David Von Pein

I'll save you the trouble, Ken.... [simulated Ken D. post:] "All of the evidence DVP talks about at that link is fake. End of story." [End CTer Fantasy Simulation.] Related discussion with another CT Fantasist who resides in the popular "All The Evidence Is Fake" club.... Amazon.com/forum/history/Who Killed JFK? --------------

From April 13, 2012..... BARRY KRUSCH SAID: I would invite you, David, after reading the three volumes, to accept the JFK challenge. You have an extensive knowledge of the background of the case, and I believe that you would be the perfect person to accept that challenge. What do you say? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Not unless your arbitrator is a robot (i.e., someone who has never been exposed to any of the various myths and distortions about the evidence in the JFK case). But since any arbitrator is going to be human, and since more than 75% of all humans with any opinion about the JFK case favor the idea of conspiracy, and since virtually all of that opinion has been based on nothing but silly myths and conjecture (such as the still-favored myth about Oswald being a terrible shot and the myth about how the Warren Commission insisted that the shooting took place in only 5.6 seconds and the myth about how the WC had no choice but to "move" JFK's back wound up into his neck in order to make the SBT viable)....then I don't think I'd be willing to risk any cash on such a venture.* And that's because, all too often, I've run into people who claim to be totally unbiased about this case, only to hear the very same tired, worn-out conspiracy myths coming from their lips--over and over again. * = Or does the person accepting your challenge actually risk any cash at all in this venture? Or are you the only one who pays out the dough if you lose? But if your arbitrator is made out of metal and microchips (with its "CT Myths" mode set to the "Off" position), then I'd be more than willing to argue the case in front of such an unbiased machine. Original EF Post: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006#entry250522

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

~sigh~ There's no sense even trying to discuss "evidence" with Ken Drew, since Ken obviously has no idea what the word means, but I'll futilely try again nonetheless.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com ~~Awaiting Ken's proverbial "None of that stuff is evidence, Von Pein" retort~~ (Hey, I saved Ken the trouble of typing his next useless, say-nothing post. No need to thank me, Kenny.)

Any examples, Mark? If by "flat earth thing", Mark, you mean "Oswald is guilty and he probably did it alone", then I've got some news for you.... My "flat earth thing" has a heck of a lot more evidentiary support going for it than your "conspiracy thing".

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry. just for the record " jfk-archives.blogspot..." will not link you to anything.. just click on that and see where you go. Oh, for Pete sake, Ken. I just used the first part of my site URL in that post. (Hence, the "..." at the end.) You need everything spelled out in neon, don't you?

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct? IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy. There are many people properly convicted and in prison based solely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, most people who are being exonerated are the ones who were convicted on "eye-witness" testimony. a little perspective... But CTers have no "solid" circumstantial evidence that PROVES any conspiracy either, IMO. But, Glenn, you seem to be more reasonable than Ken "There is NO evidence against Oswald" Drew (can you even believe for one second anyone could utter such a thing?).... Anyway, I was just wondering if you, Glenn Nall, could answer two quick questions for me (because I haven't read enough of your online posts to know what your thoughts are on these two major points).... 1.) Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was being "set up" as a fall guy for JFK's murder in advance of 11/22/63? 2.) Do you think that JFK was killed by gunmen firing at the President from both the front and the rear of JFK's limo? Thank you.

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry.

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct? IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy. Gotcha.

What was I just saying about "denial"? Ken is living, breathing proof of it.

I completely agree. Just check out the "SBT / Lapel Flip" thread for the true definition of "denial". It's vividly illustrated HERE. Hear, hear! Such as the type of bad reasoning possessed by many conspiracy theorists that allows them to consider the idea that Lee Oswald was being framed in advance of the assassination, but despite that alleged fact, the real assassins decided to shoot John Kennedy with at least TWO rifles (in both front and rear locations) on 11/22/63. Shouldn't THAT type of "bad reasoning" automatically "kill the credibility" of the person advancing such a cockeyed theory?

Boy, there's a real surprise, Ken. A CTer finding none of the actual evidence against Oswald "worthwhile". That's something brand new, huh?

Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...). But here's the translation of Glenn's post above.... Glenn DID click the link, but when he found out that it said "DVP's Archives", he immediately left the page without bothering to check any of the source links DVP provided to back up the things he was saying in the article regarding John Connally's bullet fragments. True or false, Glenn? Yeah, prob'ly. ~eyeroll~ But you don't like the idea of me doing the same thing, right? Nice double standard, Glenn.

If you would have bothered to click on the link, "dude", you'd find dozens of source links to support the things I talk about at my own site regarding the Connally fragments. And, BTW, I sure don't see Pat Speer being nailed to the cross for the many times we see these words in a post written by Mr. Speer himself.... "From Chapter 7b at PatSpeer.com..." But I would never fault Pat for citing stuff from his own website. Of course he's going to do that (and often). And that's because he has put a lot of time and effort into the things he places on his site. Just as I have done on my sites. And Pat, like me, is proud of the things he has written on his site. What website operator wouldn't want to prop up his own work and articles? And, as I said above, I normally provide tons of source links to back up my arguments.

"Riddled"? I beg to differ. Some early reports mentioned the "knoll", yes. Which is understandable, since many witnesses were tricked by the sounds of Oswald's three shots from the TSBD. But note that NOBODY in the early news footage said they thought shots came from TWO different directions. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html And there was a very early inaccurate report about "a man and a woman" possibly firing a rifle from a "walkway overlooking the underpass". (But does anyone here believe that happened?) And Jim Hagerty, as Kathy pointed out, does go on his network (ABC) and decides to put all of his common sense on hold when he utters the totally irresponsible and unfounded comment about how he thinks "this must have been a planned conspiracy". But Hagerty had no information or hard evidence that would suggest any such thing when he said those words on live TV on 11/22. He just blurted out that crap like a ninny who didn't give a damn about backing up what he was saying. It was nothing more than a completely unwarranted and blatantly irresponsible personal comment coming from one of the head men at ABC (no less). But when all of the reports are totalled up, it's fairly easy to see that the initial reports and bulletins are referring to a ONE-GUNMAN shooting that takes place from ONE single location (first thought by many to be the Knoll; but the SINGLE location was very quickly amended to the TSBD when other facts became known, such as the discovery of the shells and rifle in the building). If anyone watches any of the 11/22 first-day coverage and comes away with the sense that up to THREE gunmen were involved and that more than three shots were fired, you must be watching Oliver Stone's film instead. Because there's virtually nothing like that in the hundreds of hours of radio and TV first-day broadcasts that I have collected in the last several years.

A SHORTCUT TO BECOMING A LONE-ASSASSIN BELIEVER.... ---------------------------------------------------------------- To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 15 gunshots being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts from that dark Friday in American history. After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November 22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture "JFK". Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion, provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as well). Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison-endorsed nonsense of: "Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today here in Dallas!!" What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by THE SINGLE SHOOTER, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr. Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm Upon evaluating virtually ALL of the TV networks' live assassination footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at an even more-cockeyed conclusion, as purported by Mr. Groden and some other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little evidence and information to support any type of a "conspiracy" whatsoever. This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November 22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders. And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country would have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-oriented angle during that weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure. But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet to occur all these many years later. To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman". For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated "Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three-shots" account that was reported during those early hours just after the shooting. For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is heard multiple times on November 22 saying he heard "3 shots" fired. Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes, and Pierce Allman, among still others. Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to "manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing just TWO shots, which is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy Plot")? Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY when virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired" conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Depository. Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being "synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the other shots. And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or not? I ask you. Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to say the least. Again....watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a multi-gunmen conspiracy lurking within any of those original broadcasts. This link offers up a great "Live" example of what I'm talking about. It contains over an hour's worth of footage from Dallas radio station KLIF, beginning at 12:35 PM (Dallas time) on the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963. I challenge anyone to try and locate even a hint of a multi-gun conspiracy within that radio footage. Do conspiracy buffs think that all of these KLIF news reporters were "in" on some kind of massive conspiracy plot and an IMMEDIATELY-IN-PLACE "cover-up" operation too? That would be a good question for conspiracists to ask themselves as they listen to that live radio coverage. David Von Pein December 2006 June 2010

That's CT Myth No. 149. And it's just flat-out wrong. "In actuality, the distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist)." -- DVP; Dec. 18, 2011 More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

Prudhomme, Go gripe to Sturdivan. I'm not the "wound ballistics expert/researcher". He is. And he said it on Page 118 of his book. If you think you know more than a ballistics expert, great. CTers ALWAYS think they "know better" than every expert ever connected to this case. Big effing deal. What else is new? But I'll stick with Larry, thanks.

See pages 118 and 144 of Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book, "The JFK Myths". Sturdivan, a wound ballistics expert and researcher, tells us on those pages that his research indicates the bullet (CE399) struck Governor Connally's right wrist at a velocity of only 500 feet per second (plus or minus 100 fps), and a bullet will not suffer any deformation if it is travelling less than 1400 to 1700 fps when it strikes bone (depending on whether the bullet is travelling "point first" or "sideways"). So, according to Sturdivan's figures, CE399 could have hit John Connally's wrist at a speed of 1399 feet per second and the bullet still would not have been deformed. Should we now add wound ballistics expert Larry M. Sturdivan to your growing list of "liars", Mr. Prudhomme?

Yet another myth, Greg. CE399 is not "pristine"....

Great. Another xxxx added to Prudhomme's never-ending list of liars. Quoting Fackler himself concerning his bullet test: "The bullet actually made a slightly greater hole than the one in Governor Connally's wrist. That's because the experiment bullet was actually going a little faster than the 900 feet [per second] that CE399 was travelling. The test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE399." [End Quote.] Fackler made those statements about his bullet test on August 10, 1992, during the American Bar Association's mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Greg, The difference, as you should know quite well, is the SPEED at which CE399 was travelling when it struck Connally's wrist. Why do CTers constantly avoid the critical "Bullet Speed" issue when discussing the SBT? Bullet 399 had been severely slowed down by the time it hit JBC's wrist and everybody knows it. And a bullet that has lost velocity has also lost its capability to become more severely deformed. Hence, CE399 remained intact. And so did the 6.5 Carcano bullet pictured below, which is a bullet that was fired into a human wrist at 1100 feet per second by Dr. Martin Fackler in 1992. It's in perfect shape--and this bullet broke a wrist bone....

Why would I believe something dumb like that? And why do CTers always ignore all the various tests done by different people over the years that prove that a Carcano bullet can and will behave just like the two bullets behaved that hit JFK's body on 11/22/63? From John Lattimer's book..... "This bullet [a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano missile like CE399] can penetrate four feet of solid wood or three pine telephone poles side by side and come out looking completely undeformed. On the other hand, if it is fired into the thick bone of the back of a human skull, the jacket and core of the bullet will separate, releasing a myriad of additional fragments of many different sizes." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 277 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" [illustration from the book below]

Well, for Pete sake, Ray, what did you expect the report to say? The Olivier report couldn't possibly go any further than a "could be". If they had gone further and said "definitely did", I can just hear the CTers bitching about that wording. But many conspiracists insist that the 6.5mm. Carcano ammunition couldn't possibly have caused the type of head damage that JFK sustained. However, the above excerpt from the Olivier/Dziemian report totally demolishes crackpot observations like the one quoted below.... "The weapon, which was not even a rifle [???], could not have fired the bullets that killed the president. .... The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head...displays a pattern of metallic debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to have used, thereby exonerating him." -- James H. Fetzer jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html In short, Dr. Fetzer and all other conspiracy theorists who have advanced similar theories about Oswald's rifle and bullets do not have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Enough said.