Von Pein has an Addiction

[claviger]

The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !

David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.

His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.

In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.

Kudos and keep up the good work David.

[bpete1969]

I agree. David does excellent work. I's say he an asset but Raff* might
call his boss and complain.

[Beyond Wikipedia]

Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?

P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound

[mainframetech]

Oh, brother! I need my hip boots, it's getting deep.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.

[mainframetech]

If you want a good laugh, look at the autopsy photo below which is of
good quality, and see if you can find the bullet hole in the BOH anywhere
in this photo:

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/409304d1353206519-jfk-autopsy-pictures-assassination-jfk_autopsy4.jpg

Or this one:

http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/jfkautopsyheadrearfixbig.jpg

The WC had an artist (Ida Dox) make a drawing of the second photo above
and she was ordered to put in a bullet hole!!! Here's the drawing:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg

Now you can see a bullet hole, where there is nothing in the real
photo.

It's hysterical how they try to lie and make such stupid mistakes.
Even worse is the photo showing clearly the bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK which matches the blow out in the BOH.

Chris

[claviger]

Your criticism is worthless.

The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm

"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm

As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/1/2018 9:08 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 8:51:11 PM UTC-4, Beyond Wikipedia wrote:
>> Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
>> Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
>> small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
>> protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
>>
>> P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
>> indicating the EOP wound
>
>
>
> If you want a good laugh, look at the autopsy photo below which is of
> good quality, and see if you can find the bullet hole in the BOH anywhere
> in this photo:
>

Illegal. You know that WC defenders are not allowed to look at the
autopsy photos.

> https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/409304d1353206519-jfk-autopsy-pictures-assassination-jfk_autopsy4.jpg
>
> Or this one:
>
> http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/jfkautopsyheadrearfixbig.jpg
>
> The WC had an artist (Ida Dox) make a drawing of the second photo above

Excuse me. HSCA not WC.
The WC used Rydberg who was not that good an artist.
Ida was one of the best professional FORENSIC artists.
She did an excellent job of covering up.

> and she was ordered to put in a bullet hole!!! Here's the drawing:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg
>
> Now you can see a bullet hole, where there is nothing in the real
> photo.
>

It takes real artistry.

> It's hysterical how they try to lie and make such stupid mistakes.

They knew they could get away with it.

> Even worse is the photo showing clearly the bullet hole in the forehead of
> JFK which matches the blow out in the BOH.
>

You don't need a blowout in the BOH to match an entrance wound in the
front of the head. James Brady didn't have one. Because an explosive
bullet was used.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/2/2018 5:04 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 3:36:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/31/2018 8:51 PM, Beyond Wikipedia wrote:
>>> Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
>>> Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
>>> small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
>>> protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
>>>
>>> P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
>>> indicating the EOP wound
>>
>> Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
>> at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
>> Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
>
> Your criticism is worthless.
>

So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a WC
defender.

> The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
> http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
>

So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?

> "Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
> the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
> Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
> report in on time."
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
>
> As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
> shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
> medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
> before reading the autopsy report.
>

Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.


BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making out the
death certificate?

Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his fireplace
or one of the other rewrites?

[claviger]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 5:30:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 5:04 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 3:36:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2018 8:51 PM, Beyond Wikipedia wrote:
> >>> Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
> >>> Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
> >>> small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
> >>> protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
> >>> P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
> >>> indicating the EOP wound
> >> Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
> >> at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
> >> Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
> > Your criticism is worthless.
> So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.

Correct about what? You are constantly being corrected on this
Newsgroup by numerous people, but now you have competition
from MFT. I think both of you do it to get attention.

> Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a
> WC defender.

Which one?

> > The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
> > http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
> So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
> Are you saying it is a lie?

No, even though Dr Burkley wrote down the wrong vertebra
the President is still legally dead.

> > "Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
> > the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
> > Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
> > report in on time."
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
> > As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
> > shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
> > medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
> > before reading the autopsy report.
> Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
> All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is
> fact.

They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.

> BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
> out the death certificate?

He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
all details.

> Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
> fireplace or one of the other rewrites?

Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
the HSCA.

[mainframetech]

Or the bullet hole in the upper back was lower than they liked it to be. Like when Ford tried to place it higher.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Well at least you can admit that he got the vertebra wrong. A death
certificate is not just to note that a peron is dead. It needs more
details. If your idea were true there would be no need to specify which
vertebra or even that he was shot.

>>> "Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
>>> the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
>>> Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
>>> report in on time."
>>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
>>> As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
>>> shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
>>> medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
>>> before reading the autopsy report.
>> Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
>> All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is
>> fact.
>
> They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
>

Gee, you think the death certificate had to specify that? Do they need
to get anything right? He might have been poisoned.

>> BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
>> out the death certificate?
>
> He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
> from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
> all details.
>

Noe you're starting to get the idea.

>> Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
>> fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
>
> Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
> The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
> the HSCA.
>

Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes to burn it.

>
>
>

[OHLeeRedux]

Your daddy.

[claviger]

Most death certificates only require a basic description, such as died
from gun shots to head and body. Usually the official who writes the
death certificate did not perform the autopsy.

> >>> "Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
> >>> the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
> >>> Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
> >>> report in on time."
> >>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
> >>> As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
> >>> shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
> >>> medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
> >>> before reading the autopsy report.
> >> Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
> >> All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is
> >> fact.
> > They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
> Gee, you think the death certificate had to specify that? Do they need
> to get anything right? He might have been poisoned.

That would be determined at the autopsy.

> >> BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
> >> out the death certificate?
> > He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
> > from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
> > all details.
> Noe you're starting to get the idea.

What idea? Death certificates are a brief description. For more
detailed information read the autopsy report.

> >> Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
> >> fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
> > Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
> > The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
> > the HSCA.
> Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes
> to burn it.

It was you?

[Anthony Marsh]

But would the death certificate specify that? I saw one case where the
death certificate said cause of death: drowning.

Yeah, the guy died from drowning in his own pool of blood after being
shot 15 times. No crime here, nothing to investigate.

>>>> BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
>>>> out the death certificate?
>>> He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
>>> from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
>>> all details.
>> Noe you're starting to get the idea.
>
> What idea? Death certificates are a brief description. For more
> detailed information read the autopsy report.

Then why did he specify the vertebra?

>
>>>> Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
>>>> fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
>>> Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
>>> The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
>>> the HSCA.
>> Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes
>> to burn it.
>
> It was you?
>

I was not the commander of the base.

>

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."

[claviger]

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 5:20:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/9/2018 2:19 PM, claviger wrote:

Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.

[Anthony Marsh]

And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate

[Anthony Marsh]

He wants to always conform, not realizing that MOST people believe in
conspiracy.

[claviger]

Gunshot wounds to head and body were the Cause Of Death.
You can't figure that out? Murder victims automatically have
an autopsy. One could argue gunshot wounds caused the
victim to have a heart attack, but gunshots were still the
proximal cause of death. The President had an adrenal
gland deficiency and may have died from that too in
the hospital recovering from otherwise survivable
wounds, but bullet wounds were still proximal
cause of death.

[claviger]

What most people believe is not the deciding factor. Who presents
the most verifiable, logical facts based on scientific evidence is the
winning team in this intellectual contest of Reality vs Make Believe.

[claviger]

Do you realize that gunshots to head and back
might be considered cause of death?

[Anthony Marsh]

Again you miss my point. It is about what motives DVP not who has more
votes. He wants to conform and he mistakenly believes that means accepting
the WC. Now if he could only be brave enough to admit that the WC made
some mistakes he might be able to fix them. I saw the mistakes the HSCA
made and I fixed them.

[OHLeeRedux]

Most people believe in angels. Most people used to believe that black
people were animals. So that is no argument at all. It is nothing but an
inane attempt to dig yourself out of the pit of nonsense in which you have
buried yourself, Anthony "Know Nothing" Marsh.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2018 10:47 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 9:58:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/11/2018 10:38 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 5:20:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2018 2:19 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>
>>> Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
>>> require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
>>> from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
>>> The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
>>> there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
>>> next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
>>> signing the Death Certificate.
>>
>> And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
>> CAUSE OF DEATH?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
>
> Gunshot wounds to head and body were the Cause Of Death.
> You can't figure that out? Murder victims automatically have

You just said he shouldn't have been that specific. Did he bother saying
WHERE on the head? At least Killduff pointed to WHERE on the head.

> an autopsy. One could argue gunshot wounds caused the
> victim to have a heart attack, but gunshots were still the
> proximal cause of death. The President had an adrenal
> gland deficiency and may have died from that too in
> the hospital recovering from otherwise survivable
> wounds, but bullet wounds were still proximal
> cause of death.
>

Well, they tried poisoning Raputin, but that didn't work. Then they shot
him and that didn't work so they drown him in the river.

>

[David Von Pein]

I wonder why you would think that I don't realize that "MOST people
believe in conspiracy [re: the JFK case]"?

You *really* think I *don't* realize this?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but why just GUESS at the vertebra?

[claviger]

Good question since he knows the Autopsy took place
and the Report would be available the following day.
He used poor judgement guessing at that detail. All
he needed to say is the President died from gunshot
wounds. He might add the wound to the head was fatal.
No need for further details, that is what the Autopsy
is for.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/16/2018 9:03 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:40:13 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/14/2018 8:08 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 9:58:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2018 10:38 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 5:20:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2018 2:19 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
>>>>> require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
>>>>> from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
>>>>> The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
>>>>> there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
>>>>> next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
>>>>> signing the Death Certificate.
>>>>
>>>> And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
>>>> CAUSE OF DEATH?
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
>>>
>>> Do you realize that gunshots to head and back
>>> might be considered cause of death?
>> Yes, but why just GUESS at the vertebra?
>
> Good question since he knows the Autopsy took place
> and the Report would be available the following day.

Wrong. Who said the autopsy report would be available to him the next
day? You mean the one that Humes burned in his fireplace?