(PART 35)


Conspiracy theorist Miles Scull is correct about my amending my post [at
Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum] concerning the elevators. But
I didn't hide the edit. In fact, I put the words "EDIT/ADDENDUM" in bold text.

I will fully admit, prior to editing that forum post, I had not been
aware of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney's testimony about the power
to the elevators being cut off. And, in effect, I was admitting that
lack of knowledge via my "EDIT/ADDENDUM" seen in the post
linked above.

I make mistakes. Lots of them, in fact. And I certainly don't know
every last thing there is to know about the JFK case. Probably not
even close, due to the tens of thousands of pages of material that
are available on this subject. And I can tell you right now that Jim
DiEugenio undoubtedly possesses far greater knowledge about many
areas of this case than I do -- the "New Orleans/Jim Garrison" areas
of the case in particular.

But I certainly have studied the assassination enough over the last
several years to make a pretty decent case for Lee Harvey Oswald's
in the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit (even though I
didn't spend a single day in law school).

I am not a dishonest person. And I do not go around the Internet
spreading "disinformation" regarding the JFK assassination (as some
conspiracy theorists seem to think I do).

If some people want to believe that the last two sentences I just
wrote above are merely empty, hollow words--so be it. I can't control
what other people say or think.

But if I truly believed that a conspiracy existed in JFK's
assassination, I would come out and say so. And I have, in fact, in
the past [see this 2007 post] stressed that it is a good idea to
leave the door open for conspiracy (just a crack), because there's
always the slight possibility that Oswald had a "helper" or two on
November 22, 1963. Although the possibility of even a low-level
conspiracy involving Oswald and one or two other persons seems very
remote, in my opinion.

"Let's face it, we can never know with 100% certainty that
someone didn't urge Oswald on in the days leading up to 11/22/63. I
think it's very unlikely that anyone did aid him in any fashion at
all....but, as Ken [Rahn] said, the door should be left open just a
small crack, because it's just not possible to prove this particular
"negative" to a 100% certainty (mainly thanks to a man named Jacob
Rubenstein, who certainly didn't do the world any favors by walking
down that basement ramp on Sunday)." -- David Von Pein; July 29, 2007


There is one particular comment made by Jim DiEugenio in this forum
thread that made me chuckle quite a bit. (And, incidentally, DiEugenio's
words that we find in this thread were posted via proxy by one of Jim's
lifetime fans and devotees, Ken Murray, who in addition to posting
occasionally at Duncan MacRae's forum, also posts regularly at Wim
Dankbaar's conspiracy-infested Internet asylum.)

Anyway, the funny DiEugenio remark I was referring to is this one:

"Evidently, one part that really frazzled him [DVP] was when I
revealed that although Vincent Bugliosi's secretary has asked him to
debate Commission critics on cable, DVP has actually declined at least
two opportunities to do so on the radio, one by Len Osanic and one by
myself." -- James DiEugenio

For the record, Vince Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) was just
having a little bit of fun (i.e., she was kidding!) when she said this
to me in an e-mail in December 2008:

"Hi Dave, Thanks for the "Von Pein vs. DiEugenio" saga. I'll
give Vince [Bugliosi] his copy when I see him. Here's an idea--a cable
TV show called "The JFK Assassination" hosted by David Von Pein who is
ready, willing and able to take on any and all conspiracy nuts. Sound
good?" -- Rosemary Newton; December 16, 2008

I'm not quite sure from the tone of DiEugenio's comment about the
"cable" debate if Jim really thinks Rosemary was serious or not. But
if he does think Rosemary Newton was serious there, perhaps Jim
himself should audition for a gig on Stephen Colbert's program over at
Comedy Central.

And here's another howler from Jim:

"He [DVP]...says that it was me who has so much influence over
Len and it was me who came up with the debate concept anyway. This
last is typical Von Pein-Colbert. To the point it epitomizes why he
isn't worth talking to. If one was interested in finding out whose
idea the debate concept was, the question to pose would be: "Jim, why
did you offer that debate challenge out of the blue after being a semi-
regular on Len's show for many months?"" -- Jim D.

My response to the above is --- Huh??

Why in the world would I (or anyone) have asked Jim such a question
after listening to DiEugenio issuing his initial "debate challenge" on
Black Op Radio on July 2, 2009?

There is nothing in that July 2nd Black Op broadcast to indicate that
the "challenge" was anything other than Jim's idea entirely.

Jim goes on to say:

"DVP never asked that question. The answer is this: I offered the
challenge because a regular listener to Black Op asked me to. ....

It was his idea, not mine. Left to my own devices, I would have
thought up such a thing." -- J.D.

Oh, sure, Jim. Why would the idea of a "debate" with your opponent
ever enter your head? That idea is completely out in left field, isn't
it? That type of thing is never done, is it? [LOL.]

More Laughs:

I must say that I was very amused while reading Jim DiEugenio's
two-part "DVP" essay that he posted on his CTKA.net website recently
(Part 1 went up on his site on April 13, 2010, and an "update" to
the original article was posted by Jim on his site on May 17, 2010).

My five responses to DiEugenio's 2-part essay are linked below, and
are rebuttals that DiEugenio has deemed "patented silly replies". Gee,
there's a surprise, huh? But, these rebuttals speak for themselves:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5


As far as any potential JFK assassination debate between myself and
James DiEugenio is concerned, I'm having a difficult time figuring out
why on Earth Mr. DiEugenio would have any problem whatsoever with my
proposed format for such a debate, which I first discussed with Jim
via e-mail, HERE.

Jim evidently doesn't like the idea that I, myself, would be asking my
own questions. He apparently thinks that I'll just be making stuff up
out of thin air when I ask him my questions.

Such a complaint is total nonsense, of course. But even if it were
true--so what? Upon answering all of my worthless questions (worthless
from Jim's POV, that is), he would, of course, have ample opportunity

Plus: Jim would get to ask his own questions too. He should be doing
cartwheels, instead of griping about this perfectly reasonable and
fair format I have proposed.

Jim is correct about my posting his e-mail replies to me on an Internet
forum (at alt.conspiracy.jfk). And I apologize to Jim for that. But, however,
I certainly didn't think that Jim would have any beef with my doing that.
I merely wanted to archive our e-mail discussions in a manner that would
allow me to save the messages on my blog pages. (I always want to
archive everything I write about the JFK case in such a manner.) And since
I had every intention of posting MY OWN e-mails to Jim on the Internet,
I wanted Jim's replies to me to be included as well.

But, after learning about Jim's desire to not have his own words to me
published at a public forum, I immediately deleted all of those posts
containing all of Jim's e-mail messages to me. (And I deleted those
messages, btw, within ten minutes of learning that Jim was upset about

Below are some of the follow-up e-mails that I wrote to DiEugenio
concerning my proposed format for a JFK debate that should have him
jumping for joy at the chance to beat me into the ground with dozens

I have not included any of DiEugenio's comments to me in the text
reprinted below, since, for some reason, Jim apparently doesn't want
his answers to be published on the Internet for everyone to see:


Subject: Re: Debate With DVP
Date: 5/10/2010 12:22:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio


Jim...it's a totally fair proposal and a fair format.

Why is it totally fair?

Because YOU would get to select YOUR OWN QUESTIONS too. Ask anything
you want. That should certainly appeal to you, Jim, especially since
you've already engaged in a previous debate with John McAdams which
had all the questions coming from outsiders (except the one that you
got to ask McAdams and the one single question that John was permitted
to ask you).

I really thought you would jump at the chance to debate under my
proposed format. And one of the main reasons I thought you'd like to
control your own questions is because you said yourself that during
Part 1 of your radio debate last September with John McAdams that the
questions weren't very challenging at all. You, in essence, considered
virtually all of the Part 1 questions to be softball type of

I'll give you a chance to answer some harder ones. Wouldn't that
appeal to you, Jim?

If that doesn't appeal to you, I can't help but scratch my head and
wonder to myself --- what's Jim afraid of?

David Von Pein


Subject: Re: Debate With DVP
Date: 5/14/2010 11:42:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio



You should LEAP at the chance to take me up on this type of debate
format. And I can't believe you're actually balking at the prospect of
getting to ask YOUR OWN QUESTIONS--and dozens of them if you wish.

You can phrase YOUR questions any way you want. And likewise with my
questions. It will get down to the meat & potatoes of the issues,
instead of having to wade through the softball questions sent in by
other people.

In fact, it's positively THE BEST type of debate format there is, IMO.
A few outside questions would be fine too, but OUR questions to each
other would be the centerpiece of the debate.

It's unbelievable to me that you would be against this type of "ask
your questions" format.



Subject: Re: Debate With DVP
Date: 5/17/2010 2:11:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio


Hi Jim,

Well, I also know that Len Osanic wasn't very enthusiastic at all
about moderating any kind of a debate featuring John McAdams either.
But Len ended up having McAdams on his show twice...for about four
hours total.

The McAdams debate was ALL your idea, Jim. There can be no question
about that fact. Len just went along for the ride. But you came up
with the idea yourself, via your "debate challenge" on July 2, 2009:


But Len said the following (right after you extended your debate
challenge to me, McAdams, and Reitzes, at the 33:55 mark of the above-
linked Black Op show):

"I'm not really a fan of that, or I would have had more people
on from that [lone-gunman side]...the thing is, what you're debating
is: is the world flat or not?" -- Len Osanic; 07/02/09

But what happened 12 weeks later? Answer: Len Osanic was hosting a
lengthy two-part debate between John McAdams and James DiEugenio.

But if Len refuses to have me on his show, then I think I might be
able to arrange a radio debate on a small Detroit-area station, WHPR,
hosted by Anton Batey. (He hosted two previous JFK debates between
John McAdams and Tom Rossley in April 2009 [and March 2010]; you
remember, those were the debates that you didn't like at all, because
you said they were merely mud-slinging sessions, lacking any structure
or format.)

Anyway, if Black Op Radio doesn't want to do it, I could always get in
touch with Anton and ask him if he'd be willing to host a "DVP vs.
DiEugenio" debate.

Anton, btw, does archive his WHPR programs, either on YouTube or via
an audio streaming link that he can provide after he processes the
audio files.

I will say this, however: Even though I have hurled my share of
insults at Black Op Radio and its host and guests over the last few
years, I would still prefer debating on Len's Black Op show. Len's
system of archiving the programs is very good, IMO, and takes up
virtually no space on a computer hard drive.



David Von Pein
May 2010