-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by David Von Pein
-
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
FYI, I always provide a direct link to the original source for the forum discussion's I put on my site. So anyone who wants to can read the entire discussion from top to bottom. Here's the 70-page-long full discussion involving Colin Crow that I already linked in one of my posts on Page 10 of this thread -----> jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12150.0.html -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
It'd be nice if Mark and Bob would have the decency to spell Colin Crow's name correctly. I have done so in all of my posts here. So why would anybody think there was an E in his name? ~shrug~ -
From my "CE903 -- PART 4" post..... ---------------------------- DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think it's quite possible that the chalk mark on the back of President Kennedy's stand-in (as seen in the top picture below, which is an opposite-angle view of Warren Commission Exhibit 903) has been placed too low. When compared with the actual bullet hole in JFK's upper back, it sure looks to me as though the chalk mark has been placed too low on the stand-in's back: This makes me think that it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back. However, I can't find any specific documentation in the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt or Robert Frazier to support my theory regarding the chalk marks. Bob Frazier did say this in his WC testimony (which would tend to refute my above theory about the chalk mark): "They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures." -- Robert A. Frazier The above comment by Frazier, however, is a bit puzzling, since the official autopsy measurements performed by the doctors at Bethesda did not utilize the "FROM THE TOP OF HIS HEAD" method for determining where Kennedy's wounds were located. Dr. Humes, et al, instead used the "mastoid process" as the body landmark for calculating where the upper-back bullet hole was located. So, I'll confess that Frazier's "from the top of his head" testimony has me scratching my head a little bit. [EDIT -- In May 2013, three years after writing the above words, I discovered that there is something in the official record that might indicate I was at least partially correct after all when I said this in 2010: "...it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back." --- CLICK HERE.] Anyway, if the JFK stand-in's suit jacket were to be "bunched up" a little bit (as Kennedy's jacket was when he was shot in the back), the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would be elevated slightly higher than it is in this photo and this photo, and therefore the chalk mark representing the bullet hole almost certainly would merge with Arlen Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle photographs. ADDENDUM: I recently realized something else that is quite important (IMO) regarding Warren Commission Exhibit #903..... CE903 [seen below] provides very good circumstantial evidence to buttress the conclusion that the entry wound in President Kennedy's upper back was most certainly located HIGHER (anatomically-speaking) than the exit wound in JFK's throat (despite an opposite conclusion being reached on that subject by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s). Of course, I fully realize that the person standing in for JFK in CE903 is not the real John Kennedy. And I also realize that you cannot extract three-dimensional information from a two-dimensional picture. But even with those two stipulations in place, I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter's pointer, in CE903, is being placed in a position that definitely mirrors the true and accurate location of the throat wound sustained by JFK in Dallas (i.e., the pointer is located at the location of the JFK stand-in's TIE KNOT, which has been determined to be the precise spot where a bullet exited President Kennedy's throat). And it's also fairly obvious (via just a casual evaluation of CE903) that the location representing the ENTRY WOUND on the stand-in's upper back is in a place that is most definitely ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the location representing the throat wound. And: it's also quite obvious (to my eyes anyway) that the man who is substituting for JFK in CE903 is NOT LEANING FORWARD to any great extent whatsoever. He is pretty much sitting straight and upright and relatively erect in the back seat of the car in Commission Exhibit 903. Hence, the math isn't too difficult here -- the upper-back bullet wound was ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the bullet hole in the throat. This kind of garden-variety photo analysis, of course, is far from being "scientific" in nature. But I think it's just basic common sense (coupled with the things that anybody with at least one working eyeball can easily see in Commission Exhibit No. 903). And as far as the REAL John F. Kennedy's body is concerned, the two side-by-side autopsy pictures below provide further photographic indicators that can only lead to one reasonable conclusion. And that is: JFK's upper-back wound was located HIGHER than the wound in his throat. (The HSCA's conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html
-
Pat, All of the things you mentioned might very well be accurate. But I'll repeat my post from earlier.... "It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took [the] photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period."
-
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Since when is a poster required to quote only members of the EF forum, Mark? Is that a new rule you just made up? -
Why single me out? You've got to contest a whole bunch of people (and committees) a whole lot more important and knowledgeable than some nobody in central Indiana named DVP. You've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true. So I'm the least of your troubles, Bobby.
-
Looks like it's time to shrug those shoulders once again after reading the above convoluted mess penned by Mr. Drew. Do you really not know what I meant by an "anti-SBT re-enactment"? Or do you really think JFK was NOT shot at all in the areas of the upper back and throat and that John Connally suffered NO wounds at all? ~shrug time ensues~
-
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there. And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well. that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. So, in the future, you're going to tell us when you have tongue in cheek, and/or other mannerisms that we need to decipher what you 'really mean'? Well, you've already got your shrugging system working, so it shouldn't be too hard to add a few more symbols, statements etc. Maybe there's a modicon for tongue in cheek, shoulder shrugging, etc. Shouldn't the last four words have given you just a TINY hint, Kenny? -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
... -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Yes, exactly. I do have that freedom. But keep trying to make your new signature look like something it's not. I'm used to CTers misinterpreting things. You do it every day (almost every post). So it's nothing new to me. -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there. And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well. -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I guess to those who don't understand how the YouTube comments system works, that comment of mine might seem a bit contradictory. What I meant was.... I allow all comments to go through to my YouTube video pages automatically (sans any "moderation" on my part). But after then reading the allowed comments, I sometimes have to delete some of them (because of the pure filth that many of them contain). Ten-Four? -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it. I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind". That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear as to what I meant. -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Boy, that makes a whole lot of sense. ~large shrug~ -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Maybe you should try reading the testimony of these police officers--all of whom testified to seeing the bag in the SN before it was picked up off the floor.... Bob Studebaker J.C. Day Marvin Johnson L.D. Montgomery All liars, Ken? You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? Is there ANY crackpot conspiracy theory you don't embrace? Any at all? Try reading the last paragraph of CE3131, Ken.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm More lies, Ken? (The part about only a single PALMprint being unidentified, I mean.) BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~ -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
FIVE Oswald prints in the "Nest" (total). And among those five, I'm including the two LHO prints on the paper bag too, because that bag was in the "Nest" as well (despite the fact no picture of it exists in the SN itself). All planted, Ken? -
So what? You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory. You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak). I.E., I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT. That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be. Pat, Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)... CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225. So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly. Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection". Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened. And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.
-
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
You didn't read my article about the bones very well, did you Ken?..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html ------------ Excerpts.... TONY FRATINI SAID: BRW [bonnie Ray Williams] was snacking on his chicken lunch and drinking a soda pop within the SN [sniper's Nest]. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Dead wrong. Why are you making this stuff up about Bonnie Ray? TONY FRATINI SAID: How do you think the assassin got BRW to "vacate" the SN? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No need for it, because BRW was never INSIDE the SN at any time on 11/22/63. And there's no testimony to that effect from BR Williams at all. So why did you say it? COLIN CROW SAID: The consolidated evidence indicates BRW lied and spent time before vacating the SN leaving his chicken sandwich unfinished. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Beautiful. One more "xxxx" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a xxxx except Lee Harvey. COLIN CROW SAID: Who moved the chicken twice lunch, David? If BRW is truthful it goes from the two wheeler to the SN and back to the two wheeler. BRW did not vacate his position until just a few minutes before the shots. Why not take his uneaten chicken with him? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch. I think Luke Mooney was incorrect about the precise location where the bones were found. There's also confusion over the FIFTH or SIXTH floor for the chicken remnants, as Tom Alyea and Gerald Hill discuss in this 1993 video.... [Can't Embed a Blogger Video. Sorry.] TONY FRATINI SAID: Here we go - now DVP is moving the chicken lunch sack and the chicken bones! We know that [Gerald] Hill stuck his head out of the correct floor with the lunch sack/piece of chicken in his hand. It was Hill who initially moved the evidence from the boxes behind the SN. [Quoting Jim Ewell's words as they appear in Larry Sneed's book] "No More Silence".... "Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken was what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff." DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I'm not "moving" the chicken bones to the fifth floor. Tom Alyea does that in that 1993 video. He's certain there were bones on the fifth floor. And maybe there were. I'm not sure. But Bonnie Ray certainly never said he left any bones on any boxes.... Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones? Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down. Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there. Mr. BALL. Anywhere near the two-wheeler? Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was. Also.... From Vince Bugliosi's book.... -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I can sure agree with you on that, David. The "YouTube Comment" world is almost like a completely different universe. People say things there that I doubt they'd say to their worst enemy on any given day--ever. But for some crazy reason, I guess when people make comments on YouTube, they decide that all rules for decorum and decency have to be thrown out the window. It's really a remarkale phenomenon at times. And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap. The CTers seem to like to gather at YouTube---for JFK stuff and my 9/11 videos too. The 9/11 gutter talk is even worse than the JFK talk. (Hard as that might be to believe.) But even with all the filth and "Von Pein is a shill and CIA agent" crap I see every day at YouTube, I should also point out that there are some very nice and non-offensive comments made quite often too. But the good ones are far outdistanced by the trash talkers. -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
And this part of your above comment is indicative of someone who IS "acting like an adult" and who ISN'T "belittling" someone else, is it? .... "You're not nearly as smart as many of the others in here." I think Pot just bumped into Kettle. (Again.) -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I couldn't disagree more strongly, Glenn. (As usual.) Let's again have a look at my list of the "Out Of The Ordinary" things done by Lee Oswald on Nov. 21 and 22 (and it's beyond belief how anyone can say #9 is "weak", given the various types of proof that indicate Oswald was guilty of that murder).... 1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving. 2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?) 3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd. 4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination). 5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22. 6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus. 7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.) 8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22. 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. 10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind. -
You're funny, Bob. As usual. All threads go off course. You know that. Everybody knows it. It's as inevitable as a CTer saying the SBT is bunk. You act like it's a brand-new thing. And I'm certainly not the only person who has gone "off topic" in EF threads. But you'll just give CTers a pass when they do it, right Bobby? And, of course, it would be physically impossible to just totally ignore ol' DVP, wouldn't it, Bob? And how is it that I am preventing people from talking about Connally's back wound again? Just start talking about it some more. Too simple for you? BTW, this is a thread that I myself started. Go start your own thread on "Connally's back wound" if you want.
-
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Yes, Ray. Of course I believe Frazier on that "No Lunch Bag" point. And you believe the accused double-murderer instead, right? -
Who supports/promotes the shills?
David Von Pein replied to Bruce Fernandez's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Keep blaming everybody but Oswald, Ray. You'll surely arrive at the truth by doing that.