DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 99)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL

This is hysterical. Von Pein is swimming, rather drowning, in his own BS.

He won't even admit that there was a long, long--years long--debate about the location of the back wound in JFK. For the central reason that the WC said it was in one place, but much other evidence, like the face sheet made up by Boswell, said it was in another place.

Therefore, someone was lying. Creating a fraud actually.

I advise everyone to read Martin's review. It really shows what a joke
this book is.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, good. Another crock of a post by DiEugenio. Nothing he just said above is pertinent to this discussion I was having with Martin Hay.

In that discussion, Martin and I weren't talking about the decades-long controversy about whether the wound was in the "neck" or in the "back", nor were we discussing Gerald Ford's alleged "moving" of the wound, nor were we talking about the "dot" on Boswell's Face Sheet.

Instead, we were talking ONLY about whether a measurement taken from the mastoid process is a "precise" enough measurement. Martin and the HSCA don't think it is. But as I pointed out multiple times in this discussion, even if we go by Dr. Cyril Wecht's recommendation of utilizing "the top of the head" as a starting point for all of the wounds in JFK's body, the very same debate and controversy is going to exist. And I know a lot of CTers just love Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. They take his word for about everything. But the "top of the head" is essentially the same as measuring from the mastoid---because they both involve a movable object---the human head.

Why not go back to the Deep Politics Forum and whine about me some more over there, Jimbo? You'll get a much more receptive audience if you do. No "LNers" can get within sixty miles of DPF's front stoop.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

More baloney. Because if the wound had been located properly, there would be little debate about it at all. Jeremy Gunn pointed this out with Humes. The mastoid process is not a good marker at all, as it varies with the position of the head. And when Gunn pointed this out, Humes got antsy. Just like he did when Gunn pointed out the lack of the particle fragment path in the skull where he mentioned it in his autopsy report.

Secondly, to show again how untrustworthy DVP is, he actually says that if there is no debate about the rifle in evidence, then Oswald did it!

LOL, ROTF.

Why is that funny? Because the rifle in evidence is not the rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered. That is a proven fact. And DVP knows that!!!

Therefore, that rifle is not incriminating at all. It's exculpatory. Because there is no explanation in the WC volumes as to why there is [a] discrepancy. But further, there is evidence that David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle and wanted to keep that fact out of the record. That is a fraud on the record that was created by the WC.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt eh? Only at DVP's blog.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above comment by DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates DiEugenio's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to John F. Kennedy's assassination. If there's ever been a person who has gotten more things wrong about the JFK case than Jim DiEugenio has, I'd love to know who that person is.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jimbo will never acknowledge the existence of that reasonable explanation, and that's because of his complete inability to properly (and fairly) evaluate the evidence in this case. He just can't (or won't) do it. Why? I have no idea.

HERE'S the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that conspiracy clown DiEugenio will pretend is not reasonable at all.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Pure and unmitigated DVP.

First, he says that I got it wrong.

Then he admits it's the wrong rifle!! In other words, I was right.

LOL (BTW, why use the click link? Bring your argument out here in the open. Please sir.)

Then he tries to explain it away! Just like he tries to explain away the other hundred or so pieces of evidence that do not fit his case. Like it being the wrong bullet also, as John Hunt has proved.

Wrong rifle, wrong bullet, wrong standard of proof...doesn't mean a lick to Ayton and DVP.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Nothing but doubt.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo loves proving me right with every silly post he writes. JD isn't the slightest bit embarrassed when he places on full display his nonexistent skill of being able to reasonably assess the sum total of the JFK evidence. And the "wrong rifle" red herring is just one such gut-busting example.

As I said before, DiEugenio knows very well what the sensible explanation is regarding the "wrong rifle" topic. But he won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.....

"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

But the above words mean zilch to a conspiracy clown like Jimmy D.

David Von Pein
April 16-17, 2015