(PART 328)


>>> "EVALUATING VON PEIN'S EMOTIONAL STABILITY -- I don't think Von Pein is really an idiot. His problem is much deeper than mere stupidity. It is extremely rare to find anyone who is that fanatical in his/her support of the Warren Commission conclusions as Von Pein is." <<<


I wouldn't trust Gil Jesus to evaluate the "emotional stability" of a
dead cricket.

But, then too, perhaps Gil just graduated from Psychiatric School or
something and now is fully qualified to "evaluate" my "emotional
stability". (Ya think?)

I think somebody named "Gil" is obsessed a little bit lately -- with
me. And that's kind of a scary thought all by itself.

The next thing I expect to see out of Gil is a new YouTube video on
Gilbert's channel, entitled "THE DVP LONE-NUT SYNDROME: AN IN-DEPTH

>>> "In Von Pein we have a man who is a fanatical supporter of the
Warren Commission..." <<<

Well, yes, I suppose you might say that, Gil. Although "fanatical" is
a tad overdone. But seeing as how the WC's investigation was very,
very good and thorough and sourced with 6,500 citations within its 888-
page main summary volume, and seeing as how that document known as the
"WCR" has withstood the wrath of 45 consecutive years of kooks like
Gilbert Jesus, who have tried like the dickens to tear its conclusions
to pieces (and failed miserably at doing so)....

I'd say that my devotion to the words printed within the 888 pages of
the Warren Commission's 1964 Final Report is well-placed devotion,
since the WCR is by far the best document ever written when it comes
to the true facts surrounding the manner in which JFK died in 1963
(with Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" being a very close #2, of

As Mr. Bugliosi has said on various 2007 radio interviews: "This book
["RH"] could not have been written without the Warren Report. .... The
Warren Commission is the granddaddy of all investigations. .... In my
opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered
the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history."
-- VB

>>> "...who uses himself as a source for his research..." <<<

Gil loves to continually make this crazy charge. He thinks that since
I often like to re-post my previously posted articles and Internet
Forum messages (which I fully admit, I enjoy doing), this repetition
constitutes my utilizing myself as a "source" for the subject matter
that's being discussed within these repeated postings.

When, in fact, it's simply RE-POSTING previously posted material which
I believe to be pertinent to the discussion of the Kennedy
assassination. (And most of the repeated posts, btw, have sources
cited within them, of course. So I'm certainly not relying on just
MYSELF as the official "source" for any claim I make in most of my
repeated posts.)

>>> "...locks out the opinions of others..." <<<

Oh, sure....as if this forum we're talking on right now doesn't have
enough bandwidth and forum space for everyone to post freely 24/7?

I've explained previously that my "RH" forum was created as a kind of
"Bulletin Board" site. Nothing more. Nothing less. And I certainly
don't need my "bulletin board" littered with the slings and arrows and
stray CT attacks of some of the kooks that can be found in this acj
forum. Heck, that's what THIS forum is for.

So, for unrestricted "Discussion" and/or "JFK Debate" (and for all the
fun kook-bashing a person could possibly want), bring it here.

>>> "...refuses to post his photograph online..." <<<

I never refused to post my photograph online at John Simkin's
"Education Forum". I explained to John that I had no picture available
for posting at that time (July 2006). I was even "bargaining" a little
with him about a possible "place-holder" type of "generic" photo that
I could use instead. And it seems to me that John was kind of
receptive to that idea for a day or two.

But then, Simkin decided to fully enforce the rule that had apparently
been part of that forum for many months (or even years) prior to July
2006 (although several members had never complied with this
regulation), and required everyone to update their "avatars"/
(pictures) immediately, or risk getting expelled from the classroom.

>>> "...engages in childish name-calling with those he disagrees
with..." <<<

Well, I try to stay away from some of the super-heavy invectives (most
of the time; although, granted, the dreaded F word slips out every now
and again, I'll admit).

But Gil surely must realize that this Asylum/Forum is just ripe for
the labels that have been bestowed upon CTers like himself, Walt,
Donald, Rob, and several others over the last few years.

Doesn't he?

If Gil doesn't realize this basic fact of life, then perhaps it's he
who is in "denial", and not I. ;)

>>> "...and abnormally worships Vincent Bugliosi." <<<

I have a feeling that Gil "abnormally worships" Mark Lane and Jim
Garrison (in tandem). Another scary vision there.

And the more Gil continues to harp on me and my total failures in
life, I'm beginning to get the feeling that Gil's hanging around my
own back stoop as we speak.

Is that you, Gil, who keeps calling my house and hanging up? You know,
the person with the 000-0000 number I keep seeing constantly on my
Caller ID box?

>>> "This is a man with serious unresolved issues." <<<

I know. I agree. I've yet to resolve the problem with you conspiracy
kooks -- i.e., I can't yet figure out why you guys are the way you are?
Is it a birth defect? Or is it JUST this JFK case?

My guess is: it's the latter. There's something about this assassination
that makes people who ordinarily possess extremely good common sense
and logic go off the "conspiracy" deep end of the diving board, and they'll
start believing in crazy, impossible scenarios with respect to this murder
case that they would completely dismiss out of hand if it were any other
criminal case in history. A strange phenomenon indeed. And I think Gil is
part of this strangeness.

>>> "Delusional and in denial." <<<

Yeah...I kinda figured we'd get to an "in denial" comment from Gil
sooner or later. Good job, Gil. You've just raised the "Pot Meets
Kettle" bar to absurd heights of hilarity with your "in denial"

>>> "I really feel sorry for him." <<<

Aw, how nice. Isn't that sweet of Gil? He feels sorry for the poor
delusional lil' lost-in-the-woods LNer named Davey.

Should I reciprocate here and feel sorry for him too?

Nah. Who could feel sorry for a kook like that?

>>> "He needs help." <<<

I agree with you. I still can't figure out how to change the damn oil
in my car myself. I always need help with that. I have to have my
butler do it for me. (His name is Vincent. Last initial: B.)

David Von Pein
September 14, 2008