is Anton Batey?
CTKA takes a close look at a most curious radio host who is a JFK
denier, Chomskyite, and yet happens to be in league with John McAdams
and David Von Pein. Yep, its all true. Part 1 Part 2
the ARRB Reviews of Douglas Horne's multi-volume study
of the declassified medical evidence in the JFK case. Reviewed
by Jim DiEugenio, David Mantik and Gary Aguilar.
Exclusive excerpts from Mitchell Warriner's long awaited new book
the Jim Garrison investigation
Gary Aguilar and Pat
Speercontinue to critique the work of Professor
John McAdams, "JFK Assassination Logic"
Billy Kelly does an update and addition to the
Chicago plot to kill JFK.
Joseph Green reviews the new book edited by Caroline
Michael Beschloss, "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations
on Life with John F. Kennedy"
Bill Davy continues our Wikipedia exposure series
by examining an entry dealing with the JIm Garrison investigation.
Von Pein/Colbert Replies, and the Comedy
By James DiEugenio
Predictably, since we advertised it on the Billboard,
David Von Pein was waiting for my article about him to appear. And
the very day it was posted, Von Pein made one of his patented silly
replies. Then, when I went on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio on
April 15th to discuss the essay, Von Pein replied again. It is hard
to determine which response is more silly, but since the second one
brings up more issues, let us use that one.
Von Pein starts out by criticizing me for mispronouncing
his name. To which I reply: "Excuse me!" Like this
really matters in what is under discussion.DVP then tries to
deny the fact that any initial criticism he made of Reclaiming
History was negligible. This is ridiculous. In his first
press release he relegated the "errors" he found in
the book to a special section of his multi-sectioned review.
He excused them with two qualifications: 1.) In such a huge and
heroic undertaking, anyone could have made them, and 2.) The
ones he listed were so minor that they in no way impacted on
the worthiness of the volume. And Von Pein's list was minor.
None of Bugliosi's major errors of commission or omission noted
by either Rodger Remington or myself are there. Von Pein has
to deny all this today because after the numerous, comprehensive
and compelling polemics that have leveled Bugliosi's book, his
first press release looks so biased that it has no credibility.
Which, of course, it did not in the first place. It was nothing
but PR.Von Pein's next point may be a valid one. Which, for him,
is a real achievement. (For DVP, 1 in 17 is a good batting average.)
He says that he has only reviewed two of the Discovery Channel
JFK cover-up specials. So, accordingly, I will change the wording
here.As per his pointing out any errors in Inside the Target
Car, see point two above. As with Reclaiming History, they
were so negligible as to be worthless. In fact, he actually got
angry at me for coming up with so many errors that my review
ended up being three parts long. His other point, about the front
shot exploding the head, is misguided. The ammunition used here
was a different type of round than the others. And therefore
with the "replica heads", which were not replicas,
the explosion was bound to happen. This is nothing but obfuscation
by Von Pein. Which is why he never answers the question of why
the program's military jacketed bullets did not fragment. Yet
in the JFK case, the bullets did.Unlike what DVP maintains, if
one reads any of the scholarly literature on the history of the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, one will see that the 36 inch version
was called a carbine, and the 40 inch version-which was a cut
down of a longer rifle-was usually referred to as a short rifle.
(See John Armstrong's fine discussion in Harvey and Lee, p.
439) I don't think a mail order sales ad calling both versions
carbines qualifies as scholarly dissertation for anyone but Von
Pein. In fact the use of the word "scholarly" in the
same sentence with Von Pein is an oxymoron.The next point indicates
the time warp that Von Pein is in. He actually scores me for
not accepting all the old discredited Warren Commission evidence
against Oswald. You know, like the palm print that did not arrive
in Washington until a week later; the unbelievable CE 399; the
dented shell that could not have been dented that day; the Walker
bullet that somehow altered its caliber and color while in transit
from the rifle; the shells from the bullets fired at Tippit that
are missing the officer's initials etc etc. These deceptions
were all exposed decades ago by Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher,
Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson and others. Yet, with Von Pein, its
like those books do not exist. Which shows his denial problem.
Because they are the main reason that the public lost faith in
the Warren Commission.He actually says that Victoria Adams and
Sandra Styles could not have been on the stairs with Oswald after
the shooting since they only descended a minute or two later.
This is a perfect illustration of Von Pein's denial problem.
For Adams had to correct the transcript of her testimony because
it lied about this specific point. She said she was on the stairs
about 15 seconds after the shots. So if Oswald was descending,
she would have had to have seen or heard him. She did not. (See
Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 399) Von Pein wants
to revivify the lie.Von Pein tries to obfuscate his howler about
Kennedy and John Connally reacting to the same shot at Z-224.
So what does he do? He shows us frames Z-223, and then Z-224.
You can see very little, if anything, of Kennedy in Z-223. Which
is why I did not mention it. In Z-224 you can see a sliver of
his hands going upward toward his neck in reaction to being hit.
While Connally is sitting serenely in front, untouched. So Von
Pein was wrong about both men reacting simultaneously and is
now trying to cover up his error. The proof of that is this:
Why didn't he show us frames Z-224, 225 and 226?As per his celebrated
departure from JFK Lancer, Von Pein tries to say that one person
actually called him polite. But this was a purely relative statement.
It was made in comparison to another troll named Nick Kendrick.
To me, this is like differentiating between a flea and a louse.Von
Pein tries to say that the quote I used by Gene Stump does not
actually refer to his almost insane frequency of posts, which
flooded the JFK Lancer Forum board. He says it refers to Nick
Kendrick. Actually, in the copy I have of that, it is not clear
if Stump is referring to Von Pein or Kendrick. But it's irrelevant
to the main point. Von Pein himself refers to the well over 2,000
posts he made at Lancer. And even a rather conservative Commission
critic like Jerry Dealey noted about Von Pein that, "I did
get tired of his responding to every single thread repeatedly,
and always repeating the same things over and over." (Post
of 7/28/05, italics in original.) Von Pein was flooding the board
to distract everyone.In his next nonsensical point, Von Pein
shows his sensitivity and warm camaraderie with propagandist
John McAdams. He tries to say that McAdams does not dominate
alt.conspiracy.jfk and that someone like me would feel at home
there. John McAdams posts at that site regularly, and it's always
to ridicule Commission critics. In fact, he is joined there by
both Von Pein and Dave Reitzes. It is their home away from home-since
all three have their own web sites that support the Commission
and the Single Bullet Delusion. McAdams, Reitzes, and Von Pein
have made that forum a flame pit since they have polarized the
debate there because of their constant ridicule and invective
against any kind of Commission critiques. In fact, in Lisa Pease's
appearance on Black Op Radio on May 13th, she discusses McAdams'
techniques in this endeavor. (She begins at the 41:20 mark.)
I would never set foot there because of this point: there is
no real debate, it is more like mud wrestling. Which is why I
call it the Pigpen. And it's why Von Pein is at home there.Von
Pein tries to obfuscate the fact that one of the reasons he was
booted from John Simkin's Spartacus forum was his failure to
produce a photo of himself. He says that this was not a foolproof
way to keep trolls out anyway. Duh, no kidding Dave. But unless
Simkin was going to run full background checks on applicants
and then make them sign an oath in advance, there really is no
foolproof way to become troll-proof. But the picture was one
easy step in that direction. Von Pein then tries to say that
he had no picture on his computer to upload. This is almost surely
a lie. There IS a photo taken in 1991 of Von Pein selling chicken
at what looks like Kentucky Fried Chicken. And it is on the web.
Why couldn't he have uploaded a cropped version of that photo?Von
Pein tries to defend the London trial that Vincent Bugliosi participated
in. I repeat what I said: it was nothing close to a real trial.
You can make that judgment just on the fact that none of the
three autopsy doctors were there. Secondly, the Assassination
Records Review Board had not declassified the hidden records.
Finally, because no actual exhibits were used, and the three
pathologists were absent, the real rules of evidence could not
be followed.Both Von Pein and Bugliosi ignore the 8 questions
I posed at the end of my essay which prove that CE 399 was not
found at Parkland Hospital. They can't directly answer them since
they pose compelling proof that the FBI lied about the provenance
of the Magic Bullet. So Von Pein does what his master Bugliosi
does in his book: 1.) He ignores this direct evidence and 2.)Blows
smoke by countering with senseless comments and questions. Bugliosi
has honed this technique to a science. In essence it asks the
respondent to demonstrate exactly how the conspiracy actually
worked in each and every detail. Which is ridiculous. Why? Because
it shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.
In other words, it Is not enough to prove a conspiracy happened.
The defense now has to demonstrate exactly how it was implemented.
Which is a preposterous standard. And it implicitly shows that
Bugliosi cannot uphold his own standard of proof of guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. Those 8 questions prove that Oswald was framed.
Period. If they did not, then Bugliosi and DVP would either show
that the facts I used are wrong or they would answer them. They
do neither.Von Pein now really gets his dander up. He says that
it is a dirty lie to state that he reviewed Rodger Remington's
book Biting the Elephant for amazon.com. This is more
Von Peinian silliness. . And a diversion from the real point.
While technically true, it ignores the fact that this is the only book
by Remington that Von Pein has not reviewed at amazon.com. Rodger
has written four books on the Warren Commission, Biting the
Elephant is the most recent. Von Pein has reviewed the other
three at Amazon. Incredibly, he either forgot this or does not
think it's important. But the real diversion is this: He reviews
the books without reading them! Nothing in his reviews reveals
any knowledge of the subject matter in the books. All they consist
of is general boilerplate arguments against the Commission critics.
But he then gives the books he has not read, and disagrees with,
five star reviews! Evidently he hopes that people will then be
more apt to read his propaganda. If that is not fraud, I don't
know what is.
Von Pein says I was wrong to state that he
has been promoting Reclaiming History since 2005. He says
he has been doing it since 2003. In other words, promoting what
was published in 2007 in 2005 isn't good enough for DVP. He was
promoting it back in 2003. He then says he is proud of that fact
and that Reclaiming History will be the Bible on the JFK
case for generations to come. Hmm. Sounds like Gerald Ford talking
about the Warren Commission in 1964. But, alas, Reclaiming
History did not even last that long.
My last point here is one that absolutely typifies
Von Pein and his almost embarrassing obeisance to Vincent Bugliosi.
I have scored Bugliosi by saying that it appears he wrote Reclaiming
History from his office. That is, he did all his interviews
and investigation over the phone. Which is remarkable considering
he had 21 years and a huge advance to spend. Von Pein tries to
salvage this practice by saying that this does not matter since
the same conversations would have taken place in person as over
the phone. But if that is so, the question then becomes: Why
do investigators go to crime scenes or interview witnesses and
suspects face to face at all? For instance, if Bugliosi would
have gone to Chicago and looked at the planned parade route there,
he would not have written that the failure to fully investigate
this assassination attempt had no impact on what happened in
Dallas. The scenarios, as Jim Douglass found out by going there,
were almost the exact same thing: an attempt by crossfire below,
while a patsy above in a warehouse was elevated over the motorcade
route. Incredibly, Bugliosi never went there to see that. Also,
he evidently never went to the National Archives to see that,
contrary to what he wrote, FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd's initials
are not on CE 399. But also, one can get a feel for a witness
more readily in person than one can over the phone. For instance,
when I talked to FBI agent Warren DeBrueys at his house north
of New Orleans, he told me that he did not read any books on
the JFK assassination. But in a break during the interview, I
walked a bit around his house. Sitting on a shelf in his office
were 15 books on the JFK assassination. That discovery could
not have happened with a phone interview. So Von Pein is wrong.
As is the sum total of Von Pein's reply. But everyone
should know that about Von Pein now. As Gil Jesus has noted, Von
Pein is a lost and silly person. He likes to call Commission critics "kooks" and "nuts" to
disguise his own imbalances. Namely, that he is in denial of the
evidence. And of his own myopia and solipsistic personality. Therefore,
he uses the psychological device of projection. That is, the cognitive
failing is not actually his, the problem lies with the rest of the
It's not everyone else Dave. It's you. Which is
why you are the only one still relaying messages to Bugliosi's secretary
Rosemary Newton. And you will only get better once you admit that
truth about yourself.
The Assassinations: Probe Magazine
on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X
FLASH! This book is now available
on KIndle for the lowest price
ever, of $13.25.
The 13th Juror: The Official Transcript of the Martin Luther King Assassination Conspiracy Trial This book is the actual trial transcript, from beginning to end with no editing, no deletions, no opinions or commentary. This is an important and historic book for anyone interested in history or the law, or who really killed
Martin Luther King. Additional link for discount and more information.
Dissenting Views by Joseph E.
Now, available in e-Book format, the 1999 groundbreaking work on the
Jim Garrison investigation, "Let Justice Be Done".
William Davy's classic book on the Garrison case is now available from
the Amazon Kindle store. Hailed by many as the definitive treatment
of the New Orleans DA's case,
"Let Justice Be Done" can be
ordered with one click.
Please note that
you don't need the Kindle device to read the book. You can download the
Kindle reader app for your PAC, Smartphone or Windows 7 Cellphone for
free from the Amazon site.