantee that Jim will not be able to
slip and slide around the vast amount of evidence that easily convicts
the person who DiEugenio, incredibly, thinks was totally innocent of
shooting anyone on November 22, 1963. (And I also think that DiEugenio
believes that Oswald is innocent of the assassination attempt against
General Walker too, which is yet another item on my long list of
questions for Jim, should he decide to accept my debate format in the
future--which I'm doubting he ever will accept.)
In a more "conventional" type of debate format, DiEugenio would likely
be able to sidestep or ignore several individual pieces of evidence
connected with Oswald's guilt. But he will not be able to do so if he
debates me via the format I have proposed. He will be forced to tell
the audience exactly why he thinks EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE
against his favorite patsy is fake, fraudulent, or tainted.
And as author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical
evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked
evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.
2005)
James DiEugenio obviously completely disagrees with Mr. Sturdivan's
above comments. In fact, to a person like Jim, it seems the MORE
evidence and corroboration there is of Oswald committing his crimes,
the more INNOCENT Mr. Oswald becomes.
And that's a very strange and illogical policy to live by, isn't it?
David Von Pein
http://www.Box.net/shared/rg360ak180
More distortions of the facts by James DiEugenio:
DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio on May 27, 2010 [linked above], that
Vincent Bugliosi, in his book "Reclaiming History", was dishonest by
adding emphasis to various authors' quotes via the use of italics.
DiEugenio claimed that Bugliosi should have put a notation after every
single use of italics in "Reclaiming History", saying that the italics
(i.e., emphasis) had been added by the author (Bugliosi).
But Jim D. obviously doesn't realize that Mr. Bugliosi wrote the
following disclaimer regarding the use of italics very early in the
book (in the Introduction section):
"Note: Throughout this book emphasis by italics in quotations
has been added by the author unless otherwise indicated." -- Page xvi
of "Reclaiming History"
http://www.Box.net/shared/mdd18gyksy
=====================
And:
Jim DiEugenio has now added one more "liar" to his already huge list
of liars and cover-up artists associated with President Kennedy's
assassination. And that person is witness Howard L. Brennan.
Brennan could conceivably have already been on DiEugenio's "liars"
list prior to May of 2010. I'm not sure if he was or not. But as of
5/27/10, we can now be certain that DiEugenio thinks that the late
Howard Brennan was positively a liar, because DiEugenio has said he
now believes that Brennan never viewed a police lineup AT ALL on
November 22, 1963:
"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all
manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created
witness." -- Jim DiEugenio; 5/27/10
Nice, huh? DiEugenio has decided that Howard Leslie Brennan was a
rotten liar too. (Jim recently also added civilian witnesses Buell
Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle to his list of liars as well.)
For the record, Brennan said this to the Warren Commission:
"They told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me
to view it, which I did." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 1964 Warren
Commission testimony [at 3 H 147].
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0078a.htm
Plus, Brennan also said the following things in his Sheriff's
Department affidavit that he filled out on the DAY OF THE
ASSASSINATION (I wonder if DiEugenio thinks this is a fake document
too?):
"In the east end of the building and the second row of windows
from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the
President's car arrived. .... He was a white man in his early 30's,
slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175
pounds. .... I then saw this man I have described in the window and he
was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the
barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was
looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion.
Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of
sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from
about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in
appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
again." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
So, Brennan--on the day of the assassination!--told the Dallas County
Sheriff's Department (via his affidavit) that "I could identify this
man if I ever saw him again".
And so, even though these key words are contained within Brennan's
November 22nd affidavit -- "I could identify this man if I ever saw
him again" -- Jim DiEugenio thinks that the police NEVER TOOK THIS MAN
NAMED HOWARD BRENNAN TO VIEW A LINEUP.
In addition, there is CE2006, which contains an FBI report of an
interview that the FBI had with Brennan on January 7, 1964. Here are
some highlights from that FBI interview (which took place two months
before Brennan's Warren Commission session):
"Mr. BRENNAN added that after his first interview at the
Sheriff's Office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about
2 P.M. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup,
which included the possible assassin of President KENNEDY, he observed
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S picture on television. Mr. BRENNAN said that this,
of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man
in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing LEE HARVEY OSWALD
in the police lineup, he felt that OSWALD most resembled the man
whom he had seen in the window."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0212b.htm
And in addition to now labelling Howard Brennan as a liar regarding
the lineup, DiEugenio is also forced (by necessity) to place the label
of "liar" around the neck of Secret Service agent Forrest V. Sorrels
as well. And that's because Sorrels made the following statements to
the Warren Commission concerning Howard Brennan viewing a lineup on
the night of November 22, 1963 [at 7 H 354]:
"I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this
witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very
much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain
Fritz said that would be fine. So I instructed Special Agent
Patterson, I believe it was, after I had located Brennan--had quite a
difficult time to locate him, because he wasn’t at home. And they
finally prevailed upon his wife to try to help me locate him, and she,
as I recall it, said that she would see if she could locate him by
phone. I called her, I believe, the second time and finally got a
phone number and called him and told him we would like for him to come
down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents to pick him up at
the place there. And when they came down there with him, I got ahold
of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan.
He said, “I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got
through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up.”
[...]
"So when we got to the assembly room, Mr. Brennan said he would
like to get quite a ways back, because he would like to get as close
to the distance away from where he saw this man at the time that the
shooting took place as he could. And I said, “Well, we will get you
clear on to the back and then we can move up forward.” They did bring
Oswald in in a lineup. He [Brennan] looked very carefully, and then we
moved him up closer and so forth, and he said, “I cannot positively
say.” I said, “Well, is there anyone there that looks like him?” He
said, “Well, that second man from the left,” who was Oswald--“he looks
like him.”" -- Forrest V. Sorrels
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0181b.htm
-------------------
In short, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many innocent people he has
to smear in order to promote his nonsensical theories. The more liars,
the merrier, it would seem.
It has become quite apparent to me in the last several months that Mr.
DiEugenio is a delusional nutcase when it comes to the topic of the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
David Von Pein
At The Education Forum, William Kelly is apparently serving as one of
James DiEugenio's lapdogs/servants (since DiEugenio will never lower
himself to post on any Internet forums), with Kelly posting this
message from DiEugenio on June 2, 2010:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15921&view=findpost&p=194204
Allow me to highlight some of DiEugenio's latest blather from the
above-linked article:
"So now, you have both people [Darrell Tomlinson and O.P.
Wright] who handled the stretcher bullet saying that the bullet in
evidence...is not the bullet they turned over to the authorities." --
Jim DiEugenio
DiEugenio is overstating things here (as usual). Via the July 7, 1964,
FBI report that can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011 [at
24 H 412], Tomlinson and Wright BOTH claimed that Bullet CE399
(designated "C1" by the FBI) "appears to be the same" and "looks like
the slug found at Parkland Hospital" shortly after JFK was
assassinated.
DiEugenio and many other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy kooks simply do
not want to believe that Tomlinson and Wright ever told the FBI on
6/12/64 that CE399 looked like the same bullet that each man handled
on the day of Kennedy's murder.
But CE2011 exists and is a part of the official record in this case--
like it or not. And that exhibit positively indicates that FBI agent
Bardwell Odum talked to both Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on the
date of June 12, 1964, with both men stating that CE399 looked like
the bullet they saw at Parkland on November 22nd.
When Bardwell Odum, decades later, said he didn't show CE399 to
anybody at Parkland in June of 1964, it's very likely that he just
simply did not remember doing so. More than 37 years had passed, and I
wonder how good Odum's memory was in November 2001.
In any event, we can know beyond a reasonable person's reasonable
doubt that Odum DID show Commission Exhibit 399 to Wright (and
Tomlinson too) on June 12, 1964. And the reason we can know that Odum
talked to those men on that date in 1964 is because CE2011 exists and
tells us that he did.
And I'm not ready to take a huge leap off of the conspiracy diving
board and accuse the Federal Bureau of Investigation of MAKING UP FROM
WHOLE CLOTH the words that we find in Commission Exhibit No. 2011 (at
24 H 412). Jim DiEugenio, however, is more than willing to take that
leap.
Quoting from CE2011:
"On June 12, 1964, Darrell C . Tomlinson...was shown Exhibit C1
[CE399], a rifle slug, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same
one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November
22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he
found and showed to Mr. O.P. Wright."
"On June 12, 1964, O. P. Wright...advised Special Agent Bardwell
D . Odum that Exhibit C1 [CE399], a rifle slug, shown to him at the
time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital
on November 22, 1963, which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent
of the Secret Service. .... He advised he could not positively
identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found as November 22,
1963."
CE2011 [24 H 412]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
COMMISSION DOCUMENT 1258 [SAME AS CE2011]:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11653&relPageId=3
Plus: If the FBI had just invented the above stuff out of thin air,
then I'd ask this -- Why didn't the FBI extend their blatant lie even
further and make the additional false claim that Tomlinson and Wright
had, indeed, positively identified C1/CE399 as the bullet they each
saw on 11/22/63?
If both of the above paragraphs that I excerpted from CE2011 are
nothing but a great-big lie, then why didn't J. Edgar Hoover and his
FBI boys go one step further and make the identification of the bullet
ironclad and POSITIVE in CE2011?
The fact that the FBI forthrightly admits in CE2011 that NEITHER
Tomlinson nor Wright could positively identify the bullet is a very
good indication that there's nothing phony about any of the verbiage
we see in Commission Exhibit 2011.
------------------------
"Both the FBI and the Commission say in writing that FBI agent
Elmer Lee Todd put his initials on CE 399. .... Todd's initials are
not there." -- J. DiEugenio
Here, once again, we have a conspiracy theorist who is ready and eager
to think that the FBI faked evidence relating to the assassination of
a United States President.
The fact is that the previously-discussed document (CE2011) also
indicates, without a shred of a doubt, that FBI agent Elmer L. Todd
positively identified CE399. And he did so by confirming that his own
initials are on that bullet:
"On June 24, 1964, Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd...identified C1,
a rifle bullet, as being the same one he received from James
Rowley...on November 22, 1963. This identification was made from
initials marked thereon by Special Agent Todd at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Laboratory upon receipt."
Regarding the above statement made by the FBI:
If that statement, too, is nothing but a bald-faced lie and part of a
massive cover-up in the JFK murder case, I'd like to know why Elmer
Todd (or somebody at the FBI) didn't simply PLACE TODD'S INITIALS ON
CE399 AT SOME POINT IN TIME AFTER NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
If the FBI was so brazen with their lies in their written reports (as
conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio obviously think they were),
then why not make sure their lie about Elmer Todd's initials can never
be proven to be a lie by simply scratching the letters "ELT" into the
bullet?
That would have been a very simple thing for the liars and cover-up
agents at the FBI to do, wouldn't it? But apparently DiEugenio thinks
this would have been too difficult for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to accomplish.
But, then too, maybe J. Edgar and his merry band of crooks, just for
kicks, WANTED to be discovered as liars in the future, so they decided
to not perform the very easy task of putting Special Agent Todd's
initials on Bullet CE399.
------------------------
"Both the FBI and the Commission say in writing that FBI agent
Elmer Lee Todd put his initials on CE 399. .... Researcher John Hunt
did something that neither Von Pein nor his hero Vincent Bugliosi did
not. He went to the National Archives to see if this was true. ....
Hunt photographed the entire circumference of CE 399 and Todd's
initials are not there." -- J. DiEugenio
Elmer Todd most certainly DID put his initials on Commission Exhibit
399. That fact is verified in CE2011 and Commission Document 1258.
And despite what James DiEugenio said, John Hunt never once said in
his article (linked below) that he handled CE399 HIMSELF at the
National Archives:
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
Hunt said he looked at four National Archives color photos of the
bullet, which are all available at the Mary Ferrell website, here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet
It was from those four photographs that Hunt examined the bullet,
looking for Todd's initials. And all of the initials of the FBI agents
on that bullet are very difficult to see in those pictures.
Here's exactly what Hunt said:
"The question for me became, is Todd's mark on the CE-399
bullet? To answer that question, I put together an illustration using
photographs of CE-399. I was able to track the entire surface of the
bullet using four of NARA's preservation photos." -- John Hunt
I think it's pretty clear from the above quote that John Hunt did not
examine Bullet CE399 itself at the National Archives. He performed his
"ARE TODD'S INITIALS ON THE BULLET?" test by looking at photos of the
bullet, not by handling the bullet itself.
And DiEugenio is also wrong when he said that Hunt himself
"photographed the entire circumference of CE 399". Hunt didn't take
those four color photos of CE399. The photos have existed at the
National Archives since 1985, as evidenced by the information that
accompanies the NARA logo seen in this picture:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/60/Photo_naraevid_CE399-7.jpg
DiEugenio needs a better pair of reading glasses. Because he clearly
has misrepresented what John Hunt did with respect to Hunt's analysis
of Commission Exhibit 399.
Quoting John Hunt once more, for emphasis:
"I was able to track the entire surface of the bullet using four
of NARA's preservation photos." -- John Hunt
Related link:
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2495.msg46291.html#msg46291
------------------------
"It may be that this [Robert] Harris bullet is one of the others
planted that day." -- J. DiEugenio
Get ready for a huge belly-laugh here, folks:
DiEugenio is suggesting that "this Harris bullet" was planted inside
Parkland Hospital by some unknown and unseen conspirator(s).
But the problem with DiEugenio's kooky statement here is this --- the
bullet Robert Harris was talking about (i.e., "this Harris bullet") is
a bullet that Harris thinks DROPPED OUT OF THE LEG OF GOVERNOR JOHN
CONNALLY IN THE OPERATING ROOM AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL!
So, if DiEugenio accepts Harris' theory, this would have to mean that
an unknown conspirator apparently "planted" a bullet INSIDE CONNALLY'S
THIGH.
Or, as an alternative, I guess DiEugenio could try to save face and
say that his "planted" comment about "this Harris bullet" (which
Harris firmly believes is a bullet that fell out of Connally's leg)
was not really meant to align itself with Bob Harris' beliefs at all,
but was instead a general type of unsupportable comment about other
bullets that might have been planted by the evil conspirators on
November 22nd. (And note Jim's exact word that he used
there--"others"--plural! As in MULTIPLE BULLETS that Jim seems to
think might have been planted at Parkland!)
DiEugenio, of course, could also plead insanity, and then claim that
he was merely spitting out theories about planted bullets, sans a
speck of evidence to back them up, just to see where those theories
would splatter.
At this point, perhaps an "insanity" plea would be the best way for
Jim to go.
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
lazu...@webtv.net
all...Laz
David Von Pein
>>> "I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent Bugliosi said something to the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK or thousands of people were working in concert to make it appear that he had." <<<
It was Bud who said that (and it's a damn good quote too, getting
right to the heart of the matter):
"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like
Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 [4 months before Vince
Bugliosi's book was released]
The original 2007 post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bfe877d069a14595
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15921&view=findpost&p=194367
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2555.msg48678.html#msg48678
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID [Via his newest stooge and Internet handyman,
William Kelly at The Education Forum]:
>>> "Mr. [Mike] Williams, your argument about the weight of CE 399 is a cheap diversion. I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland. Understand?" <<<
DiEugenio actually thinks he has "proved that CE 399 was not found at
Parkland". Jim is showing all the traits of an arrogant, pompous
conspiracy theorist (and a really, really silly one at that, given the
fact he thinks that JFK's and J.D. Tippit's killer was completely
innocent of shooting anyone on November 22nd).
DiEugenio hasn't come close to proving that CE399 wasn't found at
Parkland. And Jim will forever ignore the following testimony provided
by the man who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, Darrell C.
Tomlinson [at 6 H 132]. Jim D. naturally believes that Arlen Specter
was intimidating or coercing Mr. Tomlinson into saying OVER AND OVER
AGAIN that he WAS NOT SURE which stretcher he took off of the Parkland
elevator on 11/22/63:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?"
DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--
I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath
which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."
MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man
which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"
MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the
elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for
sure, I really don't remember." ....
MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?"
MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071b.htm
And DiEugenio naturally believes that the following two paragraphs
from CE2011 and CD1258 are nothing but a pack of lies forced on the
American public by the evil FBI. DiEugenio will rely on Bardwell
Odum's memory of this 37-year-old event, rather than rely on this FBI
report that was written on July 7, 1964, just 25 days after Odum
showed Bullet CE399 to both Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright at
Parkland Memorial Hospital:
"On June 12, 1964, Darrell C . Tomlinson...was shown Exhibit C1
[CE399], a rifle slug, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same
one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November
22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he
found and showed to Mr. O.P. Wright."
"On June 12, 1964, O. P. Wright...advised Special Agent Bardwell
D . Odum that Exhibit C1 [CE399], a rifle slug, shown to him at the
time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital
on November 22, 1963, which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent
of the Secret Service. .... He advised he could not positively
identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found as November 22,
1963."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11653&relPageId=3
>>> "I personally have no respect for anyone who channels Von Pein for any reason on any issue." <<<
I think I'm pretty safe in saying that Mike Williams isn't looking for
(nor does he require) the "respect" of someone like James "OSWALD SHOT
NOBODY" DiEugenio.
Conversely, anyone who has studied the JFK assassination for as many
consecutive years as DiEugenio obviously has who can seriously believe
that Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire a single shot at either John
Kennedy or J.D. Tippit certainly doesn't deserve a single granule of
"respect" from anyone--either an LNer or a reasonable-minded
conspiracy theorist (assuming that isn't a contradiction in terms
altogether).
DiEugenio's hilarious delusions regarding the JFK case continue to be
unveiled on almost a weekly basis. The latest example coming during
the Black Op Radio broadcast of June 3, 2010, when Jimmy D. revealed
one of his newest silly theories and delusions -- he thinks that
author Edward Jay Epstein was a Warren Commission shill right from the
very beginning--apparently dating all the way back to Epstein's first
book, "Inquest", which was published in 1966.
Of course, Epstein was very critical of the Warren Commission's work
and its lone-assassin conclusions in his 1966 book, but DiEugenio
evidently thinks that Epstein was just pretending to be a critic of
the Commission. Jim D., you see, can now read people's minds, and he
can tell us all kinds of intricate and detailed things about various
people, dating all the way back to the mid-1960s.
I wonder whose mind DiEugenio will read next? John McCloy's? Gerald
Ford's? Or maybe the mind of Allen Dulles?
Oh, wait. I forgot. Jim has already told us exactly what was going on
in the heads of those three men. They are the rotten and evil "Troika"
that Jim loves to ramble on about so much in his articles. And Jim
tells us that we're not to believe a single thing any of those three
Warren Commissioners said.
In other words, trust Jim DiEugenio to tell you the truth. Don't trust
the Triplets Of Deception named McCloy, Ford, and Dulles. After all,
they merely represent 43% of Earl Warren's top-level Commissioners.
And Jim has no problem at all tossing almost half of the WC under the
front wheels of his delusional bus on a whim. Jim thinks they were
evil, rotten-to-the-core men when it came to their investigation into
JFK's death, so we must believe what Jim D. says. Right?
In a word -- Bullshit!
I think I might even trust Roger Craig more than I do Jim DiEugenio at
this point in time here in mid-2010. And, as we all know, Deputy
Sheriff Craig was the biggest and more despicable liar in the whole
assassination investigation, without a shred of a doubt.
>>> "And using DVP to point out an error by Harris, while ignoring everything else he mentions in his video--which I then detailed--is typical cheap DVP trolling." <<<
Robert Harris is nearly as delusional as James DiEugenio when it comes
to his pet theories about this case. But if Jim wants to place a lot
of faith in someone who is still trying to peddle the notion that
somebody planted the initials of J. Will Fritz onto Commission Exhibit
No. 842 (which are initials that Harris last month was so sure were
the forged initials of Audrey Bell), then I say -- Harris is all
yours, Jim. Have a ball with him.
You two do have a lot in common--you guys gleefully misrepresent and
misinterpret more evidence in this case than a whole stadium full of
your fellow conspiracy kooks. And the odd part is--you seem proud of
the fact you're doing it. A strange hobby indeed.
>>> "You [Mike Williams] are the guy who says there is no evidence for a front shot also. Hmm. How about the altered testimony of Sam Holland...[?]" <<<
LOL. Ya gotta love Kook DiEugenio here! Here's a witness (S.M.
Holland) who testified as follows in front of the Warren Commission:
S.M. HOLLAND -- "There were definitely four reports [gunshots]. .... I
have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of
smoke come out from under those trees either."
And yet DiEugenio is saying that something has been "altered" in Mr.
Holland's testimony. But what would be the point of "altering" some of
Holland's statements after Sam let the above words slip from his lips?
You'd think if the Warren Commission was going to alter some of
Holland's words in order to make him conform more closely to the "Lone
Nut" scenario, they would have done something about that quote I just
cited above, which made it into the Warren Commission's volumes, on
page 244 of Volume 6.
6 H 244:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0127b.htm
DiEugenio, as we can easily see, doesn't care if his theories make any
sense or not. He'll promote them as the gospel truth nonetheless, even
WITH Holland's words on page 244 of Volume 6 staring him in the face.
>>> "...The avulsed hole in the back of JFK's skull...[?]" <<<
Jim D. doesn't care that ALL of the most-reliable evidence (like X-
rays, autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the autopsy doctors, and the
Zapruder Film) proves that Jim is 100% wrong about there being a huge
"avulsed hole in the back of JFK's skull".
In other words, Jim is saying FUCK THE BEST EVIDENCE, which is
evidence that proves that the various "BOH" witnesses were wrong. Jim
is ready and willing to cast doubt over every single item I just
listed -- from the X-rays to the Z-Film to the autopsy report. All of
it is wrong, according to James.
And Jim's even a guy who doesn't place a lot of stock in the crazy
Zapruder Film Alteration theory either. So how Jim manages to get an
"avulsed hole" in the rear of President Kennedy's head when he stares
at this frame of Mr. Zapruder's home movie is a real mystery to me.
But no worries--Jim is always ready to see things that never existed
when it comes to this case:
>>> "...the witnesses Doug Horne names in Vol. 2 who saw a hole in JFK's temple...[?]" <<<
ZERO witnesses saw an ENTRY hole in JFK's temple. Horne's obviously
nuts. He's probably more nuts than Jim DiEugenio (as amazing as that
is to believe).
And the reason no witness could have possibly seen any entrance wound
in the temporal area of John F. Kennedy's head is because no such
entry hole existed in his temple. And the autopsy photos and X-rays
verify that obvious fact.
>>> "...Jackie Kennedy jumping on the back of the car to retrieve her husband's skull bones...[?]" <<<
Jim D. is more than happy to jump on any conspiracy bandwagon he can
climb aboard, even this silly one about Jackie Kennedy.
Of course, as any sensible person knows, even if Jackie DID climb onto
the trunk of the limousine to retrieve a portion of her husband's
skull (and I don't for a minute think she actually did climb out there
for that singular purpose), so what? What does it prove?
Answer: It proves nothing. And that's because we can all see JFK's
head being thrown violently to THE REAR right after the fatal head
shot. And since we also know that JFK was shot in the head ONLY ONCE
and FROM BEHIND, even if a part of his skull was thrown onto the trunk
of the car, it could have easily gotten there as a result of the
President's rearward head movement (vs. getting there directly as a
result of a shot from the Grassy Knoll or some other frontal
location).
I've often wondered why more conspiracy theorists haven't figured out
the logic of the above scenario. ~shrug~
>>> "...Hargis' testimony (pre Gary mack MK Ultra) about getting hit with blood and tissue so hard it felt like a bullet...[?]" <<<
DiEugenio is reaching for more chaff here...even when the lone-
assassin wheat field is right beside him. Once again, Jim D. is ready
to pretend that all of the autopsy pictures are fakes. He must be
willing to do that very thing....otherwise he has to admit that any
theory about JFK being hit in the head from the front is pure bunk.
>>> "...and--oh yes--the Zapruder film's violent rearward action of JFK's body?" <<<
Jim, naturally, will totally overlook the fact that JFK's head moves
FORWARD at the critical moment of impact (between Z312 and Z313).
For conspiracy nuts like Jim D., the forward movement of Kennedy's
head AT IMPACT must either be completely ignored or misrepresented in
order to promote the theory of a frontal head shot.
Maybe Jim would like to now pretend that JFK was shot TWICE in the
head, a la Cyril Wecht. That's always a good fallback position for a
kook to take (despite the fact that there's ZERO evidence to support
such a theory).
>>> "In light of that "non-evidence" you [Mike Williams] are a natural soul-brother of Davey Boy." <<<
The mound of mush you just presented above is the same pile of crap
that you kooks have been trying to peddle for decades. Unfortunately,
a bunch of people have, indeed, swallowed that stuff -- hook, line,
and mush.
And those people who buy into such garbage are also saying, by
default, that BOTH Government committees (the WC and the HSCA) were
totally inept or corrupt when BOTH of those investigatory entities
came to the same conclusion about Lee Harvey Oswald being the only
gunman in Dealey Plaza who hit anybody with any rifle bullets on
November 22nd.
You'd think that maybe ONE of those two Government panels would have
gotten something right when they were tasked with investigating the
murder of the President, wouldn't you?
But no. According to people like James DiEugenio, BOTH of those
investigations produced nothing but lies. Even the HSCA, which was
hungry for a conspiracy from its inception!
>>> "Time wasters like you are one reason I lurk. /s/ Jim D" <<<
And yet you'll waste time responding to "time wasters" like Mike
Williams and David Von Pein.
Jim's not only an Anybody-But-Oswald nutjob, it would appear he's a
hypocrite, to boot.
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio.html