JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 191)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 191):

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


THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 399:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=30#entry260668
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=45#entry260769
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=60#entry260792
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=60#entry260799
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=60#entry260813


CLINT HILL AND DON LAWTON:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0982c89c7ecd1c5e


OSWALD AND THE REVOLVER:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=30#entry260653


A SHOOTER ON THE SIXTH FLOOR:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4561dd26e5cf60c


WHO REALLY BUILT OSWALD'S SNIPER'S NEST?:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,7037.msg191593.html#msg191593
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,7035.msg192959.html#msg192959


CHARLES GIVENS AND THE BOOK DEPOSITORY'S SIXTH FLOOR:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/68821b5ad70c2de5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/973a650a31d94455
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4f1c4042b220d417


SPEAKING OF BOMBAST...:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=60#entry260789


LORD PATRICK DEVLIN:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c3a6c3de946026a9


MISCELLANEOUS FIGHTS AND ANTAGONISTIC POSTS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa380c0ef115b0e6
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/171034f575f38083
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/457c0af13b56507d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9374439f864991da
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/62279097f3902d3b


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

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx3QW96CB92P4U8&cdMsgNo=45&cdPage=5&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx3QW96CB92P4U8

BEN HOLMES SAID:

DVP *can't* debate... the facts simply aren't there. He runs from
virtually anything I type, lies, and omits evidence. He's as deceitful
as the kooks claim Mark Lane is.

[...]

He [DVP] writes too much to have a full-time job as well. I suspect
that DVP's full-time job *IS* disinfo.

[...]

Every-time DVP opens his mouth, you can pretty much be expecting what
sort of honest information is coming out of it... or lack thereof.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I thought you had me "killfiled", Holmes. Don't tell me that applies
ONLY to the acj forum. How silly.

Just to inform the one other person actually reading these comments
[at Amazon.com]:

Benjamin Holmes, a charter member of the ever-popular "Anybody But
Oswald" Internet Club (which is not a popular stance, btw, among the
population at large, as I illustrated previously via the ABC News
poll, despite Holmes' persistent rantings to the contrary), has
repeatedly told many LNers at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup that he
will not bother responding to anything written by us lowly, lying
LNers, because, well, we're nothing but trashy, lowlife, lying scum.
Therefore, he's put almost all LNers in his "killfile" (whatever that
is) at the acj newsgroup, so he can't even read anything written by
the lying, filthy LNers at that location.

But Holmes, contrary to the fact the rotten LNers have all been
"killfiled", still constantly responds to the LNers anyway (after
seeing their messages posted through other messages posted by non-
killfiled CTers).

And now I see he's turned to Amazon to respond to scumbag LNer David
V.P., even though Benji was adamant about never wasting another breath
on one of his killfiled LNers again in the future.

So much for "killfiling" the kooky LNers.

But no amount of huffing and puffing and empty bluster coming from
Windbag Holmes will change the basic facts of the JFK case. The
evidence will be the same tomorrow as it is today, and that evidence
hangs Holmes' favorite patsy--and always will. Period.

In short -- Holmes is long on gab, but (unfortunately for him) very
short on non-Carcano bullets.

[aeffects]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:34:22 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

<snip the lone nut nonsense>

We can't get rid of you freako, you provide about the best kook sideshow on the internet.... sheeeeeet baby, you got 35 websites, 15 blogs, 100,000 posts to USENET boards and internet forums.

And..... no advertising pukester, you know the rules....

--Management

[aeffects]

On Friday, October 19, 2012 10:15:09 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

<snip the Von Pein bullshit too>

Say, while I'm here, has your pen pal Virginia (the famed Bugliosi secretary) given up on you yet? We haven't heard you blow (drop the name) that horn for a while. Or did you finally makes Vince's persona non grata list?

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/375112eeacc6e154?#375112eeacc6e154

PAT SPEER SAID:

Thanks, John [McAdams], for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report
was at odds with Baden's testimony and subsequent claims. He said
they'd concluded Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a
bullet first striking something else, when they'd only concluded it
"probably" was caused by a bullet hitting the back while out of
alinement. That's quite the difference, and suggests that he was
unduly impressed with Lattimer, while others were not.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

You are SLOW getting this.

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at its
longest diameter WHEN it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.

The link I posted above shows that [linked again below].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0076b.htm

During Baden's testimony this document was entered into evidence:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0138b.htm

I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound
were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.

But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.

I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on
whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said
yes:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0150a.htm

So your essay gives the entirely FALSE impression that the judgment of
a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm.
figure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and
whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is,
indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a
Carcano/WCC bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will
nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence,
result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same
distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile
in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in
these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck,
striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over
end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost
sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that
these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck."

[...]

"An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test
bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck,
causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end.
Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of
[the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the
type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally
target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right
of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of
"K&L"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they
were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING
ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they
turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and
265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

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

The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:

The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to
be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly
the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the
back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the
entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-
shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/
south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width
of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and
is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the
measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice
but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't
look that egg-shaped to me):

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound
being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper
back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling
when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head
was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet
almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of
Kennedy's head.

So the retort made by CTers over the years has been --- Why are you so
certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you
certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had
NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that
was the exact same size?

It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.

Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:

"It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute
angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left
rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of
Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.

"Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a
relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of
Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit.
In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility
that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet
striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7
HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report,
April 22, 1964, p.3)

"However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a
bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and
proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know
from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the
moment of impact.

"Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be
very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an
angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would
explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat,
which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the
tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately
two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an
entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an
inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s
throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

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

Regarding JFK's head (entry) wound, Bugliosi said this:

"As to the long length of the wound, the bullet [quoting from page 86
of the Warren Report] "struck at a tangent or an angle causing a
fifteen-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry
than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters (about a quarter of an
inch), since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a
fractional distance until it entered"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 391
of "Reclaiming History"

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

To reiterate my earlier thought -- I'm thinking that the angle of
Kennedy's head at the moment of impact could have been a contributing
factor to explain why the entry wound wasn't more circular in shape.
Yes, that's just a guess on my part. But I think it's worth
contemplating since we know that JFK's head was tilted considerably
forward (and to the left) when the fatal bullet struck.

Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:

After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John
Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size
of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike,* which
is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page
86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the
entrance wound in Kennedy's head (see the text in Bugliosi's book also
cited above).

Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--
which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back
wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often
bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into
Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's
throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a
tumbling missile?

The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr.
Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets
that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a
simulated Kennedy neck.

But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I
think.**

----------

* Vince Bugliosi, in one particular section of his book, seems to be
advocating a combination of a tumbling bullet AND a tangential strike.
It's possible, however, that I have misinterpreted what Vince means
when he is discussing the various possibilities for why Governor
Connally's back wound was "ovoid" (i.e., egg-shaped).


** And there's very likely something in the official WC and/or HSCA
volumes which focuses more light on this subject and provides some
reasonable (and scientific) explanation for why we have a 15-
millimeter entry wound in Governor Connally's back that was allegedly
the result of a tumbling bullet, while at the same time we also have a
15-millimeter wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was
obviously not caused by a tumbling bullet.

David Von Pein
October 21-22, 2012

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/acfcded7b702fe28?#acfcded7b702fe28

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Perhaps the answer could be the position of YOUR head. Stuck up your posterior." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie for Tony! He slipped this one past the moderators. I'll bet
Marsh is prouder than a peacock.


>>> "So now that he's lost the argument the Bug wants to change the definition of the SBT. Now, just for him, it can make zigs and zags." <<<

Bugliosi never said anything of the sort. In fact, he said exactly the
opposite:

"The same tangential effect could have been caused not by a

bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat and

proceeding ON A STRAIGHT LINE into Connally's body." [Emphasis DVP's]


>>> "Lattimer's tests debunk the SBT." <<<

To a person who thinks day is night and guilty is innocent, maybe. But
to anyone else, your last comment is just flat-out stupid.


>>> You assume things because you can't prove them." <<<

Talk about a Pot/Kettle moment -- this one's a lulu. As if any
conspiracy theorist has EVER "proved" any of their theories.

You're a (continuous) howl, W. Anthony.

[aeffects]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:34:22 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 191):
>

...

nor is there one lone nut that can prove the SBT.... grow up dipshit and get your fucking head out of your tinfoil, deep fry oil lubbed ass.... GAWD you're an idiot

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx2YRDCD3ZG0A66&cdMsgNo=58&cdPage=6&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx2YRDCD3ZG0A66


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Released material, particularly by the ARRB, has shown just how much
the WCR was a house built with a deck of cards.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Give me a link to just ONE document that was released by the ARRB that
proves a conspiracy or cover-up in the JFK assassination case. Just
one.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Vincent Bugliosi] flatly *LIED* about Carrico and Perry's testimony.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's your own interpretation, Ben. Mine is, of course, much
different.

Vince Bugliosi was wrong about the "ragged" topic, yes. But was it a
deliberate and calculated "lie" with the intent to deceive? No way.
And the reason is two-fold why I believe Vince didn't "lie" about this
matter:

1.) Because, as I've stated before, it's my belief that Mr. Bugliosi
is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth.

and:

2.) Just think about this PARTICULAR so-called "lie" for a couple more
seconds (the "ragged" comments) -- Vince just flat-out does not NEED
to tell any tales out of school regarding this matter concerning the
size and shape of JFK's throat wound.

Why?

Because Vince already has Perry's AND Carrico's Warren Commission
testimony to buttress his argument that the throat wound was a wound
of exit:

MR. SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could
it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."

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

MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either
an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"
DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"
DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size
of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it
struck."

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

Given the above testimony from two of the actual doctors who were
THERE in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital on Nov. 22, why on
Earth would Vincent Bugliosi want to put his reputation on the line by
deliberately lying about something that he just simply DOES NOT NEED
TO LIE ABOUT AT ALL (assuming Vince was the sort of person who likes
to tell an occasional lie in his books to deceive his readers) in
order to advance the very logical and almost certainly TRUE
proposition that the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was an exit
wound instead of an entry wound?

My #2 item above, in conjunction with #1, should make even a hardened
conspiracy theorist realize that Mr. Bugliosi did not tell a
deliberate "lie" (with the intent to deceive) when it comes to the
subject of the "ragged" nature of President Kennedy's throat wound.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Just what credibility does Bugliosi have? Indeed, were he a
politician, everyone would be talking about his flip-flopping... for
as I'm sure you know, he stood up in court and argued that THIS WAS A
CONSPIRACY.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now who is the one telling falsehoods, Benjamin? Looks like it's you.
Because your last statement above gives anyone reading those words the
impression that Vincent Bugliosi, at some point in time in the past,
had advocated a conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY MURDER CASE.

But I know that that is not true at all. What you really meant to say
is that Vince Bugliosi, in the 1970s, believed that ROBERT KENNEDY'S
murder might very well have been a conspiracy involving more than just
Sirhan Sirhan.

Were you attempting to "deliberately deceive" the readers here at
Amazon, Ben? Or should I give you the same benefit of the doubt when
evaluating your wholly misleading and inaccurate "he [Bugliosi] stood
up in court and argued that THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY" statement that you
refuse to give Mr. Bugliosi when evaluating and assessing Vince's
inaccurate "ragged" statements?

Maybe Ben was having a "senior moment" when he wrote that Vince
Bugliosi previously argued (in court) that the JFK case was a
conspiracy. Ya think?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Please let me know of any citations you have that will back up the
assertion that McKnight has little credibility in the academic world.
That's after you've finished vomiting upon reading my post, of course.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The vomiting might never end this time, Puffer. (I'm glad you saw my
"vomit" remark before I decided to delete it from one of my recent
posts. Good catch. And fast.)

In short, yes, I'll take the word of Vincent T. Bugliosi over the word
of ANY conspiracy theorist ("professor" or otherwise) when it comes to
ANYTHING connected with THIS CASE (the JFK case). Period.

And that's mainly because I know the CORE EVIDENCE AND FACTS that
exist in this case...and those facts have NOT changed since the Warren
Commission opened its doors in November 1963. Not a single fact
concerning the CORE of physical evidence (and most of the
circumstantial evidence) has changed one single bit in the last 49
years. And nobody can prove that any of that evidence has changed, or
was altered, faked, or manufactured.

And since every bit of that core evidence points to only one man named
Oswald as the culprit, the logical answer is pretty easy to arrive at.
(Except if you've been reading too many conspiracy books, including
the one by the great Gerald D. McKnight.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You are a total phony, Mr. Von Pein. You know it and we know it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not a phony at all, Mr. Puffer. You're the phony. And you have
proven in the last few days that you are every bit as big a hypocrite
as Ben Holmes, for it was the same Garry Puffer of Riverside, CA, who
said this just twelve days ago in this very thread:

"To Mr. John Reagor King, If DVP had remained silent, I would
have been happy to study your posts and reply to you, as I indicated.
However, his noxious presence here is so offensive to me that I will
no longer post on this thread. Sorry." -- Garry Puffer; October 11,
2012

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx1QVAQ18PMWXWW&cdMsgNo=28&cdPage=3&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx1QVAQ18PMWXWW

Apparently my "noxious presence" isn't so bad after all. Eh, Garry?

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/1ef4137cba4e386a?#1ef4137cba4e386a

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "You can slip things past the moderators if you know big words." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, sure Tony. "Posterior" is such a humongous and obscure word. I'm
nearly positive that Professor McAdams has never heard that word
before in his entire life.


>>> "But then it can zig and zag in Connally. No other SBT did that before." <<<

And no SBT does this now. And Bugliosi never once said the bullet had
to "zig and zag" in order to get from JFK's throat to Connally's upper
back. In fact, as I stressed previously, Bugliosi said the exact
opposite. So, you're just making shit up (again).

And any deflection in the bullet path AFTER it gets into Connally's
upper back is irrelevant to any "SBT" discussion. The bullet, in fact,
almost certainly WAS deflected to some degree and changed course from
a 17.72-degree downward angle when it entered Connally's back to a
steeper 25-degree (approx.) downward angle as it coursed along the rib
of Connally. We know that happened. But so what? It doesn't matter one
bit, because once the bullet gets into the second victim (JBC), the
SBT bullet then followed its ultimate path until it was "spent" in
JBC's thigh.

And we know that Connally was struck by ONLY ONE BULLET. His own
doctor (Shaw) stated that "one bullet" very likely caused all of the
Governor's wounds. And Shaw made that "one bullet" statement within
just hours of the shooting on November 22.

Now, Tony, argue with me incessantly about how I can never "prove"
that Gov. John B. Connally of Texas was struck by "ONLY ONE BULLET".
Tell me I'm full of shit when I say such a thing. I want to hear you
embarrass yourself further. (Similar to last week's embarrassment,
when you insisted that I don't even know how to spell my own name.)

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx2N7QIZP8RIQ70&cdMsgNo=60&cdPage=6&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx2N7QIZP8RIQ70

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Just what credibility does Bugliosi have? Indeed, were he a
politician, everyone would be talking about his flip-flopping... for
as I'm sure you know, he stood up in court and argued that THIS WAS A
CONSPIRACY.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now who is the one telling falsehoods, Benjamin? Looks like it's you.
Because your last statement above gives anyone reading those words the
impression that Vincent Bugliosi, at some point in time in the past,
had advocated a conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY MURDER CASE.

But I know that that is not true at all. What you really meant to say
is that Vince Bugliosi, in the 1970s, believed that ROBERT KENNEDY'S
murder might very well have been a conspiracy involving more than just
Sirhan Sirhan.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You know, every time DVP learns that I don't say things I can't back
up, he seems to forget the lesson. Then he learns the lesson all over
again...

Vincent Bugliosi [To the Judge]: "I think the court can take judicial
notice that the whole tone, the whole tenor in this country at this
particular moment is that there is a tremendous distrust, there is a
tremendous suspicion, there is a tremendous skepticism about whether
or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone, and many, many
people, many substantial people - I am not talking about conspiracy
buffs who see a conspiracy behind every tree - many, many substantial
people feel that Sirhan did not act alone, that he did act in
concert."

Now, will we see an apology and a retraction from DVP? For I *KNOW*
he's seen this quote before. Anyone care to bet?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Holmes is hilarious.

Holmes thinks that the cited quote from Bugliosi is the same as
BUGLIOSI HIMSELF advocating a conspiracy in the JFK case.

But that's typical of kooks like Holmes. He has absolutely no ability
to properly assess and evaluate evidence and statements (like the
Bugliosi statement quoted by Benji above).

Bugliosi was talking about how OTHER PEOPLE (not Vince himself)
distrusted the Government regarding the Oswald and Sirhan cases. And,
yes, the "lawyer" side of him took over in that plea to the judge in
the 1970s. He was trying to make a case for some kind of conspiracy in
the BOBBY KENNEDY case, and so he utilized America's GENERAL DISTRUST
of the conclusions of the Warren Commission in the JACK KENNEDY case
to try and bolster his arguments regarding the Bobby Kennedy case.

But that's not the same thing as Vince Bugliosi HIMSELF saying that
the JFK case was a conspiracy. And Vince was not arguing in favor of a
conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY assassination in that quote. He was
arguing in favor of a conspiracy in the BOBBY KENNEDY case.

So, as usual, Benjamin Holmes is wrong. Bugliosi did not advocate the
stance that Holmes claimed he was advocating, and even the quote
provided by Hypocrite Holmes proves it.

But even if Bugliosi HAD BEEN advocating (via his own personal
beliefs) a conspiracy in JFK's murder when he made that statement to
the judge that was cited by Holmes -- so what? Vince made that
statement in the 1970s, years before he ever got involved in studying
the JFK case in any depth at all. (Vince didn't get deeply involved in
the JFK assassination until the mock trial of Oswald in 1986.)

So, quite obviously, even if Vince had been suggesting in the 1970s
that he, himself, believed that JFK was killed as a result of a
conspiracy (which he was not doing in that statement quoted by
Holmes), it would only go to show that Mr. Bugliosi, after studying
the evidence in the JFK case in depth in later years, had reached a
different conclusion regarding that murder case.

IOW -- big deal. So what?

And Benji wants an APOLOGY out of me on this issue?? The dickhead must
be cracked in the cranium.

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx1Z43IZWEJBSHG&cdMsgNo=69&cdPage=7&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx1Z43IZWEJBSHG


A KOOK NAMED HOLMES SAID:

>>> "Yep... didn't think you'd be able to retract your statement." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep, I knew my explanation would go zooming straight over your silly
head. But what can I expect from a conspiracy retard who, as I said,
has no ability to properly evaluate anything dealing with this case.
You're a howl.

>>> "I'm guessing that DVP must think that Bugliosi was lying to the judge." <<<

Why would I believe something stupid like that? Bugliosi told the
truth about what OTHER PEOPLE believed -- i.e., about how people all
over the country were displaying "a tremendous distrust" and "a
tremendous suspicion" and "tremendous skepticism about whether or not
people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone".

That's no lie. It's the truth. Vince was merely utilizing OTHER
PEOPLE'S distrust in the official LN story regarding Oswald's guilt to
add more weight to his pro-conspiracy arguments in front of the judge
concerning the Bobby Kennedy investigation.

I would think that even an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy clown like
you, Benjamin Holmes, would be able to figure that one out. But,
evidently not.

~yawn~

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

ADDENDUM:

It always amuses me when I hear conspiracy kooks like Ben Holmes
trying to bash Vincent Bugliosi by using Vincent's 1975 beliefs
regarding the RFK assassination to suggest that Bugliosi must have
ALSO believed that John Kennedy's death was a conspiracy too. As if
the two cases are melded and fused together in some way.

But instead of bashing Mr. Bugliosi when bringing up his stance in the
1970s on the RFK assassination, a reasonable and sensible person would
be admiring Vince.

Why?

Because by advocating in a court of law a conspiracy in RFK's murder,
Vincent T. Bugliosi forever should have silenced any critics who might
want to say that Vince was merely a "Government shill" or a "CIA
stooge", etc., and that he would never, under any circumstances,
postulate the possibility of a conspiracy when it comes to any of the
major assassinations of the 1960s.

But such a stance cannot be utilized by Vince's critics against Mr.
Bugliosi, because Vince DID take a stand (in a court of law) FOR
CONSPIRACY in the Bobby Kennedy case.

So instead of acting as if Vince Bugliosi is worse than Hitler or
Jeffrey Dahmer, the conspiracy theorists should wake up and realize
that Vince WILL argue for "conspiracy" if he thinks that a conspiracy
did exist in a particular case.

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx1D633RLDU6JLK&cdMsgNo=72&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx1D633RLDU6JLK

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=MxPRSQPKK6SP6O&cdMsgNo=73&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#MxPRSQPKK6SP6O


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Boy, David, you caught me in one big whopper, that's for sure. And I
lied about two things too. Am I ashamed. But since you caught me at
it, here's my explanation: I simply did not want to deal with Mr. King
any more. I didn't believe him, and I do not really wish to get into
an exchange with anyone who might seriously think Oswald was a lone
assassin. That was the first lie, not fessing up to that.

Blaming it on you was the second. The coward's way out. But in fact I
don't mind exchanges with you, because I know that you don't really
believe the WC crap you pour forth. I don't know Mr. King, although I
still am not convinced that he's not you in one of your other
incarnations.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry,

Thanks for your reply to my "hypocrite" remarks aimed at you.

But now I've got an additional "hypocritical" criticism to lay at your
feet, because of this quote by you:

"I do not really wish to get into an exchange with anyone who
might seriously think Oswald was a lone assassin." -- G. Puffer

So, what has Mr. Puffer done anyway?

Answer:

He's engaged a person in conversation who is an avid "LNer" and who
has (per Mr. Puffer) a "noxious presence" (that'd be me, DVP).

Amazing hypocrisy, huh? (Even WITHIN a post where Mr. Puffer is
admitting his two previous instances of hypocritical behavior.)

Oh, well, nobody's perfect, Garry. :-)

Re: The autopsy doctors and CE399:

You can't be serious here, Garry. Now, come on. The doctors were asked
their opinions re CE399 and they gave it. Period. Why do you think
they each lied? They didn't lie.

Plus: that topic of the AUTOPSY DOCTORS' opinions regarding what CE399
could have done or not have done isn't worth too much more than if we
asked our mailman or the UPS driver or the cashier at Kroger up the
street.

That last statement of mine might seem a bit shocking to you, coming
as it does from a lowly "LNer" like myself. But the reality is: none
of those autopsy physicians were really in a position to testify in
any kind of a scientific (or "ballistics") way concerning Bullet
CE399. They were autopsists, not firearms specialists.

Yes, Specter and Co. did ask the doctors their opinion (based on their
experience with other similar wounds involving guns and bullets, even
though, as you know, Dr. Humes had not done any [or many] autopsies on
gunshot wound victims prior to 1963), but the opinions elicited from
those doctors concerning Bullet CE399 specifically is something I
haven't really focused on (or stressed) to support my own SBT and LN
beliefs.

There are far better and more powerful ways to show that CE399 did,
indeed, do what the WC said it did -- and one of the main witnesses
who supports the SBT is Robert Frazier (firearms expert for the FBI).
It's the kind of testimony from a ballistics/firearms expert like
Frazier or Cunningham or Nicol that should take center stage (vs.
anything said by the autopsy doctors, who, after all, didn't perform
any of the rifle tests on Oswald's gun....nor did Humes, et al,
perform the detailed re-creation of the assassination from the TSBD's
sixth floor on 5/24/64; but Frazier DID do those things, and his
testimony supports the general workability of the SBT and of CE399's
post-shooting condition).


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

In regard to the test bullets fired into the wrists of cadavers. The
Warren Commission never even published the photos of those particular
test bullets. The others, yes, but not those. It was because they were
all mushroomed, the way any bullet is that's fired into a bone. They
avoided the issue by saying CE399 could indeed do what they claimed,
even when they knew that was not true. And you keep on repeating the
lie. For shame.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Come now, Garry, you're slipping ever deeper into absurdity here. You
know damn well that those bullet tests didn't come CLOSE to
replicating the path of the SBT/CE399 bullet. Not even close. They
fired those bullets DIRECTLY into human wrist bones! Those bullets
didn't go through a JFK neck first, and they didn't go into a
simulated "Connally" chest first either.

You're suffering from "Cyril Wecht Disease" regarding the condition of
the wrist-shot bullet(s), it would seem. I talk about that at one of
my sites (linked below), wherein I scold my favorite author (Mr. Bug.,
of course), for not pointing out in his 2007 radio debate against Dr.
Wecht the very thing I just pointed out to you here -- i.e., the WC
"wrist" bullet was fired straight into a wrist at FULL muzzle
velocity, and therefore it wasn't even MEANT to try to simulate the
SBT flight path at all.

Hence, how could we possibly EXPECT that test bullet NOT to be
mushroomed after striking a wrist at full speed? Wecht still to this
day apparently doesn't grasp the simple nature of this argument I have
just made. (Go figure.)

http://bugliosi-vs-wecht.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx2YQJVNX28IDID&cdMsgNo=78&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx2YQJVNX28IDID


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You really don't read very carefully, do you, David? I stated that I
did not want to get into an exchange with someone who might seriously
believe the LN nonsense.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, that's right! I forgot! I don't really believe anything that I've
been saying re the JFK case! And it took that all-knowing, all-seeing
Garry Puffer of Riverside to set me straight! How silly of me to
forget that Garry Puffer is the person who gets to decide what
everyone truly believes! Thanks, GP. You're a true pal for setting me
straight on this.

And now I see that Garry P. also thinks he gets to decide how to
properly spell people's names too. That's the second time he's
intentionally misspelled mine. How sweet.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I loved "you're slipping ever deeper into absurdity here." That one
made me laugh out loud, coming as it does from someone who argues that
CE399 could have done all it's claimed to have done, the most absurd
proposition in this whole affair full of absurd propositions.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe you should try looking at the information at the link below, Mr.
Puffer. I'm quite sure you'll say that that particular bullet is a
"fake" and/or a "fraud" perpetrated by the President of the
International Wound Ballistics Association, but I'll provide this info
anyhow:

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com/#Test-Bullet-Fired-Into-Wrist-At-1100fps

[Also see Gerald Posner's "Case Closed", pages 337-339 of the 1994
softcover edition.]

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/52a870acb8828641/1d7820b891810b57?#1d7820b891810b57

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Plenty who recalled fewer than three shots? Name them. List them. Quote them." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bill Newman, for one. Let's listen to him say so within about 45
minutes of the assassination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=SP8E7982DCB5CF1C9F&feature=player_detailpage&v=jIX_SYTbrpU#t=478s

You remember William E. Newman, don't you Tony? He's the guy who
conspiracy theorists love so much who was only 10 or 15 feet from JFK
when the fatal shot was fired. I wonder how the OTHER FOUR SHOTS (per
Oliver Stone), or the OTHER (AT LEAST) EIGHT SHOTS (per Robert Groden)
managed to slip past Bill Newman's ears without being heard?

I think it's more reasonable to believe that a few witnesses missed
hearing only ONE of Oswald's three shots than it is to believe that
some witnesses failed to hear up to FOUR or maybe even EIGHT of the
gunshots that were being fired that day in Dealey Plaza -- such as
Bill Newman, who was smack-dab in-between the TSBD and the Grassy
Knoll when all the shots were being fired.

And there's also Don Pardo's initial NBC-TV voiceover bulletin, in
which Pardo said "It was believed two shots were fired."

I still don't know where NBC/Pardo got that early "two shots" report.
It seems unlikely they could have gotten it from either of the two
main wireservices (AP or UPI). I know they didn't get it from UPI
(Merriman Smith), because Smith definitely dictated "three shots" over
the UPI wire. And I believe Jack Bell of AP said three shots too. I've
often wondered where this early (12:45:03 PM) "two shots" report came
from that came out of Don Pardo's mouth:

http://www.box.com/shared/y89hqfhzz8

But regardless of who the source was for that first NBC-TV bulletin,
when coupled with William Newman's "two shots" account, and Jay
Watson's "three shots" earwitness account, and Merriman Smith's "three
shots" report, and Pierce Allman's "three well-spaced reverberating
shots" report via WFAA-Radio within an hour or two of the shooting,
and Jack Bell's "three shots" AP report -- all of those early "three
shots were fired" reports certainly don't do conspiracy theorists like
Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone or Bob Groden any favors. Those three
conspiracists have no choice but to just totally ignore all of those
early "three shots" witnesses. And a lot of other conspiracy theorists
have no choice but to pretty much ignore those witnesses as well.

[David Von Pein]

http://Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx3NCPECDG69CDX&cdMsgNo=103&cdPage=11&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx3NCPECDG69CDX


BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "There is *NO* index for the 26 volumes. .... Rather dishonest to cite an index that has *NOTHING* to do with the 26 volumes, isn't it?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Holmes has multiple screws loose in his conspiracy-infested head. He
actually thinks the link I cited in an earlier post (linked below) has
"NOTHING to do with the 26 volumes":

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm

When, of course, as anyone can plainly see, that link provides "Volume
number" information for every single one of the 552 witnesses who
testified before the Warren Commission or its staff/counsel.

Holmes, can you see where it says "Vol. VII, p. 239" next to the first
name (Don Ables) on that alphabetical list of witnesses?

If that's not an "index", then what the hell WOULD you call it,
Holmes?

And there's another massive "Names Index" in WC Volume 15, which
includes repeating the Volume No. info for the 552 witnesses listed at
the link above, plus info for hundreds of other people whose names
appear somewhere within the 26 volumes. And this index, like the one
on WCR p.483, tells the reader exactly what Volume number and page
number to go to in order to find the references to that person and/or
their own testimony:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm

So, we can add one more item to the growing list marked "The
Untruthful And Misleading Things Uttered On The Internet By A Kook
Named Ben Holmes". This is his latest wholly inaccurate statement (as
I proved above):

"Rather dishonest to cite an index that has *NOTHING* to do with
the 26 volumes, isn't it?" -- B. Holmes

Footnote --- And when looking at that "List of Witnesses" again, we
can see that Holmes has apparently left this Earth entirely and is now
calling Rod Serling's Twilight Zone his current residence, because not
only does that "List of Witnesses" index on page 483 of the WCR have
"something to do" with the 26 volumes--in point of fact, that List of
Witnesses ONLY refers to the 26 volumes and nothing else! It doesn't
refer to the 888-page Warren Report AT ALL. The ONLY source of
reference associated with that List of Witnesses is the 26 volumes.
But Holmes, incredibly, insists that it has "NOTHING to do" with those
26 volumes at all.

Mr. Serling, Ben is all yours. And you're welcome to him.

[tom...@cox.net]

THE 26 VOLUMES CONTAIN NO" SUJECT INDEX BECAUE THEY KEW HTHAT THE
"EVIDENCE" WOLD NEVER HOLD UP ! !




> http://Amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asi
> n=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx3NCPECDG69CDX&cdMsgNo=103&c
> dPage=11&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx3NCPECDG69C

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[aeffects]

yeah, sure you will... you, as Bug's chief, internet cheerleader, I suspect you will... actually, you've no choice. Ignorance is in deed, bliss. And after all, what more can the community expect from a fast-food, fill your arteries full of fat maven.

Someone should tag you for littering on these boards, troll!

Carry on!

[Valerian]

One of the TV stations in Dallas was taping Oswald as he was being escorted by Dallas police detectives and uniformed officers from the fifth floor cells to the line-up "showrooms" where witnesses were presumably identifying him. For the Saturday 2:15 p.m. line-up, Oswald was handcuffed to two other prisoners (there is disagreement as to whether Dallas police used detectives as "fillers" in the lineups or whether they used other prisoners). Anyway, as the elevator door opened by the Homicide and Robbery reception area, a uniformed police officer exited the elevator and another individual dressed in plain clothes (black hat, black suit with white shirt) also exited but kept walking ahead rather than in front of the reception desk where there were several uniformed officers waiting and commenting that Oswald was going to the "showroom" for another lineup. This was being taped by the TV station. The man that exited the elevator with the officer has a striking resemblance to Jack Ruby and was wearing THE SAME CLOTHING as Ruby wore when he shot Oswald later that day! The documentary JFK: 3 SHOTS THAT CHANGED AMERICA (in the section THE SUSPECT) shows that scene of the strange man (clearly not a detective, uniformed police officer or press correspondent) leaving the elevator and walking straight ahead rather than escorting Oswald and the other prisoners. Just as that strange man leaves the elevator, the uniformed officer walks forward, is met by a detective, and escorts a short, Hispanic-looking man wearing a dark jacket, Oswald, and a tall white young prisoner wearing a white shirt (again, all handcuffed together). They were escorted to the "showroom" where the 2:15 p.m .lineup took place. The prisoners were quite different in appearance and wore distinctly different articles of clothing (so much for a nontained ID lineup).

There is also footage of Ruby standing in the back of a large room where Oswald was being "shown" to the media, escorted by several unifored officers and some detectives.

Needless to say, there is no question whatsoever that Jack Ruby had easy access to Oswald that Saturday. He probably was there as early as 2 p.m. and came in the same elevator as Oswald. Whether Oswald saw him in the elevator or not remains a mystery.

There is also testimony that indicates that Oswald may have told one of the prisoners he was handcuffed to or who had a cell near Oswald's that he knew another inmate who was brought in that Saturday from a meeting he had with Ruby and that inmate (a Mr. Miller) regarding some weapon shipments and a "contract" payment. Was Oswald becoming aware that the "contract" these men were paid for involved the rifles used in the assassination of Pres. Kennedy and perhaps even taking part in the shooting in some way (as "spotters" perhaps?).

More mystery!

Does anyone know if that strange man coming out of the elevator was in fact Jack Ruby? If it was Ruby then he was in the Dallas Police Station as early as 2 p.m. and did not enter through the ramp, as was later reported, but rather allowed to identify Oswald (yes, just as I wrote it) and in the process allowed to have access when Oswald was being escorted to be transferred to the County Jail later that Saturday!

VR