STRAIGHTENING OUT JAMES DiEUGENIO (AGAIN)

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 3:21:30 AM7/31/09

to

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):

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

JFK NEWS

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 8:55:12 AM7/31/09

to

Hello,

Very good post, as usual.

Coming from you, it has become a habit.

I have been listening to Black Op radio every week for years and have not
missed a show. So I am well aware of what James diEugenio keeps saying every
week, and I listened to yesterday's show too (July 30).

I was wondering what you had to reply. It didn't take long to get an answer.
Thank you. I have just read your post and all I can say is that it is
brilliant, as usual.

You are indeed a very intelligent and bright man, mister Von Pein. Very
knowledgeable. And above all, you master critical thinking wonderfully.

All qualities that I say DiEugenio LACKS !

The more I listen to DiEugenio, the more I realize he is a nonsensical
person, just as Fetzer and the like.

Anyway, I'm not here to criticize him, but to thank you for having
enlightened me, once again.

Congratulations, Mister Von Pein, and keep up the good work.

You are an antidote to the disinforrmation that Black Op Radio conspiracy
theorists keep on spreading.

We need people like you to "fight" the spread of idiotic conspiracy
theories.

You fight for TRUTH and HONESTY.

God bless you.

/Fran�ois Carlier/

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:087bc35c-1621-424e...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 4:52:03 PM7/31/09

to

Thank you, Francois. I appreciate your comments very much.

aeffects

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 5:06:21 PM7/31/09

to

On Jul 31, 1:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Francois. I appreciate your comments very much.

sitdown shithead..... Fancosie is just another lone nut-troll coward
terrified of the 45 questions -- just like your sorry ass!

Carry on shithead

drummist1965

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 5:47:49 PM7/31/09

to

"Carry on"? But...you just told him to "sit down", Healy.

Can't make up your mind?

aeffects

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 6:28:26 PM7/31/09

to

dumb fuck.... simply "continue doing what your doing" Need a road map
moron?

justm...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 11:34:42 PM7/31/09

to

Healy has no mind, it was destroyed from all the drugs and booze he
sucks in.

aeffects

unread,

Aug 1, 2009, 4:07:37 AM8/1/09

to

On Jul 31, 8:34 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>

skanky tuna queen..... gawd you stink.... didn't your mom show you how
to bathe? You should be ashamed.... and DAd is home to top it off,
you're in deep shit shithead.....

Carry on Hon!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 1, 2009, 4:30:28 AM8/1/09

to

>>> "If you are so cock sure of your arguments, then why don't you debate DiEugenio yourself?" <<<

Maybe I will in the future. You never can tell. Perhaps my brain will
tell me (at some future date) to ignore my earlier declaration about
never having a desire to enter Osanic's Black Op pigpen and just go
ahead and do it anyway.

But the problem with "debating" conspiracy theorists about the JFK
case is that they always decide to throw out almost all of the actual
evidence against Oswald in the whole case. And, of course, when you do
that, there's no evidence left. None. Zilch.

And DiEugenio pulls that exact nonsense all too often. For example,
when he decides he's going to label Oswald's Carcano rifle essentially
worthless as evidence -- due mainly to Jim's belief that Bullet CE399
is not valid evidence.

DiEugenio, of course, also decides to ignore all of the OTHER stuff
linked to Oswald's rifle (the shells and CE567/569). And he pretty
much ignores or distorts the meaning of all other "Oswald Did It"
evidence too (prints, fibers, witness testimony, paper bag, LHO's own
incriminating actions, etc.).

It's a common trick and ploy amongst conspiracy lovers -- i.e., just
pretend the evidence is invalid or planted and then the CTer gets to
pretend that Oswald wasn't anywhere NEAR the Sniper's Nest on the
sixth floor. It's a cop-out. Plain and simple.

But CTers like Jim D. really have no choice but to employ such silly
tactics. Because if they didn't -- then Oswald's guilty. Simple as
that.

Gil Jesus

unread,

Aug 1, 2009, 8:31:09 AM8/1/09

to

On Jul 31, 8:55�am, "JFK NEWS" <Fra-Carl...@orange.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Very good post, as usual.
>
> Coming from you, it has become a habit.

NOW I KNOW WHY YOU PEOPLE LOST YOUR COUNTRY TO THE NAZIS IN THREE
WEEKS.

aeffects

unread,

Aug 1, 2009, 1:19:58 PM8/1/09

to

ouch.... there goes the french crossiant allotment -- however, the
closest Francois ever got to France was when he won a pair of
Mitterwald's dirty underwear from Lowry's website last month....

aeffects

unread,

Aug 1, 2009, 1:26:56 PM8/1/09

to

and your sole lone nutter-troll tactic is to hide behind multiple
aliases while flooding the internet with useless lies (to support your
WC faith) and deception... we call that disinfo, shithead!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 1:02:52 AM8/2/09

to

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

aeffects

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 8:06:00 AM8/2/09

to

On Aug 1, 10:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

and your sole lone nutter-troll tactic is to hide behind multiple
aliases while flooding the internet with useless lies (to support your

WC faith) and deception... we call that disinfo, and pulling Francois
Dipshit out of your ass won't help shithead!

Carry on...

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 8:15:26 PM8/2/09

to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/aec338ecdfe18569

>>> "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

aeffects

unread,

Aug 2, 2009, 11:44:37 PM8/2/09

to

On Aug 2, 5:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

...

> Crazy.
>
...

what's crazy is you talking to a ghost! What-a-moron!

timstter

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 5:01:10 AM8/3/09

to

Oh, how VERY Christian of you, Gilly!

What a very CHRISTIAN thing to post on a public newsgroup!

Admiring Regards,

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

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2009, 6:29:48 PM8/30/09

to

www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1105.msg14923.html#msg14923

DEBUNKING JFK CONSPIRACY MYTH #89:

James Tague's slight injury and the Main-Street curb damage did NOT
result in the Warren Commission being forced to adopt the "Single-
Bullet Theory" at all costs.

How do I know the above paragraph to be an ironclad fact without any
doubt?

Answer: Page #117 of the Warren Report itself....which states in black-
and-white and as plain as day that the Warren Commission considered
the possibility that the damage to the curb on Main Street (and hence,
Tague's injury) "might have come from the bullet which hit the
President’s head" [WR; p.117].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm