(PART 441)


Don't try to Google the few biographical bits [that DVP has posted on the Internet]. The towns don't exist.


LOL. This is a really big howl. (And it illustrates how poor Pam's "Googling" skills must be.)

Pam thinks that Mooresville, Indiana, doesn't exist. I guess I must've created this Wikipedia page just as a ruse, in order to fool conspiracy theorists like you, huh Pam?

BTW, famous outlaw John Dillinger lived in Mooresville for a time, and would occasionally hide out from the police there. But, according to Pam, I guess Dillinger must have grown up somewhere else--since Mooresville doesn't exist at all.

And apparently Pam also thinks my hometown of Richmond is a figment of my imagination too. Try telling that to the families of the 41 people who were blown to bits in that "imaginary" town in 1968 (I was sitting in a car only three blocks from this disaster when it occurred, btw).

BTW #2, if Richmond, Indiana, doesn't exist (as suggested by Pamela), then somebody needs to go tell that to Ruth Paine too. She might be interested to know that information, because Ruth has visited my hometown of Richmond on several occasions, including (ironically) in September of 1963, just prior to picking up Marina Oswald in New Orleans. Richmond, in fact, was Ruth's last stop during her '63 summer vacation before heading straight to New Orleans to fetch Marina.

Excerpts from Ruth's 1964 Warren Commission testimony:

AL JENNER -- "We have now reached the summer period of 1963, and covered some of it in part. My recollection of your testimony is that you vacationed in the summer of 1963."

RUTH PAINE -- "That is right."

MR. JENNER -- "You visited various members of your family up north?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Yes. .... I saw also friends...in Richmond, Indiana, and then from there I headed directly south to New Orleans."


MR. JENNER -- "In some of the materials I have seen there is mention of a Young Friends meeting or conference at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana. I think you made some reference to that yesterday, did you not?"

MRS. PAINE -- "There was a conference, a Young Friends Conference at Earlham in 1947. That was the first one I ever attended."

[End Ruth Paine quotes.]

I guess I must have produced this Wikipedia page all by myself (as a "cover"), too. Right, Pam?:


David Von Pein
February 7, 2009


Subject: Radio Interview Request
Date: 11/11/2013 4:14:30 PM EST
From: Strange Frequencies Radio
To: David Von Pein


Mr. David Von Pein,

My name is Bobby Nelson and I host Strange Frequencies Radio along with Jason Korbus.

I am writing you in hopes you will be our guest this Sunday, November 17th, for about 40 minutes from 4-4:40 pm est. We would love to discuss the assassination of President Kennedy and how we know there is no conspiracy.

I hope this time works out for you. Have a great day, thank you for your time.

-Bobby Nelson


Subject: Re: Radio Interview Request
Date: 11/11/2013 5:21:18 PM EST
From: David Von Pein
To: Bobby Nelson


Hi Bobby,

Thanks very much for the invitation, but my schedule forces me to decline your kind offer for a radio interview. I'm not nearly important enough to be interviewed on your show anyway, but I have two excellent suggestions for a substitute. Each of these men has encyclopedic knowledge of the JFK murder case:

John McAdams
http://Facebook.com/John McAdams


Gerald Posner
http://Facebook.com/Gerald Posner

Best regards,
David Von Pein


Bobby ended up getting Mr. Posner to appear on his radio program (below). And I'm glad that Gerald did this interview instead of me, because this is one of the best "JFK Assassination" interviews I have ever heard. Posner uses humor, good communication skills, solid evidence, and (just as important) common sense to put forth the "Oswald did it" truth when discussing the murders of both President John F. Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit.




I like what they say about David Von Pein at the end of the broadcast [embedded above]. They wanted him on their show and David said, "I'm not important enough..." A very humble man who knows a TON about the assassination and probably has the best collection of material on the assassination in the world. It's incredible! Yet, he is not seeking self-glorification or celebrity status. I consider David an historian when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. I consider others, like Jim DiEugenio, a quack who is looking to make a few bucks off the case and is willing to be on any radio or tv program so he can hear himself talk his nonsense.


Thank you very much, David. And Mr. Emerling is certainly no rank amateur when it comes to logic and reasoned thinking about the JFK assassination either, as this Usenet newsgroup article clearly illustrates.




NOVEMBER 22, 2013:


I loved the Posner/Waldron radio debate. The best "LOL" moment was when Gerald talked about how the Queens College acoustics experts found "subsonic spikes" on the Dictabelt recording. It's just the way Posner says "subsonic spikes" that tickled my ribs.

And here's a piece of advice for Gerald Posner --- The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. Maybe that will make Waldron flinch a little bit.

And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda.


NOVEMBER 19, 2013:


NOVEMBER 22, 2013:


NOVEMBER 24, 2013:




NOVEMBER 21, 2013:










(PART 440)


Dale Myers...pushed the images of the two victims [JFK & JBC] together, causing both the vertical and horizontal angles to shrink, and appear to point back to the alleged sniper's nest.


As Mr. Harris is aware, Dale Myers has fully explained that visual anomaly on his website:



"Mr. [Robert] Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a two-dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the presidential limousine and its occupants (as culled from the Discovery Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine the angle of a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest.


Mr. Harris then adds this, “Okay, notice two things here. First the car and the background are all wireframes. Also, he still has Kennedy and Connally close together, so that 18 degree bullet trajectory looks pretty reasonable. But as the car rotates, notice that something happens. The wireframes disappear and right in the middle of the rotation, Mr. Myers switches to a totally different video. In this video he positions President Kennedy and Governor Connally correctly.”

What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and solid form) depict THE SAME MODEL [Myers' emphasis].

That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been “jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the EXACT SAME MODEL [Myers' emphasis] (and in the same position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly.

For you tech junkies, the model of the single bullet moment was simply rendered in a 360 degree rotational view multiple times with a variety of surface settings (wireframe, solids, etc.), and then combined with simple dissolves pulled between the various layers.


...The only game players in this case are the conspiracy diehards like Mr. Harris who refuse to accept the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza and prefer instead to prey on the young and naïve who are more than happy to follow any video pied piper willing to tell them whatever they want to hear about the Kennedy assassination -- truth be damned."
-- DALE K. MYERS; 08/18/2008


Of course, Robert Harris refuses to accept the above explanation by the animator himself. The conspiracy kooks would rather believe that Myers has deliberately skewed the facts in some way.

But what I'd really like SBT critics to do is to logically and reasonably answer the following questions regarding Myers' animation (which are questions I've asked anti-SBTers in the past, and have never once been treated to anything close to what could qualify as a "reasonable" answer):

"If the animation project authored by Dale K. Myers is dead wrong...then I want to know HOW...it would have been even remotely possible for Dale Myers to have stuck THAT CLOSE TO THE REAL EVIDENCE in the case and to have produced a BOGUS animation (as CTers believe he has done) that comes so incredibly CLOSE to what a true and NON-BOGUS animation would have looked like?

To clarify what I mean by that --- The depiction of the victims (JFK & JBC) in Myers' animation...are certainly NOT so far "out of whack" that any CTer can look at it and say this: "Myers is full of shit here! He doesn't have this model even CLOSE to being accurate in any way!"

So, even if the anti-SBT crowd wants to nitpick about the size of John Connally's head in Dale's 3D model, or about the height of the limo's crossbar seen in the animation.....those same CTers haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to the big-ticket question that no conspiracist has EVER been able to reconcile--and that question is: If the SBT is only a wet dream of "WC shills" (et al), then how in the world did multiple gunmen firing multiple bullets...into the bodies of two victims manage to MIMIC A PERFECT (or damn near perfect-looking) SINGLE-BULLET EVENT with those multiple bullets?"
-- DVP; 04/18/2008



"As I've said a thousand times before -- the luck of those multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza apparently never ran out. Did it? Those assassins were even able to fool Dale Myers' computer overlays and key framing....with those crackerjack killers pummelling JBC & JFK with several bullets (all of the vanishing variety, naturally) in just such a pattern (and with ideal SBT-like timing to boot, per the Z-Film) so that decades later a man at his computer could come up with an animation -- BASED ON AN ACTUAL FILMED RECORD OF THE EVENT! -- that would make this MULTI-shot event look exactly the same as the SBT purported by the WC in 1964. Where's the champagne?! Those ever-efficient, magical assassins deserve an endless supply of it for that magnificent hunk of "public duping". Wouldn't you agree?" -- DVP; 05/19/2007

David Von Pein
February 6, 2009

(PART 439)


David, your question about the details of a hypothetical situation is not valid at all.


Yes, I know. That's why I deleted that post two minutes after I posted it. I realized after posting it that it wasn't entirely relevant.

Anyway, Bob....keep fantasizing about a Z285 shot that none of the experts or the Government investigations agrees is there at all. After all, you can always have your conspiracy (in your own mind) as long as you pretend (via pure subjectivism and nothing more) that a shot was fired at Z285.

And since you desperately WANT a "conspiracy", it's a perfect situation for you, Robert -- i.e., you can always have a make-believe missed gunshot at Z285 that nobody can firmly disprove 100%. Of course, you cannot come close to PROVING it beyond a reasonable doubt either. So, I guess it's a stalemate.

But, based on a little something known as THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE EVIDENCE in the JFK murder case, it's fairly obvious to anyone who has the word "reasonable" attached to them that only THREE shots were fired at JFK on 11/22/63, and that no shot was fired at Z285.

Now, Bob, go to work on proving that Nellie Connally and Jacqueline Kennedy were positively NOT moving their heads and bodies in the manner they moved them just after Z-Frame 285 because of their desire to tend to their shot-up husbands.

Can you, Bob, prove the ladies weren't merely "leaning in" toward their injured husbands at the exact same time merely out of concern over their spouses' injuries -- versus your theory of the two women reacting to the sound of a gunshot instead?

After all, since all reasonable people know without a speck of a doubt that the Single-Bullet Theory is true, it would make perfect sense to have both Nellie and Jackie reacting in the manner they each did on the Zapruder Film based ONLY on the fact that each of their husbands was hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet at the EXACT SAME TIME. Therefore, why couldn't the women be reacting in such a fashion at the EXACT SAME TIME as well?

Good luck disproving my last paragraph above.

David Von Pein
February 5, 2009

(PART 438)


[In order to join John Simkin's "Education Forum"] You have to use your real name, "DVP".


I did. (Your disbelief notwithstanding, of course.)


And you have to provide bio information connected to it.


Does such mandatory info stop at "locale, age, race, sex, favorite cereal, and shoe size"? Or do I have to provide my blood type and last 12 employers as well in order to satisfy Mr. Simkin's hunger for useless data?


Plus, you have to post a photo, which you refused to do.


Incorrect. (As usual.)


Get real.


I have.

Maybe you, though, should learn to read (and comprehend correctly), Pam. That'd help greatly.

Plus, it would probably help if you would refrain from hanging a label of suspicion on people when you have so little reason to do so.

But, hey, maybe I'm just being totally unreasonable to expect such restraint from a conspiracy believer.

David Von Pein
February 4, 2009






(PART 437)


If police officers examined a security tape which captured a shooting in a convenience store, would you urge them to refrain from looking for reactions by the victims and bystanders in order to determine when shots were fired? Would you tell them not to "micro-analyze" the film, in order to corroborate the witnesses' statements?? Answer honestly, David.


In such a "convenience store" scenario, there would probably be no need to micro-analyze the store's security tape to determine when shots were fired. It's not the same situation that exists in the JFK case, where gunmen conceivably could have been hidden in tall buildings, etc.

Did the store's shooter(s) hide themselves from the view of every witness in the store during the shooting?

Was there a convenient 7-story building or a "grassy knoll" INSIDE the store that the gunmen could use to hide from view?

Was there a major controversy as to the directionality of the shots fired inside the store?

Was there a major controversy as to the inshoot/outshoot wounds of any of the victims who might have been struck by the bullets inside the store?

Did any witness in the store say they saw more than just ONE person firing a gun inside the store? (And in the Kennedy case, there are ZERO witnesses who fall into the category of "I Saw Two People Firing Weapons At JFK". In fact, there's only one witness, period, who saw anyone firing a weapon at JFK--and that weapon was being fired from the TSBD's 6th Floor.)

Unless some of those above questions can be answered with a "Yes", then I can't think of a good enough reason for the police to scour the videotape for signs of the gunshots. But I imagine you can think of a few, Bob.

But, Robert, in the instance of the Kennedy assassination, the Zapruder Film that you rely on so heavily to prop up your double-bill of CT nonsense (1. a missed shot occurred at Z285 and 2. JFK was hit in the head by two bullets) HAS been micro-analyzed to death by people who were looking for signs of potential extra gunmen.

And the end result of such analysis by the experts (such as Luis Alvarez) is that there were three shots fired, with those shots coming at intervals which are perfectly consistent with the one-assassin-in-the-TSBD scenario.

You, Bob, on the other hand, just simply do not like the "3 Shot" findings that others have found in the Z-Film. And that's because you desperately WANT a multi-gun conspiracy to exist in this case.

You do want a conspiracy to exist, don't you Robert Harris? Answer honestly.


You don't even have to tell us you did it, but for your own benefit, put a little independent effort into learning what happened.


I have done that, Robert (whether you wish to believe it or not).

IMO, it's conspiracists such as yourself who are fooling themselves (badly) into thinking that their "independent effort into learning what happened" to JFK has led to some kind of conclusive PROOF that the official version of the event (i.e., Oswald was the only gunman to hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza) is dead wrong.

That's called WISHFUL THINKING, Robert. And nothing else but that.

David Von Pein
February 3, 2009

NOVEMBER 22, 1963


It was a crisp fall morning as I remember. The weather was clear, and it was a Friday. I was really enjoying high school. The classes were more “grown up”. I was taking Algebra, Latin, Biology, English, Phys Ed, and I am sure there was another class in there somewhere. I liked my teachers.

I was playing basketball, and I was becoming seriously interested in girls and I had been for awhile. I also was getting to be interested in the world outside of my little community of Union City, Indiana. I had started to read the newspaper every morning…the Muncie Star, and I would read the Times Gazette in the afternoon. I also liked Newsweek magazine that my family got every week, and I thought if I read all that “news” I would be pretty well caught up on what was going on. I loved my hometown and the people in it. I loved school……life was good! Dreams were great and plentiful. Little did I know how different it would be by the end of the day.

My favorite TV shows were the Andy Griffith Show and the Dick Van Dyke show. I had a serious crush on Mary Tyler Moore. I always thought Don Knotts was good for a laugh or two. On Saturdays, I watched Studio Wrestling, and thought Magnificent Maurice, and Handsome Johnny Baron were the best “bad guys” on the tube. The summer before, I became a Cincinnati Reds fan again because this rookie, Pete Rose, was the starting second baseman. They weren’t very good, but they had promise of becoming better.

On that particular Friday, I had scanned the paper before I went to school. I remember thinking it was funny that I had not read much about the President of the United States lately. I hadn’t really told anyone in my family but I was becoming a big fan of John Kennedy. That would not have played well with my dad, but I think secretly my mom would have been pleased.

Anyway, I caught a mention in the Muncie Star that Kennedy was off campaigning in Texas. I didn’t think much of it that day. Everybody assumed that this young man was going to run for President again, and that he would probably be elected. Texas didn’t seem all that relevant to me, at least, not at that moment.

I can’t really remember anything for sure on that day up to about 1:30. I am sure we had lunch, and am equally sure it included fish sticks or salmon. Pope John 23rd said it was okay to eat meat on Friday by then, but the cafeteria still had some form of fish.

But at 1:30, I would have been in Algebra class taught by Eugene Stocksdale. He was a good teacher. I actually enjoyed Algebra. (It would be the first math class I ever enjoyed, and probably one of the last.) He was teaching us something about formulas. Maureen Fitzmaurice, an upper class lady, was sitting to my right when Mr. Stocksdale asked “Are there any questions?”……..Almost as if on cue, the intercom in the room started to throw out static, and the voice of a radio announcer came on. Some of us started to laugh….maybe the radio announcer had a question. Through the static I heard the words “the Governor of Texas was wounded” Wait a minute, wasn’t the President in Texas. Hadn’t I just read that this morning?

Then the intercom became quite clear. “If you are just tuning in, there is a report that shots have been fired at the President of the United States while he was riding in a motorcade in the streets of Dallas, Texas. There is no report as to whether the President was wounded, but there are reports that the Governor of Texas has been seriously wounded by the gunfire.”

From that moment, November 22, 1963, became a day never to be forgotten, and a moment in history in which the United States of America lost its innocence. In my personal time line, I still measure everything by whether it was pre November 22, 1963, or post.

But at that very minute, we still did not know. And our school administration did not know what to do. It was pointless to talk about algebraic formulas. We just sat and listened to the frantic voices of radio announcers. It was Maureen Fitzmaurice who first said, “He must be dead”……No, not the President. That only happens in those countries in Africa and maybe Asia once in a while.

In any event, it was finally reported that President Kennedy had been shot, and he was taken to Parkland Hospital. The report was that he had been shot in the head…oh-oh!

Bob Shank came over the intercom, and in his usual Marine officer tough guy voice told us to go to our 6th period classes and wait for further instruction. So off I trotted to Biology, taught by the new football coach, Tom Pryor….another tough guy.

It was in Biology that the announcement came over the intercom……“President John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, has died in Dallas, Texas. He was killed by an assassin’s bullet to the head.” There was a tear streaming out of Coach Pryor’s eye.

School was dismissed after a moment of silence, and we all filed out of school and headed home to begin a weekend in front of the television. It did not get any better. Shortly after I got home it was reported that a Dallas police officer was shot and killed, and a twenty-four-year-old man had been arrested in connection with that shooting. It turns out that Lee Harvey Oswald became the prime suspect in the murder of Officer Tippit, and President Kennedy.

It was all surreal. It was the only thing on television. There was a picture of Vice President Johnson getting sworn in on Air Force One. There was live coverage of the arrival of the casket and First Lady Jackie Kennedy back in Washington. Was that blood all over the front of her pink suit?

Friday rolled into Saturday, and it rolled into Sunday. It was tiring to watch the repeated footage of the Kennedys arriving in Dallas, the chaos at the time of the motorcade through a place called “Dealey Plaza”, the reports from the Dallas City Jail, but watch it you did, because it almost felt like a patriotic duty.

We were all watching at around 12:20 p.m. Eastern Time when they were transferring Oswald from the City Jail to the County Jail…..and right there on live TV was “one more awful” as Jacqueline Kennedy was quoted as saying when she heard the news. There in front of God and everybody, Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald dead.

I believe the weekend will be remembered forever as the weekend that the United States lost its way. Next month is the 50th anniversary of that date, and America has been faced with crisis after crisis in those fifty years…..Vietnam, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968, Watergate, the Middle East Crisis after crisis, Iran Contra, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, fiscal cliffs…..can we take another 50 years like the last 50?

We MUST remember the day we lost our way, and we MUST find a way to get back on the path that will allow us to retain the greatness that America still has, and restore the dreams it did have. Please remember that day AND those dreams!!


Thank you, Don, for the above reflections on that terrible day in 1963. I, myself, wasn't even two years old when President Kennedy was slain in that Dallas motorcade nearly fifty years ago, so I cannot offer up such eloquent and vivid remembrances of the President's assassination like those which Don Corbin chose to share with his Facebook friends on October 17, 2013.

But I certainly share the same feelings that Don has about some of the other things he talked about in his wonderful article above. For I too have a distinct fondness for The Andy Griffith Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Mary Tyler Moore, Pete Rose, and the Cincinnati Reds.

Maybe that list of things is part of the reason for why Don and I are friends on Facebook. And another reason just might be that his hometown of Union City rests just 27 miles from where I grew up in Richmond, Indiana.

Don might very well be right when he says we lost our way after the events of November 1963. But thankfully some things will never be lost--such as the memory of the "good life" Don Corbin had while growing up in Union City, Indiana, and the lingering affection that both Don and I seem to possess for the things and people mentioned above.

Thanks for reminding me, Don, that many Hoosiers do, indeed, think alike.

Below is another thoughtful post written by Don Corbin on Friday, November 22, 2013, the exact 50th anniversary of JFK's death.....


Today is the anniversary of what I believe to be the single most important day in my life outside of my family specials. You cannot compete with a marriage or a birth of a child, November 22nd, but you are right up there in my timeline.

November 22nd, 1963, with all due respect to Richie Valens, was the day the Music Died. Before that date, life was filled with hope for the future. There seemed to be no limit on the promise of America. There was even the hint of a lasting peace after the Cuban Missile Crisis the previous year. There was a sense that America was on the right path, we were at least attempting for the first time to bring equality to all people in this country so that the “brand” of this country would actually reflect its product.

We were on our way to putting a man on the moon, “not because it was easy, but because it was hard”. We were dealing with our enemies to bring an end to the creation of nuclear weapons, because Man was proving that he possessed the power to undo the beauty of that God had created. We were realizing that all races and ethnic groups finally deserved to share the opportunity to enjoy this country’s bounty. The seeds of Camelot provided such anticipation for the future.

A young, untested President was exhibiting to the world that America could face its inconsistencies, and truly become a “nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”……and then this day happened 50 years ago.

John Kennedy was murdered on this day as he rode with his wife through the streets of downtown Dallas. It was SO quick, SO sudden, SO final that it is difficult to comprehend even in this day of instantaneous communication……..and it all changed.

Please do not take from this writing I believe John F. Kennedy was a transformative President in our country’s history…..He was not. He had not served long enough, accomplished enough, lived enough that his service as our President gave this country enough to transform it, but there is NO doubt in my mind that his death was THE transformative event in the second half of the 20th Century, and one of the greatest tragedies in this country’s history.

After his death, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act were passed, and that was certainly long overdue, and perhaps the only part of his death that one could look at and believe something positive came from it. Yet, Vietnam became a war that wrenched this country apart.

My brother, who is 5½ years older than me, and I were reflecting last summer on what were the differences between his view of his life when he graduated from high school in 1962, and my view when I graduated in 1967. I told him I believed the biggest difference was that he believed his future to be secure in a growing and vibrant economy, and I believed I could very well be killed in a war I neither understood or believed in.

But it was more than that……The mindset of this country changed. We became polarized. It was no longer a question of whether we were Americans, but whether we were Democrats, or Republicans, pro war or anti war, pro life, pro choice, the “one percent, or 99% or 47%” as the case may be. The sense of pride at what this country was accomplishing became lost in a media belief that Americans enjoyed watching train wrecks more than space launches……and maybe we did.

Maybe November 22, 1963, marked a time when Americans gave leash to their darker souls. Riot became preferable to governance, war became preferable to diplomacy, scandal became preferable to harmony, divide became preferable to union.

And the saddest part, my friends, is that we have yet to recover. The thought that we exist as a country to move forward and improve life is not with us now, and it is less a division of ideas as it is an inner darkness of spirit that discounts whatever ANOTHER may propose because it is not what WE believe. The sadness of this anniversary is not only that a young man was senselessly killed, but that hope, promise, cooperation, and the great potential of this country went with him.

Please God, let John F. Kennedy rest in peace, but let none of us rest until we recapture what was lost with him.


Facebook members can seek out many more excellent articles written by Don Corbin by clicking the logo below. Don is an outstanding writer, which is quite obvious when reading his two posts above.






David, have you read my analysis of [Lance] Moore's book ["Killing JFK: 50 Years, 50 Lies"]? I tried to discredit ALL of his false claims, but after only 50 pages I was worn out. I could have posted EVERY day for two months and still not addressed all the falsehoods found in his book.

He sure has a grudge against you and your opinions. He claims that you and I are the same person, yet when talking with me after my lengthy critiques he NEVER ONCE referred to me as David.

I think that most of these nuts that claim we are the same person know fully well that we are two different people, but their arrogance doesn't allow them the possibility that two people could rip their theories apart so completely. Therefore they convince themselves that we must be one and the same person.


Yes, S.V., I've been reading a lot of your very fine analysis of Moore's book. And it's pretty clear to me that his book is just another in a long line of cookie-cutter conspiracy books that will go to great lengths to try and pretend Oswald was innocent and that the evidence (ALL of it) is not to be trusted because the evil "Government" was up to no good.

But I've been pointing out the following two very important things to some of the conspiracy nuts online recently (the second point being made in the form of a question aimed at the JFK conspiracy theorists):

#1.) It wasn't the "Government" who collected the majority of the physical evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases---it was the local Dallas Police Department who collected it.

So, I guess this would mean that the DPD was up to their collective necks in some plot to frame poor sap Oswald, right? Most conspiracy theorists MUST believe they were, because a lot of evidence was first handled by the DPD....not the FBI.

#2.) Why did the Dallas Police Department charge Lee Harvey Oswald with TWO murders before midnight on November 22, 1963, if he had actually killed nobody (as most Internet conspiracy theorists believe)?

Do the cops usually have a habit of officially charging people with TWO murders in one day if the police have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support such a double-murder charge?

So, again, the DPD officers must have been some of the KEY "plotters" and patsy-framers in this case. And to believe that type of silliness (especially with respect to the murder of J.D. Tippit--one of DPD's own officers!) is to believe in something too ridiculous for words.

David Von Pein
October 10, 2013



(PART 92)

NOTE --- In this 92nd installment of this series,
I don't talk to James DiEugenio directly, but instead I speak to some members of his fan club.


Wow -- I am in this book. (I think this is the 65th book I am in.)


Yeah, as long as Vince Palamara is mentioned in a book, he's happy. And that makes it a great book, per Vince.

DiEugenio spends a few days (or a week or two) looking into the background of Tom Hanks and decides that Mr. Hanks qualifies as "a complete jerk" (DiEugenio's online quote; July 21, 2013).

In my opinion, there's only one jerk concerning this matter--and it's Jimbo D., who thinks ALL of the evidence against Oswald is fake. ALL of it.

Here's what I said on July 22, 2013, about DiEugenio's attack on Tom Hanks:

"I see Jim DiEugenio has now decided to attack Tom Hanks with some pretty severe criticism. Jimbo doesn't seem to care who he slanders, as long as it's somebody who has some common sense about Oswald's guilt in JFK's murder.

"What a complete jerk Hanks is." -- J. DiEugenio; 7/21/13

DiEugenio has evidently done a few weeks' worth of "research" on Mr. Hanks and his movie career, and Jimbo has now decided that Hanks is a "complete jerk". Jimmy D. is pathetic (of course).

Mr. Hanks, btw, is said by many people in Hollywood to be one of the nicest individuals in the whole movie business. Now, I'll admit, I have no idea if that appraisal of Tom H. is spot-on accurate or not. I've never met the man. But I have heard several people say a lot of good things about Tom Hanks.

Naturally, Jimmy D. thinks Hanks is a "complete jerk" because of Tom's stance on the JFK case. And now I see where DiEugenio is going to attack Vince Bugliosi some more on another non-JFK topic too -- the Manson case -- as Jimbo will apparently be making an attempt to smear Vince in some way regarding Bugliosi's prosecution of Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders.

So, if he can find a way to attack and smear Hanks and Bugliosi, he's evidently going to do it in his 2013 book "Reclaiming Parkland", which probably would be better suited for the supermarket tabloid magazine rack than it would be for the mainstream book-buying public.

An alternate title that would very likely fit the 500 or so pages of trash talk that are likely going to be inside DiEugenio's book would be: "Smearing Two Good Men For The Price Of One Crappy Book".

I cannot say with any authority what kind of Hollywood-type gossip and/or "dirt" DiEugenio has dug up about Tom Hanks, but I *can* say with some degree of authority that James DiEugenio is dead wrong about many of the things he says about Vincent Bugliosi. And I can say with absolute confidence that DiEugenio is totally wrong (and even *nuts*) about almost *everything* he believes regarding the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

Jimbo has proven to me time and time again in my online debates with him that he has virtually no capacity for properly and reasonably evaluating the evidence that exists in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And anyone who thinks I've overstated my criticism of DiEugenio's weak capacity for rational evidence evaluation in the Kennedy case only needs to glance at a few of these articles."
-- DVP; July 22, 2013


This ["Reclaiming Parkland"] is a FANTASTIC book by Jim DiEugenio--get his updated DESTINY BETRAYED, Jesse Ventura's new one, Charles Hurlburt's new book...several really good books out there.


Oh brother.

A little about Vacillating Vince Palamara.

"Vincent Palamara doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he's on. Many months after fully endorsing Vincent Bugliosi's lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History", we're treated to this strange 5-Star review written by Mr. Palamara for Jim Douglass' conspiracy-flavored book.

It's perfectly fine to ride the JFK fence forever -- Jerry Dealey at the JFK Lancer forum does that very nicely, in fact. And I've enjoyed talking with Jerry on several occasions in the past.

But Vince Palamara seems to be in a different category. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure WHAT category of "JFK researcher" Mr. Palamara currently resides in. But he seems to be trying his darndest to play the entire field and to have it both ways. By reading some of his reviews for both anti-conspiracy and pro-conspiracy material, it would appear that Mr. Palamara believes in a unique "No Conspiracy Conspiracy" with respect to the death of John F. Kennedy."
-- DVP; June 17, 2008


David, have you read the book?


No, I have not read the book. And I will not. But I know ALL of DiEugenio's arguments regarding the assassination and Bugliosi. And his arguments are absurd and foolish. And his 11th-hour attacks against Tom Hanks are so transparent a child could see through them.

DiEugenio seems to think that since Hanks has made films in the past that MIX fiction and actual historical facts (with Hanks taking liberties and "dramatic license" in some of those films), this means (per Jimbo) that ALL of Hanks' movies MUST adhere to the same formula. He can NEVER change that style.

In other words, producer Tom Hanks' new 2013 film "Parkland" cannot possibly be accurate because Hanks didn't stick strictly to all the FACTS in some of his past films. A silly argument to be sure. And DiEugenio's arguments against Hanks during his recent interview embedded below are laughable. At least they come off as being laughable to me. I'm embarrassed for him actually.



And David, if you can't see the massive problems with the case against Oswald, I'm sorry you're just not paying attention. Fortunately, people like you are in the minority and most people can use common sense.


Read my series where I go against DiEugenio. You'll see the inherent flimsiness of his whole case for conspiracy.

As I said, he's got ALL the evidence being fake. And he still endorses Jim Garrison's paper-thin case against Clay Shaw! In 2013, a guy is still saying "Garrison got it right".

DiEugenio's a darn good writer, I'll admit that. And that's part of what makes him an effective advocate for his patently ridiculous "Oswald As Patsy" and "Everything Was Fake" theories. But he does not evaluate evidence in a realistic and sensible manner. Good prose does not equal a great investigator.


I think he [DiEugenio] is very good at presenting evidence and I have read a lot of your back and forth with him. I think [he] makes a lot of good sense, while you just seem to recite your points straight out of the Warren Commission.



DiEugenio hasn't proven that ANY of the evidence against Oswald has been fake. And yet he thinks ALL of it has been faked and/or manipulated by the evil cops. He and other conspiracy theorists like him are living in their own dream world--a world where nearly every person in Officialdom was out to frame poor sap Oswald. It's silly. And, more importantly, it's impossible.


Maybe he hasn't proven it, but at the very least he has thrown up serious questions about the evidence, and not just him--guys like Cyril Wecht, John Armstrong, Vince Palamara, Joseph McBride, and Walt Brown have spent their lives looking into this. And based on their research, I believe they have created more than enough reasonable doubt to not believe the official story.


Well, Charles, in my opinion, there's just as much reason to doubt people like James DiEugenio and Joseph McBride. Even more reasons to doubt their theories, in fact, than to doubt the bottom-line conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.

And McBride, btw, is yet another author who doesn't even think Oswald killed Officer Tippit. And DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald murdered Tippit either. And THAT murder couldn't be any more solved. Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested. Naturally, that's still MORE evidence that is supposedly fraudulent according to the DiEugenios and McBrides of the world.

I think it boils down to this -- Just HOW MUCH of the evidence against Oswald (in TWO murder cases) is a reasonable person really supposed to believe has been faked by the authorities? Isn't there ANY limit? Per DiEugenio, apparently not.


Well, there are some strange occurrences even with that [Tippit] murder -- from the timing of the shooting, to whether Oswald could have even got to the scene on time, to Tippit's strange movements leading up to the shooting.


Sorry David....you are very mistaken, you should look closer. Oh, and it is definitely possible, lol.


Given the number of things that James DiEugenio needs to have "faked", "manufactured", "tainted", "substituted", "planted", and "tampered with" -- no, Dusty, it is not possible (here in the real world).

Not to mention all the witnesses he thinks lied out their ass since 1963--and are STILL lying--like Buell Wesley Frazier, for example. Buell has given multiple interviews here in 2013, and he's never changed his story about Lee Oswald carrying a paper bag into the Book Depository.

Yes, Buell thinks the bag was too short to be the rifle. But that type of discrepancy actually works AGAINST DiEugenio's theory, because DiEugenio doesn't think Buell Frazier saw Oswald with ANY LARGE BAG at all on 11/22/63! So, per Jim D., it's ALL made up in the first place. And yet Frazier couldn't manage to make a MAKE-BELIEVE bag a little bigger. And Jimbo has people falling for such crap. It's hilarious.


David, I wasn't making reference to Jim D.'s work, I was referring to your assumptions--which are silly. There is a great deal of proof already in existence of evidence-tampering and the like.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time in these posts debating the issue. You should try to sell that stuff to someone who hasn't been around as long as I have, or hasn't researched as much. I've seen plenty of disinformationists and they all use the same tactics....the labeling, name calling, making excuses for evidence they don't like or can't explain....blah, blah, blah.


I don't see why following the evidence to where it obviously leads is "silly". Plus, you've got to factor in Oswald's own actions. Did he act like an "innocent patsy" to you?

And I love this part of Dusty's last post --- he says that it's the lone-assassin believers who are always "making excuses for evidence they don't like".

That's a riot, Dusty, seeing as how you conspiracy believers have a patent on "making excuses" for the evidence you "don't like". Such as pretending that all of that evidence is fake and planted.


Want some proof, try this page.


So, Dusty totally ignores 7 HSCA 41. Great. All of the HSCA's photo experts were wrong--or probably liars. Right, Dusty?


They [the HSCA's Photographic Panel] were wrong. And technology has advanced a great deal, which makes identification of alterations far easier. But don't take my word for it, go look for yourself. Or are you afraid to?

The images were altered, fake representations of JFK's wounds. Any examination of them is also fake, as it is based on false information.


Oh, good. More fakery! Fake autopsy pictures, fake examinations of the fake autopsy pictures. Blah, blah.

I can feel your pain though, Dusty. The "Everything's Fake" road is really the only one that you and Jim DiEugenio can travel down. Because, let's face it, if everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt ISN'T fake---then it's pretty clear that your favorite patsy is guilty of two murders. And that would never do in James DiEugenio's world of fantasy. (Nor in Dusty's world either, it would seem.)

But, in reality, the "Everything Is Fake" ploy is merely a cop-out by the conspiracy theorists. It's all they CAN argue and still hope to have a snow-white and innocent Oswald at the end of the day. So, they'll claim the photos are fakes, along with the guns, the bullets, the bullet shells, Oswald's rifle-toting paper bag, Oswald's fingerprints on that paper bag, and even the witnesses are "fake" (i.e., coerced by the evil cops to tell lies).

The extent to which the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy promoters will go in order to pretend that Lee Oswald didn't shoot anybody on November 22, 1963, is outrageous, absurd, and just plain unbelievable.


Yes Dave -- All your videos serve actually to SUPPORT conspiracy, because the very first accounts and reports are not watered down.

Don't EVEN try to sell that lie that Oswald did this with that subpar rifle and the discrepancy between the wound in the head as reported by doctors and color autopsy photos -- HIS REAR SKULL WAS BLOWN OUT, DAVE. And the Zapruder film shows otherwise, NOT to mention all the other OBVIOUS WEIRD things that happened to evidence, witnesses, etc.

SO be honest David Von Pein, Lee Harvey Oswald is being convicted in the court of public opinion because he never had his day in court; was NEVER convicted in a U.S. court of law, therefore, ANY theory is purely based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ONLY. LEGALLY Lee Oswald is still an INNOCENT MAN!

What gets me is when faced with telling evidence that supports conspiracy, people like "boogyman" Bugliosi and Posner (the "poser") simply IGNORE it as if it does not exist, which is what The Warren Commission did. I saw that too in "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" [sic]--the same pig-headed lack of response.

I believe Vince Palamara showed beyond any doubt that security was unusually pulled off that day when it should have been DOUBLE around JFK.


Yeah, Davide, that must be why almost all of the early TV/radio reports talk about THREE shots being fired -- matching the exact number of shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

And the earliest reports also focus on ONE GUNMAN--not two or three or four. Yes, there's some initial confusion about where that ONE gunman was located, but there's no talk about 6 shots being fired from THREE guns (as Oliver Stone would want us to believe actually happened).

And the security surrounding President Kennedy's car in Dealey Plaza was absolutely no different than it was when compared to dozens of pre-November 22 motorcades. And you're only kidding yourself if you think it was different in Dealey Plaza.


Do you really think the doctors did not know what they were looking at? When they just about ALL (the ones with BALLS) said LARGE GAPING WOUND IN REAR OF SKULL EMPTY. SOME STATE THEMSELVES SHOT FROM THE FRONT. THEY have MORE credibility than ANYONE.

I really could care less after that fact. Those men put their HANDS in the wound [and] examined the President. If anyone knows, THEY know. Base your opinion on that up-close and personal evidence. Anything AFTER that to me is not as creditable.


So you expect me to believe ALL the doctors are mistaken?? All of them are incompetent fools?? Right. Stop clouding the issue. You can't explain that away. So answer the burning question: All [of the] doctors were liars or incompetents??


No, the Parkland people were just WRONG. They were certainly not liars (and I've never once called any of them "liars"). And, of course, they were not incompetent. They were trained medical professionals working at a major U.S. hospital. But they were WRONG. And the photos and the Z-Film prove they were wrong.

How many times do I have to say it? You think ALL of the autopsy photos/X-rays AND the Zapruder Film are fakes. Okay. Go ahead and think that. You're wrong, but go ahead and believe that fairy tale if you want to. I, however, choose not to believe it.

And the evidence recovered perfectly merges and blends with the autopsy report/pictures/X-rays -- i.e., the physical evidence (all of it) suggests the person who killed JFK was located to the REAR of the car. And that's what the autopsy materials indicate too.

But that type of corroboration is something the conspiracists don't want to face. It's just MORE stuff they can call "fake".


The great public service DiEugenio provides us today...

[McBride's complete post is HERE.]


"Great public service"??? What a load of garbage.

DiEugenio hasn't gotten a thing right yet. And I doubt he started a winning streak with his whining about Tom Hanks.


Mr. McBride - thanks for posting this review. I read the 40-page chapter on Chicago and Mexico that was edited out of the book, and it is very detailed and revealing.

I don't know David Von Pein, but of course his reputation precedes him. I don't suppose that he read this chapter. What is clear is that he always throws the baby out with the bathwater if it's related to conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The researchers who he finds nothing but faults with have done so much good work. Of course it's possible that one or another conclusions they come to might not be true. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But to dismiss entirely their works because some of their conclusions are easier to poke holes in doesn't dismiss the good work they do.

This chapter on Chicago and Mexico, where DiEugenio destroys Bugliosi is a case in point. Is David Von Pein prepared to believe Bugliosi when he so cavalierly dismisses evidence of coverup in Mexico City? I guess so. In my opinion, it's David Von Pein who is wedded to a version of history that is patently false, not the writers and researchers who he mocks.


James DiEugenio of Los Angeles believes in so many things that are so incredibly wrong, they could fill up the L.A. Coliseum.

The number of things Jim gets RIGHT are so far outweighed by all of the stupid and wrong things he believes (e.g., Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, Oswald never took any large bag into work, Oswald didn't go to the embassies in Mexico, Oswald never shot at Walker, Oswald never even ordered or took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle C2766 OR Smith & Wesson revolver V510210, all the documents relating to Oswald's purchases of the rifle AND the revolver are fake, Ruth Paine has "CIA" stamped on her forehead, Buell Frazier is a liar, Linnie Randle is a liar, Will Fritz helped Ruby to shoot Oswald by opening up a "pocket" in the DPD basement [that's one of my all-time faves there; LOL], the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker, and Truly never even happened at all, and a thousand other preposterous things), therefore is it reasonable to believe anything he has to say about the JFK and Tippit murder cases?

How many times does a conspiracist have to cry wolf (or, in Jim DiEugenio's case, "Everything's fake!") before you stop listening to him entirely?

Perry, your witness.


How many times does a DVP type have to cry “believe me Red Ridinghood, there are no such things as wolves"?

Also, as anyone who watched the Perry Mason TV show knows, Perry's adversary in court lost every episode, save one.

Thus the person saying "your witness, Perry" was a notorious, continuing loser.


Come to think of it, it would be better if the DiEugenios of the world just stayed inside the framework of a Perry Mason episode. Almost all conspiracy theorists wallow in fiction 24/7 anyway. They'd be right at home on the CBS set with Perry, Della Street, and Lieutenant Tragg.

David Von Pein
October 2013

(NOVEMBER 22, 1963)


(PART 436)


But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never challenged.


I've never "challenged" the supposedly true fact that our planet revolves around the sun either. Does that mean I should stop believing it?

And by "challenged", Robert Harris means this:

Looking under every rock and micro-analyzing every word in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes and the HSCA's 12 volumes, in order to find something that a CTer can use to prop up some kind of "conspiracy" in the JFK case.

And additionally in Robert's case, "challenged" means this as well: To micro-analyze the Zapruder Film to absurd lengths of micro-management, until he finds something (anything!) that he THINKS he can use to endorse a subjective and unique conspiracy theory all his own.

Via that kind of "challenging", who COULDN'T "find" something that he/she thinks supports a conspiracy of some kind?

Like VB said:

"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation. With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
February 2, 2009

(PART 435)


They reacted within the same 1/6th of a second. You can confirm that yourself, because it is quite easy to see when those reactions began. .... They all began to react at 290-291 (possibly 292 at the most), which means that shot was fired no earlier than 285.


Your main problem, Bob, is trying to PROVE that the "reactions" on the part of Nellie, Jackie, Kellerman, and Greer (which could more accurately be referred to as "movements") are as a result of hearing a gunshot.

Naturally, you cannot come anywhere close to proving that the movements of those 4 people in the limousine are occurring as the result of each of them hearing a shot at Z285. You THINK you've "proven" it, but of course you haven't.

For one (very big!) thing, the limo occupants' "reactions" that you attribute to a gunshot are not SHARP or SUDDEN or JERKY in any way whatsoever. The "reactions" (i.e., movements) are perfectly SMOOTH and NON-JERKY.

When watching Nellie and Jackie "leaning in" toward their husbands, they are SMOOTHLY leaning in toward each man. There's nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about Nellie's and Jackie's movements at all.

In short -- There's nothing at all on the Z-Film that could possibly prove that a shot was fired at circa Z285. But that won't stop Robert Harris from imagining that he has discovered proof-positive of just such a gunshot.

David Von Pein
February 6, 2009

(PART 434)


Why in the world would [some] conspiracy theorists automatically assume that my name is a pen name or a fake name of some kind?


I'm more intrigued by your mysterious brother, George De Pein.


I'm afraid I'm not acquainted with ol' George.


It's an obscure George De Mohrenschildt joke.

Don't get me wrong, though -- nothing gets people laughing like a GOOD George De Mohrenschildt joke.

George De Mohrenschildt and George Herbert Walker Bush walk into a bar....

There's a musician named Dave Reitzas whose name is frequently misspelled Reitzes, so Google searches for my name can turn up his.

Actually, I think there's every reason to believe that Reitzas and von Pein are the same guy. You should e-mail Len Osanic and tell him.


Nah. Lenny doesn't like me too well. (Or maybe it's you he doesn't like, since I'm supposedly you.)

I e-mailed him not too long ago, inviting him to look at an article I had written debunking some of the stupid stuff that one his top guests (James DiEugenio) was spouting on his radio show, and here's the short response I received in return:

"Are you kidding me? Not interested at all." -- L. Osanic; 11/29/08

BTW, we both posted at the exact same minute again (5:29 AM EST).

Do you believe in fate? (Or poltergeists?)


Whatever happened to Osanic's Black Op co-host Anita Langley (surely her real name)? She's sister-in-law to an astounding wackjob named Michael Riconosciuto, a.k.a. Martin Shackelford's Alien Autopsy


I have no idea [what happened to Anita].

Sent to Area 51 perhaps?


To be fair, Von Pein does sound like the name of someone who used to work for the East German Security and Intelligence Service.


Well, it's the name I was born with on Wednesday, 12/27/61 (while JFK was serving as President, btw). So, I guess I'm stuck with it.


So, theoretically, you could have been part of the conspiracy.



In fact, I was born at 12:33 PM. And that's the exact minute of the day on 11/22/63 that Lee Oswald probably exited the TSBD.

Don't tell me THAT'S just a coincidence! :-)

And then there's my Ruth Paine "connection".

"Perhaps some crackerjack conspiracy theorist can now link me (as a "conspirator") to the Kennedy assassination, by way of Ruth Paine's visit to my hometown just two months before the President was killed." -- DVP; April 2008


That pretty much blows your cover. That's why the CIA made sure I wasn't born until a little later.


Droning on back-n-forth with yourself (David Von pein aka Dave Reitzes) is a sure indication of illness, ya need help troll. Perhaps a bit of thorazine is in order :)

p.s. you're drawing more attention to yourselves [sic]. Any third rate USENET moron knows how to sign on with two computers and separate aliases.


DVP - Dave Reitzes - A NEW CONSPIRACY......brought to you by the LN's of America!


Black Op Radio and the Simkin Board have no use for know-it-all smartypants that aren't mentally open to conspiracy--who just whine! and whine! and whine! Who aren't fulfilled unless they are arguing.


Sounds like you've just described resident conspiracy know-it-all Anthony Marsh. He'll argue with you even when he totally agrees with everything you've got to say.

David Von Pein
January 2009
October 2013