Re: JAMES DiEUGENIO'S RADIO DEBATE CHALLENGE

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 19, 2009, 4:29:21 PM8/19/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/541c4e616b90c17d

Subject: FW: Debate Invitation
Date: 8/17/2009 2:32:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Len Osanic
To: John McAdams
CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio

------------------------------

Hello,

I would like personally to bring to your attention, Jim DiEugenio has
made an offer to debate any of the four Mcadams, Mack, Reitzes or Von
Pein regarding the facts JFK assassination on Black Op Radio.

I think a discussion/debate would be of interest, because both sides
of the research community are tuning in to the show, with a world wide
audience. While you have a different point of view, it would be of
interest to put to rest things that should've been resolved in the
endless forum debates that need addressing. Just what are the facts.

As of right now, I don't have a format and am open to suggestions.
Meaning that once any of you accept at least the offer to discuss the
case. We can have a further discussion to formulate ground rules which
at least both sides agree on and are made public ahead of time, to
ensure some pressure to stick to them.

It may not be that anyone changes their mind, but it would be
interesting for listeners, students of the case, to hear you, in
you[r] own words, reasons for your conclusions.

Please let me know either way.

Thanks for your consideration,
Len Osanic
www.blackopradio.com

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

Subject: Re: FW: Debate Invitation
Date: 8/17/2009 12:07:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: John McAdams
To: Len Osanic
CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio

------------------------------

I'm always up for a debate on the assassination, but there would be a
couple of provisos.

1.) No silly "Paul Nolan" stuff. If DiEugenio brings that up, I'll
start talking about his crazy ex-girlfriend, who for many months told
people I was a "General in the Navy," and saw spooks under every bed.
She also thought the ICPSR is sinister.

2.) I'm not that good in discussing the minutiae of the Garrison case,
so Dave Reitzes would be the best person to deal with that. I can
certainly deal with the Garrison case in general.

3.) Von Pein would be very good as a debater, and Gary Mack is the
dean of assassination researchers, probably the most respected person
in the field, except among a narrow group who have gone ballistic
because he hasn't toed the conspiracy line on every issue.

.John

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

JOHN McADAMS THEN SAID (VIA THE A.A.J. FORUM):

>>> "I would add another proviso. For me to participate, there would have to be somebody else on my side. Osanic would clearly be on the DiEugenio side. Nothing like WDSU when poor Oswald was outnumbered 3 or 4 to one. No word on this from Osanic. The other people who were invited, obviously, can answer for themselves and make their own demands in terms of ground rules." <<<

DVP SAID:

Yes, Len Osanic would clearly be on the "CT" side, that's true. But
Mr. Osanic is pitifully poor when it comes to specific details about
the assassination itself (unless it involves his pal, Fletcher
Prouty), so I really cannot see Osanic putting in his 2-cents' worth
very often in a one-on-one debate between a CTer and an LNer. (IMO,
that is.)

Plus, having two LNers on the phone lines at the same time might not
be a good idea. There would probably be a lot of "Who should talk
next?" moments and talking at the same time, etc. It could be rather
awkward. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong on that point.

Anyway, .John, I was glad to get that e-mail from you the other day
about the debate. I received the same mail you sent to Len Osanic on
August 17th. You must have hit the "Reply To All" button when you sent
it. I'm not sure if that was on purpose or by mistake. But, anyway, I
received it.

And I personally think that John McAdams is the perfect "LNer" to take
on James DiEugenio in a debate. I know of very few people who possess
as much overall knowledge (and common sense) about the JFK
assassination as Prof. McAdams does.

Regards,
David Von Pein

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210

aeffects

unread,

Aug 19, 2009, 5:55:46 PM8/19/09

to

time for you nutter-trolls to grow a pair.... and you especially Von
Pein....

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 19, 2009, 6:29:00 PM8/19/09

to

>>> "And you especially Von Pein." <<<

I thought I was Reitzes.

???

~shoulder shrug~

j leyden

unread,

Aug 19, 2009, 6:34:34 PM8/19/09

to

On Aug 19, 4:29�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/541c4e616b90c17d
>
> Subject: FW: Debate Invitation
> Date: 8/17/2009 2:32:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: Len Osanic
> To: John McAdams
> CC: David Von Pein, Dave Reitzes, Gary Mack, James DiEugenio
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like personally to bring to your attention, Jim DiEugenio has
> made an offer to debate any of the four Mcadams, Mack, Reitzes or Von
> Pein regarding the facts JFK assassination on Black Op Radio.

What happens if DiEugenio wins the debate(s)? Does it invalidate the
WC report, the HSCA report, the Clark Panel and Rockefeller
Commissiokn findings? Of course, not. This is just more CT games
playing. The verdicts have been in for some years now and they aren't
going to change regardless of what happens on Black Op radio. Who
listens to that anyway/ Nightwatchmen? Insomniacs?

JGL

> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e5...

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 19, 2009, 7:10:57 PM8/19/09

to

>>> "What happens if DiEugenio wins the debate(s)?" <<<

How would that be possible?

Answer -- It's not.

Jim DiEugenio couldn't possibly "win" a debate about the JFK
assassination, because he believes in stuff that never happened (such
as his belief that some kind of "New Orleans plot" was afoot to kill
John Kennedy in the summer and fall of 1963).

Furthermore, DiEugenio sinks even further into the CT Abyss when he
makes silly statements like this one below, which appears in "Part 5b"
of his review of Bugliosi's book:

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly
on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio;
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_5b_review.html

And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed,
being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the
assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot
apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is
wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the
conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper).

Brilliant, huh?

In short, John McAdams (or any LNer) could be half asleep and still
rip DiEugenio (or any CTer) to pieces in a Kennedy-assassination
debate. Of course, it's really always been that way. But CTers,
naturally, would be of the opinion that DiEugenio won the debate after
it took place. And, as usual, they will be 100% incorrect in that
opinion.

>>> "The verdicts have been in for some years now and they aren't going to change regardless of what happens on Black Op radio. Who listens to that anyway? Nightwatchmen? Insomniacs?" <<<

You don't need to listen to the show "live" in order to hear it. Each
program is archived via downloadable Internet links.

A few examples of James DiEugenio's very silly beliefs about the JFK
case can be heard over and over again at the following Black Op audio
links:

www.blackopradio.com/black395a.ram

www.blackopradio.com/black402a.ram

www.blackopradio.com/black432a.ram

www.blackopradio.com/black436e.ram

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210

j leyden

unread,

Aug 19, 2009, 9:35:26 PM8/19/09

to

On Aug 19, 7:10�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "What happens if DiEugenio wins the debate(s)?" <<<
>
> How would that be possible?
>
> Answer -- It's not.>
> Jim DiEugenio couldn't possibly "win" a debate about the JFK
> assassination, because he believes in stuff that never happened (such
> as his belief that some kind of "New Orleans plot" was afoot to kill
> John Kennedy in the summer and fall of 1963).

You're probably right. CTs question every comma placement in the WC
but they swallow Lane and Marrs and Stone, etc. whole. I just had a
discussion with Walt Cakebread on ACJ and he believes Oswald worked
for RFK. He has no proof but he has one of those "six degrees of
separation" arguments. Oswald knew De Mohrenschildt who knew Jackie
who knew RFK. Actually that's only three degrees but you get the
picture.

JGL

> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e5...

Gil Jesus

unread,

Aug 20, 2009, 6:49:01 AM8/20/09

to

On Aug 19, 4:29�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> And I personally think that John McAdams is the perfect "LNer" to take
> on James DiEugenio in a debate. I know of very few people who possess
> as much overall knowledge (and common sense) about the JFK
> assassination as Prof. McAdams does.

In other words, "I'M A COWARD".

That's the SECOND radio debate you've run from.

What have you go to hide ?

mucher1

unread,

Aug 20, 2009, 7:18:20 AM8/20/09

to

Awww, Gilly feels slighted. Has been sitting by the phone for days
now, waiting for that call from Osanic (or Batey).

timstter

unread,

Aug 20, 2009, 8:45:45 AM8/20/09

to

LOL! Now did THAT ever hit the nail on the head!

Probably they viewed a coupla Gilly vids and realised the paucity of
his grasp on reality, never mind the ins and outs of the Kennedy
assassination! :-)

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

tomnln

unread,

Aug 20, 2009, 11:28:15 AM8/20/09

to

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eb9889b4-878c-4c7a...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

"FAT THIGHS"????

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 20, 2009, 10:54:16 PM8/20/09

to

DVP SAID:

And make sure you have a look at my 6-part video series, wherein I rip
Mr. DiEugenio to shreds on several of his idiotic beliefs regarding
the JFK assassination:

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210

We wouldn't want to mislead the public by having people like "Richard"
telling everyone how wonderful and truthful "Black Op [Retard] Radio"
is...now would we, Richard?

JOHN McADAMS THEN SAID:

Yep, you really should be the one to debate DiEugenio.

DVP THEN SAID:

Thank you, John. Coming from you, that is a tremendous compliment. And
I sincerely mean that.

But, to tell you the truth, the more I listen to Black Op Radio (and
the more I hear James DiEugenio mangle the facts, month after month,
regarding JFK's murder), the stench from that conspiracy-laden pit is
telling me that I should probably stay a million miles away from it.

But, like a messy car wreck, I just can't seem to stop listening to
that silly all-conspiracy radio network each and every Thursday. I
became hooked on Black Op Radio in September 2008 while doing some
research concerning DiEugenio and his never-ending multi-part review
of Vincent Bugliosi's book.

Jim, btw, announced last week that his Bugliosi review is going to be
even LONGER than he originally anticipated. Seven parts aren't nearly
enough evidently, so it's going to be a NINE-part series of nonsense
now.

~large sigh~

BTW -- DiEugenio and Len Osanic announced on the 8/20/09 Black Op
program that the "McAdams vs. DiEugenio" debate was definitely going
to take place, which was an announcement that I thought was a bit
premature, because neither DiEugenio or Osanic mentioned anything
about the "provisos" that John McAdams talked about in his e-mail
response to Len Osanic on August 17th.

The final "proviso" mentioned by Mr. McAdams, however, probably isn't
known to Osanic and Jim D. (unless John e-mailed that demand to
Osanic), with John stating that he wanted to have another LNer appear
with him during the debate in order to level out the playing field,
since Osanic, who would serve as "moderator", is clearly a
conspiracist and would be on the side of DiEugenio throughout any such
debate.

Anyway, it seemed to me that Jim's and Len's "announcement" about
Prof. McAdams positively accepting the debate challenge was a tad
premature at this time, given John's conditional stipulations.

www.BlackOpRadio.com/black437b.ram

www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 1:27:42 AM8/21/09

to

Subject: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/21/2009 1:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio

------------------------------

Attn. James DiEugenio:

Hi Jim,

Just so you don't feel left out in the cold, I'm sending you the
following links (most of which I also sent to Len Osanic on 8/17/09 as
well).

The first link below should be of particular interest to you, because
it's an Internet message dated August 2, 2009, and it proves that you
were wrong (yet again) when you boldly proclaimed on the Black Op
Radio program of 8/20/09 that I had not once mentioned anything about
the Warren Commission source note (#171) that appears on Page 89 of
the WCR.

When, in fact, as can easily be seen via the post below, I wrote an
Internet forum message concerning Source Note #171 eighteen days prior
to your blatantly-inaccurate statement on Black Op on August 20th.

Enjoy your crow:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e26da650570ff1de

http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 3:21:18 AM8/21/09

to

VonPein-you need a new computer chip put in yer head..it's a tired
broken record..give it a rest..

Debates are misleading-often with politicians the more honest, but less
articulate lose..it's all about style,appearance, who can sound like
they really know what they are talking about when slinging the bull..a
popularity contest..with Johnny Mack and Jimmy D. neither has any
respect for each other's views, like on this board, but should be
interesting, though so is another crazy murder, missing kid, woman
abducted story, ....I'd much rather see these 2 get it on live than the
radio..I'd pay a few bucks how about L.A..?

aeffects

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 3:58:06 AM8/21/09

to

summer session is coming to a close, a new semester begins soon....
can always tell when the lone nut trolls get anxious.... and Von Pein
is A-N-X-I-O-U-S...

He's seeing his HBO-Hanks nirvana going to wayside, making room for
Showtime and you know WHO.... ROTFLMFAO!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 3:59:00 AM8/21/09

to

>>> "VonPein [sic]-you need a new computer chip put in yer head..it's a tired broken record..give it a rest.." <<<

Go to hell. I'll post anything I want to, anytime.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 4:22:23 AM8/21/09

to

>>> "With Johnny Mack and Jimmy D. neither has any respect for each other's views, like on this board, but should be interesting..." <<<

I think so too. But it's really pretty much a moot point and a
foregone conclusion when it comes to anybody who posts on these JFK
boards, because every CTer is going to declare DiEugenio the "winner"
of the debate by a mile, while all the LNers (including myself,
guaranteed) will declare McAdams the victor. No doubt about that.

In fact, I've already declared Prof. McAdams the winner (just as Jim
DiEugenio predicted I would do on the 8/20/09 Black Op show).

And the reason I can be so sure of that foregone conclusion is quite
easy -- it's because I already know the stuff that McAdams will be
saying when countering all of DiEugenio's pro-CT bullshit. It's all
been said thousands of times by many LNers in the past:

1.) McAdams will talk in a common-sense manner, and he will cite the
actual, factual evidence of Lee Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK and
Tippit murders.

2.) DiEugenio will claim that none of the factual evidence against Lee
Oswald can be trusted. It's all either "fake", "fraudulent",
"manufactured", "mysterious", "questionable", or "tainted" in some
manner. EVERY single rock-solid piece of evidence against Oswald will
be declared null & void by DiEugenio. Wait and see.

3.) DiEugenio will undoubtedly spout off something about the supposed
"New Orleans" plot to kill President Kennedy, with the names "Shaw",
"Ferrie", and "Banister" rising to the surface (even though Jim
Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was a total failure, but DiEugenio
doesn't give a damn about that fact, so Jim D. will still pretend that
there's actually some definitive evidence of some kind with which he
can still prop up King Kook Garrison 40 years after Garrison knowingly
prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to commit murder).

4.) McAdams, hopefully, will counter DiEugenio's laughable #3 item
above with something along these reasonable and factual lines:

"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of
this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a
true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New
Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with
in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy
Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving
that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY
WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER
22, 1963.

"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because
(once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a
shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals
to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy
in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63
indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would
still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three
previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and
Banister).

"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE
and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the
grand leap from this:

" "LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY
BANISTER",

"....to this:

" "SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY"?

"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of
ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental
leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly,
monumentally ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009

5.) Final Results -- Since McAdams has ALL of the hard evidence (and
DiEugenio has absolutely none)....John McAdams will win the debate.
That is a foregone conclusion (unless the unthinkable happens, and
Prof. McAdams decides to switch over to the CT side before debating
Jimmy D.; and I doubt that's going to happen).

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Gil Jesus

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 8:16:38 AM8/21/09

to

Davey baby:

What are you doing posting at 3 am Indy time ?

We've noticed that you're out and about while the "kooks" are fast
asleep.

Is this normal behavior outside Transylvania ?

PS:

Don't forget to climb back into your casket before the sun comes up.

aeffects

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 2:22:02 PM8/21/09

to

let's call'em "graveyard shifter-Von Pein"! And that's emphasis on the
"'em".... LMFAO!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 21, 2009, 10:13:35 PM8/21/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ac8da2ca1da56572

>>> "I feel DVP could do a good job too, maybe McAdams and DVP jointly. But if you do this, do it on neutral territory and tape it, not in the Black op studio (or wherever the thing originates from.)" <<<

Hi James,

The debaters wouldn't actually be in the Black Op studio (which is in
Canada). The guests are almost always interviewed over the telephone.
So "neutral territory" isn't really a matter of concern. John McAdams
would be on the phone in Milwaukee (probably); and Jim DiEugenio would
likely be on the telephone from Los Angeles (his home territory).

>>> "The last thing to do the hour or so before air time is to exactly compare the air tape to the LN copy, make sure there are no edits or changes." <<<

The Black Op shows are done live at 9:00 PM EDT/EST each Thursday. So
there would be no "comparing" of any LN copies to the "air tape".

However, there have been exceptions to the "live" broadcasts. For
instance, two of Jim DiEugenio's last four Black Op appearances were
taped in advance of the 9 PM Thursday air time. I know this is true
because the archived audio files were all available for immediate
downloading as of 9 PM EDT on those two occasions. I'm not sure why
those two shows weren't done live, but they weren't.

BTW, I'm not in favor of two LNers debating DiEugenio at the same
time. That would be a bit awkward, IMO, with the two LNers probably
not knowing when to talk next (vs. letting the other guy handle that
question), etc.

Anyway, that's just my opinion on that matter. YMMV.

And another opinion I have is -- John McAdams is THE MAN for such a
debate with a conspiracy theorist like James DiEugenio.

Raw facts, logic, and common sense will always rule the day when it
comes to debating the specifics of the JFK assassination. And in those
three departments, there can be no doubt as to which of the two
debaters in question would handily prevail. (And it certainly isn't
the guy with the initials JD.)

binslick

unread,

Aug 22, 2009, 5:58:56 AM8/22/09

to

> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e5...

Why do you guys Bother debating ''Conspiracy Kooks''???

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2009, 6:12:42 AM8/22/09

to

>>> "Why do you guys Bother debating ''Conspiracy Kooks''???" <<<

That's an excellent question, and it's one I've asked myself many
times in the past, because it's truly a wasted effort, since CT-Kooks
WANT a conspiracy, and most of the nuts at this forum WANT Oswald to
be completely innocent for some silly reason all their own. And those
nuts will believe whatever they WANT to believe (e.g., Oswald's
innocence).

But, I've got a "CIA Disinfo" quota to meet. So...I soldier on. :)

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2009, 6:17:19 AM8/22/09

to

Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/22/2009 5:30:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: James DiEugenio
To: David Von Pein

-----------------------------

Dear DVP:

You did a cover-up job on the strap muscles and you know it.

But keep it up and keep on running from a debate.

You look more and more like what you are: a chicken.

JIM D

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

Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio Vs. Vince Bugliosi And David Von Pein
Date: 8/22/2009 5:52:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio

-----------------------------

Hi James! Good to hear from you, my friend!

While I have your attention.....

You know damn well that the whole "strap muscles" thing began when you
said on the 7/16/09 Black Op (retard) broadcast that I said something
that I never ever said about Humes' testimony as it related to
Specter's "B.S. story" (your quote) as it related to the "PROBING"
issue ONLY. Nothing else. It was ALL ABOUT THE "PROBING" ISSUE.

Now, you want to move those goal posts closer to your CT goal line, so
that you can pretend that you weren't wrong when you said that Humes
and Specter discussed the "strap muscles" as they related to the
PROBING of John Kennedy's upper-back wound.

But, as you obviously have to know by this time (if you're any kind of
a "researcher" at all), Humes and Specter never ONCE talked about the
"strap muscles" as those muscles relate to any "probing" issue at all.
It never happened. Period.

But, Jim, keep pretending you won that mini-debate with me. I'm sure
it satisfies your enormous ego to think you've defeated another lowly
LNer who does nothing but write out his "paper debates" on John
McAdams' "pigpen" 24/7.

BTW, Professor McAdams' "alt.assassination.jfk" forum is a totally-
different forum from the "pigpen" you keep referring to on Len
Osanic's weekly "Black Op [Retard] Radio" shows.

The McAdams forum is a moderated forum that will not allow personal
attacks or hateful remarks toward its members, while the
"alt.conspiracy.jfk" newsgroup/forum is unmoderated (hence, it is
crawling with conspiracy-happy kooks), and the primary reason I go
there at all is because it's the best unmoderated online JFK forum I
know of where I can easily and instantly archive individual messages
for my JFK Blog:

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

You should visit my blog and JFK-related webpages sometime, Jim. You
might learn something. And that "something" just might be an added
dose of "common sense". Lord knows, you and Mr. Osanic could use a
helping of that stuff when it comes to your beliefs about President
Kennedy's assassination.

You're beginning to look more and more like what you are: an "Anybody
But Oswald" conspiracy-happy nut. And that fact is illustrated very
nicely within the following article that I penned on 8/22/09, dealing
with your latest crazy conspiracy-flavored notion regarding Buell
Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6c156af9606019ee

Best wishes for another ridiculous and lengthy part to your God-awful
review for Vincent Bugliosi's masterwork, "Reclaiming History",

David Von Pein

P.S., for a factual look at Mr. Bugliosi's magnificent conspiracy-
bashing tome, go here:

www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

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

binslick

unread,

Aug 22, 2009, 6:30:56 AM8/22/09

to

Do You Know who Alex Jones is??

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2009, 6:48:38 AM8/22/09

to

Yes.

binslick

unread,

Aug 22, 2009, 11:24:18 PM8/22/09

to

On Aug 22, 3:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Yes.

Just Finish Reading The Prosecution of George Bush by Vincent
Bugliosi.It is an Extraordinary indictment against George
Bush.Bugliosi is a very Intelligent Articulate Person.very well
written book.it convinced me George Bush should be tried as a War
Criminal and that the Pretext for Involving America into the war was
False!!

What did you thing about this book???

binslick

unread,

Aug 23, 2009, 12:18:59 AM8/23/09

to

> What did you think about this book???

mis

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 23, 2009, 1:14:29 AM8/23/09

to

www.amazon.com/PROSECUTION-OF-BUSH/review/R29B7NYHLKV3SH

aeffects

unread,

Aug 23, 2009, 1:25:44 AM8/23/09

to

On Aug 22, 10:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising moron.....

binslick

unread,

Aug 23, 2009, 1:45:47 AM8/23/09

to

On Aug 22, 10:25 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> no advertising moron.....

OKAY MORON.....LEAVE THE PERSONAL INSULTS TO YOURSELF

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 28, 2009, 6:05:20 PM8/28/09

to

Subject: More DiEugenio Errors
Date: 8/28/2009 5:49:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio

------------------------------

Hi Jim,

It would be nice, Jim, if you could get your facts straight (at least
once in a while) with respect to things that I supposedly have said
and done in the past. To date, you have totally failed to do so.

The latest examples being:

During your pre-recorded August 27, 2009, Black Op Radio segment
[linked below], when referring to me and Vincent Bugliosi's book
"Reclaiming History", you stated that I "couldn't find one thing wrong
with the whole book".

www.BlackOpRadio.com/black438b.ram

Well, Jim, I've got news for you. I found several things that Vince
gets wrong in his book. And I've talked about them (many times) on the
Internet.

None of the errors affect Bugliosi's obviously-correct "Oswald Acted
Alone" bottom-line conclusion, of course; but I have documented
several mistakes that Vincent makes in "Reclaiming History".

And if you would bother to actually READ something that I have written
before wagging your tongue on Black Op Radio, you would know these
things first-hand.

But since you evidently refuse to do that little bit of legwork, I
guess perhaps I should give up all hope of you being fair when it
comes to the wrong things you have repeatedly said about me on Len
Osanic's Internet radio program.

Anyway, just for your information, here are two articles concerning
some of the errors I have documented within Mr. Bugliosi's otherwise-
exemplary magnum opus known as "Reclaiming History: The Assassination
Of President John F. Kennedy":

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/12c915fc8b5456a9

Along similar lines, you are also dead-wrong when you said on the
August 27th Black Op broadcast that I "couldn't find one thing wrong
about 'JFK: Inside The Target Car'".

To the contrary, Jim, I've documented my thoughts on that subject as
well. And I have talked about some of the mistakes in that program
(plus some other really weird things relating to the 2008 Discovery
Channel "Target Car" documentary that wouldn't really go under the
heading of "mistakes" or "errors", but should probably be placed in
the file drawer marked "Really Dumb Stuff". Here is one of my "Target
Car" articles:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/701242d562279b80

ADDENDUM #1:

Jim, I also noticed during your 8/27/09 Black Op appearance that you
provided some additional laughs when you seemed to be endorsing
certain elements of John Armstrong's insane "Two Oswalds" theory
(which is a theory that has the CIA, years before JFK's assassination,
recruiting two different "Oswalds" who looked exactly alike).

I know you hate Vincent Bugliosi's book with a passion, Jim, but I'm
going to include an excerpt from Vince's excellent book here anyway,
because a little bit of CS&L (Common Sense & Logic) is certainly
needed when discussing John Armstrong and his 2003 book, "Harvey And
Lee":

"[John Armstrong] carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to
such absurd lengths that not only doesn’t it deserve to be dignified
in the main text of my book ["Reclaiming History"], but I resent even
having to waste a word on it in this endnote. ....

"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....

"Perhaps most important, Armstrong doesn’t deign to tell us why
this incredibly elaborate and difficult scheme was necessary. I mean,
if the CIA were willing to frame the Russian refugee for Kennedy’s
murder by setting him up as a patsy, why not simply frame the real Lee
Harvey Oswald? After all, both the real Oswald and the imposter Oswald
were, per Armstrong, recruited by the same conspirators at the CIA and
both were being “handled” by them. ....

"So before Armstrong even writes the first word of his long
tribute to absurdity, the premise for his whole book is seen to be
prodigiously ridiculous." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 565-567 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

ADDENDUM #2:

Then there is also your belief, Jim, that the United States Government
was on a mission to "cover up" the truth of the assassination after it
occurred. Which brings up another point that no conspiracy theorist in
the world has ever been able to reconcile in a satisfactory and
reasonable manner:

Are we really to believe that a group of behind-the-scenes
conspirators was attempting to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder
of President Kennedy MANY WEEKS AND/OR MONTHS prior to 11/22/63, with
that group of plotters succeeding in that endeavor (per many
conspiracy theorists of Planet Earth)....and then, immediately after
the assassination, the U.S. Government (plus the local police
department in Dallas) exhibited an incredible like-mindedness by
wanting to falsely accuse the EXACT SAME "PATSY" NAMED LEE HARVEY
OSWALD that the pre-assassination group of plotters was attempting to
frame for Kennedy's murder?

It seems to me, Jim, that many conspiracists have no choice but to
answer "Yes" to the above question. Because if those conspiracy
theorists don't think those two "like-minded" things occurred, and if
the Government really wasn't involved in some kind of "Let's Nail
Oswald" mission, then Lee Oswald is most certainly guilty of killing
JFK and Officer Tippit.

And let's be reasonable here, Jim....answering "Yes" to my above
question is just plain silly.

CLOSING THOUGHT:

Mr. DiEugenio, if your overall research into the murder of President
Kennedy is as inept and willy-nilly as your consistently-inaccurate
and haphazard research concerning my personal statements and beliefs
relating to certain matters associated with JFK's assassination, I
think it's safe to say that John McAdams could likely defeat you in a
debate even if Professor McAdams were half-asleep throughout the
entire radio encounter.

Salutations,
David Von Pein

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

www.JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 2:13:51 AM8/29/09

to

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1097.msg14811.html#msg14811

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1093.0.html

>>> "What is his [James DiEugenio's] motive? I don't get it. He seems to know nothing." <<<

I'd say he probably knows too much. But he can never seem to sort the
wheat from the chaff. Everything's "wheat" to Jim (especially if he
can attach the word "conspiracy" to it). He knows just about every
little tiny detail connected with the JFK case (particularly relating
to King Kook Garrison's shameful 1969 prosecution of Clay Shaw).

But DiEugenio never seems to GO ANYWHERE with all of these details.
(He doesn't go anywhere of a coherent and cohesive and sensible
nature, at any rate.)

And he repeats virtually every already-explained discrepancy and props
up each discrepancy as proof of conspiracy. The "Mauser" issue being a
perfect example.

Jim actually seems to want to believe that the people "setting up"
Oswald would have left behind a Mauser to be found in the Book
Depository (which is a type of rifle that cannot be linked in any way
to the proverbial "patsy").

Jim has practically overdosed on "conspiracy". Almost everything is
"suspicious" or "questionable" or "odd" to James DiEugenio. According
to Jim, virtually every piece of evidence in the entire case is in
doubt.

And that type of thinking is, to put it bluntly, just plain crazy.

In late 2008, DiEugenio actually had the gall to exclaim that Oswald's
rifle was pretty much totally WORTHLESS as evidence in the case
against Lee Harvey Oswald. Scout's honor. Jim said that.

IOW, if it leads to Lee H. Oswald, we're supposed to either forget
about it or pretend that it is worthless and useless as actual
evidence.

Pathetic, isn't it?

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210

aeffects

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 3:23:59 AM8/29/09

to

On Aug 28, 3:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

...

David,

You're whining is reaching fever pitch, are you fearful? Just
curious.... LMFAO!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 11:45:19 PM8/29/09

to

Subject: Jim DiEugenio, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Von Pein, And Other
Assorted Miscellany
Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio (jfk...@ctka.net)

------------------------------------

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Hmm. Talk about a distinction without a difference. In your first review yes, you did point out some errors in RH ["Reclaiming History"]. BUT NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE JFK ANGLE! They were essentially trivia. Things like birthdays. Not one thing about the main focus of the book: which takes up about 2500 pages." <<<

DVP SAID:

Nonsense, Jim. I have talked about what I perceive to be Vincent's
errors with respect to several different things of a substantive
nature.

I quote now from my September 2007 Internet article:

""Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi has, in my
opinion, written a very factual book, with only a very few mistakes
cropping up here and there (that I noticed). That doesn't mean I
always agree with everything VB says in his JFK book. Because that's
not the case at all. In fact, I disagree with him on several different
issues re. the Kennedy case....e.g., the timing of when the SBT bullet
struck the victims; the specifics of what happened to the bullet from
Oswald's first (missed) shot; the very strange flip-flop that Vince
seems to do on pages 423-424 re. the HSCA's insane "upward" trajectory
of the SBT bullet path through JFK's body; and VB's criticism of
Gerald Posner in a couple of places (particularly with respect to a
JBC bullet-fragment issue)." -- DVP; September 8, 2007

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/12c915fc8b5456a9

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Believe me, I read your "review", which was really a press release. It was such puffery that I think you wrote it before the book was published." <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL. That's typical "conspiracy think", Jim. Nice job. In other words
-- Speculate, but never provide proof! That's a conspiracy theorist's
#1 motto. Always has been.

Anyway, thanks for today's laugh, Jim. In fact, it's so good (and
ultra-silly), I think it deserves a replay. Let's prop up this hunk of
idiocy a second time:

"I think you wrote it before the book was published."

~LOL Replay~

For the record, I received my first copy of "Reclaiming History" in
the mail from Amazon.com on May 21, 2007, and started reading it that
day. I then wrote my review (linked below) over a period of one month
as I was reading the book and the CD-ROM's endnotes. I finished
reading all 2,824 pages in late June of 2007, and completed my review
on June 20, 2007.

I have, however, amended several things within the review since I
first posted it, including the addition of various audio and video
links and a few more Bugliosi quotes from the book. And I recently
created a separate "blogspot" page for my review as well (via
Blogger.com).

But, no, I did not write one single word of my review prior to the
book's publishing date of May 15, 2007. Should I sign a sworn
affidavit to that effect, Jim? Or is my word good enough for you on
this issue? (I'm sure it's probably not, though, is it?)

www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Just like you were trying to intimidate people on Lancer [www.JFKLancerforum.com] with how Bugliosi was going to magically erase all the doubts about the WC [Warren Commission], even though he worked from the same knowledge base we all did. You then amended this to VB making an error about his book containing certain Z film frames. Again, its trivial. And then you loudly proclaimed how this did not touch on VB's book's credibility." <<<

DVP SAID:

If you're talking about Mr. Bugliosi's obvious error when he said
(over and over again in 2007) that his book was the first book to ever
print Z-frames 312 and 313, then I'll emphatically say -- Such an
error certainly does not affect Vince's credibility regarding his
bottom-line "lone assassin" conclusion.

Are you, James, actually trying to say that that error of Bugliosi's
regarding the publishing of Z312 and Z313 affects his credibility when
it comes to the big-ticket question of whether Oswald alone killed
JFK?

Surely you jest.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Davey: Why not talk about VB's four Magic Bullets. Huh?" <<<

DVP SAID:

You took the word right out of my own mouth, Jim. And that word is:
HUH??

"Four magic bullets"? What the hell are you talking about? The only
people who have ANY "magic bullets" are the conspiracists. They've got
up to 4 of those--to replace the SBT alone! And all of those "magic"
bullets disappeared without a trace. Even you should realize how
stupid that type of anti-SBT theory sounds.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Or two within six seconds." <<<

DVP SAID:

It appears to be time for another "HUH?" here. You think Vince has two
"magic bullets" within "six seconds"? WTF?

Vince, just like me, thinks the total time for the shooting was 8.4
seconds (8.36 seconds to be more precise) -- from Z160 to Z313.

As I've said several times on the Internet, Vincent's SBT timeline is
wrong, IMO (but that doesn't affect VB's overall time of 8.4 seconds
for all three of Lee Oswald's gunshots).

Vince thinks the SBT shot occurred at Z210 (or "within a split-second
of Z210"), which is obviously too early. The SBT occurs at exactly
Z224, IMO.

But even with a Z210 SBT shot, there is still ample time for Oswald to
fire that shot (after his first shot misses the car at Z160). The
difference between Z160 and Z210 is 2.73 seconds, which is more than
enough time when using Oswald's Carcano.

And the time between shots 2 and 3 (per Bugliosi's timeline) is 5.63
seconds. In my opinion, the time between those two shots was 4.86
seconds. But either timeline affords Oswald sufficient time to get the
job done.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Or his [Bugliosi's] displaying of the altered Dox drawing of the back of JFK's skull and proclaiming it the "entrance wound"." <<<

DVP SAID:

It would have been better if Mr. Bugliosi had simply provided the
actual autopsy photos in his book (vs. merely relying on the Ida Dox
drawings).

I think that was another mistake made by VB. The autopsy pictures
should definitely have been included in such a "book for the
ages" (which "Reclaiming History" undoubtedly is).

It was a mistake not to include the autopsy pictures, and it was a
mistake for Vince not to include a lot more photographs, too. And he
certainly could have done so, even if only on the CD-ROM. That kind of
"reference" book about the JFK case should have more photos in it than
"Reclaiming History" contains, IMO.

But I don't know why you have such a problem with the Dox drawing of
the back of JFK's head. Dox has the entry wound placed properly in her
HSCA drawing.

Why you think otherwise is a bigger mystery. And I assume you're
talking about this Dox drawing below [HSCA JFK Exhibit F-48], right
Jim? Ida Dox made this drawing, btw, by TRACING directly over the top
of the actual autopsy picture of JFK's head:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0119b.htm

BTW, Ida Dox's other drawings that depict the entry wound in Kennedy's
head look very accurate too, IMO, with the entry wound being HIGH on
JFK's head, near the cowlick, which is, of course, just exactly where
EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST who has examined the official autopsy photos
and X-rays since 1963 has said the wound is located.

Naturally, though, being a firm believer in the make-believe "Grassy
Knoll Killer", you (James DiEugenio) are forced to disagree with the
more than ONE DOZEN doctors who examined the autopsy photographs for
THREE separate U.S. Government panels and committees since the
assassination -- The Clark Panel in 1968, the Rockefeller Commission
in 1975, and the HSCA/FPP in 1978.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Or his [Bugliosi's] error on the spacing of the jump seat inward?" <<<

DVP SAID:

There's definitely some confusion and contradiction in the record
regarding the distance between the car door and Governor Connally's
jump seat. The Hess & Eisenhardt schematic definitely shows the
distance to be just "2.50 inches", whereas Thomas Kelley's Warren
Commission testimony indicates a 6-inch gap.

In May of 2008, I had an online discussion with Pat Speer regarding
this "Connally Jump Seat" topic. Here's a link:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ebedda9226289021

As with all things that conspiracy theorists prop up as meaningful and
substantial, the "Jump Seat Measurement" issue is a great-big "TO-DO
ABOUT VIRTUALLY NOTHING", as I fully demonstrate via ample doses of
common sense and logic in the above-linked Internet article.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Maybe because those would undermine the book's credibility? Which you vouched for two years before the book was published, and called it by the wrong title?" <<<

DVP SAID:

I didn't refer to Vincent Bugliosi's book by the "wrong title" at any
time, Jim. Maybe you should (once again) look before your mouth leaps
into action.

The book went through three different titles, with "Reclaiming
History" finally winning out as the book's published title (it was
Vincent's wife, Gail, btw, who came up with that title).

Prior to the title being changed to "Reclaiming History" in 2006, the
book's moniker was "Final Verdict" (which I'm positive you are fully
aware of, Jim, since you even mention that early title in Part 1 of
your never-ending anti-VB review/tome):

www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html

The two (full) titles that were used at one time or another for Mr.
Bugliosi's masterwork prior to its 2007 release were these:

1.) "Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy"

2.) "Final Verdict: The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK"

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "For ITC ["JFK: Inside The Target Car"], you did the same. You did your usual press release, then you amended it when so many others found so many errors in it--which somehow you managed to miss. But here, you only go as far as the positioning of Jackie. And again, you say it does not really touch on its credibility." <<<

DVP SAID:

It doesn't.

Please tell me, Jim, how JACKIE'S position in the limousine IN ANY WAY
nullifies the rifle tests that were done in California by Michael
Yardley?

I'll answer that question myself -- It doesn't nullify or undermine
those test shots.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "How about the wrong exit spot on the head, Davey? Does that mean anything in a trajectory analysis? Or the bullet not fragmenting to leave a large fragment behind, as Mack's HSCA x-rays said happened? And Mack was using the HSCA analysis for his comparison." <<<

DVP SAID:

As I've stated in my articles online regarding the "Target Car" rifle
tests -- I really don't care too much about anything in that
particular Discovery Channel program except the two simulated "From
The Grassy Knoll" tests that were performed by Michael Yardley in
California.

Those two "Knoll" test shots (using two different types of rifles--a
Winchester and a Mannlicher-Carcano) prove beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT
that President Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the head
by a gunshot coming from the front or right-front (which is a shooting
scenario that a vast majority of conspiracy theorists firmly believe
to this day, including Mr. James DiEugenio).

Naturally, those two "Knoll" rifle tests are WORTHLESS to a hardened
CTer like you, Jim. And that's because you've invested way too much
time and too many words on promoting the make-believe "Grassy Knoll
gunman" theory.

You don't care that Yardley's shot from a Winchester rifle completely
blew the simulated JFK head clean off its neck!

And you also don't give a damn that Yardley's second "Knoll" shot,
using a Carcano rifle, created undeniable damage to the LEFT side of
the surrogate JFK head (i.e., damage that even all conspiracists admit
DID NOT EXIST with respect to the head of the real John F. Kennedy at
his autopsy in 1963)!

So, as all conspiracy theorists have to do, you will find ways to
discredit and undermine the importance of those two "Knoll" shots that
were fired by Mr. Yardley for the "Inside The Target Car" documentary
program.

I'll repeat the following comment that I first made in late 2008,
because it seems fitting here:

"The more scientific and ballistics tests that are done (like
the Discovery Channel's tests and Dale Myers' excellent computer
animation projects relating to both the Single-Bullet Theory and the
acoustic/Dictabelt evidence), the further and further away from a
multi-gun conspiracy we get in the JFK case. Shouldn't that make even
the staunchest conspiracy theorist pause and ask -- I wonder how this
can be...if JFK was really hit from the front and rear, like Oliver
Stone, Jim Garrison, et al, insist he was?" -- David Von Pein;
November 1, 2008

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Why not debate me so we can address these and many, many other issues. /s/ JD [Jim DiEugenio]" <<<

DVP SAID:

You never can tell, maybe I will feel like doing just that at some
point in the future.

Of course, in a very real sense, I already have "debated" you on many
key issues relating to JFK's assassination....on the Internet (and in
my 6-part video series):

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210

David Von Pein

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

Subject: The Strap Muscles (Again)
Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio (jfk...@ctka.net)

------------------------------------

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "I don't know who sent you that quote but it was not me. I was on the road to Santa [B]arbara for vacation with my sister. Davey, you did say this in one of your early versions of your counterattack on my VB review, which is driving you batty. .... Humes and Specter were specifically talking about the strap muscles. When they both knew the bullet came in the back. In other words they were deliberately covering up its real location--which they both knew of--in order to make the SBT viable. Which it is not." <<<

DVP SAID:

Jim,

I guess I'm going to have to go around the "strap muscles" mulberry
bush with you for the 12th time. Apparently the previous 11 times I
proved you were dead-wrong on this issue weren't enough for you.

Anyway, you need to listen to the Black Op Radio broadcast of July 16,
2009 (linked below), wherein you said that I had earlier quoted
"Specter examining Humes" (your verbatim quote from 7/16/09) regarding
the "probing" issue as it relates to the strap muscles:

www.BlackOpRadio.com/black432a.ram

But, quite obviously, I never quoted Specter or Humes talking about
any such thing relating to the "probing" topic. How could I have
quoted anything like that? NO SUCH TESTIMONY ABOUT "PROBING" EXISTS AT
ALL. It does not exist. You INVENTED it, Jim, for your own "CT"
purposes. And you surely MUST realize that by this time.

You must also believe that Arlen Specter was somehow able to wave his
"magic coercion wand" and miraculously was able to get Dr. Humes to
follow him down "Strap Muscles B.S. Avenue", because it's HUMES who
said the strap muscles WERE, in fact, "bruised" by the passage of the
bullet...not Specter!

So, how did Specter get Humes, on the record, to LIE HIS ASS OFF in
front of the Warren Commission, Jim? You never did state how that neat
little trick was accomplished.

BTW, I also must assume that you really DON'T think the strap muscles
of JFK were "bruised" by the passage of the bullet through his body,
correct?

Because if you DO think that the strap muscles were bruised (and, of
course, they definitely were, because Dr. Humes was very clear on that
point in his WC testimony), then your whole argument about how Specter
made up the "B.S. story" (your direct quote) concerning the strap
muscles is a totally-moot and useless argument altogether.

Better luck next time, James. You've lost this round.

DVP

aeffects

unread,

Aug 30, 2009, 12:30:16 AM8/30/09

to

On Aug 29, 8:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Subject: Jim DiEugenio, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Von Pein, And Other
> Assorted Miscellany
> Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: David Von Pein

> To: James DiEugenio (jfk2...@ctka.net)
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

why not do us a favor Von pein, *nad* up and debate Jim. What's the
matter you scared, not prepared for the bigtime?

ROTFLMFAO!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 12:49:01 AM8/31/09

to

Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Von Pein, And Other
Assorted Miscellany
Date: 8/31/2009 12:29:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio

-------------------------------

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Davey: Look, if you want to debate me[,] fine. Let Len [Osanic] know. We will set it up." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I like to keep kooks guessing.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "It's the same thing you did on Lancer. You flooded the forum with an endless recycling of WC nonsense in order to stop everyone from doing real research." <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL.

Yeah, Jim. "Real research" like Anthony Frank's non-stop idiocy about
how Oswald was innocent of killing Officer Tippit (despite the dozen
or so witnesses who positively identified LHO as the one and ONLY
killer of Tippit or as the one and ONLY man with a gun fleeing the
scene of the crime at 10th Street and Patton Avenue).

"Anything linking LHO to the Tippit shooting was manufactured."
-- Anthony Frank; June 26, 2005 [Via the JFK-Lancer forum thread
linked below; if you want a good belly-laugh or two, click on it.]

www.JFKLancerForum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=31673

Is that the kind of "real research" and accurate assessments of the
evidence that you think JFK-Lancer provides its members and visitors?
Surely you jest.

BTW, Jim, do YOU think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Officer Tippit?
Or was LHO framed as the "patsy" in that murder too (despite the fact
we know that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was
arrested in the Texas Theater)?

More Lancer Lunacy (just for the fun of it):

And then there's conspiracy theorist Bill Miller's "real
research" (aka: subjective garbage concerning the so-called huge "BOH"
wound in the back of JFK's head that Bill thinks he can easily see in
the Zapruder Film).

I battled Kook Bill for many a month at Lancer. But, as expected, none
of my CS&L [Common Sense & Logic] sank in.

But, then too, my experience has taught me that most conspiracy
theorists are simply incapable of absorbing any common sense into
their beings when it comes to the subject of the JFK case.

Why is this so? I haven't the foggiest. I guess it's merely because
most of those people simply WANT a conspiracy to exist in the JFK
murder case.

~shrug~

www.JFKLancerForum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=20525

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Even though Debra Conway posted the rules and posted an article about internet Trolling, you could not help yourself. And on July 28, 2005[,] she emailed you and suspended you." <<<

DVP SAID:

Gosh, I'm honored! You've even got the date down pat. Very nice, Jim.

And, for once, you're 100% right about something. It was, indeed, July
28th, 2005, when I was booted out of Ms. Conway's all-CT booby hatch
(along with another astute LNer named Nick Kendrick, who had just
joined the Lancer forum eleven days earlier).

But having TWO lone-assassin believers clogging the Lancer works was
just simply too much for Debra and the conspiracy-happy clowns at that
forum to bear -- so Nick and I both had to go, asap.

IOW -- It's a typical conspiracy-only website. John Simkin's
"Education Forum" is cut from the same "CT" cloth (as you no doubt
know).

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "One of your violations: 263 posts in 12 days. Amazing." <<<

DVP SAID:

You're nuts, Jim. Debra Conway had no set rule in place on how many
posts a person could make in a given time period. You're making up
shit (again). Just like you did with the Specter/Humes "B.S. story"
concerning the strap muscles. "Amazing", indeed.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Then came your personal insults; Gene Stump posted 14 examples." <<<

DVP SAID:

Oh good! More detailed Lancer stats from Jimmy D.! I love it! I didn't
even have that particular statistic handy in my own files. But,
amazingly, Jim DiEugenio does. I wonder why?

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Recall what Bill Cheslock said: Lancer was losing posters because of you and your tactics." <<<

DVP SAID:

Aw, shucks! A forum filled with nothing but people who make up
conspiracy theories all day and all night is losing members.

Gee, what a heartbreaking hunk of news that is, Jim. (Have you got a
Kleenex? Because I feel like I'm about to puddle up due to that sad
bulletin.)

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "This was your strategy of course. But I will not get sucked into it." <<<

DVP SAID:

Jim evens knows what my "strategy" was at the Lancer kookhouse, circa
2003-2005. I love it!

The only thing that disappoints me is that Jim hasn't accused me of
being with the CIA. I always love hearing that one.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Keep on writing about me at the Pigpen." <<<

DVP SAID:

No worries there. Your non-stop, 9-part, anti-Bugliosi crusade is just
begging to be ridiculed, day and night. And I've done it quite well
thus far, IMO.

Although, granted, I haven't read nearly every word of all of the
parts of your dry-as-dust and mostly-subjective Bugliosi review. My
stomach, you see, can only handle that kind of ridiculous overboard
tripe in small doses. And, for that matter, my weak bladder can handle
even less of it without bursting wide open.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "You are protected there [at "The Pigpen"]." <<<

DVP SAID:

How so? By McAdams you mean?

It might interest you to know, James (as I've told you previously as
well), that John McAdams' forum/newsgroup is a totally different forum
from the "pigpen" you like to refer to.

The "pigpen" (which is, indeed, occupied by mostly conspiracy-loving
crackpots and foul-mouthed idiots) is located at "alt.conspiracy.jfk";
whereas the moderated forum that is controlled (in part) by Professor
McAdams is located at a different web address -- at
"alt.assassination.jfk".

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "If you choose not to debate me, then I will keep on asking why." <<<

DVP SAID:

Fair enough.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "I hope you take the stuff you write there seriously[,] since few others do." <<<

DVP SAID:

I certainly do.

And another person who thinks my Internet ramblings are pretty decent
is Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):

"David, I can't thank you enough for all the tremendous support
you have given me and my book. You have become very valuable in
helping to make sure that the truth catches up to all the lies and
distortions told about the assassination, and I hope we get to meet
some day so I can thank you in person. /s/ Your friend and colleague,
Vince Bugliosi" -- Vincent Bugliosi; August 22, 2009

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "And if you cannot count Bugliosi's four magic bullets in six seconds, then you did not read my Pt 4 very well." <<<

DVP SAID:

You could be right there, Jim. That could have been one of the
segments of your review when my bladder just simply could not stand
the onslaught of hilarity that continually flows from your keyboard.

So, you seem to think that Mr. Bugliosi believes there were FOUR shots
fired on November 22, 1963, eh?

A curious notion indeed. But, I guess Jim knows what he means. And if
Jim's happy with it, then all is well with the CT world (I guess).

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Either that, or you are in denial mode. (Which is really obvious.)" <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL. I always love it when a rabid conspiracy theorist (such as a Mr.
James DiEugenio) has the monster-sized gonads to tell a lone-assassin
believer that he is "in denial".

Can there be a better example of "Pot Meets Kettle" than that...I ask
you? I doubt it.

Jim, you're "in denial" about virtually every last piece of evidence
that exists in the whole JFK assassination case....right down to the
absurd statement that you made on Black Op Radio on October 9, 2008,
when you essentially said that Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
was USELESS and WORTHLESS as a piece of evidence against him in the
JFK case. To be more specific, you said this:

"If you take away the rifle [WHICH MR. DiEUGENIO HAS DECIDED TO
DO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS LOONY DISCUSSION ON "BLACK OP RADIO"], what
is there? There really is almost nothing. He [Oswald] was in that
building. That's it. That's about it. There's no ballistics evidence
that connects him to the crime now [AFTER DiEUGENIO HAS DECIDED TO
ELIMINATE ONLY *TWO* THINGS FROM THE EVIDENCE PILE -- BULLET CE399 AND
THE NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS TESTING PERFORMED BY DR. VINCENT P.
GUINN]." -- James DiEugenio; 10/09/08

Talk about a bladder-buster! That October 9th Black Op program was it!

My complete rebuttal to Jimmy D.'s 10/9/08 nonsense can be found in
the article below:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "BTW, the reason I know the stuff about you from Lancer well is that I have set up a file on you." <<<

DVP SAID:

I'm honored (yet again)!

A whole file just for DVP (aka: a person whom Jim DiEugenio thinks is
nothing but a Bugliosi butt-kisser and is full of nothing but hot
air)?

I doubt that even John McAdams has earned his own "file" there at
"DiEugenio Conspiracy Central" in Los Angeles. (Or has he, Jim?)

(I think I'm going to swoon.)

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Many people have asked me to do a series on you when my VB one is finished." <<<

DVP SAID:

And you should be finished with your overbaked anti-Bugliosi bashfest
in--what?--the year 2023, right Jim? That will be just in time for the
COPA Conference marking the 60th anniversary of the assassination.
It'll be a 229-part review by that time, won't it?

And if you go ahead and do that "series" on me, don't leave out the
lie you told on the July 16, 2009, Black Op show, wherein you told the
audience (consisting of approximately four total listeners) something
totally false about how I quoted "Specter examining Humes" with
respect to the "probing" issue as that issue related to JFK's strap
muscles.

BTW, Jim, one thing that tells me you're completely wrong when it
comes to your anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that you can
seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
omissions and lies, etc.

And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on your part, I have to
ask myself this question (which is the same question that all
reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the
internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How
could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally
smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop
fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?

And after pondering the above logical inquiry, the only logical answer
I can arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.

Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot
possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS of his anti-VB book review.

It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James
DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics
(dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy
that appear within Bugliosi's massively-complete 2007 book,
"Reclaiming History".

In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must
certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his
interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for
such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly, well-
documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History" defies all
belief.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "I may or may not [do a "series on you when my VB one is finished"]. Depending in part on if you debate me." <<<

DVP SAID:

I may or may not. I like to keep conspiracists guessing.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Meanwhile, I await your response to a real debate in a fair forum, man to man. Unprotected by the guards at [the] pigpen." <<<

DVP SAID:

You've switched on your overactive imagination again I see.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "If you are so convinced you are right, then why hide at the pigpen? It's a question only you can answer. If you do not[,] then most people will think it's because either you are afraid or you understand your position is rather weak." <<<

DVP SAID:

My position is far from "weak", Jim. And even you must know this is
true.

You, like so many other conspiracy theorists since 1963, seem to be
proud of the fact that you have TOTALLY IGNORED virtually all of the
physical evidence leading to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (and only
Oswald's guilt) that exists in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
cases.

You have evidently convinced yourself that ALL of this "LHO Is Guilty"
evidence is tainted or invalid in some manner. And just exactly how
likely is it that that assumption is true? Not very. In fact, it's
just plain silly.

Plus -- You seem to still want to prop up Jim Garrison's pathetic case
against an innocent New Orleans businessman named Clay Shaw. And I
wonder why you do this, Jim? A jury took less than one hour to declare
Mr. Shaw "Not Guilty" of conspiring to murder John Kennedy.

And yet you still seem to want to cling to the notion that a plot of
some kind was hatched by a band of nefarious characters in Louisiana
in 1963. One can only wonder WHY you still cling to such beliefs 40
years after Garrison's case collapsed (as it deserved to) and Shaw was
found not guilty.

Allow me to repeat these comments that I directed mostly at you in
late July 2009:

"....to this:

leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly,
monumentally ridiculous." -- DVP; 07/31/09

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "And if you continue to write me here, I will probably just send them to the trash or just ask to have you eliminated from e-mail." <<<

DVP SAID:

Fine with me. After all, JFK conspiracy theorists are experts at
ignoring all the best evidence in the entire case. Therefore, why
would you want to deal with a lowly "LNer" such as myself?

You love conspiracy-flavored chaff, Jim, even though there's ample
"Oswald Is Guilty" wheat on the table as well. Go figure.

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "You have the technique of wasting time honed down to a science. /s/ JIM D" <<<

DVP SAID:

Well, at least you think I'm good at something.

And I'm also pretty good at destroying a lot of the conspiracy-tinged
theories and piecemeal thoughts of one James DiEugenio too....such as
the following examples:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ce7fb95882ff661f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d89c3f37af584baf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/93a656e1fa962e18
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6c156af9606019ee
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/70d6d5da4d2ef82d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2d15330a312bea02
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f45cd7f74b10f4d3

/s/ David Von Pein

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 3:03:59 AM8/31/09

to

One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it
comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can

seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
omissions and lies, etc.

And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on DiEugenio's part, I

have to ask myself this question (which is the same question that all
reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the
internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How
could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally
smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop
fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?

And after pondering the above inquiry, the only logical answer I can

arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.

Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot
possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS of his anti-VB book review.

It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James
DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics
(dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy
that appear within Bugliosi's massively-complete 2007 book,
"Reclaiming History".

In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must
certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his
interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for
such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly,

well-documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History"
defies all belief.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/276116f6ceb31422

aeffects

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 1:30:10 PM8/31/09

to

On Aug 31, 12:03 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it
> comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can
> seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
> Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
> omissions and lies, etc.

ahh, permit me to remind you, you're nearly 20,000 in support of
Vinnie daBug appear to have reached the "Vin B. obsession" stage. Now
you waddle your way back to .john's camp and come up with some new one
liners.... better yet, nad up debate Jim DiEigenio --

And who the hell cares if McAdams debates? Greg Burnham cleaned
McAdams nutter-troll debating clock years ago.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 11:45:22 PM8/31/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/9c69514afd79a453

>>> "Bugliosi spent 2600 pages talking about the assassination..." <<<

No. It's 2,824 pages, Pat. (Including the 32 pages of photographs.) :)

>>> "...at least half of this was him arguing against other people's viewpoints. So now DiEugenio spends a hundred or so pages arguing against Bugliosi's viewpoint--and you call this obsessed?" <<<

Yes, I do.

As I said previously, DiEugenio is in "VB Overload" mode. And anyone
who knows anything at all about Vince Bugliosi--THE MAN himself--would
instantly recognize DiEugenio's continual and seemingly-never-ending
attacks on Bugliosi's magnum opus as being way, way "over the top".

And DiEugenio's nit-picking certainly doesn't win him any CT medals
either (and, yes, Jim is nit-picking in many instances in his soon-to-
be NINE-PART "review").

>>> "And [you, DVP] infer from this that he must be wrong about a lot of it?" <<<

Yes, absolutely. I do infer that very thing you just said. Jim's
subjectivism is on full display every step of the way in his
"Everything Bugliosi Says Is Dead Wrong" review (especially in the
double-length segment on the Garrison case; but since Jim D. is a
Garrison-ite personified, I don't think I need to elaborate further on
Jim's motives for making that portion of his "review" a double-length
diatribe).

>>> "Well...ding ding ding--doesn't the same hold true for your hero Bugliosi? Mustn't he be wrong about a lot of stuff, too? If not, why not?" <<<

Because Vince has a little thing called THE HARD FACTS on his side.
Could that be it, Pat?

OTOH, people like Mr. DiEugenio do everything within their power to
completely ignore (or mangle) those HARD FACTS surrounding President
Kennedy's death.

Of course, that type of shameful behavior on the part of Warren
Commission critics is nothing new. Just look at Mark Lane and Jim
Garrison for two high-profile examples of "evidence-manglers". They
are/were two of the best in that department (IMO).

You, Pat Speer, are much like DiEugenio, in that you are so firmly
entrenched in chasing shadows and make-believe theories that you
cannot (or will not) see the Oswald-Did-It forest for the trees. And
that Oz-Did-It forest is a HUGE FOREST too....without question.

Although, Pat, I do have to give you more credit on some things than
most other conspiracy theorists....because at least you acknowledge
the fact that the head shot came from the REAR.

You've got the specifics of that rear head shot all screwed up
(naturally), and you know that the ONLY AVAILABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE
does not support your theory about WHERE that bullet entered Kennedy's
head....but at least you don't think Jimmy Files did it with a
Fireball from behind the picket fence. And for that, I salute you. :)

>>> "One should consider that Bugliosi wrote letters to editors claiming even CTs like David Mantik agreed that his book was brilliant. He was thereby quoting Mantik out of context. Mantik, if I recall, said something like Bugliosi's book was a brilliant prosecutor's brief, but a failure as history." <<<

You're 100% correct about that, Pat. And I've written some Internet
pieces concerning that very subject [two of which are linked below].

However, I think it's quite possible that Bugliosi (still to this day)
hasn't read Dr. Mantik's ENTIRE "Reclaiming History" book review. It's
possible that Vince's publisher (W.W. Norton) culled Mantik's "it's a
masterpiece" blurb on their own (and they probably did), and then put
those out-of-context words on the "RH" website and also in Bugliosi's
2008 JFK paperback book, "Four Days In November". But I'm still
wondering if Mr. Bugliosi HIMSELF really knows that that blurb was
taken out of context?

But, you're right, that was a dirty trick by the publishers (but not
necessarily by Vincent himself), because that Mantik blurb should
never have been used to promote Bugliosi's two JFK books ("RH" and
"Four Days").

More....

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c0f1c1509b1bb263

In fact, on June 12th, 2008, I went so far as to send an e-mail
Vincent Bugliosi's secretary about the Mantik blurb. Here's an excerpt
from that e-mail:

"I'm actually kind of embarrassed for Vince when I see those two
brief review blurbs of Mantik's showing up online at the RH site,
because they are also taken totally out of context. Mantik is actually
bashing the book and its author--not praising it/him. .... It makes it
look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of
praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the
context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And
that's not a good thing at all, in my view." -- DVP; 06/12/08

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66ceef57607ad041

>>> "Anyhow...DiEugenio has as much right to criticize Bugliosi as Bugliosi did to criticize Stone. How can you have a problem with that?" <<<

Yes, Mr. DiEugenio has every right to write whatever he
pleases....about Mr. Bugliosi or anyone else. And he has done so.

But, likewise, I have every right to totally disagree with him (in
print). And I do.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com