DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 100)


ALLAN G. JOHNSON SAID:

It's nice to see there are more people with obvious common sense and logical deductive abilities that are interested in getting past the BS and uncovering the truth. Once you have warmed yourself up by reading BRD ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"], take on Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi, if you haven't done so already. The combination of these two sources puts anything the conspiracy authors, and Anybody But Oswald crowd, have to say to shame.


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL

Before spending time with Bugliosi, read Reclaiming Parkland.

You will see that Bugliosi ignored the following:

1. John Hunt's work on CE 399
2. The fact that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the FBI says Oswald ordered.
3. Stringer's testimony denying he took the photos of the brain at NARA.
4. How the FBI rigged the polygraph for Ruby.

Therefore, the above indicates that the WC...

Had the wrong bullet.

Had the wrong rifle.

Had the wrong photos of the brain.

Fell for a rigged polygraph in which Ruby lied his head off.

Some case eh? The WC was a provable joke, which the ARRB revealed in excelsis. And Bugliosi had to ignore all this and then deceive the reader about what he did.

Keep it up you guys, this is good batting practice.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Those are four incredibly weak points by DiEugenio. All of which have been thoroughly explained over the years, although I agree with Jimbo that Jack Ruby's polygraph exam was a joke. That was one weird lie detector test, no doubt about it, with even Ruby HIMSELF seemingly having an input as to the questions he would be asked.

But DiEugenio will always sidestep the key issue with regard to Ruby's polygraph---i.e., the fact Ruby BEGGED the Warren Commission to give him the test. And does anybody really believe the only reason Ruby begged Earl Warren to give him the test is because Ruby knew it was going to be "rigged"? That's stretching things a bit--even for rabid conspiracy-happy clowns like James DiEugenio.

But all of the other three things mentioned above by DiEugenio are quite weak arguments. That's the best Jimbo's got? Geesh. And Jimmy knows that John Hunt DID NOT examine the actual CE399 bullet at NARA. Hunt only examined the 4 color photos. And the initials of ALL of the agents' names on that bullet in those pictures are very hard to discern---even when you know where to look.
[MORE HERE]

But Commission Document No. 7 provides the proof that Elmer L. Todd did place his initials on Bullet 399. I guess Jimbo must think Todd lied through his teeth here (or that Todd did initial a bullet, but it wasn't CE399). But since DiEugenio is 0-for-22, we can't expect him to swing the lumber like Wade Boggs or Ted Williams at this late date, can we?....

"At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288)

As for the assassination rifle being the "wrong rifle", as Jimmy likes to constantly say, DiEugenio knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer to that "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy is. I've pointed it out to him on several occasions in the past. But since he likes the idea of Oswald having never touched Carcano Rifle #C2766, Jim will forever ignore the logical answer to the "wrong rifle" topic.

But, of course, that's why we have had professional investigators and real detectives looking into these matters over the years, instead of relying on clowns like Jim DiEugenio to try and solve a Presidential assassination. If James had been in charge, Oswald would probably have posthumously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize instead of being officially labelled what he was---a double murderer.

Re: the rifle....

"Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman magazine from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e., "36 inches" vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's shipped a rifle with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963. The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman Exhibit No. 7) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766")." -- DVP; September 21, 2008

Re: John Stringer and the autopsy pictures....

"When I spoke to Stringer [on September 21, 2000], he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." Though...Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"

And to see Bugliosi's very good analysis of the "second brain" claptrap that was invented by Doug Horne (with references to John Stringer as well), go to "Reclaiming History", starting at page 438.


JAMES [J?] DiEUGENIO SAID:

Oh this is rich.

Wrong bullet = no matter.

Wrong rifle = no matter.

Wrong photos of the brain = no matter.

Rigged polygraph = might matter a little, but since Ruby requested it, that is OK.

LOL.

Now imagine if DVP or Ayton stood up at the end of trial, where all these things had been proven--and then said, well, Oswald still did it, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I mean, that would not happen because the judge would have thrown out the case already. On the simple grounds the prosecution was consistently using fraudulent evidence.

See, that is the real world. But as Gary Cornwell told the HSCA, in the JFK case, Reality is irrelevant. Well, so is this book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not a single one of those things has been "PROVEN". Perhaps DiEugenio should buy a dictionary and look up the word "Proven". Because he obviously hasn't the foggiest idea what the word means.

Looks like Jimbo's 0-for-23 at the plate now. I wonder if he will ever manage to even foul off a pitch? He hasn't yet. And yet he thinks he hits a grand-slam with every silly post he makes. Jim's middle initial must surely be J. For Joke.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

DiEugenio is deranged. Anybody who does not know that is somebody whose opinion you should not care about.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Amen to that, John.


RALPH YATES SAID:

The plug of skull, scalp, and hair Clint Hill saw in the back seat matches the missing section of the McClelland wound perfectly. I hope people notice that David Von Pein is big on trolling when it comes to evidence like this but absent on credible response to technical evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You apparently haven't bothered to search my site, Ralph. Because I've got plenty of "credible response" to all kinds of "technical evidence" put forth by CTers (and Parkland doctors).

Such as the three webpages below regarding Dr. Robert McClelland's incredibly dumb story about the "flap of scalp"....

JFK Archives/Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV

JFK Archives/Head Wounds/McClelland

JFK Archives/BOH (Part 17)



JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

David Von Pein's "technical arguments" are not his own. In fact, he has admitted often that he is not a researcher. What he does is collect information, like John McAdams, from others.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's wrong with that? Everybody does that. You certainly do it too, Jimbo. How many times have we seen DiEugenio sing the praises of all the glorious conspiracy researchers of the '60s -- Meagher, Thompson, Lane, Salandria, etc.? Not to mention other conspiracy authors like Armstrong, Mellen, Newman, Douglass, Summers, and others. Jimbo "collects" information from all of those people and recycles it into his own work constantly.

But I guess it's okay for Jimmy to use the work of Meagher and Thompson and others, but I'm not supposed to utilize the talents of Bugliosi, Posner, Davison, Myers, Sturdivan, et al. Is that is, Jim? (Hypocrite.)

Yes, I "collect information". (Doesn't everybody who is interested in the JFK murder?) But the big difference between myself and James DiEugenio is that I am able to properly evaluate and assess that "information" that I have collected. Whereas, Jim D. is buried so deep in his conspiracy abyss, he won't even admit that Lee Oswald carried a large bag into the Book Depository Building on the morning of President Kennedy's death. (And I'd sure hate to be buried THAT deep in conspiracy excrement.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL

The above proves that DVP does not read anything except the WC boilerplate.

There is a lot of original research in my books--but Davey has not read them! Just like he did not read Remington.

Further, if you look over at EF [Education Forum], you will see his latest troll post which shows that this is what he does.

He quoted the first poll that came out in 2013 as saying that 59 percent of the public doubted the WC. He then says that this is significantly lower and our side is losing steam.

What he does not say is that particular poll was an outlier. There were three other polls that came out in 2013 which all pegged the number at 75 percent. This culminated in the very much respected Peter Hart poll. This one was devastating to his cause. Not only did it peg the number at 75 per cent, it also said that the respondents said that something had gone seriously wrong with America after the JFK murder, that Kennedy rated higher in stature than any president since 1952, and that his murder changed America and sent it into a deep depression after which optimism seemed to evaporate.

Larry Sabato noted that the 75 percent figure was the same as what Peter Jennings did in 2003. Therefore, in reality, our side has lost no ground. Only in DVP's solipsistic universe has that happened. (Sabato, The Kennedy Half Century, p. 417)

What makes that amazing is that for the last 12 years, almost all the public has gotten is a one sided version of the JFK case. Through fruits and hacks like Gary Mack and Robert Erickson, they have been pummeled with phony documentaries in which Mack actually makes up stuff and creates visuals to block the truth of a frontal shot. (See Ryan Siebenthaler's site to which there is [a] link at CTKA.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a crock.

I guess DiEugenio, therefore, must also think the Gallup Poll in 2013 was an "outlier" too. And so was ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Is that what you believe, Jimbo? Because the 2013 Gallup Poll shows a sharp decline (14 per cent) in the number of people who think that there were "Others Involved" in the JFK assassination when compared to the Gallup results from ten years earlier in 2003:

Gallup Poll (Nov. 7-10, 2013) (1,039 adults nationwide participating) (Margin of error: ± 4%):

"Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were involved in a conspiracy?"

One man:
2013 -- 30%
2003 -- 19%
2001 -- 13%
1993 -- 15%

Others involved:
2013 -- 61%
2003 -- 75%
2001 -- 81%
1993 -- 75%

Unsure:
2013 -- 10%
2003 -- 6%
2001 -- 6%
1993 -- 10%


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

And the poll conducted jointly by ABC News and the Washington Post in November 2013 shows an 8% drop in the number of respondents in the "Broader Plot" category:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll (Nov. 14-17, 2013) (1,006 adults nationwide participating) (Margin of error: ± 3.5%):

"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it part of a broader plot?"

One man:
2013 -- 29%
2003 -- 22%

Broader plot:
2013 -- 62%
2003 -- 70%

Unsure:
2013 -- 8%
2003 -- 8%


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

SOURCE:
http://pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

[Mel] Ayton made a mistake picking DVP. His reputation is so notorious that everyone knows how imbalanced and rabid he is. Why expose oneself to more of this crap and also pay for the treatment?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess this means all of my hopes are now dashed when it comes to that expensive Christmas present that I was expecting to receive from you this year, eh Jim? Damn! And I was so looking forward to getting that life-sized marble statue of Jim Garrison. Well, maybe next year.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP's hero, Bugliosi, not only had his book bomb, so did the terrible movie made from it. And as you can see from the Amazon rating here, so is this book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's have a look at the figures as of this precise moment (at 11:30 AM EDT on Wednesday, April 29, 2015).....


"BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT" by Mel Ayton with David Von Pein:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank -- #165,447


"RECLAIMING PARKLAND" by James DiEugenio:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank -- #336,689


"DESTINY BETRAYED" (Second Edition) by James DiEugenio:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank -- #469,190

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

Now, I will readily admit that the above Amazon sales rank for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" isn't usually that good. Just yesterday, in fact, the ranking was about 880,000. But on certain days the sales ranking for BRD gets much better and zooms upward, like today (4/29/2015).

And, of course, DiEugenio's books also go through the same rollercoaster ride of ups and downs when it comes to "sales rank". But what with DiEugenio's little anti-Von Pein tirade that he treated us to above, it was awfully nice of the BRD ranking to increase substantially today, because it gives me the perfect opportunity to rub Jimmy's nose in the above figures (at least for a few hours anyway, until the sales figures completely change in the other direction, which they will do very soon, of course).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

In his quoting of polls, note how DVP cherry picks the aspect of the poll.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? What the heck does that mean? ~shrug~

I was merely providing info on TWO other major USA polls done in 2013 that were consistent with the AP "59 percent" poll --- i.e., the idea of a conspiracy in the JFK case is not as widely believed in 2013 as it was in 2003.

You, Jim, said there were three other polls done in 2013 that still showed "75%" in favor of conspiracy. That's fine. I don't deny that. But then I showed two more polls--including GALLUP (a pretty big name in the "polling" biz, wouldn't you say?)--which indicated the number of CTers is sliding downward.

So, if I wanted to, I could just as easily say that you, Jimmy, were "cherry picking" your polls too. Can you possibly deny that you WERE doing just that, in order to meet your CT agenda? Of course you were cherry picking them. But, as I've mentioned previously, everybody cherry picks stuff to a certain degree. It can't be helped. It's as natural as breathing. DiEugenio does it. Von Pein does it. Bugliosi does it. And so does every other JFK author on the face of the planet. And that fact cannot possibly be denied.

And the beat goes on.

David Von Pein
April 20, 2015
April 23, 2015
April 28, 2015
April 29, 2015
May 1, 2015