David Von Pein
-
Posts
7,848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
I actually meant my "ping pong" remark literally, Ron. I am a good ping pong player. Or at least I was a few years ago. Haven't played in a while. They removed the ping pong table from the game room here at CIA HQ/Langley, which really pissed me off.
-
I agree, Ron. It is painful to watch the CTers at work.
(BTW, I'm a very good ping pong player.)
-
As you said Dave, it's not just one thing that proves the evidence is crap, it's ALL of it.
Yeah, yeah, Dave. We all know you think all of the evidence is fake. You made that quite clear recently when you bellowed this to me....
"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- D. Josephs
So what else is new? Oswald was a patsy?
~Yawn~
~Stretch~
~Snooze~
-
-
You too often SAY that some such single piece of evidence proves his guilt.
Where? When?
Hey, almost no one has a perfect memory. I certainly don't. So I suppose you MIGHT be able to find some post written by me where I (foolishly) stated that a SINGLE item of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt.
I, however, do not think I have ever constructed a post using those exact words before. I certainly cannot recall ever having done so. But if you do find one, I would like to see it--so I can delete it. So please keep hunting for such a post, and if you find one, please let me know. Because I think you're right on this point---not any SINGLE thing "proves" Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders. It's always been my belief (which I've stated hundreds of times over the years) that it's the "totality" or "sum total" of evidence that proves Oswald was guilty.
I'll give you a heads-up, Glenn (so you won't have to dig for it), to a post I wrote in January 2006, entitled "THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". This was written as a kind of an experiment (based on Vince Bugliosi's claim that "You could throw 80% of the evidence against Oswald out the window and there would still be more than enough left to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"). But even in this article, I'm not singling out just ONE item of evidence. It's two things....
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
-
but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.
I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.
Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.
And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.
Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.
But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.
It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....
ROB CAPRIO SAID:
So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there.
DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest.
It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there".
The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd.
DVP
-----------------
Related articles of interest:
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html
-
your own definition of evidence shows that none of what you call evidence proves anything of its own.
you should choose your words more carefully.
But I've never claimed that just ONE piece of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt. It's when ALL of the evidence is evaluated that Oswald's guilt becomes "proven", IMO. Not by just isolating one piece of it.
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
And I think I do choose my words carefully.
-
He wasn't suggesting that Givens is guilty, David. Damn. He was pointing out that, by your reasoning, if someone was missing from roll call, then he must be guilty.
That's not my reasoning at all, Glenn.
I was merely pointing out to Mark Knight that the situations that existed on 11/22/63 when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald with Charles Givens are not even remotely the same.
As I said in the list of things I'm repeating below (which is a list that needs to be looked at in its TOTALITY, instead of each item being isolated from the sum total), Oswald "leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination", which is not at all what Givens did. Givens had already left the building many minutes BEFORE the shooting. Givens then tried to get BACK INTO the building, but could not. So he eventually left the area. (Who wouldn't?)
Reprise.....
"I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,
...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.
...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.
...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.
...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)
...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".
...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package)." -- DVP; 8/4/15
-
Do you know the difference between helping to form a conclusion and proving a conclusion?
Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. Maybe you ought to lecture them for a little while.
HIS [Vince Bugliosi's] messages to YOU had to be relayed through SOMEONE else. Do we know who 'someone else' is?
Having a difficult time with your reading glasses, Ken?
I clearly identified who the "someone else" is in Post 110.
-
James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens.
Does that also make Givens guilty?
Charles Givens had two alibi witnesses standing with him when President Kennedy was shot (James and Edward Shields) [see 6 H 351].
Plus, Givens went back to the TSBD after the shooting, but it had been sealed off by then and he couldn't get back in. So he left. That's hardly a situation that could be defined as fleeing the crime scene....
CHARLES GIVENS -- "Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in, the officer at the door wouldn't let me in." [6 H 355]
-
And so by mentioning ONE person's name (Jon), and by saying "some Internet CTers", that means I am automatically lumping ALL CTers together in those statements?
Bizarre.
-
Yeah, sure, Glenn. Like I really think physical objects can be considered "hearsay".
Why do you think I put quotation marks around "hearsay"? It was because the one and only example Jon was supplying in his previous post (in his little "A, B, C" scenario) was an example of "hearsay", which doesn't apply in any way to the physical evidence in the JFK case. So I have no idea what point Jon was trying to make at all.Hence, I phrased my follow-up question to him in a manner that would be analogous to Jon's only example provided---a "hearsay" example (with quote marks around it). But since guns and bullets aren't hearsay, Jon's post makes no sense (particularly since we were earlier talking about what constitutes "evidence").
-
BTW/FYI, Glenn, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo.
And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.
That's because it's my signature and not Jim's, David.
[...]
I made it my signature because you told him to put it in his. I figured it'd get to you.
It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all.
This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his sig that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter.
And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case.
I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats.
-
Mr. Von Pein, basing generalities about ALL CTer's based upon a statement by ONE CTer is a flawed concept.
I have no idea what are you're talking about here, or what "ONE CTer" you're referring to.
Care to clarify?
-
So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"?
D. - objects can't be hearsay. hearsay is limited to testimony, because it's things that people "say".
this is why they called it hearsay. otherwise they'd have called it hearstuff. or hearsomething. or...
Exactly. That was kind of my whole point, Glenn. Note the quote marks around the word "hearsay" in my post.
Duh!
-
No, Glenn. Jon has been saying for weeks now that he thinks NONE of the evidence in the JFK case is really "evidence" because it never found its way into a courtroom. That's the ONLY thing that can make it "evidence", per Jon G. Tidd.
And I continue to say---Hogwash to such an assertion.
The fact it can never get inside a courtroom doesn't make the physical bullets and prints and guns CEASE being classified as "evidence".
The WC had no problem calling it "evidence"....
Page 117 -- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
Page 195 -- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0110a.htm
Is Jon Tidd "appalled" at the WC for all the times the word "evidence" appears on the above 2 WCR pages?
-
You don't even think Oswald had a gun in the theater, do you Greg?
Admit it---you think he was unarmed, don't you?
???
what???
Glenn, I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him.
That's why I asked Greg Parker that question. And Greg certainly seems to be entertaining the "No Gun" idea when he said this....
"I'm not ashamed to be skeptical about any official story put out by proven rogues and
benders of the laws." -- G. Parker
Pretty soon we'll probably have CTers denying the assassination occurred in Dallas.
-
BTW/FYI, Glenn, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo.
And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.
-
5 year old letters from people who had to ask other people to relay his quotes is what you're posting?
That's about the size of it, yeah. I just felt like sharing after reading DiEugenio's latest Bugliosi-bashing post.
(Vince B. had an aversion to computers, you see. So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.)
-
So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"?
-
Why on Earth would you be appalled, Jon? Vince's statement about the evidence proving Oswald's guilt is perfectly acceptable---and 100% accurate.
The only way such a statement is wrong is if all the "evidence" had been fake. And such an over-the-top assertion is "appalling", IMO.
Jon, why are you constantly insisting the EVIDENCE (i.e., the items collected by the police at the scenes of the Dallas crimes) is not really EVIDENCE?
Don't you agree that this definition of "evidence" is an accurate one?.....
"A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."
-
RP: Myers is a fraud.
Proven.
But then, what does that make Vincent Bugliosi?
Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
Date: 2/27/2010 4:34:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton [Vincent Bugliosi's secretary]
------------------------------
Hi Rosemary,
If Mr. Bugliosi ever feels compelled to write a response to some of his critics regarding the JFK case, and would like to post his remarks on the Internet, I (of course) would be more than happy to post such a response in his name on my own websites (blogs) and on the JFK forums that I routinely visit.
Not that any amount of common sense or logic (or evidence!) will ever sway the conspiracy kooks, but if Vince ever feels he wants to get some thoughts off his chest by writing up some kind of a response to people like DiEugenio or this Remington fellow or Jim Fetzer (who hates Vincent's book with a passion as well) or Bob Groden, et al, I will always be ready and willing to post his comments online--and at every JFK forum I have access to.
Thanks.
Best wishes always,
David Von Pein
Feb. 27, 2010
==============================================
Subject: DiEugenio
Date: 2/27/2010 7:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein
------------------------------
Hi Dave,
Vince just faxed me the following: "Tell David Von Pein that he can quote me as saying: "I thought Jim DiEugenio was a serious person." "
Regards, Rosemary
==============================================
Subject: Re: DiEugenio
Date: 2/27/2010 8:08:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton
------------------------------
Thank you, Rosemary and Vince.
I will.
David V.P.
==============================================
-
-
The Australian SBT test simulated Connally's wrist, for Pete sake. They just didn't do it with a real human arm. They created a block with human bones inside of it.
Not nearly good enough, right? Of course not. As I've said a million times, nothing will satisfy CT hounds. Nothing.
10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
Yeah, I've been told by other CIA disinfo agents in my neighboring cubicles that it was part of a Castro operation. Fidel was evidently a ping pong aficionado too.