David Von Pein

What part of JFK's head did Gayle Newman say blood was "gushing" from, Mr. Fetzer? Here's a visual hint: Here's another hint: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/interviews-with-bill-and-gayle-newman.html And here's third hint (via the film that Prof. Fetzer thinks has been "altered", with a red "blob" being added to the film, which just happens to perfectly coincide with the exact place on JFK's head where Gayle Newman, within ONE HOUR of the assassination, said she saw blood "gushing" from; yes, I know that Gayle also said that it looked to her as if JFK had "grabbed his ear", which he never did; but her observation about WHERE on JFK's head she saw the gushing blood is the key point here, which is in perfect harmony with what we see in the Zapruder Film, a film that Mr. Fetzer thinks has been "wholly fabricated"): http://www.box.net/shared/7n9bertqjo

And James H. Fetzer surely knows WAY more than the WC and the HSCA, right? Those two Govt. entities declared Oswald GUILTY of murdering JD Tippit. But Jim Fetzer doesn't give a damn about that--after all, it's merely the corrupt "Government". Right, James? BTW, Jim, your explanations re the Tippit murder are pathetic. J.M. Poe didn't initial FOUR shells. He only handled the two Benavides shells, not four. And Poe himself told the WC that he wasn't sure whether he marked them or not. But even if we were to toss the two Poe shells out the window, Oswald's guilt (ballistically) is still proven via the two OTHER (Davis) shells, which have a clear and distinct chain of custody -- from the Davis girls to two different police officers: Doughty and Dhority. Addendum: Today I wrote a brief article regarding Bill & Gayle Newman and their 11/22/63 interviews on WFAA-TV in Dallas. I'm wondering what a Z-Film Alterationist like Mr. Fetzer thinks about when he watches that 11/22 footage showing the Newmans talking about a big hole in the RIGHT-FRONT portion of President Kennedy's head (vs. the big hole being at the BACK of the President's head, which, of course, is where Fetzer thinks the wound was located, with no big hole AT ALL located in the place where Bill & Gayle Newman said they saw one -- and the Newmans said that they saw it there within MINUTES of the shooting too). Jim, did some of the plotters somehow coerce both Bill and Gayle to say on live TV that there was blood "gushing out" of the right side of JFK's head? More: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html Every conspiracy theorist should watch (and listen to) the live TV and radio coverage that aired on November 22, 1963. And after doing that, they should ask themselves these questions: Does the radio and TV footage I just watched and heard REALLY support the kind of multi-gun assassination plot that many conspiracists have endorsed since 1963? Or does that footage actually support the conclusions of the Warren Commission? Any reasonable person, after watching the live 11/22 coverage (in which nearly every single report indicates that only THREE shots were fired from ONE single gun and by ONE single gunman in the Texas School Book Depository), has no choice but to conclude that the silly Oliver Stone-like "3-gunmen, 6-shots" assassination scenario, and all multi-gun theories similar to Stone's, should be discarded for all time as being totally unreasonable and flat-out ludicrous, given the live TV footage they have just witnessed. You should try it, Jim. It'll do you good:

Professor Fetzer: Do you endorse what Jesse Ventura did when he was talking about the Tippit murder on Tenth Street when Ventura tried to leave doubts in his viewers' minds concerning whether or not Lee Oswald dumped any bullet shells on the ground at the Tippit murder scene? Jesse's words in that Tippit segment were nothing but outright BS, because he KNEW (or he should know anyway) that multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides) all saw the gunman physically dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene. And you don't need to physically remove spent shells from an automatic weapon. Therefore, this PROVES that the gunman was in possession of a REVOLVER and not an AUTOMATIC pistol.

Why discuss something that's so obviously wrong?* * = But, then too, if I lived by that rule, I'd never speak to any of the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers ever again, since they are so obviously wrong about all of their ABO BS it ain't even funny. But the acoustics farce can be disproven by taking just one look at the Hughes Film alone: DEBUNKING THE HSCA's "4th SHOT" ACOUSTICS EVIDENCE

....

More DiEugenio crappola, I see. He even mentions an 11-minute run-through for the trek from Beckley to 10th & Patton, and somehow that time is supposed to prove that Oswald couldn't have been there in time. Hilarious. 11 minutes is perfect, and probably just about exactly the amount of time it took Oswald to get from 1026 North Beckley Avenue to Tenth & Patton on 11/22/63 -- Left Roominghouse -- Approx. 1:03 PM (probably even earlier, since there's no way he was in his small room for any 3 or 4 minutes). Killed Tippit -- Approx. 1:14:30 PM (per Dale Myers' extensive and detailed analysis of the event). Time Elapsed -- 11:30. And yet--somehow--DiEugenio thinks an 11-minute re-enactment is providing proof of Oswald's innocence. Crazy. Only in a CTer's strange world. Naturally, of course, DiEugenio has to pretend that Tippit was killed between 1:06 and 1:10, which means that Domingo Benavides stood around on Tenth Street picking lint out of his belly button for SIX TO TEN MINUTES before deciding to get into Tippit's police car and report the shooting. He failed at this, so T.F. Bowley had to take the mike from Domingo, but we know that the "pumping" sounds on the DPD tapes indicate that Benavides didn't get on the radio until after 1:16:00 PM CST, which would mean, as I said, that he would have waited about 10 minutes to use the radio if Tippit had been shot at 1:06, which is totally ridiculous.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesse-ventura.html A few thoughts about Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" JFK program: Many of the same old myths, long ago debunked, were dragged out by Ventura for his "TruTV" program (embedded at the bottom of the webpage linked above), such as the nonsense about Lee Harvey Oswald not being able to pull off the shooting of JFK in the time that was allotted him. Ventura, however, for some reason didn't stick to the oft-used myth of LHO having only 5.6 seconds to get off his three shots with his Mannlicher-Carcano. Instead, Jesse pulled a different figure out of thin air: 6.3 seconds. So, I will give Ventura credit for adding seven-tenths of a second to the timing myth, although I have no idea where he came up with his "6.3 seconds" figure. The Warren Commission, of course, was never boxing itself in to accepting a shooting timeline of only 5.6 seconds (or even 6.3), and Page #117 of the Warren Report easily disproves the often-repeated "5.6 seconds" myth, with the Commission stating, plain as day, that if either the FIRST or the THIRD shot was the shot that missed President Kennedy (which the Commission certainly did not rule out), then the time for the entire shooting would therefore increase accordingly, up to a possible 7.9 seconds, per the Warren Commission's investigation: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm Ventura himself made three attempts (on camera) to duplicate Oswald's shooting performance (which Jesse said was 6.3 seconds). On his first attempt, Jesse did everything he could to make firing his Carcano seem like it was more difficult than building the Pyramids, and as a result of this obvious stretched-out fakery, Jesse's first time was a ridiculous 11.17 seconds. He then did get better on his second and third attempts, scoring times of 8.84 seconds and 8.79 seconds for three shots (while, as he admitted, achieving multiple "hits" on the target below him, including a "head shot" too). Now, when we examine the truth regarding the actual amount of time that Lee Harvey Oswald had on 11/22/63 to get off his three shots at the President from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, which was very likely a total time of approximately 8.4 seconds, and then compare that figure with the last two attempts made by ex-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, we can see that Jesse came very close to Oswald's time -- missing LHO's 8.4-second time by only about 0.4 seconds. And Jesse said that his three attempts at duplicating Oswald's feat were "nowhere near" Oswald's time. Ventura also said: "This is xxxxing impossible". Bullxxxx, Jesse. And you (unintentionally) proved that Oswald's feat was not impossible when you got off three shots (with some hits) in only 8.84 and 8.79 seconds. And that even INCLUDES Jesse's sluggishness with the Carcano bolt-action rifle he was using. And it doesn't really matter whether Jesse was merely pretending to have trouble with the gun, or whether he was, in fact, legitimately having a difficult time working the bolt, the results are still the same -- Ventura fired three REAL, LIVE bullets with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in just about exactly the same amount of time that Lee Oswald did on November 22, 1963. This old "it's impossible" trick reminds me of a similar goof in Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and one of his assistants making the claim that Oswald could not have done the shooting in under 6 seconds. But when actor Jay Sanders actually performed his shooting test with the camera rolling, what happened? He dry-fired three shots with a Carcano in 5.5 seconds! Ya gotta love it. http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oliver-stone-blunder.html http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html Ventura also resurrects the "Three Tramps" myth, pretending that the tramps were somehow involved in Kennedy's murder in some way, all the while ignoring the fact that the arrest records for the three tramps were discovered years ago, with the tramps turning out to be just that -- tramps. And then there's the crap about George H.W. Bush possibly being photographed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And we're also treated to a guest appearance by conspiracy quack Jim Marrs, who wants Ventura's audience to swallow the notion that Lee Oswald went to the Texas Theater to meet a "contact" on November 22nd, and then the rug was pulled out from under "patsy" Oswald in the theater as some unnamed co-plotter called the cops and had Oswald picked up. Naturally, Marrs and Ventura will completely ignore the truth regarding Oswald's arrest. With the truth being: ordinary civilian witnesses Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal were the people who were directly responsible for Oswald being arrested in the Texas Theater, with Postal being the one who called the police shortly after Oswald sneaked into the theater without paying. I think it's time to call "Mythbusters" after watching this Ventura propaganda piece. Still More Crap: Ventura decides to ignore the multiple witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the killer of Officer J.D. Tippit, with Jesse wondering why Oswald would have thrown down the shell casings at the Tippit murder scene. It was just "too pat", "too easy", and "too perfect", according to crack investigator Ventura, even though witnesses at the scene saw Oswald, HIMSELF, dumping the shells from his own gun as he fled the scene. But it's best to ignore the best evidence if you're a conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura. And, as usual, Ventura does just that. He ignores all of the best evidence, in favor of rumor, speculation, and the conspiracy theories of people like Jim Marrs and James Fetzer. (God help Ventura's audience.) And, of course, the proverbial "back and to the left" stuff is dragged out of the closet again too, with Ventura totally ignoring the fact that JFK's head initially moved FORWARD at the moment of the bullet's impact. Naturally, though, his audience is never told that fact. In summary, Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" episode on the JFK assassination is one great-big steaming pile of recycled and rehashed conspiracy-flavored garbage. David Von Pein November 25, 2010

Yes, of course. Isn't that fact obvious from my last post? Can't you read anything? Or didn't you even see the proof I offered regarding Middleton's and Anderson's reviews for that exact same holiday program (which are identical too)? LOL. Typical CTer silliness. Just keep digging and clawing at nothingness until you "find" something that looks "suspicious" (like your latest bombshell: "Is Von Pein really Ferrer?!"). And then jump on it and race to your keyboard to declare some kind of conspiratorial victory. Conspiracy mongers are experts at doing this. For example, take your recent turn against perfectly credible witnesses such as Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle. For YEARS, you didn't think a thing about the paper bag story. Then, for some reason or another (probably a whim), you get a bug up your anal region that tells you not to believe a single thing that Frazier and Randle have said over these many years about the paper bag they both said they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination. Next month, it will be somebody else who looks suspicious in your eyes. And the next month, it'll be somebody else. That's called paranoia, Jim. And conspiracy theorists have a patent on it in the JFK case. Except you and your "volunteers". Right, Jimbo my boy?

You're a howl, Jimbo. My review for that 1964 TV show is still there and intact, and (yes) on Page 30: CLICK THIS LINK APPROX. 12 TIMES TO FINALLY ARRIVE AT MY 30th PAGE: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1FDW1SPYKB354?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort_by=MostRecentReview&page=30 PERMALINK TO THE DVP REVIEW IN QUESTION: http://www.amazon.com/review/R166ZC6QW1WBDQ The probable reason you thought it was gone is because Amazon's navigation through a person's review pages sucks. And it's been that sluggish way for years. It always says "currently not available" for about 10 clicks (at least on the Firefox browser anyway). But on click #11 or 12, it'll finally kick in and take you to the page requested. I'm just wondering exactly how much time somebody spent scouring the reviews at Starz and Amazon (and elsewhere?) attempting to prove some silly "alias" theory. It's hilarious. And provably incorrect too. If you would have "investigated" further, Jimmy my boy, you would have seen that all of those "Starz" reviews have been plucked straight off of Amazon. (Lots of sites do that.) But for some reason, the names attached to the reviews are not the same as the true Amazon authors. My review has been attached to this Kurt person. (I guess maybe Kurt submitted it to Starz, so he gets credit for it. Beats me.) Plus, every Starz review shows the exact same time submitted too. Weird. Here's another Rudolph review at Starz that doesn't give credit to the true author, who is Tom Anderson. The Starz version shows the author to be Jorge Middleton: MIDDLETON (11th REVIEW FROM TOP): http://www.starzmovie.com/download-rudolph-the-rednosed-reindeer-movie-375.html ANDERSON (EXACT SAME REVIEW): http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HXC22DKVK2W5 Mine and Tom Anderson's are the only ones I have checked....but it proves my point (unless you now want to contend that Middleton and Anderson are the same person). Naturally, though, David "Zapruder Wasn't On The Pedestal At All" Healy, exactly five minutes after DiEugenio's last post, jumps into the mix and is more than willing to post a "ya got 'em" comment, without bothering (naturally) to do a lick of research himself to see whether DiEugenio's "alias" silliness has any merit to it or not (as if anybody gives a care anyway). You guys are truly hi-lar-ious.

Now you've got me intrigued. What review? Can you point me to a link?

Not a thing. Never heard of him. Is "Kurt" supposedly my "alias", Jim?

http://JFKFiles.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-acoustics-and.html The above article is yet another excellent and very detailed piece by Dale K. Myers. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. The demonstrable PROOF that completely demolishes the HSCA's paper- thin "4th shot" conclusion has been available to read on Mr. Myers' website for years. And Dale's new November 2010 article in response to Don Thomas' recent book only further enhances and supports the ironclad proof that no motorcycle was in a position where it needed to be to support the HSCA's acoustical findings of a fourth gunshot. Why conspiracy theorists continue to cling to this acoustical nonsense is a bigger mystery to me than Bigfoot. And, of course, Dale could have added still more insult to Don Thomas' injury if he had chosen to do so, because Mr. Myers' 11/19/2010 article doesn't even touch upon the OTHER major reason to know that the acoustical/Dictabelt evidence is invalid -- that being the very high likelihood (thanks to Steve Barber's 1979 discovery) that the "impulse" sounds that the HSCA said were "gunshots" on the Dallas Police Dictabelt are actually occurring about a full minute AFTER the assassination had taken place in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. So there are multiple reasons to be skeptical of the HSCA's acoustical analysis, and yet people like Donald Thomas seem totally oblivious to any of the various problems that exist with the acoustics evidence. But, as Dale Myers himself said (when talking about another conspiracy theorist, Oliver Stone, and the same quote is certainly applicable here when discussing Donald Thomas' stubbornness regarding the acoustical evidence): "Apparently, reality doesn't set well with the Hollywood filmmaker [Oliver Stone]. Denial is so much more comforting." -- Dale K. Myers; January 25, 2010 -------------------------------- Related Article: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

He "acted alone" on 11/22, but he never shot a living soul. Beautiful, Ray. Maybe you'd better start drawing that map, Ray. It appears as though I'm not the only one who needs it telestrated. Looks like Don Jeffries needs one of those LN/CT maps of yours, too. Of course, who wouldn't, given Carroll's oddball "acted alone, but never shot anybody" verbiage?

Let me see if the third time will be the charm toward finally getting an answer from Mr. Carroll -- or will J. Raymond ignore this inquiry yet again?.... Why did you say this to me in August?: "You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone." -- J. Raymond Carroll

I'm truly confused, Raymond. If you disagree with the LN scenario so vehemently, then why did you write this as a comment on my Education Forum profile in August 2010?: "Hello David. You may feel like an outlaw here, but IMO you are closer to the truth than most of the members. You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone." -- J. Raymond Carroll Please explain. Maybe you should acquire a thicker skin. My comment about your mind wandering certainly isn't even close to the worst insult I could dish out to a person who said this yesterday: "I am one of those who believes that Lee Oswald never fired a gun at ANYONE in his entire life." -- J. Raymond Carroll; 11/18/2010 But this forum does have rules to abide by, after all. So my real thoughts about the above (incredible) comment will have to go unwritten here at Spartacus.

So you were just toying with a lowly LNer when you said this to me in August of this year, right Ray?..... "Hello David. You may feel like an outlaw here, but IMO you are closer to the truth than most of the members. You are correct in thinking that Lee Oswald acted alone." And if you truly believe Oswald never fired a gun at ANYONE in his entire life, then, no, you are not a "reasonable" person. Simple as that. But from one day to the next, I'm having a hard time knowing WHAT J. Raymond Carroll believes. Does your mind wander a lot, Raymond?

[deleted by DVP]

Thank you, Martin. Lots more at the link below:

JFK IN FORT WORTH ON 11/22/63 JFK ARRIVES IN DALLAS ON 11/22/63 I've added 96 photos to the two blogs linked above, including these two gorgeous pictures from LIFE Magazine that I had never seen prior to this week:

And when/if the agent is confirmed to be Donald Lawton, does this mean we can finally put to rest the notion that the shrugging agent was shrugging because he was completely bewildered and miffed at being "left behind" at Love Field? Via such a confirmation of the agent being Lawton, obviously such talk would have to be jettisoned by the YouTubers (and others) who like to create videos using the WFAA-TV videotape footage showing Shrugging Man, because I don't think it's possible for even the silliest CTer to pretend that Lawton was supposed to be a part of the Secret Service crew in the Queen Mary follow-up car on November 22. His assignment was to remain at Love Field, as he himself said on 11/30/63 [see CE2554, pictured below]. Therefore, whatever the reason was for Lawton's shrugging and arm-flailing at Love Field, it could not possibly be looked upon as "security stripping" as far as Agent Lawton is concerned.

Doug Weldon, The whole Rybka/Lawton issue is, indeed (as I think you have already agreed), totally unimportant and irrelevant. Because regardless of WHO the shrugging SS agent is, it couldn't be more obvious that the agent would not have been running alongside the car during the whole motorcade anyway; nor would he have been perched on the back bumper for the whole trip either (even though people like Palamara like to argue that the agents should ALWAYS have been perched there for every motorcade, which just did not happen--including every pre-Nov. 22 motorcade, which is something that all CTers avoid like Red Death). But, as I said before, the COMBINATION of the things Gary Mack was told by Lisa McCubbin...plus the Dillard picture showing multiple agents on the right side of the cars just seconds before it left Love Field...make a good case, IMO, for the FRONT agent of the three in the Dillard picture being Don Lawton, as he himself apparently has recently confirmed; while the MIDDLE of the three SS agents in the picture is very likely Hank Rybka. http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1994.003.0009.0003

Gary asked that I only post a link to the picture (via the Sixth Floor Museum page). But what is there to gripe about, Bernice? I provided a perfectly good link to the Dillard picture via a 6FM link. And the Museum's "zoom/slider" feature is very useful too. I like the way the Museum's site has displayed its photos and films. Very classy.

I already did. You apparently can't read.

No, Bernice, actually it isn't the one that I linked to earlier. Yours is a different picture entirely, but it was obviously taken from the same vantage point and the same camera (Dillard's). Here's the higher-quality Dillard photo that Gary Mack provided me a link for: http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1994.003.0009.0003

I know this might come as a major heart-stopping shock to you, Jimmy my boy, but I don't take anything you say very seriously. In fact, IMO, you are the type of conspiracy theorist to totally disregard with respect to the JFK assassination -- and that's because you're in the "Anybody But Oswald" club of fantasists. And no reasonable person can possibly take an "ABO" member seriously. Of course I often quote Gary Mack and Dale Myers. They are two of THE best researchers in the JFK world. So, yes, I'll quote them as much as I can. Dale's work on the SBT and the Tippit murder is unparalleled, in my view. Naturally, he's a rotten, corrupt xxxx in your mind. But, hey, he's GOT to be that way to you--because you actually have the 'nads to say (in public): "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." [DiEugenio quote; via Black Op Radio broadcast of January 14, 2010; discussed further at the link below.] http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-30.html Anyone who can (with a straight face) utter those six words ("I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit") is not worth taking seriously for even two seconds. No, Jimmy, sorry to disappoint you, but I have never used an "alias" at Amazon.com--at any time. The closest I've ever come to an alias is by using my initials ["DVP"] at the IMDB.com forum (and I have wanted to change that username to my full name, but they won't allow any changes of that nature after an account has been created), and I have used "David VP" instead of my full name in my early posts at acj and aaj. Oh, yes, I have used an "aviation"-related alias at Airliners.net -- "LAX". But even in that instance, I put my full, real name in my profile: http://Airliners.net/profile/lax But at Amazon.com, I've always used my real name. http://Amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1FDW1SPYKB354 So, no, I'm not S.V. Anderson--in case that's your next question. I've talked with Mr. Anderson on numerous occasions--Amazon included--and he's got his head screwed on straight regarding the JFK case. He's written some very good posts, too. BTW, as a footnote to this "alias" topic -- Jim DiEugenio, in late 2008, was well on his way toward being convinced that I was, in fact, David Reitzes (thanks to Len Osanic's rumor, which was undoubtedly planted in his CTer mind by David G. Healy, who is the only person on the planet who ever thought such a thing prior to October of 2008). RELATED LINK: http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f