David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
5 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
Are you seriously suggesting that one of the shots at JFK both hit AND missed?
Of course not. Why are you suggesting such a silly thing?
When did I ever even hint at such a ridiculous belief? Please show me.
-
10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:
So according to your view, the bullet entered the head low down at the back, travelled upwards and blew the top of the President's head off and then continued to strike the curb in front of Tague.
No, the bullet entered the UPPER part of JFK's head, just exactly as this autopsy photo proves....
QuoteWanna buy a bridge?
Wanna look at a picture?....
-
16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Davey, you never answered my question.
Why did Kirk Coleman never appear to testify before the Warren Commission?
Just to watch you squeal "It's a conspiracy!", I imagine. What else could be the reason?
-
7 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:
Or are they suggesting that the third shot hit his head then may have then ricoched to hit Tague?
Yes, of course that's what the WC was suggesting. I've suggested it in the past as well --- although I still favor the first [missed] shot striking the Main Street curb and Tague.
The Commission, however, wasn't suggesting that the WHOLE head-shot bullet went on to possibly strike Tague. Merely a fragment of that bullet. (And remember that more than half of that bullet was never recovered.)
-
1 hour ago, François Carlier said:
Mister DiEugenio, you have just admitted that you believe that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza that day.
Thank you for your honesty.Francois,
Jim DiEugenio doesn't think that just three shots were fired. There's no way he believes that. He, like all CTers, thinks that at least 4 shots were fired (probably even five or six, or maybe more). He was merely attempting (lamely) to explain what he thinks the Warren Commission was boxed into accepting in 1964, based on James Tague's testimony --- as if Tague's testimony was the BE-ALL & END-ALL of the whole case, which it is not, of course, because many witnesses were wrong on some things regarding the "timeline" of the shooting. But Jim likes Tague's statements about the timeline, therefore (per Jimmy) Tague CANNOT BE MISTAKEN about ANYTHING.
But, as usual, Jim has once again totally ignored Page 117 of the Warren Report, in which the WC specifically says this about James T. Tague....
"Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague's testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities. The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."
I wonder how many more things Mr. DiEugenio can ignore (or mangle) when it comes to page number 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report? Let's just wait and see.
-
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Davey, you cannot be serious about the DPD and the Walker shooting.
And YOU cannot possibly be serious when you try to defend Oswald for still another crime he committed in 1963---the Walker shooting. Can you, Jim?
Yes, amazingly, you are indeed serious, despite Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1---in Oswald's own [Russian] handwriting---staring you in the face (below).
Tell me, Jimmy, who was it who faked all that Russian writing that we find in CE1? Any idea?....
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm
Or, alternatively, if you actually think that CE1 HASN'T been "faked" (gasp! that'd be incredible, wouldn't it?!), then what do you think Oswald was referring to when he said all those things he said in that note to Marina---such as "If I am alive and taken prisoner", etc.?
Are those the kind of things that an INNOCENT person would write to his wife?
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Don't alter my words with your injections.
Interjections are needed in many cases. Such as when the quoted word is "he". After many pages have gone by, how is anyone supposed to know who "he" is. Hence, it's necessary to add the person's name [in brackets, of course] for clarification.
An interjection [within brackets] does not equate at all to "altering" somebody's quote. You just like to gripe is all.
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Are you allowed to alter someone's quote when you act as if you are quoting that person?
DVP did that to me twice above.
I did no "altering" at all. I added my own comments and clarifications within brackets --- [ ] --- which is the proper way to do it within a verbatim quote.
(Jim likes to stomp his feet and whine, doesn't he? Geesh.)
-
8 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
I've been an avid golfer for 55 years...
Dammit, Lance! You're a golfer. I was hoping you were a baseball player (like I used to be as a youth). If you and I had that "baseball connection" too, then more people could start claiming that "Lance is really DVP in disguise". That's a fun "alias" game that the conspiracy theorists like to play quite often.
(Did you ever play first base, Lance?)
-
3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
I am not a Colorado lawyer. You [Jim DiEugenio] seem to be hopelessly confused.
Maybe the word "Arizona" here looks like "Colorado" to Mr. Jim....
-
6 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
LN's also like to focus in on a piece of evidence as if it existed in a vacuum and ignore the other circumstantial evidence out there that might cast doubt. To them, each issue is a game that they must win. Any serious and legitimate unanswered question is just a mole to be whacked before moving on to the next one.
That's funny. I've always said that it was the CTers, not LNers, who do that very thing---isolate.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html
-
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Yeah that is why he [DVP] has to edit these things to transfer to his site and give himself the last word.
And Jim never gives himself (or another CTer) "the last word" in the articles on his K&K website, right Jim?
Pot meets Kettle ....... yet again.
-
8 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
You raise a point that has puzzled me as well: Why would a Lone Nutter repeatedly return to a place such as this and beat his head against the wall?
In a (lone) nutshell, my answer would be....
I do it mainly in order to add various discussions to my "JFK Archives" and "Assorted JFK Assassination Arguments" websites (blogs).
-
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
The WC was neither a court, nor a fact finding body.
Dead wrong (as per usual).
-
Bonus Quote (one of my favorites)....
"If there is a suspicious fire, the [conspiracy-happy] kooks would investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of gasoline." -- Bud [an LNer who posts on the Usenet newsgroups]; November 22, 2007
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
The fact that the WC never explored this [very silly "umbrella"] angle at all, at least as far as I know, tells you what they were doing. Not much.
Incredible! A WC investigation that was probably the most thorough and detailed in the history of murder investigations is considered to be "Not much" by the Jim DiEugenios of the world.
Un-freaking-believable!
---------------------------------------
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi
-
6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
Indeed, one of the theories is that two or more of these were shooting at JFK in Dallas on November 23rd,
The assassination was on Nov. 22nd, Lance. Better edit your post before a CTer pounces all over you.
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:He [Lance P.; aka "Mr. Running Suit"] does not even acknowledge that the DPD did not ever consider LHO a suspect in the Walker shooting the entire time they investigated the case.
How could they? They had nothing but a single bullet in (physical) evidence. They had nothing else solid to go on when the crime originally occurred in April '63. So, tell us Jim, HOW on Earth COULD the DPD have possibly figured out that Mr. Lee H. Oswald was the person who shot at Edwin A. Walker? Tea leaves perhaps?
Get real, Jimmy.
-
Re: Givens and the elevators....
IN SEPT. 2010, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
She [Sylvia Meagher] then notes that according to two witnesses, Oswald had tried to board the elevator going down and requested the elevator be sent back up. [Quoting Meagher:] "Why, then, should he [Oswald] decline to accompany Givens down at 11:55, and ask him again to send the elevator up as if he had not already asked the same thing ten minutes before? The first request is corroborated by a number of witnesses, but we have only Givens' unsupported account of the second request." (ibid)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That quote from Sylvia Meagher's book is totally ludicrous, Jim.
Meagher has put on her "OSWALD WAS DEFINITELY NOT GUILTY OF SHOOTING JFK AND WAS NOT PLANNING TO SHOOT JFK AT ALL AROUND NOONTIME ON 11/22/63, AND THEREFORE HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON UNDER THE SUN FOR DECLINING TO RIDE DOWN WITH CHARLIE GIVENS IN THE ELEVATOR AT 11:55 AM ON NOVEMBER 22" hat.
You can surely see how utterly dumb that quote is from Ms. Meagher...can't you Jim?
For, if Oswald was planning on shooting the President from that sixth floor in just a few minutes (which he definitely was planning to do at the time he talked with Charlie Givens at around noon on Nov. 22), then why on Earth does Meagher think it would be unusual for Oswald to act the way he did regarding the elevator?
Does Meagher really believe that a person who is planning to murder the President from the sixth floor would actually want to descend to the first floor to eat his lunch at just about the same time the President would be passing the building?
Meagher is looking at this "elevator" episode in the wrong context entirely. She's looking at it through the one-sided "Oswald Must Be Innocent" prism. But she should have been looking at it from the POV of the assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.
Let me repeat this comment I made the other day--it fits in perfectly here, in light of the unbelievably silly quote that Jim D. just supplied from Sylvia Meagher's "classic" book:
"Oswald's persistence in wanting an elevator sent back up to him makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
I.E., It makes perfect sense from the POV of a person who would want an elevator to be sent back up to him on the Floor Of Death. As I mentioned previously, Oswald wanted to use that very same elevator as an escape route to get off of that sixth floor very quickly after shooting JFK. What is so hard to believe about that type of mindset?
But, actually Jim, you've fallen on your own sword with the quote I just cited above -- because, you're right about it not making any sense from the standpoint and mindset of an INNOCENT OSWALD who wanted to do nothing more than take that elevator downstairs to eat his lunch with the other boys on the first floor.
Which is why we can know that Oswald had SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND with respect to the elevators on November 22, 1963. He wanted to use the elevator at a LATER time--like, say, just after he had fired some Carcano rifle bullets into the body of the President.
But, as always, since conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio are part of the "Everybody Was A xxxx" fraternity, those CTers fail to evaluate things from the POV of the assassin himself.
Obviously, Oswald had more on his mind at 11:55 AM on November 22nd than merely riding the elevator downstairs to eat a cheese sandwich. Which makes Oswald's DOUBLE PLEA for the elevator to be sent back up to him on the sixth floor an action that is in perfect sync and harmony with all of Lee Oswald's other actions and movements on 11/22/63." -- DVP; September 4, 2010
David Von Pein
September 6, 2010 -
Cory,
But what possible purpose do you think Dark Complected Man served in the overall conspiracy plot? You certainly don't think he was an actual shooter, right? So why was his presence on Elm Street even needed at all?
I've never quite understood where CTers think they can go with their speculation about DCM or Umbrella Man. They're not doing anything but standing there on the street watching the motorcade. So, WHY do they need to even be in Dealey Plaza if they're not the shooters? Signal men? What for? Why would that be necessary at all?
-
2 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
...would you agree that having someone driving around the parking lot next to the depository with a radio while someone in Dealey has a radio is more than a coincidence?
How do you know what kind of radio he might have had? Maybe it was just a transistor radio. Is that possible in your view?
-
12 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
Do you agree that DCM had a radio in his hand in Dealey?
I don't know. I guess it's possible he had a radio. Maybe he was listening to The Rex Jones Show on KLIF—AM 1190.
-
8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
But back to the facts, why did he not get the job done with Walker? And really, how would that have put him in the history books? No, if he went after Walker, there was another motive other than being in the history books do you agree?
Yes, that's probably true. Marina said that Lee told her he shot at Walker because Lee thought of Walker as a "Hitler"-like individual, and killing him would ultimately save many lives in the future.
-
54 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
Thank you again for answering the question.
So he was not a psychopath killer on a rampage, just looking to shoot JFK and get into history. JFK was enough then.
But please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree?
QuoteOk, so then when he allegedly shot Tippit, why did he clearly commit OVERKILL? Clearly he knew Tippit was dead, he shot him at close range multiple times. Why finish it with overkill?
The Tippit shooting was obviously something Oswald could not have foreseen in advance. And I'm sure he did want to make certain Tippit was dead before he fled that crime scene. He didn't want to start running toward Patton Avenue and then find that Tippit was still alive and able to shoot back at him as he ran. So, Oswald finished him off. (And yet this is the type of cold-blooded killer that many conspiracy theorists feel compelled to try and defend. That's very sad, IMO.)
QuoteOverkill means he would have shot Connelly, Jackie, etc.
He does not do it though with the JFK limo. Instead he allegedly hurries up, hides the weapon, and runs down the stairs to get his soda of choice.
But with Tippit, no, he makes sure there is overkill. Then leaves. I don't think psychologically this fits the pattern then.
But, again, the Tippit killing was not PLANNED in advance by Oswald. It occurred due to the circumstances that Oswald found himself in---i.e., out on the street 45 minutes after he had just killed the President, and then being confronted by a police officer.
In my opinion, Oswald's actions on Tenth Street when he encountered J.D. Tippit perfectly fit the "pattern" of events in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.
QuoteI think it is a huge problem for LHO did it alone when you factor the various witnesses to the Tippit shooting.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. If there was ever a murder case that was solved (without a doubt) on the day it occurred, it's the Tippit murder case. The various witnesses, plus the ballistics (bullet shell) evidence forever will prove the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit.
The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following totally bizarre (and impossible) situation occurred:
Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier.
QuoteAlso, then we agree that the report that LHO's real target was Connelly is garbage then?
Yes. I think that theory is pretty much garbage.
I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
A little bit of [Off Topic] baseball chatter (if the forum would be so kind as to indulge me, and Lance)....
That would have been this game, played on July 31, 1954, at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. And Eddie Mathews added two homers of his own in that same game.
Well, I'll be darned! That's an interesting "brush with history".
Small correction, though, Lance --- Carlton Fisk's famous game-winning foul-pole homer was in the 1975 World Series (not '76). My Reds won the Series in both of those years, though. I remember those two seasons well.
Same here. But my one minute of baseball video from 1973 hasn't yet attracted a single scout. I'm beginning to wonder if it's part of a widespread conspiracy plot to keep me out of the big leagues forever. (Maybe I should ask John Armstrong about that.)