A World Gone Mad

[Greg Burnham]

Oh my!!!

[the above is satire only]

Edited February 12, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[David Von Pein]

David, in the autopsy photo you display, can you explain the complete blacking out of the back of the head, where all the Parkland witnesses said the wound was?

The back of JFK's head has not been blacked out, Ray. It merely looks darker in that area of the head due to the angle of the picture and the fact that Kennedy's head is tilted back in that photo. But there are other autopsy photos that clearly show each individual hair on Kennedy's head in the right-rear area of his head that you seem to think shows a "complete blacking out" in the photo depicting the back wound.

The photos below are not as high quality as the first-generation prints that reside at the National Archives, but the two pictures on the left show no "blacking out" of the head, with JFK's hair plainly discernible:

And John Fiorentino was kind enough a few years ago to send me a very clear copy of an even higher-quality version of the middle photo above, and every strand of hair on the back of JFK's head can be clearly seen. I can't post that higher-quality version of that picture here because Mr. Fiorentino asked me not to post that particular picture on the Internet.

Plus, there's also this X-ray, which is in perfect harmony with all of the other JFK autopsy photos, with this X-ray proving for all time that President Kennedy did NOT have a big hole in the back of his head (despite the many Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said otherwise). There's not a bit of MISSING skull bone in the back (occipital) portion of the head here:

In addition, here's the GIF clip put together by John Mytton (below), which verifies the "stereo" nature of two of JFK's autopsy photos (the "red spot" color picture, plus one of the black-and-white photos of the back of the President's head). And JFK's hair is easily visible in the so-called "blacked out" area at the right-rear of the head:

Now don't tell me you think ALL of the above photographs and the X-ray are phony, Ray.

You don't really believe that....do you?

Edited February 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

Still Duncan?

February 05, 2015, 06:30:08 PM

Because its a word that describes the anyone but Oswald crowd perfectly. You are already venturing into kook world just by thinking that anyone is killing a President infront of 100s of witnesses and cameras and then trying to blame it on a patsy who didn't do it. But when the empty the jails defense lawyer tactics start you are a kook. The majority of conspiracy believers on this site are kooks.

You could argue that they are not kooks but just morons, but then they would complain about that.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfkfacts.org/oswald-work-building/#comment-919542

[Kirk Gallaway]

Dave, I don't know what happened to you. But I think you're going to have a hard time convincing some people who at this point in history  think the world actually might be going mad that the real story is Dave Von Pein's private world has been so disturbed that he dredges up a 2 year old post to rationalize his persecution complex. You post here by your own free will and must accept the reaction. Nobody's going to take away your right... 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[David Von Pein]

Boy, talk about missing the point. I think Kirk might have missed it (just a tad).

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Kirk Gallaway]

Be clear in what you're trying to say. If your purpose was to extend an argument I assume you thought you were winning on JFK facts to this forum, why didn't you just start a new topic? Given no context, I wasted time going back to page 1, to really try to understand what you were saying. It turns out there was no relation whatsoever. Whose fault is that?

[David Von Pein]

Sorry for the confusion, Kirk. I merely wanted to "bump" this thread. And I therefore had to post something in order to bump it, so I chose a recent discussion from JFK Facts.

(I guess I should have just posted the word "Bump" and let that suffice.)

Edited January 15, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Yawn.  More DVP self promotion.  What else is new.

[Paul Trejo]

David,

Your continual challenge to the CIA-did-it CTers is becoming world famous.  When an objective person is named to be "banned from the internet," most of us recognize a gifted person, and a dogma with internal weaknesses.

The CIA-did-it CT is coughing, spitting and wobbling on its last legs.  It is almost dead.  It deserves its grim fate.  What a waste of a half-century of literature it has been.

On the other hand, the Radical Right CT is finally awakening.  Please offer your summary opinion on the work by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Please offer your summary opinion on the work by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Hi Paul,

I haven't read Caufield's book, but knowing the physical evidence and Lee Oswald's own actions like I do (and I know those things pretty well), I have a very difficult time believing in ANY conspiracy plot relating to the murder of President Kennedy. Oswald's movements and actions on both November 21st and 22nd spell out a practically last-minute, one-man "plot" that was very likely (IMO) hastily arranged by only one individual---Lee Harvey Oswald himself. I see no room for any of General Walker's handiwork, or anyone else's.

And I think author Jeffrey Caufield is off base by quite a large margin when he (or his publisher) asserts on the back cover of his book (pictured below) that Lee Oswald was merely "an unwitting pawn in one of our country's greatest historical mysteries".

The key word in that blurb being "unwitting". Given the things he did and the lies he told to Wesley Frazier on Nov. 21 and 22, I can't see how the word "unwitting" could ever be applied to Oswald. Others are free to disagree, of course.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Alistair Briggs]

On 09/02/2015 at 7:24 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Is 2 + 2 = 4 debatable?

The sun rises in the east -- fact or opinion?

Is 2 + 2 = 4 debatable? No it is a fact!

Well, it's only a fact because we know it to be true, and we can test it to be true on our understanding of numbers.
ie 0 +1 = 1, 1+1 = 2. 1+1+1 = 3, 1+1+1+1 = 4, 1+1+1+1+1 = 5 etc etc
and thus we can break down and test 2+2 =4 by saying,

(1+1) + (1+1) = (1+1+1+1)
so,
1+1+1+1 = 1+1+1+1

There we have proved, by breaking it right down to it's composite parts, that both sides match, and thus 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact!

It is also logical! But something can be logical without being true!

If trying to use logic to determine which of the following is true or false

(a) 2+2 = 1
(b) 2+2 = 2
(c) 2+2 = 3
(d) 2+2 = 4
(e) 2+2 = 5
(f) 2+2 = 6
(g) 2+2 = Frying pan

we would need to find 'rules' and apply them to each of those to see if they fit or could rule any out.

(0) something + something = something

That is logical, but doesn't rule anything out!

(1) a number + a number = a number

That is logical, and that rule, (g) is ruled out, but all the other still fit!

(2) a number + a number = a larger number than either of the two numbers.

That is logical, and that rule would eliminate (a) and (b), but (c), (d), (e) and (f) still fit!

(3) An even number + an even number = an even number

That is logical, and that rule would eliminate (c) and (e), but (d) and (f) still fit!

(4) Two numbers the same when added together = the number X 2

That is logical, and that rule would eliminate (f), and leaves only (d) to fit!

Thus by stepping through the rules we are only left with one option remaining that logically fits all the 'rules' and thus it is the only correct one... 2+2 = 4

All of them could be said to be logical up to a point - some moreso than others...

A very simple example of course - too simple to be taken seriously of course

The point is though, extending it far beyond the 'simplicity' of the example of 2+2=4, a logical argument can be made that leads to a conclusion but it doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is true.

Example;

A LN may say; Oswald's rifle found in 6th floor + Oswald's prints found on rifle + shells found on 6th floor matching rifle + fragments in limo matching shells/rifle = Oswald shooting from 6th floor  - may not be true, but it is a logical argument...

A CT may say; back and to the left movement of Kennedy's head in Zapruders film + badgeman found in photo + witnesses hearing shots from the direction of Grassy Knoll + Parkland doctors describing 'the back of the head blown out' = the fatal head shot came from the Grassy Knoll - may not be true, but it is a logical argument.

Anyroads,

The sun rises in the east -- fact or opinion?

It may be an 'accepted fact' but that doesn't change the fact that it is not a fact (or opinion) at all... think about it.

P.S. Cliff Varnell, I know I have quoted you here, but my response isn't really directed to you - I just felt like responding to those two points for purposes of being somewhat 'whimsical' (rather than for purposes of 'debate') - hope that makes sense. Regards

[David Von Pein]

IN 2015, PAUL TREJO SAID:

A segment of the Dallas Police killed JFK, and they were led by General Walker.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Boy, that Edwin A. Walker was sure one lucky SOB, wasn't he? He was plotting to set up Oswald as a patsy back in April '63 (per Mr. Trejo), and LHO just happens to get the TSBD job on Oct. 15 (with the help of someone who cannot possibly be looked upon as a "co-conspirator", Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle of Irving).

And then, on top of all that, Lee Harvey Oswald decides he's going to act like a very guilty person on 11/22/63 shortly after 12:30 PM.

You've got to admit, Paul, good fortune like that doesn't come along every day of the week. General Walker must have had TWO crystal balls working for him in the summer and fall of 1963. Maybe three.

Tell me, Paul, what makes YOUR theory re: Walker any more FACTUAL and any LESS SPECULATIVE than any OTHER theory offered up by any other conspiracy theorist?

Have you got any hard evidence---as opposed to just outright speculation and guesswork? I certainly didn't see anything besides speculation and conjecture in your post here.

And General Walker's papers hardly qualify as proof he had JFK killed.

Thank you.

David Von Pein
October 16-18, 2015

Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1051.html

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

Your continual challenge to the CIA-did-it CTers is becoming world famous.  When an objective person is named to be "banned from the internet," most of us recognize a gifted person, and a dogma with internal weaknesses.

The CIA-did-it CT is coughing, spitting and wobbling on its last legs.  It is almost dead.  It deserves its grim fate.  What a waste of a half-century of literature it has been.

On the other hand, the Radical Right CT is finally awakening.  Please offer your summary opinion on the work by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Whew! I see you're pretty eager for converts, Luis. I think you're going to have a hard time  trying to persuade DVP to be on the new cutting edge of JFK CT research. If you haven't noticed, he's neither right wing (though admittedly he does look like a cop) nor a conspiracy theorist.

I've heard this tack from you before. Certain theories withstand time because they've shown greater results. What of course matters in evaluating various conspiracy  theories is not whether it's new and trendy, but whether it can gather momentum on it's own because it holds a  greater promise of the truth.

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

What of course matters in evaluating various conspiracy theories is not whether it's new and trendy, but whether it can gather momentum on it's [sic] own because it holds a greater promise of the truth.

And if the theory could have at least a few facts (i.e., some solid evidence) on its side, that would certainly help it out quite a bit too. Wouldn't you agree?

Edited January 17, 2017 by David Von Pein