B. LECLOUC SAID:
Although I disagree with your theory, Mr. VonPein [sic], you raise some significant points about [Vincent] Palamara.
V. DAVIS SAID:
A man cannot believe one thing, be convinced by the best evidence to that point (in 2007 maybe that was Bugliosi's work, I don't know, I haven't read it all yet). Then, in 2009 when he sees the type of proof on offer in Mr. Horne's book (which is now, the best evidence) he changes his mind, and some rambling person [DVP, that is] who has read none of Mr. Horne's book except the parts available in the "look inside" feature on Amazon, and you think the rambling person (I want to say idiot so bad, but I'm trying to be civil) has a right to berate him for being compelled by evidence to change his mind?
Where would humanity be, I ask you, if we were not capable of changing our position if the factual evidence in a case warrants it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
V. Davis, incredibly, seems to think that it's humanly possible for BOTH Vincent T. Bugliosi and Douglas P. Horne to be CORRECT about their respective positions regarding the JFK case.
At least that's the feeling one gets from reading Vince Palamara's comments and reviews. He loves BOTH of those books. He is, in essence, endorsing the CONTENTS of both of those books, which were written by authors with totally OPPOSITE viewpoints on the assassination of JFK.
If V. Davis thinks that is an acceptable thing to do--fine. But, IMO, it's just....strange.
But, of course, I have a pretty good idea WHY Mr. Palamara endorses the entire field when it comes to books dealing with JFK's murder. He did the very same thing in May 2008, when he wrote this glowing 5-Star review for Jim Douglass' book, which is a review Palamara wrote almost a full YEAR after he had fully endorsed Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".
As can be seen quite clearly, Mr. Palamara can't seem to sit still on EITHER side of the JFK fence for very long. If a major author comes out with a book about John F. Kennedy, and if Vince Palamara's name is somewhere in the book, you can bet that Mr. Palamara is going to endorse that publication. It's happened time and time again.
V. DAVIS SAID:
You don't say why we should disbelieve it [Doug Horne's theory about Dr. Humes altering JFK's head wounds before the autopsy]. So...Why?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If you, all by YOURSELF, can't figure out WHY the whole world should dismiss every last impossible theory uttered by Doug Horne, then I feel sorry for you.
CLICK HERE for a Starter Kit highlighting just a few examples of Douglas Horne's never-could-have-happened fantasies.
V. DAVIS SAID:
I believe that, if Douglas P. Horne is wrong, and I don't think he is, but if he is...he is honestly just wrong and not trying to pull the wool over our eyes like the Warren Commision [sic].
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, brother.
Thanks for the gut-buster there, V. Davis. I enjoyed the laugh.
V. DAVIS SAID:
How could, in all honesty, the Warren Commision [sic] be considered to be credible when the Warren Report was leaked to select press before which time the committee had even met for the first time?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Huh? How could "the Warren Report", which had not yet been written, have been "leaked" to the press in December 1963?
I suppose you are yet another conspiracy theorist who thinks the Warren Commission never even intended to find the truth regarding JFK's death. In other words, the Commission was merely put together by LBJ to stamp the predestined "Guilty, Alone" label on Lee Harvey Oswald. Is that correct?
Well, if that were the case back in November and December of 1963, then WHY DIDN'T THE WARREN COMMISSION DO THAT VERY THING?
But they didn't. Instead, the Commission REJECTED J. Edgar Hoover's 12/9/63 FBI report (which is a report that concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman), with the Commission deciding to work for another 9 to 10 months and perform its OWN investigation (with the FBI's help, of course).
And that brings up another thing (re: the WC and the FBI) -- Many conspiracy theorists, James DiEugenio being one such prominent example, want to believe that J. Edgar Hoover had the Warren Commission boys wrapped around his little finger, and that Hoover was deciding what the final results of the WC investigation were going to be (since the FBI was, indeed, the chief investigating arm utilized by the Commission).
But such a belief doesn't seem to make much sense when we get back to discussing what Earl Warren and his Commission did at the very beginning of their work -- i.e., they REJECTED the five-volume report put out by Hoover's FBI on December 9, 1963!
Do conspiracists believe that Hoover only had a firm hold on the Commission AFTER the Warren boys denounced the initial FBI report as "inconclusive" and incomplete? That's just crazy talk.
That's just one example, among dozens, of how the many theories that have been invented from whole cloth by JFK conspiracy theorists over the years are internally inconsistent with each other. And most conspiracy theorists don't even seem to notice such inconsistencies.
Another excellent example being the "One Patsy" theory (promoted by Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and thousands of other conspiracy advocates), which is a theory that has a group of plotters planning JFK's assassination MONTHS IN ADVANCE of November 22, 1963. And these same plotters are also attempting to frame poor ol' Lee Oswald as the SOLE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, MONTHS IN ADVANCE of the murder.
So, what do these brilliant and brazen plotters do on Game Day? They decide to use THREE gunmen to kill the President (according to Oliver Stone's fairy tale version of events)!
And on top of that bound-to-fail "One Patsy" plan, the plotters don't even keep Oswald on the floor of death (the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building) when the assassination is taking place at 12:30 PM!
Brilliant plot, isn't it? (Well, maybe if you WANT to have your conspiracy plot exposed right away, yes. Otherwise, it's just flat-out stupid.)
But the thousands (or millions) of conspiracy theorists who have fallen in love with those two things (in tandem, no less!)—the "OSWALD WAS FRAMED AS THE LONE PATSY" theory and the "MULTIPLE GUNMEN WERE FIRING AT JFK" theory—don't seem to bat an eyelash when confronted with the internal incompatibility that exists between those two beliefs.
Common sense CAN go a long way toward solving the JFK assassination. (Just don't expect to see much of it from conspiracy theorists.)
David Von Pein
March 8, 2010
