GARRY PUFFER SAID:
So I ask again, David, what is the purpose of publishing a book on the JFK assassination which contains no new insights?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Check out this link, Garry.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
From a DVP post on another JFK forum:
[DVP Quote On:]
"There's not a whole lot of "new" stuff in the book. But there are a few things in there that I don't think have been printed in book form before. In a Q&A that Mel Ayton prepared for a radio interview, Mel answered the question this way.....
QUESTION: Does the book include any evidence which is new?
MEL AYTON: 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' includes an appendix by JFK assassination researcher Michael O'Dell, who provides scientific evidence that the acoustics evidence in the JFK case, `proving' a second gunman fired from the Grassy Knoll, is flawed.
The book also includes excellent rebuttals of numerous claims made by conspiracists regarding the numerous myths surrounding the assassination, particularly the following:
Was CE399 a planted bullet?
Was JFK's motorcade route changed at the last minute?
The so-called "Mysterious Deaths".
The "Secret Service Standdown" myth."
[DVP Quote Off.]
As Martin Hay wrote, there is nothing new here.
David writes:
"The blurb on the back cover of the book, where it says a "clear motive" for Oswald's actions is provided in "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", is grossly overstated. And I wish like heck that that boastful blurb could have been changed before the book was printed. I say "overstated" because Lee Oswald's motive can only be GUESSED AT by authors."
And yet, there it is on the cover.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I said the "clear motive" blurb is bunk, Garry. What more do you want? Blood? Geez.
BTW, here's the remainder of my quote that Puffer has partially quoted above....
[DVP Quote On:]
"No definitive or absolute motive has ever been established or proved to explain why Oswald shot President Kennedy. We can really only take educated guesses. So any book that claims Oswald's motive was "clear" is probably overstating the situation. So that's why I wish I had been able to change that word ("clear") to "probable" on the back cover of BRD. My apologies to any readers who find that blurb to be an exaggeration....because I agree....I think it's an exaggeration too. But, rest assured, I wasn't the person who wrote that word in that blurb that appears on the book's back cover.
Along related lines, I was able to get a similar piece of wild exaggeration on the back cover changed and reworded so that it conforms with reality a little better. That one originally claimed that Mel and I "challenge each and every allegation" relating to a possible cover-up in the assassination. I was able to get the ridiculously overstated "each and every" claim reduced to "important allegations". Because all readers will easily be able to tell that a 471-page JFK book could not possibly "challenge each and every allegation" that conspiracy theorists have offered up since 1963.
Why do publishers have to exaggerate in their blurbs so much? Obviously, the publisher wants to paint the book they're releasing in the best possible light, and they will only say good things about the contents of the book. But why do they feel the need to exaggerate to the point of absurdity (which is what I think our publisher did with respect to those two blurbs I just discussed)? ~shrug~"
-- DVP; March 2015
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
David is obviously just out to make a buck, like all those horrible conspiracy authors.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be.
I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents.
So you can take your "out to make a buck" garbage and do something unmentionable with it. 10-4?
David Von Pein
June 6-7, 2015 [This forum link is no longer available.]
