How Many Times Will David Von Pein Lie?

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein:
> The CT clowns will pretend to know that all of the evidence against Oswald was faked, planted, switched, or whatever. But when it comes to PROVING that ANY of it---even one single piece of it---WAS actually faked or planted or switched....well, that's another kettle of fish entirely, because no conspiracist on the planet has ever done any such thing, and they never will, of course.

David is proven wrong time and time again, yet never has the honesty to change his website to reflect the truth.

Here's merely one example that proves David a liar:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

[David Von Pein]

Ben is wrong (as per usual). In September 2009, I responded to Pat Speer's article that Ben linked to. Excerpts....

PAT SPEER SAID:

It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two different bags.

Take off your Bugliosi-colored glasses for a second, will ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong, Pat. You'd better re-read "Reclaiming History" endnote pages 405 and 406 again, because you couldn't be more wrong on this point.

Bugliosi made no mistake on this issue at all. And the quoted passages that YOU, Pat Speer, included in your 4/13/09 article at Mary Ferrell's website confirm this.

Bugliosi fully acknowledges that the FBI obtained paper samples from the Book Depository on TWO separate days (11/22/63 and 12/1/63), and Vince is most certainly NOT contending (in the book excerpts reprinted below) that the November 22 paper sample was utilized by the FBI to create the replica bag. In fact, Vince never mentions the replica BAG at all in these "RH" book excerpts:

"One version [of Vincent Drain's 11/29/63 FBI report] stated that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the shooting.

[...]

The two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March 12, 1964, letter [linked here], Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt. Please submit a report...as to the tests made and the conclusions drawn.”

[...]

A week later, on March 19 [in a letter to Rankin which can be seen in CE2723], Hoover responded that BOTH reports were correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its “heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found on the day of the shooting.

The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to [the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic and all other observable physical characteristics.”" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 405-406 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


PAT SPEER SAID:

Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be contradicting ourselves...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, exactly. So what's your problem now, Pat? (Let's see...)


PAT SPEER SAID:

...the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can determine the paper could be from the same source.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

Oh I see! If it's you and I talking about the VERY SAME matter, we would "not be contradicting ourselves", but if it's the "FBI" doing the talking, it becomes "FBI-speak" and suddenly the exact same words mean something that IS contradictory in nature.

Brilliant, Pat!

You're REALLY digging deep to try and save yourself from embarrassment now, I see. Maybe you should stop right now, while we can still see the top of your head.

BTW, you're wrong (again) when you keep trying to assert that the "revised" language in the 11/29/63 Vincent Drain report is referring to "the two bags". The November 29th report (BOTH versions) is referring to a small piece of sample paper (which can be seen in CE677) that was taken from the Depository on November 22 (not December 1).

The 11/29/63 document is most certainly NOT referring to the paper sample that was used by the FBI to create the replica "bag", with the replica bag being viewable in CE364.

Pat Speer still seems to think that CE677 and CE364 are the same thing. And Pat evidently also wants to believe that CE677 and CE364 were obtained on the very same DAY too. But they weren't. So Pat is wrong.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-690.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 8:16:33 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

> Ben is wrong (as per usual). In October 2014, I responded to Pat Speer's article that Ben linked to. Excerpts....

All of this nonsense can be rebutted merely by pointing out that David is, as usual, lying again.

He's pretending that this is TWO DIFFERENT MEMO'S - ADDRESSING TWO DIFFERENT PAPER SOURCES.

But it's the *SAME MEMO*. Dated the SAME DAY... with IDENTICAL WORDING.

And proven to be the same in the citation I gave, which showed that the FBI sent out the replacement memo, AND HAD EVERYONE REMOVE THE ORIGINAL AND REPLACE IT WITH THE CONTRADICTORY MEMO.

IOW's, this isn't two different tests... THIS IS ONE TEST, AND ONE MEMO.

And David won't answer this. (He clearly paid no attention at all to my citation.) Others have already pointed out Bugliosi's lies... this isn't the first time it's been mentioned. So David *KNOWS* these facts.

As stated in my citation: "By Bugliosi's own account, the paper samples that did not match the characteristics of the paper bag were obtained on 12-1-63. So...how can a report refer to the results of a test that has not yet been performed, on an object that has not yet been procured?"

Watch as David RUNS LIKE A COWARD from addressing that statement...

[David Von Pein]

"In the final analysis, it's quite obvious (to everybody except rabid conspiracy theorists who want the FBI to be involved in a "cover-up" of some kind) that the FBI replaced a poorly-worded page of one report with a more-accurately-worded page of that same report. And James Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony confirms this as well." -- DVP; Sept. 2009

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 9:21:43 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> "In the final analysis, it's quite obvious (to everybody except rabid conspiracy theorists who want the FBI to be involved in a "cover-up" of some kind) that the FBI replaced a poorly-worded page of one report with a more-accurately-worded page of that same report. And James Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony confirms this as well." -- DVP; Sept. 2009

Tut tut tut, you're opinion isn't worth the electrons used to post it.

The FBI came to a conclusion on 11/30/63 ... then a DIFFERENT conclusion on 12/1/63 ... with, as *YOU* believe, two different examinations...

It's a GUTLESS lie to refer to a conclusion 180 degrees different as one that is "poorly worded".

Do you suppose that the FBI didn't have any calendars in their offices?

[David Von Pein]

FYI / FWIW....

Upon looking over this topic yet again, I've slightly revised the article on my site that deals with this issue of the two different FBI reports re: the paper bag.

I can see now that Mr. Bugliosi probably DID make an error in dealing with that subject. But given the various reports that were issued on the paper samples by the FBI on 1/7/64 and 1/13/64, I can see how Vince could easily get confused. (I was confused for a while too.)

But since I hate errors on my site, I've revised a few parts of my online article, because I now think that *I* also was too hasty in my criticism of Pat Speer concerning this issue.

But if you dig into the 2009 source link I provide, you'll see that Mr. Speer wasn't too clear on some things either, especially when he kept referring to the 11/22/63 paper sample as a "bag". (That sample was just a piece of loose paper; it was not a "bag".)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-690.html

[David Von Pein]

I disagree, Ben. I definitely DO think that was the reason for the switch in the Vince Drain reports. The first one about the 11/22 sample not being "identical" is not a good choice of words at all---seeing as how the WC testimony of Cadigan and Hoover's follow-up reports clearly indicate that the 11/22 paper sample DID generally match Oswald's paper gun case.

So, yes, the first version was certainly "poorly worded", just as I said. Therefore, the FBI corrected the error with a more accurate version. It's as simple as that, IMO.

[Ben Holmes]

This is a common tactic with you, David...

After desperately defending, you finally acknowledge the truth, BUT STILL REFUSE TO ADMIT THE BASIC LIE.

Such as the time you finally figured out that Carrico & Perry said nothing about a "ragged" throat wound.

Now you're doing it again with forged evidence.

And the original statement that I've proven to be a lie IS STILL ON YOUR WEBSITE, WITH NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!

You keep blaming critics for "not being clear" - but the truth is, WE KNOW THE EVIDENCE AND **YOU** KEEP GETTING SCHOOLED ON IT.

Now, do you plan to *actually* change that false statement on your website?

And admit that the FBI got caught altering evidence?

[David Von Pein]

They didn't "alter" evidence, Ben. They merely CORRECTED an error in one FBI report. That's all I see happening there.

[Ben Holmes]

You don't "correct" a report exonerating Oswald with one framing him... You refused to answer my question... don't the FBI offices have calendars?

This alteration may well have escaped *ALL* notice had it not been for careful researchers digging into the paper trail.

You know, and I know that the HONEST and correct way to do this is not to ALTER DOCUMENT EVIDENCE, but to produce ANOTHER report explaining the first.

This wasn't done.

THE FBI **PROVABLY** ALTERED DOCUMENTATION... and you *STILL* haven't corrected your website despite the proof that you lied.

Why is that, David?

Why are you trying to explain the evidence with your *SPECULATION*???

And why do you keep getting "confused" - and corrected by critics?

[David Von Pein]

What part of my revised webpage ("Part 690") do you now think I should "correct", Ben?

> Why are you trying to explain the evidence with your *SPECULATION*???
>

Isn't that what you're doing too, Ben --- "speculating"?

> And why do you keep getting "confused" - and corrected by critics?

Maybe because I'm getting really old. :(

[Ben Holmes]

I QUOTED the incorrect statement at the beginning of this thread.

> > Why are you trying to explain the evidence with your *SPECULATION*???
> >
>
> Isn't that what you're doing too, Ben --- "speculating"?

Name *ONE* fact that I've posted based on "speculation."


It's a FACT that two *ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY* reports were dated the same day.

One of them IS CLEARLY A LIE.

If it had been an honest mistake, a second report would have been written, correcting the mistake and offering the explanation for why it happened.

Instead, the FBI simply ALTERED AN ORIGINAL *AND DATED* REPORT WITH ONE THAT CONTRADICTED THE FIRST ONE.


Where's the "speculation," David?

> > And why do you keep getting "confused" - and corrected by critics?
>
> Maybe because I'm getting really old. :(

Then maybe you should slow down and examine things before you spout off falsely about them...

I quite doubt if all the critics correcting you are any less 'aged-challenged' than you.

[Ben Holmes]

It looks like the answer to my question is "REPEATEDLY."

David would CRY BLOODY MURDER if the money order were "corrected" to show it was forged.

David would CRY BLOODY MURDER if CE543 turned out to have come from a firing test of the Mannlicher Carcano.

David would CRY BLOODY MURDER if FBI documents suddenly surfaced showing witness intimidation of Howard Brennan.

David would CRY BLOODY MURDER if proof of autopsy material alteration came to light...

But alter the evidence so it frames Oswald???

Not a peep.

[David Von Pein]

Oh, you mean this DVP quote....

"The CT clowns will pretend to know that all of the evidence against Oswald was faked, planted, switched, or whatever. But when it comes to PROVING that ANY of it---even one single piece of it---WAS actually faked or planted or switched....well, that's another kettle of fish entirely, because no conspiracist on the planet has ever done any such thing, and they never will, of course."

Well, Ben, I have no intention of changing that particular quote, because it's a dandy quote. And a perfectly accurate one too. (Regardless of which of my webpages you got it from. And I'm not sure which page it's on.)

The two Drain reports re: the paper samples don't qualify as "altering" or "faking" or "switching" or "planting" the evidence. It merely indicates, as I said before, a desire on the part of the FBI to CORRECT an error in a report. They wanted to GET IT RIGHT, rather than have the wholly inaccurate first version be the final word on the matter. And the first version by Drain was wrong, while the 2nd version was the accurate one. (Unless you want to call James C. Cadigan a liar too. Do you, Ben? Silly question, huh?)

>
> > > Why are you trying to explain the evidence with your *SPECULATION*???
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that what you're doing too, Ben --- "speculating"?
>
>
> Name *ONE* fact that I've posted based on "speculation."
>

Have you got a couple of weeks? (It would take that long to gather together all of your conclusions that were born directly from "speculation".)

But here are a few....

Holmes' Quotes On:

"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day."

"CE [543] is another bit of physical proof. It fails to exhibit the characteristic "chamber mark" found on all cases *KNOWN* to have been fired out of CE 139."

"The Minox camera (and the way the FBI dealt with it) demonstrates a 'conspiracy' to hide the evidence of Oswald's intelligence connections."

"The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

"Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one."

"The DPD lied, then the Warren Commission lied to cover it up."

"It's also interesting to note that if the autopsy surgeons HAD been given permission to examine the clothing on the night of November 22, they very likely would have discovered virtual proof that the wound in JFK's back was a fradulent one, since there was no hole in the jacket or shirt."

"He [J. Edgar Hoover] knew of evidence for Oswald's innocence - and did everything in his power to bury it."

"Once again, the Warren Commission simply lied."

[End Holmes' Hilarity.]

And yet Ben thinks he *never* resorts to "speculation". Oh, brother.

>
> It's a FACT that two *ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY* reports were dated the same day.
>
> One of them IS CLEARLY A LIE.
>

One of them is clearly WRONG, yes. Not a lie. Just wrong.

> If it had been an honest mistake, a second report would have been written, correcting the mistake and offering the explanation for why it happened.
>

Says you. (You wouldn't be "speculating" again, would you Ben?)

[Ben Holmes]

It's a lie...

I've just PROVEN it a lie.

And you're too dishonest to admit it.

> The two Drain reports re: the paper samples don't qualify as "altering" or "faking" or "switching" or "planting" the evidence. It merely indicates, as I said before, a desire on the part of the FBI to CORRECT an error in a report. They wanted to GET IT RIGHT, rather than have the wholly inaccurate first version be the final word on the matter. And the first version by Drain was wrong, while the 2nd version was the accurate one. (Unless you want to call James C. Cadigan a liar too. Do you, Ben? Silly question, huh?)

Why not reverse the process?

Have the "corrected" version be the one that states that the paper does not match?

YOU'D BE SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER!!!

What you've failed to address is the way the FBI went about "correcting" their "error."

Which, by the way, you've been unable to determine was an "error."

It's far more likely to be the true results.

Paper collected later was certainly from another batch, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MATCHED TO THE PAPER BAG.

> > > > Why are you trying to explain the evidence with your *SPECULATION*???
> > > >
> > >
> > > Isn't that what you're doing too, Ben --- "speculating"?
> >
> >
> > Name *ONE* fact that I've posted based on "speculation."
> >
>
> Have you got a couple of weeks? (It would take that long to gather together all of your conclusions that were born directly from "speculation".)

All I asked for was one.

> But here are a few....
>
> Holmes' Quotes On:
>
> "The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day."

1. It's physical evidence.
2. In comparison to test results, which showed 100% of the shooters to have heavy deposits, this test was negative.

So yes, this isn't "speculative" at all. The Warren Commission knew this... which is why they buried this information.

> "CE [543] is another bit of physical proof. It fails to exhibit the characteristic "chamber mark" found on all cases *KNOWN* to have been fired out of CE 139."

Again, THIS IS MERELY A **FACT** THAT ANYONE CAN CHECK FOR THEMSELVES...

Where's the "speculation?"

> "The Minox camera (and the way the FBI dealt with it) demonstrates a 'conspiracy' to hide the evidence of Oswald's intelligence connections."

There is *no* other explanation for the historical record.

> "The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

It's not speculation to point out the evidence. THIS IS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE - you can't pretend it's "speculation."

> "Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one."

Since the money order was never cashed, this is a logical deduction.

> "The DPD lied, then the Warren Commission lied to cover it up."

Again, provable fact.

Not "speculation" at all.

> "It's also interesting to note that if the autopsy surgeons HAD been given permission to examine the clothing on the night of November 22, they very likely would have discovered virtual proof that the wound in JFK's back was a fradulent one, since there was no hole in the jacket or shirt."

Yep... *this* is indeed speculation.

But unlike you, *I ACTUALLY HAVE EVIDENCE - AND **EXPLAIN** THAT EVIDENCE.

You have no explanation *AT ALL* for why the prosectors were forbidden from examining JFK's clothing - A PERFECTLY ORDINARY PART OF ANY AUTOPSY.

> "He [J. Edgar Hoover] knew of evidence for Oswald's innocence - and did everything in his power to bury it."

Again, simply the truth. No speculation involved.

> "Once again, the Warren Commission simply lied."

I've proven it time and time again, and *YOU* have run away, time and time again.

Quite the coward, aren't you David?

> [End Holmes' Hilarity.]
>
> And yet Ben thinks he *never* resorts to "speculation". Oh, brother.

Yep... you did find one.

And interestingly enough, YOU REFUSE TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE **AT ALL**...

> > It's a FACT that two *ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY* reports were dated the same day.
> >
> > One of them IS CLEARLY A LIE.
> >
>
> One of them is clearly WRONG, yes. Not a lie. Just wrong.

Based on what?

Where's your evidence?

> > If it had been an honest mistake, a second report would have been written, correcting the mistake and offering the explanation for why it happened.
> >
>
> Says you. (You wouldn't be "speculating" again, would you Ben?)

Are you a moron? Or are you just showing your dishonesty?

Why not ask a lawyer, see what he says?