Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Vince Palamara

DVP has a book coming out

Recommended Posts

Quote By DVP

"There is no reasonable alternative to the Single Bullet Theory"

Only in your world, David.

It was "Theory" dreamt up to fit a scenario in which only three bullets were fired , one of which hit a bystander. Unfortunately you can't see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote By DVP

"There is no reasonable alternative to the Single Bullet Theory"

Only in your world, David.

It was "Theory" dreamt up to fit a scenario in which only three bullets were fired , one of which hit a bystander.

Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray?

And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does?

Don't be shy. Let's hear it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. Multi shooters.

My problem is proving where the shots came from. One shot was from the front hitting the President in the right temple., plus shooters from the rear.

Whether or not Oswald was involved in the shots from the rear is immaterial.

My theory needs no magic bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. Multi shooters.

Brilliant.

My problem is proving where the shots came from.

Yeah, no kidding. It's difficult to prove something for which there's no evidence at all. Good luck.

One shot was from the front hitting the President in the right temple...

Not a lick of evidence to support that claim.

My theory needs no magic bullet.

Nor does mine.

But you didn't even come close to answering my previous question, which concerned only the SBT.

I'll try again....

"Then what's your alternative theory that replaces the SBT, Ray?

And does your version really fit the evidence better than the SBT does?

Don't be shy. Let's hear it."

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims, David.

But you and all the other high back wound people have found it impossible.

It's way past time for you people to put up or shut up.

What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment.

What's not to love about a Nutter running on rhetorical fumes?

If you could prove your claims you could. But you can't.

Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs.

But you're not laughing, David. Your cognitive dissonance seems grim.

The bottom line is ----

There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact.

No, David, you're so committed to the SBT that facts and logic are foreign to you.

So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory.

Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).

At this point, gentle reader, further engagement with DVP is like pulling wings off a fly.

Thanks for conceding no significant bunch-up in Dealey, David.

XX.+Single-Bullet+Theory+Blog+Logo.png

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have ONE question about DVP's book [Remember the book? I believe this thread was started to discuss the book]:

Is there any NEW information in the book, or is it a restatement of old information? Because I can get refried beans at just about any Mexican restaurant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have ONE question about DVP's book [Remember the book? I believe this thread was started to discuss the book]:

Is there any NEW information in the book, or is it a restatement of old information? Because I can get refried beans at just about any Mexican restaurant.

There's some material in the book that I don't think has been published in "book" form in the past.

E.G.,

Stuff about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" myth and the true identity of the "shrugging" SS agent at Love Field [pages 429-434 of "BRD"]. (Don Lawton's identity WAS, indeed, revealed in the Gerald Blaine/Clint Hill book "The Kennedy Detail" in 2010, but I don't think the "standdown" topic was discussed in that book. But I'm not positive about that.)

And there's some "new" material (thanks to Gary Mack's e-mails to me) regarding Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's [pages 64-67].

Plus, the book's main author, Mel Ayton, has contacted some sources down in Florida regarding the "Castro/Cuba/Oswald" angle that I believe can be classified as "new" [Chapter 11, "The Castro Connection"; pages 313-343].

But as far as being "new" to people like Mark Knight or Pat Speer or John Simkin or Mark Lane, et al ... the answer to your question, Mark, would be, for the most part, no. Because I doubt that there's much of anything brand-new in the book that you guys haven't seen before. (Sorry, Mark, neither Mel nor I discovered another bullet or a new "bombshell witness". Instead, we have had to mostly rely on that same evidence collected by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63. Like it or not, that evidence IS the evidence in this case. And it all points in one irresistible direction.)

But for people who don't visit JFK online forums every day of their lives and who don't obsess about the JFK case the way I do or the way "Internet CTers" do, then I'd say, Yes, there are several "new" items of interest sprinkled throughout "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On".

And why in heck the "Add To Cart" button hasn't returned to the book's Amazon page is ticking me off greatly. It should be there by now, but it isn't (as of 1:00 AM EST on 12/15/2014). The ability to purchase it through the "Shopping Cart" at Amazon should definitely occur within the next few days. If it doesn't, does someone have a Mannlicher-Carcano I can borrow so I can shoot somebody? (Thank you. And I apologize for my part in detouring this thread "off topic". But everybody should be accustomed to that happening at all JFK forums by now. It's as inevitable as Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.)

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that reply, Mr. Von Pein. That adds a note of clarity, AND gets the thread back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that reply, Mr. Von Pein. That adds a note of clarity, AND gets the thread back on topic.

Since there is a chapter on the Single Bullet Theory how is that discussion off topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference to being "off topic" was to the fact that this was sliding more towards rekindling an old "grudge match," in which neither side was ever going to convince the other, than it was towards actually being a civil discussion. Personally, I am no fan of Mr. Von Pein...but I hope that we can keep the discussions here not only civil, but informative. Snide remarks by either party, or a continuous sniping match, does little to raise the level of discourse here.

By now, I think we all know what you believe, Mr. Varnell. And I'm pretty sure we all know what Mr. Von Pein believes. And from where I stand, obviously "never the twain shall meet." So unless there is new evidence on the subject, we return to rehashing old arguments that lead nowhere, as neither of you will ever convince the other, nor concede to the other. I think that, on a thread about a new book, perhaps having the courtesy to first read the book might bring other more enlightening questions to mind.

And besides...I think there's probably more than one old thread here about the bunching/non-bunching of the shirt/jacket that might be revived, if there is some point to it other than wanting to be the man to get in the last word on the subject.

And THAT is what the "back on topic" reference was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference to being "off topic" was to the fact that this was sliding more towards rekindling an old "grudge match," in which neither side was ever going to convince the other, than it was towards actually being a civil discussion.Personally, I am no fan of Mr. Von Pein...but I hope that we can keep the discussions here not only civil, but informative. Snide remarks by either party, or a continuous sniping match, does little to raise the level of discourse here.

I'm not sure the Pious Scold bit does much either, frankly.

By now, I think we all know what you believe, Mr. Varnell. And I'm pretty sure we all know what Mr. Von Pein believes. And from where I stand, obviously "never the twain shall meet."

But the twain does meet.

DVP and I have come to characterize the clothing evidence the same way -- there was "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

This is a significant admission from DVP.

Jim DiEugenio argued and argued with DVP over hundreds of topics and never once did Jim D get any sort of admission of fact from Von Pein.

That I have wrung said admission is a true accomplishment, if I do say so. That you view this negatively is not my problem.

So unless there is new evidence on the subject, we return to rehashing old arguments that lead nowhere, as neither of you will ever convince the other, nor concede to the other. I think that, on a thread about a new book, perhaps having the courtesy to first read the book might bring other more enlightening questions to mind.

Our discussions HAVE lead to agreement. That Von Pein must suffer thru cognitive dissonance and deny the implications of his admission is a secondary issue.

And besides...I think there's probably more than one old thread here about the bunching/non-bunching of the shirt/jacket that might be revived, if there is some point to it other than wanting to be the man to get in the last word on the subject.

The point was to sharpen and under-score David Von Pein's startling, ground-breaking admission that there was no significant bunching of JFK's jacket in Dealey.

And THAT is what the "back on topic" reference was about.

This thread is about a book that has a chapter on the SBT. DVP's description of "a little bit" of jacket bunch-up destroys the SBT.

Nothing off topic about it.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP and I have come to characterize the clothing evidence the same way -- there was "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza. This is a significant admission from DVP.

I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos. Why on Earth would anyone do something like that? It's an impossible thing to know. I can't tell precisely how much "bunching" there is in the Croft picture. And neither can you. We can only GUESS.

You, Cliff, are attempting to fine-tune the "bunching" to levels of exactitude that cannot be achieved.

But it is nice to see Cliff admit that at least SOME bunching of JFK's jacket is seen in the Dealey Plaza photographs. (With a shocking admission like that one, perhaps Cliff isn't too far away from becoming an LNer after all.) SMILE-ICON.gif

The point was to sharpen and under-score David Von Pein's startling, ground-breaking admission that there was no significant bunching of JFK's jacket in Dealey.

And who said a "significant" amount of bunching is needed in order to meet the requirements for the Single-Bullet Theory? Just because YOU say so? "Significant" is a relative term.

Once again, Cliff V. is pretending to KNOW with exact accuracy the degree of "bunching" that is occurring with respect to both JFK's jacket AND shirt via the photos we have to examine. (And the shirt can't even be seen at all, of course, since the jacket is covering his shirt.)

But such pinpoint precision concerning the bunching cannot be obtained by just looking at the photos. It can only be GUESSED at. But apparently Cliff thinks he can measure to the millimeter the amount of bunched-up fabric that is seen in the photos.

Such silliness the likes which Mr. Varnell is constantly engaging in regarding President Kennedy's clothing ought to scoffed at by any and all reasonable people examining the JFK case.

Bottom Line --- Cliff Varnell is pretending to know things that are just simply unknowable.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP and I have come to characterize the clothing evidence the same way -- there was "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza. This is a significant admission from DVP.

I've never specified the EXACT amount of jacket bunching that can be seen in the photos.

You claimed the Main St. photo shows "significant" -- your word -- bunching.

To have "significance," the shirt and jacket had to be elevated entirely above the SBT in-shoot at the base of the neck.

You have acknowledged that the Main St. bunch-up pushed up on the jacket collar. You pointed this out, remember?

But in the Croft photo the normal half-inch band of white shirt collar is clearly visible. The jacket collar was not pushed up.

You admitted that the jacket was bunched up "a bit," "a little bit,""slightly" in Croft.

Again, we agree.

And our consensus on this language is consistent with the physical facts of the case-- the bullet hole in the shirt is a flat 4" below the bottom of the collar, and the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch. A little bit.

Why on Earth would anyone do something like that?

Because we spend almost all of our lives wearing clothing and we possess enough self-awareness to observe this clothing move when the body moves.

David, right now glance down at your shirt along your right-shoulder-top.

Keep an eye on your right-shoulder and casually raise your right arm and wave like JFK on Elm St.

The fabric of your shirt indents along the shoulder-line.

It indents every time you try it.

Every single time. Indentation. The opposite of elevation.

This phenomenon occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet Earth.

And yet high back wound advocates like David Von Pein, Cyril Wecht, John McAdams, Pat Speer, Vincent Bugliosi et al insist that the exact opposite occurred with JFK in the extreme.

In the words of Vincent Salandria - a "vegetable" could figure the facts of conspiracy.
Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back (which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said).

Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body. But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA:

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well.

And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President.

The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verifiable PROOF that Cliff Varnell is dead wrong regarding the bullet holes in JFK's clothing exists in the fact that we KNOW beyond all doubt that ONE single bullet had to have passed through all three bullet holes in question --- the hole in JFK's jacket, the hole in JFK's shirt, and the hole that existed in JFK's upper back

Non sequitur. We know the same bullet created the same holes in the same location -- 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

(which is located 14 centimeters below his right mastoid process, just like the autopsy doctors said).

That bit about the mastoid process violates three military autopsy protocols.

Three at once -- a hat trick of obfuscation!

The notations were made in pen on the face sheet (supposed to use a pencil during an autopsy, not a PEN).

Using a moveable landmark violates autopsy protocol, using a non-thoracic landmark for a thoracic wound violates another.

During the autopsy they noted the wound "below the shoulder" and placed it low on the autopsy face sheet where it was properly signed off "verified" in pencil.

Cliff can talk all day long (and he will) about how it's impossible for John Kennedy's clothes to have bunched up to a certain level on JFK's body.

I just quote you, David Von Pein, who sees that JFK's jacket was bunched up just "a little bit" on Elm St.

You can't walk it back now, David.

But the absolute irrefutable PROOF that the clothing DID, indeed, bunch up to that level on JFK's back exists in this autopsy picture, which has been proven to be genuine (i.e., not faked) by many experts who examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA:

Factually incorrect.

They said the Fox 5 photo was worthless as scientific evidence of an autopsy. It shows an abrasion collar at the bottom -- consistent with a shot from below.

There is no chain of possession for this photo. It wasn't shot according to autopsy protocol --nothing in it identifies the subject as JFK.

All your evidence violates multiple autopsy protocols and rules of possession.

15 eye-witnesses put the wound down low.

So do all the properly prepared documents like Burkley's death certificate (T3 marked "verified), autopsy face sheet, and FBI report.

The only mystery is why so many CTs buy the mind-boggling idiocy of the T1 claim.

Factually incorrect, David. The House Photo panel singled the Fox 5 photo out for

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

The bullet hole in the above picture is perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and is also perfectly consistent with the autopsy report and with Commission Exhibit No. 903 as well.

And since we know where the bullet entered the BODY of President Kennedy, then the shirt and jacket HAD to have been elevated to the very same level where we find the body/skin wound in the upper back of the President.

The above fact couldn't be any more obvious, of course. But, for some reason, certain conspiracy theorists are still struggling to figure out this elementary math that any third-grader would have no trouble resolving.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...