GARRY PUFFER SAID:
DVPoo should be embarrassed about posting garbage like this in praise of his book ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"].
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, I probably should try to promote a book that I co-wrote by posting all the crappy 1-Star reviews, instead of posting and propping up (as ANY author would do, of course) the GOOD reviews.
Right, Garry-Puffpoo?
Geesh.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
The point I was trying to make was that your GOOD reviews were miserably written and poorly thought out. Good God, you even included one where the guy admitted not reading the book!
Of course you're not going to include one star reviews. No one would expect you to. But at least you should have tried to get ONE well-written review that actually told the reader something about the book.
Not one of the reviews you posted gave any evidence of having read it. To post such garbage reeks of desperation. Better to have posted none at all.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nonsense. Every single one of the "good" BRD book reviews is very well-written and thought out.
And how on Earth can you suggest that the following two reviewers never even looked at the book at all? These reviews provide a great deal of detail about the book's contents....
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2XS254UF97OA3
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3CVSPTY4L4RID
So, Garry, why did you decide to lie when you ignorantly said this?....
"Not one of the reviews you posted gave any evidence of having read it."
-- Garry Puffer
And then I'm treated to this remark from Puffer, which turns out to be another good "pot/kettle" example after the things I just said above about those two reviewers who obviously had read the book before posting their Amazon reviews....
"To post such garbage reeks of desperation." -- G. Puffer
What really reeks of desperation is Puffer's desire to smear me at any cost.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
If I had "reviews" like that, I'd be embarrassed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If you had reviews like that, it'd be a miracle.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Even Chief Curry *IMMEDIATELY* sent men, not to the TSBD, but to the Grassy Knoll (or, more accurately, in that direction...)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure. Many people were simply fooled by the sounds that were, in actuality, coming from the TSBD, but those people thought (incorrectly) they were coming from a place FURTHER WEST in the Plaza.
A 5-year-old could figure this out. Therefore, Ben Holmes can't. (I guess he's not five yet.)
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
DEX OLSEN SAID:
In 26 months, more classified material is scheduled for release...and I can't imagine how ANY OF IT will support a lone gunman scenario.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And I can't imagine how ANY OF IT will be even REMOTELY related to the events in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 either. All of the "secret" documents will be peripheral stuff (at best).....and totally irrelevant and useless as far as the assassination itself is concerned (at worst--for CTers).
DEX OLSEN SAID:
If what you're suggesting was correct, why on earth would "peripheral stuff (at best).....and totally irrelevant and useless as far as the assassination itself is concerned" have remained classified all these years?
Part of Ruth Paine's HSCA testimony remains classified, for example. Don't you think her statements were relative to "events in Dealey Plaza"?
Will you at least be honest enough to admit classified material released during the ARRB hearings shed considerable light on 11.22.63?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Somewhat (I guess). But I still want to know what BOMBSHELL documents were released by the ARRB that somehow prove a conspiracy (which is what Jim DiEugenio keeps assuring the world; he thinks the ARRB stuff cements the "conspiracy" in granite). But WHAT DOCUMENTS, Jimbo? Which ones? I haven't seen a ONE that proves the conspiracy that DiEugenio so fervently advocates. PLEASE LINK TO THOSE SMOKING-GUN DOCUMENTS!
DiEugenio seems to think a lot of "Garrison"-related documents released by the ARRB help to prove a conspiracy. But try telling that to Anna K. Nelson of the ARRB....
Interview With Anna K. Nelson (October 1998)
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Here's a start, four depositions. All of which contradict the WC in significant ways:
Saundra Spencer:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/spencer.htm
Dino Brugioni:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop?
John Stringer:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798
Francis X. O'Neill, Jr.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=792
My prediction is that DVPoo will merely claim I have failed because none of these disproves EVERYTHING the WC wrote in its report.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
None of that stuff disproves ANYTHING the Warren Commission put on the table.
All of that material is covered in ample depth in Vincent Bugliosi's book---from Stringer to O'Neill to Spencer.
But according to Garry Puffer, Bugliosi is not to be trusted, so Puffer gets to completely ignore every word in Vince's book. Right, Puff?
The newest CT tactic/shortcut --- simply claim the LNer is guilty of a "logical fallacy" and then move on to the next hunk of speculation or the next discrepancy which has already been fully explained in non-conspiratorial ways (which they all have been).
E.G., Saundra Kay Spencer.....
Check the endnote starting on Page 264 (of the Endnotes CD-ROM) in Bugliosi's book. Vince spends several pages delving into Spencer's account of the autopsy photos.
Excerpt.....
"Like many others where eyewitnesses are confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center of the back of the president's head. Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively, and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described." -- V. Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History"
DEX OLSEN SAID:
Davy, I checked your link to Anna K. Nelson's remark:
"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has been discredited by these documents [released by the ARRB]. If you read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson
Good job, Davy... you've just perpetrated the greatest half-truth in the history of JFK threads! Are you truly that desperate?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So, Dex, enlighten us all.....
What part of that statement made by Anna Nelson is incorrect or untrue or a "half-truth"?
IOW, what evidence is there that a conspiracy existed in New Orleans in 1963?
And I'm still waiting for that bombshell Garrison (ARRB) document. Any chance you could provide me with such a document, Mr. Olsen? Thanks.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Davey is going to be forced to accept the fact that the prosectors (and the Autopsy Report) very clearly place the large head wound in the back of the head.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The autopsy doctors, of course, did no such thing and every reasonable person knows it. And the autopsy report most certainly does NOT place the large wound in the BACK of the head. Holmes doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual).
And Dr. James Humes, on CBS-TV in 1967 [see the video below], placed the large exit wound toward the FRONT of the head and on the RIGHT SIDE (not the rear at all).
And, even more importantly (on a PHOTOGRAPHIC basis), the X-ray of JFK's head positively proves where the large wound was --- and it wasn't in the occipital, because ALL occipital bone is STILL THERE in this X-ray....
So conspiracy fanatic Ben Holmes has no choice but to pretend the above X-ray is a total fake/fraud.
More here:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/boh-part-6.html
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Conspiracists need to have all three of the following photographic items placed in the "fake" category in order for there to have really been a huge hole in the back/"occipital" of JFK's head....
1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows no such back-of-head [BOH] wound at all).
2.) The autopsy photos (which do not show a blown-out BOH).
3.) The autopsy X-rays (which do not show a blasted-out BOH either).
Is it reasonable to believe ALL THREE of the above things (which includes MULTIPLE X-rays and photos, not just one of each) were faked in this case?
If that's a reasonable or sensible thing to believe, please let me know why.
Yes, I've got to live with "Somewhat into the occipital". But CTers have got to live those THREE photographic items which all corroborate EACH OTHER in that they show the same thing---a wound above the right ear and not in the occipital.
Life's tough sometimes, ain't it? (TRIPLE tough if you're a conspiracy theorist who belongs to the "Big Hole In The Occipital" club.)
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
So is the BOH photo genuine, or is the autopsy report in error? Or vice-versa. They cannot both be genuine.
Don't try to drag other questions into this. For the moment it's just the report vs the BOH photo.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
I predict that Davey will run like the coward he is. He *CANNOT* admit any conflict between the two.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure there's a conflict. As I said, life's tough and rough sometimes.
But does this conflict automatically indicate somebody's lying or that something is FAKE? Are there no other possibilities other than "lies" and "fakery"?
GARRY PUFFER SAID ALL THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sorry about that, Garry. It's the best I could do, since Humes (et al) were too stupid to write down how many centimeters above the EOP the wound really was. So all we get is "slightly above". Oops!
But, as I said, life can be a pain in the butt sometimes (and so can autopsies).
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
And for you, "slightly above" means "the top of the skull"?
You know, David, when one of us critics takes issue with an expert, we are jumped on because we are not experts ourselves. So I find it totally outrageous the number of times in that last blog you linked to that you declare that a doctor was mistaken. It got kind of silly, as a matter of fact.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Where do you see a bullet hole in the photo shown below, Garry? Where is the hole located---high on the head or low on the head or somewhere in-between? Or, you could always pull a Pat Speer and claim the red spot isn't really a bullet hole at all. It's just dried blood that took the shape of a bullet hole. (Gee, what a coincidence -- and what a fantastic break for Pat Speer!)
And do you think I (or you) need to be an "expert" in order to come to a reasonable conclusion as to the GENERAL LOCATION (high vs. low) on President Kennedy's head where the bullet hole is located in this autopsy picture?....
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
To contradict doctors I think you either need to be an expert in the field or have absolute proof that the doctor is wrong. Are you now arguing that an interpretation of a photo takes precedence over an actual observer's testimony? That's a slippery slope, you know.
As for the photo, it is NOT clear. Much room for doubt, especially as it contradicts the original autopsy findings, and I thought you believed in the autopsy report. That location is NOT slightly above the EOP.
What else in the report is wrong, David? Do we get to pick and choose also?
Do you not see any problem with a wound that keeps changing location?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, I know, Garry. It's tough being an LNer sometimes. They ARE some discrepancies regarding the autopsy. But what am I supposed to do about it?
One thing, however, is pretty clear.....
Regardless of the exact square inch of real estate the entry wound occupied on the back side of JFK's head, there was ONLY ONE wound of entrance in the President's head. Let's listen....
Do you think Dr. Humes was lying in the audio clip above, Garry?
There is also this statement made by Dr. James Humes in 1991....
"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; October 1991
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
James Humes lied many times for what I'm sure he regarded as the "good of the country."
For example, in the quote above: "There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings."
Surely you are familiar enough with the evidence to recognize these as blatant lies.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's remarkable how quickly a CTer is willing to label something as a "lie" and a person as a "liar". At the drop of a hat practically.
Pathetic.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I note that David completely avoided the topic of the wandering wound, something that makes no sense if everything is aboveboard.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What am I supposed to do about "the wandering wound", Garry? Am I supposed to somehow magically make everything perfect again?
You act as if I have totally ignored the "wandering wound"? But if you'd look at the many arguments I've had with John Canal in my "BOH" series, you'll see I certainly haven't ignored it at all.
But I'd really like to know what a person like myself (who believes in Oswald's lone guilt for a wide variety of reasons---apart from JUST the [admittedly] rather sloppy autopsy) is supposed to do re: the weird "low vs. high" head wound controversy?
What CAN any LNer do--except try to evaluate the discrepancy with some measure of logic and try to resolve it the best we can. Now, should that type of "resolving" lead down the path of "fakery"? I can't see why. Because EITHER entry location on JFK's head is STILL in the BACK of the head, consistent with a shot from BEHIND and from Oswald's Sniper's Nest.
KEVIN T. DRAISS SAID:
The X-ray clearly shows where it is [the location of the large exit wound in JFK's head].
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep, it sure does, Kevin. There is NO MISSING OCCIPITAL BONE in the X-ray. All bone is there. And ALL occipital SCALP is there in the BOH pic too.
Ergo, when the autopsy report said that "in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone", the autopsy surgeons cannot be referring to OCCIPITAL scalp and bone specifically there. They MUST be only referring to TWO of the other areas that were also "in this region"---the temporal and parietal regions.
But trying to explain this to a CTer is an arduous and uphill chore. Especially since everything is treated ONLY as a "lie" or a hunk of "fakery" in the world of CTers. How can we hope to fight that kind of disease? (And yet I still try, don't I? Silly me.) :-)
DALE H. HAYES, JR. SAID:
Just imagine the plotters deciding to frame Oswald from the rear and shoot the POTUS from the front and THEN realizing the gargantuan lengths they would have to go to to cover up their crime - it is preposterous and incredible - just like the conspiracy freaks in this [Amazon.com] forum. They are well read imbeciles, educating themselves into abject stupidity.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's a good quote above.
Time to update my "Quoting Common Sense" blog.
Thanks, Dale.
"JFK VAN 1963" SAID:
It's ironic that Von Pein is a lone nutter full of disinformation, but at the same time he posts so many good videos that give you a much better sense of this obvious conspiracy.
Keep em coming VP, it really helps the common sense folks.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course, exactly the opposite is true. But that's typical of an Internet conspiracy theorist -- everything's always backwards and upside-down.
Truth is, when viewing/listening to the many hours of November '63 television and radio coverage, it couldn't be more obvious that there was only ONE gunman, THREE shots fired, and NO conspiracy.
"SAINTER SAN" SAID:
David, I agree absolutely.
Thanks for your channel, your vids (love this one) and your common sense. We need more people like you on YouTube. Cheers! :)
MARK EATOUGH SAID:
David,
Indeed. I was raised (not by my folks but by a culture) to believe this was not only a conspiracy, but THE conspiracy. I outgrew the child-like, but understandable desire for there to be greater meaning and motive for this killing.
You can't get 2 people who saw the assassination in Dealy [sic] Plaza to agree on how many bullets or where they were fired from, and you can't get 2 people watching the Zapruder film at the same time to agree on what they see - there is no evidence whatsoever to prove there was a second gunman.
I'm so glad to find out the person running this channel isn't swept up by all this stuff.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thank you, "SainterSan" and Mark.
David Von Pein
September 26-28, 2015
March 11, 2015
