Robert Harris and the CE399 Tom Foolery!

[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.

Usenet is a website, Robert.

Re: My Forum: I don't think this is an appropriate venue to discuss how my forum is run, however, I will say this in response to your false criticisms. The only person who has ever moaned to me personally about how my forum is run is you. In the 2 years that it has been online not one other person has ever complained to me about how it is run.

Usenet is not part of the web. The data in it can be viewed on the web, just as information from a public library can be viewed at a website. But the two are comprised of totally different systems. It's origin as well as the way servers are linked, is totally different and independent from the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

As for your claim that no-one has ever complained about the absence of rules in your forum, have you considered that the reason no-one complains is that you have no rules to enforce?

Tell me Duncan - exactly what benefit do you expect to derive from postings that contain nothing but personal smears and name calling?

Would you like me to repost some of those messages from your little team of nutter pitbulls? Would 100 be enough or would you want more?

[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.

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

Bill, Horne's conclusions are just that, Horne's conclusions. One can look at the same evidence he uses to come to his conclusions--usually cherry-picked snippets of testimony made by people decades after the event in question--to come to completely different conclusions.

As far as DVP...I agree that he--David Von Pein--is not exactly credible. But the person you tear into for working with Gary Mack is Dave Perry.

[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.

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??

Robert, you've got to be kidding. I devote much of my online book, and several parts of my video series, to establishing the level of the back wound depicted in the autopsy photos and as measured at autopsy. They are in the same place, at or just below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. In short, the HSCA FPP got this bit right.

This back wound location--all by itself--destroys the single-bullet theory as proposed by most single-assassin theorists. This is why they always change its location and/or distort Kennedy's forward lean in their depictions of the shooting. This is demonstrated beyond any doubt in chapters 10-12C at patspeer.com.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Robert Harris]

As for your claim that no-one has ever complained about the absence of rules in your forum, have you considered that the reason no-one complains is that you have no rules to enforce?

Tell me Duncan - exactly what benefit do you expect to derive from postings that contain nothing but personal smears and name calling?

Would you like me to repost some of those messages from your little team of nutter pitbulls? Would 100 be enough or would you want more?

What kind of crap is this you are coming away with now. You did read the terms and conditions when you signed up, didn't you?

The rules are in there, but you would know that anyway,having ticked the box to acknowledge that you had read them.

As for cross posting from any other forum, or from my forum to here. Make sure that you get the author's permissions to do so. I would also advise that you check with John Simkin, and/or the Admins here, that it appropriate for you to mass crosspost from my venue to here.

Duncan, you specifically stated to me in email that there are "no rules" in your forum and you confirmed that by never in your life (according to you), deleting an objectionable post.

I'm sure that looks great to you while the thugs are all nutters but that will change once the more radical CT's find their way to the forum.

[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??

Robert, you've got to be kidding. I devote much of my online book, and several parts of my video series, to establishing the level of the back wound depicted in the autopsy photos and as measured at autopsy. They are in the same place, at or just below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. In short, the HSCA FPP got this bit right.

This back wound location--all by itself--destroys the single-bullet theory as proposed by most single-assassin theorists. This is why they always change its location and/or distort Kennedy's forward lean in their depictions of the shooting. This is demonstrated beyond any doubt in chapters 10-12C at patspeer.com.

Let's try again.

Pat, are you suggesting that the green line in the image I posted, accurately depicts the entry location of the back wound?

[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.

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??

Robert, you've got to be kidding. I devote much of my online book, and several parts of my video series, to establishing the level of the back wound depicted in the autopsy photos and as measured at autopsy. They are in the same place, at or just below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. In short, the HSCA FPP got this bit right.

This back wound location--all by itself--destroys the single-bullet theory as proposed by most single-assassin theorists. This is why they always change its location and/or distort Kennedy's forward lean in their depictions of the shooting. This is demonstrated beyond any doubt in chapters 10-12C at patspeer.com.

Let's try again.

Pat, are you suggesting that the green line in the image I posted, accurately depicts the entry location of the back wound?

No.

[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??

Robert, you've got to be kidding. I devote much of my online book, and several parts of my video series, to establishing the level of the back wound depicted in the autopsy photos and as measured at autopsy. They are in the same place, at or just below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. In short, the HSCA FPP got this bit right.

This back wound location--all by itself--destroys the single-bullet theory as proposed by most single-assassin theorists. This is why they always change its location and/or distort Kennedy's forward lean in their depictions of the shooting. This is demonstrated beyond any doubt in chapters 10-12C at patspeer.com.

Let's try again.

Pat, are you suggesting that the green line in the image I posted, accurately depicts the entry location of the back wound?

No.

Ok, so would you be kind enough to overlay your own line on this photo to depict the trajectory you believe is correct?