JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 349)


GIL JESUS SAID:

The issue has been raised that the bullet or missile may have been a fragment of a bullet or missile. This seems highly unlikely since Sibert and O'Neill were professional enough to know the difference between an entire bullet and a small fragment.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a helpful hint for Gil and Walt (and all other assorted conspiracists) regarding the Sibert/O'Neill "missile":

The "missile" handled by Sibert and O'Neill on November 22 consisted of very small FRAGMENTS of metal removed from JFK's head -- fragments only.

How do we know this for an absolute ironclad fact?

2 reasons.....

1.) Dr. Humes, et al, were searching desperately during the autopsy for a bullet (or bullets)--ANY signs of a bullet or bullets!--inside JFK's body. They found none. Zero. Zilch. Only the small fragments in the head. Nothing else. Nothing.

and

2.) No whole "bullet" (or nearly-whole bullet) was entered into evidence by Sibert, O'Neill, or anybody else connected in any way to JFK's autopsy. The only whole bullet in the entire case is CE399. Period. And that wasn't found at Bethesda.

Who exactly was responsible for sweeping this whole "missile" under the carpet, according to the conspiracy theorists? Who did this? And why?

Something besides the word "missile" would be nice to back up these unsupportable assertions of a whole bullet being recovered at Kennedy's autopsy, wouldn't you agree, Gil?

If a whole "bullet" had been found at Bethesda, then that bullet would be part of the evidence on the table in this case TODAY.

The CTers are forced to call Humes, Finck, and Boswell ALL liars in this "bullet" regard, because not one of those men saw any whole bullet at any time during their many hours doing the autopsy on President Kennedy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63.

The reason that none of the three autopsists testified to seeing a whole bullet during the autopsy is because no such "bullet" exists....and never did.

David Von Pein
October 14, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 348)


SOMEONE NAMED BILLY SAID:

Hi Mr. Von Pein,

Did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to you on CTKA Probe? He also has a long review on Dale Myers! All very interesting!!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Billy,

Yes, I've seen both of those articles by Mr. DiEugenio at CTKA [one of which is linked below; the article about Dale Myers is no longer available at the CTKA site, as of March 2013]. (Jim is almost as long-winded as I am at times, isn't he?)

http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html

To be perfectly blunt with you, Billy -- Jim DiEugenio is living in a world of total fantasy and speculation regarding the JFK assassination. Not a shred of what he says can be proven....and he knows it (or he certainly should know it by now).

Jim loves to point out things that he thinks are strange or mysterious, and things that he apparently believes lead down a path that results in eventual "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases (i.e., "thread ends", for lack of a better term). Jim then speculates that those loose threads mean something significant with respect to Lee Oswald, or JFK, or the CIA, or the assassination in general.

Here's a great example of what I mean -- The other night (October 9, 2008), DiEugenio appeared on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio program, and at one point during the show he went on and on for several minutes about how Marguerite Oswald supposedly knew that her son, Lee Harvey, wanted to defect to the Soviet Union many weeks (or months) before Lee actually did travel to Russia in late 1959.

This knowledge that was supposedly gained by Marguerite is supposed to LEAD SOMEWHERE (I assume) in Mr. DiEugenio's "conspiratorial" world. But Jim never tells us WHERE this knowledge of Marguerite's is supposed to go.

In other words, HOW does Marguerite's possibly knowing about Lee wanting to defect to Russia (in advance of him actually doing so) somehow MATTER in the least little bit when considering whether or not Lee Oswald shot JFK four years later?

And how can such knowledge by Marguerite be utilized as a springboard for any conspiracy theorists with respect to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was or wasn't employed by the CIA?

It almost sounds as if DiEugenio wants to believe that MARGUERITE OSWALD was a "plotter" or "conspirator" of some sort....and that her "pre-knowledge" of Lee's intentions to go to Russia is some kind of a major signal that Lee was employed by the CIA (or some other entity of the Government).

But, in reality, that kind of stuff just flat-out goes NOWHERE for a conspiracist like Mr. DiEugenio. Absolutely nowhere. And he has to know it doesn't go anywhere, but Jim just likes to point out and highlight these "loose threads" that can never, ever be tied to any kind of workable, believable, and cohesive "plot" behind Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of John Kennedy.

Here's another example of the type of "It Goes Nowhere" junk that Mr. DiEugenio loves to talk about (as my own brand of long-windedness takes over here for a moment longer; albeit a different type of long-windedness, because my brand contains an abundance of CS&L attached to it ["Common Sense & Logic", that is]).....

In his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book and during a segment of one of his recent Black Op Radio appearances, DiEugenio talks about the fact that Lee Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera (the camera which took the infamous Backyard Photographs of LHO holding the rifle he used to kill the President) wasn't turned over to the police by Robert Oswald until many weeks after the assassination.*

* = And this was no doubt due to a simple oversight. You see, that camera was apparently stored in a closed box in a closet inside Ruth Paine's house at the time of the assassination in November. Most likely, Ruth just simply forgot that some of the Oswalds' belongings were in that closet in that box, with the Imperial camera being one of the items that was in there. The box later was given by Ruth to LHO's brother, Robert Oswald, who then gave it to the police many weeks after the assassination.

Now, to Mr. DiEugenio, this oversight regarding the Imperial camera is "suspicious". He thinks it's odd that the police never found that camera during their multiple searches of Paine's home in November.

But DiEugenio just STOPS right there....with his "suspicious" remark. He never ties it up. He never says WHY this delay in finding the camera is to be considered "suspicious". He never explains WHY either Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald (or anyone else) would want to deliberately hide the camera from the police or the FBI.

And, moreover, Jim never tells us HOW this delay in turning the camera over to the authorities would, in any way whatsoever, BENEFIT or AID any type of so-called "Patsy" plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.

If somebody was trying to frame Oswald (as DiEugenio undoubtedly wants to believe), then why on Earth would they be wanting to HIDE evidence that could be used to further the "patsy" plot along?

DiEugenio knows (and readily acknowledges) that the Imperial camera did take at least one of the backyard photos (there was only one of the pics that was definitively linked to the camera, because only one picture's negative was recovered). And Jim knows that Lee Oswald himself was shown one of the backyard pictures by the Dallas police as early as November 23rd, the day after the assassination.

Therefore, Jim isn't arguing that the pictures are fakes. We know the photos were taken months before November 22nd, and were taken by the Imperial camera owned by Oswald.

Given these undeniable facts, what possible purpose would be served by any conspirators hiding the camera from police view for an extended period....the very same camera that can prove the legitimacy of the backyard photographs?

Jim doesn't say. He just says it's "suspicious".

But the only thing that's really suspicious here is WHY Jim D. thinks this completely innocuous event regarding the Imperial-Reflex camera is "suspicious" in the first place.

If you listen to DiEugenio's Black Op interviews (any of them), you'll find numerous additional examples of this same type of conspiracy-oriented policy that has been adopted by many conspiracists over the years. And it's a policy that could aptly be labeled --- THIS STUPID SHIT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT REALLY GOES NOWHERE, BUT I'M GOING TO POINT IT OUT ANYWAY, AS IF IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TOWARD SOLVING THIS CASE.

David Von Pein
October 12, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 347)



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY......

I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler" type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination. But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?

The person who entered that Rambler could not possibly have been Lee Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the slimmest of chances it could have been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).

But conspiracy theorists won't accept the rock-solid fact of LHO being several blocks east of the Depository as of 12:40 PM. No, they WANT Oswald to have gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald DID get into that station wagon.

Conspiracists ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.

For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on Black Op Radio last night (October 9, 2008). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional gunshots were fired on November 22, for a total of at least SIX shots (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).

Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of President Kennedy being struck by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in some way (right down to ALL THREE autopsy doctors being rotten, worthless liars for years on end).

And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly stupid notion that Oswald's Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit the President in the head, because, per Fetzer, the type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.

That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.

Fetzer totally ignores (or just throws out) all of the known and provable facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case -- which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun, Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.

There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in which JFK was slain.

There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to which the victims were taken.

There are three bullet shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO) fired three shots at the motorcade.

And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.

But, according to James H. Fetzer, all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766 rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an "official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID kill the President.

Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "Black Op" interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was almost enough to make me lose my lunch.

The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck, though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.

Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer. I know he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening anyway, sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing the nut regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a million times before.

David Von Pein
October 10, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 346)


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Are you prepared to explain how [Arnold] Rowland said that the security guard in the light-colored shirt was armed with a HUNTING rifle while the Warren Commission said the murder weapon was a MILITARY rifle.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who cares? You're arguing silly little semantics issues, Walt. And you surely realize that type argument is peripheral (at most).

Rowland didn't see the rifle up close and he didn't examine the rifle in detail. But the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police, et al, DID examine the sixth-floor rifle closely.

Rowland couldn't tell if the rifle was specifically a "Hunting" rifle vs. a Carcano 1940-era military weapon. But, for some reason, Walt wants to place an extraordinary amount of significance on this one statement uttered by Mr. Rowland to the Warren Commission---

"It appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope. .... That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting." -- Arnold L. Rowland [2 H 170]

So, per Walter, since Rowland thought that the rifle he saw on 11/22/63 "appeared" to him to possibly be the same type of rifle he had used to go deer hunting in the past, this automatically MAKES the rifle a "hunting" rifle in Walt's eyes.

But I'll remind Walt that Rowland WAS, indeed, wrong about something else that he THOUGHT was true about that same gunman -- he was wrong about the man (who was Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) being a "security man" (Rowland's exact verbiage there; not to be confused with Walt's slightly altered version of Rowland's words).

But since Walt (so it seems) wants desperately to believe everything that came out of the mouth of Arnold Rowland during his Warren Commission session, perhaps Walt does, indeed, want to believe that the REAL ASSASSIN on the sixth floor was a REAL security man.

So, Walt, if Rowland was wrong about the "security man" observation, why couldn't he be also incorrect about his "hunting rifle" observation as well?

In reality, of course, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if a particular witness THOUGHT the rifle on the sixth floor was a "hunting" type rifle or whether it was some other exact kind of rifle -- because the FACT remains that the only rifle found on that sixth floor after the assassination was Lee Oswald's Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766.

And that FACT about the 6th-Floor rifle will never go away....no matter how much conspiracy theorists want it to disappear into a puff of (Knoll) smoke.

David Von Pein
October 9, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 345)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

For a really good laugh concerning "the dreaded Richard Randolph Carr", check out pages 880 to 883 of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History".

Anyone who reads those four Carr-related pages of Bugliosi's book and then still thinks that Richard Randolph Carr has even a SPECK of credibility left in him....is a loon.

Just a small "Carr" sample from "RH":

"Though Carr has no credibility and no one in authority is the least bit interested in what he has to say, apparently the conspirators who murdered Kennedy are still terrified that the authorities might listen to him one day, and according to him, they have been trying to intimidate and even murder him for years, all to no avail. .... Obviously, the conspirators found it easy to eliminate President Kennedy, but they never could find a way to eliminate the person they feared the most, the dreaded Richard Randolph Carr." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 883 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)


I thought that Bud might be particularly interested in reading Mr. Bugliosi's comments regarding Carr, since he started this thread. And Bud will find that everything he has said about Carr is buttressed by Bugliosi's research in "Reclaiming History" as well.

David Von Pein
October 9, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 344)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

The alleged murder weapon was stamped with "Made in Italy" and "CAL. 6.5" on it, making it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to confuse it with a Mauser.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Like I said the other day, Rob is totally worthless as a researcher. He fails on every level, without question. And his above statement regarding the Mauser/Carcano issue is yet another. Here's why:

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."




=========================

JOSEPH BALL -- "In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?"

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "In a glance, that's what it looked like."

MR. BALL -- "That's what it looked like, did you say that or someone else say that?"

MR. WEITZMAN -- "No, I said that. I thought it was one."


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm

=========================

JOSEPH BALL -- "There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?"

EUGENE BOONE -- "Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser."

MR. BALL -- "Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?"

MR. BOONE -- "I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the I.D. man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser."


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boone.htm

=========================

Let's now watch as Rob tries to run as far away as possible from the actual WORDS that came out of the mouths of both Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone that I quoted above.

I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, if Rob even accuses me of merely inventing the words I attribute to Weitzman in the first Weitzman quote above. But anyone who has a copy of the 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report" program can watch it for themselves.

For a solid year now, this fellow named Rob Caprio has been trying to sell the idea that "LHO shot no one" (a 2007 quote from Robby The Super-Kook)....and for a solid year he has gotten his butt trounced on every issue he's raised. Even several conspiracy theorists here have bashed him from pillar to post regarding many of the wholly inane things he continues to utter regularly. And yet Robby keeps coming back into the boxing ring for his next thrashing. A most curious hobby indeed.

Why do kooks like Rob continue to enjoy being beaten to death on every issue...every single time they open their electronic mouths?

The above question is one I do not have an answer for. I wish I did. Maybe I could write a book about it.

David Von Pein
October 9, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 343)


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

>>> "He [Arnold Rowland] said that he thought the guy was a security guard. He KNEW that Oswald was NOT a security guard..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

Therefore, per what Walt seems to be implying here -- The ONLY possible way that ANY gunman seen by Rowland in the TSBD could have been legitimately and positively identified by Arnold Rowland is if that gunman turned out to REALLY BE A "SECURITY GUARD", since the man doing the identifying (Arnold Rowland) THOUGHT that the gunman was a security guard at 12:15 PM CST on November 22.

LOL replay.

Let's see Walt's next brainstorm....(as my bladder weakens still more)....


>>> "He [Rowland] was shown pictures of Oswald and he had seen him on TV and yet he said he could NOT identify the "security guard" as Oswald. He described physical features of the security guard that did NOT fit Oswald" <<<

This just keeps getting better and more hilarious all the time.

The kook named Duncan-Hines (aka Cakebread) now seems to believe that Rowland really did see a security guard on the sixth floor. (The kook should have put "security guard" in quotes that second time up above too.)

Maybe Rowland's merely THINKING (incorrectly, of course) that the man with the gun (Oswald, of course) was a "security guard" has rubbed off on the feeble mind of a kook named Walt. Ya think? It could happen. After all, this kook named Walt actually seems to think Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit.


>>> ".... Early thirties, black hair...light colored sport shirt open at the collar with a T shirt beneath the outer shirt." <<<

If that, in fact, was Arnold Rowland's exact description of the sixth-floor gunman (and I haven't got his testimony memorized; I'd have to check it, and I probably should too*, because trusting this kook named Walt to get anything right is like trusting Lee Oswald to tell the truth about his Carcano mail-order purchase), then that description certainly does nothing whatsoever to EXCLUDE Oswald (not even the age estimate, given the fact that other people said the SAME THING about Oswald looking older than he was), you idiot.

And to emphasize this once more, if Rowland said "early 30s"*, then we have on the record just one additional example of the CONSISTENCY with which people described Oswald's age -- e.g., Baker, Brennan, the 10th Street witness responsible for the 1:22 APB concerning Tippit's killer (whoever that was), and now Rowland too*.

But to a kook, consistency like this regarding LHO equates to Oswald's complete innocence. Somehow. (Don't ask me how. Go ask a kook. Walt?)


* Footnote:

I just now checked Rowland's testimony...and yes, he did say "early thirties":

"I think I remember telling my wife that he appeared in his early thirties. This could be obscured because of the distance, I mean." -- 1964 W.C. TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD L. ROWLAND

So, thanks Walt, for providing that quote from Rowland re the age of the sixth-floor gunman....which matches perfectly the testimony of DPD Officer Marrion Baker (who we KNOW saw Oswald just after the shooting) and Howard Brennan and at least one other 11/22 witness.


>>> "Have ya finished messing yer pants now??" <<<

I doubt it very much. Not unless you finally want to stop typing out the hilarious bladder-busting idiocy that you've been typing out tonight.

The more Walt types, the more I hope the bathroom isn't occupied.


>>> "Let's hear you lie." <<<

Okay, I'll do my best.

Here's the biggest lie I'll ever tell (bar none):

Walter Cakebread is a genius! He's the #1 JFK researcher that history has ever seen. He deserves a Nobel Prize for his incredible work in rooting out the truth about the way JFK died in November 1963. (Especially that "Rowland Thought The Gunman Was A Security Guard, Which Evidently Means That The Gunman WAS A Security Guard" gem.)

Coming up with true and believable bombshells like that "Rowland/Security Guard" thing makes us all wonder why Walt wasn't selected to speak at the 2008 Wecht Conference. He should have been the keynote speaker, for Christ's sake!

David Von Pein
October 9, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 342)


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "And how did she [Julia Postal] know a police officer was shot?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What difference does it make?

Unless you're prepared to go one step further down "Everybody's A
Conspirator" Avenue and accuse both Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer of
being involved in some kind of "plot" against Oswald on November 22,
the question of whether or not Mrs. Postal positively knew for certain
that a policeman had been shot nearby is a moot question.

Why?

Because Mrs. Postal called the police regardless of that knowledge,
after she had learned from Johnny Brewer that a suspicious-acting man
had entered the theater without buying a ticket, with Postal telling
the police during her phone call to them that it was her opinion (and
obviously Johnny Brewer's opinion as well) that the man who ducked
into the theater without paying was "running from them [the police]
for some reason"
.

But to an Anybody-But-Oswald gasbag like Rob, the information that
Mrs. Postal gave to the police over the phone (within minutes of an
officer being shot in the same general area of Oak Cliff) evidently
wasn't nearly enough of a reason for the cops to suspect that Tippit's
murderer might possibly be the person Postal and Brewer saw.

Creeps like Rob shouldn't be allowed to have access to anything
related to the murders of JFK and Officer J.D. Tippit. Rob should
stick to writing about the other really stupid conspiracy he believes
in -- the "Moon Landing Hoax". If he stuck to that idiocy, at least we
wouldn't have to see his stupid shit being spouted in here anymore.


>>> "Dave [Von Pein] is obviously NOT a math major; otherwise he would know you round up only if a number is equal to or greater than a "5". Since LHO was 24, you would round DOWN, not up. How do you get to 30 from 24, Dave?" <<<

Just when you thought Robby "King Of The Morons" Caprio couldn't get
any more ridiculous and foolish-looking -- he goes and does it.

Rob apparently thinks that witnesses like Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, and the 10th-Street witness who supplied the info for the
1:22 APB should have all KNOWN the exact age of Oswald when they saw
him on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza and in Oak Cliff, and those witnesses
should all have performed the proper "rounding off" mathematics when
calculating his approximate age for the police.

Shame on those witnesses for not adhering to the rigid standards of
"rounding-off mathematics" when giving their descriptions! Baker and
Brennan, et al, should be hung from the live oak in front of the
Depository for not meeting Rob's expectations regarding the age thing!

Also.....

In one of Rob's previous posts [THIS ONE], please take note of the fact
that after Rob is proven to look like the idiot and non-researcher he most
certainly is (such as when I proved to him that an APB for Tippit's
killer was broadcast at 1:22 after Robby The Moron thought that no
such transmission was ever made by the DPD at all), the kook named
Robcap then decides to change directions and wants to know how the
1:22 APB description matches LHO in "any way".

That might just be the biggest laugh of the day, Rob! In fact, I know
it is, because my bladder's giving me trouble again. (And you ought to
know by now of its weak status.)

Rob thinks that this description DOESN'T match Lee Oswald's appearance
"in any way" as of approx. 1:15 PM on 11/22/63:

"He's a white male, about thirty, five-eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

When, in actuality, the above description is very nearly perfect for
Lee Harvey Oswald as of the time of Tippit's murder, with the
exception of the 6-year discrepancy in LHO's age; which, of course, as
I've mentioned before, is the VERY SAME DISCREPANCY that exists with
respect to OTHER witnesses who also described Oswald as being older
than 24, such as Marrion Baker and Howard Brennan.

Does Robcap think Officer Baker DIDN'T really see Oswald in the
lunchroom at about 12:32?

Baker, after seeing a person that we know WAS, indeed, Lee H. Oswald,
said that he thought the man he saw (Oswald) was about 30 years old.

But it's better for a super-kook like Rob if he just ignores that little
item regarding Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. That way, the
kook can remain in denial of Oswald's obvious guilt for another day.

Right, Robert?

David Von Pein
October 8, 2008


================================


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 341)


http://EducationForum.com


RE: The Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law National
Symposium: "Making Sense of the Sixties-–A National Symposium on the
Assassinations and Political Legacies of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Robert F. Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy"

Location of conference: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Dates: October 3 - October 5, 2008

>>> "The final panel discussion, "Where do we go from here?", included more talk of possible Congressional Oversight Hearings on the JFK Act, the idea of a grand jury investigation, and the mobilization of a response to the forthcoming HBO miniseries based on [Vincent] Bugliosi's book. Not discussed is why someone doesn't produce a real documentary film on the real issues of the JFK assassination and tell the story of what really happened." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's already been done....many years ago in fact....in 1964....by
David L. Wolper and company....when the best film ever made on the JFK
assassination was produced...."Four Days In November":



Conspiracy theorists, after 45 years now, just cannot come to grips
with "what really happened" in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, sadly,
they probably never will come to grips with the reality of what really
happened -- i.e., a kooky 24-year-old guy named Lee took his own rifle
with him to work on November 22, and was lucky enough to have a whole
floor of his workplace all to himself at just the right time at 12:30
PM, and he fired the bullets from his own rifle that ended President
Kennedy's life.

It doesn't get much simpler than that. And that "simple" reality is
supported by all of the physical evidence (and most of the
circumstantial evidence) connected with the JFK murder case.

And there is nothing on this Earth that any individual conspiracy
theorist or group of conspiracy theorists can do that will change that
immutable reality concerning the evidence that exists in this case.

Maybe it's time for Dr. Cyril H. Wecht to hang it up. Because 45 years
is an awfully long time to search for the goose that has yet to lay
that golden conspiracy-proving egg.

But, then too, for some people (like certain conspiracy theorists), it
would seem that the "search" is the most important thing that they
have to live for -- and certainly the ONLY thing they have to hang
onto in this case.

Never mind the fact that in 45 years of constant, never-ending
"searching", nobody has come close to proving Lee Harvey Oswald's
innocence.*

* = Yes, I know that CTers will respond to that last paragraph with --
"What are you talking about, you idiot?! It's YOU who must 'prove'
Oswald's GUILT; not the other way around."


Well, folks, Oswald's guilt HAS been proven....many times over....and
beyond all reasonable doubt. Anyone who is still in doubt about the
guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald after 45 years' worth of
looking into the evidence surrounding this case (including the
official declarations of Oswald's guilt proclaimed by both the Warren
Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations) should
certainly consider pursuing a new hobby -- because this JFK thing just
isn't right for them at all.

And never mind the fact that after all those decades of non-stop
searching, nobody has come close to "proving" that any kind of
conspiracy existed in the death of President John F. Kennedy.

You'd think that after 45 years of running into roadblocks and dead-
end streets, these people searching for that elusive conspiracy plot
to murder the President in '63 would finally just stop trying....and
realize that they are searching for something (i.e., the truth of
the JFK assassination) that was located and properly identified four-
and-a-half decades ago.

David Von Pein
October 8, 2008







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 340)


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

Show me a description from the J.D. Tippit scene broadcasted that matched LHO.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Rob is a worthless researcher. Completely worthless. He couldn't find his pee-pee if it weren't attached to his scrotum.

Rob actually thinks there was NO description put out over the DPD radio airwaves regarding Tippit's killer that generally matched LHO. Incredible stupidity.

Well, here it is, Rob-Kook (from a 1:22 PM DPD Radio transmission):

"We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five [feet] eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks." -- VIA THE DPD RADIO LOGS; THIS WAS BROADCAST BY THE DPD AT 1:22 PM CST, ALMOST HALF-AN-HOUR BEFORE THE DPD ARRESTED LEE OSWALD IN THE TEXAS THEATER

Check the "1:22" calls here.

The above description almost perfectly matches Lee Harvey Oswald's appearance as of approximately 1:15 PM CST on 11/22/63. And, once again, we have at least one more witness (this time at the Tippit murder scene) who thought that Oswald appeared to be a little older than his correct age of 24 -- which perfectly aligns with Dealey Plaza witnesses Marrion Baker and Howard Brennan, who also both saw Oswald that day and gave his age to be "about 30" or "early 30s".

But it wasn't really the above DPD radio bulletin that directly led to Lee Oswald's arrest, of course. It was Julia Postal's phone call to the police that was directly responsible. (I suppose Postal is a conspirator too, huh Robby?)

David Von Pein
October 7, 2008




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 339)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Now explain how they [the DPD] used this description of the alleged shooter of JFK to arrest LHO for the murder of J.D. Tippit which had NOT happened for 30 more minutes in their theory.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

They didn't, of course. Only brain-dead conspiracy-happy kooks actually think that the police swarmed the Texas Theater SOLELY based on the JFK murder.

A very ordinary, routine series of things occurred that led to Oswald's arrest on 11/22/63, and every reasonable person who has only studied the JFK and Tippit cases in a cursory manner knows this to be true. (So that leaves out kooks like Rob, of course.)

The Dallas police used the tip provided by Julia Postal to investigate things at the Texas Theater, which ultimately led to Oswald's arrest (via Johnny Brewer's identification of LHO from the stage of the theater).

Postal called the police and told them that a man had just entered the theater who was "running from them for some reason" (Postal's quote from her Warren Commission testimony).

But, I guess Rob thinks that the police should have just ignored Julia Postal's phone call altogether, even though Postal was telling the police over the phone that a man was "running" from the cops "for some reason", with this "running" man being just a few blocks from the scene of the Tippit murder (a murder where the killer got away from the scene of the crime).

Were the cops supposed to say this to Julia Postal?:

"I'm sorry, ma'am, but we're too busy right now trying to apprehend the President's killer to come and check out your call about a suspicious, running man in the very same neck of the woods where somebody just shot one of our officers less than half-an-hour ago. Call us back in a day or two to remind us about it then. We'll have some men available to respond to your call then. But for right now, forget it."

Rob would make a great detective alright -- in Kooktown, that is.

David Von Pein
October 7, 2008




MARK LANE
AND
HELEN MARKHAM


http://google.com/alt.assassination.jfk


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Markham...even denied it was her voice on the tape.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. That's only what Mark Lane wanted his audience of conspiracy-thirsty fans to believe, as he attempted to make Markham look like an even bigger idiot by not giving the audience the complete story about the female voices heard on the tape recording of the Lane/Markham interview.

According to Lane, Markham seemed to be saying she couldn't recognize her own voice. But she knew the OPERATOR'S voice wasn't hers (and this is brought out in Markham's Warren Commission testimony).

And when she said in her WC testimony -- "this lady never talked to me" -- she obviously had just simply forgotten that she had talked briefly with the female telephone operator.

Just listen to how Mark Lane tries to make Mrs. Markham look like an even bigger boob in this December 4, 1964, appearance at Beverly Hills High School [below], wherein he doesn't bother to tell the large audience that there WAS, in fact, another woman's voice on that tape:




ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Where does the tape itself indicate that the woman's voice was Markham's when in context it is clearly the operator's? You do realize, I hope, that she eventually admitted that it was her voice on the tape? Why do you keep denying things after the person in question has already admitted them? Am I allowed to say that you are misleading?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not misleading anybody on this particular matter. But YOU certainly are, Tony. Markham never admitted that the OPERATOR'S voice was her OWN voice.

Sure, Markham admitted that HER voice on the tape was HER voice, yes. But when Markham said "not at the first there" in her WC testimony, Mark Lane was most definitely trying to make it appear to his eager audience of CTers that the voice Markham was referring to was Markham's OWN voice, instead of explaining that the first voice Markham heard on the tape was the voice of the telephone operator.

Can there be any doubt that that is exactly what Lane did at Beverly Hills High School on 12/4/64? And, of course, he succeeded completely, because he never told the crowd that there was a second female voice on that tape, as he attempted to make Markham look even more foolish.

The audience would have to read Markham's Warren Commission testimony to know that there was a second female voice on the tape. Or they'd have to read the transcript [starting at 20 H 571]. Because Mark Lane sure as hell wasn't going to tell them.


ADDITIONAL RANDOM OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MARK LANE'S INTERVIEW WITH HELEN MARKHAM:

There are two places in the transcript of the interview which provide good indications at just how lousy some human beings are at estimating TIME intervals:

At one point in her March 1964 telephone interview with Mark Lane, Mrs. Markham tells Lane that she remained on the corner of Tenth & Patton for
"two minutes" after the shooting had occurred [20 H 581]. And she also implies that Oswald was STILL IN HER SIGHT after the two-minute period had passed [20 H 582], because she says that Oswald was still in sight when she left the corner to go to Tippit's side. And she claims she didn't leave the corner for "about, uh, two minutes I imagine" following the shooting.

But, of course, there's no way that Oswald was still in sight of Mrs. Markham for two solid minutes after Officer Tippit was killed. She was merely incorrect in her time estimate. Just like she was incorrect when she said the shooting took place at 1:06 PM.

But, of course, she also told Bardwell Odum of the FBI that the murder had taken place "possibly around 1:30 PM" (quoting from Odum's FBI report of 11/22/63, in Commission Document No. 5, page 79).

So it would certainly seem, based on what she told Odum, that Mrs. Markham was anything BUT sure that Tippit was killed at precisely 1:06 PM. (Unless conspiracy theorists want to claim that "possibly around 1:30 PM" is somehow the same thing as exactly "1:06 PM".)

Another place in the Lane/Markham interview where Mrs. Markham is way off in estimating a time interval is on Page 20 of the transcript [at 20 H 590], when Markham tells Mark Lane that "about 20 minutes" had elapsed after Tippit was shot before the first person (besides herself) had come out to the street to see what was happening.

Helen's "about 20 minutes" estimate is hilarious, seeing as how we know that Domingo Benavides and T.F. Bowley and Ted Callaway (and even various policemen and the ambulance drivers) were on the scene prior to twenty minutes having elapsed.

In these "time" instances, Helen Markham is just like many other people -- they just do not estimate times or time intervals very well.

But Mrs. Markham was quite clear when the subject of positively identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as J.D. Tippit's killer comes up in her interview with Mr. Lane. I imagine the conspiracy theorists just hate this part of the Lane/Markham interview [at 20 H 587-588]:

MARK LANE -- "You must have been terribly upset, uh, at that time. Do you think it is possible you might have made a mistake in terms of identifying Oswald?"

HELEN MARKHAM -- "No, uh, no."

LANE -- "You were not that upset."

MARKHAM -- "No, cause I had to be sure. They wanted to know right now, you know. .... I said I've got to be sure, I want to be sure. .... So, I had them to turn him, you know. .... And they turned him, and it was him. .... I saw him in the eyes. It was him."

-------------------

This particular section of the interview is also quite interesting [starting at
20 H 595]:

MARK LANE -- "Did you tell any reporter that the person that shot Tippit was short, stocky, and had bushy hair?"

HELEN MARKHAM -- "I did not."

LANE -- "You don't remember telling it? Because one of the reporters reported that in the newspaper."

MARKHAM -- "Yes, I read that."

LANE -- "You read that. What paper was that, you recall?"

MARKHAM -- "Uh, I believe it was in the Herald."

LANE -- "The Herald?"

MARKHAM -- "I believe, it might have been the News."

LANE -- "It was one of the Dallas papers, uh?"

MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir."

LANE -- "And, do you know what day that was?"

MARKHAM -- "No, sir."

LANE -- "That was shortly after, though, wasn't it?"

MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. They gave my address, name, and everything."

LANE -- "Yeh, and they had you quoted as saying that he was short, stocky, and had bushy hair."

MARKHAM -- "Well, they're just not right."

LANE -- "But that's what they said though."

MARKHAM -- "I know it. They can put anything in papers."

-------------------

David Von Pein
March 2013


============================




============================