JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Every step of the way, the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's total nonsense, Jim. In fact, when a sensible and reasonable person looks at all of the variables pertaining to the Single-Bullet Theory, it becomes blatantly obvious that the SBT is the only conclusion that makes any sense at all [as I explain in great detail at the link below].
No other (anti-SBT) theory comes even close. And nobody on the "CT" side of the fence has ever come forward with an alternate theory to share with the world that isn't completely laughable. Why don't you be the first, Jim? I'd love to hear your shot-by-shot anti-SBT theory. Give it a shot. I'm overdue for my daily belly-laugh anyway.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened. It's that simple. When that obviously planted bullet was found, the WC was stuck with it. Because if they did not use it, then they would have to admit that 1.) not only was there a conspiracy, but 2.) the cover up was working in hand with the plot; or why else plant the bullet--albeit on the wrong stretcher.
In every single forensic element, the SBF is simply and completely indefensible. That is why the story changed three times within two months of the shooting.
If Larry Schnapf ever gets the money to complete his real computer simulation, he is going to utterly humiliate Dale Myers and his cartoon. (Although Bob Harris already has.)
Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, it's more coherent than anything you guys have. What shamelessness. As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?" See, it does not work like that in the real world. The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed which I think is pretty solid. But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened. Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.
So please, that ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you feel good, (for what reason I do not know). And it may help you score points with the likes of FC [Francois Carlier], Reitzes and McAdams. But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, it's just junior high school smart alecky stuff.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
OK, "Jimmy". Whatever you say.
Reprise ..... The Ultimate In SBT Denial
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
That evidence about the probes is really strong for the fact the bullet did not transit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And that has been reasonably explained by Dr. Boswell. But I'm guessing that Jim D. doesn't like this explanation about the "probing" at all. Right, Jim?....
"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. J.T. Boswell; February 1996; ARRB Testimony
INSTANT REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
...and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jim's reference above to President Donald J. Trump gives me a good excuse to post this video that I found a few weeks ago lurking on YouTube. It's Off-Topic, yes, but it's worth it because it's so darn hilarious....
David Von Pein
December 11-16, 2018
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
Do you believe it was Oswald himself who spoke over the phone with the consulates in Spanish and broken Russian?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Either that, or somebody mixed up the calls (and the callers). Because there was certainly NOT an "imposter Oswald" roaming the streets of Mexico City in September and October of 1963. And the main reason we can be certain of that fact is because----
The one and only "real" Lee Harvey Oswald positively DID travel by bus to Mexico City in late September '63. That fact has been proven in many different ways, not the least of which is available in Oswald's own words in Commission Exhibit No. 15.
Do you really think this is a fake letter, Sandy (complete with a fake LHO signature)?....
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
Yes, Dave, that is a fake letter. It was sent by the CIA to the Russian Embassy as part of its plan to blame JFK's assassination on Russia and Cuba.
There are two possible reasons why the CIA wanted the blame to go to Russia and Cuba. 1) The assassination was a false flag operation that would give the United States an excuse to invade Cuba; or 2) it was a scheme to get President Johnson to do a coverup. Which he did, because he wanted to avoid a potential WW3.
I'm still trying to figure out for myself which of those two possibilities was the case.
BTW, it's easy to forge a letter like that and to fake a signature.
Another BTW... if we were living in the sixties and debating whether or not the CIA was overthrowing governments and killing foreign leaders, you'd be denying it all while we CTers would be exploring the evidence. You'd be denying that the CIA was secretly testing LSD on unwitting civilians. You'd be denying that the government was knowingly exposing American citizens to dangerous radioactive fallout. And on and on.
You'd be wrong on all counts, just like you're wrong about the Kennedy assassination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Yes, Dave, that is a fake letter." -- S. Larsen
Yeah, naturally. Why did I even bother to ask? Everything inconvenient to CTers is fake.
What a cop-out. Unbelievable.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Mexico City Addendum....
I've yet to get an answer from any conspiracy theorist to this question I asked 8 years ago....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
Who was Kostin?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Kostikov. Oswald just got the name wrong.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey, you are going to tell me that Oswald, who spoke fluent Russian, somehow talked to this guy who was named Kostikov about getting an in-transit visa to Russia from Cuba, and he screwed up his name that badly?
Now, you do know that there was a Soviet agent named Kostin, right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, I didn't.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
You are aware of the other serious problem with that letter, right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Re: CE15 and the envelope....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
In the letter, Oswald says he met with Hosty and Hosty gave him a warning.
Davey, when did Hosty meet with Oswald, prior to MC [Mexico City] or directly after?
And that is not all. But I am surprised you missed that obvious faux pas.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the November 9th letter in question [Commission Exhibit No. 15], Lee Oswald tells us the exact date of Hosty's visit---November 1. But Oswald then goes on to tell one of the multiple lies that he told in the letter by implying that he and Hosty met face-to-face, which, of course, never happened on Nov. 1 (or on Nov. 5).
But let me get this straight, Jim....
You think the CE15 letter is totally bogus, right? And yet you think that the plotters who concocted that letter would want to put things in it that would tend to PROVE its "bogus" status? That's similar to crooks who have a desire to videotape their own heists, isn't it? Were your "plotters" really that stupid? Or could it be---just maybe!---that the great James DiEugenio of Los Angeles is full of beans when it comes to CE15 (and so many other matters regarding the events of November 22, 1963)?
(I'll vote for the latter option.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
Did the reality that these were not facts, but actually false, did that influence any of the members of the WC or the FBI to suspect that something was up with the letter?
Answer: No.
And in fact when you trotted it out a couple of days ago to say, "See, Oswald was in Mexico", did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter?
Answer: No.
Would you have acknowledged them if I had not brought them up.
Answer: No.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jim,
Do you think the letter (CE15) is a "fake" letter, which was written (and signed) by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald?
(Silly question, I know. But I'm just looking for confirmation of that belief.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Note DVP did not contest any of the answers I gave above, that is NO NO and NO.
Davey:
Is it utterly impossible for you to tell the whole story about any piece of evidence in this case?
Answer: Yes.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jimmy:
Is it utterly impossible for you to fairly and reasonably and rationally look at a piece of evidence in the JFK case (any piece at all!) without concluding that that piece of evidence was faked, planted, or manufactured by someone?
Answer: Yes.
REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
...did you acknowledge any of these problems with the letter?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jim,
What you think of as "problems" with the letter are, in fact, mostly just the deliberate LIES being told by a person--Lee Harvey Oswald--who liked to LIE when it suited his needs. And the "Kostin" error was likely just an honest mistake on Oswald's part.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
You did not answer my question, did you?
Instead you went into our usual tantrum about "Everything is fake!"
This is a diversion on your part since you cannot face the facts on this particular issue on which you thought you had a slam dunk: See, LHO was in Mexico.
It backfired on you. The name was wrong, LHO did not meet with Hosty, and he could not have known the diplomat was transferred. Plus that diplomat said he never met with Oswald. That is four strikes.
Those are facts that you do not want to deal with. And you escape into a world of assumptions, just like the WC did.
I never said the letter was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false. I indicated that there were serious problems with the letter. Problems you want to paper over and never bring up.
I recommend everyone read this article on the letter.
It is an honest treatment of the facts, facts which DVP does not want to detail.
A GLORIOUS REPRISE....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
And you escape into a world of assumptions...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Geesh! A CTer is whining about an LNer escaping into "a world of assumptions"????
That's hypocrisy at its finest indeed.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
There is a difference between making assumptions that are based on the evidence, versus making them in spite of the evidence.
The WC did the latter all day and every day. So did Bugliosi. Whenever there was a problem with the evidence, Bugliosi would say, well that is OK since we know Oswald did it.
Recall, the WC and VB are the prosecution. Not the defense. They had the burden of proof. Therefore, they should not be able to use many assumptions, particularly when they clash with the evidence. Especially considering the high standard to prove guilt in a murder case.
But see, if you recall, Oswald was murdered, literally in the arms of the Dallas Police. After screaming he was just a patsy, he never got his day in court. Unlike the Nazis at Nuremburg, he never even had a lawyer.
I find it interesting that he was rubbed out the morning after he made the Raleigh call to John Hurt.
Which is another thing I was going to ask you:
Did the WC know about Oswald's Saturday night call to John Hurt?
FOUR MINUTES LATER, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Let me answer my own question, since DVP will take 12 hours to reply.
There is no evidence that they did know about this call. Which now makes about 9 instances where the WC could not get to the bottom of a key incident or did not know about it.
I urge everyone to read this fine article on the Raleigh Call. You will never see anything like this posted by DVP or FC or the Arizona lawyer [Lance Payette]. Please read this all the way through, it brings up some very real questions about what Oswald was thinking in detention with no lawyer.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But every one of those things WAS known to the HSCA. And what again did the HSCA conclude?.....
They concluded that only Oswald fired shots that wounded JFK and John Connally.
But, per CTers, we're supposed to believe that this SECOND official investigation into the President's death was corrupt too, even though that very same committee DID conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. Go figure the logic of the CTers when it comes to sorting out that dichotomy.
It's always a fascinating pastime to watch the CTers preach to me about how the HSCA came to a conclusion that Oswald did not act alone, but then those same conspiracists will, in their next breath, talk about how they think that same HSCA "covered up" this or "falsified" that --- e.g.:
Most Internet CTers believe that the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel decided to lie through their collective teeth when they concluded that there was no fakery whatsoever to be detected in any of Oswald Backyard Photos and there was also no signs of any "altered" images amongst any of the JFK autopsy photos or X-rays.
Plus, there are the bald-faced liars, per many conspiracy theorists, who were part of the HSCA's handwriting panel, which concluded that all of the various documents allegedly written in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting or handprinting WAS, indeed, the actual handwriting and/or printing of Lee Oswald and was not the result of fakery or forgery.
That makes over two dozen rotten liars among just those two HSCA sub-panels alone. And the CTers have no problem at all believing that those 2 dozen or so people decided to toss their morals and scruples out the nearest window in order to paint Lee Oswald as an assassin (even though, per the CTers, those people had to know they were reporting something to the public that was exactly the OPPOSITE from the actual truth).
Call me stupid and naive, but I just don't think you could get SO MANY different people, working for the same investigative organization, to tell one lie after another concerning the various pieces of evidence connected with the JFK case.
A good question, IMO, to ask is --- How is it possible to get so many JFK conspiracy theorists to believe that so many people (ranging from the Bethesda autopsy doctors, to the Warren Commission, to the Clark Panel, to the HSCA) would be willing to tell so many lies---for decades on end---regarding virtually everything connected with Lee Oswald and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Has the "research" world gone crazy? Or were they all merely hypnotized by the clever and deceptive Mark Lane way back in 1964? The answer to that inquiry remains a mystery to me.
ANOTHER REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I never said the letter [CE15] was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Who do you think you're kidding, Jim? Of course you think the letter is a fake and a fraud. You have no choice BUT to believe it's a fake letter.
Why?
Because you have said repeatedly in the past that you do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald ever visited the Cuban and Russian embassies/consulates in Mexico City in September of 1963.
And since the bulk of Oswald's letter in CE15 deals with Oswald admitting the fact that he did, indeed, go to both of those locations in Mexico City, then how could you possibly NOT think that that letter was totally phony?
Or maybe you've changed your mind and you now want to admit that Oswald did, indeed, visit the Cuban and Russian embassies in '63. Is that what you want to do now, James? If not, then you have no choice but to believe that the letter we find with Oswald's signature on it in Commission Exhibit No. 15 is a totally fake document. So why pretend you believe otherwise?
David Von Pein
December 12-14, 2018
