Discussion:
Von Pein has an Addiction
Add Reply
claviger
2018-05-30 19:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !

David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.

His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.

In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.

Kudos and keep up the good work David.
bpete1969
2018-05-31 03:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I agree. David does excellent work. I's say he an asset but Raff* might
call his boss and complain.
Beyond Wikipedia
2018-06-01 00:51:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?

P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 20:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
claviger
2018-06-02 21:04:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.

The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm

"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm

As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 22:30:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a WC
defender.
Post by claviger
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?
Post by claviger
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.


BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making out the
death certificate?

Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his fireplace
or one of the other rewrites?
claviger
2018-06-06 00:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Correct about what? You are constantly being corrected on this
Newsgroup by numerous people, but now you have competition
from MFT. I think both of you do it to get attention.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a
WC defender.
Which one?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?
No, even though Dr Burkley wrote down the wrong vertebra
the President is still legally dead.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.
They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
out the death certificate?
He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
all details.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
the HSCA.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-07 13:46:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Correct about what? You are constantly being corrected on this
Newsgroup by numerous people, but now you have competition
from MFT. I think both of you do it to get attention.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a
WC defender.
Which one?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?
No, even though Dr Burkley wrote down the wrong vertebra
the President is still legally dead.
Well at least you can admit that he got the vertebra wrong. A death
certificate is not just to note that a peron is dead. It needs more
details. If your idea were true there would be no need to specify which
vertebra or even that he was shot.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.
They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
Gee, you think the death certificate had to specify that? Do they need
to get anything right? He might have been poisoned.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
out the death certificate?
He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
all details.
Noe you're starting to get the idea.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
the HSCA.
Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes to burn it.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-08 21:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Correct about what? You are constantly being corrected on this
Newsgroup by numerous people, but now you have competition
from MFT. I think both of you do it to get attention.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a
WC defender.
Which one?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?
No, even though Dr Burkley wrote down the wrong vertebra
the President is still legally dead.
Well at least you can admit that he got the vertebra wrong. A death
certificate is not just to note that a peron is dead. It needs more
details. If your idea were true there would be no need to specify which
vertebra or even that he was shot.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.
They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
Gee, you think the death certificate had to specify that? Do they need
to get anything right? He might have been poisoned.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
out the death certificate?
He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
all details.
Noe you're starting to get the idea.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
the HSCA.
Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes to burn it.
Your daddy.
claviger
2018-06-09 18:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Correct about what? You are constantly being corrected on this
Newsgroup by numerous people, but now you have competition
from MFT. I think both of you do it to get attention.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a
WC defender.
Which one?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?
No, even though Dr Burkley wrote down the wrong vertebra
the President is still legally dead.
Well at least you can admit that he got the vertebra wrong. A death
certificate is not just to note that a peron is dead. It needs more
details. If your idea were true there would be no need to specify which
vertebra or even that he was shot.
Most death certificates only require a basic description, such as died
from gun shots to head and body. Usually the official who writes the
death certificate did not perform the autopsy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.
They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
Gee, you think the death certificate had to specify that? Do they need
to get anything right? He might have been poisoned.
That would be determined at the autopsy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
out the death certificate?
He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
all details.
Noe you're starting to get the idea.
What idea? Death certificates are a brief description. For more
detailed information read the autopsy report.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
the HSCA.
Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes
to burn it.
It was you?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-10 22:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
So you confirm that I am correct and you are not allowed to admit it.
Correct about what? You are constantly being corrected on this
Newsgroup by numerous people, but now you have competition
from MFT. I think both of you do it to get attention.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Have tiy ever read the official deaht certificate? No, you are a
WC defender.
Which one?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
So what. It is fhr official Death Certificate.
Are you saying it is a lie?
No, even though Dr Burkley wrote down the wrong vertebra
the President is still legally dead.
Well at least you can admit that he got the vertebra wrong. A death
certificate is not just to note that a peron is dead. It needs more
details. If your idea were true there would be no need to specify which
vertebra or even that he was shot.
Most death certificates only require a basic description, such as died
from gun shots to head and body. Usually the official who writes the
death certificate did not perform the autopsy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Exactly. That's MY point YOU are making for me.
All the evidence is just a guess. So don't cite ANYTHING as if it is fact.
They all guessed correctly the President died from a gunshot wound.
Gee, you think the death certificate had to specify that? Do they need
to get anything right? He might have been poisoned.
That would be determined at the autopsy.
But would the death certificate specify that? I saw one case where the
death certificate said cause of death: drowning.

Yeah, the guy died from drowning in his own pool of blood after being
shot 15 times. No crime here, nothing to investigate.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
BTW, why would he need to read the autopsy report before making
out the death certificate?
He didn't need to. All he had to do is confirm the President died
from a gunshot wound, period. The Autopsy report will provide
all details.
Noe you're starting to get the idea.
What idea? Death certificates are a brief description. For more
detailed information read the autopsy report.
Then why did he specify the vertebra?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which autopsy report? The first one, which Humes burned in his
fireplace or one of the other rewrites?
Explain how anyone could read the first one. Mental telepathy?
The final autopsy report was confirmed by 3 Pathologists and
the HSCA.
Guess who read the first one? WHo read it and then told HUmes
to burn it.
It was you?
I was not the commander of the base.
claviger
2018-06-12 02:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
claviger
2018-06-14 14:47:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
Gunshot wounds to head and body were the Cause Of Death.
You can't figure that out? Murder victims automatically have
an autopsy. One could argue gunshot wounds caused the
victim to have a heart attack, but gunshots were still the
proximal cause of death. The President had an adrenal
gland deficiency and may have died from that too in
the hospital recovering from otherwise survivable
wounds, but bullet wounds were still proximal
cause of death.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-15 01:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
Gunshot wounds to head and body were the Cause Of Death.
You can't figure that out? Murder victims automatically have
You just said he shouldn't have been that specific. Did he bother saying
WHERE on the head? At least Killduff pointed to WHERE on the head.
Post by claviger
an autopsy. One could argue gunshot wounds caused the
victim to have a heart attack, but gunshots were still the
proximal cause of death. The President had an adrenal
gland deficiency and may have died from that too in
the hospital recovering from otherwise survivable
wounds, but bullet wounds were still proximal
cause of death.
Well, they tried poisoning Raputin, but that didn't work. Then they shot
him and that didn't work so they drown him in the river.
claviger
2018-06-15 00:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
Do you realize that gunshots to head and back
might be considered cause of death?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
Do you realize that gunshots to head and back
might be considered cause of death?
Yes, but why just GUESS at the vertebra?
claviger
2018-06-17 01:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Death Certificates are confirmation the person is legally dead. They only
require a brief explanation. The President was a murder victim who died
from gunshot wounds. That's all that is necessary on a Death Certificate.
The Autopsy provides specific details. Dr Burkley made a mistake. Unless
there was a legal requirement the Death Certificate be signed within the
next 24 hours, he should have waited to read the autopsy report before
signing the Death Certificate.
And you've read thousands of death certificates and they never require
CAUSE OF DEATH?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_certificate
Do you realize that gunshots to head and back
might be considered cause of death?
Yes, but why just GUESS at the vertebra?
Good question since he knows the Autopsy took place
and the Report would be available the following day.
He used poor judgement guessing at that detail. All
he needed to say is the President died from gunshot
wounds. He might add the wound to the head was fatal.
No need for further details, that is what the Autopsy
is for.

mainframetech
2018-06-07 01:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
Worthless speculation. Burkley's Death Certificate says the bullet hit
at the level of T-3. Are you naive enough to believe that?
Try to show me a SBT with the bullet entering at T-3. Please.
Your criticism is worthless.
The Dr Burkley Death Certificate was dated November 23, 1963.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
"Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician, had requested
the report be delivered to him personally by 6pm, Sunday 24th.
Humes was burning the candle both ends in an effort to get the
report in on time."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/humes-notes.htm
As you can see Dr Burkley did not have the precise location of the
shoulder wound until the following day, so the T-3 location was a
medical estimate. He made a mistake issuing the death certificate
before reading the autopsy report.
Or the bullet hole in the upper back was lower than they liked it to be. Like when Ford tried to place it higher.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-02 01:08:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
If you want a good laugh, look at the autopsy photo below which is of
good quality, and see if you can find the bullet hole in the BOH anywhere
in this photo:

Loading Image...

Or this one:

Loading Image...

The WC had an artist (Ida Dox) make a drawing of the second photo above
and she was ordered to put in a bullet hole!!! Here's the drawing:

Loading Image...

Now you can see a bullet hole, where there is nothing in the real
photo.

It's hysterical how they try to lie and make such stupid mistakes.
Even worse is the photo showing clearly the bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK which matches the blow out in the BOH.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 17:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Where's his website that explains the unfalsifiable consensus among Humes,
Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey that the
small wound in the back of the head was next to the external occipital
protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above it like the HSCA said?
P.S. George Burkley and Tom Robinson also gave indirect information
indicating the EOP wound
If you want a good laugh, look at the autopsy photo below which is of
good quality, and see if you can find the bullet hole in the BOH anywhere
Illegal. You know that WC defenders are not allowed to look at the
autopsy photos.
Post by mainframetech
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/409304d1353206519-jfk-autopsy-pictures-assassination-jfk_autopsy4.jpg
http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/jfkautopsyheadrearfixbig.jpg
The WC had an artist (Ida Dox) make a drawing of the second photo above
Excuse me. HSCA not WC.
The WC used Rydberg who was not that good an artist.
Ida was one of the best professional FORENSIC artists.
She did an excellent job of covering up.
Post by mainframetech
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg
Now you can see a bullet hole, where there is nothing in the real
photo.
It takes real artistry.
Post by mainframetech
It's hysterical how they try to lie and make such stupid mistakes.
They knew they could get away with it.
Post by mainframetech
Even worse is the photo showing clearly the bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK which matches the blow out in the BOH.
You don't need a blowout in the BOH to match an entrance wound in the
front of the head. James Brady didn't have one. Because an explosive
bullet was used.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-01 02:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
Oh, brother! I need my hip boots, it's getting deep.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-06-12 02:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 19:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."
He wants to always conform, not realizing that MOST people believe in
conspiracy.
claviger
2018-06-14 14:56:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."
He wants to always conform, not realizing that MOST people believe in
conspiracy.
What most people believe is not the deciding factor. Who presents
the most verifiable, logical facts based on scientific evidence is the
winning team in this intellectual contest of Reality vs Make Believe.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-15 01:53:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."
He wants to always conform, not realizing that MOST people believe in
conspiracy.
What most people believe is not the deciding factor. Who presents
the most verifiable, logical facts based on scientific evidence is the
winning team in this intellectual contest of Reality vs Make Believe.
Again you miss my point. It is about what motives DVP not who has more
votes. He wants to conform and he mistakenly believes that means accepting
the WC. Now if he could only be brave enough to admit that the WC made
some mistakes he might be able to fix them. I saw the mistakes the HSCA
made and I fixed them.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-15 01:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."
He wants to always conform, not realizing that MOST people believe in
conspiracy.
Most people believe in angels. Most people used to believe that black
people were animals. So that is no argument at all. It is nothing but an
inane attempt to dig yourself out of the pit of nonsense in which you have
buried yourself, Anthony "Know Nothing" Marsh.
David Von Pein
2018-06-16 05:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
The shocking truth, he is a Factaholic ! ! !
David Von Pein is a tireless truth seeker, fact collector, and fact
corrector. Because he is inclined to use professional courtesy,
intellectual analysis, and wholistic thinking he doesn't always get the
attention he deserves. He doesn't take a bombastic approach, instead using
a more academic methodology to convey analytical information. A true
scholar who can politely hold his own in heated debate. Von Pein an
example of classic debate protocol.
His body of work on this case is amazing. It's no fun for CTs to debate
him because they have no chance of winning. Von Pein responds to factoids
with real facts and to CTism with authenticated research.
In short, David Von Pein is a pain in the brain for all CT misinformation.
Conspiracy theories have a bad habit of self destructing. By contrast,
real Facts have endurance, withstanding the test of time.
Kudos and keep up the good work David.
An addiction to TRUTH! With a corresponding malady that causes him to
bother to engage the buffs and their long-discredited arguments and
"evidence."
He wants to always conform, not realizing that MOST people believe in
conspiracy.
I wonder why you would think that I don't realize that "MOST people
believe in conspiracy [re: the JFK case]"?

You *really* think I *don't* realize this?
Loading...