JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 123)

>>> "The reason why the limo appears suddenly is because the Zap[ruder] film has been altered to NOT show the slow wide turn onto Elm. .... The slow wide turn on Elm does not show up on any of the JFK films of the motorcade." <<<

LOL. As if a "wide turn" onto Elm means a damn thing with regard to
"conspiracy" vs. "no conspiracy". You actually think a band of film-
fakers gave a rat's ass about the turn onto Elm, which was many
seconds BEFORE any shooting was going on?!

You alterationist kooks just never stop being silly, do you?

So now you think ALL the films have been altered, eh?

Pathetic is too mild a term for you kooks. Way too mild. You're beyond
pathetic. You're on the planet Neptune.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 10, 2010, 5:21:08 PM2/10/10

to

http://www.Amazon.com/review/R362WXZL2URGJ/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=11&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2A3WO4B1X07VX#Mx2A3WO4B1X07VX

http://www.Amazon.com/review/R362WXZL2URGJ/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=12&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1I699I3EPLBWN#Mx1I699I3EPLBWN

A CONSPIRACY KOOK NAMED EDDIE KASICA WROTE:

>>> "Just a brief trip into the toilet bowl known as Von Pein. "You" are [a] liar. Simple and straight: a pathetic little liar who doesn't have the guts to emerge from whatever safe-house or mommy's basement in which "you" live. Doug Horne DOES NOT implicate any specific person in the possible alteration of Kennedy's body: not Humes, not Finck, not Boswell." <<<

DVP SAID:

You'd better do a little more reading, Eddie, because Mr. Horne most
certainly DOES "implicate" specific people in his ridiculous theory
about how President Kennedy's body was altered before his autopsy on
the night of November 22, 1963.

In fact, Horne wrote a comment right here on the Amazon.com boards in
which he directly accuses (i.e., "implicates") JFK's lead autopsy
doctor of performing alterations to the President's head "before the
autopsy" ever began at Bethesda. Here are Horne's verbatim words:

"Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head
wounds before the autopsy." -- Douglas P. Horne; December 19, 2009
[original post linked below]

http://www.Amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=5&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2RVKNXI6HGY2D#Mx2RVKNXI6HGY2D

So, as we can easily see, Mr. Kasica is grossly misinformed (even
about his hero, Mr. Horne). Otherwise, this silly statement would have
never escaped his keyboard: "Horne DOES NOT implicate any specific
person in the possible alteration of Kennedy's body: not Humes, not
Finck, not Boswell."

EDDIE KASICA THE KOOK THEN WROTE:

>>> "BTW, the quotes around "you" refer to the fact that DVP must be a conglomeration of several individuals, since no one human could possibly spend as much time disinforming on this topic. There just ain't enough time in the day. And Von Poon, take that JFK avatar off your two-billion posts across the Net. How dare you! You're nothing but an assassin as well, ex-post-facto." <<<

Oh, goodie! Now I get to be "an assassin" too, per Kook Kasica. And
why not? Everybody and his uncle was apparently out to murder JFK in
'63, so why not 1-year-old David "Von Poon" too? (Thanks for today's
laugh, Edward.)

BTW, the constant alterations of my last name by various conspiracy
kooks on these Amazon boards are rather humorous too. "Von Sack" was a
new one I had never seen before. But Kasica's "Von Poon" needs some
work. Surely, a rabid kook such as Kasica can find a better faux
moniker than that. Right, Eddie?

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

THE INSANE THEORIES OF DOUGLAS P. HORNE:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0e2e36113ce98e6b

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/155a3a578f5005f5

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

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 11:15:36 AM2/26/10

to

PAT SPEER SAID (AT IMDB.COM):

>>> "There are a lot of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists and George Bush supporters that would...consider [Vincent] Bugliosi to be basically out of his mind. I met Vince at a book signing, and find him to be a sharp-tongued and entertaining person. Entertaining does not necessarily equal enlightened, however. Some of the mistakes in his massive book are downright embarrassing. Others are extremely suspicious and lead me to wonder if at certain points he didn't deliberately set out deceive his readers. Which is too bad. I honestly wish that at least one Lone Nut theorist, such as [John] McAdams and Bugliosi, would present the case against Oswald--in particular the medical evidence--without obvious and deliberate deception. Such a case would prove useful. But instead we get this spin spin spin, lie, spin spin spin. On the promotion tour for his book, Bugliosi made a point of telling his listeners, in most every interview, that conspiracy theorists, in order to cast doubt about the single-bullet theory, routinely LIE about Connally's location in the limousine, placing his seat directly in front of Kennedy, when his seat was, in fact, six inches inboard of Kennedy's seat. Well, IRONY OF IRONIES, Bugliosi was LYING about this--the location of Connally's seat, as acknowledged by Bugliosi's top adviser on such matters, Dale Myers, was only 2 1/2 inches inboard of Kennedy's seat." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vince Bugliosi wasn't "lying" about the "6 inch" measurement regarding
the limousine's jump seat. He got that straight from the Warren
Commission volumes, via the testimony of Thomas J. Kelley of the USSS.

The Hess & Eisenhardt limo body draft does indicate a "2.50 inch"
inboard measurement however.

Whether Vince realizes there is a discrepancy is something I have not
verified.

Anyhow, via EITHER measurement, it couldn't be more obvious that John
Connally WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN HIT BY A BULLET EXITING KENNEDY'S
THROAT.

And even Patrick J. Speer has acknowledged that obvious fact, via this
April 2008 exchange linked below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58af2cc23e444fb1

EXCERPTS FROM ABOVE ARTICLE:

"[Dale Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the
seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and...when these
mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes
Connally in the middle of his back." -- Patrick Speer; April 18, 2008

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

"Therefore, per Pat's above quote, if Mr. Myers were to have
slid John Connally's jump seat inboard a total of only 2.5 inches from
the right door (vs. the "6 inches" that Thomas Kelley of the Secret
Service testified was the distance between the right door and the jump
seat and is the "6-inch" measurement that Pat Speer is claiming that
Myers DID utilize for JBC's seat in Dale's 3D computer model), this
would then mean that Governor Connally would have been struck by the
bullet "in the middle of his back".

"But if Myers utilizes the "6 inches from the door" measurement
for JBC's jump seat, it would mean that Myers is able to get the
bullet wound placed properly at the FAR RIGHT portion of JBC's back
(near the armpit, which, of course, is where he was hit by a
bullet). ....

"Therefore, it seems as though Mr. Speer's whole argument falls
flat and is rendered very nearly moot and meaningless. Why? Because:

"VIA EITHER OF THE DISPUTED JUMP-SEAT MEASUREMENTS (either the
2.5-inch measurement or the 6-inch version), it's obvious that John
Connally WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE BULLET THAT EXITED JOHN
KENNEDY'S THROAT.

"And that is a shooting scenario (i.e., a "Single Bullet Hitting
Both Men" scenario) that very few conspiracy theorists embrace at all,
regardless of WHERE exactly the jump seat was located.

"But Mr. Speer is telling us, it seems to me, that John Connally
is certainly going to be hit in the back by the bullet coming out of
JFK's neck no matter WHERE the jump seat is situated.

"And as far as that argument goes, I'd fully agree with
him....because given the alignment of the two victims in the
car....plus the fact they were each struck by a bullet that entered
their UPPER BACKS....plus the fact that a bullet almost certainly
(beyond a proverbial "reasonable doubt") went clean through John
Kennedy's body on a downward trajectory from back to front -- there
was simply nowhere else for that bullet to go except into JBC's back
after leaving JFK's body." -- David Von Pein; April 23, 2008

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 4:03:52 PM2/26/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33da925fd0c7ab/58b24360421bf4a2?#58b24360421bf4a2

>>> "Some of the lineup witnesses, I believe, saw only a man with Tippit's gun--Mrs Markham & at least one of the Davis sisters-in-law." <<<

Oh, for Pete sake, Don. You're just making up silly theories that you
should be embarrassed to put in print.

You think the only gunman Markham saw was carrying TIPPIT'S gun? And
that this gunman Markham and the Davis girl saw was SCOGGINS? Talk
about rewriting history. Don Willis is making a concerted effort at
doing that here.

Scoggins never even had Tippit's gun, of course. It was Ted Callaway
who took Tippit's gun, not Scoggins. And this wasn't until a few
minutes after Tippit's killer had fled the crime scene. And Markham
and Davis saw a gunman immediately after Tippit was shot. And Davis
even saw Oswald dumping the shells out of his gun. Even you will admit
that the person who had Tippit's gun wasn't doing any shell-dumping
that day, right Don?

>>> "One lineup witness, Cab [aka Ted] Calloway [sic], I believe, saw no one fleeing." <<<

Oh, goodie! Don is making stuff up again! Wonderful!

>>> "And one lineup witness, Scoggins, was, I believe, the man with Tippit's gun." <<<

Your belief is provably wrong (and stupid too).

Question for Donald C. Willis: Why do you have such a strong desire to
misrepresent the known evidence in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
cases?

I'm just curious to know what fuels a kook's desire to totally rewrite
the known facts about those two Dallas crimes?

aeffects

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 4:23:11 PM2/26/10

to

On Feb 26, 1:03 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

If speaking to yourself, creating faux CT's is the best you can do
troll.... the fight is OVER. Time for you to move onto harvesting gnat
shit!

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 4:56:48 PM2/26/10

to

I guess Don Willis (who has posted on these forums for years) is a
"faux CT", huh Healy?

This retard named Healy is even too lazy to click his mouse button to
confirm (via the link below) that I was talking to one of his fellow
kooks, Donald Willis.

Mr. Crackpipe (Healy) just assumes I made up the conversation out of
whole cloth. What a crack researcher we've got here in DGH.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33da925fd0c7ab/58b24360421bf4a2?#58b24360421bf4a2

aeffects

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 5:06:54 PM2/26/10

to

On Feb 26, 1:56 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I guess Don Willis (who has posted on these forums for years) is a
> "faux CT", huh Healy?
>
> This retard named Healy is even too lazy to click his mouse button to
> confirm (via the link below) that I was talking to one of his fellow
> kooks, Donald Willis.
>
> Mr. Crackpipe (Healy) just assumes I made up the conversation out of
> whole cloth. What a crack researcher we've got here in DGH.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

like I said troll:

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 5:17:32 PM2/26/10

to

Well, I'll be French-dipped! Healy DOES think Don Willis is an
invisible CTer.

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 26, 2010, 10:40:55 PM2/26/10

to

http://JamesFetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/judyth-vary-baker-living-in-exile.html

JAMES FETZER SAID:

>>> "John McAdams is a notorious "lone-nutter" who supports the official account of the assassination, which is refutable on elementary grounds. .... Dave von Pein [sic], moreover, is an especially vicious attack dog who goes after anyone who contests the government's position, as anyone can readily verify by tracing the comments for INSIDE THE ARRB, where he has gone after Doug Horne tooth and claw and I have rebutted many of his assaults, which will continue. Not the least of my reasons for posting this blog is that I received a death threat today [2/25/2010] for my work on JFK and 9/11." <<<

DVP SAID:

While I totally disagree with just about everything James Fetzer says
regarding the JFK case, I'm truly disturbed to read here on his blog
that he has received a death threat (shown below).

http://i48.tinypic.com/11t6hpz.jpg

Regardless of what anyone's views might be (on JFK, 9/11, whatever),
every person has a right to voice his own opinion without be subjected
to such reprehensible threats like those Prof. Fetzer received via
that e-mail he shared above. It's truly despicable.

Take care, Jim.

Signed,
David "Vicious Attack Dog" Von Pein

(Hey, I guess I should say "thanks" to Mr. Fetzer. Being called a
"vicious attack dog" is a lot better than being labelled a "CIA
Disinformation Agent". Or maybe Prof. Fetzer thinks I'm employed in
that capacity too.)

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 27, 2010, 6:33:53 PM2/27/10

to

http://JamesFetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/judyth-vary-baker-living-in-exile.html?showComment=1267241670415#c3979034996768038894

http://JamesFetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/judyth-vary-baker-living-in-exile.html?showComment=1267284944499#c2704767743075439766

JIM FETZER SAID:

>>> "Dear "Vicious Attack Dog", Thanks for the expression of sympathy related to my "death threat", an exception to your voluminous nasty posts, which appear to be part of a psychological operation (psyop) intended to make research on virtually any aspect of JFK's assassination so unpleasant that most good-hearted Americans are going to abandon the field on that basis alone! It is quite a brilliant strategy, since it bears no relationship whatever to the truth or the falsity of any claim anyone has made about the death of JFK. My invitation to you, therefore, is to take one or another of my studies about the assassination, such as "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed international journal, and explain what I have wrong. That should be easy for a pro like yourself, who spends endless hours engaged in debunking arguments supporting belief in conspiracy. In fact, since it is also posted on this blog, I suggest that you and I begin there and then consider other work of mine. Touche?" <<<

DVP SAYS:

It's quite humorous (in a "pot/kettle" fashion) to hear someone like
Professor James H. Fetzer lecturing someone like myself on "the truth"
when it comes to the facts surrounding the assassination of President
Kennedy.

I, of course, have engaged Mr. Fetzer in JFK discussions on the
Internet a few times in the past, and I have discussed the ACTUAL
EVIDENCE in the case (which, of course, is evidence that bears no
resemblance in any way at all to the "evidence" that Mr. Fetzer has
concocted for himself in his own little world of fantasy--a world
which adheres to the following rigidly-enforced motto: "NOTHING IS
EVER WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE IN THE KENNEDY CASE").

But, amazingly, Mr. Fetzer and other outer-fringe conspiracy theorists
like him feel perfectly comfortable residing in such a world of make-
believe, despite the fact that no conspiracy theorist to date has come
within a thousand miles of actually PROVING that a single piece of
evidence connected with the JFK assassination has been "manufactured",
"faked", "forged", or "planted".

But in Mr. Fetzer's world, the mere BELIEF that a whole bunch of stuff
has been faked and manufactured to frame poor ol' Lee Oswald is more
than enough of a reason to tout such beliefs as rock-solid, undeniable
FACTS.

That's why Mr. Fetzer is a conspiracy theorist and I am not. Because I
happen to think that such vile and loathsome accusations--such as
manipulating and faking all kinds of evidence in the murder of a U.S.
President--should be PROVEN beyond all reasonable doubt before such
charges are touted as outright "facts".

Mr. Fetzer, naturally, thinks he has "proven" that a lot of the
evidence in the JFK case has been faked and manufactured (such as the
Zapruder Film, to name but one example). But, in reality, James H.
Fetzer has "proven" nothing of the kind. In fact, Jim's theories
regarding the Zapruder Film, in particular, are so incredibly far-out
and wacky, they can only elicit laughter (and pity) from any
reasonable and sensible human being on Planet Earth, as I vividly
demonstrated in the article linked below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4bb91d2bcb706688

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 27, 2010, 10:19:17 PM2/27/10

to

DAVID VON PEIN SAID (QUOTING A PASSAGE FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S BOOK):

"If [Lee Harvey Oswald] had succeeded in getting to Cuba, who
believes he would have ended up killing Kennedy? No one I've ever
heard of. And how believable is it that a plot to kill the
president...would be born after October 1, seven weeks before
Kennedy's death? To believe something like that is to be addicted to
silliness.

"The absurdity of the notion that Oswald conspired with others
to kill Kennedy can be spotlighted by the fact that on the very day,
September 26, 1963, that it was announced in both Dallas newspapers
that Kennedy was going to come to Texas on November 21 and 22 and that
Dallas would likely be one of the cities he would visit, Oswald was on
a bus traveling to Mexico City determined to get to Cuba." -- Vince
Bugliosi

PAT SPEER SAID:

You guys actually fall for this nonsense? This is absolutely the
DUMBEST argument against conspiracy I've ever read.

Let me see...hmmm...I'm Vincent Bugliosi...I need to cook up another
completely illogical argument against conspiracy, in hopes that if I
throw enough stuff against the wall, some if it will
stick...hmmm...wel how about this?...LET'S PRETEND I can read the
minds of all conspirators...LET'S PRETEND I can assume they'd want to
have their plan planned out in exquisite detail months ahead of
time...because, well, because, this will sound good to the same
gullible people that will BUY my giant book...so, here goes...Well we
know Oswald tried to go to Cuba, so why don't we claim his trying to
go to Cuba somehow proves no one would have implicated him in a plot
whereby Cuba would get blamed for the assassination...

HUH???? Vince ignores the obvious...
Perhaps the planners had multiple plans which went awry, and the plot
involving Oswald was only put together at the last minute...
Perhaps the planners didn't know Oswald tried to go to Cuba...
Or perhaps they knew he'd tried but also knew he'd been rejected...
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Oswald was implicated in the plot BECAUSE he
tried to go to Cuba...

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, this argument by Bugliosi is pure
SILLINESS, every bit as silly as the theories of Lifton, Fetzer, etc.

Vince can certainly do better.

DVP SAID:

Pat,

Vincent Bugliosi's comments about Oswald and Cuba make perfect sense.
Vince was merely interjecting some basic, garden-variety COMMON SENSE
there. Because if Oswald had, indeed, travelled to Cuba in late
September 1963 (AND HAD STAYED THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME), then he
obviously wouldn't have been able to kill President Kennedy in Dallas
in November.

Plus, you're looking at Bugliosi's quote in the skewed and cockeyed
fashion of a typical conspiracy theorist, in that you're assuming that
a group of mysterious "conspirators" was REALLY trying to either frame
Oswald for Kennedy's murder or was trying to use him as part of the
working plot to kill JFK in Dallas. And you know as well as I do,
Patrick, that there is absolutely NO FIRM EVIDENCE that any group of
"planners" (as you call them) was attempting to frame Lee Harvey
Oswald for JFK's death.

So, if we take your "perhaps this happened" conspiratorial angles out
of the mix (all of which are pure guesswork on your part and are
unsupported by the available evidence connected with the
assassination), we're then back to the basic brass tacks of the
situation (which was Bugliosi's whole point to begin with), which is:

IF LEE HARVEY OSWALD HAD MADE IT TO CUBA IN SEPTEMBER OF 1963, HE
WOULDN'T HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS IN NOVEMBER.

That's just a simple fact that any grade-school student could easily
figure out. But it's also the kind of logical forehead-slapping fact
that is often completely overlooked by the majority of people who
study the JFK assassination.

People simply don't stop to think about such obvious (but very
important) details like that. And that is just one example of the many
common-sense and plain-as-day inferences that Vincent Bugliosi has
sprinkled throughout his book, "Reclaiming History".

PAT SPEER SAID:

Even DVP, who pretty much worships the guy [Vince Bugliosi], has
acknowledged that there are real problems with Bugliosi's book.

DVP SAID:

I think you're overstating things there a wee bit, Pat. I've never
said that Mr. Bugliosi's book has "real problems".

I've pointed out (on multiple occasions, linked below) a few errors
that I have found in Vincent's book ("Reclaiming History"), but I have
also been quick to emphasize the following as well:

"The very few mistakes that crop up within VB's exemplary JFK
book (and CD) are not nearly significant enough in nature, in my view,
to warrant the dismissal of Mr. Bugliosi's ultimate "Lone Assassin"
determination." -- DVP; December 14, 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996

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

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f45cd7f74b10f4d3

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com