David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
36 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:
I see you have not commented that I informed you that I had “discussed” with other members that they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum. Indeed I have effectively removed one member from this forum for treating you in this fashion.
And I appreciate that, James. Thank you.
But note your language there --- "they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum."
Don't you think that should be where YOUR responsibility begins and ends ---- "THIS forum"?
-
40 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:
You appear to believe that this kind of disparagement is acceptable and ought not to be criticised. As you comment “In my opinion, that particular rule [ to be courteous to fellow members ] should not exist at this forum.” Well the rule does exist, and will do, so long as I am the owner of this forum. And when I am aware it has been breached I will deal with the member. If you are unable to debate and converse with fellow member in a respectful fashion then action will be taken against you.
James,
As I said, I can certainly understand having the "Be Courteous" rule here at THIS FORUM, and that it must apply to the posts written by EF members at THIS FORUM. That's totally understandable that such a rule would be in place at a forum like this one. All forums have such rules in place, I'm quite sure. But I was talking about your forum rule which is, essentially, telling everyone they have to play nice-nice at ALL OTHER Internet locations whenever talking about an EF forum member. That, IMO, should not be a rule at this forum---or any forum.
-
27 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:
How can I follow you when I do not have access to the groups you post in and therefor[e] cannot see what you post[?]
That's what I was wondering two weeks ago when you posted this (which shows a post I made on a CLOSED Facebook group which I don't think you're a member of)....
But as far as this other FB post that has James Gordon "shocked" and "speechless", that post was posted at my own JFK FB group, which is a "Public" group, which can be accessed and read by everybody, with no signing up or "membership" required at all to see all the posts there.
QuoteAlso I am too busy to follow you, so don't get ahead of yourself. And that is all I am going to say about this, as it is possible you inserted that remark to me to goad me.
This is all you are going to get from me.
Promise?!
-
I received this Private Message from Administrator/Moderator James Gordon this morning (February 24, 2019), with James informing me that he "insists" that I offer up a "public apology" for a remark I made on Facebook on February 18, 2019 [see the image below].
And James told me that if I do not offer up this public apology within less than 48 hours, my posting rights will be revoked. Here are James' exact words:
"I insist that you give me a public apology. I insist that by the end on Monday you create a new thread within which you formally apologise to me for what you have said and done. If that is not carried out by the end of Monday I will remove your posting rights." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019 [Emphasis in original message.]
Here's the remark I made at Facebook that "came as a complete shock" to James and, incredibly, left him "speechless":
And after reviewing this forum's rules, I can now see that I was, in fact, in violation of the rule entitled "Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members", which states....
"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum - may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."
Prior to today [2/24/19], I was not aware of that rule at all. And I'm pretty sure that this forum would probably resemble a ghost town if that rule were to be applied in every single instance where a current EF member "cast aspersions" on another member of this forum while posting at some other forum. That situation probably occurs on a regular basis at other Internet locations when this forum's members make critical or harsh remarks about other EF members.
In my opinion, that particular rule should not exist at this forum (or any other forum). I can understand having such a rule in place to keep this forum's members from "casting aspersions" on their fellow members within the posts that they make at this forum. But this forum is where that rule should begin and end. Dictating what people can say at other Internet locations is wrong, in my opinion. Some people might even argue it's a violation of their "Freedom of Speech" rights. After all, I didn't use that word -- "incompetent" -- at this forum when speaking about Mr. James R. Gordon. Therefore, what business is it of Gordon's (or anyone else) what I say at other forums (i.e., at forums that are not moderated or owned by the owners of The Education Forum)?
It's a very silly (and unfair) rule, IMHO. Are the Education Forum moderators really that sensitive that they feel they have to restrict what members can say at other Internet locations? I don't think it's fair at all. Nor do I think it's a reasonable rule for people to have to follow. You might as well call it the "Walking On Eggshells No Matter Where You Are Posting On The Internet In Order To Avoid Offending Any Other EF Member" rule.
But, since it is a rule that's currently on the books at this forum, I have to admit that I was, indeed, in violation of this forum's current rules when I posted that comment about James Gordon at Facebook.com last week. (And, for the record, I removed the harsh language in that post this morning, and changed the wording to something much softer and less offensive. Maybe Bart Kamp, who seems to like to follow me around Facebook lately, can take a look to verify that I did change it today.)
So, James R. Gordon, I do hereby officially apologize for breaking that rule (and the other "Posting By Proxy" rule too---which, as you can see in my Facebook posting, is something that I said would not happen again).
I look forward to that particular "Casting Aspersions" rule being completely eliminated in the near future. I'm not sure if other forums have adopted such a rule or not. But I'm guessing that I'm not alone when I advocate for its elimination.
Because, quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the things that I or anyone else have to say at other Internet sites that are outside the confines and authority of this forum are none of The Education Forum's business.
And I'll bet that most of the current population of The Education Forum agrees with me on that statement.
Respectfully,
David Von Pein -
11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Oswald went outside to check out the commotion. Hosty characterized it as Oswald going out to watch the presidential parade.
I somewhat agree with your interpretation here. I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them.
-
6 hours ago, Rich Pope said:
DVP has mental and emotional issues. He feels important arguing with everyone.
Sounds to me like you're describing conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Anthony Marsh.
-
And, just for good measure, here's some more WC testimony for CTers to toss in the trash and treat as nothing but lies....
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
What Inspector Kelley wrote is true, and it doesn't negate what Hosty wrote in his notes. Because Oswald didn't go outside to watch the parade, he went out to see what the commotion was all about. (The parade had already passed!)
Then you're admitting that Hosty's "P. Parade" note is inaccurate.
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Oswald didn't go outside to watch the parade, he went out to see what the commotion was all about. (The parade had already passed!)
Then Oswald can't possibly be "Prayer Man".
-
BTW / FYI / FWIW....
Some more of FBI Agent James Hosty's notes can be found here (via the JFK Lancer site)....
http://www.jfklancer.com/Hosty_Notes.html
-
A "Went Outside To Watch P. Parade" Addendum....
JAMES P. HOSTY VS. THOMAS J. KELLEY....
Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley was present at Dallas City Hall for four of Lee Harvey Oswald's interrogation sessions that took place on the dates of November 23rd and 24th, 1963. Let's have a look at what Kelley had to say on the specific subject of whether or not Oswald "went outside to watch the Presidential parade" (this information can be found on Page 627 of the Warren Report )....
-
4 hours ago, Rick McTague said:
David,
How can we reconcile the Parkland medical professionals consistently describing the occipital blowout while none of them mentioned the large frontal flap? If something should have been obvious, it would have been that frontal flap, and from what I know (which isn't much), no one at Parkland described seeing that. I guess it's the OBPs vs. FFs - Occipital Blowout People vs. Frontal Flappers. Believing Parkland professionals vs. believing the extant Z film.
It's difficult to reconcile, I'll admit that. I've struggled with the "OBP vs. FF" [
] problem for years. See my related thoughts below....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Mystery Of The Head Wounds
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
This thread is not about the location of the head wound. It is about the alteration and re-alteration of the z-film.
And you don't think those two subjects can co-exist in this thread?---even though you yourself, Sandy, said this in your first post....
"At some point in time, researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Tom Whitehead had purchased third-generation copies of the film in order to look for signs of alteration. They did find anomalies, an obvious one being that the back of Kennedy's head had been blackened." -- S. Larsen
~big ol' shrug~
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Well that's a good point, David. Why didn't the WC's fabricated story have the Oswald/Baker encounter occur on, say, the fifth floor instead of the second?
Right off, I'd wonder if Baker even had enough time to get to the fifth floor. Didn't the reconstruction show that Baker just barely made it to the second floor?
Well, Sandy, yes, but if the whole "Encounter With Oswald" was just MADE UP in the first place, then obviously Baker's time to get to the FIFTH floor for a "fake" encounter with LHO would have been increased. And then, correspondingly, the reconstructed time of Oswald's "fake" trip to the fifth floor would have been slowed down, in order for him to have gone down just one flight of stairs, whereas Baker & Truly managed to climb 5 flights in about the same amount of time.
Point being: since the whole damn thing is fake and phony from the get-go (per many Internet CTers, that is), then the "reconstructions" could easily have been "faked" too. And, in fact, many CTers I've talked to DO think that both Marrion Baker's reconstructed time AND John Howlett's (Oswald's stand-in) re-enactment time were phonied up by the Warren Commission. They think the WC deliberately slowed down Baker and sped up Howlett/(Oswald) in order for the timing to work out perfectly for a second-floor meeting. But in reality, exactly the opposite is the truth with respect to the timelines of the re-enactments. Baker testified that he likely took LONGER to get to the 2nd floor on Nov. 22 than in his March '64 reconstruction; while Howlett was moving way slower (a "normal walking pace" and a "fast walk") than Oswald was probably moving on the 22nd.QuoteAlso, what about the coke? It appears that the coke was an important factor in Baker/Oswald story. I don't know the facts well enough to make this argument, but maybe there were reports of Oswald having a coke in his hand when he was caught. If so, the story would sound awfully suspicious if it said that Baker encountered Oswald on the fifth floor as he was rushing away from the snipers nest with a coke in his hand. You mean Oswald took all those shots at Kennedy, took the time to hide the gun, and then grabbed a bottle of coke as he tried to get away?
Well, many CTers do think Oswald had a Coke in his hands when confronted by Baker (based on Baker's statement that he signed on September 23, 1964). But, you see, a lot of Internet CTers these days can't use that argument any longer to support some kind of an encounter on the SECOND floor, because those CTers have decided to totally WIPE OUT the 2nd-floor meeting altogether. It's gone. It doesn't exist, per those conspiracists. So they've got to start from scratch (I guess).
BTW, this 9/23/64 statement (which was initialed and signed by Marrion Baker) is yet another piece of evidence to support the notion that a Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter occurred on the second floor of the TSBD on November 22. And this 9/23/64 statement signed by Roy Truly is another piece of "second floor" evidence as well.
A lot of conspiracy theorists, naturally, are of the opinion that those two "late arriving" statements/affidavits with the names of Baker and Truly on them are merely two additional pieces of phony/manufactured evidence to help frame the deceased Mr. Oswald. I, of course, think those CTers are full of beans.
I talk a lot about Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke (and those September '64 statements provided by Baker and Truly) in this article (and this one too).
QuoteThere are more knowledgeable people than I who could hypothesize on this. Regardless, I don't think the second floor lunchroom was a terrible choice. After all it did put Oswald way in the back of the building, far from the front entrance.
And I just thought of yet another person who has been called a l-i-a-r by many CTers concerning this "Second Floor" topic --- Mrs. Robert A. Reid, who said she saw Oswald in the second-floor offices (with a bottle of Coke in his hand) just after the assassination.
QuoteHey, here's something: Maybe the WC thought they could get a witness on the second floor to testify that she saw Oswald there near the time of the encounter. Come to think of it, there was a witness who saw Oswald there BEFORE the shooting, right? Well the interrogation notes that have Oswald encountering Baker have it happening BEFORE lunch! So the witness who saw Oswald on the second floor BEFORE lunch actually corroborates the Baker/Oswald encounter! All the lawyers had to do, if they chose to, was to say that this witness was mistaken about her seeing Oswald there before the shooting. Or they could just remove that from her testimony.
But, as I said, a more knowledgeable person could hypothesize this better.
I think you're referring to Carolyn Arnold. She's the witness who supposedly saw Oswald sitting in the lunchroom on the second floor before the assassination. Problem being: She seems to have changed her story a time or two over the years. Plus, she never said anything about seeing Oswald on the second floor until 1978. So, I'd handle her tale with a grain or two of salt.
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Not if the evidence has been tampered with, David.
But in the particular topic that Bart and I were arguing about above --- the "2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter" and whether or not that encounter occurred at all --- the physical evidence that can be examined in order to determine whether that encounter happened or not is certainly very minimal, as I'm sure you'd agree. There are the reports and notes of Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty, plus some newspaper articles from various papers (none of which mention the SECOND floor, that's true, with at least one paper saying the encounter occurred on the FIRST floor).
But in a situation like this, we're really forced to rely on the words and statements and testimony of those people who were involved in the "2nd Floor Encounter" --- e.g., Roy Truly and Marrion Baker and, yes, even Lee Harvey Oswald, with Oswald HIMSELF (per Captain Fritz' final typed report) verifying that he was stopped by a policeman on the second floor of the Depository, with Oswald telling Fritz (again, according to Fritz' own report) that he was "on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in".
Now, conspiracy theorists, if they choose to do so, can believe that those three people (Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and J.W. Fritz) lied their eyes out when they each said that an encounter with Oswald occurred on the second floor. But, Sandy, does such a lie really make much sense at all? All that lying and manipulation of the facts just to put Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor of a building, when everybody knows that the assassin of President Kennedy was located on the sixth floor of that building when the President was killed?
It's flat-out ridiculous.
A couple of "Common Sense" reminders....
"And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could—what was it now?—oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place). Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it? You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten l-i-a-r-s, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters. But no! They only wanted to say they saw him on the SECOND floor. As if THAT story somehow nails the resident "patsy" to the cross more efficiently. (Hilarious!) .... The fact that the "Lunchroom Encounter" makes ZERO sense if it were, in fact, just made up from whole cloth is one of the reasons to know that it really did happen the way Officer Baker and Roy S. Truly always said it happened." -- DVP; December 2017
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017
-
11 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
A Coup In Camelot argued that the right skull flap was created by the shooting along with the occipital blowout, but was quickly pushed back in by Jackie. In that case, the Dealey Plaza witnesses would recall the right skull flap in that moment, and then it could be temporarily secured back from dried blood or hair.
Re: Jackie Kennedy's actions in the car on the way to Parkland Hospital....
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1092.html
-
3 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:
I know this [is] hard for you to take in, David, but I suggest you stay calm.
The overall evidence (!), not just the bits you fancy, [shows] clearly that there was no 2FLRE on the 22nd.
The overall evidence, of course, does exactly the opposite, Barto.
But keep fighting reality. It's what ABO CTers do best.
-
12 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:
The 2FLRE is dead in the water, no matter how desperate you try to revive it.
YOU are the "desperate" one. You and the rest of the "Baker & Truly & Fritz All Lied About The 2nd-Floor Encounter" crowd.
James Hosty's notes don't come close to debunking the comments and testimony of the two people who were there on the second floor with Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. And those two people are: Roy S. Truly and Marrion L. Baker.
EDIT --- Re: the differences between the two FBI reports you mentioned.....I discuss that here.
-
14 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Do occipital-blowout people think the right skull flap didn't exist?
Based on many of my conversations with the "occipital blowout people", I have gotten the distinct impression that, yes, they seem to think the large wound at the right-front of JFK's head just didn't exist at all. They sure don't mention it very much (if at all). It's always occipital, occipital, occipital and fake autopsy photos whenever CTers discuss where they think the exit wound was located.
Good question though, Micah.
BTW, do you think the right-frontal wound existed, Micah?
-
On 2/19/2019 at 7:38 AM, Sandy Larsen said:
As I understand it, in 1998 the Zapruder family had a high resolution digital copy of the Zapruder film made. This first-generation copy was given to the National Archives according to the JFK Act, and copies of the frames were donated to the Sixth Floor museum.
At some point in time, researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Tom Whitehead had purchased third-generation copies of the film in order to look for signs of alteration. They did find anomalies, an obvious one being that the back of Kennedy's head had been blackened.
I guess that means ol' Abe must have been part of the conspiracy and cover-up too, huh? Either that, or the conspirators and film-alterers just got mighty lucky when Mr. Zapruder went on TV at WFAA's studios in Dallas just 2 hours after the assassination and demonstrated with this hand motion (below) where he saw President Kennedy's head "practically open up", which just happens to perfectly match the location of the large exit wound in JFK's head when viewing what many conspiracy theorists insist is an ALTERED version of the Zapruder Film. This is a rather remarkable coincidence, in my opinion, if the large exit wound in JFK's head was really in the back of his head (as CTers think it was).
ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963:
And I guess Gayle Newman was part of the cover-up too....
GAYLE NEWMAN ON 11/22/63:
Those plotters and cover-up operatives sure worked fast when it came to coercing and strong-arming the witnesses, didn't they? Or did the bad guys truly just GET LUCKY when the two witnesses above (who were two of the closest witnesses to the President when he was shot) said nothing at all about the BACK of JFK's head being blasted out by the fatal bullet?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/ 2015/02/ Was The Back Of JFK's Head "Blacked Out"?
-
2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
Please show your calculations, estimates, measurements, whatever.
I can't. I have none. I'm no expert in this area of estimating body height, weight, etc. I'll defer to your chart re: those matters.
But.....
Have you ever wondered why Oswald dashed up to the second floor to buy a Coke within seconds of witnessing the President getting shot out on the street? Seems kind of strange, doesn't it? (And you're not one of those CTers who thinks the Baker/Oswald Lunchroom Encounter never even happened....are you?)
-
I have a question for those who have more knowledge than I do about the "Darnell Film"....
I don't think I've ever seen the complete Darnell news film in uncut form. I have a copy of the film on my websites, but it doesn't begin with the Depository/Prayer Man scene. My copy starts with a shot of James Altgens standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street as Bill Newman is pounding the ground behind Altgens.
Does anybody know where a complete and uncut version of James Darnell's film can be found? I don't think I've seen an uncut copy on YouTube. I'd like to be able to find an uncut copy so that I can add it to my "JFK Assassination Films" webpage.
Thanks for any help anyone can provide.
-
Point taken, Sandy. Thanks for your input.
-
2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:
Prayer Man was 5'9'' and the probability is approaching zero for such a person being female.
I'm sorry, Andrew, but I'm not buying that at all. 5-feet-9 isn't very tall at all. Yes, a woman who is 5-9 would be considered "tall" for a lady. But you said the probability is near "zero" that Prayer Man is a female, despite the fact that there were undoubtedly many thousands of females in the Dallas-Fort Worth area who stood at 5-9 or taller in late 1963. I have no idea exactly HOW MANY women were 5-9 or taller, but my gosh, your "approaching zero" odds are surely overstated to a large degree.
(Quick---somebody go through all the JFK records and see if they can find any details that might reveal the height of any of the female assassination witnesses---such as: Ruth Paine, Jean Hill, Mary Woodward, Vickie Adams, Marilyn Sitzman, Karen Carlin, Barbara Davis, Carolyn Walther, Geneva Hine, Linnie Mae Randle, Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, Barbara Rowland, Eva Grant, et al, etc., etc. Surely at least some of those women were 5'9" or taller.)
In addition....
How are you, Andrej, so absolutely certain that "Prayer Man" is exactly 5-feet, 9-inches tall? Have you considered every possible factor involving posture that could affect how the height of a person can be distorted in a photograph or film? And how can you determine the exact posture (or stance) of "Prayer Man"?
Seems to me, given the restrictions and limitations you're working with, the best you could possibly do would be to arrive at a range of possible heights for the unknown individual known as "Prayer Man".
To James Gordon
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
The ROKC forum still exists. Why you're saying it doesn't is a mystery to me.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net
Yes, most of the time that's certainly a true statement alright. But that admission I just made can't possibly come as a surprise to you, can it? If it does come as a shock to you, you must be the most naive person on the planet. (But, come to think of it, based on that over-the-top Private Message I received from you early this morning, you do seem to "shock" pretty easily.)
Also, you aren't really so incredibly naive (are you James?) that you think that every conspiracy theorist who posts at The Education Forum actually displays their true feelings for "LNers" like me and Francois Carlier and Tracy Parnell when CTers post their messages here at the EF, right? The CTers, due to having to walk on the same "moderated" eggshells that I must walk on as well when I post here, never show their true opinions of the LNers that they are conversing with....and everybody here knows it. So there's no sense pretending otherwise, is there?
And are you so naive that you think that no Education Forum CTer has ever trashed the hell out of me (or Francois or other EF LNers) at other forums around the Internet? Get real. It's happening practically every day. I've become immune to it. And I have never felt compelled to try and have any of those CTers banned from this forum as a result of their behavior on other forums. Although, as I said earlier, I really had no idea that the silly "Other Forums" rule we're discussing here was even in existence at EF until just today. But now that I know it does exist, I can guarantee you that I will never ever attempt to use that "rule" to promote the idea that a CTer at this forum should be expelled or punished in some fashion. That's an incredibly silly idea. And I've certainly got plenty of "other forum" LN-bashing ammunition that I could use if I wanted to use it, that's for sure.
Just go to that ROKC link and take a look at a few recent LN-trashing examples. (If you can stand the stench that that place emits, that is.)
Or, you can take a quick look at any of the hundreds of intense battles that I have had with several EF members, most of which I have archived at my website/blog. Such as the 130+ dogfights that I've had with James DiEugenio since 2008. (And we're not exactly patting each other on the back in any of those frays, I can tell you that.)
James,
Make sure to remember your above words the next time you read some of the vile LNer-bashing comments that have been posted by current EF members at ROKC and DPF and Facebook and Amazon (or any other Internet locality). Okay?