DVP. Time to be real.

[Robert Prudhomme]

As I said, David Von Pain has NO answers.

[David Von Pein]

Why are you pretending I haven't offered an answer, Bob? Just being a stubborn CT?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I ask you direct questions and you dodge the direct questions. Nothing to see here, folks; David Von Pein has NO answers.

[David Redemer]

I become frustrated when I see great threads drug down by the same tired old arguments that the WC foisted on the world 50 years ago.

I get frustrated when I see the same old tired conspiracy myths repeated time and time again as if they were the proven truth -- even though every one of them has been debunked years ago.

The only thing debunked is the WC and Hoovers admission of such:

LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.

I can see why your frustrated.

Dave

[David Von Pein]

Hoover was clueless about a lot of things.....http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html

[David Von Pein]

I ask you direct questions and you dodge the direct questions.

It's not my fault you can't read.

Edited October 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Is that the best you can come up with, Dave? A man asks you a serious question, he expects you to answer, not resort to childish taunts.

Unless, of course, David Von Pein has NO answers.

[B. A. Copeland]

It is a pure defiance of absolute and basic logic and physics to look at the fatal headshot in the Zfilm and tell anyone......and I mean anyone that that headshot came from the TBSD....The beginning of any discourse concerning the murder begins there. The most simplest of observation, physics & logic are attacked viciously and we find ourselves discussing what, in any possible world, should be accepted and assumed scientifically and rationally. I will never give into such kinds of discussion. This line of reasoning is clearly related to Salandria's masterful writing "False Mystery" and it is as relevant as ever.

Edited October 9, 2013 by B. A. Copeland

[Pat Speer]

God forbid that I should jump into an argument to side with David Von Pein, but when he's right, he's right. The much-embraced argument that the Parkland witnesses were all in agreement, and couldn't have been wrong, is a much weaker argument than as appears at first glance.

Because the truth is that

1) these witnesses weren't all in agreement.

2) most of these witnesses deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos once shown them.

3) the witnesses sticking to their guns were the least credible. The big 3 (McClelland, Crenshaw, and Bell) had either made inconsistent claims from the very beginning, or had never described the head wound prior to seeing a drawing of the head wound, in which the wound was on the far back of Kennedy's head.

I devote two chapters to this topic on my website, and will be discussing this on October 16 at the Pittsburgh Conference. The net result is that yes, indeed, most of the Parkland witnesses believed the wound was at the back of Kennedy's head, above and behind his ear. But that doesn't mean WE can move the wound anywhere we want, and PRETEND they described a wound on the far back of Kennedy's head at and below the level of his ear and consistent with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. (This has been the standard CT M.O. for decades now, and it's every bit as bogus as the single-bullet theory, IMO.) No, if we are to put our trust in the Parkland witnesses, we have to 1) reject the statements of the eyewitnesses to the shooting--most pointedly, the Newmans, Zapruder, Sitzman, and Clint Hill--who has repeatedly pointed out the location of the wound he observed...above and slightly behind Kennedy's ear; 2) reject the authenticity of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film; 3) reject the retractions of their earliest descriptions of the wound by the key Parkland witnesses, e.g. Dr.s Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, and Jones, and assume these pillars of integrity, who stood up to the Warren Commission and described a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, turned coward late in life when confronted by the likes of Walter Cronkite, John Lattimer and Gerald Posner.

I'm sorry. I just can't do that. I believe these men when they said they'd been mistaken.