DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A very good reason for dismissing EVERY witness who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is an often ignored statistic concerning the number of those witnesses who said the shots came from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION....
http://jfk-archives/Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
Per John McAdams' latest study, done in 2013, there were a mere THREE earwitnesses (Holland, Millican, and Landis) who reside in the "Shots Came From Two Directions" category.
Here's the witness-by-witness breakdown ----> CLICK HERE.
+--+Location+Of+Shots.jpg)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
This is utterly ridiculous.
As Pat Speer has noted, there was never any kind of rigorous and systematic cataloguing of the ear witness testimony. And to say there was is simply balderdash. Pat has gone through the sourcing on this chart and exposed it for the unreliable and ersatz evidence that it is.
If the FBI had ever done a rigorous and systematic catalogue, then obviously the results would have been as the films show. Or [is] DVP going to say, You nutty people: you would believe your lying eyes over John McAdams' chart?
JAMES DiEUGENIO ALSO SAID:
Gary Aguilar wrote that, after the assassination, Secret Service agent Elmer Moore spent a lot of time at Parkland. The Dallas doctors, up until about 12/11, had been talking to the press and they said that the throat wound was an entrance wound. But now Moore set up shop in the place. With the official autopsy report in hand, he began to turn the tide. For example, with Malcolm Perry. He also began to get this story in the local papers, e.g. the DTH [Dallas Times Herald] of December 12th. That story said the throat wound was an exit wound and at a downward angle. (LOL.)
Moore also got some SS agents to alter their testimony to the FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, in order to discredit their report, which was Specter's agenda also. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 167-68)
When Moore showed up to testify about his perfidy to the Church Committee, he had a lawyer in tow. Why? Because he understood that talking a witness out of his testimony in a criminal case was a felony. As many have written, Moore then became Earl Warren's personal escort through the hearings, and he admitted he talked to him every day.
[...]
Final comment about Moore. He despised Kennedy. Said he was pink, and selling us out to the commies--he actually got scary talking about this issue. (ibid) This is the kind of inquiry that the Warren Commission was.
B.A. COPELAND SAID:
David, we must not forget Agent Elmer Moore and his apparent unfortunate interaction with Dr. Perry.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, B.A., since I don't for an instant believe that ANYBODY (Elmer Moore or anyone else) was involved in any kind of a cover-up in order to conceal a conspiracy in JFK's death, then any conversation that Moore might have had with Dr. Malcolm Perry was, IMO, most certainly not sinister or underhanded in any way at all, and any such conversation was certainly not an attempt by Mr. Moore to cover up the true facts in the JFK case. (And that's because the "true facts" indicate that Oswald was the lone assassin....and, ergo, Dr. Perry was, indeed, mistaken when he initially said the throat wound was a wound of entrance.)
The same thing applies to the FBI's "midnight call" to Darrell Tomlinson as well. The details of the FBI's mindset at the time of that call are not known either. Conspiracy theorists, however, are more than eager to assume that "cover-up" and "conspiracy" must be involved in there someplace when it comes to that telephone call. But that doesn't have to be the case at all. And the same goes for Moore/Perry.
------------
Darrell C. Tomlinson [July 25, 1966]: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock--uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning--after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.
Raymond Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…
Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?
Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it--period.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
This is one of the last bastions of the shameless defenders of the Warren Report.
See, there really was no cover up, by anyone. Even when they admit it, like Moore did. Even when the words came out of their own mouths and a credible witness was there. Even when the guy brings a lawyer to the Church Committee because he knows what he did was a felony.
This is what I mean by the rarified air channel in which DVP exists. It's somewhat similar to the air pressure over the Bermuda Triangle.
As per the FBI not being involved with a cover up, I mean pulease. Even Hale Boggs said such was the case. Recall that quote, "Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission." (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 233) But nothing is ever enough for DVP or the late Bugliosi.
One of the most mendacious sentences in Bugliosi's tree killer waste of a book was when he said that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the proposition of an FBI cover up in the JFK case. (ibid, p. 246) I actually thought he meant that in a satiric way; yes, Vince, there is a mountain of evidence to indicate such was the case. But the lawyer was trying to avoid a huge logical problem for himself and his book. If he admitted what Hoover had done, then this made it very unlikely the WC could be correct since the Bureau did by far the largest part of the inquiry. So therefore, he told a huge prevarication about the FBI's performance in this case.
But not only that, he did a pretty drastic make up job on Hoover. Including deodorant. I mean by this time, there had been at least five full-length exposes of just how bad Hoover was. Bugliosi kept the worst from his readers. As do all the WC zealots: DVP, Davison, McAdams etc. They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was, since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case.
So I really took Vince to task on this whole issue, since he made it easy for me to do so. I spent 37 pages exposing just how much Bugliosi left out of both his portrait of Hoover and the diddling of the FBI with the evidence in this case. I especially liked it when I could use actual FBI agents who were so sick of what Hoover had done in the JFK case, since they saw that event as the beginning of the end of the Bureau's reputation with the public. So I used witnesses like Bill Turner and Don Adams. But really all one has to do is recall this key fact: The FBI report was so bad that the WC failed to compile it as part of the volumes. And Hoover never swallowed the Magic Bullet. In fact, he literally tried to erase it from history with a patch over the curb to hide the Tague hit. I really had fun with that one. So will everyone, except DVP. (ibid, pp 250-54)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bullshit, Jim.
J. Edgar Hoover was, let's face it, utterly clueless about many things that he shouldn't have been clueless about as of 11/29/63. But, nonetheless, he was.
Do you, Jim, think Hoover was just feigning his ignorance when he uttered these nonsensical "facts" to President Lyndon Johnson during their telephone conversation on November 29th, 1963?....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html
J. EDGAR HOOVER -- "He [JFK] was hit by the first and the third [shots]. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and wasn't shattered; and that rolled out of the President's head, and tore a large part of the President's head off. And in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, they apparently loosened that, and it fell onto the stretcher."
Rolled out of the President's HEAD??? Hoover is completely daffy here! Even SEVEN DAYS after the crime! Incredible ignorance! And yet, per James DiEugenio, this bumbling fool name J. Edgar is supposedly orchestrating the biggest (and most successful) "cover-up" in history. ~LOL~
It's just a good thing Hoover had good [i.e., non-clueless] investigators like Bob Frazier and Sebastian Latona working for him.
--------------------
HOOVER -- "All three [shots were fired] at the President....and we have them."
Hoover, in the above quote, is saying to LBJ that the FBI had in its possession ALL THREE BULLETS that Oswald fired. Again, this is complete ignorance on the part of Mr. Hoover. Not conspiracy. Not cover-up. Just a lack of accurate information concerning the physical evidence in the case.
--------------------
HOOVER -- "Those three shots were fired within three seconds."
--------------------
LBJ -- "If Connally hadn't been in his way..."
HOOVER -- "Oh yes....yes. The President no doubt would have been hit [a third time]."
LBJ -- "He [JFK] would have been hit three times."
HOOVER -- "He would have been hit three times."
Director Clueless outdoes himself with the above gut-buster.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
OMG Davey, that was some pivot by you, worthy of Elgin Baylor.
And it shows you will never admit the deliberate alteration and obfuscation of evidence by the FBI.
I thought I roasted you pretty well, along with Vince [Bugliosi], about how Vince tried to cover up what the HSCA told us about the FBI rigging the polygraph test. If you recall, I pasted you all over this board on that one. But somehow, Davey now seems to forget about that issue and about how Vince deliberately covered it up in his book. That short memory serves you well in your continual denial of the facts of this case and what Hoover did in it.
[...]
Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep. And I still do....
"The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly style. Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good overview of the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few (pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous conclusion that each of the three shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated in the Presidential limousine." -- DVP; April 2008
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
...the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I hope you don't mind if I fervently disagree with you on this point, Jim.
In fact, I think your above quote is one of the silliest things you've ever uttered. And that's really a major accomplishment, considering the items that are contained within "The DiEugenio 22", which I never get tired of highlighting.
I know this will come as a massive shock to you, James, but I actually agree with Vincent T. Bugliosi on this (please don't faint)....
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxii of "Reclaiming History"
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
The Warren Commission (and Vince Bugliosi) actually had something that conspiracy theorists can only dream about having ---- that is: HARD EVIDENCE to work with—e.g., Oswald's guns, bullets and fragments and shell casings from Oswald's guns, Oswald's lies, the Tippit murder witnesses, Oswald's unusual actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, etc.
Whereas CTers have nothing that even comes close to matching the Lone Assassin/Oswald evidence. And the likely reason for that is --- No such hard "conspiracy" evidence exists. And never did.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
When confronted with the clothing evidence, Dale K. Myers created animation depicting JFK's jacket collar elevated an inch up into the hairline -- an obvious fiction!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The clothing seen in Dale Myers' computer animation is meaningless. The clothes have nothing to do with where the bullet hole is located in KENNEDY'S UPPER BACK in Myers' computer model. Myers added the clothing for cosmetic purposes only. So the amount of "bunching" that Myers places on JFK's jacket does not mean a thing. It's merely to make the animated figures look more realistic.
(See the last paragraph in the image below, which is from this FAQ page on Myers' website.) ....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
If anyone wants to see what a shameless water carrier DVP is for Dale Myers, please click this link:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania
Anyone can see what happened here. Because the illustrations are profuse. It's not just the phony computer illustration about the bundled-up top of JFK's neck with the shirt collar disappearing underneath the jacket. It's the peculiar shape of Kennedy's head and neck and how his head protrudes from his neck at an angle. Just compare that to the JBC model.
For DVP to insert Myers' utterly deceptive denial, and to say in effect, "What do you believe, Myers or your lying eyes?" this is what causes people like Joe McBride to wonder if someone is paying him. I have never done as much, but for DVP to fail to understand why someone with Joe's background would think so in the face of this witless fiasco, that shows an almost astonishing lack of self awareness of himself and his psychology.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
~yawn~
All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ....
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
If Jim wants to think Dale is merely lying through his teeth in that extensive FAQ session, go ahead Jimmy. We can just add Dale to Jim's mile-long list of liars associated with the JFK murder case (if he's not already on the list, which he no doubt is).
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Should not have done that, Davey.
If there is one person our site has utterly destroyed, it's Dale Myers. And again, the fact that you dismiss all of this, even when it's done with illustrations, shows just how around the bend you are on this issue. Sort of like Nixon still punning Vietnam after he knew the war was lost. Even Ambrose had to admit that he was really unbalanced about Indochina.
https://kennedysandking.com/Dale Myers: An Introduction
I advise everyone to read each of these critiques, since taken as a whole they leave Myers with no leg to stand on.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
~another yawn~
Reprise.....
All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ.
Addendum / Basic Observation....
"As I've said a thousand times before -- the luck of those multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza apparently never ran out. Did it? Those assassins were even able to fool Dale Myers' computer overlays and key framing....with those crackerjack killers pummelling JBC & JFK with several bullets (all of the vanishing variety, naturally) in just such a pattern (and with ideal SBT-like timing to boot, per the Z-Film) so that decades later a man at his computer could come up with an animation -- BASED ON AN ACTUAL FILMED RECORD OF THE EVENT! -- that would make this MULTI-shot event look exactly the same as the SBT purported by the WC in 1964. Where's the champagne?! Those ever-efficient, magical assassins deserve an endless supply of it for that magnificent hunk of "public duping". Wouldn't you agree?" -- DVP; May 19, 2007
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
This is a perfect illustration of what a zealot DVP really is.
Of those five articles in that link that destroys Myers, only one is by me. And mine does not deal that much with what Myers is trying to defend himself against in that blog entry. Harris, Speer, and Mili and Kelin can all fend for themselves and anyone can see the distortion of anatomy that Pat uses Myers' own work to decapitate him with. It's right there for anyone to see except a zealot like DVP. Zealots by definition cannot see.
[...]
Myers...was so grateful for that opportunity to break into the mainstream,
that when the producer of the show died a few years ago, Dale thanked him profusely. A bit too profusely. There, he admitted what he had previously
denied. The show did have a focus on Oswald as triggerman from the
beginning. [Click Here.]
If a man cannot be honest about something as basic as that, how can anyone believe him about anything? Except DVP, who with, such things as honesty do not matter.
Which is why he is what he is.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Seeing as how the above claptrap is coming from someone (DiEugenio) who considers the late Jim Garrison to be an honest man of the highest possible integrity (even though Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man on a charge of conspiracy to murder the President), I can only request that some member of this forum lend me their "POT/KETTLE" icon asap! I need it badly here (in addition to multiple "ROFLs").
But, that's why Jim D. is what he is --- a walking Pot Meets Kettle emoji.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Even though I went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail...there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as a source.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bugliosi's book has not been "discredited" in any major way whatsoever. Certainly not with respect to his main bottom-line conclusions, i.e.:
....Oswald killed Kennedy.
....Oswald killed Tippit.
....Oswald shot at General Walker.
....The Warren Commission conducted a very good investigation and reached a proper conclusion based on the available evidence.
....There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all.
And just because James DiEugenio wrote a book that claims to have "discredited" virtually every last thing uttered by Vince Bugliosi in his 2007 tome, that most certainly does NOT mean that Vince's book HAS been "discredited".
"Discredited" obviously has a completely different definition to a CTer like DiEugenio than it does to many other people. I mean, let's face the music here....
The guy who just said Bugliosi's tome has been "discredited" is the very same guy who, incredibly, actually believes that Oswald didn't fire a shot at EITHER Kennedy OR Tippit (OR Walker either)!
And there's also this list of fantastic things that Jim believes (or says he does)....
"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015
"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008
"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015
"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015
"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008
"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010
"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009
"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008
"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015
"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010
"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008
"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010
"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010
"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013
"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010
"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010
"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a liar, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015
--------------------------
[End Fantasy Quotes.]
-------------------------
And yet, with beliefs like that laundry list above hanging out there for all to see, I'm supposed to believe that Vincent T. Bugliosi is really the one who has been "discredited", plus every official committee who has ever looked into the JFK murder case. Those committees, via Jim's definition, have also ALL been "discredited" too.
Please, James! Give a reasonable man with a weak bladder a freakin' break for once!
MICHAEL CLARK SAID:
David Von Pein evaded all of this.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?
Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)
With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:
Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey,
You ignored each and every item in that bill of indictment for Clay Shaw. Michael is absolutely correct on that.
Every part of that list is made up of evidence that was rolled out by the ARRB.
I did not originate this, it is all in documents and/or testimony. Some of the points I footnoted, some I did not. I could have footnoted them all, but I think I have a reputation on this site for honesty and scholarly discipline. If someone can show I do not, then so be it, go ahead.
You were not able to answer any of it in a coherent way. Why can't you just man up and admit that? You do not know jack about New Orleans. Why is that so hard to admit?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
You then doubled down on that by using the fraudulent volume RH ["Reclaiming History"] by the hack Bugliosi. And you get more custard pie on your face. You did not have the barest idea about what happened at Shaw's trial. You then trusted Bugliosi and he ended up being untrustworthy.
You never get tired of falling on your face, do you? And we are supposed to ignore that because you do?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Jim, with a trail of purely laughable quotes like the ones I cited in a previous post --- like "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction" and "Baker never saw Oswald" and "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" --- do you really think that YOU are the one who should be talking about someone ELSE "falling on [their] face"?
And, I say again, with such unbelievably wrong beliefs in your hip pocket (beliefs that are NOT supported by the actual EVIDENCE at all!), why should anyone take seriously ANYTHING you have ever said regarding the JFK case? If you can't even figure out the really easy ones---like Oswald ordering the C2766 rifle and Oswald shooting J.D. Tippit four times---then how can anyone expect you to get ANYTHING right at all? (Seems like a sensible question to me.)
David Von Pein
July 12-15, 2018
