Re: JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI (CONTINUED)
David Von Pein
www.blackopradio.com/black402a.ram
Assassination researcher and loyal conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio
made another of his regular appearances on Len Osanic's weekly "Black
Op Radio" talk show on Thanksgiving Day (Thursday, November 27, 2008).
The program is linked above.
Listed below are some of the many silly things that Mr. DiEugenio said
during his 55-minute BlackOp appearance (which was designed mainly as
another in a series of DiEugenio's lengthy "anti-Vincent Bugliosi"
bitching and moaning sessions):
==================
Jim DiEugenio wonders why the recent 11/16/08 Discovery Channel
assassination documentary ("JFK: Inside The Target Car") didn't
explore the nature of President Kennedy's upper-back and throat
wounds.
James doesn't seem to realize that the "Target Car" program wasn't
produced to try and simulate (or even deal with at all) the earlier
shots that were fired in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. The
"Target Car" documentary was produced to solely focus its attention on
the HEAD SHOT that killed President Kennedy.
So, it certainly wasn't surprising to me in the least that the 2008
Discovery program didn't delve into any matters dealing with the SBT
shot or JFK's back and throat wounds. They had ALREADY done that, in
an earlier Discovery Channel program made in 2004, "JFK: Beyond The
Magic Bullet".
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/701242d562279b80
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
==================
Are you ready for a strange admission from a CTer now? Okay, listen to
these comments made by Mr. DiEugenio regarding the alignment of JFK
and John Connally in the Presidential limousine from a sniper's POV on
the 6th Floor of the TSBD:
"Of course, it's gonna be a straight line--roughly a straight
line. Because the street is right in front of the window. You've got
Kennedy in the back seat of the car. You have Connally in the jump
seat of the car. So, yeah, it's gonna line up--into a straight line."
-- James DiEugenio; 11/27/08
Thanks, Jim, for admitting that Kennedy and Connally WERE, indeed,
seated in a "straight line" in the limousine from the point-of-view of
a gunman in the Sniper's-Nest window on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository at the time when the SBT occurred.
I agree with you 100%. And so do these visual aids:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0064a.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
Most conspiracy theorists like Jim, however, like to balk and complain
about how the two victims were NOT aligned properly (in a "straight
line") from Oswald's 6th-Floor perspective.
It's good to know that a devoted conspiracy advocate will once in a
while let loose with a remark that (unintentionally) confirms that
even HE (a rabid anti-SBT CTer) can easily see that the two victims
were lined up in a "straight line" from the point-of-view of the
Sniper's Nest when President Kennedy and Governor Connally were first
injured by a rifle bullet on Elm Street in Dallas.
Based on Jim's candid "straight line" remarks, it would mean that a
single bullet slicing through both men at the same time would
certainly be feasible if a bullet had exited JFK's throat and was
heading forward and downward toward the person who was sitting in
front of Kennedy in a "straight line". Right, Jim?
Of course, I know that Jim DiEugenio didn't intend for his "it's gonna
line up into a straight line" remark to indicate that Jim favors the
likelihood of the Single-Bullet Theory being correct. Of course that
was not his intention, because no CTer alive would be caught dead
believing in the obviously-true SBT.
But his "straight line" admission is rather interesting....coming as
it does from a fervent anti-SBT conspiracist.
==================
Get ready for a really, REALLY funny comment made by James Di. Let's
listen:
"If you ask me, I think [Senator Richard] Russell was probably--
of those seven [Warren Commission] guys--he was probably the best guy
on the whole Commission, which is why he didn't go to very many of the
meetings or the hearings. Because by very early, he decided that the
fix was in." -- James DiEugenio; 11/27/08
Translation -- In order to be the "best guy" on a U.S. Government
committee which exists specifically to investigate the death of the
President of the United States, make sure you shirk your duties as
much as humanly possible and attend as few meetings and witness
hearings as you can get away with....because you're convinced that the
commission you are a part of is corrupt (i.e., "the fix was in").
Somebody break out the "LOL" icons! I need a boatload of them right
now!
Of all the people to prop up as "the best guy" on the Warren
Commission, Mr. DiEugenio picks positively the WORST possible
candidate for such lofty praise -- Richard B. Russell.
Hilarious.
By the way, here's what Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Senator
Russell in "Reclaiming History":
"What [Richard] Russell essentially said [in a 1970 interview]
is that there were too many things he had questions about, and because
of these unanswered questions, instead of concluding he didn't know
what happened, he tended to believe there was a conspiracy.
"Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official,
he would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did
not. .... His attendance at the hearings where 94 witnesses testified
before the Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only
attending the testimony of 6 witnesses. And if Russell had a little
more common sense, that would have also helped.
"Russell is the same person who on October 22, 1962, right in
the middle of the Cuban missile crisis...actually urged war rather
than a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ....
"Can you imagine that? To Russell, possession of nuclear weapons
wasn't a deterrent to war but a golden opportunity to blow up the
planet. I must confess: when a mental giant like Russell says he
believes there may have been a conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, I listen." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 297-298 of
"RH" Endnotes
I couldn't agree more, Vince:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9af777b0e813fd7
==================
DiEugenio claims that Bugliosi's time for the SBT shot was Zapruder
frame 224, which is not correct at all. Vince believes that John
Connally was already showing distress from being hit by Lee Oswald's
bullet at Z222 (based on the HSCA's photographic analysis, with the
HSCA claiming that JBC's upper body had "stiffened", indicating he had
probably already been hit by that time, which I disagree with
completely; the SBT came at Z224, IMO).
Bugliosi does display some ambiguity regarding his SBT timing
throughout various portions of his JFK book, as I discuss in more
depth in Part 2 of my "RH" book review (near the top of the following
webpage):
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200860-post.html
But from comments made by Bugliosi on radio shows in 2007 (and the
bulk of his remarks in his book), it's quite clear that Vince thinks
the SBT occurred at approximately Z-frame 210.
So, Jim DiEugenio is just plain wrong when he said that VB advocates a
"Z-frame 224" SBT timeline.
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
==================
Mr. DiEugenio talked about the "ovoid" bullet wound that was located
in the upper-right back of Texas Governor John Connally. And while
discussing Connally's back wound, James D. said that Connally's
doctors supposedly had made later statements to the effect that the
bullet that hit Connally in the upper back positively struck nothing
else before it hit the Governor.
My immediate reaction upon hearing this garbage from DiEugenio was
(and is):
WTF??!!
Where on Earth did he get that from, I pondered?
Firstly, I don't think that Connally's doctors (Robert Shaw and
Charles Gregory) made any such ridiculous statement(s).
Secondly, how could Connally's doctors possibly have known for certain
if the bullet had hit anything prior to hitting Connally?
And thirdly, given the type of elongated wound that Connally suffered
to his upper back, such a silly statement coming from JBC's very own
doctors would fly in the face of logic and reason in the first place,
because the wound in Connally's back (ovoid/elliptical in shape) was
certainly the type of wound where a doctor could not possibly have
been of the opinion that such an elongated wound positively was the
result of a bullet that hit NOTHING before entering Connally. That's
just nuts.
Such an ovoid or oval-shaped wound is the type of wound that would
lead to speculation that the bullet causing it probably DID hit
something before striking the victim. Not the other way around.
==================
"If you look at Z-frame 160, there's basically, essentially
nothing to indicate that any shot has been fired that early." -- James
DiEugenio; 11/27/08
Well, duh!
If the shot was fired right AT Z160 or very close to that frame (and I
think that is correct, and so does Vince Bugliosi), then we're not
very likely to see any visual signs of this MISSED SHOT on the Z-Film
until a few frames AFTER Z160. Right, James?
Of course, Jim D. doesn't mention the best evidence for a shot around
Z160, which is the "right turn" of John Connally, which begins at
about Z164:
"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought
was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle
shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to
come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my
right shoulder." -- John B. Connally; 1964 WC Testimony
==================
"Now, if this is the first shot [at Z160], and it didn't hit
anybody, then obviously that shot had to be the shot that ricocheted
off the curb and hit bystander James Tague." -- James DiEugenio;
11/27/08
Well, not really, Jim. The Warren Commission wasn't boxing itself in
to meet that rigid scenario. The WC, on page 117 of its final report
(linked below) allowed for the possibility that the curb on Main
Street (and, hence, James Tague) could have been struck by a fragment
of the bullet that hit JFK in the head.
That same page of the Warren Report also permanently destroys the
forever-repeated conspiracy-tinged myth about how the WC was committed
to a "5.6-second" shooting timeline. But this is not true at all,
because the Commission allowed for a longer period of time for the
three shots to be fired, specifically stating on page 117 that "the
three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8
to in excess of 7 seconds":
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
And Mr. Bugliosi, like the Warren Commission, also allows for some
flexibility in his thinking with respect to Tague's wounding as well,
as we can see in the book excerpt below:
"With respect to the bullet or bullet fragment that struck the
concrete skirt surrounding the sewer cover and ricocheted through the
nearby turf, continued on to the south curb of Main Street, and
ricocheted again, causing minor wounds to Tague's cheek, from the Book
Depository Building the sewer cover is not on line with the mark on
the curb on Main Street (CD 1518, p.46). None of this is evidence of a
fourth bullet, only evidence of what may have happened to Oswald's
first missed shot or to a fragment of the bullet that struck the
president in the head." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 311 of "RH"
Endnotes
I, myself, believe that Tague was wounded by a fragment of the first
(missed) shot, and not by a fragment from the third (head) shot. But
I've always left open the distinct possibility that Tague could have
been hit by a head-shot fragment, instead of by the first shot that
Oswald fired.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/085b004c446bdc6e
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e4429e2ea026676e
==================
Mr. DiEugenio makes a big deal out of the four "missing" (damaged)
frames of the Zapruder Film, stating that years ago he had the
opportunity to view a complete version of the Z-Film which contained
those four missing frames (Z208-Z211), and as a result of that
personal viewing (on a "really big screen"), DiEugenio is absolutely
positive that President Kennedy was hit by a bullet at "around Z-Frame
number 195 or so" [DiEugenio quote; 11/27/08], which comes close to
matching the HSCA's erroneous timing for the SBT shot (which was
Z190).
And Jim's belief of an approx. Z195 JFK hit is solidified in concrete
by merely looking at "missing" frames Z208 through Z211 in motion on
an unspliced version of the Zapruder Film.
Jim thinks JFK's head "buckles" during these four missing Z-frames,
which is proof to Jim D. that Kennedy was hit by a bullet just a few
frames earlier.
It's interesting to note, however, that the four frames in question
(Z208-Z211) show only the very top of JFK's head as Kennedy goes
behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (and these frames aren't very clear
at all). The majority of Kennedy's whole body (and even a good part of
his "buckling" head) are completely obscured by the street sign:
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z208.jpg
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z209.jpg
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z211.jpg
To think that the above 4 "missing" frames of the Zapruder Film prove
that JFK was reacting to a gunshot wound is just incredibly far-
fetched and speculative, IMO. But, the little sliver of JFK's blurry
head in Z208 through Z211 was apparently enough ironclad PROOF for Mr.
DiEugenio to state as he did state on the November 27th BlackOp
program -- "That's it" (i.e., that's all I need to see, folks; those
four frames of the Z-Film, with Kennedy almost totally hidden by the
street sign this whole time, are enough proof for me that JFK was hit
by a bullet before he disappeared behind the signage).
All together now ----
Are you cuckoo, Jim???
Has your train completely left its rails??
Plus, we have this "Pot Meets Kettle" argument from Jim too (unless
DiEugenio believes in the ultra-silly theory that has JFK being hit by
separate bullets in the upper back and throat):
At one point on the 11/27 BlackOp show, Jim berates Vince Bugliosi and
the Warren Commission for postulating a "delayed reaction" by Governor
Connally after he was shot in his upper-right back.*
But then we have DiEugenio, just a few minutes later, telling the
BlackOp audience (consisting of myself and one other guy in Helena,
Montana, who was half asleep on the couch after consuming his heavy
Thanksgiving feast) that JFK was absolutely, positively hit with a
bullet at about Z195 (based on those critically-important 4 missing
blurry Z-Frames that show JFK's "buckling" head).
But what Jim doesn't tell his audience of two is that HE, too, must
certainly believe in some type of a physical "delayed reaction" on the
part of one of the two shooting victims (JFK in this instance),
because we know that Kennedy doesn't start raising his arms up to his
mouth and neck areas until Z-Frame 226, which is almost TWO SECONDS
after Jim DiEugenio insists that JFK was struck by a bullet back at
approximately Z195.
So, Jim must believe that JFK's arm-raising reaction was, indeed,
significantly "delayed". But when it comes to anyone else's theories
about a delayed reaction on the part of the other victim in the
limousine (Connally), Jim can't seem to control his laughter. Go
figure the irony of that little two-faced argument there.
But, as mentioned above, I suppose it's possible that Jim believes
that Kennedy's arm-raising, which begins at Z226, is due to JFK being
hit by a different bullet from the one that Jim says struck him at
about Z195.
I'm not sure what Jim's exact shot-by-shot theory is. But maybe he
thinks Kennedy was hit at Z195, then again just before Z225, then
again at Z313, and then again at Z898 as Bill Greer pulled into the
Parkland emergency entrance (via the "real and unaltered" version of
the Z-Film).
(Just kidding about that Parkland gunshot. But you never know what a
CTer is going to invent next, so maybe I should keep an open mind
about a conspiracy theorist postulating a "Z898" shot.)
* = I, however, don't believe the "delayed reaction" theory myself,
because I'm quite confident that both victims were hit by Lee Oswald's
SBT bullet at precisely Z-Frame 224, with each man's reactions to this
Z224 hit being perfectly "in sync" with one another and perfectly
corresponding to the bullet striking each victim at exactly Z224, as
demonstrated here:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
==================
DiEugenio also claims that Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers picked up a
bullet out of the grass in Dealey Plaza. Of course, Walthers never
said he picked up any bullet or bullet shell in Dealey Plaza. There's
not a speck of hard evidence to support such an allegation. But the
conspiracy nuts keep harping on this myth for years on end anyway.
Pathetic, isn't it?
"Though [Buddy] Walthers couldn't have been clearer that he
found no bullet in the turf, many conspiracy theorists to this day
maintain he did." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Footnote on Page 310 of "RH"
Endnotes
==================
Now, are you ready for an example of blatant and outright
misrepresentation on the part of James DiEugenio? Well, ready or not,
I've got a beaut for everybody here.....
During his 11/27/08 BlackOp appearance, DiEugenio had the gall to
argue that President Kennedy's head is in the "exact
position" (quoting DiEugenio) in Zapruder frame 312 as it is in Z313
when looking at those two Z-Film frames in separate still photographs
(such as the ones presented by Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History"; Vince
has placed Z312 right on top of Z313 on the same page in the book).
Jim D. seems to travel deeper and deeper into the Twilight Zone with
each passing Black Op Radio interview.
Now, I will readily admit, that it is very difficult to discern the
small 2-inch (approx.) forward movement of Kennedy's head between Z312
and Z313 when looking at just two static still images printed in a
book. The forward motion of JFK's head is, indeed, hard to positively
determine using just this method.
But for DiEugenio to try and put the false idea in the mind of anyone
by suggesting that just maybe JFK's head DIDN'T rock forward a couple
of inches at the very important moment when his head was being hit
with a bullet can only be deemed flagrant and outright deception and
misrepresentation on DiEugenio's part.
Because even if the forward movement of Kennedy's head is hard to make
out in the two pictures printed in Mr. Bugliosi's book, DiEugenio
certainly knows full well (or he should) that when we watch the
Zapruder Film IN MOTION, Kennedy's head does move forward at the
critical "impact" point between frames 312 and 313. There can be no
denying that rock-solid fact.
The very fact that DiEugenio would even think about bringing up such a
silly argument regarding the Z-Film frames that appear in Bugliosi's
book, and suggest to anyone listening to him that perhaps JFK's head
didn't move forward between Z312 and Z313 (which most certainly HAD to
be the desired end result of James bringing this subject up in the
first place--what else could he possibly have had in mind by doing
it?) vividly illustrates the depths to which a conspiracy theorist
will sink when attempting to argue his never-ending case for
"conspiracy" in the JFK assassination.
A couple of addendums to this "Z312/313" discussion and Bugliosi's
book.....
It would have been ideal if Bugliosi could have placed this super-slow-
motion image of the key head-shot sequence somewhere in his JFK book.
It would have served as a very nice visual aid in "Reclaiming
History":
Vince could, in fact, have placed a weblink to the above Z-Film clip
on the "RH" CD-ROM filled with endnotes and source notes if he had
chosen to do so, because he DID put a few random weblinks on that CD,
which are mainly links to various pages of John McAdams' excellent
website.
One mistake made by Bugliosi that DiEugenio could definitely have
raked Vince over the hot coals for is Vincent's continual error that
he made during many of his book-promoting radio interviews in 2007.
That error being when Vincent stated in several interviews that
"Reclaiming History" is the "only book" ever published on the JFK
assassination to include Zapruder frames 312 and 313.
That declaration by VB is not only wrong -- it's very, very wrong. My
current collection of JFK books is not huge by any means, but in my
library alone I found five books that have those two Z-frames in them
(not counting VB's book) -- "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. John Lattimer
(1980); "Conspiracy Of One" by Jim Moore (1990); "The Killing Of A
President" by Robert Groden (1993); "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of
Film" by Richard Trask (2005); and "A Simple Act Of Murder" by Mark
Fuhrman (2006).
That's just a small mistake on Mr. Bugliosi's part, of course, and it
doesn't really hurt or undercut his well-researched and comprehensive
book in any way whatsoever.
But it does seem strange to me that Vince would repeatedly make that
same mistake when he discusses his book, especially since he should
certainly already have known that the above-mentioned books (and no
doubt many, many others not mentioned as well) have Z-frames 312 and
313 in them, since Vincent uses every one of the books I referenced
above as source material in several locations within his own book. So,
he no doubt has read and is familiar with each of those books in
question.**
** = So, I suppose this means that my last observation about VB and
the Z-frames will spark some CTer (like Mr. DiEugenio perhaps) to
claim that that is additional verification that Vincent's book was
"ghostwritten" by other authors, seeing as how the CTer could make the
argument that Vince didn't even read the books that he uses as sources
in "RH".
But I, of course, would hasten to argue against such a potential
theory, mainly because I think it's just plain stupid to think such a
thing about Vincent T. Bugliosi in the first place. I think it's
likely that Vince (whose memory isn't as good as it once was, and he's
admitted that same thing himself) just simply can't recall seeing
those Z-frames in those other books that he has most certainly read.
It could also be that when Vince goes to read a book, he doesn't pay
too much attention to the pictures in each of the publications he's
reading.
To be perfectly fair to Vincent on this "Z312/Z313" issue, I do know
that on more than one radio program, Vince has put a verbal "footnote"
beside his usual comment about there being "no other book out there on
the assassination" that includes those Z-frames. With that verbal
footnote being: "There could be other books out there with these
frames, but I'm not aware of them".
==================
James also takes a little time to try and tear down the "neuromuscular
reaction" and "jet effect" theories with respect to JFK's head
movement.
But, in reality, of course, since we know beyond any shred of a doubt
that JFK was shot in the head only ONCE -- and that one bullet entered
Kennedy's cranium from BEHIND (a CTer's whining and constant denials
notwithstanding) -- it truly makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER how the
President's head behaved after he was shot.
His head could have spun around like a top and bounced off the rear
seat like a basketball 20 times before coming to rest--and that
activity still wouldn't change the irrevocable and immutable fact that
he was struck in the head by just that single bullet FROM BEHIND. The
autopsy report and the photos and X-rays prove that fact beyond all
possible doubt.
So, the slight forward movement of JFK's head between frames 312 and
313 on the Zapruder Film is not really needed at all in order to
arrive at the truth with respect to John Kennedy's head wounds.
Yes, it's nice having that additional piece of evidence (the Z-Film)
to help bolster and solidify the truth about the head wounds, but the
film certainly isn't a necessary ingredient here.
And I must say that I disagree very strongly with Vince Bugliosi when
he said on various radio shows in 2007 that the jury at the 1986 mock
trial in London ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald") would probably have
acquitted Oswald if Bugliosi had not been able to negate and overcome
the defense argument concerning the violent "back and to the left"
movement of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder Film.
I disagree with Vince there because, as I've said, the motion of JFK's
head after the head shot is really not very important in the long run.
In fact, as we all know, the "head snap" isn't even mentioned at all
in the Warren Commission volumes. It's totally ignored. And that's
mainly because the Warren Commission had much BETTER evidence to rely
on when it came to the subject of Kennedy's head wounds.
And since the Commission knew for a fact that Kennedy was not hit in
the head from the front, there was no real reason to bring up the head
snap seen in the Z-Film. Mainly because that violent head snap proves
NOTHING with respect to JFK's head injuries.
Given Mr. Bugliosi's vast talents as a prosecutor and his attention to
detail and the way he will hammer home the raw, physical facts
associated with any case he's involved in -- Vince would have easily,
IMO, been able to convince that London jury that JFK was hit in the
head from BEHIND only, even if the forward movement of the President's
head was never even brought up at the mock trial.
Because Bugliosi, of course, would have had ample ammunition to work
with -- e.g., the autopsy photos, the X-rays, Dr. Petty's testimony,
and the autopsy report.
If "back and to the left" somehow trumps all of those things I just
mentioned -- then it's a crazy, mixed-up world we're living in, folks.
==================
Also regarding JFK's head wounds.....
DiEugenio stated this about Z-Frame #313 (the moment that JFK was
struck in the head) -- "The only part of the head that looks like it's
being impacted is the front."
I can only shake my own head in disbelief and (again) utter:
WTF???!!!
At Z313, a large exit wound has just been created at the right-front
of President Kennedy's head....and this is where we see all the blood
and brain tissue (naturally), since the only place we could really
expect to see any of this bodily material is at the location of the
EXIT WOUND.
But Jim D. evidently thinks that this massive blow-out of blood and
brains at the front of JFK's head represents the ENTRY hole made by an
INCOMING projectile:
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg
Go figure Jim's cockeyed reasoning here. I certainly cannot.
==================
DiEugenio also said something else really bizarre (as if that last
item about Z313 wasn't bizarre enough already) ---
Jim (and Len Osanic too) claimed that John Connally and Nellie
Connally (seated in front of the Kennedys in the limo on 11/22/63)
were not sprayed with blood and brain matter right after the fatal
shot struck JFK in the head.
No kidding. James really said that. Well, to be clear and precise,
what Jim actually said (verbatim) was this:
"They [the Connallys] should have been covered in blood."
Time for yet another -- WTF???!!!
The Connallys (both of them) always said--in virtually every interview
I ever heard either one of them give--that they were both literally
"covered" with brain tissue from the fatal head shot.
I guess, though, that Jim D. thinks the Connallys should have been
splattered with more "blood" (specifically) after the head shot hit
JFK. But the word "blood" is used in one of the following excerpts of
testimony given by the Connallys:
"Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see
on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain
tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my
trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my
thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time
either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always
that it was he who was hit and no one else." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1964
WC TESTIMONY
"Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the
interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered
with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as
your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was
no question in my mind about what it was." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1978
HSCA TESTIMONY
"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot
falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was
the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the
car and both of us." -- NELLIE CONNALLY; 1964 WC TESTIMONY
"Instantly, the shot, the car was covered, it was like buckshot
falling all over us." -- NELLIE CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY
==================
As a side note ---
Apparently Len and James are now pretty much convinced that I am, in
fact, Dave Reitzes in disguise. Since his October 30th radio program
featuring Mr. DiEugenio, Osanic received some additional e-mails
(probably from one or two of our CT friends at the acj asylum),
restating the allegation that DVP and Reitzes occupy the same body.
And I guess that's enough proof for Lenny and James.
DiEugenio also said on the November 27th radio show that he's "not
gonna talk about this guy [me] anymore", because Jim thinks that I am
"so suspicious now" that I don't deserve "any more comment on that
particular issue" [although what exactly "that particular issue" is
supposed to be, I cannot say for sure; but Jim's probably talking
about my earlier remarks relating to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
(#C2766), even though that topic never came up at all during the
November 27th radio show].
Translation -- If Person A starts a false rumor about Person B, make
sure to accept the rumor as being true (without doing anything to
confirm the rumor yourself), and then ignore Person B altogether and
label him "suspicious" from that point forward.
Great policy, Jim.
And Len Osanic made these silly and incorrect remarks about me as
well--
"I think a while ago that I reported that this Dave Von Pein guy
was actually Dave Reitzes. .... A couple of people wrote in about
that, and we mentioned that and we haven't heard anything from the guy
since."
I guess Len never visits these forums. Because if he had visited them
(or my JFK Blog), he would easily have been able to see that I have
certainly not remained silent when it comes to voicing my opinion on
the Internet about Mr. DiEugenio's lengthy anti-Bugliosi and anti-DVP
critiques [see "Related Links" below].
I wonder what Len expects anyway? Does he think I should have booked a
spot on Brian Williams' NBC Nightly News to talk about the way Mr.
DiEugenio and Mr. Osanic have mangled the facts in the JFK case?
==================
IN SUMMARY:
After listening to some of James DiEugenio's odd remarks on the radio
on November 27th, I had to ask myself -- is Jim talking about the JOHN
F. KENNEDY assassination? Or is he talking about some OTHER person's
murder? Because he sure seems totally ignorant of a lot of basic facts
with respect to JFK's murder. Absolutely unbelievable.
And evidently, per DiEugenio, Vincent Bugliosi doesn't know what he's
talking about at all when it comes to anything of substance in the JFK
murder case.
I guess maybe Jim thinks Vince spent the 21 years from 1986 to 2007
merely watching the grass grow in front of Gerald Posner's house or
something, and then he hired a team of several "ghostwriters" to come
in and write most of the lengthy chapters for his JFK book.
Maybe Mr. DiEugenio should have stopped after writing Part 3 of his
anti-Bugliosi review. Because the more he talks, the more he continues
to embarrass himself.
David Von Pein
November 27-28-29, 2008
===================================================
RELATED LINKS:
JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI (AND DAVID VON PEIN):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aab389dd01f6057c
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb486bcbb592bacf
===================================================
aeffects
> www.blackopradio.com/black402a.ram
>
> Assassination researcher and loyal conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio
> made another of his regular appearances on Len Osanic's weekly "Black
> Op Radio" talk show on Thanksgiving Day (Thursday, November 27, 2008).
> The program is linked above.
...
No comments concerning HBO and Bugliosi's mega-flop Reclaiming
History?
> As a side note ---
>
> Apparently Len and James are now pretty much convinced that I am, in
> fact, Dave Reitzes in disguise. Since his October 30th radio program
> featuring Mr. DiEugenio, Osanic received some additional e-mails
> (probably from one or two of our CT friends at the acj asylum),
> restating the allegation that DVP and Reitzes occupy the same body.
> And I guess that's enough proof for Lenny and James.
>
> DiEugenio also said on the November 27th radio show that he's "not
> gonna talk about this guy [me] anymore", because Jim thinks that I am
> "so suspicious now" that I don't deserve "any more comment on that
> particular issue" [although what exactly "that particular issue" is
> supposed to be, I cannot say for sure; but Jim's probably talking
> about my earlier remarks relating to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
> (#C2766), even though that topic never came up at all during the
> November 27th radio show].
here's a F-L-A-S-H for ya: you're USENET fodder, son. I doubt anyone
with serious JFK research credentials think you'll ever appear in
public and quite frankly, no one cares.... your a legend in your own
mind, troll. A legend that got screwed over by Vinnie Bugliosi. All
that internet work you performed and not ONE Reclaiming History
paragraph attributed to you in (and Dale Myers got pages upon pages
upon PAGES).
Resentment(s) gotta run deep, eh?
David Von Pein
I decided to e-mail Black Op Radio host Len Osanic the link to my
lengthy 11/29/08 article refuting James DiEugenio's constant
inaccuracies.
Here's the short e-mail exchange thus far:
==============================================
Subj: Article Concerning The Nov. 27th Black Op Program
Date: 11/29/2008 1:43:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Len Osanic
-------------------------------
Hi Len,
I thought you might be interested in reading this article I just
finished writing:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
Thanks.
Regards,
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
[Note -- My last name is pronounced Von PINE, not PEEN. Thank you.]
==============================================
Subj: RE: Article Concerning The Nov. 27th Black Op Program
Date: 11/29/2008 6:31:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Len Osanic
To: David Von Pein
-------------------------------
Are you kidding me?
Not interested at all.
==============================================
Subj: Re: DiEugenio / Von Pein
Date: 11/29/2008 2:13:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Len Osanic
-------------------------------
Gee, how sweet of you.
I just thought you might possibly be interested in seeing how one of
your prime guests each week (Mr. DiEugenio) skews the facts constantly
(as I point out again and again in the article you aren't interested
in at all).
YOU, obviously, haven't a clue as to what a lot of the real evidence
is in the JFK case. I fully realized that fact at one point last year,
when you admitted that you had never even heard of the names Dale
Myers or Charles Givens until about midway through the year 2007.
So, given the fact that you're clueless about many things, I was
trying to fill you in a little bit, especially regarding one of your
frequent guests, Mr. DiEugenio.
You really should read my article, Len. No kidding. You might be in
for a surprise when you learn how utterly wrong Mr. DiEugenio is about
so many different things in this case. And, yes, I have sources for
what I write, too.
Thanks for your time (if you give this message ANY time at all, that
is).
David Von Pein
==============================================
David Von Pein
EXCERPT.........
David Von Pein
November 2008
aeffects
...
gotta gird those loins, boyo -- no one gives a shit about you, your
50,000 USENET/Blog JFK related posts or your roller-coaster ride with
Vinnie DaBugliosi..... Baseball never looked so good, eh?
YoHarvey
Healy? You are laughed at and derided on the Education Forum for a
reason. Don't ya get it boy?????
David Von Pein
EXCERPT..........
aeffects
off your knees troll.... DVP got business elsewhere now........
aeffects
you're getting pushed further back into that dark, lonely, Lone Nut
corner, hon. Pretty soon someone will have to pump in air to keep ya
going.....
David Von Pein
Here's another example of how unhinged some of the conspiracy
theorists of the world appear to be:
Yesterday (11/29/08), I received the following e-mail from some CTer
named "Billy" (he didn't tell me his last name; I guess I'm supposed
to be able to figure out who the hell he is by way of his "Billy"-only
signature). ~shrug~ .....
======================================================
Subj: A Message from Jim Di Eugenio
Date: 11/29/2008 7:51:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: "Billy"
To: David Von Pein
--------------------------
Hi Mr. Von Pein,
I don't wan't to appear the bringer [LOL; I wonder if "Billy" meant to
say "bearer" here; "bringer" is a valid word, but it sounds kinda
funny] of bad news[,] but Jim Di Eugenio told me to tell you not to
send him anymore [sic] E-Mails!! He won't accept anymore [sic] E-Mails
from you!!!
Perhaps all Warren Commission apologists should re-examine the facts
surrounding the JFK Assassination!!! Remember even the HSCA[,] which
was thoroughly manipulated by the CIA[,] concluded a probable
conspiracy in the death of JFK!!!
Billy
======================================================
MY REPLY TO "BILLY":
Subj: Re: A Message from Jim DiEugenio
Date: 11/29/2008 8:12:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: "Billy"
--------------------------
>>> "Hi Mr. Von Pein, I don't wan't to appear the bringer of bad news but Jim Di Eugenio told me to tell you not to send him anymore E-Mails !! He won't accept anymore E-Mails from you !!!" <<<
That's odd, since I never sent him ANY e-mails in the first place.
Why are you of the opinion I sent Jim any e-mails? I haven't. I don't
even have his e-mail address. I mailed Len Osanic, not DiEugenio. (Is
that supposedly the same thing, since those two conspiracy-happy
theorists are attached at the "Black Op Radio" hip, it would seem?)
>>> "Perhaps all Warren Commission apologists should re examine the facts surrounding the JFK Assassination!!! Remember even the HSCA which was thoroughly manipulated by the CIA concluded a probable conspiracy in the death of JFK!!!" <<<
And the HSCA's "conspiracy" determination has been ripped to shreds
since '79. But it's always good for you conspiracy kooks to pretend
that the discredited Dictabelt nonsense is still upright and valid.
Because if you were to admit the truth about the Dictabelt's total
worthlessness, you'd be right back to having no "official" conspiracy
again. And no CTer wants that, right William?
BTW, Billy Exclamation Point (whoever you are), maybe you ought to
consider stepping outside your conspiracy-tinged world for a few
minutes and actually read what I wrote about Jim's misrepresentations:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
You never know, you might actually learn something about your pal
named James. Because right now, it appears you're a lapdog for a
person (Mr. DiEugenio) who actually wants to peddle the notion that
JFK's head ISN'T moving forward here at Z313:
Say Hi to Jimmy for me.
Low-to-medium-sized regards,
David Von Pein
======================================================
aeffects
more nonsense from this USENET boards primo Lone Nut bullshit artist,
none other thsan: David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes-pieces
On Nov 30, 12:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's another example of how unhinged some of the conspiracy
> theorists of the world appear to be:
>
> Yesterday (11/29/08), I received the following e-mail from some CTer
> named "Billy"
sure you did, troll. Say listen, you got spanked, get over it. The
entire JFK Rearch community now KNOWS....
<snip the Nutter bullshit>
David Von Pein
>>> "The entire JFK [Research] community now KNOWS...." <<<
Yeah, they now "know" that Jim DiEugenio likes to misrepresent and
mangle as much stuff about the JFK assassination as he can within the
hour-long segments that are afforded him by Mr. Osanic at Black Op
Radio.
Here's one more example (excerpted from my 11/29 debunking of James
D.):
=============================================
Jim [DiEugenio] (and Len Osanic too) claimed that John Connally and
=============================================
aeffects
> >>> "The entire JFK [Research] community now KNOWS...." <<<
>
> Yeah, they now "know" that Jim DiEugenio likes to misrepresent and
> mangle as much stuff about the JFK assassination as he can within the
> hour-long segments that are afforded him by Mr. Osanic at Black Op
> Radio.
>
you're through, son..... It's ovah! You've been outted! Those shows
are recorded for posterity.
David Von Pein
>>> "Those shows are recorded for posterity." <<<
LOL. Yes, I know they are, Mr. Crackpipe.
And I've saved the pertinent recent ones which include DiEugenio's
flagrant deceptions "for posterity" too.
So, years from now, Jim DiEugenio's blatant inaccuracies are going to
still be there--saved for posterity--for all time on my computer.
That's one of the few things I like about the Black Op programs -- Len
Osanic archives them immediately after they are aired. And each one
can be downloaded to your hard drive for eternity. That's a comforting
thing, especially when I want to go back and highlight one of
DiEugenio's constant idiotic statements (or one of Mark Lane's or Bob
Groden's, et al). It's always nice to be able to provide a CTer's
foolish statement in "verbatim" form. And there are plenty of foolish
statements to choose from when it comes to the November 27 archived
show starring James DiEugenio.
Here's one more example:
=============================================
"If you look at Z-frame 160, there's basically, essentially
nothing to indicate that any shot has been fired that early." -- James
DiEugenio; 11/27/08
Well, duh!
If the shot was fired right AT Z160 or very close to that frame (and I
think that is correct, and so does Vince Bugliosi), then we're not
very likely to see any visual signs of this MISSED SHOT on the Z-Film
until a few frames AFTER Z160. Right, James?
Of course, Jim D. doesn't mention the best evidence for a shot around
Z160, which is the "right turn" of John Connally, which begins at
about Z164:
"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought
was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle
shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to
come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my
right shoulder." -- John B. Connally; 1964 WC Testimony
=============================================
THE FIRST HALF OF "BLACK OP RADIO" SHOW #402 (11/27/08):
www.blackopradio.com/black402a.ram
=============================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
ADDENDUM:
There are several more idiotic comments that were made by both James
DiEugenio and host Len Osanic during their 55-minute get-together on
the 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio" program....comments that I didn't touch
on in my original article (linked above) concerning that abominable
radio broadcast of non-stop distortions and misrepresentations.
So, I'll take this opportunity in this follow-up post to touch on a
few of those things now.....
==================================
DiEugenio and Osanic think that the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm
Street was removed the day after the assassination.
Now, the main reason I didn't bring this topic up in my main article
above is because I'm not 100% certain that I am correct about the
things I'm going to say now. But I'm pretty sure I am correct here
when I say that the Stemmons sign was not removed from Elm Street on
11/23/63. The notion that it was removed I think is just another of
the many conspiracy-oriented myths surrounding JFK's murder that have
cropped up out of the woodwork since 1963.
There are two main reasons that I don't think the sign was removed:
1.) Since all reasonable people know that the only shots that were
fired on 11/22/63 were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the Book
Depository, and since there is virtually no chance whatsoever that any
of Oswald's three shots struck the Stemmons sign on the north side of
Elm Street -- there would, therefore, have been absolutely no logical
reason for the city of Dallas (or anyone else) to suddenly want to
remove or replace that Stemmons Freeway sign on Saturday, November 23,
1963.
But even if the sign was removed and then replaced with another
identical sign, such activity would have had nothing whatsoever to do
with trying to hide any kind of multi-shooter "plot" or "conspiracy"
with respect to the assassination of the President.
2.) I have seen numerous post-November 22 photos and films of Dealey
Plaza, and the Stemmons sign is still in place (and it sure looks like
the exact same sign AFTER 11/22 as it did on 11/22).
So, do some CTers think that the sign that appears in many post-11/22
pictures and films is a DIFFERENT sign from the one that appears in
Abraham Zapruder's home movie?
I've yet to see or hear of any proof at all that the sign was
"removed" or "replaced" almost immediately after the assassination.
But many CTers continue to believe the sign was removed or replaced,
evidently to hide the fact that the 45 additional shooters in the
Plaza were apparently all as blind as bats when their many bullets hit
the Stemmons sign instead of going anywhere near their target
destination of JFK's body, necessitating the complete removal of the
road sign by yet MORE co-conspirators and cover-up operatives.
I guess even the Dallas Department of Highways and Signage was "in" on
the cover-up plot too.
Also -- A Stemmons sign is certainly in the exact same place on Elm
Street as of the date of the Warren Commission's detailed re-enactment
of the crime on May 24th, 1964, six months and two days after the
assassination. Is this supposedly a completely-different Stemmons sign
that we see here in CE893 and CE894?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052a.htm
And apart from the 5/24/64 WC re-creation photos, there is a much-
earlier indication that the sign was not removed, via a film taken by
the U.S. Secret Service on either November 27 or December 5, 1963
(I've heard conflicting accounts regarding the exact date when the
film was made; but either of those two dates would still drive the
point home about the sign still being exactly where it was on November
22).
The sign is easily visible in the Secret Service film (at about the
2:09 mark of the video provided below):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWM_Pni45Go&fmt=18
And the Stemmons sign is also seen quite clearly (from Zapruder's
vantage point) at the very end of the 1963 SS film, starting at the
7:28 mark of this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEn63X61fRo&fmt=18
==================================
20 minutes into the November 27th "Black Op" laughfest, DiEugenio
calls Dale Myers "the unnamed ghostwriter" of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007
book "Reclaiming History".
I guess James should probably read page 1515 of Vincent's book (in the
"Acknowledgments" section), which is where he'll find Dale Myers' name
being mentioned at some length, including these words:
"Dale [Myers] helped me in the writing of several sections of
[this book, "Reclaiming History"]."
I wonder how the above Dale Myers' "acknowledgment" equates to an
"unnamed ghostwriter"? Maybe Jim D. can tell us how that works.
==================================
This one should make all LNers roar with laughter.....
Host Len Osanic is so clueless and silly that he actually blurted out
something on his 11/27 radio show concerning Vince Bugliosi that
nobody in their right mind could POSSIBLY even begin to think was
true:
Before being corrected by DiEugenio (and I have to give Jim credit
here--he actually got something right for a change when he set Len
straight on this issue), Osanic actually thought that Vincent Bugliosi
was an "agnostic" when it came to the subject of "Zapruder Film
alteration".
Which means, in Len's pre-November 27th mindset, that Vince Bugliosi
(the same man who Len hates so much for writing his lengthy pro-LN
tome--a tome Len has referred to as "bullshit" on numerous occasions)
would have been just as likely to BELIEVE in the crazy "Z-Film hoax"
nonsense as he would be prone to DISBELIEVE it.
~LOL Break~
How could anyone who was even semi-familiar with Vince Bugliosi's pro-
lone assassin stance possibly believe for even one second that
Bugliosi could still (to this day) be an "agnostic" when it came to
the idiotic theory of Z-Film alteration/fakery?
Len, you're amazing. But I thank you for all the laughs you and your
"Black Op" guests have provided me.
David Von Pein
November 30, 2008
==================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4ccf9f2657780c83
Nice, Tony.
Defend the non-stop misrepresentations of a CTer if it makes you happy
(and I guess it does, or else you wouldn't have taken time out of your
busy CT-filled day to do it).
Tony, of course, knows full well that I'm 100% right about every
single hunk of blatant DiEugenio deception that I pointed out in my
thread-starter. But Tony (being Tony) just likes to argue....even when
there's NOTHING to dispute.
Good job, Mr. Kook.
Here, have a Lorna Doone and a Pepsi. You deserve it after that last
tireless CT-backing performance you gave above.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eef0195261a2cf52
Incredibly, Patrick Speer seems to think that a wound on Governor
Connally's back that was MORE THAN TWICE THE SIZE (in diameter) than
the bullet that entered his back (approx. 15 mm. vs. 6.5 mm.) should
NOT be deemed a wound that is "elongated" (which is the word I usually
use when describing Connally's back wound), or "elliptical" in nature.
The wound in JFK's upper back measured 7x4 millimeters, much smaller
than Connally's back wound. And Kennedy was certainly hit by the same
bullet that struck Connally. CTer griping notwithstanding (of course).
So even with a mere "1.5 cm." back-wound measurement (instead of the
"3 cm." measurement), it indicates the high likelihood that the bullet
struck something before it hit John Connally. And the only
"something" (of course) that was located between Lee Oswald's rifle
and JBC's back was John F. Kennedy.
As usual, CTers will attempt to jump through an assortment of hoops in
order to avoid the obvious truth of the Single-Bullet Theory.
But at the end of this day (like all others), a CTer must still face
the raw facts about the wounding of Kennedy and Connally on Elm Street
-- and the raw facts (bullet-wise, LACK-OF-OTHER-BULLETS-wise, and
common-sense-wise) positively favor the likelihood that the SBT is the
true scenario for this shooting.
This refusal that CTers have for accepting the SBT has always seemed
quite strange to me (when dealing with semi-reasonable CTers, that is,
not the type you're likely to find at these NG asylums). As Vince
Bugliosi has said (and he's 100% right), the SBT is "so obvious that a
child could author it".
Because even with the obviously-true SBT in place, the CTers can still
argue their favorite "Oswald Was A Patsy" and "Head Shot From The
Knoll" theories till the cows come home.
Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists = A strange lot.
Footnote -- (IMHO.)
=======================================
"At that angle, no matter WHERE [the bullet] came from, it HAD
TO PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr.;
February 11, 1967
AL JENNER AUDIO CLIP:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GN-LG8uZcs&fmt=18
=======================================
aeffects
<snip the nonsense>
now you're answering yourself ANSWERING yourself..... Have you no
sense of dignity or decorum troll?
David Von Pein
>>> "now you're answering yourself ANSWERING yourself." <<<
Once more, The Crackpipe is wrong about something. (What a surprise!)
I was responding to Pat Speer above (of course).
>>> "Have you no sense of dignity or decorum[,] troll?" <<<
Who shot JFK, David (if not Oswald)?
Simple question there. Think you can handle it with no help from Big
Boss Holmes?
Give it a shot. You've got time. After all, your next alley meeting
with your drug dealer isn't until midnight.
aeffects
the troll, trolls..... listen moron, so even you can understand it way
out there in Indiana, er New York: a case can be made for one other
than LHO killing JFK.... Now I understand you can't deal with that,
but what the hell, your brother can console you in his arms there in
that cozy little bedroom of yours...
Actually it was you answering me, then answering yourself, THEN
answering yourself, AGAIN. Is it any wonder why you didn't get paid
for all the Bugliosi-Reclaiming History bullshit you spread around the
internet.... You should be ashamed, pervert such as yourself...
David Von Pein
I often insert posts from aaj randomly into acj threads, so that they
will show up immediately. When I do that, I really have no interest in
anyone responding particularly on the acj side. I'm merely dropping
them here at acj to archive them for my files, sans the delayed
moderation of aaj.
That's probably obvious to everybody but Healy.
David Von Pein
BATTLING A JFK CONSPIRACY KOOK:
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
ADDENDUM TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE:
There's an important point that I failed to mention in the article
above (which I now want to point out here in this addendum post):
Conspiracist James DiEugenio also totally misrepresents the reason why
"Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi placed still photographs
of Zapruder Film frames 312 and 313 in the photo section of his book,
with DiEugenio (incredibly) claiming in his 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio"
appearance that the reason Vince highlights Z312 and Z313 in his book
is only due to the "leaning forward" status of JFK's head at the time
of both of those frames.
But, of course, President Kennedy's exact "leaning forward" posture at
the time he was hit with Oswald's fatal bullet is not the issue at
all....and surely DiEugenio must realize it's not the issue. The real
issue is that Z312 and Z313 prove, without doubt, that JFK's head was
pushed forward by the impact of the bullet that struck his head within
the space of that one-eighteenth of a second between those two Z-
frames.
But DiEugenio bypasses that real reason entirely and babbles on with
some double-talk about how Bugliosi's real reason for propping up
those two Z-Film frames is due only to the forward "lean" (or angle)
of Kennedy's head.
It's absolutely hilarious to watch a CTer twist and mangle the facts
at every turn in the (Elm St.) road. It's aggravating as all get out,
too. But hilarious as well.
David Von Pein
December 2, 2008
===========================================
PART 1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJryGn6uBaE&fmt=18
PART 2:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Fw0kpNJy0&fmt=18
===========================================
aeffects
David Von Pein
Subj: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/2/2008 3:07:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton (Vincent Bugliosi's secretary)
----------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
I'm writing today to send you a lengthy JFK-related article I wrote
recently, which debunks many silly pro-conspiracy things that have
been spread around the Internet lately on "Black Op Radio" by
assassination researcher James DiEugenio.
You probably recognize that guy's name, since Vince mentions James in
"RH", and, incredibly, Vince was very kind to Jim too. But VB might
change his mind about him after reading DiEugenio's multi-part, never-
ending anti-RH review that Jim has been writing for months now.
I've debunked and refuted much of DiEugenio's crazy silliness in my
Internet articles.
I just thought this might be of interest to both you and Mr. Bugliosi,
especially considering the fact that DiEugenio is saying the things
he's saying with the intention of undermining and debunking virtually
everything Vince has written in "Reclaiming History".
Here's the article:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
Thanks for your time.
Best regards always,
David Von Pein
===========================================
Subj: Re: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/3/2008 12:23:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
----------------------------
Hi Dave,
Thanks for sending the DiEugenio article. I'll be sending this to
Vince today. And, yes, I remember all too well his name and also his
face which has been on TV often enough.
Sometimes I wonder whether logic and common sense has been flushed
down the toilet in our society.
Happy holidays to you. Here's hoping there's some snow around in your
neck of the woods! Throw a snowball for me and aim it at ignoramuses!!
Rosemary
===========================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
CORRECTIONS REQUIRED.........
Two corrections are required by me with respect to one portion of the
above-linked 9/30/08 Internet post.
I said this on September 30th:
"...Jim [DiEugenio] talks about the way in which Oswald obtained
his rifle by mail order, with DiEugenio apparently thinking (or at
least he seems to want other people to think it) that Oswald ordered
his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle so that he could SHOOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY
WITH IT. Of course, as anyone should easily be able to figure out via
just garden-variety common sense (and by looking at a calendar), it's
obvious that as of the date when Oswald ordered his rifle in the mail
from Klein's Sporting Goods (which was in January 1963), he couldn't
possibly have had it in his mind to kill John F. Kennedy IN DALLAS IN
NOVEMBER. As of January, Kennedy's trip to Texas wasn't even on the
drawing board at all. And it wasn't even in the minds of any of JFK's
decision-makers until months later. Oswald obviously purchased his
rifle to kill General Edwin Walker. It couldn't be any more obvious
that this is true. But many conspiracy theorists want to twist things
around, and they want to think that Oswald bought the gun specifically
for the purpose of shooting KENNEDY with it TEN MONTHS LATER. This, of
course, is utter nonsense."
Upon further reflection about what Mr. DiEugenio said in Part 1 of his
review for Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", I realize that
Jim is probably not really inferring that Oswald bought the rifle by
mail-order specifically to shoot the President. (It's hard to believe
that any schooled researcher could possibly believe that; but I've
encountered some people who do believe it.)
So, my apologies to James on this one particular issue. I think I was
in error.
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
Plus: I need to correct the "January 1963" dates noted above, too.
Those dates should say "March 1963", not January. Oswald ordered his
Smith & Wesson revolver in late January 1963; but he ordered the rifle
in March of '63. I mixed up the dates in that September post above.
I must have been suffering a brain cramp when I twice wrote "January"
up there. Because I know full well that Oswald sent his money order
for $21.45 to Klein's for the rifle on March 12, 1963, and not in
"January".
Anyway, I didn't want to leave those two errors uncorrected. Hence,
this addendum post.
(I sure wish these newsgroups had "edit" capability, so that mistakes
like this could be corrected within the body of the original message
itself. But, such is life.)
aeffects
anymore, trite nonsense is the term I'm looking for....
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fd04575d203dedeb
RE-POST:
Below is a corrected version of the 9/30/08 post linked above. I'm
either getting really old (although my birth certificate says I'm only
46, which I'm pretty certain is an accurate document and has not been
"faked" by a band of JFK conspirators), or I must have been half
asleep when I wrote the original 9/30/08 post linked above....because
I've discovered numerous mistakes that I made in that post while re-
reading that article today (12/4/08).
And I'm really, really pissed-off at MYSELF for having made such
sloppy errors in a post that I wrote. I apologize. I cannot stand
errors in my posts. And the multiple mistakes that I made on September
30th are absolutely ridiculous on my part--and I fully admit it.
So, since I cannot stand having obviously-wrong info authored by
myself stay uncorrected, I'm offering up the following "corrected"
version of that September 30th message/post:
=========================================================
>>> "For a proper assessment of Bugliosi's disinformationist book read Jim DiEugenio's review on CTKA Probe website. You should read it too, Mr. Von Pein!!!" <<<
Oh, I have read it. It's linked below:
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
Mr. DiEugenio's review (Parts 1 and 2 thus far) is just another anti-
LN rant (aimed at Vince B. this time). DiEugenio is one of the many
hardcore JFK conspiracy theorists in the world who have been peddling
the various "plots to kill Kennedy" for years now.
And there is simply no way on this Earth that Jim is suddenly going to
do an about-face and throw all of that pro-conspiracy effort down the
toilet....no matter how comprehensive Bugliosi's book is (and VB's
book IS comprehensive and covers [and destroys] all the major bases
re. "conspiracy", despite the protestations of people like Mr.
DiEugenio).
www.blackopradio.com/black389a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black389b.ram
As DiEugenio was telling the world (via the "BlackOpRadio" links
provided above) how lousy Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is and
how Vince skirted around and avoided many of the issues that Jim
thinks prove a conspiracy in the JFK case, I couldn't help but take
note of the "Pot Meets Kettle" irony as Jim D. was speaking.
Such as:
The "Mauser vs. Carcano" controversy:
DiEugenio props up the fact that the rifle found on the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building was originally reported to
have been a Mauser by some of the police officers who initially saw it
on November 22.
This type of inference is apparently supposed to make the conspiracy-
happy sheep of the world believe that it wasn't really Oswald's gun
that was found on the 6th Floor at all -- but, instead, a German
Mauser.
But what Mr. DiEugenio never tells his listening or reading audience
is the fact that the two officers who initially found the rifle tucked
between boxes on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (Eugene Boone and Seymour
Weitzman), and who both did, indeed, refer to the Carcano as a
"Mauser", BOTH later insisted that their first impressions were
mistaken ones, and both officers later said that the rifle they saw
was NOT a Mauser, but was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.
"To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a
mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; In 1967
on CBS-TV
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
RE: The ongoing question of "Why did Oswald order a mail-order rifle
with such a lengthy and obvious paper trail?":
In my opinion, the reason Oswald used his mail-order rifle to shoot
JFK in November is because it was the only weapon available to him at
the time of his virtually last-minute, poorly-planned decision to
assassinate the President. Simple as that.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c8dda5550323506
Also:
Mr. DiEugenio, for some reason, decides to spend several minutes going
on and on (and on) about the mix-up between the various cameras that
Marina and Lee Oswald owned in 1963.
Now, I suppose this kind of "musical cameras" talk is to create doubt
in the minds of some people about which camera was actually used to
take the infamous "Backyard Photographs" showing Lee Oswald with a
rifle and a pistol in late March of 1963 (which were pictures that
were taken, btw, just days after Oswald received his Carcano rifle in
the mail from Klein's).
DiEugenio seems to think it's "suspicious" that Lee Oswald's Imperial-
Reflex camera was not discovered by the police on the weekend of the
assassination in November 1963. But there's no mystery to it at all
(except in the fevered minds of certain CTers).
The camera was simply overlooked by the police, probably because they
were never directed to it by Ruth Paine at Paine's home in Irving on
the weekend of the assassination. Ruth simply forgot that some of the
Oswalds' possessions were in one of her closets (or elsewhere within
her home) when the police searched her premises in November. And among
these forgotten items was the Imperial-Reflex camera (which is the
camera that took the famous Backyard Photos of Lee Oswald).
DiEugenio says he doesn't dispute that the Imperial camera was,
indeed, used to take the Backyard Photographs, he just thinks it's a
bit "suspicious" that the camera took many weeks (or months) to
finally get into the hands of the police.
But I'd say that this "suspicion" is just another conspiracist making
a large mountain out of nothing more than an anthill.
Were the police supposed to tear Ruth Paine's home apart, and turn it
upside-down, searching for every small possession and artifact of Lee
Harvey Oswald's?
Yes, they seized quite a few items from the Paine home, but the police
weren't going to just start grabbing things at random and haphazardly
from Paine's house without a good reason to do so -- namely by asking
Ruth: "Is this your property? Or is this Oswald's?"
The camera was merely one of a few overlooked items belonging to the
Oswalds that remained in Ruth Paine's possession for a few extra weeks
after JFK's murder. It's as simple as that, in my view.
Also:
Two other things that DiEugenio seems to be a little mixed up about
are things concerning the 1986 TV Docu-Trial that Mr. Bugliosi
participated in as prosecuting attorney ("On Trial: Lee Harvey
Oswald").
DiEugenio seems to think that the mock trial in London was the same as
a real trial, in the sense that the lawyers could subpoena witnesses
to appear in court (and, hence, Bugliosi and defense lawyer Gerry
Spence could get whatever witness they wanted to get for the simulated
trial).
But this, however, was not the case at all. All 21 witnesses who
appeared at the '86 mock trial took the witness stand voluntarily.
They were not forced to appear via subpoena. Several key witnesses
were invited to appear at the mock trial, but refused to do so. So
Bugliosi and Spence were forced to examine only those witnesses who
were invited to participate and who also WANTED to take the witness
stand.
And DiEugenio, incredibly, actually seems to think that Lee Harvey
Oswald would have taken the witness stand at his own trial (had he not
been killed by Jack Ruby). DiEugenio attempts to undermine the '86
Docu-Trial by saying that "the most important witness" (Lee Oswald)
was "not there".
So, DiEugenio is implying that Oswald would definitely have spoken up
at his trial (had there been a real one) and taken the witness stand,
so that he could be cross-examined by a prosecuting attorney (like
Vincent T. Bugliosi, for example)....which would have, in my view,
been total SUICIDE for Mr. Oswald had he done so.
Had Oswald gotten up on that witness stand, he would have been forced
to tell all of the provable lies that he told the Dallas Police (and
other officials) all over again, in front of the jury. He would have
been cutting his own throat had he done so.
The fact that Oswald lied about never owning or ordering a mail-order
rifle would have surfaced (of course), with these lies being grounded
in the truthful reality of the situation when the prosecutor called
the various witnesses to the stand who would testify to the fact that
Oswald's own handwriting was on the mail-order documents for Rifle
C2766, the very same rifle that was found in the Book Depository on
11/22/63 with Oswald's own palmprint on it, and the very same weapon
that was proven to have been the gun that fired the bullets that
killed President Kennedy.
And Oswald's blatant lie about having never brought any large package
to work with him on the morning of the assassination would also have
surfaced very quickly at his trial (had he testified). This lie would
have been proven when both Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle took
the witness stand to testify that they both saw Oswald with a large
brown paper package on November 22nd.
And on and on....to the point where Oswald's lies, all by themselves,
would have undoubtedly strapped him into the electric chair.
Of course, all of Oswald's lies would have certainly surfaced at his
trial anyway, even if Lee had never taken the witness stand. These
lies would have easily worked their way into the trial record by way
of other witnesses, of course -- such as Wesley Frazier, Linnie
Randle, Will Fritz, and various other people.
Just like another famous double-murderer (O.J. Simpson) who didn't
dare speak out at his own trial because of the numerous lies that
would have been revealed from the killer's own lips if he had
testified, there is no way that Lee Oswald would have sat in that
witness chair either. He'd have been the biggest fool in the world if
he had done so.
So, as is the case with almost all conspiracy theorists who refuse to
accept what is obvious (based on the physical and circumstantial
evidence that is piled up against the door in the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder cases, i.e.: Oswald did it and did it alone), James DiEugenio
puts on full display the exact same kind of obfuscation, evidence-
dodging, and dancing between the raindrops that Mr. DiEugenio accuses
Vince Bugliosi of engaging in within VB's book "Reclaiming History".
(And it's a false accusation on Jim's part, in my opinion. Naturally,
all conspiracy promoters will vehemently disagree with me there. But,
that's nothing new--or surprising.)
=========================================
More of my thoughts about "Part 1" of James DiEugenio's "RH" review:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5561db8d63c885a8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/516027140effea47
=========================================
aeffects
uh-uh-huh...... troll!
David Von Pein
www.blackopradio.com/black404a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black404b.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black404c.ram
~sigh~
Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was once again a guest on Len
Osanic's "Black Op Radio" program on December 11, 2008 (linked above),
with Jim regurgitating still more in a seemingly never-ending series
of complaints concerning author Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book,
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy".
But, as per the norm with people who have fallen in love with the idea
that JFK was killed as a result of some evil, ill-defined "plot" in
Dallas on 11/22/63, none of Mr. DiEugenio's anti-Bugliosi arguments
actually seem to GO anywhere.
By that I mean: Jim likes to pick apart virtually everything that has
been written in Vincent's 2,800-page "RH" mega-tome, but at the end of
the nit-picking sessions, we're still left with no firm proof of a
conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas.
And, of course, as always, we're also left with zero pieces of hard,
PHYSICAL evidence to support the notion that JFK was shot by more than
just one gun or one assassin in Dealey Plaza.
What we're left with instead, via Jim's non-stop conspiracy-favoring
subjectivism, is a lengthy series of "I think THIS really means THAT"
type of analysis on the part of Mr. DiEugenio.
Jim repeats and keeps propping up the same worn-out theories that he
obviously thinks lead down "Conspiracy Avenue" (i.e., theories that
have been thoroughly explained in reasonable and logical non-
conspiratorial ways since 1963, and that are also explained in such
non-conspiratorial ways within Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book). Mr.
DiEugenio, however, has apparently decided to bypass all of those
reasonable non-conspiratorial explanations that reside inside
"Reclaiming History". Go figure.
~shrug~
A very good example of how DiEugenio decides to bypass a totally-
reasonable and non-conspiracy-oriented explanation about something
that Jim thinks is suspicious is the way DiEugenio treats the topic of
autopsy physician Dr. James J. Humes burning his original autopsy
notes and the first draft of the autopsy report.
Jim D. puts a neat little twist on the Humes' note-burning episode. Of
course, Jim hasn't a stitch of proof that anything like this actually
occurred, but Jim thinks it's very likely it transpired in this make-
believe "conspiratorial" fashion anyway.
James is of the opinion that Humes' "superiors" (including Admiral
Galloway of the Bethesda Medical Center) were the ones who actually
destroyed the original autopsy materials, and not Humes himself:
"Somebody else might have done it [burned the first draft of the
autopsy report and Humes' blood-stained notes]. .... Today, I think
that's what really happened. I think that that whole thing about
burning the notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio;
12/11/08
Translation -- Mr. DiEugenio, being a rabid conspiracy theorist who
evidently thinks that everybody on Planet Earth had a unified desire
to frame poor Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin of John Kennedy,
has decided that he'll just make up some shit about how somebody ELSE
destroyed the autopsy papers, instead of the person who said he burned
them in his own fireplace (Humes).
~LOL break~
And, per DiEugenio's craziness, Dr. Humes naturally just decided to go
along with this "cover story", without batting an eye or causing a
fuss, so he made the following comments in front of the Warren
Commission in 1964:
"In [the] privacy of my own home, early in the morning of
Sunday, November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later
revised, and of which this represents the revision. That draft I
personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room." -- Dr.
James Humes
But back here in the world of reality, however, Humes' explanation
about why he burned those autopsy materials is a perfectly reasonable
one. But Jim DiEugenio just flat-out doesn't want to believe the
reasonable explanation supplied by Dr. Humes. So, voila!, a new theory
about Humes' "superiors" destroying the notes and first draft is born
out of whole cloth!
It's nice living in a world of total conspiracy, isn't it, Jim? You
get to make up stuff 24/7, and accuse people like Dr. Humes of lying
through their teeth while they were testifying under oath in front of
U.S. Government commissions, and all sorts of other imaginary things
too.
Incredible.
(And even more incredible is the fact that DiEugenio could actually
BELIEVE a lot of the wholly-speculative nonsense he spews about the
assassination of President Kennedy.)
===========================================
RE: AUTOPSY "RESTRICTIONS".....
DiEugenio, as per usual, smells another rat in the Bethesda morgue
with respect to the topic of "autopsy restrictions".
There is, indeed, some confusion to be found in the various testimony
sessions of the three autopsy doctors as to whether any "restrictions"
or limitations of some kind were being placed on the autopsy of JFK at
Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and further confusion as to who it was
who might have been ordering any such restrictions.
But the HSCA testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck on March 11, 1978 (shown
below), clearly indicates that it was Finck's opinion that the
"family" of the late President Kennedy were the ones who were placing
pressure on the doctors to limit or "restrict" the nature of the
autopsy to some extent. Whether or not Dr. Finck is 100% correct here,
I cannot say (and I don't think anybody else can either), but these
words from Finck are in the HSCA record--like them or not:
DR. PIERRE FINCK -- "There were restrictions coming from the family
and we were told at the time of autopsy that the autopsy should be
limited to certain parts of the body. For example, autopsy limited to
the head and modest extension but there were restrictions."
DR. CHARLES PETTY -- "The autopsy was limited then at least to the
head as far as you begin with."
DR. FINCK -- "For example, from what I remember we did not remove the
organs of the neck because of the restrictions."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm
Mr. DiEugenio, naturally, disagrees with Finck's comments above. Jim
thinks that "the military" was "controlling" the autopsy, instead of
the Kennedy family being involved in any way when it came to any
possible restrictions that were placed upon the three autopsy
surgeons.
And, incredibly, DiEugenio also apparently thinks it is odd that
Robert F. Kennedy HIMSELF didn't make any handwritten notes concerning
these restrictions (had there actually been any) somewhere within the
written record of the autopsy materials. (Should Jackie Kennedy have
initialed Humes' autopsy notes, too?)
Here's what Jim D. said about this subject on the 12/11/08 BlackOp
program:
"The Kennedy family wasn't even in the [autopsy] room. .... And
another big problem with it, of course, is that on the completed
autopsy form, in the space marked 'restrictions', RFK did not mark
anything. In other words, in his own writing, he didn't mark any
restrictions on the autopsy."
I have only one thing to say when responding to the above quote:
LOL.
===========================================
RE: "PROBING" THE BACK WOUND.....
DiEugenio wants to think (naturally) that JFK's upper-back wound was
located physically lower on his body than the wound in the front of
his neck/throat, which is utter nonsense (despite what the HSCA
determined about this subject in 1978).
By merely examining (in tandem) the two autopsy photographs linked
below, it couldn't be more obvious that the back wound was located
ABOVE the throat wound:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
And: Jim D. also wants to believe (naturally) that since the probes
wouldn't go through the upper-back wound to form a bullet "track"
through Kennedy's body during the attempted probing of the wound at
the autopsy, this must mean that the bullet that entered JFK's back
couldn't possibly have exited from the front of his neck.
But that notion, too, is nonsense. Two of JFK's autopsy doctors, in
1996, provided very reasonable explanations for why the probes failed
to go all the way through the President's body, and the official ARRB
testimony given by Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes should have put this
"probing" issue to bed once and for all. But, of course, no amount of
logical and reasonable-sounding testimony is likely to convince a
person who desperately wants some kind of conspiracy to exist in this
case.
JFK's back muscles had tightened and "closed" (per Boswell), so that
no probing of the upper-back wound was possible, as fully indicated by
the testimony of the two doctors I'm going to cite below (although
both of the doctors, even in 1996, were still referring to the upper-
back wound as being located in the "neck" for some reason).
Dr. J. Thornton Boswell said this on February 26, 1996, during his
ARRB testimony:
"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of
probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and
the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you
couldn't get a finger or a probe through it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
And there is also this 2/13/96 ARRB testimony from the leading autopsy
surgeon, Dr. Humes:
QUESTION -- "Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for
gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?"
DR. HUMES -- "Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say,
standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's
helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around
in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There
wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of
that nature. It just doesn't work that way."
QUESTION -- "Was any probe used at all to track the path--?"
DR. HUMES -- "I don't recall that there was. There might have been
some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it,
to tell you the truth."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
Naturally, given what DiEugenio had said about Humes' supposed lies
regarding the burning of the original autopsy papers, he (DiEugenio)
isn't likely to believe anything else uttered by Humes either.
So I guess the above testimony coming from the lips of Humes wouldn't
impress Jim D. very much. But, those under-oath words of Dr. Humes are
in the official record nonetheless, whether Jim D. likes them or not.
===========================================
RE: JFK'S THROAT WOUND.....
"The anterior neck wound--the measurements on that wound--are
too small for the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition." --
James DiEugenio; 12/11/08
Huh??!!
Jim DiEugenio seems to think that JFK's throat wound was MEASURED in
some official way. Incredible.
Of course, as we all know, the wound in President Kennedy's throat was
never measured with any kind of measuring device, nor was it examined
in any kind of detailed manner whatsoever by the doctors at Parkland
Hospital in Dallas.
Dr. Malcolm Perry performed a tracheotomy directly through the bullet
wound in JFK's throat very shortly after Kennedy arrived at Parkland.
So, all we have are estimates from the Parkland doctors as to the size
and shape of that throat wound.
And this lack of specific detail regarding the exact size of the wound
even shows up in the official autopsy report, via the following words:
"When observed by Dr. Perry the wound measured "a few
millimeters in diameter", however it was extended as a tracheostomy
incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy."
I guess maybe Mr. DiEugenio was there at Parkland, holding a ruler up
to JFK's throat wound just before Dr. Perry sliced through it to
perform the tracheotomy. And maybe that's why James can say with such
confidence that "the measurements on that [throat] wound are too small
for the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition".
Right, Jim?
===========================================
RE: AUTOPSY PICTURES.....
Mr. DiEugenio, who sees "suspicious" crap everywhere he looks, thinks
that Pierre Finck and the other autopsy doctors would have needed to
look at the autopsy photographs before writing up (and signing) the
finished autopsy report.
My question here is: Why would the autopsists need to have the autopsy
pictures right in front of them in order to arrive at certain
conclusions about the President's wounds?
The doctors had the BODY of John Kennedy to look at during the autopsy
procedure itself, and the doctors were taking many detailed notes
about the President's wounds, etc. So why would they have needed to
rely on the pictures of the body before signing the autopsy report?
DiEugenio's "suspicious" gene was activated here because of some
discrepancy and inconsistency in Dr. Finck's testimony at the Clay
Shaw trial in 1969.
Apparently DiEugenio smells something fishy (yet again) here, simply
due to the fact that Finck waffled on whether or not he actually
physically saw the autopsy photos before he signed the completed
autopsy report.
Of course, WHERE exactly that kind of "suspicion" is taking Mr.
DiEugenio, I'm at a loss to say.
~shrug~
===========================================
RE: THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY.....
"In 45 years, I have seen no credible evidence that connects
that back wound to the anterior neck wound." -- James DiEugenio;
12/11/08
Gee, a conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in the Single-Bullet
Theory. Wow, that's really a major surprise, huh?
A good question for Jim, then, would be:
Where, Jim, did the TWO bullets go that you must think went into JFK's
body on 11/22/63 but never exited the other side of his body?
To believe in ANY kind of anti-SBT theory, one of the following two
virtually-impossible-to-believe scenarios must be accepted as the
truth. And based on the last quote I provided from Mr. DiEugenio, it's
highly doubtful that Jim D. would accept #2:
1.) Two separate bullets entered JFK's body (in his throat and upper
back), with neither one of these two bullets having enough energy to
go completely through the soft tissues of JFK's upper body. Which
means that both bullets SHOULD have still been inside JFK at his
autopsy. Instead, no bullets were found in his body at all. Plus, no
major BONY DAMAGE to the upper back and neck was sustained that would
indicate that two bullets could have merely stopped their forward
progress after striking the President in these two areas.
2.) A single bullet did go through JFK, with this bullet then
vanishing after it exited his throat, with nobody else being hit by
this missile, and with no damage being done to the limousine's
interior either.
Good luck with either one of those silly theories, Jim.
RELATED "SBT" ARTICLES:
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
VINCE BUGLIOSI, DALE MYERS, 3-D DIAGRAMS, AND THE SBT:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb129f6cf7c098a
MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
===========================================
MORE SBT STUFF.....
"They moved up the back wound, into the neck, sort of like
Gerald Ford is going to do." -- James DiEugenio; 12/11/08
Of course, DiEugenio must totally ignore one of the most important
exhibits to be found in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes -- CE903
(below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Commission Exhibit 903 perfectly illustrates the WC's "SBT" flight
path. And the location of the entry wound on the JFK stand-in in CE903
is not in the NECK at all. It's in the UPPER BACK, just exactly where
we find the wound in this autopsy photo:
Now, Jim, tell us all again how the Warren Commission was desperate to
"move" the wound in JFK's back up into his neck in order to support
their single-bullet hypothesis.
Jim can't do that, of course, because it just simply is not true.
Moving the wound up to the "neck" wouldn't help the WC's SBT
trajectory. It would completely destroy it.
And CE903, all by itself, proves that if the wound were moved up to
the neck, the bullet would have exited higher than the area of JFK's
tie knot, thereby destroying the trajectory of the Single-Bullet
Theory.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
===========================================
RE: ADAMS & STYLES ON THE STAIRS.....
Jim DiEugenio, like all true-blue conspiracists, likes to bring up the
fact that Book Depository employees Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles
didn't see assassin Lee Harvey Oswald on the back stairs when Adams
and Styles descended those stairs from the fourth floor of the
building shortly after the assassination.
But what I'd like to ask Jim is this -- Since you believe that Adams
and Styles positively were present on those stairs less than one
minute after the last gunshot was fired in Dealey Plaza....and since
you also believe that Lee Oswald positively was not on those stairs at
about that very same time....then I want to know why those two ladies
failed to see (or hear) the REAL KILLER(S) as those assassin(s) made
their way out of the building?
After all, everybody knows that SOMEBODY was firing a gun at JFK from
the sixth floor of the Depository that day. Even most CTers don't deny
that obvious fact, even if those conspiracy theorists want to pretend
that it wasn't Oswald firing a gun from the sixth floor.
And that "somebody" certainly would have had no choice but to exit the
sixth floor by way of the staircase located at the northwest corner of
the building.
And it's unlikely that anyone vacating that floor could have used
either of the two freight elevators as their means of escape, because
the testimony of other witnesses, including Victoria Adams, indicates
that both of the elevators were hung up on about the fifth floor of
the building (i.e., they weren't moving) just after the assassination.
So even if a CTer wants to argue that the sixth-floor shooter was not
Lee Oswald, the real shooter or shooters MUST have vacated that sixth
floor pretty quickly, and they most certainly would have had to use
the same stairs that Adams and Styles used that day.
Or do some conspiracists think that the real assassins decided to hang
around up on the sixth floor for several minutes after the shots were
fired at the President, running the risk of having the police catch
them on the Floor Of Death?
Or: maybe the real killers were Batman and Robin, and after the
shooting they elected to jump out of one of the TSBD windows and
shinny down the side of the building using their handy "Bat Ropes",
instead of taking the back stairs.
Plus: Via the "CTer" scenario which has Adams and Styles on the back
stairs within about a minute or so of the shooting, how on Earth did
the two women fail to see or hear Officer Marrion Baker and TSBD
Superintendent Roy Truly as those two men were climbing those very
same stairs from the first floor within one to two minutes after the
last shot was fired?
As it is, Adams and Styles heard nobody on the stairs, and they saw
nobody on the stairs. And that is obviously due to the fact that those
two women were on those stairs only AFTER the stairs had been used by
all three of those previously-mentioned individuals (Oswald, Baker,
and Truly). That is the only explanation that makes any sense
whatsoever, regardless of Miss Adams' time estimates given to the
Warren Commission.
And it's really the only explanation that makes any sense from a
conspiracy theorist's point-of-view as well (unless some CTers want to
believe that Baker and Truly somehow cloaked themselves, in order to
make the two men invisible to all other people using the stairs within
a minute or two of the shooting).
An excerpt from Vickie Adams' 4/7/64 Warren Commission testimony:
DAVID BELIN -- "As I understand your testimony previously, you saw
neither Roy Truly nor any motorcycle police officer at any time?"
VICTORIA ADAMS -- "That's correct."
MR. BELIN -- "You heard no one else running down the stairs?"
MISS ADAMS -- "Correct."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm
===========================================
RE: THE ENTRY WOUND IN JFK'S HEAD.....
Here's a common-sense question for Jim (and everyone else):
What is the MAIN THING being focused on and CENTERED ON in the
following autopsy picture of John F. Kennedy's head?:
If photographer John Stringer WASN'T primarily focusing on and
CENTERING ON the red spot located near the cowlick area in the upper
part of JFK's head, then what the heck WAS he primarily focusing on
when he took the above photograph?
Stringer certainly wasn't CENTERING his camera lens on the white piece
of brain tissue near the President's hairline at the bottom of the
picture.
It's fairly obvious that Stringer was centering on the one and only
bullet entry wound on the back of JFK's head, which is the red spot
near the cowlick.
If, as Dr. Humes and the other autopsy doctors have previously
testified, the entry wound was really the white object located near
the hairline of JFK, then does anyone actually think that photographer
John Stringer would have centered his autopsy picture on the red spot
near the cowlick?
So, which of the following two things should be believed here?:
1.) Was John Stringer also confused about what to "center" on when he
snapped that picture?
Or:
2.) Is the red spot at the cowlick area the entry wound?
I think I'll choose number 2.
To give credit where full credit is due, I applaud Dr. Michael Baden
of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel for pointing out the common-
sense observation about photographer Stringer seemingly "centering" on
the red spot in the autopsy picture.
Baden's comments along those lines can be heard at the audio link
provided below, which is part of an HSCA tape-recorded interview with
Dr. Pierre Finck on March 12, 1978:
www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/37/HSCA_Finck_312_S1B.mp3
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
===========================================
EVEN SOME OF THE CONSPIRACY-HAPPY "BLACK OP" LISTENERS ARE GETTING
SICK OF DiEUGENIO'S CONSTANT ANTI-BUGLIOSI RAMBLINGS:
The following three comments (posted at the normally-deserted "Black
Op Radio Forum") had me chuckling quite a bit:
"Good God! Enough of DiEugenio. This unending critique of
Bugliosi's book is the ultimate beating of a dead horse. .... How on
earth can he [host Len Osanic] let this Bugliosi critique go on for
twenty shows? It feels like it started at the end of the First World
War, and is going to finish sometime around the end of the next Ice
Age.
"I'm a big fan of the show...but I can say that listening to
DiEugenio go on for countless, interminable minutes interrupted just
by squeals of his high-pitched laughter is just getting to be too
much. There's no new information being offered by his critique. Is it
supposed to be offered as some tour-de-force?
"If I wrote a ten-thousand page book just trying to out-do
Bugliosi and said the Warren Commission was right, would we have to
listen to a whole year of DiEugenio critique? If Bugliosi had some
novel argument as to why the Warren Commission was supposedly right, I
could see going into this. It'd be like debating a new discovery. But
just debating already discredited notions, preaching to the choir, is
a total waste of good interview time." -- A "Black Op" listener;
12/6/08
~~~~~~~~~
"I tuned in last night mid-show and the first thing I heard was
DiEugenio squealing again, tickled to death at another Bugliosi
blunder. Then I tuned out: approximate time 10 seconds." -- A "Black
Op" listener; 12/12/08
~~~~~~~~~
"I just had to stop listening to tonite's [sic] show (12/11)
because I couldn't bear to hear Jim say "OK?" again at the end of each
sentence. He sounds like he's ON something. The few sentences he
doesn't end with "OK?", he ends with "alright?"." -- A "Black Op"
listener; 12/11/08
www.blackopforum.info/index.php/topic,311.0.html
LOL.
Oh, how true that last comment is. I noticed it many weeks ago, when
Mr. DiEugenio began his never-ending anti-Bugliosi "review" on Black
Op Radio.
It's quite obvious, though, that Jim has no real awareness that he's
saying "okay?" constantly. Because why would anyone want to be THAT
annoying if it could be avoided?
It's very similar to the extremely annoying habit that many, many
people have of saying "you know" every ten or fifteen seconds when
they're talking, without really being aware that they are doing it.
Because if they were truly aware that they were doing it every few
seconds, and aware of just how incredibly irritating it is to
everybody who is listening to them talk, they obviously wouldn't be
doing it in the first place.
===========================================
IN CONCLUSION:
James DiEugenio will no doubt be making future Black Op Radio
appearances, in order to make additional mountains out of anthills,
and in order to add still more incoherence to the record of a murder
case that was solved the very weekend it occurred in 1963.
And James will probably continue to sling as much mud as he possibly
can on the best book ever written about the murder of John F. Kennedy
-- Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".
But, then too, what else could be expected from a person who has
apparently devoted a sizable portion of his adult life toward
fulfilling the impossible goal of proving that the death of the 35th
U.S. President was the result of a vast, multi-gun conspiracy?
David Von Pein
December 11-12-13, 2008
===========================================
"It's my very firm belief...that no reasonable, rational person
can possibly read this book ["Reclaiming History"] without being
satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and
acted alone." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; APRIL 30, 2007
===========================================
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- JOHN
FITZGERALD KENNEDY; NOVEMBER 16, 1961
===========================================
RELATED ARTICLES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb486bcbb592bacf
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96d6394c340fa2d8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a0e211a522ec1ce
www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_myers.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_4_review.html
www.ctka.net/home.html
===========================================
aeffects
> www.blackopradio.com/black404a.ram
>
> www.blackopradio.com/black404b.ram
>
> www.blackopradio.com/black404c.ram
>
> ~sigh~
>
> Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio was once again a guest on Len
> Osanic's "Black Op Radio" program on December 11, 2008 (linked above),
> with Jim regurgitating still more in a seemingly never-ending series
> of complaints concerning author Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book,
> "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy".
smile Chump.... your guy Vin Bugliosi is getting his due. REJOICE!
Tis' the SEASON, troll....
<snippage>
David Von Pein
Subj: Another Article That Vince Bugliosi Might Want To See
Date: 12/14/2008 3:53:41 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton (Vincent Bugliosi's secretary)
----------------------------
Hi again RN,
Yes, I'm afraid it's time once again for another installment in my
"Battling A Conspiracy Nut Named DiEugenio" series.
~sigh~
This guy DiEugenio has more anti-Bugliosi hot air in him than a
stadium full of Gerry Spences. He never stops. His latest batch of
anti-"Reclaiming History" crap is his most long-winded yet.
I doubt very much that Vince will want to take the six days necessary
to wade through all of DiEugenio's nonsense that exists in "Part 4" of
his RH review, but I'll provide a link to it here anyway:
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_4_review.html
My rebuttal to Jim's latest rant isn't a direct response to the above
review itself. My article below is in response to another of
DiEugenio's constant anti-VB appearances on Internet Radio (from
December 11th this time). I thought perhaps either you or Vince might
want to see it. Here it is:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f
Thanks.
And Merry Christmas!
Sincerely,
David V.P.
===========================================
Subj: Re: Another Article That Vince Bugliosi Might Want To See
Date: 12/16/2008 1:47:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
----------------------------
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the "Von Pein vs. DiEugenio" saga. I'll give Vince 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?
Have a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year!
Rosemary
===========================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e8df40765d436d6c
aeffects
<snip>
why so anxious, troll? We know, now the rest of the world is getting
to know all about Reclaiming History, Vin, you and .john-Dave.
BlackOps Radio and select CT's will probably help you sell a few more
copies of that colossal publishing failure called Reclaiming History
by Vincent Bugliosi. rumor has it its been seen in the K-MART book bin
at $3.00.
Vin still paying Rosemary these day's? If not perhaps Dale Myers can
chip in a few buckeroos. Myers of course, is a primary (ghost) author
of Reclaiming History -- well, I'm sure he can donate to the
cause.....
Have a nice holiday and remember Reclaiming History won't fit or work
as a stocking stuffer, unless its for Paul Bunyan's, BABE tent sock
size....
Carry on!
p.s. DVP host? rotflmfao, ROTFLMFAO, R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O now *that*
would be manna from heaven....
aeffects
> On Dec 16, 8:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
psssst: you're suppose yo be burying then running from this episode in
history, smell a buck, troll?
David Von Pein
ANOTHER DiEUGENIO ADDENDUM:
Upon re-reading a portion of Part 4 of James DiEugenio's "Reclaiming
History" book review, I found one more thing that Jim gets totally
wrong.
Jim D. says this in his book review:
=====================================
"In describing the images on the Zapruder film, he ["Reclaiming
History" author Vincent Bugliosi] focuses on two crucial pieces of
evidence. First, in referring to the stunning backward movement of
Kennedy's body that bounces him off the back seat, he writes, "the
APPARENT backward snap of the president's head at the moment of the
head shot" (Bugliosi, p. 451, [emphasis] in original).
"Second, in referring to the time lag between a) Kennedy's
reaction to a projectile and b) Connally's discernible later reaction,
he writes, "the ALLEGED delayed reaction between Kennedy and Connally
around the time the Warren Commission claimed they were hit by a
single bullet" (Ibid, [emphasis] in original).
"He then concludes that neither of these "allegations" -- the
rapid rearward movement of Kennedy and the "delayed reaction" -- is
actually true. (p. 452)." -- JAMES DiEUGENIO
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_4_review.html
=====================================
Regarding JFK's head snap to the rear, DiEugenio above tries to imply
that Vincent Bugliosi is telling the readers of "Reclaiming History"
that the rear head snap never occurred at all.
But that is not what Bugliosi is saying at all! Not even close!
Because the key words in the VB quote on page 451 that DiEugenio cites
above are: "at the moment of the head shot".
DiEugenio evidently missed the significance of those important words,
"at the moment of the head shot".
For emphasis, Bugliosi put the word "apparent" in italics on page 451
of his book (but I had to change the italics to all-caps, since I
can't type anything in italics at this forum). And the reason for
emphasizing that word in that particular sentence is because of the
continued misconception that people still have to this very day about
the movements of JFK's head as seen in the Zapruder Film (at frames
312 and 313).
I.E., most people still think that the ONLY discernible movement of
President Kennedy's head is a BACK AND TO THE LEFT movement right
after the bullet strikes him.
But, of course, this is not true, as this super-slow-motion clip
shows:
As can easily be seen in the above clip (and as was confirmed on CBS-
TV via the tests done by the Itek Corporation in 1975 and 1976), JFK's
head moves a few inches FORWARD at the critical moment-of-impact
frame--Z313.
Therefore, when Bugliosi says "the APPARENT backward snap of the
president's head at the moment of the head shot", he isn't DENYING the
existence of the head snap to the rear (quite obviously, since Vince
talks about that rear head movement openly and honestly in various
other parts of his book, and Vince talked about the rear head snap a
lot in many of his radio interviews in 2007).
Vince is merely saying that "AT THE MOMENT OF THE HEAD SHOT" (i.e., AT
Z-FRAME 313), any perceived "backward snap" of Kennedy's head is a
false perception on the part of casual viewers of the film. Because
JFK's head FIRST moves forward after the bullet strikes him....and
only after the discernible forward movement does his head begin to
move toward the rear.
As for Mr. Bugliosi's use of the words "ALLEGED delayed reaction" when
referring to the reactions seen by John Connally in the Zapruder Film
---
Bugliosi uses the word "alleged" there for a pretty good reason, in my
opinion -- and that's because it's the proper word to use when talking
about any POSSIBLE (but not PROVEN) so-called "delayed reaction" on
the part of Governor Connally.
And since Mr. Bugliosi is of the opinion (which I disagree with) that
Connally was almost certainly hit by the "SBT" bullet (CE399) while
Connally was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, then we cannot possibly
know FOR SURE if Governor Connally was "reacting" to the bullet
hitting him during those Z-Film frames when JBC was hidden from
Zapruder's view.
Therefore, Bugliosi recognizes the possibility that Connally could
have been "reacting" in some way prior to Z222. But we can never know
this for certain, because of that damn sign being in the way.
Here's a passage from an endnote in Bugliosi's book that touches on
this very subject:
=====================================
"The HSCA’s final report noted that the governor [John Connally]
was completely hidden from view by the Stemmons Freeway sign for a
0.82-second interval from frame “207 to frame 221,” and therefore it
could not be determined if Connally’s reaction began before he
reemerged from behind the sign.
"The committee added that “Connally could conceivably have
started his reaction at frames 200–206 (just before he disappears
behind the Stemmons sign), but too little of his body is visible
during these frames to permit such a finding” (HSCA Report, p.82
footnote 18), the inference being, of course, that Connally might not
have experienced a delayed reaction at all." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI;
PAGES 322-323 OF ENDNOTES IN "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
=====================================
David Von Pein
December 21, 2008
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
ADDENDUM:
There are several more idiotic comments that were made by both James
DiEugenio and host Len Osanic during their 55-minute get-together on
the 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio" program....comments that I didn't touch
on in my original article (linked above) concerning that abominable
radio broadcast of non-stop distortions and misrepresentations.
So, I'll take this opportunity in this follow-up post to touch on a
few of those things now.....
==================================
DiEugenio and Osanic think that the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm
Street was removed the day after the assassination.
Now, the main reason I didn't bring this topic up in my main article
above is because I'm not 100% certain that I am correct about the
things I'm going to say now. But I'm pretty sure I am correct here
when I say that the Stemmons sign was not removed from Elm Street on
11/23/63. The notion that it was removed I think is just another of
the many conspiracy-oriented myths surrounding JFK's murder that have
cropped up out of the woodwork since 1963.
There are two main reasons that I don't think the sign was removed:
1.) Since all reasonable people know that the only shots that were
fired on 11/22/63 were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the Book
Depository, and since there is virtually no chance whatsoever that any
of Oswald's three shots struck the Stemmons sign on the north side of
Elm Street -- there would, therefore, have been absolutely no logical
reason for the city of Dallas (or anyone else) to suddenly want to
remove or replace that Stemmons Freeway sign on Saturday, November 23,
1963.
But even if the sign was removed and then replaced with another
identical sign, such activity would have had nothing whatsoever to do
with trying to hide any kind of multi-shooter "plot" or "conspiracy"
with respect to the assassination of the President.
2.) I have seen numerous post-November 22 photos and films of Dealey
Plaza, and the Stemmons sign is still in place (and it sure looks like
the exact same sign AFTER 11/22 as it did on 11/22).
So, do some CTers think that the sign that appears in many post-11/22
pictures and films is a DIFFERENT sign from the one that appears in
Abraham Zapruder's home movie?
I've yet to see or hear of any proof at all that the sign was
"removed" or "replaced" almost immediately after the assassination.
But many CTers continue to believe the sign was removed or replaced,
evidently to hide the fact that the 45 additional shooters in the
Plaza were apparently all as blind as bats when their many bullets hit
the Stemmons sign instead of going anywhere near their target
destination of JFK's body, necessitating the complete removal of the
road sign by yet MORE co-conspirators and cover-up operatives.
I guess even the Dallas Department of Highways and Signage was "in" on
the cover-up plot too.
Also -- A Stemmons sign is certainly in the exact same place on Elm
Street as of the date of the Warren Commission's detailed re-enactment
of the crime on May 24th, 1964, six months and two days after the
assassination. Is this supposedly a completely-different Stemmons sign
that we see here in CE893 and CE894?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052a.htm
And apart from the 5/24/64 WC re-creation photos, there is a much-
earlier indication that the sign was not removed, via a film taken by
the U.S. Secret Service on either November 27 or December 5, 1963
(I've heard conflicting accounts regarding the exact date when the
film was made; but either of those two dates would still drive the
point home about the sign still being exactly where it was on November
22).
The sign is easily visible in that 1963 Secret Service film (which is
available on DVD from the National Archives at the link below):
==================================
20 minutes into the November 27th "Black Op" laughfest, DiEugenio
calls Dale Myers "the unnamed ghostwriter" of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007
book "Reclaiming History".
I guess James should probably read page 1515 of Vincent's book (in the
"Acknowledgments" section), which is where he'll find Dale Myers' name
being mentioned at some length, including these words:
"Dale [Myers] helped me in the writing of several sections of
[this book, "Reclaiming History"]."
I wonder how the above Dale Myers' "acknowledgment" equates to an
"unnamed ghostwriter"? Maybe Jim D. can tell us how that works.
==================================
This one should make all LNers roar with laughter.....
Host Len Osanic is so clueless and silly that he actually blurted out
something on his 11/27 radio show concerning Vince Bugliosi that
nobody in their right mind could POSSIBLY even begin to think was
true:
Before being corrected by DiEugenio (and I have to give Jim credit
here--he actually got something right for a change when he set Len
straight on this issue), Osanic actually thought that Vincent Bugliosi
was an "agnostic" when it came to the subject of "Zapruder Film
alteration".
Which means, in Len's pre-November 27th mindset, that Vince Bugliosi
(the same man who Len hates so much for writing his lengthy pro-LN
tome--a tome Len has referred to as "bullshit" on numerous occasions)
would have been just as likely to BELIEVE in the crazy "Z-Film hoax"
nonsense as he would be prone to DISBELIEVE it.
~LOL Break~
How could anyone who was even semi-familiar with Vince Bugliosi's pro-
lone assassin stance possibly believe for even one second that
Bugliosi could still (to this day) be an "agnostic" when it came to
the idiotic theory of Z-Film alteration/fakery?
Len, you're amazing. But I thank you for all the laughs you and your
"Black Op" guests have provided me.
David Von Pein
November 30, 2008
==================================