Re: JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 151)

>>> "How stupid is it to believe Givens' subborned perjury? This stupid: LHO wants to come down for lunch, they send the elevator back up and he takes it down. He is seen downstairs at 11:50. But he suddenly goes back upstairs to work for three minutes and then comes back downstairs to eat again. This is the kind of nonsense you have to believe to enter the world of VB, Reclaiming History and Von Peinism." <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL. No, it isn't, Jimbo. What you have to believe in order to enter
the world of VB, RH, DVP, (and reality) is to believe what the sum
total of evidence in this case fully bears out --- Lee Oswald never
left the upper floors of the Book Depository after approximately 11:45
AM on 11/22/63 (until after he killed JFK at 12:30, that is).

He was not on the second floor casually eating lunch at 12:15 or
12:25. The witnesses, including Eddie Piper, who said they saw Oswald
downstairs at a time after approx. 11:45 were quite mistaken. He was
up on the sixth floor preparing his Sniper's Nest and unwrapping his
Carcano rifle and (possibly) preparing a place to hide his rifle
between book cartons near the stairway (the location of his clipboard
is, IMO, a clue that leads me to believe he had quite possibly
prepared that rifle-stashing nook between boxes in advance, which
wouldn't have required much work).

And then at 12:30, LHO got off three shots and killed JFK.

There was nothing super-spectacular about his shooting feat. Three
shots, all at a distance of 88 yards or less, with just one direct hit
on the target (JFK's head).

More Timeline Talk:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html

>>> "Davey, can I give you some advice? Please read Meagher's book. Then you would not get egg on your face so much." <<<

What for, Jim? Sylvia didn't prove conspiracy. She offered up the same
unprovable conjecture and "The Government Is Rotten" back-stabbing
guesswork that all other conspiracy theorists have offered up since
'63. She didn't uncover any other bullets that prove that Oswald
didn't act alone. She didn't find any hidden gunmen. And she didn't
prove that the Warren Commission lied their eyes out when they were
coming to their conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

Nobody to date has PROVEN the conspiracy in the JFK case that you, Jim
D., so desperately want to believe existed. And that's mainly due to
the undeniable FACT that no one has been able to actually prove that
some people got together and CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER TO MURDER
PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

You don't deny the truth in my last sentence above, do you Jim? Or
don't you think it's the slightest bit important to have ANY proof of
people CONSPIRING in order to prove that a CONSPIRACY existed to kill
JFK?

You think the physical evidence proves the conspiracy all by itself.
Of course, it does not. And the reason it doesn't come close to
proving the plot you're married to is because all of the physical
evidence points to Lee Oswald. To deny that fact is to deny that your
mother is female.

A little "Patsy" talk:

Do you, Jim (or any CTer), have any idea why the goofball plotters who
were supposedly framing Lee Oswald decided to let their patsy wander
around on the first floor eating lunch at 12:30, when he was supposed
to be UPSTAIRS on the sixth floor shooting at the President?

I guess they just didn't give a damn if their patsy gained for himself
an ironclad alibi or not, huh?

It's pretty obvious that those patsy plotters of yours couldn't be any
more brain-dead if they tried.

First, they go about the task of trying to "frame" Lee Harvey (or was
it just "Harvey"?) for JFK's murder MONTHS in advance, but then on
Game Day (11/22) those same patsy-framers decide it would be a great
idea to shoot Kennedy from TWO or THREE different locations (thereby
making sure that their one-patsy plot will collapse right away).

And then, to top that hunk of patsy-framing brilliance, the morons who
orchestrated this grandiose plot to pin it all on Oswald said to
themselves:

Oh, well, what the heck, let's not keep an eye on our boy Ozzie at all
today. We'll just let him wander loose on the first floor and just
hope that nobody notices the guy down there. Sound good to you,
Malcolm Wallace and Joe Milteer?

The 11/22 "Patsy Framers" definitely get the award for: Boobs of the
Year For 1963.

Of course, Jim, you realize WHY I can go off on a "patsy-framing"
tangent like the one above, don't you? It's because your stupid-
sounding Multi-Gun, Don't-Keep-An-Eye-On-Oswald patsy plot really is
stupid. And it's the kind of crackpot plot that NOBODY would have
dreamed up in a million years. Which is one of the main (common-sense)
reasons to know that nothing like that happened on November 22 in
Dallas.

But try telling that to Oliver Stone. He thinks Oswald WAS set up and
framed in just exactly the manner I described above -- i.e., Oswald
was being "set up" and "sheep-dipped" far in advance of November 22;
the conspirators employed THREE shooters and SIX gunshots to kill
Kennedy in Dealey Plaza (even though, of course, they know that their
patsy can't be in THREE SHOOTING LOCATIONS AT THE SAME TIME; plus,
there's the fact that Stone only has the "mechanics" on the sixth
floor with the "Acme" outfits and fake toolboxes planting THREE empty
cartridge cases below the "Oswald" window, which adds an additional
layer of craziness to their impossible-to-pull-off plot, because they
should have planted SIX bullet shells to match the total number of
shots fired); and Ollie Stone claims that Oswald (the one and only
"patsy") is located on the first floor of the TSBD when the
assassination that he was supposed to have committed took place, with
Oswald (per Stone) waiting by a phone "for a call that never comes".

LOL. I wonder why Oswald needed to wait by a telephone at 12:30? What
possible purpose would be served by having LHO do that? And, more
importantly, how did the conspirators actually get Oswald to BELIEVE
that he was serving a useful purpose by waiting for a phone call while
standing INSIDE THE BUILDING OF DEATH?

If Oliver Stone's plot were any more ridiculous and ludicrous, he
might have to hire Jim DiEugenio as a technical adviser (in addition
to hiring him as narrator for the dry-as-dust "Multimedia Essays" that
can be found on Disc #2 of the 2-Disc Special Edition DVD version of
Stone's 1991 movie, "JFK")....then Jimbo could have added in the
additional element of Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle making up the
"paper bag" story from whole cloth. (Stone, of course, decided to not
even mention the fact that Oswald carried a large bag into the TSBD on
Nov. 22. Think that was being totally truthful of Mr. Stone, Jim? ....
Oops. My fault. You don't think there was any large bag at all. So,
you and Ollie are right in sync on that fantasy.)

I wonder if Thomas Vallee would have been "framed" in the same inept
way that CT mongers think Oswald was?

Come to think of it -- yes -- some people have suggested that very
thing--with Vallee being "patsified" by other people who were going to
shoot JFK in Chicago with up to possibly FOUR guns (it was a FOUR-man
hit team that Abraham Bolden talked about, wasn't it?), while
attempting to dump all the blame of that multi-gun assassination
squarely in the lap of Mr. Vallee...right?

Brilliant.

Ma & Pa Kettle and Barney Rubble could have devised better "one-patsy"
assassination scenarios than the JFK conspiracy theorists have devised
over the last four decades.

I'm done for now, Jim. You can get back to bashing Bugliosi
incessantly now. I know how happy it makes you to wallow in your
unprovable conspiracy minutiae.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 11:55:47 PM9/6/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=495&p=204925&#entry204925

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Well, look what they did with the Altgens photo." <<<

DVP SAID:

Huh? What are you talking about, Jim?

Don't tell me you're implying that James Altgens' photo is a fake too?

BTW, speaking of the Altgens picture -- I noticed something in that
photo the other day that I had never noticed before (and that's
probably because most of the copies of that photograph have been
cropped on the left-hand side).

But in the version of the photo that is in the Warren Commission
volumes as CE203, take a look at the far left of the picture....you'll
see a man in a hat.

Now, knowing the conspiracy theorists' imaginations and their penchant
for placing Jack Ruby everywhere around Dallas where he needs to be in
order to be part of a conspiracy plot, I'll bet some CTers probably
think this man on the left side of CE203 is Mr. Ruby:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0304b.htm

Perhaps some conspiracists have already said they think the man
wearing the hat is Jack Ruby. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone
say it out loud (to date).

BTW, CE203 is the WC exhibit that Marguerite Oswald utilized in her
hilarious testimony in February 1964. She used that Altgens picture to
suggest that Lee Oswald was in the doorway and was being led out of
the building AT GUNPOINT by policeman J.D. Tippit as the assassination
was occurring out on Elm Street.

Marguerite, however, didn't think that the man who is really Billy
Lovelady was Oswald. She thought that another man was her son--the man
with his arms raised up to his face (as he shields his eyes from the
sun as he watches the President's car pass by). I guess Tippit had
Oswald in a "hands up" posture as he stuck the gun in his back. :)

Zany Marguerite also said that Marina and June Oswald can be seen in
the Altgens photo too, with Marina (along with Ruth Paine) being part
of the sinister plot to frame her son for the President's murder.

Marguerite also wanted Earl Warren to give HER the power to personally
subpoena witnesses of her own choosing.

(Is it any wonder that Lee Harvey turned out to be the kind of kook he
did? With a nutcase for a mother like the one he had, I'm surprised he
didn't snap even earlier than age 24.)

More Marguerite Musings:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marguerite-oswald.html

aeffects

unread,

Sep 7, 2010, 12:00:14 AM9/7/10

to

On Sep 6, 12:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

does your mother know what you do while you're away from that KFC
counter?

aeffects

unread,

Sep 7, 2010, 12:06:40 AM9/7/10

to

On Sep 6, 8:55 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<dipshit.... you're such a fool....>

Jimmy Di has royally kicked your ass at the Ed Forum.... whining on
this board shows exactly how desperate you are.... you aren't going to
convince anyone, nor are you going to get away with sliding lone nut
bullshit by this board..... carry on, T-R-O-L-L....

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Sep 7, 2010, 3:13:12 AM9/7/10

to

Von Pein is a cyborg...he sure needs to be deprogrammed, or
rewired...Laz

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 7, 2010, 3:27:15 PM9/7/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=525&p=205007&#entry205007

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "David, you're going down with the ship on this one, and making a big splash. The effect of Givens' lie was not to put Oswald on the sixth floor, it was to put Oswald on the sixth floor AFTER Shelley and Piper had seen him on the first floor." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nonsense, Pat.

Charles Givens' trip back up to the sixth floor doesn't put Oswald on
the sixth floor AFTER Eddie Piper's timeline at all. Piper said he
last saw Oswald at "just at 12" [6 H 383].

Givens said he last saw Oswald "about 5 minutes to 12" [6 H 351]. (I'm
guessing that CTers want to make David Belin out to be a liar and a
schemer by the fact that he seems to cut off Givens right after Givens
says "5 minutes to 12". I'm sure that some conspiracists think Belin
was stopping Givens from saying something like this: "...because it
was right before I saw Malcolm Wallace in the building; Wallace had a
rifle and some spent shells in his hand; as I was going back down in
the elevator, he told me that he needed to get back up to the sixth
floor to start planting a bunch of stuff; I really didn't understand
what Mac was talking about though, Mr. Belin, so I just came on back
down and ate my lunch.")

Bill Shelley said he last saw Oswald on Nov. 22 on the first floor "10
or 15 minutes before 12" [7 H 390].

But the Warren Commission and its counsel were smart enough to know
that ALL of these times for the various "Last Sightings Of Oswald" are
only approximate times. They are, of course, just guesses on the part
of the people who supplied the information -- from Givens, to Shelley,
to Piper, and all the other TSBD witnesses too.

At the time of their "I Saw Oswald" observations on November 22nd,
none of these people had any reason at all to take notice of the EXACT
time they saw another employee walking around the building. They were
later asked to reconstruct (as best they could) the timing of certain
events.

And the timing of seeing Oswald in the building is an event that was
undoubtedly so completely insignificant and unimportant to each one of
those witnesses at the time it was occurring that they had no way to
reconstruct with precision the times at which they saw Oswald.

It was, however, around lunchtime for these employees (around
noontime). So that fact ("lunch") helps out when it comes to the
times. But as some of the witnesses also said--they apparently broke
for lunch a little earlier than their normal time on November 22 (to
see the President).

But, overall, the "timing" issue is far from being exact. And, as I
said, the Warren Commission knew that this was the case in the first
place. They HAD to know it. They were asking a group of people to
search their memories for the time of an event (seeing Lee Harvey
Oswald) that meant absolutely NOTHING to each one of those people at
the time when it occurred.

And while Charles Givens' cigarette trip back up to the sixth floor
does, indeed, put Oswald on the sixth floor after Bill Shelley's
stated time of having last seen Oswald that day--we're still only
talking about a matter of about five minutes (in approximated time).

Givens could easily have been off in his time by 5 or 10 minutes.
Maybe more. We can never know for certain. And the same thing applies
to Eddie Piper and William Shelley and Bonnie Ray Williams and all the
rest of the TSBD witnesses.

But to think that a bunch of random estimated times supplied by the
Depository employees is enough to exonerate Lee Oswald for shooting
JFK is just not a reasonable position to take.

The bottom line is this -- We know that Lee Harvey Oswald was on an
upper floor of the TSBD at some point in time that was shortly before
12:00 noon on 11/22/63, because the four men in the elevator race
(Williams, Givens, Arce, and Lovelady) all corroborate that single
event -- Oswald being on an upper floor of the building at the time
when those four men were descending to the first floor FOR THEIR LUNCH
BREAK, WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY PRETTY CLOSE TO NOONTIME ON NOVEMBER 22.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 7, 2010, 4:11:30 PM9/7/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=525&p=205017&#entry205017

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "The WR claimed that GIVENS was the last one to see Oswald before the shooting, and they used this to insinuate Oswald never left the sixth floor, and was hiding out in the SN putting his rifle together while Williams ate his lunch. To do this, they simply pretended Givens had more credibility than Piper--which they KNEW to be untrue." <<<

DVP SAID:

Pat,

RE: Piper and Givens specifically:

Why didn't the WC have Givens testify AFTER Piper? If that had been
the case, then Piper's "just at 12" testimony would have been in the
record BEFORE the liar named Givens was called to testify.

Instead, Givens testified one hour and 20 minutes before Piper on
4/8/64.

That was a silly mistake, wasn't it, Pat, if Givens' "11:55" cigarette
story is nothing but a made-up lie?

If it had been the other way around--then Givens' made-up time of
"11:55" could have been pushed back a few minutes to about 12:05 or
12:10.

The fact that Givens testified BEFORE Piper is another indication that
nobody at the Warren Commission was coercing Givens into giving false
testimony.

Plus, as I mentioned before, the fact that Givens testified AFTER the
other "elevator" witnesses (Williams, Arce, and Lovelady) tells any
reasonable person that there was no need whatsoever to have Givens
make up any additional stories about seeing Oswald....because the WC
already had three guys who had previously testified to Oswald being on
an upper floor of the building around noontime.

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Now why did the WC use Givens subborned testimony? It's pretty obvious why. Because if they did not, there was no way in hell they could put LHO up on the upper floors at all! Period. End of ball game." <<<

This is total bullshit, Jim.

The Warren Commission already put Oswald on an upper floor of the
building BEFORE Givens ever said Word One to the WC.

The WC had the testimony of Williams, Arce, and Lovelady--all of whom
said they heard Oswald yelling down from the FIFTH OR SIXTH floor
shortly before 12:00.

Get a grip, Jim. I think you've been reading too many spy novels.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 7, 2010, 10:11:41 PM9/7/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=540&p=205062&#entry205062

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Pure Von Peinian manure. The only way it works is if ... 1.) You ignore what those three men [Williams, Arce, and Lovelady] said about LHO wanting to come down on the elevator." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo has Sylvia Meagher Disease here. He thinks that it's totally
impossible for Oswald to have been THE LIAR in this "elevator" regard.

After all, Oswald would never have had any reason to actually tell a
lie, would he Jim?

If the elevator had been stopped to allow Oswald to get on, then it's
fairly obvious as to what would have happened -- Oswald would have
ridden down to the first floor and then he would have taken the
elevator right back up to the sixth floor again.

Either that--or Oswald would have suddenly decided he wasn't quite
ready to go downstairs for lunch, and would have told the others to go
on down without him after all, and to close the gate on the elevator
after they got to the first floor.

Same result either way--Oswald would have been lying to his fellow
workers about really wanting to go downstairs to eat lunch. Except in
the first hypothetical example, it really would have been better for
Oswald's plans, because via that scenario, Oswald HIMSELF would have
ridden the elevator back up to the sixth floor (and he then would have
kept the gate open, to lock it on Floor #6).

Yes, Oswald could have utilized that very same plan when Charles
Givens went back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes. He could
have ridden down with Charlie and then taken the elevator right back
up to the sixth floor. But he didn't do it that way, opting instead to
have Givens send the elevator back up (which Givens was unable to do,
because when he got to the first floor, the elevator that had the
capability of being sent back up by itself was not on the first
floor).

The exact thoughts that were going through Oswald's head regarding the
TSBD elevators can never be known for certain. But one thing IS a
certainty -- Lee Oswald definitely was anxious to get that elevator
sent back up to him on the sixth floor. And the reason for that is
quite clear -- he wanted to freeze it on the Floor Of Death.

>>> "2.) You ignore the testimony of four witnesses who then put him [the saintly Mr. Oswald] downstairs." <<<

And you ignore Howard Brennan, who puts Oswald in the SN window with a
gun at 12:30.

Oh, that's right! Brennan never even attended a police lineup, did he?
Howard was Liar #12,244 in this plot, a plot which had every human in
Texas trying to frame poor hapless Lee Harvey.

>>> "3.) You ignore BR Williams and his testimony about being on the Sixth Floor alone at 12:20." <<<

Your Meagher Disease is showing through again, Jimbo.

The fact that Bonnie Ray didn't SEE Lee Oswald on the sixth floor
shortly before 12:30 is somehow proof that LHO was not up there at
all, eh Jim?

Think again.

>>> "DVP...has Terminal McAdams Disease and he didn't get the pills I sent him." <<<

You should have sent them via REA. I would have gotten them by now. :)

>>> "You and VB lost this Davey and the fact that you have to deliberately omit and distort key evidence proves it." <<<

You're the one distorting the sum total of the evidence, Jimbo my man.

The Warren Commission, however, had something that all conspiracy
mongers lack -- common sense.

And common sense (coupled with the physical evidence plus Oswald's own
"I'm Guilty!" actions on the day of the assassination) told the Warren
Commission that the timelines provided by certain TSBD witnesses were
never going to mesh together perfectly. How could they mesh together?
Nobody was staring at their watches to note the times they got a
glimpse at LHO on November 22nd.

Heck, if the timelines of the Oswald sightings by the TSBD witnesses
had been in perfect harmony with each other (in a way that allowed Lee
Oswald to be on the sixth floor at 12:30), without any discrepancies
between those witnesses, I can just hear what the reactions of the
conspiracy theorists would have been to that kind of "in harmony"
testimony:

The CTers would be griping that the witness testimony cannot possibly
be trusted because it's just TOO PAT AND PERFECT. Ergo, all of the
witnesses were liars.

That's not too far off from the way Jim D. approaches this case
anyway. Jimbo has got more liars in the JFK case than there are stars
in the heavens.

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 8, 2010, 3:18:24 AM9/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=555&p=205076&#entry205076

What a bunch of garbage (again) from DiEugenio [in Post #557 linked
above].

If there were, in fact, as many "C2766s" as the CT mongers claim,
there would be a stream of conspiracists coming forward with this
"Aha!" evidence. We'd have C2766 rifles up to our ears (or at least to
our knees).

FACT -- Not ONE C2766 MC 91/38 rifle has ever surfaced other than
Oswald's rifle (CE139).

CTers like DiEugenio can't even figure out that Oswald ordered C2766
from Klein's. Instead, Jimbo has to pretend, as usual, that ALL of the
paperwork linking Oswald to the rifle purchase has been faked. And
even the C2766 rifle has been faked according to Jimbo--by
"substituting" a C2766 rifle for Jimbo's imaginary C2766 rifle that
never existed in the first place.

And please take note of Liar #12,345 on DiEugenio's list of liars ---
it's the late Dr. John K. Lattimer. Jimbo thinks Lattimer lied to John
Canal in late April of 2004 in an e-mail.

The list of liars is literally endless in DiEugenio's delusional
world.

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

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=555&p=205091&#entry205091

DiEugenio has my weak bladder working overtime with his C2766
nonsense.

Jimbo actually thinks that with all of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of
JFK assassination "researchers" and buffs and amateur sleuths around
the whole world, that we'd have a hard time coming up with EVEN ONE
additional C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 rifle (if one exists--which
it doesn't and never did, of course).....even though Jimbo claims that
SOMEBODY DID JUST THAT when they "substituted" one "C2766" for another
one in 1963 to frame Oswald.

BTW, AFAIK, not only hasn't any other MC 91/38 "C2766" been unearthed
by anyone since 1963 (other than Lee Oswald's CE139), but there hasn't
been a single MC rifle with ANY duplicate serial number ever produced
by anybody -- whether the serial number was "C2766" or "F6709" or
"G541" or whatever number.

IOW--There's not a speck of proof (even with Sucher's comments in
CE2562) that ANY two MC rifles ever had the exact same serial number.

Of course, the whole idea of a "serial number" in the first place is
to make that item a UNIQUE one when compared to all others of its
kind. So, if Purvis is correct about there being possibly up to "40 or
50" MCs with C2766 on them, what the heck is the purpose of stamping
ANY gun with a "unique" number at all? You might as well just not
stamp any number on the things. It'd be worthless. Esp. for firearms--
i.e., an item that could potentially be involved in crimes that the
police would need to trace (such as on 11/22/63).

Anyway, I'm still waiting for some CTer anywhere to produce any two MC
rifles with the exact same serial number. And I don't care whether
it's C2766 or another number. Just show us that the Carcano factories
produced TWO rifles with the same identifying number. To date, no such
luck.

Plus -- Even if 100,000 additional C2766 MC rifles were discovered
tomorrow, it wouldn't make a bit of difference with respect to the
evidence in the JFK murder case.

How come?

Because it was OSWALD'S C2766 rifle that we know was the weapon that
fired the bullets that killed President Kennedy, "to the exclusion of
ALL OTHER WEAPONS", including ALL OTHER WEAPONS that conspiracy
theorists think have the serial number C2766 stamped on them. We KNOW
that--beyond all doubt. (Except if you're in CT-land with Mr. Jimbo.)

And please note "Lie #2" that DiEugenio is attaching to Dr. John
Lattimer--the "Thorburn" stuff.

Well, Jimbo, the Thorburn Position is not a "lie" at all. Lattimer
didn't just make it up. It's a reflex position related to spinal cord
injuries that dates back over 100 years.

I don't happen to agree with Lattimer's and Posner's views on JFK
assuming the Thorburn Position. I really don't think it matters one
bit whether he's in that Position or not. The key is: JFK is obviously
reacting to being shot at the time he's raising his hands up. But
Lattimer certainly isn't a liar when it comes to Thorburn's. It's an
opinion. Not a lie.

And Lattimer's "lapel flip" is not a lie either. I happen to agree
with that theory. Although it is also quite possible that the wind
that was blowing quite briskly in Dealey Plaza at 12:30 was a
contributing factor to the lapel flip (or "bulge") too, because it's
quite clear that the right side of Connally's coat is moving around at
Z222, which is before I think Oswald's bullet struck him at Z224.

Other people have suggested, however, that the SBT bullet is actually
striking Connally at Z221 or Z222, which (I admit) is possible. But I
think Z224 is still the correct SBT frame.

But Oswald's CE399 bullet is certainly the most reasonable and
believable explanation for why Governor Connally's coat bulges
significantly outward at exactly Z224, which is 1/18th to 2/18ths of a
second before a whole bunch of physical changes begin to occur in John
B. Connally.

And, yes, the bullet hole in the front of Connally's jacket is not in
the lapel and is much lower than his chest/nipple exit wound.

But the movement of the right side of his jacket is more of a BULGE
(as Dale Myers explains it), vs. just the lapel flipping up. The
bullet struck the right side of Connally's jacket. There's no doubt
about that fact. And we see the right side of his jacket BULGING
outward at the exact moment the bullet is striking the Governor.

The math's pretty easy on this one. Except for an anti-SBTer like
James DiEugenio, of course.

Anyway, who's next on your Liar's List, Jimbo? Rachel Oswald?

aeffects

unread,

Sep 8, 2010, 3:26:23 AM9/8/10

to

On Sep 8, 12:18 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

this is the best a Bugliosi protege can muster, cross posting Ed Forum
stuff......? What a weak sistah you are David Von Pein....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 8, 2010, 4:26:53 PM9/8/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=585&p=205136&#entry205136

RE: DR. JOHN K. LATTIMER:

For the record (and I said this once previously to Pat Speer in an
Internet post) -- In my opinion, Dr. Lattimer's sketch on Page 180 of
"Kennedy And Lincoln" is most certainly inaccurate. The downward angle
of the bullet through JFK's body is too steep, and the entry wound
location looks to be too high.

If Lattimer were to lower the entry wound to the proper place on
Kennedy's upper back in his sketch on Page 180, I think the angle
would be perfect. But then Dr. Lattimer would have to change something
else--because a lower back wound entry would then mean (per his
sketch) that a bone would be struck.

So I think Lattimer has the anatomy of the body depicted incorrectly
in his sketch. The Rydberg drawing right above Lattimer's own sketch
on Page 180 of K&L is actually pretty close to being accurate, IMO.
The angle looks to be not quite steep enough in that drawing, however.

But, apart from that sketch on Page 180 and my (partial) disagreement
with the doctor about the Thorburn Position, Dr. Lattimer's
experiments in re-creating certain aspects of the JFK shooting are
excellent.

His many experiments and reconstructions (documented nicely with
photos and charts all along the way in his 1980 book) have served as a
very valuable "COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED THIS WAY?" tool for JFK
researchers.

I, for one, salute the late Dr. John K. Lattimer. He did some things
that very, very few people had ever bothered to do before him (or
after him).

http://Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 9, 2010, 12:37:51 AM9/9/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=600&p=205177&#entry205177

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Who is silly then? The guy who brings it to the attention of the reader or the guy who plays lap dog?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The silly one is:

The guy who keeps bringing up stupid shit about an issue that is
settled beyond all doubt, even amongst most conspiracy theorists --
i.e., whether or not Lee Oswald ordered a rifle and revolver in early
1963. But, promoting silliness seems to be James DiEugenio's
specialty.

Bottom-line Facts:

1.) Oswald ordered the rifle (it's his handwriting on the order form).

2.) Oswald paid for the rifle (it's his handwriting on the money
order).

3.) Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald's PO Box (we know this
beyond all doubt via Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which is yet another
document that DiEugenio has no choice but to think is a fake, since
DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald ordered any rifle at all from Klein's
in March 1963).

4.) The rifle shipped to PO Box 2915 was not sent back to Klein's by
the post office. Therefore, somebody picked up that rifle at the post
office. And the most reasonable explanation as to who that "somebody"
was is: the owner of PO Box 2915--Lee H. Oswald (who we know had fake
"Hidell" photo identification, so he could have merely posed as
"Hidell" if the post office employees asked for his ID).

All ten of DiEugenio's ridiculous points are definitively hacked to
pieces via the above 4 counterpoints.

If CTers can't figure out that Oswald ordered, paid for, and picked up
Rifle C2766, that's their problem. But it's a no-brainer for
reasonable people like myself and Vincent T. Bugliosi.

>>> "You might also want to ask why Oswald did not know his own name since he wrote it Harvey Oswald Lee at the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico." <<<

So, you think whoever was "impersonating" LHO in Mexico City was so
stupid he wanted to make it look like the REAL Oswald didn't know his
own name?

As I said before, silliness is DiEugenio's middle name.

BTW, Oswald signed more than just the hotel register that way ("Lee,
Harvey Oswald"). I was browsing through some WC documents and exhibits
just the other day and noticed another document that was signed by
Oswald in that exact same manner (with the comma after "Lee"). I don't
recall which document it is right now, but Lee definitely signed his
name in that same manner at least twice.

The reason he kept putting the comma in the wrong place could possibly
have something to do with LHO's dyslexia. But it doesn't matter in the
slightest--since we KNOW that that is LHO's handwriting on the Hotel
del Comercio register, regardless of where the comma is located.

aeffects

unread,

Sep 9, 2010, 3:43:45 AM9/9/10

to

On Sep 8, 9:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

do you actually believe that flooding internet boards with your
bullshit will make you appear any less the moron?

mucher1

unread,

Sep 9, 2010, 4:23:44 AM9/9/10

to

One might ask the same thing about your habit of snipping DVP's
carefully constructed prose and replacing it with incoherent rants.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 9, 2010, 9:11:28 PM9/9/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=615&p=205315&#entry205315

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Vincent Bugliosi attempts to rewrite the record...by calling LHO a "good shot"." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald was a "good shot"--by Marine standards. And I'd say he was
probably a "very good shot" by ordinary civilian standards.

How can there be any doubt of that fact? He fired a 212 in 1956 when
he first joined the Marines, which made him a "sharpshooter". And he
still qualified as a "marksman" with a score of 191 shortly before he
left the Marine Corps.

Yes, a 191 isn't any great shakes for a Marine. But I think we can all
agree that being classified as a "marksman" by the United States
military is, indeed, a good deal better than most "average" Americans
who fire guns as a hobby.

I know that Jim D. will bash me over the head for saying this -- but I
agree with what John McAdams said on this point in the 2009 debate
John had with Jim.

I.E.:

Oswald was a "gung-ho Marine" (Mr. McAdams' words) when he joined the
Marine Corps in 1956. But by the time he was getting ready to leave
the Corps in late 1959, Oswald's attitude toward the Marines had
soured significantly. And I think even most conspiracists will agree
with that point. And yet Oswald still fired a good-enough score in
1959 to at least qualify as a "marksman".

Yes, 1959 was four years before Oswald shot President Kennedy, and
perhaps his shooting skills had, indeed, deteriorated even below
"marksman" level by 11/22/63. But we really can never know all of the
specifics about Oswald's abilities with a rifle as of November 1963.
It's one of those forever "unanswerables".

But we DO know that Lee Oswald did make a fairly decent score of 212
on the rifle range in the Marines in 1956 (which is an average score
for a Marine).

And we also know that the shooting in Dealey Plaza has Lee Oswald's
signature (and evidence) all over it -- from the bullets, to the
bullet shells, to the rifle with his prints on it, to a witness who
positively IDed Oswald as the shooter, and right on down to the way
Oswald behaved just after the assassination (and on November 21st too,
which is very important).

Whether Oswald ever practiced with his Mannlicher-Carcano (a weapon
that Jim DiEugenio apparently thinks was never in the hands of LHO at
all in 1963) is something that we will likely never know for certain.

But if it really was Lee Oswald shooting at Garland Slack's target at
the Sports Drome Rifle Range in September of 1963 (and I think it
could possibly have been Oswald), then that seems to me to be one less
argument that CTers can make about this case -- and that would be the
argument that we frequently hear about how Oswald never practiced with
his rifle before the assassination.

Final Thought ---

When examining Lee Harvey Oswald's test scores in the Marines, it's
very difficult for me to believe that conspiracy theorists could
possibly think that Oswald was a "poor" or "lousy" rifleman.

Does the United States Marine Corps have a habit of labelling their
members "sharpshooters" or "marksmen" if they are really "lousy" at
firing a gun? I hardly think so.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 10, 2010, 12:44:30 AM9/10/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=630&p=205347&#entry205347

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "If you aren't going to answer my questions I am going to drop this." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no intention of answering them. Everything you say is so silly,
it's incredible you could actually BEGIN to believe the crap you
write.

The mere fact that anyone could ACTUALLY believe there was THAT much
"conspiracy" and "cover-up" and THAT many "liars" connected with John
Kennedy's assassination is enough to make any reasonable person see
right through your game, Jimbo.

John McAdams, in his upcoming book (which, btw, won't be published
until August 31, 2011; delayed from November 2010), is going to have a
section focusing on how CTers have "too much evidence" of a conspiracy
in the JFK case (and probably other cases too). And I think I know
what he's going to be talking about in that section of his book.

Here's an overview of McAdams' forthcoming book, "JFK Assassination
Logic: How To Think About Claims Of Conspiracy":

"The mother of all conspiracy theories is the supposed one about
the assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK). Many of its elements have
become part of American folklore: the single bullet, the Grassy Knoll
shooter, and the mysterious deaths of interested parties.

"JFK Assassination Logic shows how to approach such conspiracy
claims. Studying Lee Harvey Oswald’s character and personality, for
example, doesn’t help determine whether he alone shot the president,
and our opinion of bureaucrats can often cloud our judgments. How
people view the JFK assassination can be a model for how to (or
perhaps how not to) evaluate other conspiracy theories, including
those generally considered dubious—the U.S. government and 9/11, the
moon landing, Pearl Harbor—as well as those that are real, such as
Watergate.

"John McAdams does not just address conspiracy theories but also
how to think, reason, and judge the evidence in these cases. How do we
evaluate eyewitness testimony? How can there be “too much evidence” of
a conspiracy? How do we determine whether suspicious people are really
suspicious? By putting the JFK assassination under the microscope,
McAdams provides a blueprint for understanding how conspiracy theories
arise and how to judge the evidence.

"This book puts the reader into a mass of contradictory evidence
and presents an intriguing puzzle to be solved. The solution, in each
case, involves using intellectual tools. Eyewitness testimony, the
notion of “coincidence,” selectivity in the use of evidence, how to
choose between contradictory pieces of evidence, the need for evidence
to fit a coherent theory, how government works, and basic principles
of social theorizing—all provide the elements of how to judge not only
the JFK conspiracy, but all conspiracies."

>>> "And get on with the Lopez Report." <<<

Oh, yes. Please get on with Eddie Lopez' nonsense. For a shortcut, go
here:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/edwin-lopez.html

>>> "Your answers on the MC rifle and the revolver were pretty pathetic." <<<

No, they weren't. They were the truth. Oswald ordered the rifle and
the revolver. You know that as well as I do.

>>> "You have yet to say anything about PJM and Mexico City." <<<

Oh, that's right. Priscilla McMillan is another rotten liar and cover-
up agent.

>>> "I guess you are just waiting for this to be over." <<<

I couldn't care less. I'm not reading very much of your silliness in
the first place. So I hope you're not copying-and-pasting all of your
Anybody-But-Oswald crap into this Education Forum thread on my behalf.

If so, you can stop now. Because I'm only reading 2% of it (if that
much).

aeffects

unread,

Sep 10, 2010, 3:32:56 AM9/10/10

to

On Sep 9, 9:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=630&p=...

>
> JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
> >>> "If you aren't going to answer my questions I am going to drop this." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I have no intention of answering them. Everything you say is so silly,
> it's incredible you could actually BEGIN to believe the crap you
> write.

...

chickenshit moron.... General Sanders is not happy with your sorry ass
-- rotflmfao

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 10, 2010, 10:17:40 AM9/10/10

to

In article <bf40aed1-9f4d-45b0...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Sep 9, 9:44=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D16450&st=3D630&p=
>=3D...
>>
>> JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>
>> >>> "If you aren't going to answer my questions I am going to drop this."=

> <<<
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> I have no intention of answering them. Everything you say is so silly,
>> it's incredible you could actually BEGIN to believe the crap you
>> write.
>
>...
>
>chickenshit moron.... General Sanders is not happy with your sorry ass
>-- rotflmfao

LNT'ers *CANNOT* answer legitimate questions about the evidence... and this fact
demonstrates that the evidence doesn't support their beloved WCR.

They haven't gotten over the fact that the current government stance is that
there was probably a conspiracy.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 10, 2010, 4:18:51 PM9/10/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4dd5b730fc853cc3/714342008f0c0b82?#714342008f0c0b82

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

>>> "The key thing here is that Marina has never backed off her testimony. She affirmed all the key elements of it to McMillan, and to the HSCA, and even as late as the 1990s to Oprah." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And even later than that, John. Marina told Vincent Bugliosi on
November 30, 2000, that she took the backyard photos and she also re-
confirmed for Bugliosi that LHO had taken a shot at General Walker:

"Although...I did not come to interrogate Marina about the facts
of the case, since this had already been done ad nauseam, a few
references to factual matters were made. When she insisted on Oswald's
innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I
reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General
Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew
this because "Lee told me he did."

"But she hastened to add that the president was different
because "Lee liked Kennedy." And [Fort Worth lawyer and friend of
Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years
and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken
"the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she
answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." --
Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"

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

To be fair, there is also this excerpt from Bugliosi's book relating
to Vincent's interview with Marina Oswald on 11/30/2000:

"Marina, wearing very light makeup, was dressed in the most
inexpensive of slacks and a pullover sweater. There was no sense of
the modern woman about her, and her clothing and demeanor still spoke
of the old country to me.

"She told me she feels "very strongly" that her former husband
did not kill Kennedy. When I reminded her that she told the Warren
Commission and the FBI that she believed he had killed Kennedy, the
essence of her long, rambling explanation was that "all that they
showed me against him led me to believe it."

"I asked her if the authorities ever told her what to say or
threatened her in any way. She said they never told her what to say,
but "they kept talking to me over and over again. I was exhausted, and
had a four-week-old child, and at one point I didn't want to answer—
the word, I think, is 'tattle on'—my friends and relatives in Russia.
And I felt their questions about them were not relevant, but they told
me if I wanted to stay here in this country, I'd have to answer all
their questions."" -- Page 1486 of "Reclaiming History"

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

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/vincent-bugliosi.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 10, 2010, 5:50:10 PM9/10/10

to

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 11, 2010, 9:01:08 PM9/11/10

to

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/david-ferrie.html

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 15, 2010, 12:45:23 AM9/15/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=705&p=205921&#entry205921

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Autopsy report number one: Burned by Humes and testified to by him before the ARRB. He said it three times and it's in the transcript." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dr. Humes admitted to the Warren Commission in 1964 that he burned the
first draft of the autopsy report [2 H 373].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0191a.htm

So we certainly didn't have to wait until Humes' 1996 ARRB testimony
to learn about that particular burning episode.

And the very fact that Dr. Humes admitted to burning a draft of the
autopsy report is a very good sign that that burning was not done with
CONSPIRATORIAL intent or with the thought of a COVER-UP in Dr. Humes'
mind.

For Pete sake, if Humes had been part of a cover-up and/or conspiracy,
the last thing in the world he would have ADMITTED to the Warren
Commission at 2 H 373 is that he was burning autopsy papers in his
home fireplace. Get real, Jim.

>>> "Autopsy report number two: The one rewritten after the murder of Oswald by Ruby." <<<

That was Draft #2 of the ONE AND ONLY autopsy report. Humes burned the
first draft in his fireplace on 11/24/63. Humes told the ARRB that the
first draft "may have had errors in spelling" [Humes' exact words],
therefore that draft was not the final draft of the report that he
wanted to save as the official (and final) report. Quite obviously, in
Dr. Humes' mind, the second draft was the proper version to keep as
the official report.

But it's silly to think that those two "drafts" of essentially the
exact same report constitute TWO separate and wholly different autopsy
reports. Especially if you believe, as Doug Horne does, that Dr. Humes
was a major part of a massive cover-up operation BEFORE the autopsy
even started on the night of November 22nd.

And Vincent Bugliosi covers this topic very nicely in his book (via an
abundance of common sense). I do, however, disagree with Vince on one
point. Bugliosi doesn't think Humes burned a "first draft" of the
autopsy report at all. Vince is of the opinion that Humes burned only
his "notes", but not a "draft" of the autopsy report. I don't think
Vince is correct in that belief, however.

The language Dr. Humes used in his Warren Commission testimony makes
it pretty clear (IMO) that he was talking about an actual "draft" of
the autopsy report, and not just "notes". Here is that segment of
Humes' WC testimony:

"In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday,
November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised,
and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally
burned in the fireplace of my recreation room."

And Dr. Humes clarified things even more in his 1996 ARRB deposition
when he said this:

"It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned."

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

Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:

"It apparently has not entered the minds of the conspiracy
theorists...that since we’re dealing with the same person, Humes, if
one believes that Humes was willing to lie on his autopsy report (his
draft notes reflecting the true and different situation), why wouldn’t
he likewise have been willing to lie on his notes, thereby obviating
the need to destroy them?

"Did those behind the assassination come to Humes AFTER he wrote
the first draft and convince him, FOR THE FIRST TIME, to join the
conspiracy, he agreed, and then they told him what they wanted his
autopsy report to say?

"But what about Drs. Boswell and Finck? Did they join the
conspiracy too? Because if they didn’t, how is it that their
conclusions just happened to coincide with Humes’s new, conspiratorial
conclusion?

[...]

"Just a moment’s reflection on the allegation by the conspiracy
theorists that Humes burned his first draft of the autopsy report
(which presumably pointed away from Oswald as the killer) reveals its
outlandish dimensions.

"If, in fact, Humes had done such a thing, this would make him a
willing and conscious accessory after the fact to Kennedy’s murder, a
very serious crime. Why in the world would he want to do something so
enormously ignoble and dangerous to him? The conspiracy theorists
don’t say, nor do they even ask the question.

"But even if Humes were insane enough to engage in such conduct,
since two other pathologists, Boswell and Finck, were also present at
the autopsy, when Humes presented the new, supposedly bogus draft of
their combined findings for their review, comments, and eventual
signature, wouldn’t they have immediately recognized that the draft
presented to them was terribly erroneous and refused to sign off on
it? Or do the terminally absurd buffs want us to believe that Boswell
and Finck decided to join in with Humes in becoming accessories after
the fact to Kennedy’s murder?

"And there is another point to make. The conspiracy theorists,
whose taste for conspiracy skews their thinking processes, are not
stopping to realize the obvious. If Humes, did, in fact, do the
extremely serious and criminal thing that they accuse him of doing,
why in the world would he choose to volunteer before the Warren
Commission, and hence, the world, that he had done this?

"I mean, who else but HIM could ever possibly know his secret?
In fact, on the very day he burned his notes, November 24, 1963, Humes
certified, on a Naval Medical School document, that he had done so (CE
397, 17 H 48)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 276-277 and 280 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

>>> "Autopsy report number three: The Clark Panel. This moves both wounds in JFK, the head wound from the bottom to the top of the skull, and the wound from the neck to the back. Plus they write up fragments in the neck area. For all intents and purposes there were three reports." <<<

No, Jim. There was (and still is) only ONE official autopsy
report....this one below, which was signed by all three of President
Kennedy's autopsy doctors:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm

The Clark Panel evaluated the photographs and X-rays and came to the
proper conclusion about the entry wound in JFK's head being located
higher on the head than the autopsy physicians concluded.

But anyone with eyeballs can easily determine that the autopsists were
definitely wrong with respect to the precise location of the head
entry wound. That wound, as the Clark Panel determined by looking at
the photos and X-rays in 1968, was located 100 millimeters above the
level of the EOP, which places it in the cowlick area--high on JFK's
head. The photos PROVE that fact for all time.

And why in the world you think the Clark Panel changed anything with
respect to the location of the entry wound in JFK's upper back is a
mystery. The Clark Panel's conclusion regarding the location of that
wound, in fact, is identical to what we find in Dr. Humes' 1963
autopsy report:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the
back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial
process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the
right mastoid process." -- Via the Clark Panel's final report

If you insist on calling the Clark Panel report an official "autopsy
report", well, go right ahead. It's a free country. But you're wrong.
The Clark Panel's work mainly was an evaluation of the autopsy photos
and X-rays.

And the Clark Panel wrote up a report of their findings and
conclusions, which were findings and conclusions that totally
corroborate the one and only official autopsy report signed in 1963 by
Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck in the following critical respect:

"President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above
and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the
right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the
skull from behind and exploded its right side." [direct quote from the
Clark Panel's final report]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 16, 2010, 12:45:50 AM9/16/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=735&p=206025&#entry206025

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "You finally did it. You've left me speechless." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You sound much better that way too. Maybe you should make it a habit.

>>> "The only evidence you have is a bus ticket that was found by ole' kind hearted Priscilla [McMillan]." <<<

<chuckle> Lee Farley thinks the bus ticket inside a book is "the only
evidence" for Oswald being in Mexico City.

That is hilarity at its finest.

>>> "I'm actually agnostic on LHO being down there, my instinct tells me he wasn't..." <<<

That's because you have conspiracy instincts in your genes. No
reasonable person, however, can possibly believe that Oswald was NOT
in Mexico City in Sep/Oct '63.

>>> "...but I'd be willing to change my mind if there was any cast iron evidence." <<<

No, you wouldn't. That's obvious. Because there is plenty of "cast
iron evidence" to prove Lee Harvey Oswald visited Mexico City in Sept.
'63. You just want to ignore it all. (As usual.)

You WANT to believe in shady goings-on in Mexico City. You have no
intention of following the real evidence where it leads--to Oswald
actually being in Mexico City.

You want to believe somebody faked the hotel register. And you want to
believe that all of the bus witnesses talked to an "imposter" Oswald
on the busses to and from Mexico.

And you want to believe Marina is a liar when she talked at some
length about Lee going to Mexico.

And you want to think that Oswald's 11/9/63 letter to the Soviet
Embassy in Washington is some kind of fraud too, even though that
letter [CE15, shown below] is SIGNED BY LEE H. OSWALD:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0029a.jpg

>>> "But for you to honestly say that he wasn't impersonated is complete garbage." <<<

The REAL Oswald was positively in Mexico City. So why would anybody
want to impersonate LHO when the real McCoy was already down there?
You're nothing but silly.

>>> "So it was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald down there then?" <<<

Sure was. Just take another quick gander at CE15 above. Oswald HIMSELF
admitted he went to Mexico. What more proof do you need--Silvia
Duran's fingerprints all over his johnson?

>>> "Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway were nuts and unreasonable people, eh Dave?" <<<

Damn straight.

>>> "Whilst David Slawson was above reproach and totally reasonable?" <<<

Absolutely.

Maybe you should go back to being speechless again, Farley. Because
your junk about Mexico City is pathetic.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Sep 16, 2010, 10:20:34 AM9/16/10

to

On Sep 16, 12:45 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=735&p=...

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...

>
> >>> "But for you to honestly say that he wasn't impersonated is complete garbage." <<<
>
> The REAL Oswald was positively in Mexico City. So why would anybody
> want to impersonate LHO when the real McCoy was already down there?
> You're nothing but silly.
>
> >>> "So it was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald down there then?" <<<
>
> Sure was. Just take another quick gander at CE15 above. Oswald HIMSELF
> admitted he went to Mexico. What more proof do you need--Silvia
> Duran's fingerprints all over his johnson?
>
> >>> "Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway were nuts and unreasonable people, eh Dave?" <<<
>
> Damn straight.
>
> >>> "Whilst David Slawson was above reproach and totally reasonable?" <<<
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Maybe you should go back to being speechless again, Farley. Because
> your junk about Mexico City is pathetic.

How pathetic Dave when Lee isn't here to defend himself. YOU know
where he is at, why not debate him there?

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 16, 2010, 4:23:03 PM9/16/10

to

>>> "YOU know where he [Lee Farley] is at, why not debate him there?" <<<

I have, retard.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 16, 2010, 9:08:14 PM9/16/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=780&p=206172&#entry206172

JIMMY DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "The full story of who Kostikov is will be kept secret until 11/22/63. Namely that he ran KGB assassination plots in the Western Hemisphere." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is totally irrelevant, as James Hosty explains below. (Or do you
actually think Kostikov was involved in the assassination of JFK?)

>>> "Think that had an impact on 11/22 Davey Boy? Understand now why Mexico City is so important?" <<<

Nope, Jimmy my boy. Not at all. Mexico City had nothing to do with
JFK's death. Nothing. Your delusional imagination is running wild--as
usual. You see conspiracies everywhere. That's called paranoia.

>>> "Stay in denial. It's a blissful place." <<<

Stay paranoid, Jimmy. It's better for your ultra-silly Anybody-But-
Oswald mindset if you do.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 16, 2010, 9:09:37 PM9/16/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=780&p=206172&#entry206172

JIMMY DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "The full story of who Kostikov is will be kept secret until 11/22/63. Namely that he ran KGB assassination plots in the Western Hemisphere." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is totally irrelevant, as James Hosty explains below. (Or do you
actually think Kostikov was involved in the assassination of JFK?)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/james-hosty.html

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2010, 1:18:15 PM9/17/10

to

On Sep 16, 4:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "YOU know where he [Lee Farley] is at, why not debate him there?" <<<
>
> I have, retard.

So asking a simple question makes one a "retard?" I guess LNers like
Dave can't even handle simple questions! Why NOT keep your
conversations with Lee where they belong then? Why bring them here
when Lee is NOT here?

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 17, 2010, 3:02:25 PM9/17/10

to

>>> "So asking a simple question makes one a "retard?" I guess LNers like Dave can't even handle simple questions! Why NOT keep your conversations with Lee where they belong then? Why bring them here when Lee is NOT here?" <<<

I already explained that to you on MacRae's forum yesterday. It's not
my fault if you didn't read it.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 17, 2010, 9:37:54 PM9/17/10

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=795&p=206193&#entry206193

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16620&st=0&p=206254&#entry206254

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Now, you can call me as many names in the book as you want Davey. In this way you are mimicking your master VB who relies on these kinds of slurs since his book is short on facts and evidence to make his arguments do the trick. The problem for you is what I said: This is just what happened. And I proved it above seven ways to Sunday." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You actually think you've proved that Oswald's Mexico City trip can be
tied in to the JFK murder, and hence, you think you've also proved
conspiracy in JFK's death via Mexico City??

You've proved no such thing. You've even admitted that Kostikov had no
ties to the assassination. And you certainly haven't proved that an
"impostor" Oswald was in Mexico City instead of the real Lee Oswald.
To the contrary, I proved he WAS in Mex. City in my prior post listing
all the documentation for that visit--including CE15, Marina Oswald's
testimony, the bus passengers, and the Hotel Del Comercio register.
(And I didn't even mention the Cuban visa application with Oswald's
own picture and signature on it.)

All fake, right Jim?

You never stop dreaming your strange dreams of conspiracy, do you
James?

ADDENDUM:

In case this hunk of Jimbo's nonsense slipped past a few of the
readers of this thread, I want to highlight it once again for
everybody to enjoy--illustrating once again the delusional mindset of
James DiEugenio:

"And Duran is impersonated at least once, and maybe twice." -- Jim
DiEugenio

There just is no end to this silliness, is there Jim?

Jim D. is quickly becoming a conspiracy caricature among conspiracy
caricatures. You couldn't stop "finding" conspiracy in the JFK case if
you tried, could you Jim?

Conspiracy is everywhere in this case, per Jimbo. Literally
EVERYWHERE. Even Silvia Duran down in Mexico is being impersonated.
And maybe more than once even! LOL.

>>> "You know I can see doing that [cross-posting to other forums] with parts of Len's shows that I am on, since that makes me a public figure so to speak. But to do it to someone like Lee who is not a pubic figure and has never even published a book. Hmm. And to never tell him..." <<<

This is hilarious coming from Jim DiEugenio.

Why?

Because of the Pot/Kettle nature of Jim's above statement.

DiEugenio has done virtually the exact same thing -- i.e., taken a
person's quotes from one Internet location and transferred them to
another Internet location without telling the other person he is doing
it.

Jimbo did that exact thing with my own quotes from various JFK-Lancer
posts that I made several years ago. Jim took those quotes from Lancer
and inserted them in various places in his silly little article about
me on his CTKA.net website -- right here:

http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html

He never asked me for "permission" to re-print my quotes at his
website. (True, Jim's site is not a "forum", per se, but it's still
stuff that's being re-posted at another public Internet locality.)

Nor would I have EXPECTED Jim to ask me if it was okay for him to re-
post my PUBLIC forum messages.

And the same thing has undoubtedly happened in dozens (or hundreds) of
DiEugenio's other articles that he has either posted to his CTKA site
or in Probe magazine.

Does anybody really think that DiEugenio has gotten permission from
the person he is raking over the coals (like, say, Dale Myers or Vince
Bugliosi or Dave Perry or Gary Mack) before Jimbo quotes that
particular person in an article at CTKA?

Not a chance in hell.

This whole thread is ludicrous beyond belief.

>>> "...and then to lie about it." <<<

Please tell me what "lies" I have told regarding this matter. When the
thin-skinned Mr. Farley first brought this up a few weeks ago, I
maintained all along that I had absolutely no intention of ever asking
him (or anyone) for express permission to re-post something he wrote
in an open and public forum onto another forum or blog.

This whole topic is just incredibly silly to begin with, because this
type of copy-&-paste activity from forum to forum happens thousands of
times every single day of the week. It's called the Information Super
Highway.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 17, 2010, 11:42:11 PM9/17/10

to

One additional point regarding Oswald and his trip to Mexico City.....

If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September
25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that
time period?

Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or
on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day
period in question.

Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her
during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew
darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.

And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just
prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.

This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it
deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I
just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.

So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3,
1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or
nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?