David Von Pein

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25044-a-question-to-david-lifton/?do=findComment&comment=388086

Thanks for the citation, Micah.

Should we now debate whether my opinion about Dr. McClelland having what I think are "kooky" and "nutty" ideas is the same thing as calling him a "crackpot" with respect to only the topic of where McClelland said he saw a big hole in the President's head on Nov. 22, which is what I was accused of doing by Mr. Hammond---calling all of the "BOH" witnesses "crackpots"?

When I answered Jake on Page 7, I had, however, forgetten about my comments regarding Dr. McClelland. So I'd say that Micah Mileto scored three-quarters of one point by pointing out my "kooky" remarks in relation to Dr. McClelland. Thank you.

And thanks also for reprising the portion of Dr. McClelland's remarks concerning the size of the tracheotomy wound in JFK's throat. CTers should be reminded of that important quote on a regular basis. If they see it often enough, they themselves might be tempted to utilize the "K" or "N" words when it comes to Dr. McC.

54 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

and you are telling me it was in the right parietal bone.

You don't need me to tell you anything. The photos and X-rays tell the tale. And there is no large wound in the occipital. Period....

49 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about calling McClelland a "nut" not too long ago?

Can you cite the post, Micah?

I'm not sure I ever called Dr. Robert McClelland HIMSELF a "nut". But you might have a point, because I have, indeed, said that McClelland's explanation of one of the photos --- "A doctor is holding a flap of scalp" --- is "nuts" (article below). And it is. And McClelland's "The Mob Did It" theories are "nuts" too.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

39 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about EOP wound? All ten autopsy attendants who reported a small wound on the back of the head specified that it was in the lower head area. Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Stringer, Kellerman, Boyers, Lipsey, O'Neill, Robinson.

Which, when you think about it, is kind of odd. Because that precise area of JFK's head where the bullet supposedly entered --- the "occipital" area --- was ALSO allegedly the very same area (or pretty close to being the same area) that was allegedly BLASTED OUT of JFK's head, according to dozens of other witnesses.

So, which was it --- was it completely BLOWN OUT? Or was there just a small entry wound in that part of his head? Or both? Did the alleged entry hole just miss merging with the huge blown-out area of the occipital?

In any event, it doesn't really matter which of the above three options a conspiracist picks, because all three are debunked by the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays, which show no huge BOH blow-out and a small entry wound near the cowlick (not the EOP).

1 hour ago, Robert Card said:

He [JFK Jr.] was talking to atc just before his plane stalled...

Where on Earth did you pick up that piece of misinformation?

Per Wikipedia....

"Except for the take-off portion of his flight, Kennedy did not contact any air traffic controllers; during the flight, he never requested help or declared an emergency. Under the conditions of his flight, Kennedy was not required to file a flight plan, and because he did not, no one knew his exact route or expected time of his arrival."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_Jr._plane_crash

49 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

you can't do scientific method on this site without being personally attacked.

Some conspiracy theorists just need to grow a thicker skin. (IMO.)

........

58 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

Whoever is running this site is doing a lousy job.

I'm sure the forum owners will appreciate that hateful comment very much. You're sweet.

BTW, I disagree with you. I think the owners/moderators of this site have done a good job in recent years.

53 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Have you tried reconciling the evidence instead of writing them all [off] as crackpots?

Please show me just ONE post that I have written where I refer to ANY of the Parkland/Bethesda "BOH Wound" witnesses as "crackpots".

You won't find such a post, of course, because I've never said any such thing.

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

His son was murdered too ?
I thought he died in a plane crash because he was disoriented.

You have it exactly right, Francois. JFK Jr. was not "murdered". He was killed by the weather/atmospheric conditions and his lack of experience as a pilot in dealing with such adverse conditions. But in the last few years at my YouTube channel, I have been regularly encountering some of these conspiracy-thirsty fantasists who love to comment on my JFK videos about how they think John Jr., in addition to his father, was also killed via a conspiracy plot. Whenever I encounter these crazy people on my YouTube videos, I just laugh and move on. (But I don't delete their silly comments, as insane as those comments might be, unless they use profanity of some kind.)

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-death-of-john-f-kennedy-jr.html

On 12/25/2018 at 8:57 AM, Adam Johnson said:

And now a question for David and Lance........ [...] ........Can you choose one fact/item/occurrence/person/piece of evidence that had created some doubt in your thinking that perhaps there was a conspiracy and Lee Harvey Oswald didn't commit this crime all alone???

Not really. All of the physical evidence and most of the circumstantial evidence points right at Lee Oswald and nobody else.

However, when it comes to the subject of those Parkland and Bethesda "Back Of The Head" witnesses....

"Those "BOH" witnesses do still bother me to a large degree. It's still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case. I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film." -- DVP; May 21, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. Always has been. It's weird. It's incredible. It's inexplicable. But it happened. Dozens of trained medical professionals were wrong about the locality of JFK's large head wound. And the X-rays and photos prove they were wrong. Seemingly incredible? Yes. But true just the same. Can I fully explain why? No. Sure can't. But I give it a shot HERE and HERE." -- DVP; January 31, 2016

4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Everyone and his mother knows about what happened with Scully and me and how the forum was then closed down.

I'll bet you're dead wrong about that too. I'd guess that more than half of the current EF members have no idea about the things that happened here in 2013. Why would they? Most of them weren't even members then.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But you, Jim [DiEugenio], were in the very same boat as me (with respect to getting reinstated after getting booted from this forum).....because you too were kicked off this forum by Mr. Simkin a few years ago (approx. 2013 or 2014 as I recall). So I wouldn't throw too many stones if I were you.

Holiday Bonus (Just For Fun) (A Bonus E-Mail Find....)

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

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

The thread referred to above.....

28 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

-  The closeness of the shots at the end.

Keep in mind, Jake, that there WERE several witnesses who said the last two shots were NOT bunched together. My link below documents those witnesses....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Quote

-  The reactions of the limo passengers at z-285. ( this proves 4 shots because it isn’t one of the closely bunched shots at the end ) . Unless , again, everyone is a crackpot. 

It sounds to me as if you've taken to heart the "Z285" theory put forth by a Mr. Robert Harris on the Internet several years ago. I've argued with Bob many times regarding his "Z285" conclusions, which I deem to have virtually no merit at all (for a variety of reasons). See link below (which includes multiple articles at my site if you scroll far enough down)....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

At that time, DVP had to make a pledge to Simkin that he would not start insulting people as he had before on both sites e.g. recommending books on curing paranoria etc.

David Von Pein said:

This is nothing but a falsehood. I never made any kind of "pledge" to John Simkin or anyone else connected with this forum at that time (2010). DiEugenio, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Just so the record is clear and to verify that I was correct in my posted quote above....

Linked below are the only two e-mail exchanges that I had with former Education Forum owner John Simkin prior to Simkin allowing me to re-join this forum in August 2010. They are very short, to-the-point exchanges, and there's no "pledge" request being brought forth by Mr. Simkin in either of the two e-mails he sent me at that time.

Ergo, the notion that I was forced to "pledge" to be a really good boy before being reinstated here is a totally made-up and fallacious notion, just as I said a few hours ago. I was able to retrieve these old e-mails from my AOL Filing Cabinet. Maybe after reading them, Jim will finally decide to stop spreading the falsehood about "the pledge". (Not that it really matters at all; but I do find it annoying when Jim D. keeps harping on something that I know to be totally inaccurate.) ....

John Simkin E-Mails Sent To DVP In August 2010

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I even have this from a guy who knew him and his partners and was infiltrating their conversations.

What do you mean by "infiltrating"? Anybody can read any thread at a public forum (like Lancer and EF).

And Jimmy tells another falsehood by implying I have "partners". Why, Jim, do you use that word---"partners"? Some fellow "LNers" posted on the same forums I have posted on, naturally (and they still do here at this forum), but the word "partners" implies something else----doesn't it Jim? Why are you using that word? I'd really like to know.

Quote

(I used to have all kinds of spies out for DVP back then.)

Oh, brother. As if anyone would need any "spies" to see all of my online posts. Just go to the forums and look for yourself. Everything is out in the open and public. Why were any "spies" required?

Quote

But just use logic, if he got thrown out for his usual invective and then later got back in, then obviously he would have had to amend his ways.

But you, Jim, were in the very same boat as me (with respect to getting reinstated after getting booted from this forum).....because you too were kicked off this forum by Mr. Simkin a few years ago (approx. 2013 or 2014 as I recall). The new owners let you back in.

So I wouldn't throw too many stones if I were you on the subject of getting "thrown out".

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

At that time, DVP had to make a pledge to Simkin that he would not start insulting people as he had before on both sites e.g. recommending books on curing paranoria etc.

This is nothing but a falsehood. I never made any kind of "pledge" to John Simkin or anyone else connected with this forum at that time (2010). DiEugenio, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

36 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

You [Lance Payette] have repeatedly ignored my questions about the smoke many people saw and was PHOTOGRAPHED.

What photos or films supposedly show the "smoke" on the Knoll, Jake?

I have a feeling you're referring to Bob Groden's claim that there's smoke (and lots of it) visible in the film taken by NBC's Dave Wiegman. But if that's the "photographed" instance of alleged smoke to which you are referring, that notion is not a credible one, as author Vince Bugliosi pointed out in his 2007 book:

"If what [Robert] Groden encircled [on a still frame of Dave Wiegman's film; linked here] were smoke, it would appear to be smoke from a small smokestack. If that's an exaggeration, what is not is that the image is probably 50 times larger than what could be expected from the muzzle of a fired rifle. Moreover, the large image is not anywhere along the stockade fence, being to the west of the fence near the Triple Underpass. And finally, Groden has also encircled the presidential limousine on the photo, and it is, as he acknowledges, "disappearing under" the Triple Underpass, meaning that Wiegman's photo had to have been taken at least a few seconds after all the shots were fired. What can Groden's response to this be? That the smoke originally came from a rifle fired behind the picket fence, that instead of vanishing in the wind it actually mushroomed into a large, cloudlike image that kept its form and was drifting west at the time of the frame from Wiegman's film? We know the image in the Wiegman frame is not smoke from any rifle." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 500-501 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Full Wiegman Film:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIRG5FNlpKUjJvRnc/view

Happy Holidays (to LNers and CTers alike)!!

6 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

The idea, I guess, is that if you claim something long enough then people will start to believe it. Even though, as Trump would say, it’s fake news.

The irony is thick in here, isn't it? (It usually is inside a JFK forum.)

12 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

David, my interest is in the Tippit case...

Here's my section on Officer Tippit's murder....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

27 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

There is NO evidence the gun was fired that day.

How can you possibly say that when you've got CE567 and CE569 staring you in the face every day?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

...timeline and motives for the events between 12.30 and 2...

FWIW, here's my $0.02 (in three parts)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

4 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

David Von Pein- what's your point? That one guilty man was acquitted because of an inept prosecution?

"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive, unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." -- DVP; August 2006