David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
The Ultimate In "SBT" Denial....
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you think ALL of the stuff we see John B. Connally doing between Zapruder Film frames 224 and 230 are the results of him merely HEARING a gunshot (e.g., flinching, mouth opening, lapel bulging, and THE ARM/HAT FLIP), right Tony? (And remember that that arm flip is the SAME arm (wrist) that WAS wounded during the shooting. Just a coincidence, right?)
Thanks, Tony, for again proving my point about CTers exhibiting "The Ultimate In SBT Denial" whenever they view these clips from Abraham Zapruder's home movie....
-
45 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Does the game use Monopoly money torn in half?
No, but it does utilize multiple Magic Gunmen, who are able to fire two separate bullets into President Kennedy from the front and the back, and somehow have those two missiles vanish off the planet before anyone can see them ---- even though neither of those bullets struck anything solid enough in JFK's body to allow both of those missiles to suddenly stop all of their forward movement inside the upper back and neck of John F. Kennedy.
Pretty cool game, huh?
(But it's only a board game. Therefore, Magic Gunmen like that are things you can believe in.)
-
1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:
Yes, Micah, I've seen that video before (from 1977's Kentucky Fried Movie). It is, indeed, hilarious.
"And a stroke of luck----22 material witnesses die of unnatural causes!"
But I'd like to see an "LNer Version" of that "Scot Free" board game commercial. The narration could then go like this....
"Your opponent spins the spinner and lands on The Carcano Rifle and then The Curtain Rod Lie and then The Tippit Murder --- all of which point straight toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But, no worries! The other side's got Mark Lane and Jim Garrison and David Lifton to twist the known evidence into an unrecognizable pretzel----and, suddenly, the guilty assassin is easily able to get off-----Scot Free! (Available now from Shoot At Your Target From The Front, Even Though Your Patsy Is In The Rear, Inc., a division of Idiotic Assassination Plots That Couldn't Possibly Succeed, LLC.)"
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:
David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of Chief Executives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.
How does it feel to be David Von Pein?
And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is....
[...envelope please...]
Michael Clark
-
1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:
More Weasling by David Von Pein....
How do you know David Ferrie was "murdered", Michael Clark?
-
29 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
David Ferrie...murdered...
So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided that Ferrie was "murdered", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion.
Is that about the size of it?
Do you understand what sheer speculation is, Michael Clark?
-
23 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
There was enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States.
And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?
Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.
-
25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
You do not know jack about New Orleans. Why is that so hard to admit?
I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.
25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:You never get tired of falling on your face do you?
Well, Jim, with a trail of purely laughable quotes like the ones I cited in a previous post --- like "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction" and "Baker never saw Oswald" and "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" --- do you REALLY think that YOU are the one who should be talking about someone ELSE "falling on [their] face"?
And, I say again, with such unbelievably wrong beliefs in your hip pocket (beliefs that are NOT supported by the actual EVIDENCE at all!), why should anyone take seriously ANYTHING you have ever said regarding the JFK case? If you can't even figure out the really easy ones---like Oswald ordering the C2766 rifle and Oswald shooting J.D. Tippit four times---then how can anyone expect you to get ANYTHING right at all? (Seems like a sensible question to me.)
-
David Von Pein evaded all of this...[conspiracy-tinged tripe authored by DiEugenio]...
You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?
Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)
With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:
Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part.....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)
-
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Even though I went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail...
[...]
...there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as a source.
Bugliosi's book has not been "discredited" in any major way whatsoever. Certainly not with respect to his main bottom-line conclusions, i.e.:
....Oswald killed Kennedy.
....Oswald killed Tippit.
....Oswald shot at General Walker.
....The Warren Commission conducted a very good investigation and reached a proper conclusion based on the available evidence.
....There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all.
And just because James DiEugenio wrote a book that claims to have "discredited" virtually every last thing uttered by Vince Bugliosi in his 2007 tome, that most certainly does NOT mean that VB's book HAS been "discredited".
"Discredited" obviously has a completely different definition to a CTer like DiEugenio than it does to many other people. I mean, let's face the music here....
The guy who just said Bugliosi's tome has been "discredited" is the very same guy who, incredibly, actually believes that Oswald didn't fire a shot at EITHER Kennedy OR Tippit (OR Walker either)!
And there's also this list of fantastic things that Jim believes (or says he does)....
"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015
"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008
"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015
"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015
"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008
"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... 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 [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010
"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009
"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008
"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015
"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010
"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008
"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 [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010
"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010
"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013
"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010
"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010
"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a xxxx, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015
--------------------------
[End Fantasy Quotes.]
-------------------------And yet, with beliefs like that laundry list above hanging out there for all to see, I'm supposed to believe that Vincent T. Bugliosi is really the one who has been "discredited", plus every official committee who has ever looked into the JFK murder case. Those committees, via Jim's definition, have also ALL been "discredited" too.
Please, James! Give a reasonable man with a weak bladder a freakin' break for once!
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
The idea that Garrison thought Shaw was innocent is nothing but a manifestation of his [DVP's] malignant imagination.
Oh really? Then why do you suppose this occurred?....
- "Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw once in his entire summation [to the jury], and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. Not once did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)
-
6 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:
It is sad to see so many lone nut voices on a forum dedicated to serious discussion about the assassination of JFK.
Oh, get real, Dawn! There are a whopping TWO (maybe three) LNers posting here. And one of those LNers (Francois Carlier) hadn't posted here in 8 years prior to this month. That's hardly "so many lone nut voices". It's not even close to a level playing field. CTers outnumber LNers 20 to 1 (at least).
And, anyway, why is it "sad" to have a few LNers posting, Dawn? Are you against free speech? We all know you've totally banned all LNers at the all-CTer forum you control at DPF, but that doesn't mean that Kathy Becket, James Gordon, et al, have to exhibit that same kind of censorship here at EF.
"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; Feb. 20, 2014
-
Chris,
It's just a general comparison of the so-called "impossible" Oswald stance. I'm not saying the angles are identical. They obviously aren't EXACTLY the same angle. But just look at his general "stance" in both pictures. They're the same basic posture. It's just how Oswald stood. Leaning back somewhat on his right foot, with his left foot in front of his right. It's a very similar stance in both photos. (Do some CTers claim the photo on the left is an "Imposter Oswald" too?)
-
19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
More weasle-words, but I guess that was close enough.
More head-in-sand weasel words of your own.
What's your opinion of Garrison's "case" against Shaw?
-
-
You actually want to pretend that Garrison DIDN'T "knowingly" prosecute a man he had to know was innocent?
Come now. Let's be realistic. There was as much evidence against Elvis Presley in March 1967 as there was against Clay Shaw.
-
Hint....
Was Shaw convicted or acquitted?
-
17 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
David Von Pein sinks to lower and lower depths, methinks!
So, you equate a statement of obvious truth is the same as "sinking to lower and lower depths"??
Very curious indeed.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Jim-Garrison
-
40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
...Except DVP, who with, such things as honesty do not matter.
Which is why he is what he is.
Seeing as how the above claptrap is coming from someone (DiEugenio) who considers the late Jim Garrison to be an honest man of the highest possible integrity (even though Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man on a charge of conspiracy to murder the POTUS), I can only request that some EF member lend me their "POT/KETTLE" icon asap! I need it badly here (in addition to multiple "ROFLs").
But, that's why Jim D. is what he is --- a walking Pot Meets Kettle emoji.
-
-
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Dale Myers certainly isn't acting like a scientist or somebody who wants to share his information.
And that makes him a l-i-a-r??
-
13 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
You know what would be better than a FAQ on his blog trying to explain what could already be explained by releasing his computer data? Releasing his computer data.
Dale seems to guard his copyrighted material very closely. (You can't even right-click or copy-and-paste any text off of his main website.)
But he has every right to be protective of the material that rightfully belongs to him.
Heck, I'm still awaiting that DVD release of "Secrets Of A Homicide" that Dale's video trailer said was supposed to be coming out in 2003.
-
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
...in 2013, the National Geographic channel aired a special on JFK...directed by Max Holland...
Well, Micah, I certainly don't agree with everything Max Holland has said in the last 10 years, especially the 2011 "Lost Bullet" NatGeo program he was a part of....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-lost-bullet.html
John Connally's Lapel
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
Maybe you should give that information to the veteran conspiracy theorist I quoted above---W. Anthony Marsh of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Because he seems to think Connally is reacting only to SOUND, not a bullet piercing his body.