>>> "Now before DVP tries to do his cover-up act about Adams, which I know he will, let me quote the truth from 'Breach of Trust'. .... "Adams" later reported "that she started down the stairs not thirty seconds to a minute but 15 to 20 seconds after she saw the head shot. Adams corrected the Commission's account of her testimony when of February 17, 1964 she went to the US attorney's office in Dallas to check the transcript of her testimony." (p. 399)" <<<

DAVID V.P. SAID:

DiEugenio just wrecked his whole argument, and he doesn't even realize
it. Because if Adams and Styles were REALLY on the stairs within 15 to
20 seconds of the last shot, it means they would very likely have gone
down those stairs BEFORE Oswald. Therefore, Adams/Styles would not
have had to SEE Oswald on the stairs. Duh.

Of course, Adams' timing of 15-20 seconds is totally ridiculous on its
face. There's no way they "started down the stairs" just 15 seconds
after the shooting; and we also know how totally lousy people are at
judging times accurately. But DiEugenio is willing to accept any hunk
of nonsense (as long as it supports his ludicrous "Oswald Was
Innocent" fairy tale).

Adams and Styles were almost certainly on the stairs only AFTER those
same stairs were used by Oswald, Baker, and Truly.

And, of course, another little snafu that doesn't bother James "ABO"
DiEugenio in the least is this question: Why didn't Adams/Styles HEAR
or SEE Roy Truly and Marrion Baker on the SAME STAIRS they were on?

And if Jimbo wants to counter with: The two women were on the stairs
BEFORE Baker/Truly....then he's got a big problem. Because if the
ladies were on the stairs before Baker/Truly, then it stands to reason
those same ladies were probably on the stairs BEFORE Oswald too.
Hence, they weren't going to see or hear LHO either.

And also keep in mind that Adams and Styles started out on the FOURTH
floor of the TSBD, which was two floors BELOW where Oswald started his
down-the-stairs journey. And if all three of those people had started
down the stairs at about the same time, it still wouldn't mean that
Adams/Styles would have had to see Oswald, because Oswald started out
two floors higher.

DiEugenio is cooked on this "staircase" issue any way you slice it.

And Jim also doesn't ask: Why didn't Adams/Styles hear the "REAL
KILLERS" descending the same stairs?

We know that nobody took the elevators down from the Floor Of Death
(the sixth floor). So where did the "real killers" go? Did they cloak
themselves and disappear? Or did they use their Bat Ropes to shinny
down the side of the TSBD Building?

These questions don't matter to DiEugenio however. As long as he can
pretend Saint Oswald wasn't anywhere near the sixth floor, then Jimbo
is happy as a lark.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 1:08:06 AM8/22/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465&p=202982&#entry202982

Jim DiEugenio's last reply [in Post #470 of The Education Forum thread
linked above] was pathetic (as usual).

Jim doesn't even wonder to himself the following ---

Hmmmm....maybe DVP has a point when he said, [quote] "Why didn't

Adams/Styles hear the "REAL KILLERS" descending the same stairs? We
know that nobody took the elevators down from the Floor Of Death (the
sixth floor). So where did the "real killers" go? Did they cloak
themselves and disappear? Or did they use their Bat Ropes to shinny
down the side of the TSBD Building? These questions don't matter to
DiEugenio however. As long as he can pretend Saint Oswald wasn't
anywhere near the sixth floor, then Jimbo is happy as a

lark." [unquote]

Evidently, per Jim's way of thinking, NOBODY fired any shots from the
sixth floor. And apparently there were NO ASSASSINS on the sixth floor
whatsoever on November 22, 1963. In fact, [hang onto your hats,
folks!] Jim D. actually had the 'nads to suggest that very thing
(i.e., no shooters on the sixth floor) on Black Op Radio on February
11, 2010. Quoting DiEugenio from that program:

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey
Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I
mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that
the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth
floor, they could have been at the other [west] end. .... And I've
always suspected there was a sniper in the Dal-Tex Building." -- James
DiEugenio

Allow me to repeat a few of those words again, just so the idiocy of
them can sink in a little deeper (and, after all, a quote this
ridiculous and ludicrous deserves an instant replay anyway):

"I'M NOT EVEN SURE THEY WERE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR. .... WHAT'S THE
DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE HIT TEAM WAS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR?" -- Jim
DiEugenio; February 11th, 2010

Unbelievable.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-32.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 1:19:23 AM8/22/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465&p=202985&#entry202985

You can stuff your silly "Baker" nonsense too, Jim. It's all a
smokescreen, like everything you say. Marrion Baker saw LHO on the
second floor and all REASONABLE people know this. It's one of the
basic, raw FACTS of the case. And ROY TRULY verified it, as everyone
can see in the videos below (Truly is only in the first video,
however, but Officer Baker's story is clearcut and definitive in both
videos; Jim D., naturally, must think that Baker continued to tell his
lies for 23 years):

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/marrion-baker.html

You, Jim, simply have no capacity for reasonably and rationally
evaluating the evidence in the JFK case. And all one need do is look
once more at this quote by you (Jim D.) in order to verify that what I
just said is true (i.e., you stink at reasonably evaluating the
evidence in this case):

"I'M NOT EVEN SURE THEY WERE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR. .... WHAT'S THE
DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE HIT TEAM WAS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR?" -- Jim
DiEugenio; February 11th, 2010

P.S. -- Can I now bitch to the moderators about DiEugenio pasting huge
blocks of text from his CTKA site into this Edu. Forum for
"advertising" his position?

I hope you sensed the irony contained within my last sentence above,
Jim.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 3:51:10 PM8/22/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=480&p=203086&#entry203086

>>> "When the close-up of Tippit's revolver and the wallet appeared, [WFAA-TV cameraman Ron] Reiland reported, "This gun you see in the background here in this officer's hand (C.B. Owens) is the one that was allegedly used to shoot the police officer. ... This is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car." ('With Malice' by Dale Myers, page 299)" <<<

That is, indeed, an excellent point, Michael. And you're 100% right. I
should have pointed out in this thread that Reiland made an obvious
error just one second before he said the wallet was Tippit's. With the
error being, as Michael Hogan noted, that the gun being held by Owens
in the film was the murder weapon.

I have pointed out that error by Reiland, btw, in other posts I have
made on the Internet regarding this subject. But you are right to
scold me for not including that information in THIS thread. It is,
indeed, a "double standard". And I shall have to re-think the matter
about HOW Reiland could have determined it was Tippit's wallet, and
yet make the error about the gun being the murder weapon.

So, yes, a good question is: If Reiland could be wrong about the gun
in Owens' hand being the weapon used to kill Tippit (and he was
wrong), then why couldn't he be wrong about the wallet belonging to
Tippit?

I still think it's quite likely that the wallet seen in Ron Reiland's
film is Tippit's...but as I've also stressed in this thread, the
wallet could really have belonged to anybody at the scene of the
crime. Perhaps a witness. Who can know for sure? Nobody can. And
nobody does.

But I will maintain until the cows come knocking at my front door that
the one person to whom that wallet most certainly did NOT belong was
Lee Harvey Oswald. Because if it was Oswald's wallet (or a fake/
planted Oswald wallet even), then we would surely have found that
important information being placed in at least ONE of the police
officers' reports associated with the Tippit murder.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 5:15:05 PM8/22/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=0&p=203099&#entry203099

>>> "VB [Vincent Bugliosi] does not mention the GSR hijinks [relating to Jack Ruby's polygraph exam]. Yet he knew about them since he sources the HSCA report. So he did not present the critics' arguments the way they themselves would, or as say, I would. Did DVP point this failing out anywhere?" <<<

Jim DiEugenio, as usual, is making a boiling volcano out of a wet-
weather spring (to borrow a phrase from Andy Griffith/Andy Taylor).

Vincent Bugliosi knows full well that polygraph examinations are not
conclusive and ironclad evidence in the first place. And Vince has
said that very thing during many of his 2007 interviews while
promoting his JFK book.

But the most important thing when discussing Jack Ruby's polygraph
test is the fact that RUBY HIMSELF INSISTED THAT HE BE GIVEN ONE, as
Bugliosi says in the book excerpt below:

"Completely apart from the issue of how accurate a polygraph
test is, most lay people, as I imagine was the case with Ruby, believe
it can detect a liar. No one asked Ruby to take a polygraph test, so
the argument cannot be made that he went along with it because he felt
he would look guilty if he refused. It was Ruby who insisted he be
given the test, and although this is not conclusive, it very
definitely is circumstantial evidence of his innocence on the issue of
whether he knew Oswald and whether he acted alone." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 1128 of "Reclaiming History"

Related VB quotes:

"Even if we were to assume the total invalidity of the polygraph
test given to Ruby, his willingness--in fact, his insistence--that he
be given one is strong circumstantial evidence of his innocent state
of mind and the truthfulness about everything he said. Lay people,
including Ruby, for the most part believe that lie detector tests can
detect lies. It is a considerable stretch to believe that if Ruby were
guilty of being involved in a conspiracy, he would insist on taking a
polygraph test, supremely confident he could conceal his guilt and
pass the test." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 645 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)

"It should be noted that contrary to popular belief, a polygraph
does not show whether or not one is telling the truth, only whether he
believes he is; that is, the test, if it is accurate (which law
enforcement feels it normally is when administered by a competent
operator), measures the presence or absence of deception from the
physiological response (breathing, pulse, perspiration, etc.) to the
questions. Sociopaths (those who have no conscience or feeling of
guilt or contrition for what they have done) often are able to lie on
the test without the lie being betrayed by a physiological response."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1031 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)

Maybe Jim DiEugenio thinks that Jack Ruby was a "sociopath". ~shrug~

BTW, I agree with some of the things DiEugenio has said concerning
Jack Ruby's really weird polygraph test. It was essentially worthless.
Ruby himself was even involved in how the questions were going to be
asked. Very strange.

But the key point is: Ruby insisted on taking the test.

Does Jim D. think Ruby KNEW IN ADVANCE that the test would be
conducted in such a strange (and lengthy) fashion, with Ruby being
allowed input into the questions he would be asked by FBI polygraph
examiner Bell Herndon?

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 5:38:25 PM8/22/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=15&p=203109&#entry203109

Answer for Jim DiEugenio (based upon a quick search for "GSR" in the
PDF file that I have for "RH"):

No, I cannot find any reference in "Reclaiming History" to Vincent
Bugliosi mentioning that the "GSR" was turned down during Jacob
Rubenstein's 1964 polygraph examination conducted by Mr. Bell P.
Herndon of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

>>> "You are still flacking for VB, even when his book has been exposed. The book you thought was going to spell the end to all the critical questions raised over the decades." <<<

Bugliosi's book DOES answer all of the major, substantive, and
important questions regarding the JFK case. No doubt about that fact.

But if a person like Jim DiEugenio (who is bent on promoting the chaff
instead of the wheat regarding this murder case) gets ahold of a lone-
assassin book like "Reclaiming History", I'm not surprised at all that
he can find something in it (or omitted from it!) that he can use to
support his very strange "Anybody But Oswald" hobby.

I've found some errors in "RH" myself. The errors don't undercut
Vince's bottom-line LN conclusion at all, but I have found a few
substantive errors in the book. But Jim thinks I've only found a
trivial error or two. Not true, as I discuss here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/errors-in-reclaiming-history.html

""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

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ac345c6c5a9afaf2

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 6:45:50 PM8/22/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=15&p=203123&#entry203123

>>> "Now, if the reader knew this, would it impact their view of the Paines in the [JFK] case? Yes, you would get the idea that they were not the Good Samaritans they presented themselves as. They were actually spies. And they may have been spying on Oswald. That is what VB apparently does not want you to know. Did DVP ever point this out?" <<<

Why in the world would I want to point out something so incredibly
stupid as Ruth Paine being a spy? (Hilarious.)

And nothing you've presented above proves that Ruth or Michael Paine
were spies, or that they were "spying on Oswald".

That type of conclusion is called "An Overactive Imagination". (And
Jim's certainly got one of those, as we can all see in this thread.)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/ruth-paine.html

aeffects

unread,

Aug 22, 2010, 11:21:57 PM8/22/10

On Aug 21, 9:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip the lone nut lunacy>

you're going to get a hernia doing all that heavy 'Gary Mack' type
lifting, dipsy.... When are you going to ever learn.... ROTFLMFAO!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 5:46:21 PM8/23/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=30&p=203216&#entry203216

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Why did she [Ruth Paine] not tell Oswald about the Adams call [from the Texas Employment Commission] even though he had started at the TSBD? Didn't Oswald have the right to know that the other job was higher paying so he could quit the TSBD? Not only did the call come in before he took the TSBD job, it sure looks like Ruth Paine lied about it to protect herself. Why would she do that?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's some confusion about the calls to the Paine home on October 15
and 16, 1963. I don't deny the confusion. Ruth Paine doesn't remember
receiving any calls herself from TEC [Texas Employment Commission].

She said she learned from LEE OSWALD about a job that LHO did not get
-- and that job was very likely the one at Solid State Electronics,
which was referred by TEC in early October, i.e., BEFORE he got the
TSBD job.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1136&relPageId=418

Plus: It's highly unlikely that Adams (or anyone from TEC who might
have called Ruth Paine's house in connection with Oswald's employment
possibilities) would have furnished Ruth with any of the particular
details about SALARY of any jobs. TEC would have merely said something
like: "Ask Lee Oswald to phone us please", or something along those
lines. After all, it wasn't RUTH PAINE'S job opportunity; it was Lee
Oswald's.

Plus, let me also add this:

When Lee Oswald called Ruth (and Marina) on October 15 to say he had
gotten the job at the TSBD, by all accounts he was quite pleased with
the job. He liked the idea that he would be working around books.

And since it's highly unlikely that either Ruth or Marina had any
knowledge about the exact SALARY that the airline cargo-handling job
would pay--then when Ruth/Marina found out from Lee that he was hired
at a job that Lee LIKED and was fairly pleased with, then I don't see
how anything "sinister" or "conspiratorial" can be gleaned from the
fact that any information about any other job openings were not
provided by Ruth (or Marina) to Lee Oswald.

Under those circumstances I just outlined, there would really have
been no particular reason for Ruth or Marina to advise LHO that
another job was also available, because LHO had already informed Ruth
and Marina that he had been hired at the Book Depository, and Lee
seemed pretty pleased to have that particular job.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 5:58:15 PM8/23/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=45&p=203234&#entry203234

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why, in 2,700 pages, did VB not include any of the rather sordid
background on the DPD in his book? Why did he rely on compromised
sources like Alexander and Bowles?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This question of Jim's, of course, goes directly to the physical
evidence in the case against Oswald. (At least I assume that is where
this question most generally would end up--back to the PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE that was collected and handled by the DPD, which is evidence
that Jim DiEugenio thinks was ALL PLANTED OR COMPROMISED OR
MANUFACTURED by the Dallas Police Department in order to frame that
hapless sap named Lee Harvey Oswald.)

Well, Jim, I'm sure that Vince Bugliosi realizes that the DPD was not
filled with saints and angels when it came to SOME cases they
investigated. I doubt that any police agency is totally free from SOME
corrupt members.

But in THIS case (particularly the Tippit murder), to believe that the
Dallas Police Department was manufacturing evidence and/or hiding
evidence in order to convict an INNOCENT person (Lee Oswald) is
something I wouldn't believe in a million years! And I don't care HOW
corrupt the DPD may or may not have been regarding OTHER cases.

Many of those DPD officers were friends of the slain policeman, but
Jim DiEugenio apparently thinks that the DPD (as a whole) had the
following attitude when it came to J.D. Tippit's murder:

'We don't give a damn who the real killer of our slain friend
is. We'll just let the real killer get away scot-free. We don't care
about that. All we care about is planting as much evidence as humanly
possible in order to frame this guy named Oswald for the murder of
Officer Tippit.'

See how utterly stupid it is to actually believe the DALLAS POLICE
were framing an innocent Lee Oswald for the murder of a DALLAS POLICE
OFFICER? I sure can see the stupidity of such a ridiculous belief,
even if none of the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists can see it
themselves.

Also:

Let's face some additional reality in THIS case (the JFK case, that
is): Not ALL of the physical evidence in this case was collected (or
handled) by the DPD. And this is one of the things I've pointed out to
Jim DiEugenio (and other conspiracy theorists) in the past too--and
that's the fact that the physical evidence in this case was actually
found at THREE separate "crime scenes" (so to speak):

1.) The Texas School Book Depository.
2.) The Presidential limousine.
3.) Parkland Memorial Hospital.

And it's actually FOUR different crime scenes when the murder of
Officer J.D. Tippit is factored into the mix.

And while it's certainly true that the DPD (and Dallas County
Sheriff's Department) collected a goodly amount of the physical
evidence (such as all the evidence inside the TSBD and the evidence
discovered at the Tippit murder scene), the DPD did NOT collect all of
the evidence that proves Lee Oswald's guilt.

It was the Secret Service who initially collected Stretcher Bullet
CE399 and the two large fragments of a bullet in the front seat of the
limousine. The DPD had nothing whatsoever to do with the initial
handling and processing of that very important ballistics evidence
(CE399, CE567, and CE569).

Plus, the FBI was deeply involved in combing the limo for evidence at
the White House garage on the morning of Saturday, November
23rd....and NOT the Dallas Police Department.

What I'm driving at is this:

People like James DiEugenio want to believe that ALL of the physical
evidence that points to Lee Oswald as the murderer of BOTH John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit has been tainted in some fashion and cannot be
trusted. But in order for that to be true (as Jim seems to fervently
believe), then we'd have to have the Secret Service and (almost
assuredly) the FBI being a party to this huge task of "faking" all of
the evidence in this case too.

And it would be a simultaneous LIKE-MINDEDNESS (or "meeting of the
minds", if you prefer) among multiple different law enforcement
agencies who would have had just one goal in sight -- Framing an
INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for two murders.

And I ask all reasonable-minded people -- Is that truly a reasonable
thing to believe regarding the wealth of evidence (found at FOUR
DIFFERENT CRIME SCENES) relating to the murders of JFK and J.D.
Tippit?

If believing that ALL of the evidence against Oswald has been tampered
with or planted truly IS a reasonable position to endorse, then please
excuse me while I go hide in the corner with the UNreasonable people
of the Earth.

Allow me to also interject a great quote from Larry Sturdivan here
(which is one of my all-time favorite quotes connected to the JFK
assassination; and, incredibly, it WASN'T penned by Vincent T.
Bugliosi; anybody need smelling salts?):

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most
conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of
"Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of
the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman
abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with
all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The
JFK Myths" (c.2005)

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/book-review-jfk-myths.html

>>> "Did he [Vince Bugliosi] not violate his pledge to present the critics' case as they wanted it presented? After all, this is an important element of the case against Oswald." <<<

Quite obviously, Jim, all of the stuff you've mentioned concerning the
rotten and evil Dallas Police Department was not considered by Mr.
Bugliosi to be "an important element of the case against Oswald".

In short, the physical evidence really speaks for itself. And that
physical evidence is telling any sensible person that Lee Harvey
Oswald was guilty of killing JFK and J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63. (And
also take another look at that Larry Sturdivan quote above. It fits in
here nicely--yet again.)

>>> "Did you criticize him [Vince Bugliosi] for leaving this important material out?" <<<

No. But see my last answer.

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 6:36:26 PM8/23/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=45&p=203237&#entry203237

>>> "They [the DPD] could have been framing a man they BELIEVED to be guilty." <<<

Then the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that is causing all of those DPD officers to
BELIEVE Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty is going to speak for itself,
won't it Pat?

Or are you really advocating a theory that has the DPD (as a unit)
BELIEVING in Oswald's guilt even though NONE of the "Real" physical
evidence actually pointed in the direction of his guilt?

Because if ALL of the physical evidence was planted or manufactured
(as people like Jim DiEugenio believe), then what was causing those
DPD officers to BELIEVE Oswald was guilty in the first place?

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

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=45&p=203239&#entry203239

>>> "What caused McGeorge Bundy to call Air Force One and tell Johnson that the lone assassin had been captured -- only three or four hours after the crime?" <<<

Cliff Varnell,

Are you saying that McGeorge Bundy used those exact two words in his
AF1 radio transmission -- The "Lone Assassin"?

I doubt very much that he used those precise words.

If Bundy told LBJ, "The assassin is in custody", or something like
that--so what? It was the 100% truth.

You, of course, think Bundy jumped the gun, right Cliff?

But many people were thinking the very same thing at that time on
November 22 ("three or four hours after the crime") -- they knew
Oswald had been arrested on suspicion of killing a policeman, and they
also knew by that time that Oswald was an employee of the TSBD.

Sometimes 2+2 really DOES equal 4. Even if it is "only three or four
hours after the crime".

aeffects

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 7:13:09 PM8/23/10

On Aug 23, 3:36 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Such a rush troll! you're making nothing but noise these days
shithead.... Jimmy Di is kicking your ass kicked on the Ed Forum, you
bolt, then you slither in here to whine.... What'za matter troll,
Bugliosi cut you off or sump'in?

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 10:21:31 PM8/23/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=60&p=203269&#entry203269

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=75&p=203280&#entry203280

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "[Jean] Davison is such a lousy researcher..." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're an idiot, Jimbo.

Anybody who can possibly write the above comment about Jean Davison
can't be anything but a complete idiot.

Jean Davison can run circles around Jimbo AND me (combined) when it
comes to researching the JFK assassination.

And, even more importantly, Jean Davison puts people like James
DiEugenio to shame when it comes to REASONABLY AND RATIONALLY
evaluating the evidence associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.

The above quote by DiEugenio about Ms. Davison is positively the most
ludicrous and stupid DiEugenio quotation I've ever had the
(dis)pleasure of reading (and vomiting over).

>>> "Davey, why don't you stop breaking the rules of this forum by insulting me and instead address the many holes I put in RH concerning Odio?" <<<

You'd think an ABO CTer like DiEugenio would be patting Vincent
Bugliosi on the back with respect to the Odio incident. Heck, Vince
even says Oswald probably WAS at Odio's door. Instead, Jimbo wants to
bash Vince some more. That's curious, IMO.

I guess the fact that VB doesn't equate "OSWALD WAS AT ODIO'S DOOR"
with "IT WAS A CONSPIRACY" is the thing Jimbo is disturbed about here.

>>> "How did Oswald get from Dallas to Houston on the 25th?" <<<

It's one of those "forever unknowns", isn't it Jim?

>>> "Why did VB denounce the evidence he previously supported?" <<<

Refresh my memory on this. There's way too much Anybody-But-Oswald
junk in your last 25 posts to read all in one sitting (without yakking
violently).

>>> "Why did Liebeler try to seduce Odio instead of tracking down her story? And why did VB leave that out of his book?" <<<

Probably because it never happened.

>>> "Why did LHO go to the NO bus station but then go back and cash his check and file his change of address? .... How did LHO get from NO to Houston if that is what he did? .... Who was doing all those activities in Austin, Dallas, and Houston on the 25th? .... Why did VB leave out the Liebeler confession to Odio about Warren? .... Unless you stop hiding behind Davison's crummy book and address these facts, we will all know who the idiot is." <<<

None of the above stuff that you're talking about is proof of a
conspiracy in JFK's assassination. You, as usual, are latching onto
some undefined, hazy, and unclear occurrences (or possible
occurrences) regarding the Odio incident and then implying that these
unclear things are proof that Lee Oswald couldn't have acted alone in
Dallas two months later.

Jean Davison said it quite well in her "crummy" book (which is
actually just about the best book on Oswald's life you'll ever run
across [DiEugenio is a moron]):

"In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown
about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet
with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how
could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish
Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered
the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald
was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to
stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles?
No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those
questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave
testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could
explain what it meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's
Game"

http://Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 11:09:19 PM8/23/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=75&p=203280&#entry203280

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "The above post defines who DVP is and what he represents." <<<

DVP SAID:

Yes, it does. And I'm proud of it.

>>> "When you can't answer relevant questions and rely on someone as bereft as Jean Davison, you are lost.

Let's do a quick comparison:

Jim DiEugenio places a lot of faith in Jim Garrison and John "Two LHOs
& Two Marguerites" Armstrong.

I place a lot of faith in Vincent Bugliosi and Jean Davison.

Now, tell me -- who is the one who is really "lost" here?

aeffects

unread,

Aug 23, 2010, 11:54:52 PM8/23/10

On Aug 23, 8:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Such a rush, troll! You're making nothing but noise these days
shithead.... Jimmy Di is kicking your ass on the Ed Forum, you
bolt, then you slither into ACJ to whine.... What'za matter troll,

Baron Wrangle

unread,

Aug 24, 2010, 8:19:17 PM8/24/10

On Aug 23, 10:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=75&p=2...

>
> JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
> >>> "The above post defines who DVP is and what he represents." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Yes, it does. And I'm proud of it.
>

> >>> "When you can't answer relevant questions and rely on someone as bereft asJeanDavison, you are lost.

>
> Let's do a quick comparison:
>
> Jim DiEugenio places a lot of faith in Jim Garrison and John "Two LHOs
> & Two Marguerites" Armstrong.
>
> I place a lot of faith in Vincent Bugliosi andJeanDavison.
>
> Now, tell me -- who is the one who is really "lost" here?

You are. You belong with Peter Pan's Lost Boys, if they'd have you.
All of your work has the flavor of an overgrown schoolboy. Who but a
schoolboy could put any faith in "Oswald's Game"? It's just a
particularly naked example of the "Oswald was awful" genre, without
the fig leaves of a Posner or a Bugliosi. It's already been put in
its place:

"The Zapruder fim will remain forever an integral part of the
investigation of President John F. Kennedy's assassination. Its
history provides undeniable evidence of a conspiracy--in effect, a
coup d'etat--although it does not give us any clear clues as to the
identities of the conspirators. It does, however, proivide undeniable
proof that members of the Warren Commission, its staff, and the FBI
failed miserably in their investigations (see document 16 in the
appendix) and, in the process, undermined our faith in federal
officials and spawned countless silly and bizarre counterclaims that
have only further confused the historical record. They have been
periodically countered by Warren Commission apologists and lone-gunman-
Oswald theorists--like Jim Bishop, Edward Jay Epstein, Jean Davison,
and Gerald Posner--who have only thrown more silt into these already
muddied waters." David R. Wrone, "The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's
Assassination" (Lawrence, Ks.: University Press of Kansas, 2003), p.
277.

Among its other flaws, "Oswald's Game" tries to gum David Lifton's
theories to death, and fails. If you want a real refutation of "Best
Evidence," read "The Zapruder Film."

Wrone doesn't include Bugliosi in his dishonor roll, but "Reclaiming
History" hadn't been published yet. I would give you his opinion of
it, but there are children (you) present.

Thank you in advance for your reply, which will confirm what I have
said.

Baron Wrangle

unread,

Aug 24, 2010, 10:48:45 PM8/24/10

On Aug 23, 9:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=60&p=2...

>
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=75&p=2...
>
> JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>

> >>> "[Jean]Davisonis such a lousy researcher..." <<<

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're an idiot, Jimbo.
>
> Anybody who can possibly write the above comment aboutJeanDavison
> can't be anything but a complete idiot.
>

David:

If you aren't a complete idiot, it's only because nobody's perfect.
How can you be a good researcher when you isolate Oswald's psyche from
every other aspect of the assassination? You have to hand it to the
LNers, for their fabulous job of reconstructing Oswald's psyche.
"Let's see, I just shot the President, so I have a lot of time on my
hands. I'll use it to buy a soft drink I don't like." Jim Moore
actually cites Oswald's purchase of a Coke as evidence that he
committed the assassination. If Oswald had grilled a brook trout on
the steps of the Depository, Moore would cite that as evidence of
Oswald's guilt!

P.S. The "W" is not silent.

> JeanDavisoncan run circles around Jimbo AND me (combined) when it

> comes to researching the JFK assassination.
>

> And, even more importantly,JeanDavisonputs people like James

> DiEugenio to shame when it comes to REASONABLY AND RATIONALLY
> evaluating the evidence associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.
>

> The above quote by DiEugenio about Ms.Davisonis positively the most

> ludicrous and stupid DiEugenio quotation I've ever had the
> (dis)pleasure of reading (and vomiting over).
>
> >>> "Davey, why don't you stop breaking the rules of this forum by insulting me and instead address the many holes I put in RH concerning Odio?" <<<
>
> You'd think an ABO CTer like DiEugenio would be patting Vincent
> Bugliosi on the back with respect to the Odio incident. Heck, Vince
> even says Oswald probably WAS at Odio's door. Instead, Jimbo wants to
> bash Vince some more. That's curious, IMO.
>
> I guess the fact that VB doesn't equate "OSWALD WAS AT ODIO'S DOOR"
> with "IT WAS A CONSPIRACY" is the thing Jimbo is disturbed about here.
>
> >>> "How did Oswald get from Dallas to Houston on the 25th?" <<<
>
> It's one of those "forever unknowns", isn't it Jim?
>
> >>> "Why did VB denounce the evidence he previously supported?" <<<
>
> Refresh my memory on this. There's way too much Anybody-But-Oswald
> junk in your last 25 posts to read all in one sitting (without yakking
> violently).
>
> >>> "Why did Liebeler try to seduce Odio instead of tracking down her story? And why did VB leave that out of his book?" <<<
>
> Probably because it never happened.
>

> >>> "Why did LHO go to the NO bus station but then go back and cash his check and file his change of address? .... How did LHO get from NO to Houston if that is what he did? .... Who was doing all those activities in Austin, Dallas, and Houston on the 25th? .... Why did VB leave out the Liebeler confession to Odio about Warren? .... Unless you stop hiding behindDavison'scrummy book and address these facts, we will all know who the idiot is." <<<

>
> None of the above stuff that you're talking about is proof of a
> conspiracy in JFK's assassination. You, as usual, are latching onto
> some undefined, hazy, and unclear occurrences (or possible
> occurrences) regarding the Odio incident and then implying that these
> unclear things are proof that Lee Oswald couldn't have acted alone in
> Dallas two months later.
>

> JeanDavisonsaid it quite well in her "crummy" book (which is

> actually just about the best book on Oswald's life you'll ever run
> across [DiEugenio is a moron]):
>
> "In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown
> about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet
> with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how
> could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish
> Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered
> the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald
> was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to
> stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles?
> No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those
> questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave
> testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could

> explain what it meant." --JeanDavison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's
> Game"
>
> http://Oswalds-Game.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 25, 2010, 1:44:34 AM8/25/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=90&p=203363&#entry203363

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "I was clearly referring to 1.) Odio and Liebeler and 2.) Warren and his colleague." <<<

DVP SAID:

You were referring to things that OTHER PEOPLE said about Liebeler and
Warren. That's all.

You were referring to "credible sources" such as Sylvia Odio (re:
Liebeler's alleged sexual advances); and you were referring to William
Davy (re: his story of an alleged "whitewash" comment made by Earl
Warren in Sep. 1964).

So, your "credible sources" there are Sylvia Odio and Bill Davy.

Jim, what page number of this 12/5/63 WC executive session supposedly
backs up what Davy said Warren said to a colleague in late 1964?
Please point out the page number:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1323&relPageId=4

Addendum:

Here's an excerpt from "Reclaiming History" (just to provide at least
a little bit of balance and "equal time" to counter Jim DiEugenio's
onslaught of crackpottery regarding Vincent Bugliosi's excellent 2007
book):

"One of the key pieces of documentary evidence that conspiracy
theorists cite as proof that the Warren Commission only had an
interest in presenting a case against Oswald, and had no interest in
ascertaining whether there was a conspiracy, is a January 11, 1964,
“Memorandum for Members of the Commission” from Commission chairman
Earl Warren in which he sets forth a “tentative outline” that was
prepared, he said, by Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin
to aid in “organizing the evaluation of the investigative materials
received by the Commission.”

"Since by January 11, a month and a half after the
assassination, it was very obvious that Oswald had killed Kennedy,
subdivision II of the memorandum was titled “Lee Harvey Oswald as the
Assassin of President Kennedy.” Under this subdivision were
subheadings like “Brief Identification of Oswald [Dallas resident,
employee ofTexas School Book Depository, etc.]”; “Movements [of
Oswald] on November 22, 1963, Prior to Assassination”; “Entry into
Depository”; “Movements after Assassination until Murder of Tippit”;
and so on.

"I respectfully ask, what other way was there for “organizing
the evaluation of the investigative materials” when the investigative
materials (i.e., evidence) all dealt, of necessity (since the evidence
that had already been gathered all pointed to Oswald as the killer of
Kennedy), with Oswald? To give Oswald an alias? Or mention some third
party who was not identified in the investigative materials as the
chief suspect?

"Moreover, the Warren Commission critics don’t mention that
Warren, to allow for the fact that the investigation might take the
Commission in different directions, wrote, “As the staff reviews the
[investigative] materials, the outline will certainly undergo
substantial revision.”

"Perhaps most importantly, what the critics usually fail to
mention is that subdivision II H reads, “Evidence Implicating Others
in Assassination or Suggesting Accomplices.”

"Even if the evidence up to January 11, 1964, the date of the
subject memorandum, had not pointed only to Oswald, and even if there
was no reference to a possible conspiracy in the tentative outline,
the best way to judge the work of the Warren Commission on this point
is not by what the Commission wrote or said, but by what it did. (One
of my favorite sayings is “Your conduct speaks so loudly I can’t hear
a word you are saying.”) And we will see that the Commission’s conduct
throughout the investigation clearly shows that its members only had
one objective, to discover the truth of what happened." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page xxxi of "Reclaiming History"

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

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=105&p=203388&#entry203388

Jim D., as always, is distorting the facts. He cites a bunch of
preliminary things that Earl Warren said he was probably NOT going to
need to do....but what did the Warren Commission actually END UP DOING
in many of these instances?

Answer: Just the opposite.

Some examples are provided below, to help counteract DiEugenio's
pathetic critique of the 12/5/63 Executive Session:

Earl Warren said:

"...our job is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as
distinguished from being one of gathering evidence, and I believe that
at the outset at least we can start with the premise that we can rely
upon the reports of the...FBI and Secret Service...."

There's nothing wrong with this statement by Earl Warren at all. The
Warren Commission's main function WAS to evaluate the evidence that
had already (in large part) been collected (plus additional evidence
that would still be gathered by the investigative agencies that
Chairman Warren had at his disposal).

What's wrong with that? And furthermore, how are the above words
spoken by Earl Warren supposed to prove (or even suggest) "conspiracy"
and/or "cover-up" in the JFK assassination?

Answer: They don't. Not even close.

Earl Warren said:

"I believe that the development of the evidence in this way
should not call for a staff of investigators, I don't see any reason
why we should duplicate the facilities of the FBI...."

Nothing wrong with this either. The FBI had vast resources for
investigating the case, and since Earl Warren (as of 12/5/63) had no
reason to think the FBI would withhold any information from the
Commission, this initial/early statement by Warren doesn't seem the
least bit odd or unusual.

Earl Warren said:

"I am of the opinion also that we should not conduct our
hearings in public; that it is not necessary for us to bring witnesses
before us. If it is necessary for us to get the stories of witnesses
we can get it through our investigative agencies first, and then if we
want to talk to them we can bring them into our conference room and
discuss it with them there."

But what did Warren END UP DOING, Jim? THAT'S the important thing! Not
what he said he would PROBABLY do on December 5th!

Answer:

The Commission ended up taking the testimony of 552 witnesses, with
many of these witnesses appearing before the Commission itself (and
many, many others giving testimony, under oath, in front of Commission
counsel members).

So much for not calling witnesses, huh Jim?

Earl Warren said:

"Having that view, I do not believe that it is necessary for us
to have the power of subpoena. I believe that the power of subpoena
and holding public meetings where witnesses would be brought in would
retard rather than help our investigation."

But what did Warren END UP DOING, Jim?

Answer:

The Commission DID end up having the power to subpoena witnesses, and
did so....hundreds of times!

DiEugenio apparently wants to IGNORE the fact that 552 witnesses did
give testimony to the WC, and many of them were under order of
subpoena by the Commission.

Earl Warren said:

"...we could hold our meetings and take any evidence or any
statements that we want in camera, and eventually make our report
without any great fanfare throughout the country. I think any report
we would make would carry with it a great deal more influence done in
that way than if we attempted to have any public hearings."

Way more "conspiracy" spin is being put on the above Warren statement
by DiEugenio than it deserves, with DiEugenio obviously wanting to
believe that Earl Warren (ON THE RECORD HERE!) is endorsing some kind
of a "cover-up" operation from the get-go on 12/5/63.

But such a belief is nothing but CT blather and nonsense. Warren
wasn't attempting any kind of a cover-up at all via the above quote.
DiEugenio has Conspiracy-itis. And he's had the ailment for years.
Poor fellow.

Earl Warren said:

"The President indicated to me that if this commission was set
up that in all probability there would be no legislative committees
having hearings. I think that would be very helpful, because one
investigation should be enough."

Big deal. Once again, Jimbo is spiking the football in his Conspiracy
Endzone--even though he fumbled the ball mid-field. Warren's comments
above don't spell conspiracy or cover-up at all. He was merely giving
his personal opinion that the one BIG Warren Commission would easily
suffice, vs. having additional SMALLER investigations taking place at
the very same time. And he was right.

Earl Warren said:

"I personally would be very happy if the State of Texas would
decide not to hold any such hearings until this commission had an
opportunity to survey the situation and make its appraisal, because if
there should be some irresponsible witnesses come before that
commission and give sensational testimony to the public...we would
have the job of allaying the public fears that developed from that
kind of testimony."

Sounds reasonable to me, Jim. Earl Warren simply didn't want the
investigation into the President's death to become a "three-ring
circus" (to borrow J. Edgar Hoover's words, in a conversation with
Lyndon Johnson on 11/29/63).

Jim DiEugenio, as usual, is making another mountain out of a non-
existent bump in the road.

>>> "Or did your terminal McAdams Disease set in?" <<<

No. But I can easily see that your really bad case of "Conspiracy
Overload" is in its highest gear today.

Pathetic, indeed.

>>> "Warren's vision did not completely go through. Why? Because it was upset by how bad Hoover's Dec. 9th report was. That thing was so awful that even people like Rankin knew they couldn't print it or rely on it. (BTW, DVP actually praised that pile of crap on Lancer.)" <<<

The 12/9/63 five-volume FBI Report is, indeed, a pretty good document.
There are some mistakes in it, yes. And some other deficiencies. But
the bottom-line conclusions are correct. All-in-all, the FBI (in just
17 days' time) did a good job in its initial report dated December 9,
1963. (The full report can be found below.)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402

More on the FBI Report here:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/12-9-63-fbi-report.html

>>> "I asked the question in all five, "Did VB keep his pledge made at the beginning to present the critics' arguments as they wanted them presented?" " <<<

Jim,

Can you please indicate to me where in Vincent Bugliosi's book he
specifically makes this "pledge" (as you keep calling it)?

I do, indeed, recall reading something written by Bugliosi in
"Reclaiming History" about the "critics' case as they present it" (or
something very similar to that).

I've been trying to find that exact "pledge" that Jimbo keeps speaking
of, but I cannot find the specific "pledge" in "Reclaiming History".

Maybe such a "pledge" is, indeed, in "RH", but I haven't found it as
yet via my search of the book's Introduction chapter (or anywhere
else).

Can you give me a page number, Jim? Thanks.

>>> "What DVP is actually saying is this: Warren was justified in accepting Hoover's first report as the last word on the murder of JFK." <<<

I never said any such thing. Stop putting words (and thoughts) in my
mouth (and head).

I've said myself that the initial five-volume FBI report of Dec. 9th
was not perfect and contained a number of errors. The WC did the right
thing in not merely signing-off on that report (although, as I also
said, that FBI report gets the bottom-line facts correct--Oswald was
guilty and there was likely no conspiracy).

One thing, however, that people like Jim DiEugenio should really ask
themselves is this:

If the Warren Commission (and its Chairman, Earl Warren) were really
the rotten, low-life, scumballs that DiEugenio wants everybody to
think they were....then why in the world DIDN'T they merely sign-off
on J. Edgar Hoover's 12/9/63 initial report on the assassination?

After all, Hoover's report said the same thing that DiEugenio believes
the Warren Commission was BENT ON FINDING AT ALL COSTS RIGHT FROM DAY
#1 OF THE WARREN COMMISSION'S EXISTENCE -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald and
Jack Ruby acted alone in their acts of murder in Dallas, Texas, in
November 1963.

So why DIDN'T Earl Warren (if he was the scum of the Earth you seem to
be implying) simply take the easy way out and rubber-stamp J. Edgar's
December 9th "Oswald Alone" findings?

That's a rather difficult question for conspiracy theorists like Jim
DiEugenio to answer in a reasonable manner, isn't it?

But, I'm sure we'll be treated to another round of DiEugenio's mish-
mash (and conspiracy-flavored mush) in just a few minutes after Jimbo
gets through pasting another batch of "Bugliosi Is A Liar And A Fraud"
crappola into his next Education Forum message.

Right, James?

>>> "DVP then tops himself. He then asks me to produce the VB quote I have been referring to for days. Davey this is YOUR book! You rated it the last word on the case. And you don't even know the introduction. I have to do the research again. Turn to page xxxix: [Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:] "My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything." [End VB Quote.] .... Causing you a lot of grief eh Davey? BTW, in each case I have shown where VB cannot use that qualifier he added about not being aware of something. So please don't try that one on me." <<<

Thank you, Jim. That is, indeed, the quoted passage I was seeking. I
was unable to find that exact quote while searching keywords via the
book's PDF file. I was using the word "critics" in my search criteria.
But that word turns out not to be in the passage you so kindly
provided me on Page xxxix.

BTW, I haven't memorized every word in Vince Bugliosi's book. But it
appears that Jim DiEugenio has, though.

If you feel like calling Vince Bugliosi a liar, that's your privilege
I guess. But the things you think Vince has intentionally left out of
"Reclaiming History" (in what you obviously believe was an effort by
VB to deliberately distort the truth about the JFK assassination) are
obviously things that Mr. Bugliosi did not deem important or critical
enough to be placed into the book.

You no doubt get tired of hearing me say this, but I'm going to say it
again anyway (because I happen to think it's true) -- You, Jim, like
to concentrate on the CHAFF instead of the WHEAT when it comes to the
JFK case.

In your world, the chaff always seems to be much more important and
critical than the wheat -- with the wheat in this case, of course,
being the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case that proves Lee Harvey Oswald
to be a double-murderer, which is physical evidence that TWO
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES had no problem endorsing as LEGITIMATE evidence
in the case that had not been altered or faked or manipulated in any
way whatsoever.

You disagree with BOTH the Warren Commission's AND the HSCA's
conclusions regarding the validity of that physical evidence. Well, so
be it. But those TWO Government conclusions are still going to be
there nonetheless, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

>>> "Then you say that well, what Warren was saying was OK. What Warren was saying was that the FBI should do the inquiry and they should ratify what Hoover did." <<<

But, Jim, what you're forgetting here is THE DATE WHEN EARL WARREN
MADE THAT STATEMENT -- it was DECEMBER 5, 1963! That was four days
BEFORE the FBI had completed its initial report.

For reference, here is my earlier quote (for which I am now being
scolded and taken to the woodshed by Jimmy D.):

"Nothing wrong with this either. The FBI had vast resources for
investigating the case, and since Earl Warren (as of 12/5/63) had no
reason to think the FBI would withhold any information from the
Commission, this initial/early statement by Warren doesn't seem the
least bit odd or unusual." -- DVP

And to augment my above comments, let me add: At that time (December
5), Earl Warren no doubt thought that the main task of the Warren
Commission would, indeed, be merely to read over and examine Hoover's
initial report on the assassination.

Heck, LBJ came right out and flatly told Senator Richard B. Russell
that that is EXACTLY what the Warren Commission was going to do (via
LBJ's phone call with Russell on 11/29/63, the day the Warren
Commission was created by President Johnson).

Yes, I realize that probably part of what Johnson was doing with
Russell there on Nov. 29th was LBJ's usual strong-arming tactics.
Johnson wanted Russell as "his man" on that Commission, so by God,
Russell was going to BE his man on that Commission.

And LBJ knew full well from talking with Russell that Russell wanted
no part of being on the WC, and (just as importantly) Russell said he
didn't want to work with Earl Warren. "I don't like that man" were
Senator Russell's exact words to Johnson on 11/29/63.

http://www.box.net/shared/wnkfb3xwcc

So, undoubtedly, LBJ was wanting to make the WC job sound as appealing
and as easy as possible, so he told Russell that the job would
probably not require much work, and that the Commission would merely
be there to "evaluate a report" of J. Edgar Hoover's.

And Earl Warren and the rest of the Commission initially thought that
was going to be their chief task as well. But, as we all know, it
turned out to be a much broader (and lengthier) task than any of the
seven Commissioners originally anticipated.

But, in my opinion, the key to the previously-mentioned Earl Warren
quote that you, Jim, apparently find so sinister, is the fact that it
was uttered by Warren on DECEMBER 5TH, several days BEFORE any WC
members had seen what was contained in Hoover's report.

So, there's nothing shady or sinister or "cover-uppish" about Warren's
quote in the Dec. 5 Executive Session at all. You, Jim, have PLACED
the "sinister" meaning in Warren's words. But, in reality, there's
nothing sinister or underhanded about those words whatsoever.

>>> "I asked the question in all five, "Did VB keep his pledge made at the beginning to present the critics' arguments as they wanted them presented?" The 5 major areas were: 1. The Ruby polygraph." <<<

Already discussed. Obviously, by far the most important part of that
awful and really weird polygraph exam of Jack Ruby's is the fact that
Ruby INSISTED ON TAKING IT.

>>> "2. The true nature and roles of Ruth and Mike Paine." <<<

Already discussed. And it's my opinion that anyone who calls Ruth
Paine a "spy" who was in some way connected to the CIA and was somehow
manipulating Lee Oswald into the position of "patsy" for JFK's murder
is a person who deserves nothing but scorn.

And that person also deserves to be laughed at for thinking such a
silly thing about Ruth Paine in the first place. And Michael Paine as
well. Michael was, at best, a peripheral part of Lee Oswald's life in
the months leading up to the assassination. To think he was molding
Oswald for "patsy" status is also ridiculous, IMO. And there's
absolutely no firm evidence to indicate that either Ruth or Michael
Paine were involved, in any way, with setting up Oswald in 1963.

And Vince Bugliosi undoubtedly feels pretty much the same way I do
about the Paines. And if some of the silly rumors concerning the
Paines weren't presented by Vince in "Reclaiming History", it's
probably because they are so silly and far-fetched that Vince didn't
even feel there was any need to discuss such obvious tripe.

>>> "3. The record of corruption and frame ups by the Wade/Fritz regime in Dallas." <<<

This has undoubtedly been used by conspiracists (especially recently
since the Watkins info has surfaced) to suggest that Lee Oswald was
one of those people who was "framed" by Henry Wade and Will Fritz.

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists who attempt to utilize this
argument, there is plenty of OTHER evidence on the table in the case
which did not pass through the hands of the Dallas Police Department:
e.g., the Stretcher Bullet CE399, CE567, CE569, the autopsy report,
the autopsy ITSELF, the autopsy photos, and the autopsy X-rays.

None of that stuff was controlled by the DPD. And all of the above
items have been deemed valid and legitimate evidence in the JFK case--
including CE399--by both the Warren Commission AND the HSCA (as well
as the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission).

So, if Wade and Fritz were "framing" Oswald, they sure must have had a
heck of a lot of help from a lot of other people.

And let's face it -- to believe that all of these agencies got
together to frame Oswald is just plain silly.

>>> "4. The visit to Sylvia Odio." <<<

Already discussed. Heck, Bugliosi even admits that Oswald was probably
at Odio's door in September 1963.

But, oh yes, Jim D. thinks it must have been somebody "impersonating"
Oswald who visited Sylvia Odio.

There's nothing wrong with Bugliosi's handling of the Odio incident.
You just want to berate Vince for something else--in this instance,
you want to rake him over the hot coals for not AGREEING WITH JIM
DiEUGENIO'S THEORY regarding the Odio matter.

Well, Jim, that's just tough toenails. So what if Vince doesn't agree
with the great and all-knowing James DiEugenio. Heck, I rarely agree
with a single thing uttered by Jimbo. How could I? He's a charter
member of the super-silly "Anybody But Oswald Society".

>>> "5. The true provenance of CE 399." <<<

The chain of possession for CE399 is just fine. The WC had no problem
with that "chain", and obviously neither did the HSCA (because both
the WC and HSCA declared THAT EXACT BULLET--Commission Exhibit No.
399--to be THE BULLET that passed through both President Kennedy's and
Governor Connally's bodies in Dealey Plaza).

Vince Bugliosi deals with the conspiracy theorists' constant gripes
about CE399 in his book. See the endnotes in "Reclaiming History",
starting at Page 544.

And, btw, Elmer Todd DID mark that bullet. And CE2011 proves that
fact:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=430

Another btw -- John Hunt did not say that he HIMSELF photographed
Bullet CE399 at the National Archives while he was searching for Elmer
Todd's initials on that bullet. He said he "put together an
illustration using photographs of CE-399. I was able to track the
entire surface of the bullet using four of NARA's preservation
photos".

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

Many of the markings on CE399 via those preservation photos that Hunt
used are very faint and hard to see (and, yes, I did look at them
carefully too, via the larger versions of the photos that are
available at the Mary Ferrell website, below).

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet

It's my opinion that Elmer Lee Todd's initials are definitely
somewhere on that bullet. They merely are not as noticeable as some of
the other FBI agents' initials that are on the missile.

What Jim DiEugenio is left with at the end of the day (like all other
days) is merely his SUSPICIONS and SPECULATIONS about Bullet CE399,
and the Odio incident, and Ruth Paine, and Michael Paine, and the FBI,
and the DPD that he thinks framed Oswald.

When it comes right down to the brass tacks of the case, Jim DiEugenio
and other conspiracy theorists like him who (unbelievably) actually
believe in Lee Oswald's complete INNOCENCE, have nothing BUT their
suspicions and speculation and conjecture.

And trying to build a solid foundation from nothing BUT speculation
(and wild suspicions about ALL of the physical evidence being fake in
TWO murder cases--John Kennedy's AND J.D. Tippit's) is like trying to
build a house out of mush.

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 25, 2010, 6:27:16 PM8/25/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=120&p=203547&#entry203547

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "[John] Hunt says that Tilley allowed him to inspect all the artifacts concerning the chain of evidence of CE 399. This is why he brought magnifying glasses and a computer scanner. I mean how else do you get that high quality of a reproduction? On a government copier? C'mon. In the second article, he [Hunt] says that for CE 399 he used the preservation photos at NARA. I mean that was probably better than a scan in this instance. But the point is he checked and said the photos covered the whole circumference of the bullet! So my point is correct. Hunt went to NARA. He saw all the necessary artifacts dealing with the chain of custody of CE 399. He exposed the chain as even a worse fraud than we thought. After all, how can someone be in receipt of evidence from an FBI agent before that FBI agent gets the evidence to give to him? Further, the photos which cover the entire surface area reveal no evidence of Todd's initials." <<<

DVP SAID:

Jim,

You said this in Part 7 of your Bugliosi review:

"[John] Hunt, on a Motel 6 budget, did what Bugliosi did not. He
photographed the bullet in sequential rotation. Therefore, the reader
can see its entire circumference." -- Jim DiEugenio

But that is incorrect. Hunt did not photograph the bullet himself. He
said he determined that Todd's initials were not on CE399 by way of
examining four of the preservation photos from NARA.

Elmer Todd's initials ARE on that bullet. Todd HIMSELF said he saw his
initials on it. And CE2011 proves that fact.

Question: Why would the FBI make up a lie about Todd seeing his
initials on the bullet, but the FBI then DIDN'T lie about the other
people who said they couldn't positively identify CE399 (Tomlinson,
Wright, and Johnsen)?

Is it because Todd was "one of their own", and he would go along with
the FBI's lies in this case? Or do you think Todd decided to tell that
lie ON HIS OWN, without any advice from "upstairs"?

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 25, 2010, 11:54:26 PM8/25/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=135&p=203583&#entry203583

>>> "How about these bullets??" <<<

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/HSCAExhibitF-294.jpg

Hi Bernice,

None of those test bullets in the photo above [HSCA Exhibit F-294]
performed the same journey that Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399
performed.

CE399 went through the bodies of two men before coming to rest in
Connally's thigh. None of those other bullets took that journey
through TWO human torsos.

And that's one of the reasons I laugh so hard whenever I hear Dr.
Cyril Wecht ramble on and on about how that exact photograph shown
above is PROOF that the Single-Bullet Theory is impossible.

Wecht actually uses the wrist test bullet (far right in the picture;
CE856) to suggest to the gullible masses that the SBT is an Arlen
Specter-created wet dream, even though Wecht KNOWS damn well that that
test bullet was shot DIRECTLY INTO THE WRIST OF A HUMAN CADAVER AT
FULL MUZZLE VELOCITY!

And that type of wrist test does not come close to mimicking the path
of CE399 through both Kennedy and Connally. Nor does that mushroomed
test bullet come close to replicating the SPEED at which CE399 struck
John Connally's right wrist, because CE399 probably struck JBC's wrist
at a speed of somewhere around only 1,000 feet per second.

But this test bullet below DOES demonstrate what a Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle bullet (similar to Oswald's) would look like after striking and
breaking a human wrist at a severely reduced muzzle velocity of 1,100
fps. And the bullet is just about as perfect as you can get (even less
damaged than CE399). This bullet pictured below is Dr. Martin
Fackler's test bullet, which he fired through a human wrist in 1992:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/FacklerSBTTestBullet.jpg

The Single-Bullet Theory is true, correct, right, and totally logical
(despite what Dr. Cyril H. Wecht of Pennsylvania has to say about it).

http://Bugliosi-Vs-Wecht.blogspot.com

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 26, 2010, 1:12:33 AM8/26/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=135&p=203592&#entry203592

I suppose Jim DiEugenio also endorses Cyril Wecht when Wecht
continually goes on TV and radio and tries to sell his bucket of anti-
SBT crappola to the world, armed with his ultra-silly argument about
test bullet CE856.

Do you think Cyril is correct when he claims that CE856 proves the SBT
is a fantasy, James D.?

Jimmy D. can't (or won't) see that JFK & JBC are reacting to their
bullet wounds at the exact same time in the gif clip below. No matter
how many times Jim D. and other anti-SBTers watch this clip, they will
never admit to themselves what they are obviously seeing--two men
being hit by the same bullet:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion2.gif

And take note of Jackie Kennedy's reactions in the above Z-Film clip
too. She kind of "springs" up in her seat and then puts both of her
hands on JFK's left arm. But Jackie only STARTS TO REACT (as she moves
her arms and her body toward JFK) AFTER Z226 or so.

But if we're to believe the HSCA's timing for the SBT, JFK was struck
by a bullet back at about Z190. But Jackie doesn't react and try to
aid her husband until after approximately Z226. Just a coincidence?
Did Jackie have a "delayed reaction" too?

In reality, Jackie Kennedy's reactions (and her reaching out with both
of her hands to aid her husband shortly after Z225) are reactions that
are perfectly consistent with a bullet striking President Kennedy at
around Z224. She is "reacting" at almost the exact same time as the
two victims.

IMO, Jackie's movements are somewhat difficult to explain and
reconcile if JFK had been struck as early as Z190 or so. She doesn't
move toward her injured husband until AFTER the men reappear from
behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

I suppose that could conceivably just be a coincidence (because we ARE
only talking about 1.86 seconds in real time--between Z190 and Z224),
but there's no question in my mind that Jackie Kennedy's movements and
reactions as she MOVES TOWARD JFK after Z225-Z226 are certainly not
INCONSISTENT with the SBT occurring at Z224.

In fact, the more I focus on JUST JACKIE in the above-linked Zapruder
Film clip, the more I think her reactions and movements fully buttress
the "Z224 SBT Hit" even more solidly than ever.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 27, 2010, 12:00:10 AM8/27/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=150&p=203628&#entry203628

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim DiEugenio,

You know the Single-Bullet Theory is true. You have no choice BUT to
know it's true.

Why?

Because you have EYES! You can SEE it happening--right here:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion2.gif

You see the SBT in that clip. You're just too stubborn to admit that
those men are reacting AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. Your Conspiracy-itis
will not permit you to say what you see in that clip.

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "You and VB say that LHO is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. But if you cannot explain steps 1-15 which I documented above, he is not and then you lose." <<<

This might come as a great shock to the all-knowing, all-seeing James
"ABO" DiEugenio -- but I don't have to play your silly games. I don't
have to PRETEND that ALL of the evidence was planted and/or faked. I
don't have to PRETEND I can't see JFK & JBC reacting at the same time
in the above Z-Film clip (and only a person with no eyes would be
unable to see that they are reacting in unison). When were yours
gouged from their sockets, Jim? Because that's the only excuse you've
got for not seeing the SBT in the above clip.

You, however, DO need to play your silly games. And that's because
somewhere along the road, you've convinced yourself that a double-
murderer name LHO was totally innocent of shooting anybody. (And only
a small percentage of all conspiracy theorists in the United States
are actually in your corner when it comes to believing that particular
fairy tale.)

You have no choice now but to pretend that all of the evidence is
faked...even though you cannot come within a country mile of proving
that ANY of it was.

Maybe you should lobby to get the JFK case re-opened by Congress
(again). Then we Americans can spend a few more million dollars to
prove what the WC and the HSCA already proved -- Lee Harvey Oswald
killed two people in 1963.

>>> "You will never find out what actually happened to JFK in that car because 1.) The FBI switched the bullets..." <<<

That's your delusion. Not mine. No bullet was switched. And you cannot
prove that any bullet was "switched" by the FBI, or by anybody else.
You're in Rod Serling land.

>>> "...and 2.) The military curtailed the autopsy which should have never been done by the guys who did it anyway." <<<

More unprovable CT garbage from Delusional DiEugenio. The autopsy was
not "curtailed" by the "military". RFK and Jackie wanted the procedure
to be completed as quickly as possible. And some things that would
normally be done at a regular autopsy (i.e., in an autopsy of a person
who wasn't the POTUS) were obviously not done during JFK's autopsy.
Nothing conspiratorial there at all. Unless you want to drag RFK and
JFK's widow down into your bottomless pit of co-conspirators.

>>> "Meanwhile, here is my gift to you [the YouTube video below] since you have tacitly admitted you cannot explain the incredible journey of CE 399." <<<

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=cGSYAYZjI5k

I like Jim Nabors' version better.

>>> "...you cannot explain the incredible journey of CE 399." <<<

Already have. Years ago. (See link below.)

Not to mention the fact that BOTH the WC and the HSCA have fully
explained the journey of CE399, and have endorsed it. Naturally,
having TWO official versions of the shooting that BOTH endorse this
"impossible dream" means absolutely zilch to James "ABO" DiEugenio.

THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF BULLET CE399:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683

>>> "JBC does not react until around frame 237." <<<

Yeah, sure Jim. All of this shoulder-flinching and hunching and mouth-
opening and grimacing and arm-raising by John B. Connally is all just
a great-big mirage. It's not really happening. I'm merely dreaming it.
Right, Jimbo? ....

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/110aZ224-Z225TogglingClip.gif

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 2:55:57 AM8/30/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=300&p=204056&#entry204056

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Four simple questions about the SBT: 1. What is the evidence of an exit through the throat?" <<<

DVP SAID:

For starters, there's the autopsy report, which states that the bullet
which entered JFK's upper back "made its exit through the anterior
surface of the neck." [WR; Page 543]

Naturally, Jim DiEugenio knows much more than the three autopsy
doctors who signed a report that said a bullet exited Kennedy's neck.
Right, Jimbo?

There's also the "pushed outward" clothing fibers on JFK's shirt.
This, too, was probably "faked" by the evil FBI later on. Right, Jim?
They probably pushed the fibers the OTHER WAY after receiving the
shirt in evidence, huh?

There's also the fact that NO BULLET at all was found in JFK's body,
indicating via just plain ol' garden-variety logic that the bullet
that went INTO a bullet hole in JFK's back must have COME OUT a
different bullet hole that we know existed in the same victim's
throat.

Plus there's the fact that the pleura and tip of the lung were
BRUISED, indicating that a high-speed bullet had passed very close to
these objects in JFK's body (without penetrating them). This, too,
indicates that the bullet passed clean through the body.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

>>> "2. What is the evidence that the bullet in the back was a through and through wound?" <<<

See my list above.

But, mainly, it can be LOGICALLY determined that one bullet passed
through JFK's body by the fact that NO BULLET was found in his body.
And, furthermore, there certainly was not nearly enough trauma done to
the neck/back regions of JFK's body to endorse the kind of loopy "Two
Bullets Entered Kennedy And Neither Bullet Exited" theory that most
conspiracy theorists tend to advocate. That theory couldn't be any
sillier.

You really want to believe, Jim, that TWO separate bullets entered JFK
(one from the back and one from the front), with NEITHER bullet then
exiting the other side of his body? What kind of low-powered crappy
weapons were the assassins using on November 22, Jim -- water pistols?

And then, on top of that miracle of BOTH bullets just stopping dead
inside JFK's back and neck, the conspiracy theorists have treated us
to a SECOND "Two Bullets" miracle, to boot -- with BOTH of those
bullets then vanishing off the face of the globe immediately (or very
soon after the assassination anyway), because no bullets connected
with President Kennedy's wounds were discovered at Parkland and no
bullets (other than the very tiny fragments removed from JFK's head)
were discovered at Bethesda either.

Where's YOUR logic, Jim D.? Did you leave it on the Grassy Knoll,
right next to the killer's deadly water pistol?

>>> "3. Why is the alleged exit on the throat smaller than the alleged entrance on the back?" <<<

This has been explained a million times in the past, including this
explanation by Dr. Malcolm Perry (whose incorrect initial observation
about the throat wound being one of probable "entry" is the main
reason for CTers continuing this charade about the throat wound):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone,
could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either."

Perry also said this in his Warren Commission testimony:

"A full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through skin
would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound and with
the facts which you have made available and with these assumptions, I
believe that it was an exit wound."

>>> "4. Why, as Dr. Shaw stated, were there no cloth fibers carried into JBC's back wound, and not even any cloth impressions were on the bullet that was finally entered into evidence. (Which differs from the one found at Parkland.)" <<<

CE399 probably should have been examined in greater detail for things
like fibers, blood, and human tissue. But, as far as I am aware, no
such tests were performed on Bullet CE399 to determine definitively
whether or not any of those things might have adhered to the bullet.

And why would any "cloth impressions" necessarily have to be on CE399
at all? Does every bullet in history that has touched a "cloth"
substance necessarily have such "impressions" adhering to the missile
after it has been recovered?

Plus: Since we know that CE399 was being handled rather casually on
Nov. 22 by people like O.P. Wright and Richard Johnsen of the Secret
Service (with the bullet being placed into the pockets of these men),
then any material that might have been on the bullet could conceivably
have been wiped off accidentally when the bullet was being transported
in such a manner. Don't you agree, Jim? Or isn't that even a
possibility in your "All Conspiracy" world?

And now, a few questions for Jim DiEugenio:

1.) If the SBT is a fairy tale, then why did BOTH the Warren
Commission and the HSCA endorse the SBT as the truth in their
respective investigations into JFK's murder? (Was the HSCA part of the
"SBT" cover-up too--in 1978?!)

2.) If the SBT is incorrect and if CE399 could not possibly have
emerged in its current condition after breaking the hard wrist bone of
Governor Connally....then please explain how Martin Fackler's 1992
Mannlicher-Carcano test bullet ended up in even BETTER shape than
CE399 after striking and breaking a human wrist at a reduced muzzle
velocity of 1100fps?

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/FacklerSBTTestBullet.jpg

3.) If the SBT is wrong and if CE399 is really a bullet that didn't
hit anything except maybe a tank of water or some cotton on 11/22/63,
then where did the TWO bullets go that went into (but did not exit)
the upper back and throat of President John F.Kennedy?

And, really, you need to explain where at least THREE different
bullets went, counting the separate bullet that you must certainly
believe struck John Connally.

And it's FOUR magical vanishing missiles if you're in bed with James
H. Fetzer, because the last time I heard Prof. Fetzer talk about this
topic, he had Connally being hit by TWO separate bullets, plus the TWO
separate bullets that he thinks hit JFK in the upper back and throat.

Good luck sweeping all of those bullets under the carpet, Jim D.

4.) If the SBT is a piece-of-shit theory that nobody but an idiot
would ever endorse (and I remind Jim of my #1 item above, which would
make ALL of the WC and HSCA, as units, qualify as "idiots" too), then
why is it that in virtually every scientific test and/or re-creation
of the SBT that has been done over the years, the Single-Bullet Theory
has come out looking pretty good.

For example: There's the computer simulation done by Failure Analysis
Associates in the 1980s (and broadcast on PBS-TV's "NOVA" program,
"Who Shot President Kennedy?").

And there is Dale Myers' excellent animation work, "Secrets Of A
Homicide".

And there's also the 2004 SBT test done in Australia for the Discovery
Channel ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"). That 2004 test didn't result in
an absolutely perfect re-creation of the SBT, but the general path of
the bullet certainly mirrored what CE399 was said to have done in
Dallas, and the test bullet was IN ONE PIECE and not broken apart at
all after the test. It was flattened more than CE399, but this could
have easily been caused by the fact that the test bullet struck one
more rib in the surrogate "Connally" body than did the real CE399 in
Dallas.

But if the Single-Bullet Theory is REALLY just a wet dream of lone-
assassin believers and is a total fantasy that was invented out of the
blue sky by the Warren Commission, then doesn't it strike ANY
conspiracy theorist as just a little bit strange, in just a general
kind of way, to have all of these tests (particularly the 2004 "Beyond
The Magic Bullet" test that was done with an actual Carcano rifle and
bullet like Oswald's) pretty much BUTTRESSING the likelihood of the
SBT being true?

In other words -- Did the "real killers" in Dealey Plaza actually get
THAT CLOSE (and THAT LUCKY) to mimicking the Single-Bullet Theory when
they shot multiple bullets from different directions at President
Kennedy, so that a variety of tests that were done DECADES later would
indicate that the SBT is very likely a true scenario after all (even
though it really ISN'T true at all, according to conspiracy
theorists)?

If the following observation isn't food for SBT thought, then I don't
know what is:

Man, those real killers sure got lucky by having their TWO or
THREE (or even FOUR) bullets that hit Kennedy and Connally create
wounds on both of the victims that appear to look as though the wounds
could have all been caused by just ONE single bullet. Not to mention
the additional incredible luck of the multiple assassins to have fired
their bullets into JFK and JBC at a time so that the MULTIPLE shots
that were pelting the two victims appeared to be striking the two men
at the EXACT SAME TIME, via the two victims' reactions that can be
seen in the amateur home movie taken by Abraham Zapruder.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion.gif

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 4:51:26 AM8/30/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=315&p=204089&#entry204089

JIM "MEGA A.B.O. KOOK" DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "After we have spent days on this, and produced reams of evidence, you still are in denial. It was not found on JBC's gurney. And CE 399 was not the bullet that Tomlinson and Wright found. And they have testified to that. And the FBI told Tomlinson to be quiet about it." <<<

DVP SAID:

When did Tomlinson ever "testify" that CE399 is not the bullet he
found? You're making this crap up on the fly.

And when did OP Wright ever "testify" that CE399 is not the bullet he
saw on 11/22? You're making (more) stuff up.

In light of all this stuff you think proves 399 was a hoax....why did
the HSCA endorse CE399 as THE SBT BULLET, James? Just...why?

>>> "OK, end of story." <<<

Yep. End of story alright. CE399, a bullet FROM THE ASSASSIN'S GUN, is
found IN THE HOSPITAL where the victims were taken.

Pretty basic math there, Jimbo. Except if you're in the two goofball
clubs that DiEugenio is President of -- ABO and EIF (Everything Is
Fake). You know what ABO is by now, of course.

BTW, you don't actually think that I accept ANYTHING you say about
this case, do you Jim?

You can't be THAT naive, can you Jimbo? I'd sooner believe that the
moon is made out of Silly Putty.

You've relied on (90%) other conspiracy theorists for your non-stop
tripe and ABO crap regarding the JFK case--all the while TOTALLY
IGNORING both the Warren Commission AND the HSCA's findings.

Go put on that red nose and rouge yourself, Jimbo. You're better-
suited for that clown outfit than I am. After all, you're an Anybody-
But-Oswald CTer who lives in fantasy land 24/7.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 5:53:18 AM8/30/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=330&p=204103&#entry204103

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "For as Nichols and Mantik have shown, the cervical verterbra had to have been struck! And Mantik proved this with x-rays." <<<

DAVID V.P. SAID:

Oh, sure, Jimbo. I'm going to drop the three autopsists' conclusions
like a hot potato just because Dr. David W. Mantik says something
different. You're in dream land again.

Quoting from Dr. James Humes' Warren Commission testimony in 1964
(which is testimony that Jim "ABO/EIF" DiEugenio undoubtedly thinks is
nothing but another lie in a non-stop series of lies coming from the
lips of people in officialdom connected with the JFK case):

"This missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck
no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it traversed
the President's body." -- Dr. James Humes

So, I'm supposed to toss Humes under the wheels of the White House
Press Bus and endorse David Mantik's opinions instead, right Jim?

Thanks. But, no thanks.

Even Dr. Cyril H. Wecht (who is a first-string quarterback on your own
conspiracy team) has ALWAYS said that the bullet passed clean through
JFK, with Wecht saying that the bullet did not strike any bony objects
in JFK's body.

http://www.box.net/shared/l32qdwygw8

http://www.box.net/shared/k0rmz9qx8k

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 1, 2010, 4:40:28 AM9/1/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450

I've gone back through this whole thread [linked above] and have
compiled the following list of "Really Stupid Things" that James
DiEugenio has said in this thread, which is a thread that probably
should be renamed: "A Wild Imagination Come To Life".

Some of these allegations are so incredibly bizarre and goofy, that
DiEugenio should be embarrassed to write them down. But, of course,
he's not embarrassed in the least. And DiEugenio's bald-faced lies
about Ruth Paine border on slander. Jim is truly pathetic. He sees
(and finds) conspiracy and cover-up everywhere.

It's no wonder Vincent Bugliosi decided not to address all of these
idiotic issues that Jim "Anybody But Oswald" DiEugenio has raised in
this thread. Most of these things are so ridiculous and outlandish
that even most conspiracy theorists don't buy them (the "CIA" rumors
concerning Ruth Paine to name a prime example).

Let's now take an inventory of some (but certainly not all) of the
really stupid things uttered by James DiEugenio in this Education
Forum thread (aka: a "Boxed Set Of Balderdash And Bullshit"), which
are quoted passages coming from the lips of a person, keep in mind,
who actually believes President Kennedy's and J.D. Tippit's murderer--
Lee Harvey Oswald--was TOTALLY INNOCENT of shooting either one of
those men on November 22, 1963. That type of foundational delusional
belief is important to note right up front, prior to posting a list of
silliness like the one I have presented below:

JIM DiEUGENIO: "Let us not forget that Ruth Paine was a major witness
for him [Vincent Bugliosi] at that phony London trial he talks up so
much. .... They [Ruth and Michael Paine] were actually spies. And they
may have been spying on Oswald. ....

"VB [Vince Bugliosi] dismissed as "slim pickings" absolutely essential
evidence that paints the Paines not as the Good Samaritans they try
and come off as, but as domestic surveillance agents. Again, as I have
shown, he had to have known better. .... When she [Ruth Paine]
separated Marina from Lee, was she not just coming down from a visit
to her sister in Falls Church, which adjoins Langley? ....

"I produced a list of 18 items of provable evidence demonstrating to
any objective person that the Paines were domestic surveillance
agents. It's your problem if you want to deny that for political
purposes. To say Michael [Paine] was peripheral is to ignore his role
in the Minox camera caper. Which you do. If you want to also forget
about Ruth's near confession, well hey, some people live in
denial. ....

"In fact her role was so obvious in separating Marina from Lee and
producing dubious exhibits that the Secret Service decided to pull
Marina from her because it was clear Ruth was CIA. Clear to everyone
except DVP. That's quite [a] lot of evidence to be oblivious to,
Davey."

DVP INTERJECTION: Big LOL. Oh, sure, Jimbo. I'm the ONLY person on the
planet who thinks that Ruth Paine was not a "domestic surveillance
agent" for the CIA. Right, Jim? You're delusional (again).

JIM D.: "Another person who DVP props up as an objective authority on
this case is Gary Mack/Larry Dunkel. In fact, today he [DVP] serves as
a funnel for the Fable Guy to drop information, some would say
disinformation, at this forum."

DVP: Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack, of course, is one of the
most knowledgeable and courteous and forthright JFK researchers who
has ever lived. I suspect the reason DiEugenio enjoys verbally bashing
Gary over the head continuously is because Gary dares to speak the
truth about Lee Harvey Oswald being a double-murderer (gasp!). That
kind of belief, of course, is taboo amongst the Anybody-But-Oswald
conspiracy mongers like Jimbo.

For the record, Gary Mack told me this via e-mail recently:

"Just to confirm, as we've discussed before, I still believe the HSCA
acoustics finding of two gunmen was correct and that Badge Man appears
to be a gunman. They are my personal theories, which of course I leave
at home and do not allow them to influence my historical work for The
Sixth Floor Museum." -- Gary Mack; Via e-mail message to David Von
Pein on August 21, 2010

JIM D.: "There are books you read on this case where, afterwards, you
feel like a better human being or more empowered, e.g., JFK and the
Unspeakable, Spy Saga."

JIM D.: "[Jean] Davison is such a lousy researcher, she doesn't know
she is trapped. .... Unless you stop hiding behind Davison's crummy
book and address these facts, we will all know who the idiot is. ....

When you can't answer relevant questions and rely on someone as bereft

as Jean Davison, you are lost."

JIM D.: "Davey, did you forget what Wesley [Liebeler] told Sylvia
[Odio]? The most honest thing any WC guy ever said: [Earl] Warren said
that any trace of conspiracy was to be covered up. Just wanted to
remind you in case you forgot."

JIM D.: "The evidence and testimony indicates that [FBI Director J.
Edgar] Hoover fabricated the June 12 report in order to pacify the
Commission's fears about the provenance of CE 399."

JIM D.: "[Robert] Frazier composed a document entitled "History of
Evidence". On the top line he wrote that he received the bullet from
[Elmer] Todd at 7:30 PM. And Frazier wrote another document. It was
called "Laboratory Work Sheet". This also certifies that he got the
bullet from Todd at 7:30. It describes it as "Bullet from
Stretcher". .... Todd wrote down the time as 8:50 PM. Question for the
Prosecutor: How could Todd have given CE 399 to Frazier before he got
it from Rowley?"

DVP: A big problem here with DiEugenio's theory about the stretcher
bullet is this: The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which fired Bullet CE399
was not yet in the possession of the FBI in Washington as of EITHER
ONE of the two times noted in the official reports (7:30 PM EST or
8:50 PM EST).

Oswald's Carcano rifle, which was positively the gun that fired CE399,
was still in Dallas, Texas, at 7:30 and 8:50 EST. Therefore, the CE399
bullet that Robert A. Frazier marked with his initials could not
possibly have been a "substitute" bullet that was fired through
Oswald's rifle by the FBI at some point before it was received into
evidence by Frazier. And that's because the FBI simply did not have
the rifle in its possession until approximately 11:45 PM CST on Friday
night, November 22 (12:45 AM EST on Saturday morning).

And the rifle actually didn't arrive in Washington, D.C., until a few
hours after midnight. Obviously, it had to be flown to Washington from
Dallas and then transported to the FBI's lab in Washington, all of
which took considerable additional time too, of course.

So, does Jim DiEugenio think the FBI in Washington had possession of
Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle at some time PRIOR to 11:45 PM CST on
Friday? Because if they didn't have possession of that gun at an
earlier time, then how could Robert Frazier have taken possession (and
marked with his initials) a "fake" or "substitute" bullet that was
fired BY THE FBI in that exact rifle PRIOR to 11:45 PM on Friday?

Or, as an alternative, I suppose DiEugenio could always say that the
FBI's Robert Frazier was a liar too, with Frazier only pretending to
receive (and mark) CE399 at a time that was much earlier than when the
FBI gained possession of Oswald's rifle.

But if Frazier and the FBI as a whole were liars about the entire
CE399 affair -- then why didn't they merely fudge the paperwork to
eliminate the time discrepancy regarding the stretcher bullet?

Silly plotters indeed. But Jim DiEugenio is even sillier to believe
the cloak-and-dagger nonsense he says he believes concerning the FBI
and Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399.

JIM D.: "In Part 1 of this [Bugliosi book review] series I showed
beyond a reasonable doubt that the FBI switched the bullets in the
Gen. Walker case in order to incriminate Oswald in that shooting
attempt. It is now shown--also beyond a reasonable doubt--that the
Bureau pulled a similar trick with CE 399. Either the bullet was
switched or a second bullet was made to disappear."

DVP: DiEugenio's delusional gene is on full display once again here.
Just because General Edwin A. Walker said that CE573 did not look like
the bullet that was recovered from his Dallas home in April 1963, Jim
DiEugenio thinks that is ironclad PROOF that CE573 is yet another
bullet that was "switched" by the evil FBI in order to railroad poor,
innocent Lee Oswald in another murder attempt.

DiEugenio must, therefore, overcome this FBI report, which is an FBI
report that is part of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011 [at 24 H
414]. The report says the following:

"On June 12, 1964, Exhibit C148, a mutilated rifle slug, was shown to
Billy Gene Norvell, former Dallas police officer, 1603 Darr Street,
Apartment 147, Irving, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum,
Federal Bureau of Investigation. He identified this exhibit as the
same one which he had found at the residence of Major General Edwin A.
Walker, Dallas, Texas, on April 10, 1963, and identified his marking
on this slug."

DiEugenio very likely believes that Norvell's identification of CE573
(aka C148) is just another one of the thousands of lies told by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, right Jimbo? And when Norvell said he
IDENTIFIED HIS OWN INITIALS on Walker bullet CE573/C148, that was yet
another bald-faced lie, right Jimmy D.?

JIM D.: "Here is another howler by VB. In his End Notes, in a footnote
on page 426, note how he addresses the whole "which stretcher was the
bullet found on[?]" issue, an issue of profound and overarching
implications in its importance. This is how he addresses that issue:
"a stretcher whose origin remains a little vague". I kid you not.
Check it yourself. This is one of the most ridiculous phrases in the
whole book. For after a long and illustrated analysis, Tink Thompson
wrote in SSD ["Six Seconds In Dallas"] that the weight of the evidence
indicates that the bullet was not found on either JFK's gurney or
JBC's, but on a little boy's named Ron Fuller."

DVP: Vince Bugliosi's handling of the stretcher issue is not
"ridiculous" at all, Jim. His analysis of this issue is based on
common sense and logic. Vince knows about the confusion surrounding
the stretchers (via Darrell Tomlinson's testimony). But Vince also
knows that Tomlinson told the Warren Commission over and over again
that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he had taken off of
the elevator at Parkland on 11/22/63.

But Tomlinson's WC testimony means zilch to a person like Jim
DiEugenio, however. Because Jim thinks Arlen Specter was literally
putting words in Darrell Tomlinson's mouth here. But it's testimony
that is in the official record nonetheless, whether Mr. ABO/DiEugenio
likes it or not:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--
I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath
which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man
which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the
elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for
sure, I really don't remember." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off."

http://history-matte..._Vol6_0071b.htm

JIM D.: "On page 51 of the ["Reclaiming History"] End Notes, VB says
that even if T. F. Bewley [sic; Bowley] was right about the time of
Tippit being killed as 1:10 or earlier, it does not matter, since we
know LHO killed him. Now if you know the evidence in the Tippit
shooting, what Bugliosi is saying is that Oswald killed Tippit even if
he wasn't there!"

DVP: Bugliosi's statement about T.F. Bowley's obviously inaccurate
1:10 time for the Tippit murder is perfectly reasonable and
correct....and that's because all REASONABLE people know that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Officer J.D. Tippit. My gosh, Oswald's guilt in
the Tippit killing is even more obvious and definitive than is LHO's
guilt in the murder of JFK, which is also pretty obvious from the sum
total of the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions that day.

Once again, Mr. Bugliosi was using common sense and the totality of
the evidence against Oswald when Vince said what he said about Bowley
on Page 51 of the "RH" endnotes.

And, like always, Jim DiEugenio refuses to activate his "common sense"
gene. Jim, instead, prefers to swim in a river of fragmented and
piecemeal guesswork, speculation, rumors, and unconfirmed timelines
when it comes to solving the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D.
Tippit.

JIM D.: "Almost pathetic. I take it back. It is pathetic. He [Chief
Justice Earl Warren] wants to snuff out any other investigation for
his own, which is essentially in his vision's, the FBI's. He does not
want to run the risk of say, a Rose Cheramie testifying in public
hearings. But if that happened, they would do all they could to
discredit her and protect the public from the uncomfortable and
unsettling thought that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. In other
words, they would play the defense attorney for any possible plotters.
A truly unbelievable performance by a guy who is supposed to be
protecting the fairness and sanctity of the judicial process."

DVP: Yeah, sure, Jim. Sure. DiEugenio acts as though NOBODY at all
testified in front of the Warren Commission who believed that a
conspiracy existed in JFK's murder (or gave testimony that had a
"conspiracy" ring to it).

Jim wants to conveniently forget about witnesses like S.M. Holland,
and Roger Craig, and Arnold Rowland, and Jean Hill, and Mark Lane, and
Nellie Connally, and Roy Kellerman, and Dean Andrews, and Wilma Tice,
and Clyde Haygood, and Clint Hill, and Lee Bowers (who was really not
a "conspiracy" type witness at all, of course, but CTers think he
was).

Plus there were many other witnesses I didn't mention above who gave
testimony or statements to the Warren Commission that pointed in the
general direction of conspiracy (or at least toward the direction of
PERCEIVED conspiracy).

JIM D.: "As per the record of the DPD, yes not all the evidence was
secured by them. But some hotly disputed evidence was: the Tippit
ballistics in which the chain of possession was broken wide open in
each aspect; the five bullets "found" on Oswald after he was fast
frisked and nothing was there; the phony lineups which even witnesses
complained about; the confusion about which rifle was actually found
at the TSBD and where it was found; the print that did not exist in
Washington but miraculously appeared back in Dallas, etc. This record
dovetails with the exposed history of the Dallas Police. Which VB
NEVER mentions."

DVP: Talk about a laundry list of conspiracy-flavored garbage -- the
above list is it. All of those things that DiEugenio apparently thinks
are legitimate reasons to believe in a conspiracy were answered a long
time ago in non-conspiratorial ways. (Except maybe the silly "fast
frisk" business, which I don't think I had even heard about until
recently. But it's obviously totally unimportant, because not even
cops who WERE trying to frame Oswald would have any desire to plant
some additional revolver bullets in his pocket. The police already had
taken the murder weapon out of the killer's very own hands just 35
minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed. Why would there be a need to
plant some superfluous bullets on the killer? It's just plain silly.
But not to an "Anybody But Oswald" club member like James DiEugenio.)

JIM D.: "[J. Edgar] Hoover...covered up the Odio evidence from the
start to the finish. .... The FBI cover-up started by the end of the
first day. .... Hoover falsified the documents. .... Hoover
substituted CE 399 for the actual bullet that was found by Tomlinson
and Wright. He had to do that when the DPD decided on the Carcano as
the rifle. (After considering first the Enfield and the Mauser.) It
was that substitution that allowed Specter and Humes to arrange the
Single Bullet Fantasy. ....

"Clearly, Hoover was having problems selling CE 399 to the Commission
as part of the Single Bullet Fantasy. So what he tried to do in this
memo [CE2011] was to trace back the chain of transfer of the
exhibit. .... In this same document, on the same page, it is said that
this bullet was shown to Tomlinson and Wright at Parkland. Wright was
not sure and Tomlinson said it appeared to be the same projectile. But
Hoover screwed up here. He named the agent who showed them the bullet.
When Gary Aguilar and Tink Thompson visited FBI agent Bardwell Odum in
2001, this was exposed as a lie. Odum did no such thing. So this
incident was manufactured by Hoover since he knew that the two Secret
Service agents had broken the chain. .... Recall what Hoover did with
CE 2011--he lied twice about CE 399 in it."

DVP: Jim's got his "delusional" hat on again, I see. DiEugenio cannot
prove that a single document was "falsified" by FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover, but that won't stop Jimbo from accusing Hoover of such vile
tactics.

But we must all keep in mind one of the simple, basic rules about
being a JFK conspiracy theorist -- If the theorist alleges that
something has been "proven" (such as when DiEugenio boldly proclaims
as the Gospel truth that "Hoover falsified the documents"), then it
definitely HAS been "proven" in the mind of the conspiracy theorist.
(Even though, in reality, the theorist hasn't "proven" any such thing,
of course.)

Vincent Bugliosi said it quite nicely when he said this in his 2007
JFK book:

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything
perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB; Page xliii

JIM D.: "This is almost funny [Jim "ABO" DiEugenio is referring here
to James Hosty's testimony at the 1986 TV trial in London, "On Trial:
Lee Harvey Oswald"]. .... This is almost as funny as the Wesley
Frazier appearance. Keep them coming Dave. You are demonstrating what
a farce this whole thing [the '86 docu-trial] was."

DVP: Take note of how DiEugenio subtly alleges that Buell Wesley
Frazier was telling lies when he testified at that same 1986 TV trial
in London. DiEugenio has no choice but to believe Frazier was telling
some lies HERE, because Jimbo doesn't think Lee Oswald carried any
large paper bag into the TSBD at all on the morning of 11/22/63.

That's the type of delusional mindset we're dealing with when we deal
with James DiEugenio. We're actually dealing with a person who thinks
BOTH Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle were lying when they
each said (over and over again, especially Frazier, who was
interviewed many times after the assassination) that they saw Oswald
carrying a big paper package on November 22nd.

JIM D.: "The CE 399 at NARA never went anywhere. And John Hunt, among
others, proved it. So please stop with these WC lies. .... CE 399 has
already been exposed as a fraud. And the FBI knew it was fraud the day
it happened. And we can prove that also."

JIM D.: "So from the beginning, with its reverse trajectory out of the
thigh of JBC, to its incredible tunneling under a mat, to its leaping
out of Ron Fuller's stretcher and magically knowing it has to be on
JBC's, to its shocking ability to alter its form and color, and then
to actually crack the time barrier and be in Frazier's office before
Todd gives it to him, the Impossible Journey of CE 399 is even more
magical than anyone ever could imagine. Except maybe Dave Von
Pein. .... The CE 399 we know was not found at Parkland. And that ends
this argument."

DVP: It's the end of the CE399 argument for DiEugenio, even though the
HSCA, just like the Warren Commission did, said that that exact bullet
(CE399) was THE bullet that caused all seven (non-fatal) wounds to
John Kennedy and John Connally in Dealey Plaza.

The fact that BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House Select
Committee endorsed THAT EXACT BULLET (CE399) as being the "Single-
Bullet Theory" bullet (and endorsed the SBT as being true as well)
means nothing to Jimbo DiEugenio. Nothing at all. Go figure. The HSCA
got it ALL WRONG too.

So, according to conspiracists like Jim D., the Government must have
been filled with nothing but boobs and idiots and liars when it came
to CE399, the SBT, and the assassination of President Kennedy. In both
1964 AND in 1978, too. Amazing.

JIM D.: "It's not my job to come up with an "alternative theory" [to
the SBT], Davey. I'm the defense."

DVP: I feel your pain, Jimmy. Coming up with a believable and
reasonable conspiracy-endorsing alternative to the WC's single-bullet
conclusion is something that simply cannot be done. And that's mainly
because the SBT is obviously the truth. And when you try to dismantle
the truth and replace it with some kind of half-baked, incoherent
"alternative theory" (such as the "TWO BULLETS WENT INTO JFK AND NEVER
EXITED AND THEN DISAPPEARED" claptrap), you're not likely to find the
alternative to be nearly as compelling (or reasonable) as the truth.

JIM D.: "The lengths that an inveterate VB/WC apologist will go to to
cover things up. They [Kennedy and Connally] are not reacting at the
same time. How could they be? CE 399 never existed. So they are hit by
separate bullets. Kennedy is reacting before he disappears behind the
sign. .... JBC does not react until around frame 237."

DVP: Truly hilarious. Especially when watching the following Zapruder
Film clip a few times, back-to-back, which clearly shows the two
victims reacting at exactly the same time (an instant after Z224).
Jimbo thinks John Connally's reactions prior to Z237 are merely a
mirage.

Or maybe Jimbo would like to blame J. Edgar Hoover for these JBC
reactions too. Edgar gets the blame for about everything else in this
case. Why not this too? Perhaps Hoover doctored the film to make it
falsely appear that Connally was reacting to being shot as early as
Z225, even though Jimbo says he cannot see JBC's obvious reactions
starting at Z225. Perhaps Jim has been watching a different film all
these years:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion.gif

JIM D.: "[Arlen] Specter knew he could get away with anything. He
didn't give a damn about probing for facts. .... So not only did the
WC not provide for any kind of equal justice for Oswald, they then
started with conclusions that they tried to, at times, ram down
witnesses' throats. To the point of browbeating them, harassing them,
threatening them, and rewriting their testimony."

DVP: Unbelievable. Do you think that Jimbo actually believes the total
crap he's written here (and elsewhere)?

Amazing.

JIM D.: "The SBT was a hoax that Specter and Humes knew they had to
have to make this fraud work and please their respective masters--the
Commission and the military. Since Specter knew it was all a fraud he
knew there would be no cross examination--which would have turned into
a humiliation of his goofy theory."

JIM D.: "But Specter was too concerned about keeping the medical and
ballistics cover-up intact and punching his own ticket."

JIM D.: "It [CE399] was not found on JBC's gurney. It was on Ron
Fuller's. And CE 399 was not the bullet that Tomlinson and Wright
found. And they have testified to that [DiEugenio is lying here;
Tomlinson and Wright never "testified" in any official fashion to any
such thing]. And the FBI told Tomlinson to be quiet about it."

JIM D.: "The SBF ["Single-Bullet Fantasy, per Delusional DiEugenio]
was never meant to be taken seriously. It was developed out of
expediency to solve a political problem. It is simply not feasible or
defensible. Ever. And if the WC had taken care to protect Oswald's
rights, it would have never survived any kind of true fact-finding or
adversary process. This is why the Commission was neither one. The SBF
is the sine qua non of the Commission. But it is a transparent
illusion in every aspect. Down to the fact that the bullet the WC says
was used in the flight path was not even fired in Dealey Plaza.
Because of this transparent illusion, the WC itself proves
conspiracy."

JIM D.: "The SBF is a made-to-order loser."

JIM D.: "This gets back to the function of the WC. In the real world
this is called "witness coaching". And as you can ask any lawyer, this
is outside the canon of legal ethics. But again Specter knew that
there was no judge or defense to call him on it. Therefore he could
get away with it. And with people like Dulles, Ford, and McCloy in
tow, hey why not do it?"

JIM D.: "[Dr. James] Humes was being used as a lying pawn by the
Justice Department to stem the rising tide against the WR."

JIM D.: "Everyone knows what happened to the HSCA. Originally created
as a populist response to the showing of the Zapruder film on national
TV, and a couple of other issues, it was derailed in Congress by
interference by lobbyists for the FBI and CIA. And I got that from the
the horse's mouth: Tom Downing, the first chairman. ....

"The other thing that happened is that once Sprague and Tanenbaum made
it clear they were going to conduct a no holds barred inquiry, the
media began to attack them fiercely. Sprague had announced he was
going to find out what Oswald was doing in Mexico City, that he was
going to do a real test of the SBF in public, that he wanted to know
why the Commission did not believe Sylvia Odio, he wanted all the CIA
files on Oswald's defection plus the military files on their false
defector program. And this was all to be done in public.

"Now with that kind of investigation, the fraud of CE 399 was not
going to last long. And so the MSM realized, "Hey we got to get this
guy before he humiliates us for swallowing this crap". And they
did. ....

"Once Blakey came in, this was mostly dropped. Or if it was done, it
was classified, like the Lopez Report. Or, as with Oswald and the
defector program, it was rewritten by others who Blakey handpicked to
stay behind to finish the report and edit the volumes. ....

"Now go ahead and find if there is any topic heading in the report
about the "Provenance of CE 399". There isn't. Blakey decided to stick
with the WC cover story about Oswald. Except it was slightly modified:
now it was Oswald plus some guy on the knoll who missed. (If you have
ever been there, which you probably have not, it is almost impossible
to believe that Oswald hit his shots, but the guy on the knoll missed.
BTW, I mean from the real point behind the fence, not Gary Mack's BS
point.)

"He then decided to spin his little conspiracy into an "Oswald Did it
for the Mob" hypothesis. Yeah, Trafficante and Marcello hired a guy
who couldn't hit a deer from 15 yards away and had him use a $12.97
piece of shit rifle with a manual bolt action. When these guys could
have hired some of the best professional hit men in America.

"That is what happened to the HSCA. Blakey was the perfect fit to
salvage an inquiry that the Powers That Be decided had gotten out of
control. And he put it back in MSM cover up land. With Mafia sex
appeal."

DVP: Jim is unraveling at a rapid pace. Somebody call The Delusional
Police, quick! Either that, or call the Funny Farm. Jim needs them
badly.

I'll close this post by repeating something I said earlier in this
Education Forum thread (which is just as true as ever):

"Bugliosi's book DOES answer all of the major, substantive, and
important questions regarding the JFK case. No doubt about that fact.
But if a person like Jim DiEugenio (who is bent on promoting the chaff
instead of the wheat regarding this murder case) gets ahold of a lone-
assassin book like "Reclaiming History", I'm not surprised at all that
he can find something in it (or omitted from it!) that he can use to

support his very strange "Anybody But Oswald" hobby." -- David Von
Pein; August 22, 2010

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 2, 2010, 12:01:54 AM9/2/10

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-stupid-piece-of-shit.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 4, 2010, 9:05:17 AM9/4/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=435&p=204682&#entry204682

>>> "I already explained why it should be footnoted. Like most other things you don't like, you ignore it." <<<

It is sourced, as I already told you twice. Source Note #36 covers
that quote on Page 957 of "Reclaiming History" that you have been
referring to. You, for some oddball reason, think every sentence needs
to be sourced separately. You're nuts, Jimmy.

>>> "Davey, did you miss all the stuff on Chicago?" <<<

No, I looked at your silliness regarding the Chicago plot--which is a
plot by Vallee that has NO CONNECTION whatsoever to Dallas.

But since you've got Garrison Disease, you think that Vallee/Chicago
is directly connected to Oswald/Dallas. Of course, there is no
connection--except in the minds of CT outer-fringe nuts like you.

>>> "It's incredible to me how with you guys, it's not enough to prove a lie..." <<<

When can I expect you to actually PROVE one of the "lies" you think
you've proved, Jim? In the year 2025 perhaps?

There's no proof that Bonnie Ray Williams lied. And there's no proof
Charles Givens lied.

Something that WASN'T said in an affidavit which WAS said to the
Warren Commission does not prove that someone lied.

You simply cannot evaluate evidence properly, Jimbo. And that fact
couldn't BE more obvious by the way you treat the "paper bag"
testimony of Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle. To believe BOTH of those
witnesses just MADE UP the bag is something that only a paranoid
Garrison supporter would even begin to think.

Congrats, Jimbo, you are that paranoid Garrison supporter.

>>> "He [Lee Oswald] wanted to go down on that elevator...he was going to eat lunch at that time, and...HE ASKED THEM TO SEND IT BACK UP." <<<

You're hilarious, Jimbo.

Of COURSE he himself (LHO) asked for the elevator to be sent back up.
So what? He obviously was preparing the attempted assassination in his
mind at that time around 11:50-11:55 AM CST on Friday.

He undoubtedly wanted the elevator sent back up for two reasons--

1.) He wanted to be able to lock the elevator on the 6th Floor so that
nobody else could use it. I.E., it was one less elevator that anyone
could use to surprise him on the sixth floor while LHO was in the act
of murdering the Chief Executive.

And (even more importantly in LHO's mind, IMO):

2.) Oswald wanted to freeze the elevator on the sixth floor so that
he, himself, could use it for his escape after shooting JFK.

Unfortunately for Oswald, nobody sent the elevator back up. Although
it's likely that even if an employee had sent it back up, it wouldn't
have remained locked and frozen on the sixth floor for very
long...because BR Williams would have likely used that elevator to go
from the 6th to the 5th floor after eating his lunch. So, Oswald's
"freezing the elevator" plan probably wouldn't have materialized the
way he wanted anyway. But Lee Harvey didn't count on BR Williams
eating his lunch on Floor #6.

It's just too bad Williams didn't hang around to watch the motorcade
from the sixth floor. If he had done so, President Kennedy would very
likely not have been killed in Dealey Plaza.

>>> "Givens' BS story makes no sense in light of their testimony. Why would LHO ask Givens to send the elevator back up if he was waiting for it even before Givens came up to get his cigarettes? You know why? Because it didn't happen." <<<

More hilarity from Jimbo "Everybody Lied" DiEugenio here.

Oswald's persistence in wanting an elevator sent back up to him makes
perfect sense from the point-of-view of OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN OF
PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

I.E., It makes perfect sense from the POV of a person who would want
an elevator to be sent back up to him on the Floor Of Death. As I
mentioned previously, Oswald wanted to use that very same elevator as
an escape route to get off of that sixth floor very quickly after
shooting JFK. What is so hard to believe about that type of mindset?

But, actually Jim, you've fallen on your own sword with the quote I
just cited above -- because, you're right about it not making any
sense from the standpoint and mindset of an INNOCENT OSWALD who wanted
to do nothing more than take that elevator downstairs to eat his lunch
with the other boys on the first floor.

Which is why we can know that Oswald had SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND with
respect to the elevators on November 22, 1963. He wanted to use the
elevator at a LATER time--like, say, just after he had fired some
Carcano rifle bullets into the body of the President.

But, as always, since conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio are part
of the "Everybody Was A Liar" fraternity, those CTers fail to evaluate
things from the POV of the assassin himself.

Obviously, Oswald had more on his mind at 11:55 AM on November 22nd
than merely riding the elevator downstairs to eat a cheese sandwich.
Which makes Oswald's DOUBLE PLEA for the elevator to be sent back up
to him on the sixth floor an action that is in perfect sync and
harmony with all of Lee Oswald's other actions and movements on
11/22/63.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 3:03:00 PM9/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15105&st=30&p=204860&#entry204860

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "There simply is no credible evidence that the throat wound was an exit for the back wound." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is plenty of evidence that indicates the throat wound was an
exit for the upper-back entry wound, with probably THE BIGGEST piece
of common-sense "evidence" for this being the fact that NO BULLETS at
all were found in JFK's whole body. Plus, there's the lack of any
substantial damage to Kennedy's upper-back and neck (except for some
bruising of the top of the right lung and the pleural cavity).

There's also the OUTWARD-pointing fibers on the front side of JFK's
shirt. And the previously-mentioned bruising of the lung and pleura
certainly indicate that the bullet which caused such bruising was
passing very swiftly by the lung and pleura.

In other words, if a bullet had completely STOPPED inside JFK's neck,
it's very likely that the bruises that were found inside JFK's back
and neck at his Bethesda autopsy would not have been there at all.

Hence, that bullet was travelling at a fairly high rate of speed as it
passed (but did not directly strike) the top of the lung and upper
pleural cavity.

And, to emphasize the obvious once again -- If one bullet did not pass
clean through President Kennedy's body, it means that TWO bullets must
have entered from opposite directions -- with one of those missiles
going into his throat from the front (and fired from where exactly,
btw? The conspiracy theorists don't usually say); while a second
bullet entered the President's upper back.

And NEITHER of these two bullets exited JFK's body! Why on Earth
didn't EITHER of these two bullets exit the other side of JFK's body?
Do conspiracists think the two bullets COLLIDED head-on inside
Kennedy's neck or something? (I'm surprised that some CTer hasn't
purported such an insane theory. But, to date, I don't think I've
heard that one theorized.)

It's simply not reasonable to think that TWO bullets would have
entered Kennedy's neck and back and then have both bullets stopping
dead in their tracks inside JFK's body. And then the bullets (which
should have been INSIDE Kennedy at the autopsy) just disappear. Silly
beyond all belief.

But what's not silly when all the evidence connected to JFK's wounds
is taken into consideration is the Single-Bullet Theory -- especially
when the perfectly logical and reasonable SBT is compared to the
absurd "Two Bullets" scenario I just laid out above.

In the final analysis, the only people who have a "Magic Bullet" in
the JFK murder case are the conspiracy believers. In fact, they don't
have just one Magic Missile -- they've got at least TWO. Those two
being the two bullets that "magically" went into Kennedy but didn't
exit, and then vanished.

I guess the shooters were firing spitwads at Kennedy through a plastic
drinking straw, which is why their hopelessly weak TWO bullets didn't
go into JFK's body more than a few inches on either side.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes about this topic, which
was uttered by a fellow LNer named "Bud" in 2006. When discussing the
SBT and the possible anti-SBT alternatives with some of the assorted
conspiracy nuts at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup, Bud said this:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-
deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble
him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

And most conspiracy theorists (such as Jim DiEugenio and many others)
actually have a THIRD "magic" bullet -- the one they say went into
Governor John Connally that was NOT Commission Exhibit No. 399 (or so
the conspiracy believers say). So there's yet another bullet that
vanishes off the planet after entering the body of a Dealey Plaza
victim.

The anti-SBT crowd is hopeless. They refuse to see the truth and
rationality of the Single-Bullet Theory....even after seeing the two
victims reacting to that bullet hitting them at the exact same time on
the Zapruder Film.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion.gif

0 new messages