David Von Pein

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

Should not have done that Davey. ....snip....

~yawn~

Reprise.....

All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ....

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

Addendum / Basic Observation....

"As I've said a thousand times before -- the luck of those multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza apparently never ran out. Did it? Those assassins were even able to fool Dale Myers' computer overlays and key framing....with those crackerjack killers pummelling JBC & JFK with several bullets (all of the vanishing variety, naturally) in just such a pattern (and with ideal SBT-like timing to boot, per the Z-Film) so that decades later a man at his computer could come up with an animation -- BASED ON AN ACTUAL FILMED RECORD OF THE EVENT! -- that would make this MULTI-shot event look exactly the same as the SBT purported by the WC in 1964. Where's the champagne?! Those ever-efficient, magical assassins deserve an endless supply of it for that magnificent hunk of "public duping". Wouldn't you agree?" -- DVP; May 19, 2007

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I had no idea that CBS was fighting off the fact of photo fakery with regard to the BYP’s as far back as 1967.

Yes. And PROVING that the different shadow angles are NORMAL for a photo taken in the backyard of 214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas, on March 31st at noontime.

And yet there are still CTers arguing that the shadows "prove fakery", even with that huge blow-up of the CBS News 3/31/67 photo staring them in the face via the above-linked video. (I guess they must ALSO think the 3/31/67 CBS picture is fake too.)

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks David Von Pein.

S'alright.

35 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If anyone wants to see what a shameless water carrier DVP is for Dale Myers... [snip] ...

~yawn~

All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ....

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

If Jim wants to think Dale is merely lying through his teeth in that extensive FAQ session, go ahead Jimmy. We can just add Dale to Jim's mile-long list of liars associated with the JFK murder case (if he's not already on the list, which he no doubt is).

50 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The BYP’s as an issue is dead.  The photos are fakes. 

There's nothing "phony" about the shadows in the backyard pictures----as demonstrated by CBS News in 1967....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html

7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

The bunching is so exaggeratedly depicted that you can’t say that Myers wasn’t trying to make a point by emphasizing it. 

Read this again, Michael....

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Myers showed what the jacket would have to do for the SBT to work.

Bull.

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

When confronted with the clothing evidence Dale K. Myers created animation depicting JFK's jacket collar elevated an inch up into the hairline -- an obvious fiction!

The clothing seen in Dale Myers' computer animation is MEANINGLESS. The clothes have NOTHING to do with where the bullet hole is located IN KENNEDY'S UPPER BACK in Myers' computer model. Myers added the clothing for cosmetic purposes only. So the amount of "bunching" that Myers places on JFK's jacket does not mean a thing. It's merely to make the animated figures look more realistic.

(See the last paragraph in the image below, which is from this FAQ page on Myers' website.) ....

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Whenever someone goes so far as to include Ruth Paine in their conspiracy theory, I know that they are well beyond the point where you could have a healthy debate with them.

Then you can forget about having a healthy debate with Jim DiEugenio, because James has been accusing Ruth of being an evil conspirator for years now---as evidenced by Jim's outrageous allegations aimed at Mrs. Paine at the webpage below (allegations that don't have a stitch of evidence to back them up, except in Jim's imagination)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

A sample....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID [IN 2013]:

I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

[End 2013 Quotes.]

In addition to Jim D., I've noticed a trend over the last several years of CTers slinging their arrows at Ruth Paine (with no actual evidence at all to support their allegations, naturally). You should see some of the hostile and downright vile comments aimed at Ruth that I get on some of my Paine-related videos on my YouTube channel. Some of the comments contain such vulgar language that I feel compelled to delete them due to their disgusting and hateful content. It's pathetic.

Joseph,

You're entitled to your opinion about the JFK assassination....and so am I. If you want to think the Warren Commission's 10-month probe was nothing but a "transparently phony" investigation, you're free to believe that if you want to. But that doesn't mean I have to swallow such a notion too----and I certainly don't. Believing that the Commission had a hidden agenda to frame Oswald as the lone killer and to cover-up any and all evidence of a conspiracy is a belief that, in my opinion, is a patently silly one.

When you've got to accuse so many people in Officialdom of lying and covering up and hiding the truth, etc., I think it's time to re-think your position. But it seems that most of the CTers I've talked to over the years don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe that a whole bunch of people connected with so many different organizations (such as the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the DPD, the FBI, and the Secret Service, among others) all decided to jump on board the "Let's Frame An Innocent Lee Harvey Oswald As The Sole Assassin" train. But, to me, that scenario is simply ridiculous (not to mention virtually impossible to pull off, especially considering all the evidence that exists against Oswald in this double-murder case). I'm supposed to actually believe that ALL of the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases is fake, phony, and manufactured? (Come now, my good man. Let's be sensible here.)

And, Joseph, do you truly think that a person who has been interested in President Kennedy's murder for over 35 years (like myself) couldn't possibly believe in Oswald's lone guilt without also being on the payroll of one of the alphabet agencies (or any agency)? Is that why I was treated to your closing "Who is paying you?" salvo in your last post? Even though I don't agree with any of your theories in the Kennedy/Tippit case, your Internet posts normally rise above the level of such juvenile inquiries.

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Frankly, from what I have read...

I think you need to stop reading all the pro-conspiracy crap.

Not a single thing you mentioned in your last post has been proven to be true. Not even close.

18 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

the "hard evidence" in those two massive works of fiction that you describe is, certainly, an illusion--

You think ALL of the physical ("hard") evidence----guns, bullets, shells, prints, paper bag----is "an illusion"?

Are Oswald's actions also an "illusion" created by the WC and/or Bugliosi?

Get real.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, W. Niederhut.

The Warren Commission (and Vince Bugliosi) actually had something that conspiracy theorists can only dream about having ---- that is: HARD EVIDENCE to work with—e.g., Oswald's guns, bullets and fragments and shell casings from Oswald's guns, Oswald's lies, the Tippit murder witnesses, Oswald's unusual actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, etc.

Whereas CTers have nothing that even comes close to matching the Lone Assassin/Oswald evidence. And the likely reason for that is --- No such hard "conspiracy" evidence exists. And never did.

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.

I hope you don't mind if I fervently disagree with you on this point, Jim.

In fact, I think your above quote is one of the silliest things you've ever uttered. And that's really a major accomplishment, considering the items that are contained within "The DiEugenio 22", which I never get tired of highlighting.

I know this will come as a massive shock to you, James, but I actually agree with Vincent T. Bugliosi on this (please don't faint)....

• "In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxii of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.) (AD 2007)

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Apparently FC is not aware that the above essay he suggested to me as being definitive was pretty much harpooned by Mike.  This is the kind of work FC does. This is the kind of researcher he is.

And if a fellow conspiracy theorist "harpoons" anything, then the CTer has GOTTA be the one who is 100% correct....right?

IOW, no LNer could POSSIBLY hope to fight the all-knowing Michael Griffith. Right, Jim?

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Back, and to the Left.

Forward....at the moment of impact. (Not a "smear", but obvious forward movement.)

7 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

1.  Yes, David it Is common knowledge.

No, it isn't. It's a CTer invention. Nothing more.

The autopsy proves there was ONE bullet hole of entry in JFK's cranium----in the back of the head.

Quote

2.  The right front entry wound, in the hairline, resulted in Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left.

Pure fantasy, a la the conspiracy theorists.

You think this autopsy report "Summary" is nothing but lies?....

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Isn't it common knowledge in 2018 that numerous witnesses from Dealey Plaza (and Parkland) had their original testimony altered and/or omitted from the WCR? 

No. It isn't.

32 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for the obvious right forehead entry wound,

You really think there was an entry wound in JFK's RIGHT FOREHEAD??? You must be joking. No such wound exists---in the photographs or otherwise.

49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case.

Yep. And I still do....

"The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the
background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee
Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively
quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then
written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly
style.

Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good
overview (or "Summary", as it's referred to at the Ferrell website) of
the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few
(pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous
conclusion (revealed on Page 1 of its Report) that each of the three
shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated
in the Presidential limousine (JFK and Governor John Connally of Texas)....." -- DVP; April 2008

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/12-9-63-fbi-report.html

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case.

Bull****.

J. Edgar Hoover was, let's face it, utterly clueless about many things that he shouldn't have been clueless about as of 11/29/63. But, nonetheless, he was.

Do you, Jim, think Hoover was just feigning his ignorance when he uttered these nonsensical "facts" to President Lyndon Johnson during their telephone conversation on November 29th, 1963?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html

J. EDGAR HOOVER -- "He [JFK] was hit by the first and the third [shots]. The second
shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and wasn't
shattered; and that rolled out of the President's head, and tore a
large part of the President's head off. And in trying to massage his
heart at the hospital, they apparently loosened that, and it fell onto
the stretcher."

[Rolled out of the President's HEAD??? Hoover is completely daffy here! Even SEVEN DAYS after the crime! Incredible ignorance! And yet, per James DiEugenio, this bumbling fool name J. Edgar is supposedly orchestrating the biggest (and most successful) "cover-up" in history.

It's just a good thing Hoover had good [i.e., non-clueless] investigators like Bob Frazier and Sebastian Latona working for him.]

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

HOOVER -- "All three [shots were fired] at the President....and we have them."

[Hoover, in the above quote, is saying to LBJ that the FBI had in its possession ALL THREE BULLETS that Oswald fired. Again, this is complete ignorance on the part of Mr. Hoover. Not conspiracy. Not cover-up. Just a lack of accurate information concerning the physical evidence in the case.]

[More of Hoover's 11/29/63 idiocy and ignorance below...]

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

HOOVER -- "Those three shots were fired within three seconds."

[ ]

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

LBJ -- "If Connally hadn't been in his way..."

HOOVER -- "Oh yes....yes. The President no doubt would have been hit [a third time]."

LBJ -- "He [JFK] would have been hit three times."

HOOVER -- "He would have been hit three times."

[Director Clueless outdoes himself with the above gut-buster.]

48 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

David, we must not forget Agent Elmer Moore and his apparent unfortunate interaction with Dr. Perry. 

Well, B.A., since I don't for an instant believe that ANYBODY (Elmer Moore or anyone else) was involved in any kind of a cover-up in order to conceal a conspiracy in JFK's death, then any conversation that Moore might have had with Dr. Malcolm Perry was, IMO, most certainly NOT sinister or underhanded in any way at all, and any such conversation was certainly not an attempt by Mr. Moore to cover up the true facts in the JFK case. (And that's because the "true facts" indicate that Oswald was the lone assassin....and, ergo, Dr. Perry was, indeed, mistaken when he initially said the throat wound was a wound of entrance.)

The same thing applies to the FBI's "midnight call" to Darrell Tomlinson as well. The details of the FBI's mindset at the time of that call are not known either. Conspiracy theorists, however, are more than eager to assume that "cover-up" and "conspiracy" must be involved in there someplace when it comes to that telephone call. But that doesn't have to be the case at all. And the same goes for Moore/Perry.

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

Darrell C. Tomlinson [July 25, 1966]: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.

Raymond Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it--period.

34 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

It's basically trolling to cite McAdams.

Do the math yourself then. What numbers do you come up with?

Per John McAdams' latest study, done in 2013, there were a mere THREE earwitnesses (Holland, Millican, and Landis) who reside in the "Shots Came From Two Directions" category.

Here's the witness-by-witness breakdown -----> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

A very good reason for dismissing EVERY witness who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is an often ignored statistic concerning the number of those witnesses who said the shots came from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.

FYI....

As a follow-up to my comment above, below is a newscast from the NBC Radio Network that was aired on November 26, 1963, four days after JFK was killed. And after I first heard this radio newscast several years ago, I recall thinking to myself that it seemed mighty strange for the news media---four full days after the assassination---to not have any confirmation on whether there had even been an autopsy conducted on JFK's body---even though the same media obviously knew that Kennedy's body had been taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of the assassination. (The "autopsy" excerpt is located at 4:10 in the video.) ....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2ERm-cucsE0azJwSXZ2c1BrWDQ/view

50 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Where did the Globe get their false narrative?

I would guess that the Boston Globe people pretty much tried to figure it out for themselves----armed, as they were, with the sketchy information that they had at that time --- e.g.,

....Two known wounds in JFK's body (throat and head);

....The shooting having occurred on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza (after JFK's car had already passed the assassin's window);

....An alleged lone assassin on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building;

....And a lone suspect (Lee Harvey Oswald) in police custody who happened to work in the TSBD.

The preponderance of evidence after Day 1 (Nov. 22) indicated THREE shots, ONE assassin firing from the Depository, and only TWO known wounds in the President (head and throat), although we could now argue over the fact that the Globe article seems to totally ignore the huge EXIT wound that the Parkland doctors said was located at the BACK of JFK's head. In fact, the Globe sketch doesn't include ANY "large wound" in the President's head at all. ~shrug~

It's interesting to note, however, that the Boston Globe newspaper---on Day 1 [Nov. 22 PM]---came very close to pinpointing the true location of the entry hole in the back of President Kennedy's head. In fact, according to the autopsy surgeons (with whom I personally disagree on this point), the Globe nailed it just about to the inch---low on the back of the head near the EOP.

I wonder if any other media outlets got THAT close to the truth regarding the location of the entrance wound in JFK's cranium on Day #1?

The byline on the Globe story indicates it was written by "Ian Menzies (Globe Science Editor)".

Photo Credit: Anthony Marsh.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I wonder why the Globe would have published such a wildly inaccurate, goofy sketch about such an utterly tragic event (which was especially tragic for the people of Massachusetts)?

Because they thought JFK had been hit by only one bullet (coming from the TSBD), and they knew he had a massive head wound and a wound in his throat.

Given those limited facts regarding the wounds, it's really the only conclusion they could have reached at that early stage on November 23rd. The media people certainly had no info concerning the autopsy as of Nov. 23.

In fact, I think that even weeks (or months) later, there were reporters and media people speculating as to whether there had, in fact, even been an autopsy done on JFK's body.