William F. Buckley and the Assassination of JFK

[David Von Pein]

44 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

What I am surprised about, but was not very clear about, is that, so soon after the assassination and the release of the WC report, the lies, inconsistencies, deliberate shortcomings and fraud of the official report were so well known and quite throughly laid out, by investigators, researchers and scholars. If Mr. Lane, and others like him, were given hours to go over his findings, on national TV, without being interrupted by the perp-tool-stooge, William Buckley, I think the people of the US would have had much greater ability and courage to set the record and direction of America back on its proper course.

Cheers,

Michael

Oh. So THAT'S what you meant. (Figures. You're a CTer.)

Edited February 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh. So THAT'S what you meant. (Figures. You're a CTer.)

David, when you go into a supermarket, do you walk around and, in a bellicose manner, mock, ridicule and taunt people for shopping for groceries?

I have to admit, there is a comedian inside of me that develops caricatures and scenarios like this. I chuckle at my image of you doing this in a grocery store. Lol

To be sure, when I read your posts I come away from them with a sense of a decent person with a good, affable, personality and manner. I also respect the lengths you go through to collect and present a great deal of valuable information.

The labeling, mocking and ridicule mentioned above is an unfortunate exception to that and is the source of my Problem Grocery Store Customer sketch. It can't be easy doing what you do. I hope you can find a little amusement in it.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited February 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

It can't be easy doing what you do. I hope you can find a little amusement in it.

Indeed, Michael, I find a lot of amusement in it.

(Do you need even 2 guesses to figure out the source of the bulk of my amusement?)

Here are just a few random samples of some of the things written by conspiracy theorists that I have archived at my websites over the last several years, providing an immense amount of "amusement", to be sure. (Authors' identities withheld. No sense rubbing salt in these wounds.) ....

[Silly Quotes On:]

"The [autopsy] images were altered, fake representations of JFK's wounds. Any examination of them is also fake, as it is based on false information."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet’s [sic] murder."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I will not respond to any thread that David von Pein [sic] or any of his numerous sock puppets start. He (and his multiple fake profiles) are not looking for truth. .... It is just not productive to engage a disinformation artist."

~~~~~~~~~~

"David Von Pain [sic] is a known disinformation agent working for John McAdams on the newsgroup alts. He's been thrown off most of the assassination sites for being an abusive flame thrower and a miserable t-r-o-l-l."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit."

~~~~~~~~~~

"DVP doesn't post evidence but only his opinion of what it says and means."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone for a loop, his plan exactly. .... Remember he was from the town that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana, a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family knew Ruth Paine. He may have set [sic] on her lap? .... I suspect he is a disinfo agent."

[Oh, man! If only my bladder wasn't so damn weak!]

~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. .... I think Brennan is a completely created witness."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Couldn't find anything good in it [the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] and didn't see anything you got right."

~~~~~~~~~~

"You cannot even prove he [LHO] ever had possession of the handgun."

~~~~~~~~~~

"What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other end."

~~~~~~~~~~

"And despite all your years writing about the case, you haven't a single piece of solid definitive evidence against Oswald."

[Time for another one of these ----> ]

~~~~~~~~~~

"DVP, Either you are a surrogate for the U.S. Government. Or you speak the same as the government."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it. .... In this case, the evidence had to be altered, messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms. .... Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald."

~~~~~~~~~~

"They messed with the Hughes film. They messed with every film and photo that they could get their hands on. The JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in the history of the world."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Having studied these [Zapruder Film] frames - Z 222 to Z 230 - it is clear that what is happening is that John Connally is turning his body to the left so that by Z 230 he is actually facing forward. These frames in a gif would demonstrate that - were Z 226 and Z 227 and Z 228 not partially or wholly blurred. Unfortunately they are blurred and when incorporated into a gif these same frames throw up extraordinary results. It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you [David Von Pein] to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction."

~~~~~~~~~~

"JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no evidence. There is no evidence. There is no evidence. Other than the fact that Oswald could NOT have killed the president."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I am 99.9999999% convinced now that Oswald did not room at the Bledsoe residence. He did not know this woman."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's CIA relationship."



~~~~~~~~~~

"Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?"

~~~~~~~~~~

"The biggest development in the history of JFK assassination research has just happened. We have irrefutable proof now that the garage shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald was FBI Agent James Bookhout. .... There is no longer a speck of doubt that an agent of the US government, James Bookhout, shot Lee Harvey Oswald--not Jack Ruby."

~~~~~~~~~~

"I believe that Lee Oswald shot neither JFK or Tippit."

[End Silly Quotes.]

Whew! That's enough amusement to last until next Christmas!
 

Edited February 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Typical misleading non sequitur by DVP.

The idea that the database of info has not changed significantly since the ARRB is preposterous, but alas so is DVP.

And Gary Aguilar is one of the people who has changed that calculus first hand.

To name 3 examples:

1.  He is the one who fished out the fact that there was no difference between the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses about the hole in the rear of the skull.

 Either Blakey or Baden lied.  (And BTW, its incredible, but Specter never asked Humes about this. But alas, that was just the beginning of Specter's cover up on the medical evidence.)

2.  Gary is the one, who with Tink Thompson, found that Bardwell Odum never showed CE 399 to O. P. Wright.

 Hoover, or a subordinate with his permission, lied.

3.  Gary got Rick Randich and Pat Grant to do a seminar in SF to demonstrate, over a period of 90 minutes, how and why the NAA for Bullet Lead Analysis is pure bunk, and how Guinn made a series of incredible errors in his entering assumptions to make a mockery of this so called "proof".  And then Gary blasted Bugliosi in the Federal Lawyer for bringing it up again in his turgid door stop, RH.  Bugliosi was so embarrassed at being shown up for misleading the public in front of his peers that he threatened to sue Gary.  But he did not.  

I am not sure if Guinn lied in this one.  IMO, he was simply out of his element since he was not a metallurgist. 

Those three points are all since the ARRB and Lane could not have known about them at the time of this interview.  And they were all fundamental defenses previously used by WC defenders.  They have all been completely vitiated, yet they had all been used to support the official story.  And notice none of this concerns what DVP always likes to say about the new evidence, oh its x ray fakery, etc.  This is all just new evidence, and I could go on and on.  DVP never went through the new files and he never will.  He just surfs the web and when someone on his side comes up with something, like the discredited Jean Davison, he prints it, with no prior knowledge of the primary source.

But believe me, if Gary got on TV with Mathews and presented this stuff, it would have an impact.  Which is why it will not happen.  Which is why our country is so schizoid on the JFK case.  As the case discrediting the WC gets stronger and stronger, the ban from mass media gets more and more stringent. I think for obvious reasons.

 

PS, DVP is so unintentionally funny.  He says, there is not anything new in those two million pages he has not read. Then he refers you to his own web site for the back up. This is why I once said he should do stand up.

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

43 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Indeed, Michael, I find a lot of amusement in it.

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

Whew! That's enough amusement to last until next Christmas!

To be sure, I was saying that I hope you got a chuckle out of my "cantankerous DVP at the grocery store" sketch.

Cheers,

Michael

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Typical non sequitur by DVP.

The idea that the database of info has not changed significantly since the ARRB is preposterous, but alas so is DVP.

The only thing that is "preposterous" is the notion that the release of the ARRB files has totally discredited every last thing the Warren Commission ever said or did. THAT'S really preposterous. The ARRB files do no such thing and never did.

Jimmy D., as usual, is dreaming his wistful conspiracy dreams in his world filled with more alleged liars than you can shake a stick at.

 

Quote

And Gary Aguilar is one of the people who has changed that calculus first hand.

To name 3 examples:

1.  He is the one who fished out the fact that there was no difference between the Parkland and Bethesda witness about the hole in the rear of the skull.

 Either Blakey or Baden lied.

The autopsy photos trump the witnesses. And not a single autopsy photo shows a big hole in the back of JFK's head. Nor does the Zapruder Film. Simple as that.

Mark VII.

 

Quote

2.  He is the one, with Tink Thompson, who found that Bardwell Odum never showed CE 399 to O. P. Wright.

 Hoover, or a subordinate with his permission, lied.

Oh, good! More liars! (Jimmy never runs out of those, as we can see.)

Jim thinks the 37-year-old memory of Bardwell Odum trumps the 1964 FBI report which verifies and documents all the details of Odum's 6/12/64 visit to Parkland Hospital to show CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright.

Odum's memory of the event was obviously pretty bad in 2001 or 2002. 

I wonder if Bardwell Odum actually said something like this to Aguilar and Thompson:

That FBI report with my name in it in many places is a complete fraud and a forgery.

Think Odum ever said that?

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-74.html

 

Quote

3.  Gary got Rick Randich and Pat Grant to do a seminar in SF to demonstrate over a period of 90 minutes how and why the NAA for Bullet Lead Analysis is pure bunk, and how Guinn made a series of incredible errors in his entering assumptions to make a mockery of this so called "proof".  And then Gary blasted Bugliosi in the Federal Lawyer for bringing it up again in his turgid door stop, RH.  Bugliosi was so embarrassed at being shown up as con artist in front of his peers that h threatened to sue Gary.  But he did not.  

I am not sure if Guinn lied in this one.  IMO, he was simply out of his element since he was not a metallurgist. 

This item isn't even all that important for Lone Assassin believers. As has been mentioned many times over the years, the NAA analysis was simply a corroborative type thing in the first place. It is completely unnecessary in any effort to support the Single-Bullet Theory.

Yes, it would be nice if Dr. Guinn's NAA tests turned out to be more definitive. But even without any NAA analysis on the bullet fragments, the SBT is still alive and well for so many OTHER obvious reasons. Given ALL the evidence surrounding the wounding of Connally and Kennedy on Elm Street, it would almost be impossible for the SBT NOT to be true.

[Let the ridicule of DVP begin in earnest.]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html

 

James DiEugenio said:

Those three points are all since the ARRB and Lane could not have known about them.  And they were all fundamental defenses used by WC defenders.  They have all been completely vitiated, yet they had all been used to support the official story.  And notice none of this concerns what DVP always likes to say about the new evidence, oh its x ray fakery,etc.  This is all just new evidence, and I could go on and on.  DVP never went through the new files and he never will.  He just surfs the web and when someone on his side comes up with something, like the discredited Jean Davison, he prints it, with no prior knowledge of the primary source.

But believe me, if Gary got on TV with Mathews [sic] and presented this stuff, it would have an impact.  Which is why it will not happen.  Which is why our country is so schizoid on the JFK case.  As the case discrediting the WC gets stronger [and] stronger, the ban from mass media gets more and more stringent. I think for obvious reasons.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the Mainstream Media just simply figured out that all the conspiracy theories about JFK's death are worthless and void of any FACTUAL basis for consideration?

You've got to admit, Jim, that it would sure be nice (for your side) if you had something besides speculation, liars, and disappearing bullets to rest your case on. Unfortunately for the conspiracists, they don't possess anything else.

Edited February 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

23 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I was saying that I hope you got a chuckle out of my "cantankerous DVP at the grocery store" sketch.

Actually, your "Grocery Store" analogy doesn't make much sense. But, oh well...

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, Gary is well rounded on the case, since he is a doctor,  his bailiwick is the autopsy and he wrote two excellent articles on the medical evidence.I would recommend them to anyone.

The first is in Murder in Dealey Plaza (which unfortunately is edited by Jim Fetzer).  In that essay be brings up more new evidence.  As he notes, the ARRB testimony has about six witnesses, including the pathologists, admitting there are missing photographs from the inventory today.  That missing  includes pics of the chest and skull  (pgs. 188, 207)  John Stringer disavowed that he had taken the photos of the brain. (p. 201)

 Stringer admitted he knew there was something wrong with the photo inventory he was presented with after the fact.  He was asked to sign off on it.  When he balked,  he was ordered to sign it anyway by Captain Stover. (p. 205)  Floyd RIebe said the same thing, there were missing photos but he signed anyway. (ibid)

Please note, this goes to the hear of DVP's defense of the 40 witnesses who saw the hole in the rear of the skull.  I guess Davey forgot about this, right?  Isn't it on your site Davey?

Gary is also one of the first to note that under Jeremy Gunn's questioning, Humes admitted he did not just destroy the notes from his autopsy, but he destroyed the first draft. (ibid)  And FInck's notes had disappeared. (ibid)

Gary also showed that there was an internal lie about the "authentication camera" used by the HSCA to say the extant photos were genuine. The camera produced by the Pentagon which was supposed to have taken the photos was the wrong one!  And the HSCA told a fib about this also in its final report. (p. 211)

I would call that new and important.  But it will never get on TV in any manner.  As I said, for obvious reasons.

Geez Davey, and you said there was not anything like this?  What did you base that on?

 

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, DVP leaves out another important fact about the whole Odum affair; namely the reason that Gary decided to interview him.  Which, I would say, is important.  That document DVP refers to above is a summary report.  In other words it was written after the fact and summarizes information.  Which leaves the question:  How does one summarize something that is not there?

Because there is no 302 report by Odum about the interview with Wright.  Gary did something that DVP will never ever do, he consulted the NARA.  The response was there was no such field report.  But he also found out something else.  There was no serial number gap in the database!  (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 284)  In other words, there was no contemporaneous record of Wright identifying CE 399.

Geez Davey, ya think maybe that is because Odum never showed it to him?  Because in the serials Gary saw, the early reports say that Johnsen and Rowley also did not recognize CE 399, and they are necessary for the chain of possession to hold up. (ibid, p. 282)

Now, that is why Gary and Tink interviewed Odum.  When they asked him about this, he almost chuckled.  He said, if he had done that with that exhibit he certainly would have recalled it.  And also because he and Wright were good friends.  He certainly then would have filed a 302 about it.  He did none of them. (ibid, p. 204)

Geez, Davey, you forgot about all that?  Hard to believe.  I think you are just misinforming your readers, for the sake of argument.  After all, its only the murder of President Kennedy. And this is the government's own evidence.  Which they tried to hide.  And you are still hiding.

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, DVP leave out another important fact about the whole Odum affair, namely the reason that Gary decided to interview him.  Which, I would say, is a little important.  That document he refers to is a summary report.  

There is no 302 report by Odum about the interview with Wright.  

[...]

Geez, Davey, you forgot about all that?  Hard to believe.  I think you are just misinforming your readers, for the sake of argument.  After all, its only the murder of President Kennedy. And this is the government's own evidence.

Replay....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (IN 2011):

So here is the key point, which DVP is trying hard to avoid: If this happened, why is there no FBI memo on it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID (IN 2011):

What do you think THIS is, Jim? A figment of everybody's imagination perhaps?

What I just linked there is Page 1 of the multi-page FBI report known as CE2011. It's a report issued by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI to the Warren Commission, dated July 7, 1964. And it's a report that has the official FBI logo and letterhead plainly marked on Page 1.

Now, it's true that CE2011 is not an "FD-302" report, which are the individual reports filed by the FBI field agents. But CE2011 IS an official FBI report. To say it isn't would be just silly.

You, Jim, think there should be FD-302s for each and every interview we see in CE2011 (and there are a bunch of them too--probably dozens). Now, have you seen the FD-302s for EACH of the many FBI interviews that are included in CE2011? Of course you haven't. Nor have I.

So, does this mean that EVERY FBI interview we find printed up in CE2011 is a "fraud" and a "lie"? Is that what you want to suggest, Jim?

I suggested in another post that perhaps (in this particular instance) CE2011 actually serves as the "FD-302" reports for those many interviews. Do I know that for a fact? No, I don't. But it seems like a reasonable hypothesis, especially when factoring in Darrell Tomlinson's interview with Mr. Marcus.

But you go right ahead and think that CE2011 is a "fraud", Jimbo. Or is it JUST the "Tomlinson" and "Wright" and "Todd" portions of that document that are fraudulent, Jim? And are the remainder of the dozens of FBI interviews that appear in that same document true and accurate (which are dozens of interviews that you've ALSO never seen any "FD-302" reports for)? Just curious.

So, in a nutshell, this is what Jim DiEugenio is saying:

Since nobody has been able to find an official FD-302 form for the interview that CE2011 says occurred between Bardwell Odum and Darrell Tomlinson, this has to mean that the interview could not possibly have taken place at all (even though an official FBI document [the 7/7/64 report from Hoover to the WC; aka CE2011] DOES exist that says the interview DID take place.

This, it seems to me, is akin to the kind of oddball logic that conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio have been utilizing when talking about Lee Oswald's revolver and the murder of Officer Tippit.

I.E.,

Jim has suggested that since we don't have the proper documents to verify when and where Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered via mail-order in March of 1963, and since we also don't know where and when Oswald purchased his bullets to go in that gun, this therefore has to mean that Lee Oswald could not POSSIBLY have taken possession of the revolver that Seaport Traders mailed to his Post Office box in March of '63.

But such bizarre thinking is just flat-out ludicrous and ridiculous.

There is ample documentation to show that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered and took possession of Revolver V510210 (the Tippit murder weapon). And, likewise, there is ample documentation to show that an FBI agent did visit Parkland Hospital in June 1964 and did talk with Darrell Tomlinson, with Tomlinson telling the FBI agent that CE399 did look like the stretcher bullet. (With the Marcus transcript being the thing that seals the deal on that one.)
 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

That is not what I am saying, and this is so typical of your propaganda efforts.

Not only is there no 302 of that report, the summary report mischaracterizes what actually did happen.

Odum never showed the exhibit to Wright.  And Wright never said what the summary report says he did.  And the evidence adduced above indicates that  neither did Johnsen and Rowley.

Now Odum said he would certainly have created that report if he did such an interview.  IT IS NOT THERE. If you'r ever talk to FBI agents, which I have, they will tell you they all write up reports of field inquiries based upon their notes.  This is done within 2-3 days, and that was the routine set down by management.  They were then filed.

Now, if you want to pull a Bugliosi, and just try and create a lot of gaseous meandering around to disguise that point:  My God do you expect a field report on each interview?  Uh Davey, when its the entire fulcrum of the case with JFK, yeah, I do.

And the fact that you do not says everything that needs to be said about you.

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Alistair Briggs]

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The first is in Murder in Dealey Plaza (which unfortunately is edited by Jim Ftezer).

I'm somewhat reluctant to ask this question... but... why unfortunately?

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, if you want to pull a Bugliosi, and just try and create a lot of gaseous meandering around to disguise that point--My God do you expect a field report on each interview?  Uh Davey, when [it's] the entire fulcrum of the case with JFK, yeah, I do.

Well, Jim, as I asked you in December of 2011 --- Have you seen EVERY FD-302 for the dozens of interviews represented in CE2011? And if you haven't, are you going to assume those interviews that appear in CE2011 are fraudulent interviews? Or will you assume those interviews never took place at all?

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, this is a Bugliosi.  

I did not see that file, Gary Aguilar did.  

Now, if you read his essay in The Assassinations, which you did not, he summarizes what is there.  And he notes what is contradictory and what is missing.

He then checked with the NARA to see if there was anything missing that can explain it.  

There is no 302 for that particular interview.  And there is contradictory evidence is that report.  

Now, if you want to say that is all good and natural in a homicide inquiry, then fine.  Since that is SOP with you.

What I am saying is that its not SOP.  Hoover, or  whoever wrote that summary, knew there were serious problems with CE 399.  And this was supposed to paper it over.  And the fact that the WC never challenged them on it tells you all you need to know about them.

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Alistair:

Its long story about Fetzer.  At that time, Fetzer had some credibility as a researcher.

Since then, he has gone over the cliff. See my essay at Kennedysandking.com called "The Decline and Fall of Jim Fetzer."