Subject: Re: Jim DiEugenio, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Von Pein, And Other
Date: 8/31/2009 12:29:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Davey: Look, if you want to debate me[,] fine. Let Len [Osanic] know. We will set it up." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I like to keep kooks guessing.
>>> "It's the same thing you did on Lancer. You flooded the forum with an endless recycling of WC nonsense in order to stop everyone from doing real research." <<<
Yeah, Jim. "Real research" like Anthony Frank's non-stop idiocy about
how Oswald was innocent of killing Officer Tippit (despite the dozen
or so witnesses who positively identified LHO as the one and ONLY
killer of Tippit or as the one and ONLY man with a gun fleeing the
scene of the crime at 10th Street and Patton Avenue).
"Anything linking LHO to the Tippit shooting was manufactured."
-- Anthony Frank; June 26, 2005
Is that the kind of "real research" and accurate assessments of the
evidence that you think JFK-Lancer provides its members and visitors?
Surely you jest.
BTW, Jim, do YOU think that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Officer Tippit?
Or was LHO framed as the "patsy" in that murder too (despite the fact
we know that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was
arrested in the Texas Theater)?
More Lancer Lunacy (just for the fun of it):
And then there's conspiracy theorist Bill Miller's "real research" (aka:
subjective garbage concerning the so-called huge "BOH" wound in the
back of JFK's head that Bill thinks he can easily see in the Zapruder Film).
I battled Kook Bill for many a month at Lancer. But, as expected, none
of my CS&L [Common Sense & Logic] sank in.
But, then too, my experience has taught me that most conspiracy
theorists are simply incapable of absorbing any common sense into
their beings when it comes to the subject of the JFK case.
Why is this so? I haven't the foggiest. I guess it's merely because
most of those people simply WANT a conspiracy to exist in the JFK
>>> "Even though Debra Conway posted the rules and posted an article about internet Trolling, you could not help yourself. And on July 28, 2005[,] she emailed you and suspended you." <<<
Gosh, I'm honored! You've even got the date down pat. Very nice, Jim.
And, for once, you're 100% right about something. It was, indeed, July
28th, 2005, when I was booted out of Ms. Conway's all-CT booby hatch
(along with another astute LNer named Nick Kendrick, who had just
joined the Lancer forum eleven days earlier).
But having TWO lone-assassin believers clogging the Lancer works was
just simply too much for Debra and the conspiracy-happy clowns at that
forum to bear -- so Nick and I both had to go, asap.
IOW -- It's a typical conspiracy-only website. John Simkin's
"Education Forum" is cut from the same "CT" cloth (as you no doubt
>>> "One of your violations: 263 posts in 12 days. Amazing." <<<
You're nuts, Jim. Debra Conway had no set rule in place on how many
posts a person could make in a given time period. You're making up
shit (again). Just like you did with the Specter/Humes "B.S. story"
concerning the strap muscles. "Amazing", indeed.
>>> "Then came your personal insults; Gene Stump posted 14 examples." <<<
Oh good! More detailed Lancer stats from Jimmy D.! I love it! I didn't
even have that particular statistic handy in my own files. But,
amazingly, Jim DiEugenio does. I wonder why?
>>> "Recall what Bill Cheslock said: Lancer was losing posters because of you and your tactics." <<<
Aw, shucks! A forum filled with nothing but people who make up
conspiracy theories all day and all night is losing members.
Gee, what a heartbreaking hunk of news that is, Jim. (Have you got a
Kleenex? Because I feel like I'm about to puddle up due to that sad
>>> "This was your strategy of course. But I will not get sucked into it." <<<
Jim evens knows what my "strategy" was at the Lancer kookhouse, circa
2003-2005. I love it!
The only thing that disappoints me is that Jim hasn't accused me of
being with the CIA. I always love hearing that one.
>>> "Keep on writing about me at the Pigpen." <<<
No worries there. Your non-stop, 9-part, anti-Bugliosi crusade is just
begging to be ridiculed, day and night. And I've done it quite well
thus far, IMO.
Although, granted, I haven't read nearly every word of all of the
parts of your dry-as-dust and mostly-subjective Bugliosi review. My
stomach, you see, can only handle that kind of ridiculous overboard
tripe in small doses. And, for that matter, my weak bladder can handle
even less of it without bursting wide open.
>>> "You are protected there [at "The Pigpen"]." <<<
How so? By McAdams you mean?
It might interest you to know, James (as I've told you previously as
well), that John McAdams' forum/newsgroup is a totally different forum
from the "pigpen" you like to refer to.
The "pigpen" (which is, indeed, occupied by mostly conspiracy-loving
crackpots and foul-mouthed idiots) is located at "alt.conspiracy.jfk";
whereas the moderated forum that is controlled (in part) by Professor
McAdams is located at a different web address -- at
>>> "If you choose not to debate me, then I will keep on asking why." <<<
>>> "I hope you take the stuff you write there seriously[,] since few others do." <<<
I certainly do.
And another person who thinks my Internet ramblings are pretty decent
is Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):
"David, I can't thank you enough for all the tremendous support
you have given me and my book. You have become very valuable in
helping to make sure that the truth catches up to all the lies and
distortions told about the assassination, and I hope we get to meet
some day so I can thank you in person. /s/ Your friend and colleague,
Vince Bugliosi" -- Vincent Bugliosi; August 22, 2009
>>> "And if you cannot count Bugliosi's four magic bullets in six seconds, then you did not read my Pt 4 very well." <<<
You could be right there, Jim. That could have been one of the
segments of your review when my bladder just simply could not stand
the onslaught of hilarity that continually flows from your keyboard.
So, you seem to think that Mr. Bugliosi believes there were FOUR shots
fired on November 22, 1963, eh?
A curious notion indeed. But, I guess Jim knows what he means. And if
Jim's happy with it, then all is well with the CT world (I guess).
>>> "Either that, or you are in denial mode. (Which is really obvious.)" <<<
LOL. I always love it when a rabid conspiracy theorist (such as a Mr.
James DiEugenio) has the monster-sized gonads to tell a lone-assassin
believer that he is "in denial".
Can there be a better example of "Pot Meets Kettle" than that...I ask
you? I doubt it.
Jim, you're "in denial" about virtually every last piece of evidence
that exists in the whole JFK assassination case....right down to the
absurd statement that you made on Black Op Radio on October 9, 2008,
when you essentially said that Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
was USELESS and WORTHLESS as a piece of evidence against him in the
JFK case. To be more specific, you said this:
"If you take away the rifle [WHICH MR. DiEUGENIO HAS DECIDED TO
DO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS LOONY DISCUSSION ON "BLACK OP
RADIO"], what is there? There really is almost nothing. He [Oswald]
was in that building. That's it. That's about it. There's no ballistics
evidence that connects him to the crime now [AFTER DiEUGENIO HAS
DECIDED TO ELIMINATE ONLY *TWO* THINGS FROM THE EVIDENCE
PILE -- BULLET CE399 AND THE NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS
TESTING PERFORMED BY DR. VINCENT P. GUINN]." -- James DiEugenio;
Talk about a bladder-buster! That October 9th Black Op program was it!
My complete rebuttal to Jimmy D.'s 10/9/08 nonsense can be found HERE.
>>> "BTW, the reason I know the stuff about you from Lancer well is that I have set up a file on you." <<<
I'm honored (yet again)!
A whole file just for DVP (aka: a person whom Jim DiEugenio thinks is
nothing but a Bugliosi butt-kisser and is full of nothing but hot
I doubt that even John McAdams has earned his own "file" there at
"DiEugenio Conspiracy Central" in Los Angeles. (Or has he, Jim?)
(I think I'm going to swoon.)
>>> "Many people have asked me to do a series on you when my VB one is finished." <<<
And you should be finished with your overbaked anti-Bugliosi bashfest
in--what?--the year 2023, right Jim? That will be just in time for the
COPA Conference marking the 60th anniversary of the assassination.
It'll be a 229-part review by that time, won't it?
And if you go ahead and do that "series" on me, don't leave out the
lie you told on the July 16, 2009, Black Op show, wherein you told the
audience (consisting of approximately four total listeners) something
totally false about how I quoted "Specter examining Humes" with
respect to the "probing" issue as that issue related to JFK's strap
BTW, Jim, one thing that tells me you're completely wrong when it
comes to your anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that you can
seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr.
Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and
omissions and lies, etc.
And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on your part, I have to
ask myself this question (which is the same question that all
reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the
internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How
could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally
smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop
fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?
And after pondering the above logical inquiry, the only logical answer
I can arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.
Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot
possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS of his anti-VB book review.
It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James
DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics
(dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy
that appear within Bugliosi's massively-complete 2007 book,
In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must
certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his
interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for
such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly, well-
documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History" defies all
>>> "I may or may not [do a "series on you when my VB one is finished"]. Depending in part on if you debate me." <<<
I may or may not. I like to keep conspiracists guessing.
>>> "Meanwhile, I await your response to a real debate in a fair forum, man to man. Unprotected by the guards at [the] pigpen." <<<
You've switched on your overactive imagination again I see.
>>> "If you are so convinced you are right, then why hide at the pigpen? It's a question only you can answer. If you do not[,] then most people will think it's because either you are afraid or you understand your position is rather weak." <<<
My position is far from "weak", Jim. And even you must know this is
You, like so many other conspiracy theorists since 1963, seem to be
proud of the fact that you have TOTALLY IGNORED virtually all of the
physical evidence leading to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (and only
Oswald's guilt) that exists in both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
You have evidently convinced yourself that ALL of this "LHO Is Guilty"
evidence is tainted or invalid in some manner. And just exactly how
likely is it that that assumption is true? Not very. In fact, it's
just plain silly.
Plus -- You seem to still want to prop up Jim Garrison's pathetic case
against an innocent New Orleans businessman named Clay Shaw. And I
wonder why you do this, Jim? A jury took less than one hour to declare
Mr. Shaw "Not Guilty" of conspiring to murder John Kennedy.
And yet you still seem to want to cling to the notion that a plot of
some kind was hatched by a band of nefarious characters in Louisiana
in 1963. One can only wonder WHY you still cling to such beliefs 40
years after Garrison's case collapsed (as it deserved to) and Shaw was
found not guilty.
Allow me to repeat these comments that I directed mostly at you in
late July 2009:
"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this
particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true
fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New
Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted
with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy
Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving
that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT,
IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.
"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once
Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred
of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals
to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy
in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.
"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates
that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be
true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-
named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).
"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE
and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the
grand leap from this:
" "LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY
" "SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY"?
"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of
ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental
leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly,
monumentally ridiculous." -- DVP; 07/31/09
>>> "And if you continue to write me here, I will probably just send them to the trash or just ask to have you eliminated from e-mail." <<<
Fine with me. After all, JFK conspiracy theorists are experts at
ignoring all the best evidence in the entire case. Therefore, why
would you want to deal with a lowly "LNer" such as myself?
You love conspiracy-flavored chaff, Jim, even though there's ample
"Oswald Is Guilty" wheat on the table as well. Go figure.
>>> "You have the technique of wasting time honed down to a science. /s/ JIM D" <<<
Well, at least you think I'm good at something.
And I'm also pretty good at destroying a lot of the conspiracy-tinged
theories and piecemeal thoughts of one James DiEugenio too....such as
the examples highlighted HERE.
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (AUGUST 31, 2009)