Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
David Von Pein

Kennedy Videos

Recommended Posts

What is abundantly clear is this: you, David Von Pein, have never, ever debated anyone face to face concerning any topic regarding JFK's assassination...

You're hot air son, period!

And that ain't fantasy!

The science he used was optical densitometry, a technique not employed by the HSCA's "experts" because they didn't think outside the box." <<<

A optical densitometer is a scientific instrument not a fantasy. ,gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a26093/lbj-kennedy-conspiracy/

KOOK VS KOOK SO ??

WALLACE ?? He had very poor vision. Why would anyone pin his (LBJ theory) hopes on this man to shoot at a moving target ? TOOOOOOO KOOKY to believe.

Print Wallace ?? Have Wallace touch box and blackmail LBJ ,but have sharpshooters picked by Lansdale on his Summer 63 visit of special forces bases. ,gaal

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

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21367&p=289729

By February 1963 Lansdale had no position in Cuban policy and was focusing on Latin America. He was traveling to countries like Bolivia and elsewhere. The U.S. had a lot of personnel in South America under Kennedy. And a lot of them ended up going to Vietnam. According to Newman there is a blind spot as to exactly what they were doing and how many people the U.S. had in Latin America.82

"I can tell you," Newman said, "that in the collateral research that I did, names that I came across, I found a correlation between -- I don't say this is definitive but I got a lot of hits -- the same names of the guys that were running around in Latin America, particularly in Cuban policy, end up in the Far East Division. Very strange coincidence. There were three -- it wasn't just one -- there were several. A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys."83

Lansdale was also spending a lot of time at air bases and other areas in the southern United States; in Florida and in Alabama. Newman recalled from Lansdale's travel records that one of these other areas was some sort of a Cuban-exile camp. The record for that trip included a cover note to the person coordinating it telling him to keep quiet. Lansdale apparently wanted to make sure that no one knew that he was going there.84

There was also an honorary graduation certificate from the sniping school that the U.S. had in Panama. He went there, Newman recalled, in May or April 1963. He was made an honorary graduate there. Lansdale was going to various clandestine and special forces places in the spring and summer of 1963.85

One more event that Newman remembered from the spring 1963 period was that Lansdale was due to retire. And he was extended by Le May, arbitrarily, for another six months or so to November 1, 1963; with no job; no real responsibilities. Fletcher Prouty claims Lansdale was just at a desk by himself.86

In the summer of 1963 there were two interesting events concerning Vietnam. The U.S. had a problem with Diem. The regime would not compromise at all. It went in the opposite direction. Buddhists were killed. They began immolating themselves. The regime still would not relent. The political bottom completely fell out in Saigon.87

Newman said he came across an intriguing article in a local, small magazine from this period. It had a picture of Lansdale and a typical title like, "America's Most Celebrated Spy." It was about a Lansdale trip to Saigon. His travel records, however, indicate that he was not supposed to be in Saigon. This was around July-August 1963.88

The article reported an assassination attempt on Lansdale. The assassins missed and somebody killed the alleged assassin. Then he went to a meeting with Ambassador Lodge. According to Newman, "This is clearly impossible from the record because Lansdale has no authority or position to be involved in Vietnam policy. It would make sense in terms of going back and pleading with Diem and getting Lansdale to do it. Maybe Diem would listen to Lansdale. But I did find a record. He might have been in Saigon." Newman found evidence of a six- or seven-day break in Lansdale's normal activities.89

Among Lansdale's contacts in the last three to four months of Kennedy's life, Newman found "a lot of Spanish names. I found names that were reminiscent of CIA type folks."90

In 1963, Lansdale was Fletcher Prouty's boss. Prouty insists that he was sent to the South Pole by Lansdale to get him out of the way so that he would not witness the events of November 22, 1963. Presumably this was done because if Prouty had been there he would have figured out what was going on. Prouty has claimed that in the photograph of the three tramps walking across Dealey Plaza, the man in a suit with what looks like a wire coming out of his ear and going into his suit coat is Edward Lansdale -- that he recognized the back of his head and his gate. Among Lansdale's letters, John Newman and David Lifton found a slip of paper that has "The Texas Hotel" on it and a phone number in Denton. Lansdale's letters also reveal that he was headed in the direction of Dallas in November 1963.91

Lansdale wrote to a number of friends and associates beginning in September 1963, of his intention to go to Texas in November. There are as many as ten letters, according to Newman, where he described this upcoming trip to two people. One was his son. The other one was General "Hangin' Sam" Williams, an old buddy and McGarr's predecessor in Vietnam. He lived in San Antonio.92

The last piece of paper that Newman found placing Lansdale physically in Washington is dated November 14, 1963. It concerns running errands for his wife. After that there is no record of his whereabouts except for a box of incidentals, which had this piece of paper in it. It has on it "Texas Hotel" and "Denton" and a name and phone number. As Newman said, "That might be from 1949 or it might be 1968 and again it might be November 1963. Because the Texas Hotel is where Kennedy stayed the night before he died, and Denton, Texas is just north here of Dallas, it all fits in. But it certainly is not conclusive."93

Lansdale dropped out of sight at this point. He resurfaced back in Washington in the Food for Peace Program and was soon given a job by Johnson back in Vietnam. He had contacts who got him interviews in the White House. In fact he would be on the ground in Vietnam when U.S. combat troops arrived.94

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Steven Gaal has fallen for just about every nonsensical JFK conspiracy theory that has ever been created since '63.

Do you have any limits as far as unsupportable conspiracy theories are concerned, Steven?

Or is it pretty much an Anything Goes mindset with you?

And do you also think "Prayer Man" is Lee Oswald?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Steven Gaal has fallen for just about every nonsensical JFK conspiracy theory that has ever been created since '63.

Do you have any limits as far as unsupportable conspiracy theories are concerned, Steven?

Or is it pretty much an Anything Goes mindset with you?

And do you also think "Prayer Man" is Lee Oswald?

The science he used was optical densitometry, a technique not employed by the HSCA's "experts" because they didn't think outside the box." <<<

A optical densitometer is a scientific instrument not a fantasy. ,gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

["Reclaiming History" Quote On:]

"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.

It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods."

-- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.

It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods."

-- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes // DVP

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

SHOWS DOUBLE EXPOSURE OF X-RAYS // PHOTOS SMOTOS ,gaal

The science he used was optical densitometry, a technique not employed by the HSCA's "experts" because they didn't think outside the box." <<<
A optical densitometer is a scientific instrument not a fantasy. ,gaal

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

* Dr. Mantik has concluded the x-rays are abnormal. Dr. Mantik reached this conclusion after studying the radiographs at the National Archives with sensitive light-measuring equipment. Dr. Mantik has noted that the measured light in the large white area on the right lateral x-rays is "a thousand times the maximum seen in any other x-rays" (in DATELINE: DALLAS, April 12, 1994, p. 13; see also Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY, 79-87). (For the record, Dr. Mantik, B.S., M.S., Ph.D., M.D., is a board-certified radiation oncologist and the Director of Radiation Oncology at Eisenhower Memorial Hospital. He was formerly an Assistant Professor of Radiation Science at Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, and is the author or co-author of several scholarly publications in these fields. Dr. Mantik's Ph.D. is in physics.)

* The Select Committee's medical panel claimed that in the lateral skull x-ray fracture lines radiate outward from the proposed cowlick entry site and correspondingly from the 6.5 mm fragment that now appears in the skull radiographs. But Dr. Mantik points out that these lines do not actually radiate from this location:

On the AP [anterior-posterior] view, however, these lines do not actually extend to the proposed entry site; they stop short of it. Dr. David O. Davis [an HSCA consultant] was careful to choose his words: ". . . the linear fractures seem to MORE OR LESS emanate from the embedded metallic fragment." Unless they unequivocally extend to this 6.5 mm object they cannot represent fracture lines caused by a posterior skull bullet. On the contrary, based on the radiographs and on Boswell's diagram, several of these obvious fracture lines may lie in the inferior orbital rim and not on the posterior skull at all. The inferior orbital rim fractures were confirmed by radiologist Seaman [another HSCA consultant]: "Fractures were evident through the upper part of the right eye, including the top and bottom of the right orbit." If these fractures lie on the anterior skull surface they cannot, of course, represent fracture lines emanating from the proposed cowlick entry site, and therefore, they cannot be used as evidence of a cowlick entry. (Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, 613)

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Gaal,

You have to excuse your adversary. Apparently the sum total of his investigative skills begins and ends with skimming Bugliosi for quotes or videos. The sum total of his knowledge of ballistics and anatomy and physiology derives from what his "heroes" have written on the subjects, and not from any actual research of his own from unbiased sources. [Guess he might now call Gray's Anatomy textbook an equally biased text.] He would, in my opinion, rather "educate" himself from the works of his heroes than actually explore, via unbiased outside sources, whether the conclusions his heroes propose are actually anatomical and physiological possible

But continue to engage him in this fashion. He'll continue to ridicule your posts without doing any independent investigation, and this will degrade into a farce rather than a discussion...which is what he seems to crave. "Vince said it, I believe it..." That's called faith, not proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Vince said it, I believe it..." That's called faith, not proof.

You're funny, Mark. You act as if Vince B. never provided a single source for anything he wrote in his 7-pound JFK book.

Do you think he just made up stuff out of the clear blue sky, sans any sources or verification whatsoever?

And this is a howler....

"...unbiased outside sources..."

The above three words are particularly humorous after reading Steven Gaal's posts in this thread in which he quoted Douglas P. Horne at length.

Is Doug Horne what you'd consider an "unbiased source", Mark? Or David Lifton?

What a laugh. LOL.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cited Gray's Anatomy as an unbiased outside source. I even suggested you check it out, and let it guide you as to what is and is not physically possible as far as bullets passing into, and possibly through, the human body...and what damage to expect when they contact which areas of the body.

You can't POSSIBLY be that....nevermind. You probably are.

Did I suggest Horne? Did I suggest Lifton? Or did you attempt to put words in my mouth [or on my computer screen, as the case may be]?

And I INSIST that you not call me by my first name. I have no desire to be on a first-name basis with you. When I refer to you, or when I address you, you might notice that I do my best to use "Mr." in front of your last name. I would hope you would extend the same courtesy, if you can find any courtesy within you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I suggest Horne? Did I suggest Lifton?

No, Mark, but Steven Gaal sure has done so in this thread. And you, Mark, told Steven to "continue to engage him [DVP] in this fashion. He'll continue to ridicule your posts without doing any independent investigation". That's where I got Horne/Lifton. Apparently Steven Gaal considers those two fantasy promoters to be really good (unbiased?) sources (especially Horne).

BTW, Mark, do you think you know more than the 9 forensic pathologists who studied the JFK case for the HSCA? Those nine doctors (all of them without exception) concluded that a bullet definitely DID pass through the upper body of John F. Kennedy.

Were all nine of those physicians (in addition to Humes, Boswell, and Finck, who all concluded the same thing) complete boobs? Were they all totally unfamiliar with the structure and the anatomy of the human body? And, therefore, do you think that each of those 12 doctors, counting the autopsists, could represent the "he" in the following sentence you wrote on August 15th?....

"He would, in my opinion, rather "educate" himself from the works of his heroes than actually explore, via unbiased outside sources, whether the conclusions his heroes propose are actually anatomical[ly] and physiological[ly] possible." -- Mark Knight; 8/15/15

In other words, I guess I'm supposed to swallow the notion that all three of JFK's autopsy doctors plus all NINE members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel really had no clue at all as to the question of whether a bullet really could have made its way cleanly through the upper back and neck regions of President Kennedy's body on November 22, 1963. Evidently, per Mark Knight, all twelve of those guys were just winging it (or they were all just flat-out lying).

Thanks, Mark.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Vince said it, I believe it..." That's called faith, not proof.

Mark,

I was a "lone assassin" believer long before Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book was published in 2007, as this 2003 Internet forum post (and many other pre-2007 posts like it) vividly proves. And via that provable chronology of my "Lone Assassin" beliefs, it means the following foolish comment can be placed into the "Mark Knight Doesn't Know What The Hell He's Talking About" file cabinet....

“ "Vince said it, I believe it." That's called faith, not proof. ” -- M. Knight; 8/15/15

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I suggest Horne? Did I suggest Lifton?

...

BTW, Mark, do you think you know more than the 9 forensic pathologists who studied the JFK case for the HSCA? Those nine doctors (all of them without exception) concluded that a bullet definitely DID pass through the upper body of John F. Kennedy.

...

Thanks, Mark.

so this is what the SBT has boiled down too at this late date.... you old cherry picker, you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, David, don't you think the conclusions reached by a forensic panel assigned to evaluate the JFK medical evidence should carry at least a TAD bit of weight? Or should we just toss aside and deem invalid all of the work and the evaluation of the autopsy photos and X-rays that was done by the nine members of the HSCA's FPP? .....

Excerpts from Dr. Michael Baden's HSCA testimony....

Dr. BADEN - The autopsy report concludes that there was a gunshot perforation of entrance in the right upper back and that the exit wound was in the front of the neck.

Mr. KLEIN - Doctor, on the basis of the foregoing evidence, photos and X-rays taken at the autopsy, the examination of the President's clothing, the reports of radiologists, interviews of the surgeons who attended the President at Parkland Hospital, and the autopsy report, did the panel unanimously conclude that a bullet entered the upper right back of the President and exited from the front of his neck?

Dr. BADEN - Every member of the panel so concluded.

[...]

Dr. BADEN - ...Part of the single bullet concept incorporates all the consistencies; all the evidence is certainly consistent with a single bullet, but this conclusion becomes more persuasive because of absence of any reasonable alternative of any scientific merit apart from specuation. It is possible, it is within the realm of possibility to me but very unlikely, that a second bullet could have done damage lined up just as the first bullet. There is no evidence for it, and we are persuaded beyond a reasonable medical certainty against this speculation.

[...]

Mr. KLEIN - Doctor, you have also testified that the panel unanimously concluded that a bullet entered the President's upper right back and exited from the front of his neck. Did the panel reach a conclusion as to whether the same bullet which entered the President's upper right back could have then exited from the front of his neck and struck Governor Connally and caused the wounds that he received?

Dr. BADEN - Yes; the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor; that this entrance perforation of the Governor's back could have resulted from a missile that had come through the neck of the President on the basis of the autopsy findings alone; that in taking other evidence into consideration, such as the position of the President and the position of the Governor in the car, the findings are entirely consistent with a single bullet exiting the front of the President's neck and re-entering in the back of the Governor.

[...]

Dr. BADEN - The X-rays show, first, that there is no missile present in the body [of President Kennedy] at the time the X-rays were taken. This X-ray, No. 9, was taken before the autopsy, this one, No. 8, during the autopsy. Further, there is evidence of injury to the right of the neck with air and gas shadows, in the right side of the neck and an irregularity of one of the spines, a portion of one spine of the President; that is, the first thoracic vertebra which is also apparent on the blow-up and which the panel, and in consultation with the radiology experts, concluded represents a fracture-type injury to that vertebra.

Mr. KLEIN - Are those X-rays consistent with the bullet having passed through the President's body?

Dr. BADEN - Yes, sir. They are consistent with the bullet passing through and no longer being present.

Edited by David Von Pein

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  

×