JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
This is the typical three blind mice--Lancie Boy [Lance Payette], FC [Francois Carlier] and DVP--and their appeal to authority. That is, if the HSCA or the WC says something is true, then ipso facto it's true.
They then discount or forget matters when the HSCA was honest enough to say something fatal to the WC: like the HSCA found that Ruby lied during his polygraph test. And further, the FBI rigged the test in advance. To any normal person that would carry the impact of a harpoon through the chest. Somehow, it just runs off their backs like water in a shower: What, me worry?
Now FC, and DVP, like to quote the HSCA report on this matter, right? But yet they do not use the declassified record of the HSCA as produced by the ARRB. None of these guys do. Lancie boy thinks it's the dark side of the moon.
But it's not. It is available and it's been written about. And it directly impacts the HSCA report as written. See, the HSCA knew about what you quote: the doctors at Parkland saying they saw that hole in the rear of the skull. But they said, no these witnesses were mistaken since it disappeared at Bethesda. Well, it did not. And Gary Aguilar found the documents released by the ARRB which showed they knew about these other exhibits they had saying that witnesses at Bethedsa saw this hole also. In other words, the HSCA lied in its report. And when Gary confronted them with this, none of them would accept the blame for writing that prevaricating statement. Not Purdy, not Baden, not Blakey. Real profiles in courage, eh? (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 273-77)
But it's actually worse. See, the HSCA said they used certain photo techniques to recognize patterns in the photos and then claimed they were real. They said that unfortunately they could not find the original camera and lens at the DOD to do an actual comparison test.
Well, guess what, FC? That was not really true either. The ARRB found evidence that the DOD had given the HSCA the camera that was used originally. But the HSCA said that this camera was not the right one since their experts said they could not produce a match. As Gary writes, it may be that the lens had been switched out in the intervening years. But no one can be certain because of the simple matter that the HSCA test results on the camera are gone. So there may be an innocent explanation, and there may not be. (ibid, pp. 279-80) Hard to trust a body in which no one somehow remembers who wrote a rather deceptive description of about 20 witnesses' testimony about the back of JFK's head.
None of these guys does this kind of work. And they do not even read the books where the info can be found. That is why I call them the three blind mice.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But it's not JUST the authentication of the autopsy photographs and X-rays by the HSCA, Jimmy Boy (which is nice for LNers to have, granted), but there's also the other "photographic" piece of evidence (i.e., "virtual proof") that exists in this case which practically proves, all by itself, that the conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they keep insisting that JFK had a huge hole in his occipital---the Zapruder Film. So, is that film a fake and a fraud too, Jim?
In your plethora of appearances since 2006 on Len Osanic's All Conspiracy Radio Network, Inc., I've noticed that you've been hesitant to come right out and admit that you think the Z-Film is phony. Around the edges of your comments, you've hinted at possible Z-Film fakery, but, unlike your CT-loving colleagues, you've stayed away from totally endorsing such a silly notion. Maybe you'd like to now go on the record and state your unequivocal opinion regarding the topic of "Zapruder Film Fakery/Forgery". Eh, Jim?
Because if the Z-Film isn't a big fat lie (at least as far as this "BOH" discussion is concerned), then how can you possibly still maintain that President Kennedy had a big hole in the back part of his skull after he was shot in the head? The Z-Film shows no such back-of-the-head blow-out.
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 (when the president's head exploded) and frame 328 (almost a second later) clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the right front of the president's head. The back of his head shows no such large wound and clearly is completely intact." [Bugliosi's emphasis.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
OMG, Davey, so you ignored everything I wrote, correct?
About the HSCA report giving the wrong info in their report what you and FC relied upon, right?
Then you ignore the stuff about the camera also and how the HSCA fudged that one.
And now you bring up the Z film as the last bastion?
I am not big on the Z film alteration, that is true. But if you really listened to me, what I have said is that if there is such a case, the Wilkersons have made a pretty good argument for it being just about this issue: the rear skull wound was blacked out.
Can we now drop this. Like Soupy Sales, you never get tired of the custard pie in the face, do you?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And I think I've made a pretty good argument [below] to show that nobody "blacked out" anything in the Z-Film....
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
The big difference between what you believe and what I believe is this: I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound, whereas you CAN'T.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"? I beg to differ. Such a conclusion is not "reasonable" at all. Far from it. It's nothing but utter desperation. And, furthermore, such a conclusion has been proven to be incorrect. Just check out 7 HSCA 41 yet again. (But you think all 20 experts on that Photo Panel lied their eyes out, don't you? Which is yet another unreasonable conclusion to reach, of course.)
And that's what we're left with most of the time with JFK conspiracy theorists --- a series of unreasonable explanations and wholly unsupportable conclusions.
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
Sure it's a reasonable explanation... because it's possible.
In contrast, you believe that 20 medical professionals at Parkland all saw the wrong thing, and that twenty more at Bethesda also saw the same wrong thing. And you think THAT is reasonable?? It's utter lunacy!
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
I hate to repeat this again, but you cannot be serious about that alleged authentication?
As Gary Aguilar pointed out many years ago, not only did the HSCA misrepresent the witness testimony on this issue, they also misrepresented the fact that they could not find the original autopsy camera. They did. But they could not get a photographic match. So they then said well, the camera lens or shutter must have been altered. Which may or my not be true. But the ARRB--you do know who they were right?--could not find the notes on the experiment they did to determine such a thing occurred.
Further, if the x rays are authenticated as the originals, then how does one explain the appearing 6.5 mm fragment that was not there originally, and the disappearing particle trail that was there originally and then vanished? Because you do not mention them, does this mean they do not exist? In your world of faith, maybe. But in our real world of testimony and evidence, they do exist. As do the densitometry readings of Mantik as described by Doug Horne in Volume 2 of Inside the ARRB.
Again, I do not know if you simply hide all this data in order to mislead, or are somehow unaware of it. Maybe it's a mixture of the two. But really, it's an unflattering display for you and your web site. Why not stick to Leave it to Beaver?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course I'm serious. You know that I am. The HSCA did numerous tests to confirm the validity of all of the original autopsy photos AND X-rays. Read their conclusions again——starting RIGHT HERE. It's pretty detailed. Is all of that information nothing but a pack of lies? All of it!!? Come now.
Is there anything in this case you don't think is phony? At some point, the "Everything Is Fake" mantra repeated by conspiracists becomes very tiresome, desperate-sounding, and—quite frankly—very silly.
JIM HARGROVE SAID:
The best evidence indicates that Tippit was actually killed at about 1:06 p.m.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
One of the very best reasons (logically-speaking) to know that J.D. Tippit was not killed as early as 1:06 is because we know that Domingo Benavides didn't start pumping Tippit's microphone until 1:16 PM.
If Tippit had been shot at 1:06, that means we'd have to believe that Benavides waited for TEN FULL MINUTES to get into Tippit's car and use the radio. And there's no way in the world there was a TEN-minute gap between the actual shooting and Domingo pumping that radio microphone.
Just do a test of your own---sit at your desk and say "START", and then wait for 10 minutes until you do something else. If you do that, you'll see how absurd it would be to believe that Benavides waited for 10 full minutes to get into Tippit's patrol car.
Or would you like to now pretend that Benavides' initial (failed) attempt to use the police radio occurred much earlier than 1:16 (despite the "pumping" noises heard on the DPD Radio Tapes at 1:16, which I believe were first discovered by Dale Myers in the late '90s, and which occur about 90 seconds before T.F. Bowley's successful attempt to report the shooting via the same radio in Tippit's car)?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
DVP neatly sidesteps the fact that Jim [Hargrove] just showed how the FBI altered the evidence.
Geez Davey, why do you not just scream and jump up and down and say, "What do you mean it's all fake?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Was the Dudley Hughes "1:18" ambulance slip "altered" too, Jim?
INSTANT REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
DVP neatly sidesteps the fact that Jim just showed how the FBI altered the evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You CTers really are the epitome of One Trick Ponies. I don't think there has been one piece of evidence in the JFK case that hasn't been deemed "fake", "altered", or "planted" by at least one conspiracy theorist at one time or another since 1963.
Let's just review some of those pieces of evidence (just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are dozens of additional examples as well)....
....The autopsy photos --- fake.
....The autopsy X-rays --- fake.
....John F. Kennedy's body --- altered.
....JFK's brain --- stolen, switched, tampered with, and/or deep-sixed by evil conspirators.
....Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 --- stolen from Ruth Paine's garage and/or planted on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in order to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.
....The entire paper trail for LHO's rifle purchase --- fake.
....The entire paper trail for LHO's revolver purchase --- fake.
....The Backyard Photos of Oswald --- fake.
....Commission Exhibit 399 (the "Stretcher Bullet") --- fake.
....The two large bullet fragments found in JFK's limo --- fake/planted.
....The 3 bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest --- fake/planted.
....The 38-inch empty brown paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest --- fake/planted.
....The Zapruder Film --- fake/altered.
....The paper bus transfer found in Oswald's shirt pocket --- fake/planted.
....Any and all identification cards found on Lee Oswald's person on 11/22/63 that had the name "Alek J. Hidell" on them --- fake/planted.
....The limousine's windshield --- replaced immediately in order to hide the real evidence from view.
....Commission Exhibit No. 15 (Oswald's 11/9/63 letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington) --- fake.
....The four bullet shells found at the Tippit murder site --- fake/planted.
....Some of the DPD Radio Logs --- fake/altered.
....The two blank Klein's ads found among Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/23/63 --- planted.
....All of the evidence indicating that Lee Oswald fired a rifle shot at General Edwin Walker on 4/10/63 (including Commission Exhibit No. 1, LHO's handwritten note to Marina) --- fake.
Whew! Those patsy framers were sure busy!
And when a list like the above is assembled, it's easy to see just how ridiculously over the top the conspiracy theorists have taken their silly fantasies regarding the alleged "fake" evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases. For if all of the above items had truly been faked and/or manufactured by a gang of conspirators and/or cover-up operatives in 1963, then I think every reasonable person reading this post should be able to agree with me when I say that miracles are, indeed, possible.
And yet, somehow, amazingly, the JFK conspiracy theorists who continue to promote the idea that most of the evidence in the Kennedy case is fraudulent still seem to be proud of their over-the-top beliefs---even though it involves a belief in the impossible (and a belief in miracles).
Go figure.
JIM HARGROVE SAID:
Question: How much of the evidence against “Lee Harvey Oswald” is fake?
Answer: ALL OF IT, except, of course, for the many mistakes made during the hasty cover-up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks, Jim Hargrove, for putting that belief in writing (and in a succinct form). I'll now be able to use your quote whenever I want to highlight yet another CTer's absurd "Over The Top" beliefs relating to the evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case. Much obliged. (And the placing of quotation marks around Lee Harvey Oswald's name is another humorous little idiosyncrasy to be found among the current batch of 21st-century conspiracy fantasists. As if there was actually more than one "Lee Harvey Oswald". Too cute.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
That story by [Dale] Myers [linked here] is hilarious.
Sort of like Davey finding that postal worker who said, "Heck yeah, we can deliver a package 700 miles and have the guy get it within 12 hours. Even without zip codes. Do it all the time."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh how quickly James DiEugenio forgets the things I've told him in the past. Such as THIS AUDIO CLIP from a radio program that aired in January of 1952! And this letter is making a 3,000-mile trip, not just 700 miles. And it's making the cross-country trip in helicopters and propeller-driven aircraft, not jet aircraft! ....
"You could mail a letter in San Bernardino [California] tonight, and it would be in New York tomorrow morning."
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I don't think so, Dave.
First, I doubt that post offices were even open in the evening back then. Second, once the mail arrived in New York in the morning, it would still need sorting and delivery.
I think that the point of this postal worker's statement was that any mail collected and sorted by the end of the workday in San Bernardino, California would be in New York (City?) the following morning... waiting to be sorted and delivered. Of course it would arrive that quickly, having been transported by helicopter to the airport and then to NYC by airplane.
Though, granted, the sorting may have been completed that morning. And possibly the delivery.
Air mail has never been very fast during my adult lifetime. It takes at least a couple days to receive a letter from anywhere, even from my next door neighbor. (A letter from Provo first goes to SLC, and then back to Provo.)
(My apologies, Jim, if I stepped on your toes with this reply, given that the question was addressed to you.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
As Sandy noted above, it does not mean one thing that you found a fruity postal worker to say what you wanted him to say.
The point is, I live in California. I know what it takes to deliver a letter in a big city--WITH ZIP CODES and censors etc.
I can mail a letter from say Long Beach to Chatsworth, and a lot of the time it will not get there in one day. I know since I have done it.
So saying, well it got on a plane and went there--that means little or nothing.
It's what happens before and after that counts.
And what you are proposing simply will not pass the reality test, in state. Forget going across the country. That is pure fantasy land.
But, you spend a lot of time there.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't need to fly to Fantasy Land to prove my point about Oswald's letter. I've got rock solid PROOF that it travelled from Dallas to Chicago in one day. And that proof is in the form of the three documents pictured below (CE773, CE788, and Waldman Exhibit No. 7).
CE773 is clearly dated March 12 (10:30 AM);
CE788 [the money order Oswald bought at the Post Office] clearly has the date of March 12 on it;
And Waldman No. 7 [the Klein's internal order form for Oswald's rifle purchase] has the date March 13 stamped at the top of it.
Now, just try convincing a reasonable jury of 12 men and women that all three of these documents are fake (which clearly is the fantastic belief possessed by most of the Internet conspiracy theorists here in the 21st century)....
REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
It does not mean one thing that you found a fruity postal worker to say what you wanted him to say.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, so you think that I myself arranged to have this guy who works for Los Angeles Airways to appear on Groucho Marx's radio program in 1952 so that he could talk about being able to get a letter to travel from California to New York in less than a day?
Seeing as how I wasn't even born until 1961, that would have been a nifty little trick on my part, wouldn't it? :)
Or maybe you got mixed up and were really referring to the time I received the assistance of former postal worker Jimmy Orr when talking about the topic of Oswald's rifle order---in this discussion.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
Don't even bring that whole phony rifle transaction up again, OK.
It's a loser. We found two bank supervisors and Sandy found the regulation. David Josephs also did fine work on it. In fact, I think it all looks worse now. Even with your fruity postal worker, who I am sure will also vouch for the Single Bullet Fantasy.
But, in another sense, your continuing and appalling attitude that the idea that the FBI or DPD would not fiddle around with evidence? I mean do you know how silly and naive you sound in light of what is known today?
The DPD was the single most corrupt big city police force in America at that time. No city has had more serious crimes reversed due to DNA evidence than Dallas. I mean there are whole states that are not as bad as that city was in this regard. Also, as Joe McBride has shown, there was a significant number of Klansmen on that force. Think they liked Kennedy? I mean you heard what Alexander said about Kennedy, right? You heard what Leavelle said also?
How do you reconcile what I think is your admiration for JFK with those comments? Do I need to repeat them for you?
As per the FBI, you cannot be serious: with that wide-eyed open mouthed disbelief about the practices of J. Edgar Hoover. I mean, please. Are you still psychologically in sixth grade on this aspect of the case? You do know how many devastating exposes have been written about how badly Hoover either faked or altered evidence in high profile cases, and then lied about it afterwards, right? There are several books on this subject, the one I refer to most is Gentry's. If you want me to be specific, I will. But this extended as far as having double agents planted in communist cells who would then create evidence and testify falsely on the stand against some poor innocent lefty. Does it get worse than that for an FBI director?
Now, recall, in these other cases there was at least the semblance of an adversary system in court. In other words, the defendant had an attorney, judge, and rules of evidence and testimony were in play.
NONE OF THAT EXISTED IN THE JFK CASE!
Therefore, it was even easier to get away with this stuff than in a normal case. So what was going to stop Hoover from doing this kind of thing? Or the CIA, or the Secret Service?
So for you to sit there misty eyed and argue, "Are you saying the FBI or DPD would not play by the rules?" And then play something like the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the background--I mean do you know how ignorant that kind of view of America is? You might still believe in Leave it to Beaver. And Ozzie and Harriet.
After Vietnam, Cambodia, Watergate, the revelations of the Church Committee and the Pike Committee and myriad other crimes and scandals, most adults do not.
QUICK REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
Don't even bring that whole phony rifle transaction up again, OK.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Don't be silly, Jimmy. The "rifle transaction" subject is one of my very favorite topics in this whole case. I've spent many many hours working on the two pages of info linked below. So, of course I'm going to bring it up as often as I possibly can, mainly because (IMO) my arguments (and hard evidence) surrounding the "rifle" topic are so much better, believable, and sensible than anything the conspiracy fantasists have countered with since 1963.
 |  |
David Von Pein
December 17, 2018—January 2, 2019
ANOTHER DISCUSSION....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet Mr. Connally said all this pro-Warren Commission stuff on November 23, 1966 (at 6:03 and 7:16). Go figure....
The best part of the above 1966 press conference is when John Connally called Mark Lane a "journalistic scavenger". Hear, hear!
DiEugenio and others will no doubt say that Connally (much like Robert Kennedy) was in the habit of saying one thing to the "MSM", but behind closed doors, Connally was saying something entirely different. But after listening to interviews and news conferences with John Connally (like the one above), I begin to wonder about the claims coming from CTers, such as DiEugenio's claim above---"Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds". Is there any audio or video of Connally actually saying anything like that at all? If such audio or video exists, I've certainly never heard or seen it.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey cut out the other part of the quote.
When the reporter asked him [John Connally] why he did not say anything about it, he said that the country needed closure. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 418)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are you saying that the 8-minute press conference video I posted also should have contained Connally saying something about "needing closure"? Did Joseph McBride cite the 11/23/66 Connally News Conference as his source for that "closure" comment?
If not, do you have a video or audio clip of Connally saying that? Or is it just a text quote coming from a CTer? Just curious.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
And he [Connally] always insisted he was hit by a separate shot. And he told the same thing to Groden when he and his wife visited Dealey Plaza.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Big deal.
In my opinion, he almost certainly got most of his SBT criticism from his wife, Nellie, who never believed the SBT either. But, as I have been saying for many years, John Connally is (literally) the VERY LAST PERSON in the world who can say FOR SURE whether he and JFK were struck by the same bullet --- and that's because: John Connally, as he himself has said, did not see JFK at any time after the shooting started.
I truly think that I could have convinced John Connally of the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory in about 2 minutes if I could have shown him my webpage linked below.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
After viewing those Zapruder Film clips, Mr. Connally would have had no choice but to say to me --- "I was wrong. I can see now that I was reacting to the shot that hit me as early as Z225. Thanks for the clips, DVP."
David Von Pein
December 17, 2018
