Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Straightening Out James DiEugenio (Again)

27 views

Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 10:09:16 AM7/31/09

www.blackopradio.com/black434a.ram

www.blackopradio.com/black434b.ram

Well, I see it's time to straighten out the forever-mangled words and
theories of conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio once again.

~sigh~

The two audio links above provide access to "Black Op Radio" Show #434
from July 30, 2009, in which Jim DiEugenio attempts to move the goal
posts regarding an issue concerning the "strap muscles" of President
Kennedy that I discussed in an earlier critique of Jim's non-stop pro-
conspiracy nonsense (in the article linked below):

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/650f29e8d860c8a3

During the July 30th Black Op program, DiEugenio made a pathetic
attempt to sidestep the provable fact that he was wrong (in two
different ways) when he said the following words on July 16, 2009
(while talking about the topic of "probing" JFK's wounds):

"So what does Von Pein do? He quotes Specter examining Humes
[referring to the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. James Humes]."

Number 1 -- I never quoted Specter examining Humes concerning the
issue at hand (which is an issue all about "probing" JFK's upper-back
and neck wounds, and NOTHING more).

And number 2 -- Specter never even brought up the topic of "strap
muscles" during Dr. Humes' 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Not once.
Humes uttered the words "strap muscles" one time, but it was not
related to the "probing" topic at all. Humes was talking about JFK's
strap muscles being "bruised" by the passage of the bullet that went
through the President's upper back and throat/neck. Nothing more than
that.

So, what does DiEugenio do? He decides to quote Page 88 of the Warren
Commission Report, which states:

"The [autopsy] surgeons determined that the bullet had passed
between two large strap muscles and bruised them without leaving any
channel."

WCR; Page 88:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0056b.htm

But the above WCR passage is a big "So what?" situation
here....because it has nothing whatsoever to do with DiEugenio's
previously-stated falsehood about there being on-the-record Warren
Commission testimony of Dr. Humes concerning the issue of "strap
muscles" as those muscles relate to the PROBING of President Kennedy's
wounds.

Plus -- Page 88 of the Warren Report certainly doesn't eliminate the
additional falsehood that DiEugenio told about how I had allegedly
previously cited Dr. Humes and Arlen Specter talking about the "strap
muscles" as they relate to any probing of JFK's wounds, which is
something I did not do (nor could I have if I wanted to, because no
such WC testimony exists at all).

I'm certainly not denying the fact that the words "strap muscles" were
mentioned at some point in the official record by both Dr. Humes [2 WC
368] and the Warren Commission [WR; Pg. 88].

To the contrary, in fact, I even said this in an Internet post that I
wrote on July 20, 2009 (which totally destroys DiEugenio's arguments
regarding another aspect of the "strap muscles" debate):

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

"You'll find ONE reference to "strap muscles" in Humes'
testimony...and that one reference isn't referring to the "probing"
matter at all. Humes was talking there about the "bruising" of the
strap muscles in JFK's neck.

"Which, in fact, defeats DiEugenio in another area of his
BlackOp appearance from July 16th, because Jim was arguing that the
"strap muscles" were WAY ABOVE the area where the bullet passed
through John Kennedy's body....which just is not true, because those
very "strap muscles" were BRUISED BY THE PASSAGE OF THE BULLET THROUGH
KENNEDY'S NECK." -- DVP; 07/20/09 [complete message below]

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cad40a0472049e42

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

And here's a replay of Jim DiEugenio's July 16th claptrap regarding
Arlen Specter and the strap muscles:

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big
problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So
Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing
that that story was going to be exposed.

"And Von Pein goes ahead and quotes him [WHICH NEVER HAPPENED,
OF COURSE; BECAUSE HOW COULD I QUOTE SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER SAID IN
THE FIRST PLACE?].

"This is the reason he doesn't want to debate me, of course.
Because this is one thing I would just rip him open on." -- James
DiEugenio; 07/16/09

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

And in rebuttal to Jim's silliness quoted above, I said this a few
days later:

"Everybody online can easily check it out for themselves. Just
search Humes' WC testimony and search for the words "strap muscles" --
those are the key words that DiEugenio thinks Arlen Specter decided to
invent a "B.S. story" about while Specter was questioning Dr. Humes
("B.S. story" is DiEugenio's exact quote from 7/16/09).

"Although just HOW Arlen Specter managed to get Humes to shed
his backbone and his professional integrity and go along with this so-
called "B.S. story" about the strap muscles is anybody's guess.
Apparently DiEugenio thinks that Humes would just obediently and
slavishly go along with such a "B.S. story", instead of showing a
little backbone and refuse to tow the Specter line.

"The idea that CTers think that Government people like Specter
of the Warren Commission would have been able to just snap their
fingers and get anyone on the witness stand to say any damn thing that
Specter (et al) wanted them to say is just silly beyond all belief.

"But, evidently, people like James DiEugenio seem to think that
Specter (et al) did, indeed, possess that kind of power. Crazy." --
DVP; 07/20/09 [full post linked earlier]

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

Evidently, though, Mr. DiEugenio thinks that Dr. James Humes must
have, indeed, been a big fat liar when Humes said that the "strap
muscles" of President Kennedy were "bruised" as a result of the
passage of a bullet:

"We reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on
the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately
the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity
was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs
were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the
vicinity, because that he did have in these STRAP MUSCLES in the neck,
but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made
at Parkland Hospital." -- Dr. James Joseph Humes; 03/16/64 [WC Volume
2; Page 368][Emphasis provided by DVP.]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm

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

Quite obviously, via the above testimony of Dr. Humes, the "strap
muscles" of President Kennedy were positively contused and bruised as
a result of the bullet that passed through JFK's body on November 22,
1963.

I guess Jim DiEugenio must think that the evil Arlen Specter was
holding a gun to Humes' head when Humes told the Warren Commission
that the "strap muscles" in JFK's neck were "bruised" by the bullet.
Because DiEugenio (via some comments he made previously on Black Op
Radio) seems to think that all of the "strap muscles" in the human
body are located ABOVE the areas where JFK was wounded by a bullet in
1963.

~big shrug~

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

BONUS HUNK OF HILARITY:

As a bonus, I'll now offer up the following silly quote that came out
of the mouth of James DiEugenio on 7/30/09:

"The bullet did not go through the neck; and the strap muscles
are in the neck." -- Jim DiEugenio; 7/30/09

So, according to DiEugenio (who also believes, as all other conspiracy-
happy kooks also believe, that Bullet CE399 didn't hit either JFK or
John Connally), it's much more reasonable and logical to believe that
TWO separate bullets (fired from opposite ends of Dealey Plaza)
entered John Kennedy's body, with one of those bullets going into
JFK's upper back and NOT EXITING, and another bullet entering the
President's throat and NOT EXITING.

And then, per DiEugenio, BOTH of those bullets (which did not exit
Kennedy's body after entering!) completely vanish without a trace
after the assassination.

I wonder if Jim can answer the following question relating to the
insane theory that has two different bullets entering JFK's body but
not exiting (and then disappearing into thin air):

WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT SHOOTING SCENARIO ACTUALLY OCCURRING?

It continues to boggle my mind on a daily basis that so many otherwise-
intelligent people (like Mr. DiEugenio) can swallow so much outright
nonsense and conspiracy-oriented crap concerning the JFK and J.D.
Tippit murder cases. It's simply incredible.

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

ADDENDUM:

James DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy and anti-Vincent Bugliosi nonsense
relating to the assassination of President Kennedy continues unabated
and without any end in sight (via Jim's 7-part review of Bugliosi's
book "Reclaiming History"; and also via DiEugenio's twice-a-month
visits to "Black Op Radio", during which he attempts to feed people a
never-ending series of half-truths, distortions, and
misrepresentations concerning Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book and the
JFK case in general).

Part 5 of DiEugenio's anti-Bugliosi crusade revolves around Bugliosi's
treatment of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", the Clay Shaw
trial, and the various New Orleans-related aspects to Lee Harvey
Oswald and the Kennedy case.

I will fully acknowledge to everyone reading this message that I am
not nearly as well-schooled and informed as certain other JFK
researchers when it comes to some of the intricate details revolving
around the "New Orleans" aspects of the JFK case.

I always like to defer to Dave Reitzes' fine work when it comes to the
sub-topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's film, and "New Orleans" in
general, because Dave's study into these arenas appears to be rock-
solid, with large amounts of common sense thrown into the mix too,
which is something that shouldn't be underestimated:

www.jfk-online.com/garrison.html

www.jfk-online.com/jfkmovie.html

But one thing I'm very sure of is this ---

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 30-31, 2009

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

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

JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI (AND DAVID VON PEIN):

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 10:33:07 AM8/2/09

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Mr. Carlier: Did you look at the footnote in the Warren Report to the material I quoted from? Or did you just robotically relay what Von Pein said on the McAdams forum? Please answer this question honestly before I agree to debate you. .... Why didn't you ask him [DVP] why he did not site [sic] the footnote? Isn't that what critical thinking is all about? [Signed:] JIM D. [James DiEugenio]" <<<

DVP SAID (VIA E-MAIL):

Subject: DiEugenio, Humes, And The WCR
Date: 8/2/2009 12:47:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: François Carlier

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

Hello François,

Thanks for your e-mail. I greatly appreciate it, and I enjoyed reading
it very much.

Just a few things "for the record" here (as they relate to the e-mail
you sent to me on 8/1/09):

You do not need to own the 26 physical volumes issued by the Warren
Commission in order to look at every single page of those 26 volumes.
Every volume is available for free on the Internet, as well as every
volume of the HSCA report (and other JFK reports) too. Right here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_jfk.htm

So, you could have checked out the source note that appears at the top
of Page 89 of the WCR, which is something that I did, indeed, do for
myself immediately after hearing James DiEugenio quote that passage
from the WCR about the bullet sliding between "two large strap
muscles".

The source note is Note #171 and it leads to 2H363. And at 2H363, we
find these words spoken by Dr. James Humes:

"The missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles
and other vital structures..."

Now, DiEugenio is probably going to claim that because the specific
word "strap" doesn't show up anywhere on Page 363 of Vol. 2 (and it
doesn't), this must mean that Arlen Specter and Dr. Humes (and the
Warren Commission in general) were trying to pull off some kind of
"B.S. story" [DiEugenio's quote] because the word "strap" DOES appear
on Page 88 of the WCR.

But DiEugenio doesn't have a leg to stand on there.

Why?

Because Humes DOES say "strap muscles" on page 368 of Vol. 2 when
talking about the exact muscles that were "bruised" by the passage of
the bullet through JFK's body (which is testimony that perfectly
aligns with Humes' testimony on Page 363).

The only complaint that DiEugenio can possibly make is that the Warren
Commission didn't expressly cite TWO different pages from Humes'
testimony in source note #171 on page 89 of the WCR. They only cited
2H363 there (and not 2H368).

And the obvious reason that the Warren Commission ONLY cited 2H363 is
because the MAIN POINT being revealed via source note #171 on pages 88
and 89 of the WCR concerned the fact that the bullet passed between
two muscles of JFK's body without creating a channel, which is
information that can be found at 2H363, but not at 2H368.

2H363:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0186a.htm

2H368:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm

The WCR could, of course, have also cited 2H368 if they chose to, and
that would have been okay too, but the ONLY thing that 2H368 adds to
the information that can be obtained in 2H363 is the single word
"strap".

Humes said "strap" on page 368, but he did not use the exact word
"strap" when talking about the missile sliding between the muscles on
page 363. That's the ONLY difference. And DiEugenio, as usual, wants
to make a huge mountain out of this silly little molehill.

Plus, let me add this:

This whole discussion regarding Page 88 of the WCR and 2H363 is really
NOT addressing DiEugenio's blatant falsehood (that he told on Black Op
Radio on July 16th) at all. And that falsehood was this (which I know
you heard for yourself):

DiEugenio claimed on 7/16/09 that Specter examined Humes with respect
to the "PROBING" issue, as that probing topic related to the "STRAP
MUSCLES" of President Kennedy.

But, as I pointed out strongly in my online article refuting this
stuff, DiEugenio is wrong when he claimed such a thing, because as I
said before, the word "strap" only comes out of Humes' OR Specter's
mouth ONE SINGLE TIME during Dr. Humes' entire WC session, and that's
the already-mentioned passage on 2H368 when Humes was talking about
the bruising of those muscles ONLY. He wasn't talking about "PROBING"
at all.

So DiEugenio is just plain wrong. And he's got to know he's wrong on
that "probing"/"strap muscles" point. So, Jim decides to move the goal
posts and alter the subject, so he can pretend he was right and I was
wrong. (And Jim also no doubt hopes nobody else notices his mistake.)

Plus, I'll add this -- Specter elicited NO INFORMATION AT ALL from Dr.
Humes about the muscles of JFK (ANY muscles) tightening up and
closing. And Specter elicited no testimony from Humes at all about
those closed-up muscles being the primary reason for why no probes
could be placed through JFK's upper back and neck.

In addition -- As I also pointed out in my rebuttal article, DiEugenio
is also wrong on another related point concerning the "strap muscles"
when Jim implied on Black Op Radio that the strap muscles in JFK's
neck were "ABOVE" the areas where Kennedy was wounded by a
bullet....which is just flat-out wrong.

We know Jim's wrong there because Dr. Humes testified that the "STRAP
MUSCLES" were "bruised" by the passage of the bullet through Kennedy's
neck. So obviously the strap muscles were not "above" the location
where JFK suffered a bullet wound.

In fact, I'll even go a little bit further in debunking DiEugenio's
"above" verbiage -- On that same Page 368 of Volume 2 that I've been
discussing, Dr. Humes states that the bruised strap muscles were "just
below this wound" [he means the throat wound, of course].

So the strap muscles that were bruised were positively a little bit
BELOW the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat, contrary to what James
DiEugenio seems to think.

Whew! What a chore it is to straighten out somebody else's obviously-
skewed perception and interpretation of things. It seems as though I
spend three hours having to fix something that it took DiEugenio three
seconds to say and mangle.

It's ridiculous. And so is DiEugenio's farcical attempt to turn one
single word -- "STRAP" -- into a "B.S. story" started by Arlen Specter
(with Humes evidently just following Specter's lead like a little
puppy dog on a leash). Unbelievable.

Anyway, I hope this lengthy post "straightens out" a little bit more
of Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy crap.

Best regards to you,
David Von Pein

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

pjspeare

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 11:23:27 AM8/2/09

David, this is much to-do about nothing. The strap muscles Humes
referred to were by the throat wound. This is clear from his
testimony. He said he couldn't understand how, if the neck wound was
JUST a tracheotomy incision, the strap muscles were bruised, when, the
chest incisions presumably made at the same time showed no such
bruising. This led him to suspect the wound was a bullet wound and
preceded JFK's appearance at Parkland--a suspicion that was only
confirmed the next day by Perry.

So you are sort of right. DiEugenio is apparently incorrect to think
discussion of the strap muscles was intended keep Humes in line, if
that is in fact what he was thinking. But you are also way wrong. The
Warren Report IS misleading in presenting the bruising of the strap
muscles as an indication that a bullet transited the body from behind.
The bruising of the strap muscles by the throat wound was consistent
with either an entrance or an exit.

It should also make one wonder why NO bruising was noted by the
supposed entrance on the back/neck.

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_018...

John Canal

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 7:51:11 PM8/2/09

c483d9...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, pjspeare says...

>
>David, this is much to-do about nothing. The strap muscles Humes
>referred to were by the throat wound. This is clear from his
>testimony. He said he couldn't understand how, if the neck wound was
>JUST a tracheotomy incision, the strap muscles were bruised, when, the
>chest incisions presumably made at the same time showed no such
>bruising. This led him to suspect the wound was a bullet wound and
>preceded JFK's appearance at Parkland--a suspicion that was only
>confirmed the next day by Perry.

Humes knew the bullet exited the throat ### before ### the body arrived at
Andrews. Try roll playing--let's say you're Humes. Ok, not too long after
AF1 took off from Love Field, you get a call telling you that the autopsy
was going to be at Bethesda. Now, you know you're going to be in charge
(on paper, anyway) of the autopsy on the body of the President.......so
(after Boswell) who are going to call?....no, not Ghostbusters....you
would have called Parkland Hospital to find out about the nature of his
wounds. Does that sound absurd to you--I hope not. Indeed, there is
absolutely no doubt in my mind that Perry and Humes talked that Friday
AFTERNOON and Humes found out about the bullet wound in the
throat.....over which a tracheostomy was performed.

Even if that didn't happen (and it did), there were five individuals
(Hill, Kellerman, Greer, Landis, and Burkley) who were at either PH and/or
in Dallas AS WELL AS AT BETHESDA. Heck, Burkley was in TR1 when the trach.
was performed over the bullet wound....do you think he withheld that
information from Humes? Not likely.

Does anyone actually think that no one (who could have told Humes) heard
the news that (at the PH Pess Conference) they said there was a bullet
wound in the throat?

Does anyone honestly think that Greer ### didn't ### give Humes the
clothes...which made it obvious the bullet transited the upper
back/throat? If they do, tell us why....because Greer didn't.....note that
Specter never asked Greer why he didn't give the clothes to Humes? I'll
answer that rhetorical question: It's because Greer would have had no good
reason whatsoever for not givng Humes the clothes. Now the official story
is that Greer had SSA Rybka (who conveniently never testified) put the
clothes in his locker at the White House????????? Literally
"unbelievable"!

They lied to cover their butts. They were baffled when they saw that the
hole in the jacket was well below the hole in the body, which (contrary to
the beliefs of many) they found right away during the initial examination
of the exterior of the body. But, rather than trying to figure out that
little mystery, having a great deal to do and not much time to do it in,
they simply deferred until much later the need to explain the difference
(between the location of the hole in the jacket and the location of the
entry in his back) by saying the never saw the clothes.

Meanwhile, they knew the only "surviving" evidence that indicated the
location of the back wound would be: 1) the clothes, 2) the face sheet, 3)
the death certificate, and 4) the autopsy report......anyone who thinks
it's a coincidence the first three all matched, is, IMO, gullible. I
didn't include the back wound photos as evidence because, by the time they
were taken--late in the autopsy--they knew the photos would be confiscated
(at least for the near future). As far as the description of the back
wound location in the autopsy report goes, that's why "not-so-definitive"
anatomical landmarks were used as referrence points to pinpoint the
location of the back wound......without the body those landmarks were
practically useless.

Here's the key...they couldn't say they saw the clothes (again, because
they were baffled and didn't want to look like idiots) and in order to
"prove" that: #### they said they didn't know there was a bullet hole in
the throat ####....IOW, if they saw the clothes, (slitts in the shirt
behind the tie and the nick in the tie) it would have been a dead
give-away that the bullet exited the throat.

Another way of saying it is that the "poof" they didn't see the clothes
was that they had no idea the bullet exited the throat.

Cripes, look at the AP and lateral x-rays of the neck...the damage, even
to a layman and on the copies, near C7/T1 is obvious.

Moreover, read Finck's HSCA deposition...he said, albeit somewhat
cryptically, that he knew the bullet transited the neck THAT NIGHT...he
just had too much pride to go along with the lie that they couldn't figure
out that the bullet transited until they were tipped off to that event the
next AM.

Also, read Perry's WC test......until he was corrected by Specter, he said
he talked with Humes Friday afternoon! There's no way in Hades he would
have forgotten the time of that historical conversation between him and
Humes took place, let alone the day it happened.

One more big clue...and there are others besides this that I won't bore
you with. Boswell let it slip out to JAMA that he "had created a problem"
with his face sheet drawing because--drumroll please--they didn't know the
clothes had, as he put it, "humped up on the President's back"!!!!!!!!!
Read it closely. He was saying that, had he known the jacket had "humped
up on the President's back" he would not have caused any problems
[confusion] and would have marked the entry on his face sheet to match the
entry on thje body, instead of on the jacket.

All that is obviously speculation, which means I don't want to argue with
anyone about it. That said, I think that scenario fits the facts pretty
well and explains some pretty wierd things that happened....or supposedly
happened.

While I thought all of this was interesting, if not somewhat fascinating,
it doesn't affect the case much, IMO.

:-)

John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 9:06:24 PM8/2/09

>>> "David, this is much to-do about nothing." <<<

Exactly. Which is why I said this in a previous post:

"DiEugenio, as usual, wants to make a huge mountain out of this
silly little molehill."

Of course, when it gets right down to the brass tacks of the situation,
all of the silly and unsupportable things uttered by conspiracy theorists
are "much to-do about nothing", and they always have been....Mr.
DiEugenio's comments included.

You should listen to some of DiEugenio's never-ending anti-Bugliosi and
pro-conspiracy rants on Black Op Radio.

On one program in 2008, Jim even had the balls to say that it was his
opinion that "the only place on Kennedy's head that looks like it's being
impacted is the FRONT".

In other words -- The "impact" point for the head-shot bullet (per
DiEugenio's analysis of the Zapruder Film) is the location where the HUGE
EXIT WOUND HAS FORMED at the RIGHT-FRONT of Kennedy's head.

Talk about turning day into night...and obvious EXIT WOUNDS into ENTRIES!

Crazy.

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 9:09:13 PM8/2/09

>>> "The Warren Report IS misleading in presenting the bruising of the
strap muscles as an indication that a bullet transited the body from
behind. The bruising of the strap muscles by the throat wound was
consistent with either an entrance or an exit." <<<

Not when ALL of the various factors are included.

Such as:

Where did the TWO bullets go if the throat wound was an "entry" wound?

And:

Why was there no significant damage ANYWHERE inside JFK's back & neck
that could account for the stoppage of the bullets (plural! TWO of
them!)?

John Canal

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 11:32:42 PM8/2/09

c483d9...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, pjspeare says...

LOL!

Pat, for someone who has spent seemingly a kajillion hours studying this
case, IMO, you sure miss the obvious on this aspect of it. Humes knew the
bullet exited the throat before the body arrived at Andrews. Try roll
playing--you're Humes. Ok, not too long after AF1 took off from Love

Field, you get a call telling you that the autopsy was going to be at

Bethesda. Now, you know you're going to be in charge (on paper, anyway) so
what do ou do? You wound have, fter you called Boswell, called....no, not

Ghostbusters....you would have called Parkland Hospital to find out about
the nature of his wounds. Does that sound absurd to you--I hope not.

Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt that Perry and Humes talked that
AFTERNOON and Humes found out about the bullet wound in the throat..over
which a trach was performed.

Even if that didn't happen (and it did), there were five individuals who
were at either PH and/or in Dallas AS WELL AS AT BETHESDA. Hell, Burkley
was in TR1 when the trach was performed over the bullet wound....do you
think he withheld that info from Humes?

Do you actually think that no one (who could have told Humes) heard the
news that at the PH Pess Conference they said there was a bullet wound in
the throat?

Do you honestly think that Greer didn't give Humes the clothes...which
made it obvious the bullet transited the upper back/throat? If you do
believe the official crapolla, why do you think Specter never asked Greer
why he didn't give the clothes to Humes? Greer supposedly had SSA Rybka

(who conveniently never testified) put the clothes in his locker at the
White House????????? Literally "unbelievable"!

of the exterior of the body. Rather than trying to figure out that little
mystery, having a great deal to do and not much time to do it, they simply
deferred until much later the need to explain the difference by saying the
never saw the clothes.

Meanwhile, they knew the only surviving evidence that indicated the

location of the back wound would be the clothes, the face sheet, and the
death certificate....if you think it's a coincidence they all matched,
you're gullible (by the time the backwound photos were taken--late in the
autopsy--they knew the photos would be confiscated at east for the near
future)....and that's why "not-so-definitive" anatomical landmarks were
used to pinpoint the location of the back wound...without the body those
landmarks were practically useless.

the throat ####....IOW, if they saw the clothes, the throat wound (slitts
in the shirt behind the tie and the nick in the tie) would have been a
dead give-away. Another way of saying it that the poof they didn't see the

clothes was that they had no idea the bullet exited the throat.

Cripes look at the AP and lateral x-rays of the neck...the damage, even to

a layman and on the copies, near C7/T1 is obvious. Moreover, read Finck's

HSCA deposition...he leaks it out that he knew the bullet transited the
neck THAT NIGHT...he had too much pride to go along with the lie that they
couldn't figure out the bullet transited until they were tipped off to

that event the next AM.

Also, read Perry's WC test...until he was corrected by Specter, he said he

talked with Humes Friday afternoon! There's no way in Hades he would have

forgotten that historical call.

One more clue...and there are others besides this that I won't bore you
with. Boswell blabbed to JAMA that he had created a problem with his face
shhet drawing because--drumroll please--they didn't know the clothes had,

as he put it, "humped up on the President's back"!!!!!!!!!

I hope this "little lie", which, IMHO, doen't change anything as far as
who shot JFK--is cleared up.

:-)

John Canal

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

pjspeare

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 11:48:28 AM8/3/09

David, Jim is 100% correct that there is no evidence of an impact on
the back of JFK's head at frame 313. My disagreement with him on this
point is as follows: I suspect the shot impacted at the supposed exit
from behind, and he thinks it impacted from in front.

If you have one iota of evidence the shot at frame 313 hit JFK on the
back of the head, please present it for review.

P.S. The "trail of fragments" argument was rebutted by the HSCA
radiologists.

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 10:13:09 PM8/3/09

>>> "If you have one iota of evidence the shot at frame 313 hit JFK on the
back of the head, please present it for review." <<<

You're joking, right Pat? (You must be.)

Okay, here we go:

1.) Huge EXIT wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. (Unless you want to
jump in bed with DiEugenio and pretend that the "impact" [i.e., entry]
point is the place where the great-big hole in Kennedy's head is located.
And that, of course, is just plain silly.)

2.) The forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and Z313.

3.) The autopsy report, which states that the President was hit just ONE
time in the head, with that bullet entering the BACK of his head.

4.) The Warren Commission, which concluded that JFK was shot just twice,
with both bullets entering President Kennedy's body from BEHIND.

5.) The Clark Panel, which said the President was struck in the head one
time from the REAR.

6.) The Rockefeller Commission, which also said JFK was struck in the head
one time from BEHIND.

7.) The HSCA, which determined JFK was struck by only two bullets, both
coming from BEHIND.

8.) The BOH autopsy photo.

9.) The "right side" lateral X-ray of JFK's head, which the Clark Panel
determined shows the entry wound to be in the BACK of Kennedy's head --
"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring
approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as
much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile
approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone
of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." [From The Clark Panel Report;
1968.]

10.) Dr. James Humes' interview on CBS-TV in 1967, in which he said this
-- "There was only one entrance wound in the head. .... That was
posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid- line
posteriorly."

>>> "P.S. The "trail of fragments" argument was rebutted by the HSCA
radiologists." <<<

This is total nonsense. No "rebutting" of that trail was accomplished at
all.

You're living in a dream world of conspiracy, Pat. And that's a pity,
because (like Mr. DiEugenio) you'd make a very good LNer.

www.Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 10:14:50 PM8/3/09

On 8/2/2009 11:32 PM, John Canal wrote:
> c483d9...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, pjspeare says...
>>
>> David, this is much to-do about nothing. The strap muscles Humes
>> referred to were by the throat wound. This is clear from his
>> testimony. He said he couldn't understand how, if the neck wound was
>> JUST a tracheotomy incision, the strap muscles were bruised, when, the
>> chest incisions presumably made at the same time showed no such
>> bruising. This led him to suspect the wound was a bullet wound and
>> preceded JFK's appearance at Parkland--a suspicion that was only
>> confirmed the next day by Perry.
>
> LOL!
>
> Pat, for someone who has spent seemingly a kajillion hours studying this
> case, IMO, you sure miss the obvious on this aspect of it. Humes knew the
> bullet exited the throat before the body arrived at Andrews. Try roll
> playing--you're Humes. Ok, not too long after AF1 took off from Love

It is not an acceptable research method to use your imagination instead
of evidence.

> Field, you get a call telling you that the autopsy was going to be at
> Bethesda. Now, you know you're going to be in charge (on paper, anyway) so
> what do ou do? You wound have, fter you called Boswell, called....no, not
> Ghostbusters....you would have called Parkland Hospital to find out about
> the nature of his wounds. Does that sound absurd to you--I hope not.

Maybe that is what any normal competent autopsy doctor would have done.
Not Humes.

> Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt that Perry and Humes talked that
> AFTERNOON and Humes found out about the bullet wound in the throat..over
> which a trach was performed.
>

No doubt? No evidence. No time.

> Even if that didn't happen (and it did), there were five individuals who
> were at either PH and/or in Dallas AS WELL AS AT BETHESDA. Hell, Burkley
> was in TR1 when the trach was performed over the bullet wound....do you
> think he withheld that info from Humes?
>

Burkley told Humes nothing about how the shooting happened.

> Do you actually think that no one (who could have told Humes) heard the
> news that at the PH Pess Conference they said there was a bullet wound in
> the throat?
>

No, no one did.

> Do you honestly think that Greer didn't give Humes the clothes...which
> made it obvious the bullet transited the upper back/throat? If you do
> believe the official crapolla, why do you think Specter never asked Greer
> why he didn't give the clothes to Humes? Greer supposedly had SSA Rybka
> (who conveniently never testified) put the clothes in his locker at the
> White House????????? Literally "unbelievable"!
>

The clothes were elsewhere so how could Greer give them to Humes. Follow
the evidence and not your imagination. You are making up conspiracy
theories solely from your imagination and ignoring facts.

> They lied to cover their butts. They were baffled when they saw that the
> hole in the jacket was well below the hole in the body, which (contrary to
> the beliefs of many) they found right away during the initial examination
> of the exterior of the body. Rather than trying to figure out that little
> mystery, having a great deal to do and not much time to do it, they simply
> deferred until much later the need to explain the difference by saying the
> never saw the clothes.
>
> Meanwhile, they knew the only surviving evidence that indicated the
> location of the back wound would be the clothes, the face sheet, and the
> death certificate....if you think it's a coincidence they all matched,

They don't all match. You are misrepresenting the evidence to advance a
wacky theory.

> you're gullible (by the time the backwound photos were taken--late in the

Gullible? YOU are ignorant of the evidence.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 10:15:17 PM8/3/09

On 8/2/2009 9:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "The Warren Report IS misleading in presenting the bruising of the
> strap muscles as an indication that a bullet transited the body from
> behind. The bruising of the strap muscles by the throat wound was
> consistent with either an entrance or an exit."<<<
>
> Not when ALL of the various factors are included.
>
> Such as:
>
> Where did the TWO bullets go if the throat wound was an "entry" wound?
>
> And:
>

> Why was there no significant damage ANYWHERE inside JFK's back& neck

> that could account for the stoppage of the bullets (plural! TWO of
> them!)?
>
>

You were ok until that last sentence. It has a false premise. Why do you
assume that there had to be significant damage inside the back or neck to
signal the stoppage of a bullet? Just bumping into a vertebra would be
enough.

T-1 was fractured.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 10:17:54 PM8/3/09

On 8/2/2009 9:06 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> "David, this is much to-do about nothing."<<<
>
>
> Exactly. Which is why I said this in a previous post:
>
> "DiEugenio, as usual, wants to make a huge mountain out of this
> silly little molehill."
>
>
> Of course, when it gets right down to the brass tacks of the situation,
> all of the silly and unsupportable things uttered by conspiracy theorists
> are "much to-do about nothing", and they always have been....Mr.
> DiEugenio's comments included.
>
> You should listen to some of DiEugenio's never-ending anti-Bugliosi and
> pro-conspiracy rants on Black Op Radio.
>
> On one program in 2008, Jim even had the balls to say that it was his
> opinion that "the only place on Kennedy's head that looks like it's being
> impacted is the FRONT".
>
> In other words -- The "impact" point for the head-shot bullet (per
> DiEugenio's analysis of the Zapruder Film) is the location where the HUGE
> EXIT WOUND HAS FORMED at the RIGHT-FRONT of Kennedy's head.
>

No, not in other words. Specifically the semi-circular defect above the
right eye which YOU can not explain.

> Talk about turning day into night...and obvious EXIT WOUNDS into ENTRIES!
>

That is exactly what forensic pathologists do every day. Dr. Henry Lee
turned an exit wound into an entrance wound and murder into suicide.

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

pjspeare

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 8:20:48 PM8/4/09

I said EVIDENCE, David. The conclusions of other people looking at the
same evidence is not in and of itself evidence. If I say you have no
evidence the earth is flat, and you say "but Plato thought the earth was
flat", is that evidence? No.

On Aug 3, 7:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If you have one iota of evidence the shot at frame 313 hit JFK on the
>
> back of the head, please present it for review." <<<
>
> You're joking, right Pat? (You must be.)
>
> Okay, here we go:
>
> 1.) Huge EXIT wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. (Unless you want to
> jump in bed with DiEugenio and pretend that the "impact" [i.e., entry]
> point is the place where the great-big hole in Kennedy's head is located.
> And that, of course, is just plain silly.)

There is no evidence that this wound was ONLY an exit. That the Z film
depicts NO evidence a bullet struck JFK on the back of the head at 313, in
fact, suggests it was an entry. Dr. Clark assumed it was tangential wound
of both entry and exit. It only became an exit because Dr. Humes ASSUMED
it was an exit. There was nothing about the wound itself that said it was
ONLY an exit. The Harper fragment not shown to the autopsy doctors, in
fact, had both internal and external beveling, and suggested Dr. Clark had
been right. It was also intriguingly not shown to the doctors by Dr.
Burkley, who later suggested he had reason to believe there were TWO head
wounds. Connect the dots, David.

>
> 2.) The forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and Z313.

Not evidence. A bullet striking JFK at the exit and creating a slap
wound from behind is FAR MORE consistent with the behavior observed on
the film.

>
> 3.) The autopsy report, which states that the President was hit just ONE
> time in the head, with that bullet entering the BACK of his head.
>

Not evidence. The conclusions of people not aware of all the
evidence.

> 4.) The Warren Commission, which concluded that JFK was shot just twice,
> with both bullets entering President Kennedy's body from BEHIND.

Not evidence. The conclusions of people unaware of all the evidence,
based on the conclusions of people unaware of all the evidcence.

>
> 5.) The Clark Panel, which said the President was struck in the head one
> time from the REAR.

Not evidence. The conclusions, etc...

>
> 6.) The Rockefeller Commission, which also said JFK was struck in the head
> one time from BEHIND.

Not evidence. Besides, even if it was, the Rockie Commission issued no
final report on the medical evidence separate from the conclusions of its
consultants. Quit hiding behind authority.

>
> 7.) The HSCA, which determined JFK was struck by only two bullets, both
> coming from BEHIND.

Not evidence. Show me where they studied the backspatter expected when a
bullet strikes a skull and compared this to the Z-film. Show me where they
studied the beveling on the Harper fragment and compared that to the
beveling apparent on tangential entries. Show me where they interviewed
Dr. Clark about his findings and found evidence-based reasons to reject
them.

>
> 8.) The BOH autopsy photo.

Which shows the entry in the EOP, exactly where the autopsy doctors
claimed it was, AND a red spot corresponding to a break in the bone caused
by a missile fragment coming from the front.

Not evidence that this was created at Z-313. In fact, a fracture line
heading from the supposed cowlick entry on the lateral ENDS when it hits
the fracture line coming from the supposed exit, thereby PROVING the
supposed exit preceded the supposed entrance. Let's use this same x-ray.
Even though this x-ray was later enhanced by the HSCA, NONE of their
consultants saw a hole on the back of the head. Morgan and Fisher were
blowing smoke. Even worse, Dr. Davis of the HSCA noted that some of the
supposed trail of fragments were on the outside of the skull. Tom Robinson
confirmed picking these pieces out of the scalp. Which suggests--there can
be no other explanation--that the bullet broke up at the supposed exit.

>
> 10.) Dr. James Humes' interview on CBS-TV in 1967, in which he said this
> -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head. .... That was
> posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid- line
> posteriorly."

Not evidence. He never studied the large defect with the thought it could
be both entrance and exit. Besides, this is the same man YOU CLAIM
incorrectly recorded the location of this entrance. YOU CLAIM he was off
by four inches...so how can you hide behind his skirts now and claim his
opinion as anything approaching evidence?

> >>> "P.S. The "trail of fragments" argument was rebutted by the HSCA
>
> radiologists." <<<
>
> This is total nonsense. No "rebutting" of that trail was accomplished at
> all.

Read the report of Dr. Davis. It is not only noted that this trail is
well above the HSCA entrance, but that some of the fragments are
outside the skull.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 11:35:05 PM8/4/09

On 8/3/2009 10:13 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> "If you have one iota of evidence the shot at frame 313 hit JFK on the
> back of the head, please present it for review."<<<
>
> You're joking, right Pat? (You must be.)
>
> Okay, here we go:
>
> 1.) Huge EXIT wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. (Unless you want to
> jump in bed with DiEugenio and pretend that the "impact" [i.e., entry]
> point is the place where the great-big hole in Kennedy's head is located.
> And that, of course, is just plain silly.)
>
> 2.) The forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and Z313.
>

Due to the limo suddenly slowing down.

>
> 3.) The autopsy report, which states that the President was hit just ONE
> time in the head, with that bullet entering the BACK of his head.
>
>

Which autopsy report? The first or the second? Either way it isn't worth
a warm barrel of spit.

> 4.) The Warren Commission, which concluded that JFK was shot just twice,
> with both bullets entering President Kennedy's body from BEHIND.
>

Official lies.

>
> 5.) The Clark Panel, which said the President was struck in the head one
> time from the REAR.
>

But 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said?

>
> 6.) The Rockefeller Commission, which also said JFK was struck in the head
> one time from BEHIND.
>
>
> 7.) The HSCA, which determined JFK was struck by only two bullets, both
> coming from BEHIND.
>
>
> 8.) The BOH autopsy photo.
>

Nothing there, move on.

>
> 9.) The "right side" lateral X-ray of JFK's head, which the Clark Panel
> determined shows the entry wound to be in the BACK of Kennedy's head --
> "On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring
> approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as
> much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile
> approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone
> of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." [From The Clark Panel Report;
> 1968.]
>
>
> 10.) Dr. James Humes' interview on CBS-TV in 1967, in which he said this
> -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head. .... That was
> posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid- line
> posteriorly."
>
>

So, your way to write a list is to cite the same thing as several
different entries? And that sounds honest to you?

John Canal

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 11:58:32 PM8/4/09

P. Speer writes:

>The Harper fragment not shown to the autopsy doctors, in
>fact, had both internal and external beveling,

Can I get a citation for the Harper Fragment having "both internal and
external beveling" and for precisely when it arrived in the Bethesda area
where the autopsists would have had an opportunity to examine it?

Thanks.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

ShutterBun

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 11:59:56 PM8/4/09

I await your chorus line of qualified medical personel who have reviewed
all the autopsy materials, and who are willing to swear on the record that
the WC, HSCA, Church, Rockefeller, etc. doctors were all full of it.

Has anyone* ever sworn under oath that they believe that JFK was not hit
solely by 2 shots from behind, and nothing more? (Err...except Wecht,
whose opinions on this matter can easily be dealt with)

* I'm speaking of medical experts who have reviewed the autopsy materials
in that capacity, mind you

ShutterBun

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 9:11:12 AM8/5/09

On Aug 4, 5:20 pm, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:

> I said EVIDENCE, David. The conclusions of other people looking at the
> same evidence is not in and of itself evidence. If I say you have no
> evidence the earth is flat, and you say "but Plato thought the earth was
> flat", is that evidence? No.

Are you at least willing to conced that certain types of evidence are
reliant upon qualified experts to examine AND interpret? Or are you
convinced that the lay-persons impressions of an X-ray are on part
with a radiologists?

> There is no evidence that this wound was ONLY an exit. That the Z film
> depicts NO evidence a bullet struck JFK on the back of the head at 313, in
> fact, suggests it was an entry. Dr. Clark assumed it was tangential wound
> of both entry and exit. It only became an exit because Dr. Humes ASSUMED
> it was an exit. There was nothing about the wound itself that said it was
> ONLY an exit. The Harper fragment not shown to the autopsy doctors, in
> fact, had both internal and external beveling, and suggested Dr. Clark had
> been right. It was also intriguingly not shown to the doctors by Dr.
> Burkley, who later suggested he had reason to believe there were TWO head
> wounds. Connect the dots, David.

"There is no evidence that this wound was ONLY an exit." You really
feel comfortable with pursuing that line of reasoning? Here's a hint,
from the "logic and critical thinking" classes you may have missed:
"Lack of evidence = non-existence, until we hear
otherwise." (generously paraphrased by me) Your logic might as well
state that Jackie may have been wearing a blue suit that day, since
there's no compelling evidence or testimony explicitly saying she
didn't." (and we all know the Z-film's been altered anyway)

> > 2.) The forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and Z313.
>
> Not evidence. A bullet striking JFK at the exit and creating a slap
> wound from behind is FAR MORE consistent with the behavior observed on
> the film.

Care to expound on "slap wounds" for us newbies?

>
>
> > 3.) The autopsy report, which states that the President was hit just ONE
> > time in the head, with that bullet entering the BACK of his head.
>
> Not evidence. The conclusions of people not aware of all the
> evidence.

What about the dozen-and-a-half qualified people since then, all of
whom agree on "one head shot, from the rear."? Are they all loonies?
Or simply handcuffed by some super special piece of evidence known
only to you?

> > 5.) The Clark Panel, which said the President was struck in the head one
> > time from the REAR.
>
> Not evidence. The conclusions, etc...

Uh huh.

>
>
> > 6.) The Rockefeller Commission, which also said JFK was struck in the head
> > one time from BEHIND.
>
> Not evidence. Besides, even if it was, the Rockie Commission issued no
> final report on the medical evidence separate from the conclusions of its
> consultants. Quit hiding behind authority.

"Quit hiding behind authority." This from someone who cites a LACK of
"authoritative evidence" as being the major downfall of the LN
theory. What on earth would you consider "authoritative enough to
believe"?

> > 7.) The HSCA, which determined JFK was struck by only two bullets, both
> > coming from BEHIND.
>
> Not evidence. Show me where they studied the backspatter expected when a
> bullet strikes a skull and compared this to the Z-film. Show me where they
> studied the beveling on the Harper fragment and compared that to the
> beveling apparent on tangential entries. Show me where they interviewed
> Dr. Clark about his findings and found evidence-based reasons to reject
> them.

I don't suppose you'd settle for a blanket "it's in there"?

So, I guess you concede, then, that the Z-film is authentic? (I mean,
why else would they allow such a neophyte to discover their lack of
attention to the "expected backspatter patterns"?)
And I don't suppose the "Inside the Target Car" convinced you of much,
even though their eyewitnesses said "yep, that's pretty much about the
same kinda thing I saw." Yeah, those explosive head wounds...real
easy to predict where the blood spray is gonna go, no?

> > 8.) The BOH autopsy photo.
>
> Which shows the entry in the EOP, exactly where the autopsy doctors
> claimed it was, AND a red spot corresponding to a break in the bone caused
> by a missile fragment coming from the front.

You're on your own (literally)

> > 9.) The "right side" lateral X-ray of JFK's head, which the Clark Panel
> > determined shows the entry wound to be in the BACK of Kennedy's head --
> > "On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring
> > approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as
> > much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile
> > approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone
> > of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." [From The Clark Panel Report;
> > 1968.]
>
> Not evidence that this was created at Z-313. In fact, a fracture line
> heading from the supposed cowlick entry on the lateral ENDS when it hits
> the fracture line coming from the supposed exit, thereby PROVING the
> supposed exit preceded the supposed entrance. Let's use this same x-ray.
> Even though this x-ray was later enhanced by the HSCA, NONE of their
> consultants saw a hole on the back of the head. Morgan and Fisher were
> blowing smoke. Even worse, Dr. Davis of the HSCA noted that some of the
> supposed trail of fragments were on the outside of the skull. Tom Robinson
> confirmed picking these pieces out of the scalp. Which suggests--there can
> be no other explanation--that the bullet broke up at the supposed exit.

Instead of cherry-picking individual theories and suppositions, why
not quote their collective conclusions? Or are they only credible so
long as they point away from the LN point of view?

> > 10.) Dr. James Humes' interview on CBS-TV in 1967, in which he said this
> > -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head. .... That was
> > posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid- line
> > posteriorly."
>
> Not evidence. He never studied the large defect with the thought it could
> be both entrance and exit. Besides, this is the same man YOU CLAIM
> incorrectly recorded the location of this entrance. YOU CLAIM he was off
> by four inches...so how can you hide behind his skirts now and claim his
> opinion as anything approaching evidence?

Cyril Wecht just called. He recommends you back it off, just a little
bit.

Brigette Kohley

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 10:01:33 PM8/5/09

John, the internal and external beveling statement is my own
observation, and is demonstrated on the following slides.

http://www.patspeer.com-a.googlepages.com/harperfrag.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com-a.googlepages.com/keyhole.jpg

As far as the paper trail... From patspeer.com, chapter 16b:

"On 11-23-63, after Billy Harper found a skull fragment in the Dealey
Plaza infield to the left and forward of the President’s location at
frame 313 of the Zapruder film, he showed it to his uncle. His uncle,
who happened to be a doctor, brought the fragment in to a local
hospital the next day and showed it to some of his colleagues. He
then gave it to the FBI. Strangely, no one knows for sure what
happened to it after this. There is evidence that the FBI, after
running some tests, gave the fragment to Kennedy’s personal physician,
Dr. Burkley, on 11-27. It is fairly clear as well that even though
the autopsy doctors were still working on their supplemental autopsy
report when Dr. Burkley came into possession of the fragment, and that
even though Dr. Burkley was in contact with the doctors during this
time, he never told them of the fragment’s existence. Secret Service
Agent Clint Hill, however, in his testimony before the Warren
Commission, mentioned that “a medical student or somebody in Dallas”
had found a skull fragment in the street on the day after the
assassination. As Hill continued on with the Kennedy family after the
assassination, this could be an indication that Dr. Burkley did in
fact give the fragment to the family. The HSCA concluded that Bobby
Kennedy acquired the fragment and either destroyed it or buried it
along with his brother’s brain and tissue slides."

If you need to read the FBI document re transferring the fragment to
Burkley, I'm sure it can be found in the Mary Ferrell Archive.

Brigette Kohley

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 10:02:36 PM8/5/09

Shutterbun, I've got a better question... can you find one of the so-
called qualified medical personnel to comment on the case, who
actually studied it in detail, and was not just repeating what they'd
heard from a colleague?

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

On August 23 and August 24, 1972, Dr. Cyril Wecht became the first
fully independent pathologist to inspect the autopsy materials. He
also became the first conspiracy theorist to see these materials. He
reported his findings in a 1974 article in Forensic Science.

As a long-time critic of the original autopsy, and as a long-time
proponent of forensic science, Wecht undoubtedly had a chip on his
shoulder. He resented, justifiably, that military doctors with little
forensic experience were chosen to perform the most important autopsy
of the century. It was indeed an insult to his profession. When the
Clark Panel, made up of better-qualified civilians, had its report
released in 1969, and concluded that the autopsy doctors had indeed
made major mistakes, one can only assume Wecht shouted "Told you so!"
There can be little doubt then, that he went into the Archives
prepared to confirm the Clark Panel's basic findings.

Sure enough, in section 3.3 of the 1974 Forensic Science article
discussing his findings, Dr. Wecht concluded "Generally speaking, the
author's observations and measurements of the wounds and locations of
bullet fragments are in agreement with the findings of the Clark Panel
in 1968." At no point in his paper does Wecht side with the
interpretations of the original autopsists over those expressed by the
Clark Panel.

Wecht's failure to question the Clark Panel becomes painfully clear
when one inspects Fig. 3 in his article. This is a drawing of a skull,
purportedly showing the locations of the bullet fragments visible on
Kennedy's x-rays. Wecht failed to properly assess the forward tilt of
the skull in the x-ray. As a result the fragment in the middle of the
forehead on the x-rays was depicted just above the right eye on his
drawing. Wecht described: "A fragment from this location is reported
to have been removed surgically and later subjected to spectrographic
analysis." This helped fuel the mistaken and ongoing belief that the
forehead fragment on the x-ray was the one recovered at autopsy. Far
worse, Wecht's drawing depicted a large fragment on the back of the
head by the Clark Panel's entrance. A close look at the x-ray
purportedly studied by Wecht, however, shows THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

Even more intriguing, Wecht KNEW there was nothing there. In his best-
selling book, Best Evidence, David Lifton reveals that he accompanied
Dr. Wecht to the Archives, and that they discussed Wecht's findings
both during and after his examination. Lifton recalls: "During the
afternoon session, it became quite obvious that Wecht had great
difficulty reading the X-rays--that he couldn't find the entry wound
reported by the Clark Panel or by Dr. Lattimer. There was no hole
there at all, said Wecht." Lifton then recalls that he discussed this
with others and told Wecht that he shouldn't be looking for a "hole",
but for a "subtle shading". He then recalls that Wecht "was still not
able to locate the entry wound." Lifton then recalls that he measured
out the length of thread the supposed entrance would be from the
external occipital protuberance and gave this to Wecht to help him
find the entrance on the x-rays. He recalls "Wecht did this, and that
was how he found the entrance wound in the back of President Kennedy's
head." (Unstated by Lifton but clear from his account is that Wecht
was unable to locate the large fragment purportedly just below this
entrance wound; if he'd seen the fragment, after all, he would not
have needed to use this thread to find the location of the "hole.")
Lifton then cites Wecht's dictation on the "finding" of this entrance.
Wecht said "This is a change in density which apparently is what is
referred to in the previous panel as a 'hole.' This either takes
imagination or some very sophisticated radiological expertise because
it is difficult for me to consider this a hole. In any event, it has
to be because it fits the measurements that they give about 100mm from
the external occipital protuberance."

Thus, Dr. Cyril Wecht, under pressure from David Lifton to confirm
that the autopsy doctors were wrong, and unable to conceive that the
civilians on the Clark Panel were so badly mistaken, ignored his own
better instincts and came to not only accept that the cowlick entrance
he could not find was there, but to depict the bullet fragment
purportedly just below this entrance in his exhibits.

But this was not the only point on which Wecht wrongly deferred to the
Panel. When discussing the angle of descent from the back wound to the
neck wound, Wecht announced "Adopting also the Clark Panel's
measurement of the vertical position of the exit hole, namely 9 cm
below the same crease (although the author was unable to corroborate
this measurement from his own observations) we are able to compute the
trajectory of the bullet relative to the horizontal and sagittal
planes through the President's body at the time he was struck. The
downward angle works out to be 11 1/2 degrees..." As a more accurate
measurement would have helped Wecht in his efforts to debunk the
single-bullet theory, Wecht's acceptance of the Clark Panel's
measurements made little sense, and suggests he'd given the Clark
Panel's measurements and conclusions undue weight.

To his credit, Wecht seems fully aware the influence an "expert" can
hold over another "expert." An April 19, 1975 memo in the files of
the Rockefeller Commission reveals that when Dr. Wecht spoke to the
Commission's Robert Olsen, he voiced his displeasure with the make-up
of the commission's medical panel. Olsen related "Dr. Wecht was very
unsettled by the identity of the members of the panel. Indeed, he was
very angry to the point of shouting and indulging in frequent
profanity. He said that almost the whole panel is made up of people
from the Washington-Baltimore community; that all of them are under
the control and influence of the Chief Medical Examiner of Maryland,
Dr. Russell Fisher; that we should have looked elsewhere for impartial
experts; that Dr. Fisher is a very strong-willed and influential man
who has succeeded in getting more Federal grants in the field of
forensic pathology than all other doctors in the United States
combined...Dr. Wecht readily acknowledged the professional
qualifications of all members of our panel. He said that among their
fellow professionals each enjoyed a high standing. He stated, however,
that it was wholly unrealistic to expect that anybody on this panel
would express views different from those expressed by the Ramsey Clark
Panel in 1968, which included Dr. Fisher and a radiologist from John
Hopkins, Dr. Russell Morgan." It seems Wecht knew of which he spoke.

Perhaps Wecht was thinking of Paul L. Kirk. Kirk was a respected
criminalist, whose post-conviction study of the blood-spatter evidence
in the Sam Sheppard murder case (the basis for the TV show and movie
The Fugitive) brought Sheppard a new trial, and release.
Understandably, this greatly upset Samuel Gerber, the coroner whose
work helped convict Sheppard in the first place. Gerber is reported to
have been so upset by this, in fact, that he retaliated against Kirk
by using his influence with his fellow coroners to deny Kirk
membership in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. (This
blackballing was only partially corrected by the Academy's naming a
yearly award for excellence after Kirk. The Paul Kirk award was first
issued in 1979, at which point Kirk had been dead for nine years.)

Or perhaps Wecht was thinking of a more benign form of influence. It
goes without saying that people indebted to Fisher would be less
likely to question his conclusions than those with a clean slate. It
should also be evident that, once fed an interpretation of facts from
someone one respects, it is difficult to completely shake off their
interpretation and see this set of facts with fresh eyes.

In 1993, in his book Cause of Death, Wecht once again questioned the
impartiality of his colleagues. This time, however, it was the
impartiality of his colleagues on the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel,
whose reports, much as the Rockefeller Commission Panel before them,
pretty much rubber-stamped the findings of Russell Fisher and the
Clark Panel. When discussing why he alone among the panel was willing
to dispute the single-bullet theory, which he calls "absolute
nonsense," and the concurrent conclusion that there was only one
shooter, Wecht reveals: "I believe it's more of a pre-determined
mindset that many of my colleagues have that a cover-up or conspiracy
of this magnitude by the federal government is unthinkable, or, at the
very least, unlikely. Just as lawyers disagree over what a particular
law or court ruling means, forensic pathologists frequently have
differences of opinion. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt my
colleagues' sincerity. However, it should be noted that many of these
same people had a long-standing involvement with the federal
government--many had received federal grants for research and
appointments to various influential government boards. To be highly
critical of a government action could end that friendly relationship
with Uncle Sam."

As strange as it may seem, Wecht was being far too kind. It is beyond
doubt a gross injustice that, of the nine pathologists on the HSCA
panel, five--Dr.s Spitz, Petty, Baden, Coe, and Loquvam--had a
professional relationship with Dr. Russell Fisher, whose findings they
would be reviewing. Dr. Spitz had co-edited the widely-praised book
Medico-legal Investigation of Death with Fisher. Dr. Petty had co-
edited Forensic Pathology: A Handbook For Pathologists with Fisher.
Forensic Pathology was published in July 1977, only two months before
Petty was to review Fisher's findings. Even worse, Forensic Pathology
was written under contract to the Justice Department, under whose
guidance Fisher made his findings in 1968. Even worse, of the eleven
contributors to Forensic Pathology beyond Fisher and Petty, three--
Baden, Coe, and Loquvam--ended up on the panel reviewing Fisher's
findings.

Now how can this be? Does it make any sense whatsoever that, of the
six pathologists to enter the archives on 9-17-77 and review the
medical evidence, four had contributed to a book written for the
Justice Department only months before? And that this book was edited
by the prestigious Dr. Fisher, whose findings they would be reviewing?
And that of the remaining two, one--Dr. Earl Rose--was the coroner of
Dallas in 1963, and highly unlikely to say anything that might suggest
a conspiracy, and cast doubts upon the "innocence" of his former home?
And what about the second panel, made up of those who'd already
studied the evidence? Does it make any sense that Dr. Wecht was
deliberately isolated on a panel in which the other two members--Dr.s
Spitz and Weston-- had already gone on record as saying the evidence
supported Fisher's findings? And that Dr. Spitz was Fisher's closest
colleague? The answer, of course, is that it does make sense--but only
if you accept that the membership of this panel and its organization
was designed to protect the reputation of Dr. Russell Fisher and the
Justice Department.

Dr. Wecht's suggestion that money played a role in the panel's
decisions is also understated. That the economic interests of doctors
can influence their conclusions has been confirmed numerous times. By
way of example, a survey by Mildred Cho and Lisa Bero published in the
March 1996 Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that 98% of the
studies of drug effectiveness funded by the drug's manufacturer came
to a favorable conclusion, while only 76% of the studies funded by
independent sources shared this conclusion. This suggests that a drug
company is 12 TIMES as likely to avoid an unfavorable conclusion about
its product if it funds the doctors making the conclusion. A survey
published in the October 1999 Journal of the American Medical
Association was almost as discouraging. It found that a study
sponsored by a drug company was only about 8 TIMES as likely to avoid
an unfavorable conclusion on its new drug than a study sponsored by a
non-profit organization. Perhaps, as suggested by writers Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber in their book "Trust Us, We're Experts!," the
physician's motto of "First, do no harm" should be changed to "First,
do no harmful publicity."

Of course, money is not the only motivating factor that can
consciously or subconsciously color a doctors' perceptions,
conclusions, and testimony. None less than Dr. Baden, in his book Dead
Reckoning, has noted: "Physicians may be the worst witnesses. They are
often swayed by whoever asked them to be an expert. If that lawyer is
smart enough to ask their advice, they conclude, he must know what he
is doing. That being the case, physicians therefore adopt whatever the
lawyer tells them as the facts of the case and become, if only
subconsciously, an advocate for the lawyer rather than an independent
adviser." The ease with which scientists and doctors can be molded by
lawyers into supporting otherwise unsupportable conclusions is such
common knowledge, in fact, that it was the subject of a well-received
book, Gallileo's Revenge, by Peter Huber. Huber, a former law clerk to
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was so disturbed by what he
found that he was led to conclude "Malpractice by scientific and
medical professionals is not only tolerated but encouraged, so long as
it is solicited by lawyers themselves." Damning words indeed.

But one doesn't have to question the motivation of doctors to question
their ability to see evidence with absolute clarity. The
susceptibility of doctors to innocent suggestion, and their innocent
resistance to data challenging this suggestion, has also been studied.
In 1972 Dr. David Rosenhan of Stanford University, along with seven
recruits, checked themselves into psychiatric hospitals. These eight
subjects told the hospitals they'd heard voices in their heads
repeating words with no apparent meaning. After admission, however,
the subjects claimed the voices had stopped, and started acting
perfectly normal. The psychiatrists "treating" these subjects,
however, routinely interpreted the "normal" behavior of these subjects
as additional signs of their psychopathology. As a result, the
patients were hospitalized for an average of 19 days, and fed an
average of over 250 pills. Seven of them were diagnosed as being
schizophrenic, and one as being bi-polar. Rosenhan himself was
confined for almost two months. After his release, Dr. Rosenhan began
the second half of his study. He told the hospitals of their mistakes,
and that he'd be sending them more fake patients over the next three
months. During this period 193 patients were admitted to one of the
hospitals. 20% of these patients were identified by at least one staff
member as being one of Dr. Rosenhan's "fake" patients. In fact, none
of them were. Dr. Rosenhan had simply planted the suggestion that
there could be fake patients in the minds of the hospital's employees,
and they had begun to see them everywhere. Whereas not one of the
original 8 patients had been spotted as a fake, over 40 actual
patients were subsequently, and inaccurately, accused of being fakes.

The resistance to new perceptions, once one's frame of reference has
been set, had been tested even before Rosenhan. In 1949, in a landmark
study performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, subjects were
flashed playing cards, some of which had a wrong color, i.e. red
spades, black diamonds. They found that people would always recognize
a normal card within 350 milliseconds, but would fail to recognize
what they called a "trick card" 10% of the time, even when given a
full second. They found, furthermore, that as one was exposed to more
"trick cards," the speed in which one could identify the trick cards
drastically improved.

Historians have also studied this resistance. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn
published a landmark work of his own, "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions". As part of his study, Kuhn looked at the time lapse
between the development of new scientific theories and their general
acceptance by the scientist's peers. He found, amazingly, that very
few scientists, once committed to a theory, have ever changed their
minds and embraced the findings of another scientist, even if the
other scientist's new theory better answered the questions answered by
their old theory. Kuhn relates:

"Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after
Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted,
particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the
Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor
Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties
of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves.
Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of the Origin
of the Species, wrote: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of
the views given in this volume...,I by no means expect to convince
experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of
facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view
directly opposite to mine...But I look with confidence to the future,--
to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides
of the question with impartiality." And Max Planck, surveying his own
career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new
scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a
new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

So...if you've made it this far and have failed to be convinced by any
of my arguments, I can only say that I hope you die soon... Just
kidding. No, really, if you think I'm wrong about everything, but have
nevertheless made it this far, I'm delighted to have entertained you
on whatever level I've entertained you. Particularly in that there
remains a chance I can convince you of something.

Let's go back to Dr. Wecht. In 2003, in an article co-written with
radiologist Dr. David Mantik, Wecht publicly reversed his position on
the 6.5 mm fragment he'd once portrayed on the back of Kennedy's head.
This article, published in a compendium entitled The Assassinations,
presented an image of Kennedy's computer-enhanced A-P X-ray with the
caption "The 6.5 mm (white) object seen within the right orbit is
almost certainly a deliberate artifact that was added to the original
X-ray; the latter was then lost or destroyed." Above this image is an
image of Kennedy's computer-enhanced lateral X-ray. It has an arrow
pointing to the back of Kennedy's skull, where Wecht depicted a 6.5 mm
fragment in his 1974 article. Only this new image is captioned: "The
arrow at the rear identifies the corresponding site for the 6.5 mm
fragment." It seems clear from these captions that Wecht has now come
under Mantik's influence and that he now fails to see the fragment at
this site. While I would like to show him my own work and convince him
that this fragment is actually not an artifact, but the fragment
behind Kennedy's eye described and removed at autopsy, it is
nevertheless comforting that some "experts", some time, can be
convinced to change their opinions.

I suppose, in this light, I should also take comfort that Larry
Sturdivan has changed so many of his opinions, and that Dr. Lattimer,
while sure of Oswald's guilt to the end, nevertheless changed his
opinion on the entrance wound on the skull. I'll work on that. Taking
comfort.

pjspeare

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 10:03:00 PM8/5/09

Whoops, I did it again. I posted something while using my girlfriend's
computer, and it came up as her. To be clear, any post coming up as
groovystuff or Brigette Kohley is in fact a post by Pat Speer.

On Aug 4, 8:58 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

pjspeare

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 10:03:31 PM8/5/09

Shutterbun, may I suggest you read what I've put online at patspeer.com so
you can familiarize yourself with my conclusions? While a CT, I have taken
mountains of guff from other CTs due to my belief the autopsy evidence is
legit. I have also taken a great deal of guff from people like yourself,
who choose to trust "experts" who are in fact barely knowledgeable on the
case and who are in wide disagreement... You might want to start by
watching part 1 of my video series, in which I prove Dr. Baden to be so
woefully ignorant of the medical evidence that he testified with his most
important exhibit upside down.

John Canal

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 12:24:57 AM8/6/09

In article <63d702dc-985e-497a...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Brigette Kohley says...

>
>
>John, the internal and external beveling statement is my own
>observation, and is demonstrated on the following slides.

Pat, the way you wrote that the Harper Fragment had internal and external
beveling made it seem as if it were a documented fact somewhere in the
record...I suspected that it was your ovservation....that's why I asked
for the ciation. IMO, you aren't doing researchers using your website any
favors making such statements...you should have said that was only your
observation.

>http://www.patspeer.com-a.googlepages.com/harperfrag.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com-a.googlepages.com/keyhole.jpg
>
>As far as the paper trail... From patspeer.com, chapter 16b:

I also knew that Humes didn't get to see the Harper Fragment before he
finished the primary autopsy report. So what if he hadn't finished the
Supplementry Autopsy Report...because it was all about the brain...that's
all. And, even if he did examine the Harper Frag before the Supplementry
Report was written, he wouldn't have been expected to address that piece
of bone....heck, what if ten more pieces of skull had been found in the
grass in DP and dribbled in to the authorities, eventually making their
way to DC after the primary report was written.......would you have
expected Humes to address those?

Again, that later exam was about the brain....nothing to do with skull
pieces found well after the autopsy.

>"On 11-23-63, after Billy Harper found a skull fragment in the Dealey

>Plaza infield to the left and forward of the President=92s location at

>frame 313 of the Zapruder film, he showed it to his uncle. His uncle,
>who happened to be a doctor, brought the fragment in to a local
>hospital the next day and showed it to some of his colleagues. He
>then gave it to the FBI. Strangely, no one knows for sure what
>happened to it after this. There is evidence that the FBI, after

>running some tests, gave the fragment to Kennedy=92s personal physician,

>Dr. Burkley, on 11-27. It is fairly clear as well that even though
>the autopsy doctors were still working on their supplemental autopsy
>report when Dr. Burkley came into possession of the fragment, and that
>even though Dr. Burkley was in contact with the doctors during this

>time, he never told them of the fragment=92s existence. Secret Service

>Agent Clint Hill, however, in his testimony before the Warren

>Commission, mentioned that =93a medical student or somebody in Dallas=94

>had found a skull fragment in the street on the day after the
>assassination. As Hill continued on with the Kennedy family after the
>assassination, this could be an indication that Dr. Burkley did in
>fact give the fragment to the family. The HSCA concluded that Bobby
>Kennedy acquired the fragment and either destroyed it or buried it

>along with his brother=92s brain and tissue slides."

>
>If you need to read the FBI document re transferring the fragment to
>Burkley, I'm sure it can be found in the Mary Ferrell Archive.
>
>
>
>On Aug 4, 8:58=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> P. Speer writes:
>> >The Harper fragment not shown to the autopsy doctors, in
>> >fact, had both internal and external beveling,
>>
>> Can I get a citation for the Harper Fragment having "both internal and
>> external beveling" and for precisely when it arrived in the Bethesda area
>> where the autopsists would have had an opportunity to examine it?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net
>
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

pjspeare

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 3:32:35 PM8/6/09

John, you are correct that Humes' not seeing the Harper fragment could
have been innocent. But it does seem more than a coincidence that
Burkley saw the fragment, and had doubts Kennedy was hit in the head
by just one bullet, and Humes did not, and had no doubts.

As far as the internal/external beveling, it's not just my opinion, it
is a fact. Even a cursory look at the fragment proves this. NOW, you
may find some expert somewhere to claim this means nothing as bones
exploded from large exits often have both internal and external
beveling, but I have found no such statement in the literature. Have
you?

On Aug 5, 9:24 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <63d702dc-985e-497a-8170-a2422bc32...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 2:14:29 PM8/29/09

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?

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 7:59:25 PM8/29/09

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

Robert Harris

unread,

Aug 29, 2009, 9:07:07 PM8/29/09

Go for the easy stuff, david!

Attack your enemy!

Attack the double Oswald theory!

Attack the govt-planned-it-six-month-in-advance theory!

Is "the driver did it" next????

Robert Harris

In article
<0bea7d88-66ae-4b0d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,

> 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. ....

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2009, 2:25:53 PM8/30/09

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:

>>> "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: w hich 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

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).

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 (jfk2...@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

François Carlier

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 8:30:51 AM8/31/09

Very good post, indeed, as usual. I will always enjoy reading your posts.

Still, Mister Von Pein, I have to be blunt. You talk sense, and you give
sound arguments. You provide us with logic, facts and reason. Thank you. You
are 100% right.

In front of you is Mister DiEugenio, who, on the contrary, provides us with
bad faith, disinformation, errors, mistakes, falsehoods and lies. He is 100%
wrong.

But, I must tell you one thing that I deem very important. I have learned
that much. It might not please you, but I shall write it all the same : you
are wasting your time.

Indeed, sadly enough, James DiEugenio lives in a dream world. So whatever
you say does not even reach his brain. So it's no use. You could shout the
truth for centuries on end, it would not change a thing, with regards to
James DiEugenio (or Len Osanic, for that matter).

James DiEugenio is convinced that the earth is flat, the sun is cold, water
is dry, 4 is an odd number, and Oswald was a patsy...

What can you do ?

What a sad state of affairs ! Really !

/François Carlier/
Fra-C...@orange.fr

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:0bea7d88-66ae-4b0d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

François Carlier

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 8:31:13 AM8/31/09

And who invented those "easy-stuff" theories ?

/François Carlier/

"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:reharris1-163AB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

Robert Harris

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 2:02:03 PM8/31/09

In article <4a9bc084$0$23472$ba4a...@news.orange.fr>,

Fran�ois Carlier <Fra-C...@orange.fr> wrote:

> And who invented those "easy-stuff" theories ?

You need to be specific as to which theory or theories you are talking
about.

Some of the worst came from government agencies.

Robert Harris

>
> /Fran�ois Carlier/
>
>
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message de

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 31, 2009, 9:56:51 PM8/31/09

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:

"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." -- 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:

/s/ David Von Pein

0 new messages