David Von Pein

........

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Holiday Bonus (Just For Fun) (A Bonus E-Mail Find....) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The thread referred to above.....

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 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

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

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. 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? 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".

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.

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)!!

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

Here's my section on Officer Tippit's murder.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

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

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

"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

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt about it. And, as you probably realize, many similarities exist between the O.J. Simpson case and the JFK assassination (discussed below).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1060---JFK AND O.J.

So you say. But I say your "Conspiracy" side hasn't won an argument yet. And you're not even close to winning the "common sense" side of the "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" argument. That one went to the "Lone Nutters" in the first round.

Translation please.

And---incredibly!---BOTH "conspiracies" had one very important thing in common --- Frame Lee Harvey Oswald! What remarkable like-mindedness on the part of the TOTALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE involved in each of your two make-believe "conspiracies". Wouldn't you agree with my "remarkable" comment, Sandy?

I love this thread! It's fun to watch the conspiracists flop around as they try to convince themselves that the alleged (and insane) Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plot was a plan that a band of JFK-hating assassins would have actually wanted to put into action in 1963. My favorite part of David Andrews' last post of utter desperation is this.... "...creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious." In other words --- Why make this a fairly simple crime and shoot the target from the location of our lone patsy, when we could make things ultra-complicated and run the risk of exposing the multi-gun plot immediately by firing at Kennedy from God knows how many non-"Patsy" locales, thereby "creating an atmosphere of uncertainty of firing positions, the value of which should be obvious" ? Is it "obvious" to you, Lance? Yeah, me neither. But, like I said to Geoff earlier --- "I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists."

Thanks, Geoff. I have to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists. For, I ask, how can a reasonable person not bust out laughing when confronted with the proverbial "Multi-Gunmen, One-Patsy" conspiracy theory being discussed in this thread? It's just too laughable for words. Especially when we add in the following layer of absurdity which has been crammed into the theory by this forum's very own Mr. David S. Lifton of Orange County, California.... "It was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David Lifton; May 5, 2013 Now, I think all sensible persons with their wits about them can fully agree with me when I say that a robust sense of humor is certainly required after reading the above paragraph. Would you not concur, Mr. Heinricks?