JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 132)

>>> "At first glance the trail of fragments caught my attention. I fumbled through my desk [and] grabbed a ruler and a protractor. Not to my surprise, I fitted a 15-degree angle between the transverse plane of the head and the trail." <<<

~yawn~

Oh, good! We've got another conspiracy theorist who thinks he can grab
a pencil and a protractor and start drawing lines (with perfect
accuracy) on a 2-dimensional item (in this Herbert Blenner instance,
it's an autopsy X-ray). Lovely.

I wonder how many times Dale Myers has repeated the following basic
rule of photo analysis? Probably thousands. Only for this simple rule
of thumb to be totally ignored (year after year) by kooky conspiracy
theorists:

"In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-
dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale
K. Myers

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 11, 2010, 8:55:21 AM4/11/10

to

RE: MARK LANE (VIA VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S BOOK):

"The tape had revealed his [Mark Lane's] blatant attempt to
improperly influence, almost FORCE an uneducated and unsophisticated
witness [Helen Markham] to say what he wanted her to say.

"Under oath, Lane quoted Mrs. Markham as having specifically
told him that Officer Tippit's slayer was "short, a little on the
heavy side and his hair was somewhat bushy" [at 2 H 51]--while the
import of her words was something decidedly less than that.

"We have all had the experience of sitting in an audience and
feeling embarrassed for someone on the stage either because of his
very poor performance or for some other reason. The latter was the
situation when I debated Lane before a packed audience at Simmons
College in Boston on the evening of December 2, 1986.

"Though the audience consisted mostly of conspiracy-leaning
people, when I started to read to them Lane's shameful questioning of
Mrs. Markham, the embarrassment the audience felt for Lane was so
pronounced that many began to dip their head, as you would to avert
your eyes from someone you don't want to look at. Halfway through my
recitation of Lane's performance, I mercifully said to the audience,
"Have I read enough?" and the audience, by various sounds, let me know
I had.

"Lane was so embarrassed by it himself that when I debated him
again at Nassau Community College on Long Island on April 15, 1992,
and was about to read the Markham matter to the audience, he said
something that not only reveals his knowledge of just how bad he was
with Markham, but actually was funny.

"I started out by giving a fifteen-minute summary of the case.
He commenced his fifteen minutes by saying that "everything Mr.
Bugliosi said was a lie." Later, during the question-and-answer
period, I said, "What it comes down to is credibility. Who has
credibility, the Warren Commission or Mr. Lane? I'd like to read
something to you, Mr. Lane's interview of a woman named Helen Markham,
that bears on Mr. Lane's credibility," whereupon Lane interrupted and
said, "I'll sue if you get into this. It's defamation," adding that no
one had asked me a question about it, and hence, I was just raising
the matter myself, which he said I didn't have a right to do.

"His position, of course, was utterly untenable, but he was so
upset that I didn't bother to go into the matter. Such a threatened
lawsuit by Lane would stake out new legal ground. Not only is truth a
complete defense against defamation, and I was about to read Lane's
own words, but defamation is when someone makes a false and harmful
statement about you.

"Here, Lane would be arguing in effect that his own words
defamed him, and therefore he didn't want anyone to repeat them. I
don't know about you, but I think this is very funny.

"I debated Lane three times, the last time in San Francisco...at
a California Trial Lawyers convention. Only the first debate, in
Boston, was at night, with no limitation on time. The Long Island
debate was during the noon recess at the college, as I recall, and
there was a time limitation in San Francisco. ....

"I was surprised at the poor quality of his presentation. It
predictably consisted of one misrepresentation of the facts after
another, and I had no difficulty exposing these misrepresentations to
the audience.

"Lane, who is very intelligent, did better at the Long Island
and San Francisco debates, where he increased the number of
allegations and misrepresentations and I had insufficient time to
respond to all of them." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1009-1010 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

2 H 51:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0030a.htm

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

Mark Lane, of course, loves to threaten to sue people. In 2007, he
once again threatened to sue Vince Bugliosi. And in 2008 he said he
would sue Tom Hanks and his production company if anything was said
about Lane in the upcoming HBO "Reclaiming History" mini-series that
Lane deemed to be a lie.

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

MARK LANE, VINCE BUGLIOSI, HELEN MARKHAM, AND THE WARREN COMMISSION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f

MORE MARK LANE LINKS:
http://Rush-To-Judgment.blogspot.com
http://Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=95ybmxvkhn&v=0&cl=0

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 13, 2010, 5:44:54 AM4/13/10

to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2222.0.html

PAUL DANZIG SAID:

>>> "Why do you Honestly think Oswald went to the movie theater?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To get off the sunlit streets and into a place where he thought he
could temporarily hide from the cops that he obviously knew were
chasing the man who killed Officer Tippit.

Duh.

PAUL DANZIG SAID:

>>> "What do you think was Oswald's plan after the movie theater?" <<<

DVP SAID:

He had no "plan" at that point. That fact is obvious. He was winging
it. He knew he had been seen by multiple witnesses shooting Tippit. He
was trying to buy a little time by slipping into the dark theater
(which, fortunately for him, was right there on Jefferson Boulevard
for him to use as a temporary "hideout"; whether Oswald knew ahead of
time that the theater was there or not, we can never know for
certain).

PAUL DANZIG SAID:

>>> "He had no plan....So taking the rifle to the TSBD is no plan..." <<<

DVP SAID:

Oswald had a plan to kill the President. That's obvious. But it
certainly wasn't an extended plan, and it certainly wasn't a plan that
was thought out a long time in advance. That's obvious too, since he
couldn't have known about the motorcade driving right past his
workplace until the morning of 11/19/63, at the earliest.

But his escape "plan", if he even had one fixed in his warped mind,
sucked.

PAUL DANZIG SAID:

>>> "The distance between the tippit [sic] killing and the theatre IS no walk in the park.....there were no other places to hide in the surrounding area...." <<<

DVP SAID:

Is that last sentence supposed to be a question?

Anyway, Oswald's escape plan definitely lacked preparation. But, so
what? How does a crappy escape plan erase the evidence of his guilt in
the two 11/22/63 murders?

PAUL DANZIG SAID:

>>> "To have a plan to kill the president and no EXIT plan doesn't makes sense. Supposedly he was smart enough to climb down from the 6th floor in 90 seconds and be spotted by Baker, NOT OUT OF BREATH I MIGHT ADD. You make Oswald out to a smart person before the shooting, but a dumbass after. JUGGLING ACT IS FOR THE CIRCUS." <<<

DVP SAID:

Wasn't it a shame that Oswald wasn't nice enough to plan his murder of
JFK in a manner that would better suit the conspiracy theorists of the
world?

The willy-nilly, nearly-last-minute effort on Oswald's part is good
circumstantial evidence that NO PRE-PLANNED CONSPIRACY existed in this
case at all.

Naturally, all CTers want to believe otherwise (i.e., they wish to
pretend that Oswald was framed and apparently ALL of the mountain of
physical evidence against him was planted).

In other words, what we have in this topsy-turvy world of conspiracy
promoters is this:

The conspiracy theorists actually have the guts to argue that since
all of the evidence points toward Lee Harvey Oswald, this therefore
means that OSWALD IS INNOCENT!

Talk about turning logic upside-down. The CTers are experts at doing
just that in this case, and they always have been, all the way back to
Mark Lane's early efforts in the 1960s to try and get a double-killer
named Oswald off the hook.

COLIN CROW INTERJECTED:

>>> "2 things come to mind, David. First.....Mike [Williams], who is an authority on ballistics and weapons, tells us that the rifle would have to have been sighted in or practiced with to ensure accuracy after its return from New Orleans." <<<

DVP SAID:

Pure speculation, of course. And it's meaningless speculation.

How come?

Because we KNOW that Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the
murder weapon. There's no doubt about that proven fact.

COLIN CROW SAID:

>>> "Yet Oswald did not know of the parade route until 11/19/63. So was it him, seen at the Sports Dome on more than one occasion, practicing in anticipation of the visit but unaware of the exact route? Or was it someone else who looked like him?" <<<

DVP SAID:

Probably somebody who looked like him.

But even if it was Oswald -- so what? Who cares? What does it prove or
disprove?

I'll tell you one thing that it WOULD prove, however (if that person
whom Garland Slack saw WAS Lee Oswald) -- it would prove that the
conspiracy theorists are dead-wrong about something else -- i.e.,
their theory that Oswald never practiced at all with his Carcano prior
to the assassination.

COLIN CROW SAID:

>>> "Second.....Was Oswald's escape plan really that crappy? Admittedly, how could he know it would take as long as 20 minutes or so for them to find the SN, even though the DP [Dallas Police] has witnesses who described its exact location within minutes of the shooting?" <<<

DVP SAID:

So, you're a mind-reader now, eh? You somehow KNOW that Oswald knew it
would take "as long as 20 minutes" for the police to find the Sniper's
Nest?

What in the world makes you think that Oswald was thinking any such
thing?

COLIN CROW SAID:

>>> "Let's face it, if it were not for the acutely observant supercop Tippit, the super observant Brewer and some sirens and cars, Oswald would have been free and possibly able to get across the border to Mexico. Then to Cuba. What do you think?" <<<

DVP SAID:

Could be. That's quite possible indeed.

But, so what? What are you implying here? Are you saying that the
"acutely observant supercop" named J.D. Tippit and the "super
observant" shoe store manager named Johnny Calvin Brewer were NOT
really "acutely observant" and "super observant" on November 22, 1963?

Are you saying we should all be suspicious and skeptical about the
things Mr. Tippit and Mr. Brewer did on that day in Dallas? If so,
why?

Brewer, IMO, was a real hero that day. (So was Ted Callaway. Can you
imagine actually having the balls to take the gun from under a dead
policeman's body and use it to try and track down the murderer
YOURSELF before the police arrived on the scene? Incredible. And
brave. Of course, some CTers think Callaway is nothing but a rotten
liar too. But such is the way with conspiracy kooks.)

http://Kennedy-Videos.blogspot.com

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 30, 2010, 10:30:25 PM4/30/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/98c367aa2b6f0190

>>> "In her article in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York: Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination: <QUOTE ON> Lee Harvey Oswald, after taking a look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book Depository, ambles casually into the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's waiting for a telephone call that never comes. (p. 169) <QUOTE OFF> Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to think you just made them up out of thin air." <<<

It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that Lee Harvey
Oswald was "taking a look at the motorcade from the front door of the
Texas School Book Depository" is the Altgens photograph. (What else
could she possibly be relying on for such a statement?)

Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in
the James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just
as Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as
Buell Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986 (Frazier saw Lovelady
on the steps in front of the TSBD on 11/22/63):

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s

The part about Oswald "waiting for a telephone call that never comes"
is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good
idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly-unsupportable idea.

aeffects

unread,

May 1, 2010, 3:53:17 AM5/1/10

to

On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no spamming David Von Pein, you know the rules

Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,

May 5, 2010, 3:38:44 AM5/5/10

to

On May 4, 9:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> AUDIO/VIDEO SERIES:
>
> DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 8):
>
> http://drop.io/DVP_Vs_DiEugenio/asset/battling-a-jfk-conspiracy-kook-...
>
> http://Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com

spamster, you freakin' deaf er sumpin'?

David Von Pein

unread,

May 5, 2010, 6:24:46 PM5/5/10

to

AUDIO/VIDEO SERIES:

DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 8):

http://drop.io/DVP_Vs_DiEugenio/asset/battling-a-jfk-conspiracy-kook-part-8

http://Battling-A-Conspiracy-Kook.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

May 13, 2010, 12:15:38 AM5/13/10

to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2432.msg45243.html#msg45243

>>> "Wow!! Unsupported Assertions 'R Us, eh David?" <<<

Pot? We need a bigger kettle for Robert "Z285" Harris. He thinks I
have engaged in "unsupported assertions" here. But let's take another
look at the DVP quote that Bob Harris was responding to when he said I
was a member of "Unsupported Assertions 'R Us":

"[James] Braden certainly wasn't a gunman who fired shots at
JFK, because there's absolutely no evidence of that, and there's also
no evidence whatsoever that any shots originated from the Dal-Tex
Building." -- David V.P.

Now, Bob, just exactly what portion of that above DVP quote is
"unsupported"?

The answer: None of it.

Don't you love it when a conspiracy theorist with a personal pet
theory to peddle says that SOMEBODY ELSE is engaging in "unsupportable
assertions"?

Holy hilarity.

>>> "How did you confirm that no such evidence exists?? And how did you confirm that Braden was not a shooter? Please be specific." <<<

Bob Harris, of course, knows the answer to both of those inquiries
already. But, like the true-blue conspiracist he is, he'll force me to
beat that dead horse one additional time.

How do I know that no evidence exists of a Dal-Tex shooter?

Well, uh, let me think.....maybe because there's NO EVIDENCE of a Dal-
Tex shooter in the National Archives (or anywhere else)?

That's pretty good--for starters. Isn't it Bob?

And can I confirm that James Braden wasn't a shooter?

Well, here's a pretty good place to start to confirm that fact (let's
see if Robert Harris can add these images together properly):

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Number-Of-Shots.jpg?t=1273721851

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/TSBD-Snipers-Nest.jpg?t=1273721858

>>> "And do you really believe that JFK first reacted just after the limo pulled in front of the west face of the Daltex building, purely by coincidence?? Or do you prefer to pretend that didn't happen, like you pretend that there were no reactions following 285?" <<<

~sigh~

I can see that pot is colliding head-on with kettle yet again. (Don't
you ever tire of that kind of embarrassing clash, Bob?)

Mr. Harris sure possesses some Kong-sized 'nads, I've gotta give him
credit for that at least. For a person who fantasizes night and day
about a make-believe gunshot a Zapruder Film frame #285, it takes a
really large set of family jewels to write these words in a public
forum:

"Or do you prefer to pretend that didn't happen, like you
pretend that there were no reactions following 285?"

If you look in the dictionary under "irony", here's what you'll likely
find:

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=3219;type=avatar

>>> "Once you start evading the facts and evidence David, you're in very big trouble." <<<

Good heavens! Holy mackerel! And for Pete's sake! It looks like Bob
truly doesn't care how many times he embarrasses himself via irony in
one single post. Remarkable.

>>> "What a preposterous argument. There is nothing [David] Ferrie could have done that was more self incriminating than to leave the country." <<<

So, Ferrie thought it would be a much better idea to make a pleasure
trip TO THE STATE WHERE THE MURDER TOOK PLACE within hours of the
MURDER HE CONSPIRED TO COMMIT.

Is that about the size of the situation, Robert?

>>> "Let's talk about those issues that you've been dodging for so long, David. What are you afraid of?" <<<

The only thing I'm concerned about dodging right now is my cat (he's
on the stairs right now, and I'm afraid I'm going to trip over him as
I sprint for the bathroom, due to my weak bladder getting ready to
explode after having read Bob Harris' last post).

Excuse me....

aeffects

unread,

May 13, 2010, 3:37:43 AM5/13/10

to

On May 12, 9:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2432.msg45243.ht...

>
> >>> "Wow!! Unsupported Assertions 'R Us, eh David?" <<<
>
> Pot? We need a bigger kettle for Robert "Z285" Harris. He thinks I
> have engaged in "unsupported assertions" here.

when it comes to you shitheads, EVERYTHING you state is unsupported.
For you moron, no one even believes you had parents.... end of
story...

David Von Pein

unread,

May 14, 2010, 3:51:13 AM5/14/10

to

O.J. Simpson Trial Debate:

Vince Bugliosi vs. Alan Dershowitz (from "Larry King Live" in 1996):

http://drop.io/Bugliosi_Vs_Dershowitz/asset/vincent-bugliosi-vs-alan-dershowitz-on-larry-king-live-1996-debate-about-the-o-j-simpson-trial

http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=A332C9534E1BF314

David Von Pein

unread,

May 14, 2010, 11:34:42 AM5/14/10

to

MIKE WILLIAMS SAID:

>>> "They [the CT-Kooks] are studying a shooting event and have not the slightest clue about ballistics. Internal, External, or Wound. Makes no sense to me. How is one to talk to someone who has no idea what they are talking about?" <<<

DVP SAID:

I know nothing about ballistics either...but I know enough about THIS
(JFK) case to know that ONLY OSWALD'S bullets were found.

And something I'm going to point out (boldly) in my debate with
DiEugenio is this important fact (that certainly goes against the idea
that ANY of the bullet evidence was planted):

The bullets and fragments and shells were found in THREE separate
places and were initially found and/or handled by THREE separate
agencies (DPD, Sheriff's Dept., and USSS).

And yet we've got all kinds of kooks insisting that ALL of this bullet
evidence was planted -- IN THE CAR, and IN THE HOSPITAL, and IN THE
TSBD too. With the DPD, Sheriff's people, and the Secret Service
neatly coming together with a "LET'S PIN THIS ON OSWALD" like-
mindedness that David Copperfield and Kreskin COMBINED couldn't pull
off or dream of.

And yet, for the conspiracy nuts, that type of mindset (and nonsense)
somehow surpasses all of the "LN" scenarios in the "common sense"
department.

I can only shrug in bewilderment at the idiocy of it all.

ski...@cbchs.org

unread,

Nov 13, 2013, 1:18:34 PM11/13/13

to

On Saturday, April 3, 2010 3:27:33 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 132):
>
> ======================================================
>
> COMPARING JFK'S ASSASSINATION WITH THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER CASE:
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0531e3a5236f7abf
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/31cf6161d0f11261
>

> I saw who did it..