Robert Harris and the CE399 Tom Foolery!

[Mike Williams]

My whole question is simply this: Does Williams think that CE 399 is the bullet turned over by Wright and Tomlinson to the Secret Service?

Everything else to me is sort of deliberate DVP type trolling i.e. obfuscation.

If he actually believes, like DVP does, that that is the case, then there is no point in continuing the argument. SInce that is just not tenable any more, at least outside the confines of McAdams, DVP and Reclaiming History.

Anybody who does so is in denial of the facts and evidence. That is they are theorizing with no evidence to back them up.

Jim,

I will think if you look at what I have posted here my comments are made in relation to the claims that the envelope was forged, which clearly it is not. In my opinion the 399 bullet was the one found at parkland, however, if you have a reasonable argument against it, lay it on me. I have been known to have a change of opinion based on solid evidence, but be warned, I am not easily fooled.

[Mike Williams]

The night of the assassination, the FBI called up Tomlinson around midnight. They told him to shut up about the bullet he found.

Why do you think they wanted him to be quiet?

(BTW, I don't understand the comment about being easily fooled. It sure looks that way to me.)

Well it would go a long way if you could prove the Tomlinson phone call.

You are going to have to do better than this, I do not operate on supposition and hearsay. You are going to have to have some evidence.

That's what I mean by not easily fooled.

[Mike Williams]

Hi Mike:

I tried to post this on the Ed Forum for the edification of Mr. Harris, Mark etc. but I am having difficulties with this new computer!! If you would could you post it for me/us? It is from John Hunt's collection to me and shows the entire front face of the envelope. As I was indicating in my message I wanted to attach to the image; I have personally handled this envelope at NARA II and there is absolutely no doubt that no initials were ever erased and/or written over. Indeed, all of the writing on the envelope is in "ink"/pen.

Gary Murr

[Michael Hogan]

All this shows is what a newbie you are. In 1966 Ray Marcus called up Tomlinson and asked him about the bullet. During the interview, Tomlinson told him about this phone call. I just called Ray and talked to him about the call, which he verified. BTW, he wrote about it at the time in one of his monographs. I'd give you his number but he doesn't have patience with SBF. (The F is for fantasists)

Another source for that exchange is Lifton's Best Evidence (See p. 591)

On that page you will see reference to another bizarre incident which reveals the immediate cover up about CE 399. O Wright wrote a three page report about his activities on 11/22. The most important thing he did on that day was to turn over the so-called stretcher bullet to the SS. Guess what Mr. Williams? That somehow slipped his mind and is not in his official report. Although he recalled it perfectly for Tink Thompson.

Now, you and Duncan get back to DVP and ask him what you should say. While you are at it, ask him why he didn't ask VB those eight questions on this subject as I listed in my article about him.

Ray Marcus published the transcript of his interview with Tomlinson in the second and subsequent printings of his self-published The Bastard Bullet.

John Kelin tells the story in his wonderful and indispensable book, Praise for a Future Generation. Kelin has a taped recording of the dialogue

between Marcus and Tomlinson.

Reading Kelin's book reminded me what a great and honest man Ray Marcus was. I am glad he is still living. The verdict in the Clay Shay trial

seemed to take a lot out of him. As Kelin writes:

By the time the Clay Shaw trial came to an end, Marcus was withdrawing from active involvement in the Kennedy case. He had

worked steadily on it since the day of the assassination, but in 1969 concluded he simply had nothing more to contribute.

.

There are a lot of fine Ray Marcus stories in Kelin's book. Many times Marcus has not been mentioned as often as other

first-generation critics that got their books published, but there can be no denying that so much of his work was truly

groundbreaking. The fact that he has no patience with SBFs shows he is still a wise man.

From The Bastard Bullet:

If its undistorted appearance, immaculate condition, suspicious discovery, and mysterious handling cannot be reasonably

accounted for by any hypothesis implying legitimacy, the answer must lie elsewhere.

Indeed, it has been implicit at many junctures throughout our search, and it has now become inescapable as it is ominous.

That bullet 399 is not a legitimate assassination bullet at all; that it was never fired at any human target; that instead, it was

deliberately fired in such a manner as to prevent its mutilation, and then, with the intention of assuring its identification with

the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald, it was planted by person or persons unknown on the

hospital stretcher where it was subsequently 'found.'

Kelin's book does a good job of summarizing what led Ray Marcus to this conclusion.

[Mike Williams]

The night of the assassination, the FBI called up Tomlinson around midnight. They told him to shut up about the bullet he found.

Why do you think they wanted him to be quiet?

(BTW, I don't understand the comment about being easily fooled. It sure looks that way to me.)

Well it would go a long way if you could prove the Tomlinson phone call.

You are going to have to do better than this, I do not operate on supposition and hearsay. You are going to have to have some evidence.

That's what I mean by not easily fooled.

All this shows is what a newbie you are. In 1966 Ray Marcus called up Tomlinson and asked him about the bullet. During the interview, Tomlinson told him about this phone call. I just called Ray and talked to him about the call, which he verified. BTW, he wrote about it at the time in one of his monographs. I'd give you his number but he doesn't have patience with SBF. (The F is for fantasists)

Another source for that exchange is Lifton's Best Evidence (See p. 591)

On that page you will see reference to another bizarre incident which reveals the immediate cover up about CE 399. O Wright wrote a three page report about his activities on 11/22. The most important thing he did on that day was to turn over the so-called stretcher bullet to the SS. Guess what Mr. Williams? That somehow slipped his mind and is not in his official report. Although he recalled it perfectly for TInk Thompson.

Now, you and Duncan get back to DVP and ask him what you should say. While you are at it, ask him why he didn't ask VB those eight questions on this subject as I listed in my article about him.

I take it the "SB" stands for single bullet eh? You are a presumptuous one aren't you?

So as for your citation, it is basically just hearsay, correct? Which means it is no evidence at all, and useless.

This is all it could be without a direct quote from Tomlinson, which of course has not been "interpreted" by some conspiracy quack. Is there anything that does not involve relying on hearsay?

By the way, I see you are still associating me with DVP. Is this supposed to be some sort of insult? I should hope not, as it is ever apparent that he makes you look foolish at every turn. Dont hate what ya cant whip there Jimmy.

SO why is it you refuse to debate DVP openly?

Edited June 24, 2010 by Mike Williams

[William Kelly]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

No, it means you are just as wrong as he is.

BK

[Michael Hogan]

My whole question is simply this: Does Williams think that CE 399 is the bullet turned over by Wright and Tomlinson to the Secret Service?

Everything else to me is sort of deliberate DVP type trolling i.e. obfuscation.

If he actually believes, like DVP does, that that is the case, then there is no point in continuing the argument. SInce that is just not tenable any more, at least outside the confines of McAdams, DVP and Reclaiming History.

Anybody who does so is in denial of the facts and evidence. That is they are theorizing with no evidence to back them up.

...In my opinion the 399 bullet was the one found at parkland, however, if you have a reasonable argument against it, lay it on me. I have been known to have a change of opinion based on solid evidence, but be warned, I am not easily fooled.

The night of the assassination, the FBI called up Tomlinson around midnight. They told him to shut up about the bullet he found.

(Bear in mind Tomlinson's remarks were recorded and are in the possession of John Kelin and other researchers, m.h.)

Why do you think they wanted him to be quiet?

Well it would go a long way if you could prove the Tomlinson phone call.

You are going to have to do better than this, I do not operate on supposition and hearsay. You are going to have to have some evidence.

That's what I mean by not easily fooled.

All this shows is what a newbie you are. In 1966 Ray Marcus called up Tomlinson and asked him about the bullet. During the interview, Tomlinson told him about this phone call. I just called Ray and talked to him about the call, which he verified. BTW, he wrote about it at the time in one of his monographs. I'd give you his number but he doesn't have patience with SBF. (The F is for fantasists)

Another source for that exchange is Lifton's Best Evidence (See p. 591)

So as for your citation, it is basically just hearsay, correct? Which means it is no evidence at all, and useless.

This is all it could be without a direct quote from Tomlinson, which of course has not been "interpreted" by some conspiracy quack. Is there anything that does not involve relying on hearsay?

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Ditto, Besides he never fails to make Jimmy Yugio look like a complete moron.....DVP has my vote!

Four years ago there was a thread on this Forum on the same topic. Devoid of editorial comment,

the thread title (Replying to The Magic Bullet Theory) was remarkably similar to this one.

Naturally, there are some posts there that are quite germane to some of the discussions here.

I hope Robert Charles-Dunne won't mind me reproducing an excerpt from one of his posts back then:

I know there are some perfectly decent, well-meaning folks who hold views different to my own, and I don't begrudge them the chance to air those views. In the process, perhaps they'll come to change those views, at least somewhat. Or perhaps they'll offer some fresh insights that'll make me reassess my own views. It happens. [No matter how much I may disagree with some people - Tom Purvis and Tim Gratz come to mind - if they do their position the service of mustering facts to support their arguments, I welcome their contribution, no matter how wrong-headed it may strike me as being.]

However, it is clear that a certain percentage of lone gunman advocates spend an incredible amount of time patrolling the various forums dedicated to this subject. I envy them the amount of free time they must have, though I find it hard to understand their motivation. I freely declare that I don't believe the earth to be flat, but wouldn't spend a nano-second patrolling sites dedicated to flat-earth believers in order to convince them that they're mistaken. Life's already too short to squander it goading those who are unlikely to change their opinions in any case.

Among that percentage of lone gunman advocates, however, there exists a small handful devoted to posting in a style so abrasive, so churlish, and so self-defeatingly antagonistic that they must know they will win no supporters, no new converts. It is this group that has me most puzzled, because they don't even bother to bolster their assertions with any data; they merely insist we share their certainty. They hit and run with empty declarations like "I win," or "You lose," or refer to their adversaries as "rabid" or "stupid" or whatever demeaning epithets enter their mind, as though these comments are somehow a substitute for actual

content

. Fortunately for those prepared to invest the time, they are also among the easiest to expose as dilettantes and dabblers precisely

because

of the hollowness of their output.

Despite their linguistic cartwheels and grandstanding, they'll remain impotent unless and until they master the data needed to put forth something approaching a persuasive case. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that day to come, mind. Firing an endless series of duds seems the only thing of which they're capable. It appears they hope the quantity of their silly posts will compensate for what they lack in quality.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Robert Harris]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

Duncan, "great researchers" don't have to continually misrepresent people who disagree with them, evade more issues than they address and rely almost totally on ad hominem smears.

But tell me Duncan. Do you believe John Connally's claim that the bullet fell from his leg and was retrieved by a nurse who put it in her pocket, and District Attorney Wade who said the nurse held it in her hand, telling him that she had the bullet that came from Connally's leg, and that the nurse told Officer Nolan that the envelope she gave him contained a "bullet" from Connally's leg?

And do you believe the FBI's own documentation, stating that they sent TWO bullets in from Parkland? Where did the other one go, Duncan? The ONLY logical explanation is, that the envelope Nolan brought in to the DPD, was altered to appear to have contained fragments from Connally's wrist. That's how they made the actual bullet from Connally's thigh disappear.

Read Bell's description of events and then listen to Nolan's. They were not even remotely similar. That could NOT have been Bell who handed him that envelope.

[Mike Williams]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

Duncan, "great researchers" don't have to continually misrepresent people who disagree with them, evade more issues than they address and rely almost totally on ad hominem smears.

But tell me Duncan. Do you believe John Connally's claim that the bullet fell from his leg and was retrieved by a nurse who put it in her pocket, and District Attorney Wade who said the nurse held it in her hand, telling him that she had the bullet that came from Connally's leg, and that the nurse told Officer Nolan that the envelope she gave him contained a "bullet" from Connally's leg?

And do you believe the FBI's own documentation, stating that they sent TWO bullets in from Parkland? Where did the other one go, Duncan? The ONLY logical explanation is, that the envelope Nolan brought in to the DPD, was altered to appear to have contained fragments from Connally's wrist. That's how they made the actual bullet from Connally's thigh disappear.

Read Bell's description of events and then listen to Nolan's. They were not even remotely similar. That could NOT have been Bell who handed him that envelope.

Robert,

According to you everyone attacks and misrepresents you.

[Mike Williams]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

No, it means you are just as wrong as he is.

BK

No, it means that i'm open minded to anything that anyone has to say on the assassination.

As far as I am aware, other than the John Mcadams site, my forum, JFK Assassination Forum is the only available venue where anyone has the opportunity to debate freely and openly with David Von Pein.

I don't see his critics, including you Bill, Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else rushing to join to debate DVP.

The invite is open to anyone to join and debate with him, so don't hide in your DVP free comfort zones, after all, you have all of the solid unimpeachable facts to destroy any of his arguments, right?

Duncan

Duncan,

And why do you think that is? Why do they hide like so many roaches, and not face the man in an open forum? Gee......I wonder.....

I for one would love to see it, but who can blame them? I mean really, who likes to be made to look foolish? If you think Jim DiEugenio is ever going to face DVP heads up, your wrong. Not going to happen. Jim DiEugenio aviods DVP like the plague.....but who knows, I mean registration only take seconds.....

[Pat Speer]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

Duncan, I too have some respect for DVP, and have found that many of his arguments are solid. But he is way off the grid on certain points--including his bizarre insistence that the back wound photo proves the back wound was far above the throat wound. I can't consider someone pushing such nonsense someone putting "fact" before fiction.

Are you with DVP on this point? Just curious.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Robert Harris]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

Duncan, "great researchers" don't have to continually misrepresent people who disagree with them, evade more issues than they address and rely almost totally on ad hominem smears.

But tell me Duncan. Do you believe John Connally's claim that the bullet fell from his leg and was retrieved by a nurse who put it in her pocket, and District Attorney Wade who said the nurse held it in her hand, telling him that she had the bullet that came from Connally's leg, and that the nurse told Officer Nolan that the envelope she gave him contained a "bullet" from Connally's leg?

And do you believe the FBI's own documentation, stating that they sent TWO bullets in from Parkland? Where did the other one go, Duncan? The ONLY logical explanation is, that the envelope Nolan brought in to the DPD, was altered to appear to have contained fragments from Connally's wrist. That's how they made the actual bullet from Connally's thigh disappear.

Read Bell's description of events and then listen to Nolan's. They were not even remotely similar. That could NOT have been Bell who handed him that envelope.

Robert,

According to you everyone attacks and misrepresents you.

That's a rather strange accusation, coming from someone I have never accused of either attacking or misrepresenting me.

But if you were right, then you should have no problem naming one or two people whom I falsely accused of such a thing. Can you give us a name or two?

Or is it possible, that you only said that to evade my questions?

[Robert Harris]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

No, it means you are just as wrong as he is.

BK

No, it means that i'm open minded to anything that anyone has to say on the assassination.

As far as I am aware, other than the John Mcadams site, my forum, JFK Assassination Forum is the only available venue where anyone has the opportunity to debate freely and openly with David Von Pein.

I don't see his critics, including you Bill, Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else rushing to join to debate DVP.

The invite is open to anyone to join and debate with him, so don't hide in your DVP free comfort zones, after all, you have all of the solid unimpeachable facts to destroy any of his arguments, right?

Duncan

Why would you say "other than John Mcadams site"? His forum btw, is usenet - not a website. And it is heavily censored, with a strong bias in favor of nutters - exactly the opposite of yours, which permits unlimited slander and personal attacks.

[Robert Harris]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

Duncan, I too have some respect for DVP, and have found that many of his arguments are solid. But he is way off the grid on certain points--including his bizarre insistence that the back wound photo proves the back wound was far above the throat wound. I can't consider someone pushing such nonsense someone putting "fact" before fiction.

Are you with DVP on this point? Just curious.

LOL!! Well, I have no respect at all for DVP, but am in absolute agreement with him that the back wound was higher than the neck wound. In fact, I find it hard to believe that anyone could think otherwise. Please look at this illustation Pat. The blue line represents what I believe is the trajectory, based on the autopsy photos.

The green line is what you must believe to be correct, if the entry was below the neck wound. Are you really claiming that this accurately represents the entry wound on the back??

[William Kelly]

Wow,if I ever had any doubts about what a mouthpiece for DVP you and Duncan are, they are now dispelled. He might as well be here. But you forgot to use one of his Von Peinianisms: "CT nuttiness".

Mikey boy, you are taking my definition of hearsay from elsewhere and applying it to a non-analogous situation.

Unlike with Humes and the FBI report, Tomlinson never denied what Marcus wrote. Even though he knew he was being interviewed for the record. Quite the contrary. (See Mr. Hogan's post above.)

And the other source, about Wright somehow forgetting he turned over CE 399, is right in the WC volumes.

As per DVP, I challenged him to a debate many months ago. He passed. And passed. And passed.

Now, he wants to debate me with his own ground rules. Which would allow him leeway to fabricate things, which as I have shown elsewhere, he was a remarkable tendency to do.

But you know all this Mikey, since someone named Ken Murray posted my reply to him on the board that you and Duncan so freely associate with DVP on. In the spirit of fairness, why don't you repost my reply to him here then.

Jim,

All sots of people with all sorts of opinions are on my Forum. They are free to post as they choose, whatever side of the fence they stand on. Just because I think DVP is a great researcher who puts fact before fiction, does not mean that I am his mouthpiece.

No, it means you are just as wrong as he is.

BK

No, it means that i'm open minded to anything that anyone has to say on the assassination.

As far as I am aware, other than the John Mcadams site, my forum, JFK Assassination Forum is the only available venue where anyone has the opportunity to debate freely and openly with David Von Pein.

I don't see his critics, including you Bill, Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else rushing to join to debate DVP.

The invite is open to anyone to join and debate with him, so don't hide in your DVP free comfort zones, after all, you have all of the solid unimpeachable facts to destroy any of his arguments, right?

Duncan

Why would you say "other than John Mcadams site"? His forum btw, is usenet - not a website. And it is heavily censored, with a strong bias in favor of nutters - exactly the opposite of yours, which permits unlimited slander and personal attacks.

You're not open minded if you belived The Patsy was responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

Why should I bother to stop and debate anybody about anything when we are very close to figuring out exactly what really happened?

I saw DVP's attack on Doug Horne ridiculing him for saying there was preautopsy surgery to the head of JFK, that there were two brain exams and two brains, one of which was not JFK's. But if DVP knew what he was talking about it is not Doug Horne but FBI agents Sibert & O'Neil who quoted the doctor at the autopsy as saying before beginning his procedure that there was surgery to head, and the records of the autopys prove there were two brain exams, one with Dr. Finck and one without him. And the photo in evidence of a brain is not JFK's because, as other doctors, and not Doug Horne, have stated, they can tell by its color that the brain in the photo had been in the solution jar for months, before JFK was killed, so its not his brain.

So DVP, strikes out, one, two, three, and those three issues, while brought out by Doug Horne's analysis of the miltiary medical records, do not originate with him or depend on his analysis to be true. They are true and solid facts to anyone who examins the original records, which DVP has not, or he would know better.

In addition to his idiotic remarks about the medical records, he also engaged in a rediculious "test" with Gary Mack by timing a runner over the same distance that Oswald would have had to take had he been the Sixth Floor Sniper, and concluding he had plenty of time to run from the Sniper's Nest to the Second Floor Lunchroom so he could have the encounter with officer Baker and Truley less than two minutes after the assassination. This test was so flawed that I won't bother to go into the details, but it is just another thing that makes whatever DVP does and says not worthy of any serious attention.

Bill Kelly