Re: BATTLING A CONSPIRACY KOOK (VIDEO SERIES)
tims...@gmail.com
Hi DVP,
That is a good video.
It is amazing to hear DiEugenio blathering on about the rifle being
found being a Mauser, when a film cameraman was there, filming it when
it was found and the photos of Carl Day carrying it out of the TSBD
show it to be a Carcano.
LOL, seems there is no end to the drivel coming from dear old Jim, a
true Garrisonite.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Dec 21, 2:00 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=27B8F8BC48764EF9&playnext=1
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=27B8F8BC48764EF9
>>> "Hi DVP. That is a good video." <<<
Hi, Tim.
And thanks.
>>> "It is amazing to hear [James] DiEugenio blathering on about the rifle being found being a Mauser, when a film cameraman was there, filming it when it was found and the photos of Carl Day carrying it out of the TSBD show it to be a Carcano. LOL, seems there is no end to the drivel coming from dear old Jim, a true Garrisonite." <<<
Yep. It's the thing conspiracy-loving kooks do the best. They keep
resurrecting already-trashed theories, and then they apparently hope
that nobody remembers that each of these stupid theories has already
been thoroughly explained in non-conspiratorial ways.
As many CTers try to do, Jim DiEugenio also tries to maneuver and re-
work the Z-Film's head-shot sequence into a "CT Only" type of
framework.
But what DiEugenio, specifically, does in his anti-Bugliosi review
(and during his frequent appearances on "Black Op Radio") is pathetic
and reprehensible, IMO.
It's actually kind of a triple-bill of absurdity and distortion on
Jim's part, too. Here's the "triple-bill" I'm referring to:
1.) DiEugenio has the gall to imply that JFK's head is in the "exact
position" in Z-Frame 313 as it was 1/18th of a second earlier in
Z312....which it total rubbish, of course. And DiEugenio has got to
know it's rubbish, too, because we know he's seen the Z-Film IN MOTION
many, many times in his life.
Therefore, since we know Jim's seen the film many times (and
undoubtedly has viewed frames 312 and 313 in super slow-motion, like
all of us have done many, many times) -- then we know that Jim doesn't
have a leg to stand on when he said to the sparse "Black Op Radio"
audience that JFK's head is in the "exact position" in Z313 as it was
in Z312.*
* = NOTE: When he said those words on BlackOp last month, he prefaced
the remark by misrepresenting Vince Bugliosi's REASON for putting a
picture in his book of the "high contrast" picture of Z313....with
Jim, for some stupid reason, saying that Vince uses that high-contrast
version of Z313 to show that the President's head is "leaning forward"
at the moment of the head shot.
Of course, as anyone can easily see by reading page 486 of VB's 2007
book, "Reclaiming History" (which is, indeed, the exact page number
cited by DiEugenio when Jim discusses this topic in Part 4 of his "RH"
review on Jim's website), Bugliosi is certainly NOT talking about the
"forward lean" or "tilt" of Kennedy's head when VB refers to the high-
contrast photo of Z313.
Vince, instead, utilizes the high-contrast picture to emphasize the
fact that all of the blood and brain tissue is seen to the FRONT of
JFK's head, indicating (of course) the likelihood that the bullet that
just caused that terrible spray of bodily fluid came from BEHIND the
President.
For DiEugenio to totally misrepresent Mr. Bugliosi with regard to this
important matter is, IMO, just about as disingenuous (and sneaky) as
you can get.
And Jim's "exact position" remark is just flat-out dead-wrong too, as
we all know. And even if Jim wanted to come back with the argument
that he was ONLY talking about the degree of "lean" or "tilt" of JFK's
head in both Z312 and Z313, his argument wouldn't go very far either.
Because even THAT argument would be invalid, because when JFK's head
moves forward between 312 and 313, the "forward lean" of his head DOES
CHANGE SLIGHTLY (i.e., in Z313, Kennedy's head can certainly not be
said to be in the "exact position" it was in in Z312...even from JUST
a "leaning forward" standpoint).
But it was obvious to me that DiEugenio's distortions (and his
misrepresentations of what Bugliosi meant by certain things relating
to Z-frames 312 and 313) are part of a concerted effort on his part to
try and REMOVE (or just DENY) as much of the verified Z-Film evidence
that exists that tells a reasonable person that JFK was shot FROM
BEHIND at the important moment when the bullet struck him at Z313. And
numbers 2 and 3 below go toward meeting that desired goal of Jim's as
well.
2.) DiEugenio's comment about how it looks like only "the front" part
of JFK's head is "being impacted" at Z313 is a real "WTF?" moment.
Jim must think that an ENTRY hole for a bullet is the HUGE hole, vs.
EXIT holes being the large and irregular-shaped ones.
Unbelievable.
And, again, as with Jim's distortions in #1, this #2 item is designed
to re-write the history of this murder, as James tries to impress upon
people something that is just plain dumb -- i.e., that the great-big
hole at the right-front of JFK's head was the "impact" point for an
incoming bullet fired from the front.
How stupid does Jim think his listeners are? Granted, a lot of CT-
Kooks are mighty stupid....but geez.
3.) With BlackOp host Len Osanic's help (it was Osanic who first
mentioned this #3 item, with DiEugenio, right on cue it would seem,
jumping in with both feet firmly in his mouth to completely agree with
the incredibly-wrong thing that Len just uttered), DiEugenio actually
had the additional audacity to suggest that both of the Connallys
(John & Nellie) WEREN'T splattered with debris from the fatal shot
that struck JFK in the head.
Talk about misleading people. This one is a beaut in that regard.
Of course, as virtually all JFK researchers know (without even having
to think about it and without even needing to look up any of Nellie's
or JBC's testimony), both John and Nellie Connally were definitely
"covered" with debris from the fatal gunshot that hit JFK's head. To
quote John Connally himself:
"I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the
car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue."
-- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm
So, we can see from the above three points that James DiEugenio (like
many other CTers) is practically DESPERATE to re-write the history of
this assassination.
And while he's attempting to re-write history, Jim is obviously
willing to just toss the testimony of both John Connally and Nellie
Connally out the nearest window (and I don't believe for one second
that DiEugenio could have possibly gone this long without hearing at
least ONE of the many, many interviews [or WC/HSCA sessions] with the
Connallys, where they each have stated many times that they were
splattered and "covered" with JFK's brains and blood).
When I hear a CTer like Jim DiEugenio make blatantly-incorrect remarks
like he has done on multiple recent "BlackOp" radio shows, I have to
ask the following question:
Since Jim is perfectly willing to totally misrepresent and mangle
certain KNOWN FACTS regarding the assassination of President Kennedy,
then why in the world would anyone take seriously anything else he
might say about a "conspiracy" in the JFK case?
David Von Pein
December 21, 2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f
tims...@gmail.com
Hi David,
One thing I didn't quite understand is that DiEugenio goes on about
the Mauser identification like it is a REALLY important point, when
even a moron should be able to discern the flaws in the argument that
Oswald's rifle was NOT that retrieved from the sixth floor of TSBD,
then ol' Jim is harping on about various sizes of Mannlicher Carcano
rifles. I didn't quite follow the tortured logic Jim was spouting on
Black Ops radio at this point. Why wasn't he concerned with various
sizes of Mauser rifles, if he is going to claim that a Mauser was
found on the sixth floor of TSBD?
I wonder what Jim's stance on 9/11 is? I shudder to think...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
David Von Pein
DiEugenio never goes anywhere with his silly arguments. Never. He
merely lays out his various "suspicions" and then just lets them lay
there....to go noplace.
Re: the Carcano --- Jim D. (evidently) thinks it's possible (or even
likely) that a SECOND Carcano with the exact same serial number of
C2766 is involved in this case in some fashion. I.E., the C2766 gun in
evidence as CE139 just might not be the same C2766 weapon shipped to
Oswald/Hidell by Klein's in March '63.
Yes, "tortured logic" is, indeed, a good way to describe utter
silliness like that.
Jim also scolded me in October for not swallowing the idiocy dished
out by Thomas Purvis regarding the "C2766" subject. According to Kook
Purvis, there are probably up to "50" different Carcano rifles in
circulation with that EXACT same serial number.
Why bother putting a unique serial # on ANYTHING, I ponder, if there
could be as many as 50 others with the exact same supposedly-"unique"
identifying mark.
Crazy, man.
But, that's what kooks are for--craziness.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/625da252cb9b3ae9
WhiskyJoe
> ... If you take away the rifle
> what is there ... There is no
> ballistic evidence that connects
> him to the crime.
Actually I think this is pretty true. I don't think there has ever
been a case in criminal history, where you can take away the murder
weapon and still have ballistic evidence that connects the suspect
with the crime.
WhiskyJoe
Actually, I'm not certain if someone who does not have the
investigative skills to determine if David Von Pein exists and is the
person who is posting to this forum, is going to have the skills to
solved the JFK Assassination case. Indeed, it is evident that he
cannot do either.
David Von Pein
>>> "Actually I think this is pretty true. I don't think there has ever been a case in criminal history, where you can take away the murder weapon and still have ballistic evidence that connects the suspect with the crime." <<<
Yeah, but if you listen to the two (and only two) reasons DiEugenio
gives in that radio interview for completely eliminating the rifle as
evidence in this case, you'll see that Jim is off his rocker.
Because he thinks by discarding the NAA results and CE399 only (per
his 'BlackOp' comments), this somehow means that he gets to toss the
rifle out the window as evidence....which is totally absurd, because
there's still gobs of other stuff (including ballistics evidence) that
ties Oswald to that rifle.
Gil Jesus
There's NO physical evidence CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza. Nothing
links CE 399 to either victim.
There's NO physical evidence that Oswald fired the rifle that day. No
fingerprints were found on the bolt of the rifle. The nitrate test was
negative for the cheeks.
There's NO physical evidence connecting the ammo used in the shooting
with Oswald. His fingerprints were not on the clip or the ammo shells.
There's NO physical evidence that Oswald ever brought the rifle into
the building.
There's NO physical evidence that bullet fragments now in custody were
ever inside the limousine.
Bud
> On Dec 21, 6:26 pm, WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > ... If you take away the rifle
> > > what is there ... There is no
> > > ballistic evidence that connects
> > > him to the crime.
>
> > Actually I think this is pretty true. I don't think there has ever
> > been a case in criminal history, where you can take away the murder
> > weapon and still have ballistic evidence that connects the suspect
> > with the crime.
>
> There's NO physical evidence CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza.
Wrong. The markings on the bullet match the rifle found where people
say a rifle was being fired from.
> Nothing
> links CE 399 to either victim.
Parkland does.
> There's NO physical evidence that Oswald fired the rifle that day. No
> fingerprints were found on the bolt of the rifle.
Can you an expert who says if he fired the rifle, his fingerprints
must be on the bolt?
> The nitrate test was
> negative for the cheeks.
Can you produce an expert who says if he fired the rifle, nitrates
must be on his cheeks?
> There's NO physical evidence connecting the ammo used in the shooting
> with Oswald.
Wrong. There was an unspent bullet in the clip of his rifle when it
was found on the floor shots were fired from.
>His fingerprints were not on the clip or the ammo shells.
Were any? Did the clip put intself into the rifle?
> There's NO physical evidence that Oswald ever brought the rifle into
> the building.
The bag.
> There's NO physical evidence that bullet fragments now in custody were
> ever inside the limousine.
Like what?
Gil Jesus
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=27B8F8BC48764EF9&playnext=1
NOW YOU'RE INSULTING PEOPLE ON VIDEO ?
Wow, you're just LOOKING for a lawsuit, aren't you ?
YoHarvey
This from the guy claiming Connally shot JFK roflmao, roflmao.
Gil Jesus
>
> This from the guy claiming Connally shot JFK roflmao, roflmao.
--------------------------------------------------------------
This from a guy who said that the Oswald rifle when found had no scope
roflmao, roflmao
It was YoHarvey, under the screenname baileynme who claimed that the
Oswald rifle had no scope when found. Baileynme-spiffy-YoHarvey wrote:
"The scope was NOT on the MC when it was found. It was laying
alongside the weapon."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e3aedb4b219289ad
But a photo of Lt. Day in the TSBD picking the rifle up by the strap
SHOWS a scope ATTACHED:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1Lw8sYtF*VUv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
this from a guy who perpetrated a falsehood that:: " In the mid 1950's
Lee Oswald spoke about killing an American President. Palmer MacBride
testified to the WC, in 1956 he befriended Oswald and they often
discussed politics. MacBride said that one central theme discussed was
the "exploitation of the working class" and one one occassion after
they began discussing President Eisenhower, Oswald made a statement
that he would like to kill the President because he was exploiting the
working class.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/275a8c64ca997ce4
but in fact: McBride's affidavit given to the FBI alleged that Oswald
made the statement in "late 1957 or early 1958", not in 1956 as
YoHarvey claimed. The 1957-58 timeframe conflicted with Marine records
that clearly showed that Oswald was in Japan at that time.
http://www.jfkresearch.com/jfk_101.html
roflmao,roflmao
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This from a guy who posts that LBJ advisor Jack Valenti was alive and
88 years old. He posted:
"Jack Valenti, now 88 distinguished himself in government and the
business community."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b39cb9052a2cc092
Then, when YoHarvey finds out Valenti is dead, he corrects his error
with another error, posting that :
"Jack Valenti died several years ago."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/12c43f221b70e4da
When, in fact, Jack Valenti died LAST YEAR at the age of 85:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/movies/27valenti.html?_r=1
roflmao,roflmao
He really is a laugh a minute.
YoHarvey
> On Dec 22, 9:14 am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This from the guy claiming Connally shot JFK roflmao, roflmao.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This from a guy who said that the Oswald rifle when found had no scope
> roflmao, roflmao
>
> It was YoHarvey, under the screenname baileynme who claimed that the
> Oswald rifle had no scope when found. Baileynme-spiffy-YoHarvey wrote:
>
> "The scope was NOT on the MC when it was found. It was laying
> alongside the weapon."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e3aedb4b219289ad
>
> But a photo of Lt. Day in the TSBD picking the rifle up by the strap
> SHOWS a scope ATTACHED:
>
Perfect way to end the year: Laughing again at Gilbert Jesus.....kind
of a habit for us, no?
Gilbert Jesus: aka Robcap, CuriousGeorge, Hotrod, JMoore, Justin,
Justinsmom
Gilbert Jesus
15 Spring Street
N. Dartmouth, Ma.
(508) 994-6715
Jesus was born December 2, 1953.
He is a 30 + year conspiracy theorist who has exhibited NO knowledge
of the events of 11/22 in Dallas...and yet...he has made the following
statements on newsgroups:
1. John or Nellie Connally shot JFK.
2. JFK's body was switched at Parkland hospital.
3. The three tramps were involved.
4. The entire Dallas Police Department was involved.
5. J.D. Tippitt was involved.
Jesus has shown himself to be a homophobic attacking ANY body on a
newsgroup "different" than what he perceives they should be. He hides
behind and quotes the bible as his definitive source of how human
beings should live their lives. He has never been married, has no
children and his occupation is selling used car parts from his
backyard. He lacks any formal or advanced education. He is filth. His
lack of knowledge of the assassination results in his speculation,
conjecture and innuendo of what he believes as truth and denigrates
all those who point out the flaws in his thinking.
Jesus has multiple names he uses on newsgroups and attempts to impress
by conversing with himself. When challenged on any of his insipid
theories, he runs and hides...but never responds. This writer has
personally challenged Jesus to debate the assassination LIVE for all
newsgroups to watch. He blatantly ignores all such challenges.
Jesus maintains a video site on Youtube where he shows videos, he
claims are his own. These videos show "eyewitness" statements by those
supporting a conspiracy position. In reality, Jesus stole these videos
from other on-line sources.
He does NOT allow opposing points of view to be expressed by any
viewers.
To show the sick mentality of Gil Jesus, he impersonated an 11 year
old boy on the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup. Using the name Justin, he
posted some of the most vulgar posts acj has seen. He even topped
Rossleys, although he and Rossley were in this game together. Jesus
then went on under the name Justin and used a program to clone other
posters email addresses and screen names. He started posting using
LN's screen names with vulgarity and idiotic posts. He was tracked
down and exposed and kicked off of the AIOE news server. To try and
prove it wasn't him posting, he created the screen name of Justins Mom
and apologized to the newsgroup for Justins behavior. He still to this
day, tries to insult and say it wasn't him, but we have the proof from
AIOE and his posts. He has used various other email addresses to get
back on AIOE trying to prove his innocence. He has been and will
continue to be reported to AIOE until they are fed up enough to
contact is AOL isp.
Gil Jesus has his following of Tom Rossley, and David Healy who are
the only CT's that back his lies and indecent behavior. These 3 men
are the low life of the acj newsgroup. They would sell their mothers
souls if it meant they could gain some fame as JFK researchers. What
they have done is lost any respect (what little they had to begin
with) in the JFK community. Gil Jesus is a lying bigot. All one needs
to do is a search on any of the posts made by the list of names in the
title of this article to see what a pathological liar and loser he
is.
Jesus has always and continues to show an anti-social personality
specifically against women by use of vile language and behavior. He
actually made the following statement. It explains his lack of
reasoning and intelligence:
"In short, a man is murdered by his enemy or enemies".
Gilbert J. Jesus has EARNED the Exposing the Ignorant 'LOSER OF THE
MONTH AWARD FOR DECEMBER, 2007.
Please join our forum and leave any comments you choose. Nothing will
be edited.
Ed.
David Von Pein
>>> "NOW YOU'RE INSULTING PEOPLE ON VIDEO? Wow, you're just LOOKING for a lawsuit, aren't you?" <<<
LOL.
Gil's middle name MUST be "potkettle".
I guess Gil thinks it's perfectly okay for DiEugenio to call James
Humes a liar on worldwide Internet radio (which DiEugenio did,
multiple times, on 12/11/08). Right, kook?
And Gil thinks it's perfectly acceptable for "Black Op Radio" host Len
Osanic to call Vincent Bugliosi a "liar" and an "asshole" on worldwide
Internet radio (which Osanic has done numerous times on several of his
"Black Op" episodes). Right, Mr. Gil-Kook?
But that probably doesn't count as "insulting people", right kook?
Because you're in bed with people like DiEugenio and Osanic....and
anything a CTer does to an LNer is just fine by you. Right, kook?
(Have you ever tried actually doing something called "THINKING" before
racing to the keyboard to type your retarded posts, Gilbert? Ever?)