JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1028)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

If you [Patrick Collins] could list any lies, you could have listed them in the time you spent telling us you don't have time.


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Complete tripe, it took me one minute to write that post--if that.

How long would it take to find, check and post just ONE refutation to Lane let alone a couple of dozen examples? A lot longer....I can assure you.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Ah, "tripe" again. How clever.

No, Troll Patrick, you should be able to give us some of Mark Lane's lies off the top of your head in just a couple of minutes, the same way we can do with Bugliosi. Once you have familiarized yourself with the lies, they are there and don't need to be looked up or double-checked. You are a weasel, and you will NEVER list any Mark Lane lies because you can't, not because you don't have time. You don't know any such lies.

You need to stop writing garbage about Mark Lane unless you back it up with some specifics, and you also need to be a little more concerned with the lies told by your buddies Mel Ayton, DVP, Mike Majerus, and Vinny the Bug, to name a few. You seem very unconcerned about the lies that they peddle.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I challenge you to name just one "lie" I have told.

You won't be able to do it.

But good luck hunting for one, you silly little man.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Will you publicly state in advance that you'll DEFEND any lies of yours I post?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There are none to post. So you've lost before you've ever started.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

BTW, I've listed several of Mark Lane's half-truths and distortions of the facts at my "Rush To Judgment" blog. This pertains to Lane's movie of "RTJ", not the book specifically:



More of Lane's disingenuousness can be found HERE.


GARRY PUFFER SAID THIS. [Link no longer available.]


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Total bull from Puffer (and Martin Hay).

FACT -- Vincent Scalice DID say that it was his professional opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints were definitely on the rifle's trigger housing. "There is no doubt about it," said Scalice in 1993 [see video below].



So go call Scalice the liar, Puffer....not Ayton and Von Pein.

Do Puffer and Hay really think that lone-assassin believers (such as myself) are just going to totally IGNORE the new revelation about the prints Scalice provided in '93? Particularly when we already had J.C. Day's testimony from '64 saying that he thought the trigger guard prints were probably Oswald's [see 4 H 278]? Get real.

And it's just as I thought, Puffer is scouring everything he can to try and catch DVP (that'd be me) in a lie. But the examples he's given us thus far are pathetic with a positive P.

And, yes, Puffer-(poo), a "ghostwriter" is just that---a GHOST. He's not CREDITED in the book he is "ghostwriting" (as I point out on my site).

Are these "DVP lies" going to surface soon, Puffer? So far, you're Zero-for-the-Whole-Day.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Hilarious. Lifton's point was that Bugliosi did not do all the writing. Davey-poo gets his shorts all bunched up because Lifton used the term "ghostwriter" instead of, well, what, Davey-poo? What should it be called when the person who writes part of a book gets no specific credit for it?

And why the need for a settlement with a gag restriction?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Are you all there?! Dale Myers and Fred Haines DID get "specific credit" for their writing in "Reclaiming History". Go to page 1515 of RH and see the credit.

Geez.

And Lifton's dumb point was also that Pat Lambert wrote the ENTIRE Garrison/Stone chapter of Vince's book....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html

IOW---Lifton is dead wrong.

And the "gag restriction" junk is very very likely another bogus hunk of nonsense invented by a CTer.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

How about actually responding to Martin Hay's criticism, Davey-poo?

Hay [said]:

"Simply put, whatever enhancements Scalice carried out on the photographs he used could not bring out detail that did not exist in the actual latent prints. Even as a minority opinion, Scalice's claim is just not worthy of serious consideration. And this is especially so given that neither he nor anyone else has ever made a chart of his alleged 18+ points of identity available for verification by an independent expert. By promoting Scalice's assertion, Ayton and Von Pein demonstrate an extreme confirmation bias and a willingness to repeat anything that supports their theory, no matter how questionable it may be."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Scalice used a different method to identify the prints in VARIOUS photographs. [The FBI's Sebastian] Latona didn't employ such methods.

Try again.

BTW---

Speaking of lies --- Garry Puffer certainly told a nice one several days back when he assured me that he would no longer be reading any more posts written by Troll Von Pein.

That promise certainly didn't last long, did it Puffer?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

It's a slow day. I needed some laughs.

We all love the way you simply claim victory for yourself. Granted, you don't lie quite as easily as Troll Patrick [Collins] or Fellatious Henry [Sienzant], but you are definitely dishonest in your presentation of evidence, as was Bugliosi.

I am happy for you that you found this job, but you seriously need a break.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Garry Puffer actually thinks Vincent Scalice just INVENTED the Oswald fingerprints on the trigger guard.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Of course he did. And if you were honest you would admit it.

David, there is NO WAY to get information from a photograph that was not there when examined previously. And why do you keep avoiding an explanation as to why Scalice has not shared all his work so that it might be replicated by others? You can't use science if it's not replicable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You need the break, Garry. Not me. Take a nap. You've got CT Overload Syndrome. And who would want to be saddled with that?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

What about the legal settlement? What was that all about? Was Vinny [Bugliosi] embarrassed about using Myers?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Prove the junk about the "legal settlement", Garry? Are you just taking Lifton's word for that too?

Not a good idea. Because you know what a fool Mr. Lifton made out of himself when it comes to Patricia Lambert being a "ghostwriter"....don't you? So why on Earth would you believe anything uttered by David Lifton (of all people on the planet!) concerning this subject?

Hilarious indeed.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Garry,

If you were honest, you'd admit the trigger guard prints were Oswald's.

It's OSWALD'S rifle.

The palm print on that rifle is OSWALD'S.

OSWALD was IDed as the assassin with a rifle on the sixth floor. (Yes, it was a belated identification, but it's there in Howard Brennan's testimony just the same---and it's an identification that FITS the owner of the sixth-floor rifle.)

OSWALD'S prints are in multiple places in the Sniper's Nest--where the assassin was located.

Shells from OSWALD'S gun are on the floor in the Nest--where the assassin was located.

An empty paper bag with OSWALD'S prints on it was in the Nest--where the assassin was located. (And that bag was seen by at least FOUR police officers before it was picked up off the floor. So spare me the "It Wasn't Photographed" argument.)

OSWALD lied to Buell Frazier about the contents of the package that OSWALD carried into the building on November 22. (Why did he need to lie about the "curtain rods", Garry?)

An honest person, after reviewing all of that stuff, probably should be honest enough to admit that OSWALD'S fingerprints were the prints identified by Vincent Scalice as OSWALD'S on the trigger guard of the C2766 Carcano rifle.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

[Quoting from "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"....]

"Boone commented that it looked like a 7.65 Mauser because 'Mauser' was a generic term used at that time for a bolt-action rifle." -- Pg. 62 [of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]

Unfortunately for Davey, we have his testimony, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID.

Another lie for Davey to run from.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would I run from it, Ben? It's not a lie. It's the absolute truth. That is precisely what Eugene Boone said at the 1986 mock trial of Oswald. Have a look....



NOTE --- The source note on the "BRD" book page that Ben Holmes cited leads to "Warren Report, pages 118-124". This additional source could have also been added there as well --- "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (1986 Docu-Trial; London Weekend Television); Testimony of Eugene Boone.

But the quote as cited by Holmes is 100% accurate, because Boone definitely said those things at the '86 mock trial.

Try again, Benji.

Also....

How is this Warren Commission testimony by Eugene Boone in any way inconsistent with what Boone told Vince Bugliosi in 1986?....

JOSEPH BALL -- There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?

EUGENE BOONE -- Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.

MR. BALL -- Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

MR. BOONE -- I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Davey-poo is quoting from the mock trial? God help us.

The mock trial.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So everything spoken by the witnesses at the mock trial is a lie, too...is that it, Puffer?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Sorry, David, if it's from a MOCK trial, it's not evidence. It might be true, it might not be true, but to cite it as evidence, well, even you should know better.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're reaching, Garry. And you're looking mighty silly while doing it.

Quoting a witness at a mock trial is no different than using a quote from a newspaper interview or some other personal interview or statement made over the years by a witness. And how many times has that been done (by CTers and LNers alike)? Thousands? Millions?

Now don't tell me, Garry, that you think NO conspiracy theorist in history has ever tried to bolster his "case for conspiracy" by quoting a witness statement given during a private interview or telephone call or e-mail, etc.

You aren't going to claim that, are you?

I'm guessing that I could probably find many online posts by CTers where they are even using that same 1986 mock trial to bolster their own "CT" case. Like quoting Cyril Wecht from that trial. Or Edwin Lopez. Or Seth Kantor.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Garry Puffer = A Lost CT Cause.

This statement proves that Puffer is lost in a wilderness of mile-high conspiracy fiction....

"He [LHO] didn't lie. He never told anyone anything about curtain rods. That's a story made up after the fact." -- Garry Puffer; September 14, 2015

Puffer thinks Buell Frazier was the liar....but Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't.

Incredible.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Prove to me that Oswald said it. If you can prove it, I will gladly admit I was mistaken.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Garry, you think Buell Wesley Frazier had a tape recorder in his car on the morning of 11/22/63? Or a hidden camera in the glove compartment? Or a tape recorder inside the Book Depository on 11/21/63 when Oswald first utilized the "curtain rods" lie when talking to Frazier?

I just like knowing that people like Garry Puffer are so willing to believe a known liar like Lee Harvey Oswald, while at the same time, they are so ready (and eager) to disbelieve (and paint as a liar) a person who had no reason to lie---Buell Wesley Frazier.

Garry should have gotten the starring role in "LOST" instead of Matthew Fox. The part fits Garry to a tee.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Sorry, David, but you have absolutely no right to assert that Frazier had no reason to lie. You cannot possibly know that. It's one of the weakest possible arguments, by the way.

So in other words, you cannot prove that Oswald said anything about curtain rods. That's what I thought.

And labeling Oswald a liar is a logical fallacy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who had more of a reason to lie -- Oswald or Frazier?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Davey has claimed that there are no lies in his book... and REFUSES to state that he'll defend against any critique.

"Oswald had been working there as a clerk for five weeks and was the only member of staff found to be missing." pg 59 [of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"].

YOU'RE A LIAR, DAVEY... YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THIS IS *NOT TRUE*.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who else was "missing" then, Benji? (Charles Givens doesn't count. He never went "missing". He returned to the TSBD and couldn't get back in. So he's not a "missing" employee.)

So, who are the other unaccounted for TSBD employees, Ben?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Givens couldn't get in. Therefore [Roy] Truly would not have seen him. Therefore he would be missing as far as Truly would know. So why doesn't he count, Davey-poo?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, for Pete sake. Get real, Garry. Everybody knows Givens' story. He was with another guy watching the motorcade when the assassination happened. Is HE a suspect now too?

So, no, I don't consider Charles Givens to be a "missing" employee at all, because we know where he was both before and just after the shooting.

And the same goes for the 73 TSBD employees that gave statements in Commission Document No. 706 (linked below; and the same document can also be found in CE1381). So, you see, the FBI was crossing every T when it came to tracing the whereabouts of the Book Depository employees. Or are these 73 people lying too?....



In short (as we all know, but no CTer will ever admit it) --- Lee Harvey Oswald was the only truly "missing" TSBD employee just after the assassination took place on November 22, 1963. (And, yes, I factor in what we NOW have learned about the whereabouts of the other TSBD employees, including Charles Givens, when I say that Oswald was the "only truly missing employee".)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Davey-poo is deliberately confusing what we know now with what they knew then. How creepy.

Oswald "was the only member of staff found to be missing" can only refer to what they knew that afternoon, not what we know now.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why? Who made up that ridiculous rule?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There's no possible way for Oswald to have been singled out because he wasn't there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet that is EXACTLY what happened -- i.e., Lee Oswald WAS "singled out because he wasn't there".

Ben Holmes seems to think there was "no possible way" for this to have happened. And yet we KNOW it did happen, because Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly tells us so in his Warren Commission testimony [at 3 H 229-230]. Let's have a look....

ROY TRULY -- I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys. So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there. First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.

DAVID BELIN -- When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?

MR. TRULY -- Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no. So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that. So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.

[...]

MR. BELIN -- Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?

MR. TRULY -- No, sir.

MR. BELIN -- Why didn't you ask for any other employees?

MR. TRULY -- That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.

==================

So, as we can see from Roy Truly's testimony, despite the fact that perhaps one or two other employees were "out" (i.e., unaccounted for), Mr. Truly DID "single out" Lee Harvey Oswald as the only "missing" employee shortly after the assassination.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Ben,

Sometimes when I write things about the JFK case, I'm taking into account things that have been learned SINCE NOVEMBER 1963.

And when I talk to people about the "missing employees" subject, I normally phrase it this way (which was not done exactly this way in the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt") ---

Lee Oswald was the only TSBD employee known to have been INSIDE the building when the shooting took place who was missing shortly after the assassination.

The above sentence is the way I prefer to state the situation. But Mel Ayton wrote the passage pounced on by Ben Holmes HERE. I did not write those exact words, but I did serve as co-editor and proofreader for the book, so I fully share in any blame for any errors that appear in the book. If I were to do it over again, I probably would have asked Mel to phrase it the way I mentioned above, adding the "known to have been inside the building" part of the statement as well.

David Von Pein
September 14-15, 2015 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 713)

PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

It is frightening to think you guys [i.e., conspiracy clowns] believe in all this baloney. Frightening.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll say it is, Patrick. A few other apt terms to describe the nonsense that is endorsed by many many Internet conspiracy theorists (and some book authors as well) would be....

Absurd.
Impossible.
Laughable.
Ludicrous.
Reckless.
Preposterous.
Farfetched.

...and maybe the best term of all (especially with respect to the crazy notion that a band of plotters PRE-ARRANGED a multi-gun, one-patsy assassination)....

Mind-bogglingly unnecessary.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

When you control the autopsy and the investigation, there's a good chance that people can be fooled. After all, it seems to have fooled you guys.

And if people question this ridiculous rifle, just hire a couple of experts to testify as to what a good weapon it is, or run some tests with expert marksmen and lie about the results.

And don't forget, the media outlets are in your pocket.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In other words, per Garry Puffer of Riverside.....

It's "THE WORLD VS. THE PATSY".

Just look at the number of people (aka: liars) who would need to be involved in a cover-up based on just Puffer's last brief post....

...The people "controlling" the autopsy. (Was that just ONE person doing that "controlling"? Or was it way more than that?)

...The people "controlling" the investigation. (God knows how many total people this involves.)

...The "couple of experts" hired to say the C2766 rifle was a decent weapon.

...The "expert marksmen" who were hired to test-fire the rifle and then "lie about the results". (A ridiculous assertion, of course.)

...And, of course, the old stand-by favorite of "having the media in your [LN] pocket". (This farfetched absurdity would involve literally hundreds of different people over the last FIFTY YEARS. Can't be just one or two anchormen.)

So, "THE WORLD VS. THE PATSY" cover-up continues to this day, per the CT mongers.

If only Puffer and Company would BLUSH a little when positing such trash. But they never do. Amazing.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You can tell when the LNers get desperate. They stop trying to defend their "mountain of evidence" and begin to attack and insult.

I actually laughed when I read Patrick's comment about how "frightening" it is that we believe in a conspiracy. Given that four out of five people agree with us, I'm surprised that he hasn't just died of fright by now. It has to be pretty scary when you see most of the people around you as raving lunatics. He must fear for his life every time he steps outside.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Most people, of course, believe that Oswald fired shots at President Kennedy (whether they also believe in a conspiracy or not).

That fact was demonstrated in 2003 by ABC News in its poll of 1,031 Americans. Ergo, the "Internet CTers" are far afield from the ordinary "mainstream" conspiracy theorist....

Poll Question (ABC News):

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"

Results:

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%

----------

Most of those same 1,031 people also believe in a conspiracy...

"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it part of a broader plot?":

One Man -- 22%
Broader Plot -- 70%
No Opinion -- 8%


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

DVP is not hesitant to lie. Project Mockingbird [sic] indeed involved more than one or two anchormen and literally hundreds of media assets. David can pretend there was no such CIA project, but the facts tell us otherwise. David knows the facts. Pretending he doesn't is a lie.

It shows also that DVP does not actually believe what he's writing. It is never necessary to lie in order to put forth the truth.

[...]

I could live with Oswald even being an integral part of a conspiracy. What is objectionable and totally unsupported by any evidence is that he did this ALL BY HIMSELF. This is the ridiculous notion that David keeps trying to defend.

The point is that most people believe there was a conspiracy, not that 4 out of 5 believe Oswald played no part. But David denies a conspiracy and thinks that anyone who believes that LHO was not the only one involved is weak-minded.

For the record, I do not believe that Oswald was totally unaware of something happening that day, but if he was aware that JFK was going to be killed, I rather doubt that he realized he was going to be the one taking full blame. I think his use of the word "patsy" shows knowledge of some sort of plot. It's not a term to be taken lightly.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry can somehow muster the courage to utter this statement...

"What is objectionable and totally unsupported by any evidence is that he did this ALL BY HIMSELF."

...even though ALL of the physical evidence points squarely at Lee H. Oswald.

Garry P. can deny the above fact all he wants, but his denials mean zilch--because the sentence I just wrote above is absolutely 100% true.

(Any signs of crimson in Garry's cheek yet? There should be after his last three posts of utter fantasy.)

In addition, Puffer lied when he said this....

"My last exchange with you, David. Consider all questions rhetorical."
-- Garry Puffer; May 24, 2014 (1:25 AM PDT)

To throw Garry's words back in his face that he's always tossing my way -- It shows that Garry does not actually believe what he's writing.

And it's fairly obvious that Puffer thinks the media is STILL covering up the true facts about the JFK murder--50 years after the event took place.

If only he'd turn just a LITTLE red in the face.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David doesn't seem to be clever enough to understand the difference between engaging someone in a discussion and merely making observations ABOUT their comments.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL. Good one, Garry. (He's not really "engaging" me, because he speaks of me now as "DVP" or "David" in the body of his posts. Yeah, Garry, that's a BIG difference there.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The LN Big Lie:

"Even though ALL of the physical evidence points squarely at Lee H. Oswald."

Anyone who writes this need to have their keyboard taken away and no dessert for a month. No phone privileges either.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's see if Garry Puffer can provide this audience with just ONE piece of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that doesn't point to Lee Harvey Oswald in the murders of BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

You're up, Garry. Name one.


BEN HOLMES, GRABBING THE BATON FROM PUFFER (WHO, REMEMBER, REFUSES TO "ENGAGE" LOWLY OL' LN LIAR DVP) SAID:

The fingerprints found on the boxes in the sniper's nest that remained unidentified.

The virtually round 6.5mm object seen in the AP X-ray.

Barbee Specimen: Found embedded in the roof of a building located at 1615 Stemmons Freeway by William Barbee in 1966. The building, about 1/4 a mile away from the TSBD was in the line of fire from the sixth floor window. It was handed over to the FBI where they determined the bullet to be a .30 calibre full metal jacketed military bullet. This bullet is consistent with that which could be shot from the CIA's silenced M-1 .30 calibre carbine.

Haythorne Specimen: Found in 1967 on top of the Massey building by Rich Haythorne, who was working on the roof of the building. The Massey building was located about 8 blocks away from the TSBD in the 1200 block of Elm Street. The bullet was delivered to the HSCA. The HSCA utilized the services of the Washington, D.C police department, where it was determined that the bullet was a jacketed, soft point .30 calibre bullet weighing 149 grains and was consistent with the .30 calibre ammo produced by Remington-Peters. The 6 groove, right hand twist rifling marks on the bullet indicated that the bullet was not shot from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Lester Specimen: A bullet fragment found in Dealey Plaza by Richard Lester in 1974. Its precise location was reported to be 500 yards from the TSBD and 61 paces east of the triple overpass abutment. It was handed over to the FBI, the FBI concluded that the fragment, which consisted of the base portion of a bullet and weighed 52.7 grains, was consistent with the diameter of a 6.5mm bullet. It was also determined that the fragment came from a metal jacketed soft point or hollow point sporting bullet. The rifling characteristics did not match those of a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Dal-Tex Specimen: A rusted shell casing was found on the roof top of the Dal-Tex building in 1977 by an air-conditioning repair man. Conclusive evidence of a second gunman positioned on the building?
People have argued that specimens 1,2 and 3 could have been shot from locations other than Dealey Plaza by a 'careless hunter', however this specimen's case is described as "having crimped edges along the neck suggesting that either the shell had been hand loaded or had been used in conjunction with a sabot, by means of which a smaller calibre slug can be fired from a higher calibre weapon". This shell casing means that the rifle was shot where the shell was expended.

The Zapruder film - which despite current believers belief, has always shown Connally being hit later than JFK, just as James Chaney reported within hours after the murder.

Among the files released by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) between 1994 and 1996 was an FBI evidence envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122). Although the envelope was empty, the cover indicated it had contained a 7.65 mm rifle shell that had been found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting. The envelope is dated 2 December 1963, so the shell was found sometime between 11/22/63 and 12/2/63. Nothing was known about the discovery of this shell until the FBI evidence envelope was released along with other assassination-related files.

Only *one* of these items makes your statement a lie... and I'm quite sure you know most of these.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now it's Holmes who should be turning six shades of red after posting that pathetically weak list of things he claims proves conspiracy and away from Oswald:

...Bullets and shells found on rooftops YEARS after the assassination. (Huge LOL here. Is Holmes really serious with those items? I guess he is, demonstrating the complete lack of legitimate and pertinent pieces of physical evidence he is able to come up with that lead away from LHO. Laughable.)

Also see my posts HERE and HERE where I discuss the absurdity of believing that any of those rooftop bullets and shells had any connection whatsoever with the assassination of President Kennedy.


...The 6.5 mm. "object" on the X-ray, which is AT BEST pretty much a "mystery object". Maybe it's a bullet fragment (as the HSCA determined). But I don't really think it is a metal fragment. But even if it IS, it's not a piece of evidence that leads AWAY from Oswald's guilt, for Pete sake. It's a piece of SOMETHING that matches the 6.5mm. dimensions of the bullets fired from OSWALD'S rifle.


...Alleged "unidentified" fingerprints on the Sniper's Nest boxes. Another howler from Ben here! And he totally ignores CE3131 (probably because J. Edgar Hoover says it), which says that the ONLY unidentified print on any of the TSBD boxes was a PALMprint, not any FINGERprints.

And just because there is ONE palmprint that could not be identified, that certainly doesn't perform the task that Holmes needs it to perform---i.e., it doesn't prove that the unidentified print was left there by some OTHER shooter (or conspirator) in the Depository.


...Holmes thinks the Zapruder Film is proof that Oswald didn't act alone. (I guess this means Holmes DOESN'T think the film is a forgery. So that's good anyway.)

In reality, of course, the Zapruder Film certainly does not prove a conspiracy at all. The Single-Bullet Theory is perfectly INTACT when taking a reasonable look at the individual toggling clips of the key frames in the film in the Z220s, as I fully demonstrate HERE.


...And Ben thinks an EMPTY ENVELOPE (containing NOTHING) indicates a conspiracy too. Too funny. (I wonder why the cover-up team didn't deep-six that envelope too? Any idea why not?)


In summary....

Holmes' list of physical items that he says proves Oswald did not act alone is a big pile of garbage that doesn't come close to proving what he wants it to prove.

Holmes is reaching deep to find that physical evidence of conspiracy....and coming up with nothing. That's called "desperation".

(Are you blushing yet, Holmes, after that weak-sister effort? If not, you oughta be.)

David Von Pein
May 25, 2014

[Note -- The Amazon.com link above is no longer available. All of the Amazon forums were discontinued and completely deleted on October 6, 2017.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 673)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Others who knew him have said of Ruby that he was no JFK fan.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So does that mean you think Jack Ruby was lying through his teeth and crying merely crocodile tears when he was captured on camera in January 1964 saying (with voice cracking): "I couldn't understand how a great man like that could be lost"?

The "great man" Ruby was referring to was, of course, John F. Kennedy.

Watch Ruby choke back tears as he says those words here:



Just an act, Garry Puffer? Or genuine emotion being exhibited for a person Jack Ruby obviously admired?

That one brief video clip of Ruby breaking down and crying over President Kennedy's death in front of the news media, two months after the assassination, just might be the single best piece of anti-conspiracy evidence there is when it comes to the subject of: Why did Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald?

Because if Mr. Ruby was merely putting on a show of fake emotion in the video clip presented above, then he should have won the Academy Award for Best Actor of 1964 instead of Rex Harrison.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Once again, David, I don't believe you can possibly be serious. Sorry. Your whole schtick just doesn't fly any more.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm crushed beyond repair. What can I possibly do now? Garry Puffer has shunned me. ~sniff~

But it's a handy way to avoid answering my perfectly reasonable question, isn't it Garry?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I thought my answer was kind of obvious. But evidently it zipped past you, so no, David, I do not believe he [Ruby] was at all serious.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then Mr. Ruby was one whale of an actor. Hollywood's top directors should have made proper use of his amazing talents long before 1964.

In other words, anyone who actually thinks Jack Ruby is putting on an act in the video embedded above must desperately WANT Ruby to be part of some kind of conspiracy. Because if that was merely an "act", then I'm Jack Ruby's illegitimate son.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Oh, my. David reveals his parentage right here on Amazon.

How long have you known, David?

Seriously, no one can tell truth from falsehood by observing a video. Get real. If I tried putting up a video of someone saying something, how much credence would you give it? Be honest now.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Make sure you tell that to George O'Toole (the "PSE" man). He'd be interested.

But the emotion demonstrated by Jack Ruby in that video is not fake. I doubt anyone without a lot of serious "actor's" training could totally fake such an emotional response like the one Ruby shows in that video. Do you think you could fake such an emotional response, Garry? Be honest now.


"ASDFG" SAID:

David,

I began reading the Jack Ruby part of your blog from the link you provided which began with the following:

"When 52-year-old Jacob L. "Sparky" Rubenstein (more commonly known as Jack Ruby) stepped out of a group of policemen and reporters in a Dallas Police Department basement to shoot Presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald on November 24th, 1963, it sparked a whole new wave of "It Was A Conspiracy" talk with respect to the John F. Kennedy murder (which Oswald was charged with committing two days before he died at Ruby's hand)."

I decided not to go any further because -- 1. He wasn't "more commonly" known as Jack Ruby... that was his legal name, and 2. Oswald was only a suspect at the time Ruby shot him, and therefore to say he was the "Presidential assassin" is not only a misstatement, it's also a lie because I'm certain you knew that.

Don't you feel you have sufficient SOLID evidence Oswald did the deed without resorting to misrepresent[ing] the facts?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh brother. If that's the best you've got to refute the LN claims, I'm home free.

And neither one of your two silly gripes is valid anyway, because Ruby WAS more commonly known as Jack Ruby....and Oswald WAS President Kennedy's assassin.

So, as always, the conspiracy kook is lying when he says the LNer is lying.


"ASDFG" SAID:

I would have thought he [DVP] would realize Ruby's fake crying was due to his upcoming murder trial and his defense at that time had to do with becoming emotional about Jackie needing to testify.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah right. That must be why Ruby chokes back tears while uttering these words --- "I couldn't understand how a great man like that could be lost."

But "asdfg" has decided to completely twist that emotional statement into something else. And, right on cue, good ol' "asdfg" has decided Ruby's crying is "fake" too.

Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracy theorist believes something is "fake". Will wonders never cease?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I noticed that David is apparently close to retirement or something. His responses are soft, and his "evidence" is even softer. He's just going through the motions. His heart isn't in it any more. I mean, a video of Jack Ruby. Really? A public statement by RFK which was at odds to what he revealed in private. Really?

Isn't David Von Pein a legend in the tiny LN community? This is the best they can send forth? Pitiful.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But that video of Jack Ruby speaks volumes, Garry. And that video is loudly telling any reasonable person the true and forthright reason why Jack Ruby wanted Lee Harvey Oswald dead.

All you can provide as a retort is to weakly and pitifully claim -- "I do not believe he was at all serious."

Ergo, you think Ruby was lying and his emotion was fake.

~yawn~

Are you sure your heart is still in your CT work, Garry P.?

BTW, I'm also enjoying laughing aloud at your constant claims that all of the LNers who post on Internet forums or discussion boards are somehow NETWORKED together and working with each other--like a tag team. (Do I dare utter the word "hilarious" now, for fear of being labelled a "clone" of another lone-assassin advocate? But hilarious it is nevertheless.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

David is using "lies" and "fake" interchangeably, so...
Let's see, the LNers seem to believe:

1. The reports of people, including a police officer, who said they encountered Secret Service agents behind the Grassy Knoll are fake.
2. The testimony of the Parkland physicians is fake.
3. The lack of a chain of custody for CE399 is fake.
4. Acquilla Clemons is an excellent actress.
5. The people who reported FBI and/or SS and/or DPD intimidation were all fakers.
6. Dr. Dolce is a fake.
7. The witnesses who saw LHO on the first or second floor just prior to the assassination are lying.
8. Howard Brennan is not a fake, but the much more credible witnesses who saw different or multiple people on the sixth floor are fakes.
9. Rose Cherami was nothing but a dirty old psychic is all.
10. That the WC and the HSCA failed to call Adm. Burkley as a witness was a mere oversight, even though Adm. Burkley fairly begged the HSCA and told them he had evidence that would prove a conspiracy.

...and a hundred more items could be added to this list.

But Jack Ruby blubbering about how much he admired JFK is genuine, heartfelt emotion. That he later said his lawyer told him to take that route, well, that's a fake story of course.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ruby's lawyer TOLD him to go in front of the cameras and start blubbering, is that it? And the lawyer knew that Ruby could pull it off to make it look "real", because Jack was taking acting lessons from both Gregory Peck and Helen Hayes in the months before the assassination....right?

David Von Pein
March 9, 2014

[Note -- The Amazon.com link above is no longer available. All of the Amazon forums were discontinued and completely deleted on October 6, 2017.]

DVP VS. A CONSPIRACY THEORIST (TOPICS: VINCENT BUGLIOSI, "RECLAIMING HISTORY", AND SOME OTHER STUFF TOO)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this book well before the publication date.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment [which is no longer available to read] connected to this Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears at the top of my review.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays when every page of this material is available on the Internet):

WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm

WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm

WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm

How many more indexes do you require?

* The "Exhibits" index linked above only goes up to CE1053, and that's because it's an index that provides information as to what volume number and page number to go to in order to find out when a particular exhibit was mentioned when a witness was on the stand. The other 2,000 "CE" exhibits are not listed in that index, and that index doesn't actually tell the reader where to go in the volumes to locate a picture of the exhibit itself. But, of course, even a second-grader who knows anything about the general structure of the WC volumes would have no difficulty in locating photos of all the Commission exhibits themselves -- just go to Volumes 16-26.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is, the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive (certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally, you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?

The Warren Commission's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look at the autopsy photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on inaccurate drawings made by Mr. Rydberg.

But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND. And the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with it. So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

He [Vincent Bugliosi] did very little actual research (almost none in fact) and although the book was 20 years in the making, precious little of that time was used in researching and writing this book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Between approximately 2001 and November 2006, Mr. Bugliosi worked 70 to 90 hours per week on "Reclaiming History". And to say he did almost no research for the book is to simply ignore the 10,000 source notes that appear in the book. [Check out this audio clip.]

Get real, Garry. So far you're anything but.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I wasn't aware that Mr. Garrison had been "thoroughly discredited." By whom?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

By anyone with a smidgen of common sense, that's by whom. Just read Vincent's section on that topic in "Reclaiming History" (beginning on Page 1361). Apparently you didn't.

For Pete sake, Jim Garrison's own lead investigator, William Gurvich, resigned in disgust and told the world that Garrison had "no case" whatsoever against the man Garrison was prosecuting--Clay Shaw.

Read more about Garrison's total lack of evidence against Shaw and Gurvich's comments about the case here (and via the image below), which is an excerpt taken from page 1361 of "Reclaiming History".





GARRY PUFFER PUFFED:

Your review suffers from the same faults as "Reclaiming History": It is voluminous but without substance, it contains untruths, and it avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're getting for your review of my review.

The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line. Thus far no conspiracy theorist has been able to do that. But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Any good history book indexes the subjects as well as names.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Warren Commission Report (WCR) itself is indexed by subject (and very nicely too)--it's called the "Table Of Contents", and it's quite detailed, with tons of sub-topics listed. Each sub-topic is then sourced within each section.

In fact, I've always been very impressed by the WCR's Table of Contents section. Quite useful indeed. I use it often.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

It is a researcher's nightmare to approach 26 volumes with a topic in mind only to find out there is no way to find anything. Listing three indexes that are fairly useless on their own is typical of the way you argue your points.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're silly. The Warren Commission's indexes are just fine and provide direct "Volume No." info for every single witness and every single name that appears in the WCR and volumes. And as I just mentioned, the WCR's Table of Contents is, essentially, a "subject index". And a very useful one too. You require way too much from the Commission in this "index" regard. And the "List of witnesses" is something that I'll bet a lot of researchers aren't even aware is in the WCR (Appendix V).

That witness index gives instant info as to what Volume No. (and page number) to go to to find that witness' testimony and, in many cases, their affidavits too. It's a very handy Appendix that is just as good as a "Subject Index" for most researchers, and that's because the researcher pretty much already knows what "subject" the individual witness in the "List of Witnesses" is connected to. And for those newbie researchers who don't know Jim Humes from Ruth Paine, they can easily find the material on any specific subject by utilizing the WCR's Table Of Contents, which, as mentioned, is incredibly detailed.

Naturally, all of these things aren't nearly good enough for Mr. Puffer. But they certainly should be good enough for anyone who isn't desperate to dismantle the WCR and its work. (But is there a conspiracy theorist in the world who ISN'T desperate to perform such a task, no matter how silly and nitpicky their complaints are?)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I'm insignificant in all this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How true. And I'm insignificant too. But Oswald still did it alone. And the evidence proves it.


ADDENDUM REGARDING SYLVIA MEAGHER:

Garry Puffer actually did me a bit of a favor when he brought up the subject of a WC index. Because it got me to thinking that I needed to add a couple of things to my online Kennedy Book Catalog, with those items being Sylvia Meagher's two Master Index volumes for the JFK investigations [ONE and TWO].

And while searching Amazon for those Meagher books, I noticed a blurb connected to another one of her books, "Accessories After The Fact", which is a 1967 book that many conspiracy theorists treat as the Holy Grail of JFK assassination books. The blurb at Amazon says:

"Her amazing assertion that Oswald had never actually been charged with Kennedy's murder, despite sworn testimony to the contrary (see Commission Document 5 for the FBI's statement that "such arraignment was not necessary")."

I'm just wondering if Meagher actually contends in her book that Oswald was never arraigned by Justice of the Peace David Johnston at 1:35 AM on 11/23/63?

If Meagher does take that position, it just makes me wonder what other off-the-wall theories she adopted as the truth over the years, because Johnston himself wrote a statement that details the 1:35 AM arraignment of Oswald [Johnston Exhibit No. 1, at 20 H 315].

There is also 11/23/63 television coverage from newsmen (WFAA-TV coverage specifically) who talk about the early-morning arraignment of Oswald, and about how Oswald said "That's ridiculous" following the arraignment procedure.

All lies, Sylvia?

It's true, indeed, that there is an FBI report (Commission Document No. 5; Page 400) that does say that Oswald was not arraigned for JFK's murder. Now, why such an inaccurate statement exists in CD5, I haven't the foggiest idea. But can anyone with any common sense really believe that that one document in CD5 trumps all of the other people (including Justice of the Peace David L. Johnston himself [at 15 H 508]) who said Oswald was arraigned at 1:35 AM?

"In a conference between Captain Fritz, Mr. Wade, and two or three of his assistants and myself, and Chief Curry--it was decided to go ahead and arraign him [Oswald] and that arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense. He was also told at both of these instances [the Tippit and Kennedy arraignments] that he would be given the right to contact an attorney of his choice." -- David L. Johnston

--------------

In addition to all of the above proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was definitely "charged" and then "arraigned" for the murder of President Kennedy, there is also the following late-night (Nov. 22-23) television interview with Dallas County Justice of the Peace David Johnston, in which Johnston reads every word of the formal complaint charging Oswald with killing John F. Kennedy. About an hour after this TV interview, Johnston read that same document to Oswald during the official arraignment:




JOHN R. KING SAID:

How does a person change the date on an Amazon review?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't. The date is fixed for all time by Amazon once it's submitted.

Here's the deal on why my review is dated March 22, 2005 (even though it was written in 2007):

Years ago, Amazon would allow a person to submit multiple reviews for the same product. But in about 2006, they stopped allowing more than one review for an item. And at about that same time, if you were to delete a review and then write a new one for the same product, the date of the first review would still be attached to the new review. (Amazon did this in order to stop people from "bumping" their reviews to the top of the stack; apparently that was a problem at the Amazon.com website a few years ago.)

And that's what happened with my "Reclaiming History" review(s). I did, indeed, write a "pre-release" review for the book in 2005 (which is another thing you can no longer do at Amazon.com; you can't submit any review for a book until the release date; you can write pre-release reviews for all the DVDs you want to, but not for books; seems a bit strange to have that inconsistency, but that's the way it is).

Anyway, when it came time to post my review following the book's release, I deleted my 2005 review and then submitted my 2007 review. But the new rules were in place then (only one review per "product set" and "no bumping allowed"), and therefore my new review still maintained the 2005 date.

But to complicate matters a little bit more, I actually DO have two reviews still on the Amazon site for this book ("Reclaiming History"). And I think the reason for that is because the one I wrote in November 2005 (yes, another "pre-release" one, as I was anticipating what was coming from Mr. Bugliosi, and I was absolutely right too) was written on an Amazon page that had a different ISBN book number for Bugliosi's book, and it was written at a time when Vince's book was still called "Final Verdict" (and the Amazon webpage for "Final Verdict" is still active too, right here).

And even though all 200+ customer reviews have since been merged into the same "product set" for the book called "Reclaiming History", my November 2005 pre-release review was still allowed to exist on the site, even though I have since submitted a second review for the same product.

I've always wondered why my November '05 review didn't disappear after I submitted my final review for "RH" in June of 2007. But for some reason it didn't, because here it is. [Note -- The previous link, which is no longer functioning, was a screenshot of my Amazon review page. The 2005 review in question was finally deleted by Amazon sometime in early 2018. But I was able to save the review as a screenshot (which has now been deleted too; ~sigh~) before the cached version of it completely disappeared from the Web.]

BTW, my 2007 Amazon review isn't nearly my "full" review for Mr. Bugliosi's book. The complete 11-mile-long version is at my "RH" website, here:




GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Hi David,

Are you really so clueless as to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald knew anything about the Mannlicher-Carcano? "His own gun?" Laughable. A bullet fired into cotton wadding and dropped on the wrong stretcher at Parkland? Yeah, great evidence. It is in fact better evidence for a conspiracy than it is for your pathetic theory.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Remarkably, though, CE399 shows just about exactly the amount of weight loss that we would expect to see given the circumstances -- e.g., no bullet lead in JFK's neck/back; no bullet lead in Connally's torso; one tiny fragment in Connally's thigh; and a very small amount of lead in Connally's wrist.

It blends perfectly with the approx. 2.4-grain loss of CE399. Those bullet-planters were amazing, weren't they? They somehow KNEW when they planted that bullet that the amount of metal which would be plucked from the TWO victims would not exceed 2.4 grains. And it most certainly didn't exceed that (no matter how many lies the conspiracy crowd tells about this matter).

http://jfk-archives/The Connally Bullet Fragments


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

And in case you hadn't noticed, there are not many people who agree with what you claim to believe.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's yet another myth that is always propped up by the conspiracy clowns. Percentage-wise, it's true that the sensible "LNers" are in the vast minority. I cannot deny that fact.

But to hear kooks like Jim DiEugenio tell it on Anybody-But-Oswald Radio (hosted by Len Osanic), you'd think that Vince Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, and myself were the only people on the planet who think Oswald shot Kennedy. But such talk is just more over-the-top crappola coming from the CT side of the fence, as is clearly demonstrated by the results to the second question in the 2003 ABC News poll linked here.

By extrapolation, millions of people think Oswald shot Kennedy (and acted alone). So it's not just Bugliosi, Posner, McAdams, and Von Pein.

David Von Pein
October 7-18, 2012
September 5, 2015


THE BATTLE CONTINUES HERE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1038)

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"?


DAVID VON PEIN LATER 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; April 1992


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
March & September 2015