JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 692)


PAT SPEER SAID:

David, spin spin spin. You just can't let yourself see the issue. Jack White wrote about two versions of the SAME document talking about the SAME test on the SAME bag. Bugliosi responded by claiming this had something to do with two SEPARATE TESTS performed on two SEPARATE bags. He screwed up, however. One of the two SEPARATE tests was not performed until AFTER the document discussed by White had been written. It follows that any confusion related to the test of the 12-1 paper sample had NOTHING to do with there being two versions of the SAME 11-29 document.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You just refuse to read Vincent Bugliosi's comments correctly.

Incredibly, Pat Speer still seems to think that Bugliosi is talking ONLY about the 12/1/63 FBI paper sample. But, of course, he's not talking ONLY about that sample. He's talking about BOTH the 11/22/63 paper sample and the 12/1/63 sample, which is really the entire point in the first place -- i.e., there were TWO separate samples of paper obtained from the TSBD by the FBI which caused confusion, with one of these samples (the one obtained on 11/22/63) matching Oswald's paper sack, and the other sample (taken from the Depository later, on 12/1/63, in order to create a replica bag) not matching Oswald's bag due to the fact the roll of paper in the TSBD had been changed since the day of the assassination.

And Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission in Commission Exhibit 2723 clears up BOTH "versions" of the conflict. CE2723, in my opinion, clears up the 11/29/63 "Drain document" conflict; and CE2723 also clears up the conflict that was sparked by the January 7th and January 13th reports.


ADDENDUM:

It's also worth noting that on page 4 of a letter (linked HERE) from J. Edgar Hoover to Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry (which is a letter dated November 23, 1963, six days before Vincent Drain filed his report), Hoover said the following to Chief Curry:

"The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10 [the bag found in the Sniper's Nest], were found to have the same observable physical characteristics as the known wrapping paper and tape, K2 [the sample taken from the TSBD on 11/22/63], from the Texas Public School Book Depository."

And here's page 1 of the letter (which shows the date: "November 23, 1963").

So, unless some CTers want to believe that Hoover's 11/23/63 letter to Curry is a fake, then we have the proof in writing--SIX DAYS PRIOR TO VINCENT DRAIN'S NOVEMBER 29TH REPORT--that the 11/22/63 paper sample had the "same observable physical characteristics" as the paper bag found on the sixth floor (CE142).

MORE POSTS CONCERNING THIS PAPER BAG TOPIC:
PART 1 --- PART 2 --- PART 3


David Von Pein
September 6, 2009




MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 22)


MARY MOORMAN'S POLAROID:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/3eRZ2tyjjSs/NHK6Sjl5ZgIJ


A LUNCH BAG OR A RIFLE BAG?:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/EBTrd64uaDk/WweEmd3D64kJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/TRkqXNMD4Ok/aHaCN78T-bIJ


MARK LANE:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ajG1uNhl8MM/cgwh7ROz6QQJ
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/mark-lane-and-helen-markham
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/mark-lane-interviews


CE139, CE142, AND CE2640:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/yrXe5SqCrPA/yazBeo-T4j8J


PATSY TALK:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/EBTrd64uaDk/NY4NUtKDYLoJ


"RECLAIMING HISTORY" AND DAVID LIFTON'S SILLINESS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/qfeI_EGGwk4/3hYMGNNWmh0J
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/ghostwriting


WITH OR WITHOUT NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/McgJeaDx6S4/J4M_2bmZnIcJ


JAMES HOSTY AND THE BOOK DEPOSITORY:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/nXtFIl6764o/sGpHohKlYjcJ


THOSE BRAIN-DEAD PLOTTERS:
http://amazon.com/review/R3TP03S17M1K2E


DR. HUMES AND DR. BURKLEY:
http://amazon.com/review/R1IJCORAA3SNS


BUD'S LOGIC:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/EBTrd64uaDk/Y7jnFW2w_gAJ


JACK WHITE'S NONSENSE (AND OTHER CONSPIRACY CLAIMS):
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/7PDhwL3JyQs/eV42QavZz-4J


BLACK OP RADIO:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/EVxYUd1P3DE/gMUPu7Z2TIkJ


VINCE BUGLIOSI AND DALE MYERS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/qfeI_EGGwk4/WUQSlRuXEJgJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/qfeI_EGGwk4/zTDqXHTZUKMJ


THE TIPPIT BULLET SHELLS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/DfAImX9BK7c/uGKnsklyIm4J



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










MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 21)


MARRION BAKER'S GUN:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/YDeAz5kXjM8/0bytt15hmNkJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/YDeAz5kXjM8/1lKSMW7NPFgJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/YDeAz5kXjM8/ENnNCAIoqtAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/YDeAz5kXjM8/UaUuu6A7-UYJ


THE MAGIC BULLET THEORY (TIMES FOUR):
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/wKRyXrBszEs/G6jkb5mBRBcJ


THAT PESKY "SUM TOTAL OF EVIDENCE" (AGAIN):
http://amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A


DON'T EXPECT LOGIC FROM A CONSPIRACY THEORIST:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/s_TwnrbBoLA/56vaQaSBjnkJ


OSWALD'S RIFLE PURCHASE:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/YDeAz5kXjM8/i4QFDd72JcMJ


OSWALD'S HEART RATE:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/YDeAz5kXjM8/FOqNjUK0PLQJ


TIPPIT TIMING:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/U0mK06puaD4/raTBoFxlGRQJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/W14RXEO090M/AMW9TGjRoYwJ


WHAT MATTERS MOST?:
http://amazon.com/review/R2YL59N142YC2J


NINETEEN SECONDS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/OofryoP718M/zcGfiqGQmOEJ


THE WINDSHIELD:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/yrXe5SqCrPA/dXsIYB_kqxUJ


THE SECRET SERVICE AT LOVE FIELD:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/LgB5edjXJy8/XAa-99WpkzwJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/LgB5edjXJy8/aOkTMbXaH7gJ


STUFF THAT GOES NOWHERE:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/LgB5edjXJy8/nufe7aQTTz8J
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/NLdzCkGcR_M/XhsAXogyGkAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/NLdzCkGcR_M/bQ7FwzqisjkJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/NLdzCkGcR_M/GdaGNDqvNqQJ



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










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 691)


PAT SPEER SAID:

The original version of the 11-29 document was not discovered until 1977.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right. But the SECOND conflict (the one that arose in January 1964), as another poster ("ShutterBun") has rightly pointed out, goes to the EXACT SAME CONFLICT as the first conflict (with the first conflict, chronologically, being the Vincent Drain documents dated 11/29/63).

It's the exact same discrepancy -- i.e., it's a conflict which raises the question that J. Lee Rankin and the Warren Commission wanted cleared up by the FBI in March 1964: DID CE142 GENERALLY MATCH OR NOT MATCH THE TWO SEPARATE PAPER SAMPLES?

And Vincent Bugliosi is obviously talking about the FIRST discrepancy when he uses the exact verbiage from Drain's original (inaccurate) version -- "not to be identical".

Yes, Mr. Bugliosi then does switch to talking about the January 7 and January 13 version of the conflict. But it's really ALL THE SAME THING, which (as VB rightly points out) was cleared up via CE2723 (J. Edgar Hoover's letter to the Warren Commission):

You, Pat, probably think that Vince Bugliosi was not being totally above-board and honest because Vince didn't say something like I said in my last post...right, Pat?

You think Vince should have said something akin to this:

"I have no idea why [Vincent] Drain wrote "found not to be identical" in what was quite obviously the "original" version of his 11/29/63 FBI report (and is a conclusion that is completely the opposite of what the FBI's James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about the 11/22/63 paper sample). I guess that's a mystery that will likely never be solved." -- DVP; 09/04/09

Well, you're right, Bugliosi didn't say anything like that on endnote pages 405 and 406 of "Reclaiming History". So, if you want to call Mr. Bugliosi a liar and a cheat for not having done so--go ahead.

But in the FINAL ANALYSIS when examining this issue concerning the two conflicting FBI reports relating to the paper samples and CE142 (the Sniper's-Nest paper bag), Vincent Bugliosi, in my opinion, cleared up the "mystery" very nicely. YMMV.

And, BTW Pat, you're still wrong because you seem to think that Bugliosi was talking ONLY about the second FBI paper sample (the 12/1/63 sample) during VB's entire endnote on pages 405 and 406 of his book. But he was most certainly talking about the TWO different FBI paper samples in that endnote.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2009




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 690)


PAT SPEER SAID:

It is not I who holds that the two conflicting but identical reports on the paper bag are for two different bags, one being for the original bag and one for the bag created 12-1, it is your hero Bugliosi. This is absolutely clear from reading my article, where I include his thoroughly inaccurate statements regarding this conflict, whereby he tries to pass off the two conflicting documents found by Shaw as references to two different bags.

Take off your Bugliosi-colored glasses for a second, will ya? Your hero screwed up big time, and totally embarrassed himself. (Feel free to add this to your list of his mistakes.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong, Pat. You'd better re-read "Reclaiming History" endnote pages 405 and 406 again, because you couldn't be more wrong on this point.

Bugliosi made no mistake on this issue at all. And the quoted passages that YOU, Pat Speer, included in your 4/13/09 article at Mary Ferrell's website confirm this.

Bugliosi fully acknowledges that the FBI obtained paper samples from the Book Depository on TWO separate days (11/22/63 and 12/1/63), and Vince is most certainly NOT contending (in the book excerpts reprinted below) that the November 22 paper sample was utilized by the FBI to create the replica bag. In fact, Vince never mentions the replica BAG at all in these "RH" book excerpts:

"One version [of Vincent Drain's 11/29/63 FBI report] stated that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the shooting.

[...]

The two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March 12, 1964, letter [linked here], Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt. Please submit a report...as to the tests made and the conclusions drawn.”

[...]

A week later, on March 19 [in a letter to Rankin which can be seen in CE2723], Hoover responded that BOTH reports were correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its “heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found on the day of the shooting.

The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to [the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic and all other observable physical characteristics.”"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 405-406 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


PAT SPEER SAID:

Your suggestion that the two conflicting reports are really not in conflict is ludicrous. While you and I might say that something is not identical, but shared the same observable characteristics, and not be contradicting ourselves...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, exactly. So what's your problem now, Pat? (Let's see...)


PAT SPEER SAID:

...the FBI uses precise wording. "Found not to be identical" indicates that the two bags did not match. "Has the same observable characteristics" is FBI-speak for saying that their tests are not specific like fingerprints or DNA, but that from what they can determine the paper could be from the same source.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

Oh I see! If it's you and I talking about the VERY SAME matter, we would "not be contradicting ourselves", but if it's the "FBI" doing the talking, it becomes "FBI-speak" and suddenly the exact same words mean something that IS contradictory in nature.

Brilliant, Pat!

You're REALLY digging deep to try and save yourself from embarrassment now, I see. Maybe you should stop right now, while we can still see the top of your head.

BTW, you're wrong (again) when you keep trying to assert that the "revised" language in the 11/29/63 Vincent Drain report is referring to "the two bags". The November 29th report (BOTH versions) is referring to a small piece of sample paper (which can be seen in CE677) that was taken from the Depository on November 22 (not December 1).

The 11/29/63 document is most certainly NOT referring to the paper sample that was used by the FBI to create the replica "bag", with the replica bag being viewable in CE364.

Pat Speer still seems to think that CE677 and CE364 are the same thing. And Pat evidently also wants to believe that CE677 and CE364 were obtained on the very same DAY too. But they weren't. So Pat is wrong.


PAT SPEER SAID:

BTW, it is not MY subjective impression that the reports are in conflict, and that the first one was officially "inaccurate", it is the determination of the FBI. .... If "not identical" and "same observable characteristics" were just two ways of saying the same thing, don't you think Hoover would know this? Wouldn't Shanklin have known this? .... The FBI changed documents...after the fact...and kept no record of the changes, and made no notations on the documents indicating they'd been changed. Deal with it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then how did we ever find out about the change, if no records were kept of the change? Somebody kept the initial Drain document, otherwise we wouldn't even know of its existence.

Which brings up another point -- If the FBI was so determined to HIDE the initial "not identical" version of Vincent Drain's report, then why in the world didn't they see to it that the original document with the words "found not to be identical" on it was destroyed? Were they too lazy to rip up a piece of paper?

In the final analysis, it's quite obvious (to everybody except rabid conspiracy theorists who want the FBI to be involved in a "cover-up" of some kind) that the FBI replaced a poorly-worded page of one report with a more-accurately-worded page of that same report. And James Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony confirms this as well.

In fact, Cadigan even went a step further than the "corrected" FBI/Drain document, because Cadigan said that the 11/22/63 paper sample (not the 12/1/63 sample, keep in mind) was, indeed, "identical" in appearance to CE142 (the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest):


MR. EISENBERG -- "In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample [referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."

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

RE: VINCENT DRAIN'S MEMORY CONCERNING THE TWO "CD5; PG. 129" DOCUMENTS:

If FBI agent Vincent Drain was correct about what he said to Earl Golz in 1980 (with Drain apparently telling Golz that the ORIGINAL document was the version with the words "same observable characteristics" in it, and that the version of his report which said "found not to be identical" was a "fake"), then we are left to believe something that is completely ridiculous on its face -- i.e., we're left to believe that the FBI decided to create a fake version of the document, but they then decided NOT TO USE that "fake" document in their final report.

Via such a ludicrous scenario concerning the musical FBI reports, the FBI decided that Drain's ORIGINAL version of the document (which included the words "same observable characteristics") would then be the FINAL and "official" version of that document after all.

So, if the commonly-held belief of many conspiracy theorists is correct about how the FBI was attempting to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy, then why in the world would the FBI have wanted to create a FAKE DOCUMENT which said that the sample paper taken from the TSBD was "not identical" to that of the paper bag that the same FBI has linked to Oswald? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Vincent Drain's remarks to Earl Golz in 1980 only serve to demonstrate that Mr. Drain's memory was almost certainly a bit fuzzy and mfaulty when trying to recall the events from 17 years earlier.

I have no idea why Drain wrote "found not to be identical" in what was quite obviously the "original" version of his 11/29/63 FBI report (and is a conclusion that is completely the opposite of what the FBI's James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about the 11/22/63 paper sample).

I guess that's a mystery that will likely never be solved.


CLOSING NOTE FOR PAT SPEER:

You, Mr. Speer, are doing what all desperate conspiracy theorists do every day of their lives -- you're reaching deep into the Chaff Pool for ANY sign of "conspiracy" and/or "cover-up" that you can latch onto. And, as usual, you end up looking silly when some common sense is applied to your "findings" (just as Vincent Bugliosi makes you look silly via the book excerpts I cited above).

You, of course, will pretend to not realize you're wrong regarding this matter (probably because you spent a lot of time researching this Jack White/Gary Shaw hunk of nonsense concerning the two different FBI reports for your Mary Ferrell article).

And you, Pat, will also pretend to not realize that I'm right when I corrected you about Vincent Bugliosi's comments on this topic -- i.e., you'll probably still say that Bugliosi was talking about the replica BAG on pages 405 and 406 of the endnotes in his book "Reclaiming History", even though Vince doesn't say the words "REPLICA BAG" or "RE-CREATED BAG" (or something similar) one single time on those pages at all.

But regardless of your protestations, you will continue to be incorrect on this matter, Pat.

Deal with it.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2009


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


ADDENDUM:


GARY MACK SAID:

Hello David,

As Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz found out, there was a very simple explanation for Vince Drain's two contradictory notes about the paper bag characteristics. Drain told Earl back in 1980 that he prepared the two notes before knowing the results, then signed and/or initialed the correct one once the FBI lab analysis was available to him.

He was surprised to learn from Earl that the incorrect note was still part of the record, for Vince was under the impression it was thrown away once the test results came back. Apparently his secretary, who typed his notes and letters, kept copies of both versions and that's why they are in the records.

Earl never wrote a story about all this, but he certainly told me at the time and I think a brief mention of what he learned appeared in The Continuing Inquiry sometime that year.

Gary Mack
[October 17, 2014]


JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

That's probably the most ridiculous explanation of them all. Who does that?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Evidently Vince Drain did.

Of course, such an explanation by Drain does not mesh at all with the following comments that I made in 2009. But in light of what Gary Mack told me on October 17, 2014, I'm wondering now if this "fake" remark is accurate....

"If FBI agent Vincent Drain was correct about what he said to Earl Golz in 1980 (with Drain apparently telling Golz that the ORIGINAL document was the version with the words "same observable characteristics" in it, and that the version of his report which said "found not to be identical" was a "fake"), then we are left to believe something that is completely ridiculous on its face -- i.e., we're left to believe that the FBI decided to create a fake version of the document, but they then decided NOT TO USE that "fake" document in their final report."
-- DVP; September 4, 2009


I see now where I got the "fake" quote that was allegedly uttered by Vince Drain. It's in Pat Speer's 2009 article at Mary Ferrell's site.....

"In 1980, after the appearance of Jack White’s article in The Continuing Inquiry, journalist Earl Golz asked the supposed author of these reports, FBI agent Vincent Drain, about the two conflicting reports bearing his name. Now, if Drain’s words were consistent with Baker’s subsequent explanation, one might reasonably conclude that the “mystery” surrounding the conflicting documents had mostly been solved. As reported by Jerry Rose in the March 1985 issue of The Third Decade, however, Drain’s answers were at odds with what Baker told Tatro. While Drain, in order to align with Baker’s subsequent explanation, should have admitted something along the lines of “I screwed up, and was asked to rewrite my report” he instead “expressed shock at seeing” the documents and “said he was as ‘puzzled’ as Golz about them.” Even more problematic, in light of what Baker was to reveal, Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document,” and speculated that the document discovered by Shaw, and subsequently acknowledged by the FBI’s Assistant Director to be the de facto original document, was a “fake.” "
-- Pat Speer; April 2009


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Great,

DVP is told by Gary Mack that Earl Golz told him that he heard from Vince Drain.

On the other hand, Speer refers to an article from 1985 by Jerry Rose, who apparently wrote about what Golz allegedly heard from Drain.

What is this, for crying out loud?

Golz telling Mack one thing and Rose another?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. Looks like it. If Pat Speer has got his quotes right, that is.

I can't blame this discrepancy on faulty memory either (except the possible faulty memories of Earl Golz, Jerry Rose, and/or Mr. Mack), because both versions are coming from the same source (Golz) and, I assume, from the exact same interview with Drain in 1980.

~big shrug~

David Von Pein
October 17, 2014


GARY MACK SAID:

Dave,

The “fake” claim was first started by Jack White in 1980, who speculated both FBI docs were fabricated so the official story could go “either way.”

My understanding of FBI Special Agent Vince Drain is that he was the “middle man” between the Dallas Police and FBI headquarters. He was the agent who supervised the transfer of the physical evidence from Dallas to Washington. He was not in charge of the FBI lab analysis but merely kept a file with information related to that evidence.

If Drain told anyone the conflicting report was fake, it’s easy to understand why for as far as Drain knew, the “other” report – once the FBI lab results came back – should have been discarded; therefore, the different report had to be a fake created not by the Bureau but by someone else.

Gary
[October 20, 2014]



MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

David,

Can you make heads or tails of this? I am struggling to understand what Gary Mack is trying to say here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes.

I think Gary means that if Drain ever said the word "fake" to anyone in connection with the "other" FBI report (the one that was NOT used by the FBI for any final determination regarding the TSBD paper samples), it means that Drain definitely DID think that HIS second version of the report WAS positively discarded (as he said it should have been)....and therefore, if any "second" report still existed it has to be a "fake" of some kind, because Drain is of the opinion that his second version was thrown away.

Given the above conceivable mindset of Vincent Drain, then Gary Mack's 10/20/14 e-mail to me does make sense.

But it's very likely that Drain was just simply wrong. His second report was not thrown out. Simple as that. Nothing sinister about it at all.

Something like this gets confusing, because we have to ask ourselves constantly:

Who is really saying what, and about whom, and when?

We've got Drain and Golz and Rose and Hurt and White and Mack. The quotes of the first man (Drain) can get garbled by going through so many people.

It's probably something that will be impossible to completely decipher now.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

I have great difficulty believing that an FBI agent like Drain would prepare two conflicting versions of a report in advance.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that does seem strange.

But what would be much stranger would be for somebody to create a FAKE report saying "the paper doesn't match". Why on Earth would even the "evil" FBI do something like that? (And it was suggested by Drain somewhere along the line that any "fake" report must have been the one saying "no match". But that's just plain silly.)

But let me add this important point....

This whole topic of the paper samples being "matches" or "no matches" to the CE142 brown paper bag is not really all that important anyway.

Why, you might ask?

Because......

Even if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't utilize the Book Depository's supply of paper and tape, it would only mean that Oswald acquired the brown paper and the tape SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Such a determination that he didn't use the TSBD materials doesn't erase the fact that Oswald WAS seen carrying a long brown bag into the Depository on the morning of the assassination.

And it wouldn't erase the fact that Oswald's own fingerprint and palmprint were found on an EMPTY brown paper bag that is connected to this murder case.

Regardless of WHERE he obtained the paper to construct the bag, it couldn't be any clearer from the testimony and statements of Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely DID carry a long brown bag into the Depository on November 22nd.

David Von Pein
October 21, 2014




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 689)


JOHN SIMKIN SAID:

Why we will never discover who killed John F. Kennedy...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Dallas Police Department discovered who killed JFK on the day of the assassination. It was Lee Harvey Oswald, who was charged with two murders before the end of the day on November 22, 1963.

Now, just try to imagine a scenario in which the Dallas police have accumulated enough evidence to actually formally charge a totally innocent man named Lee Oswald with two murders on the same day. Do police departments normally officially charge people with double murder even though they have absolutely no hard evidence to back up the charges whatsoever, as many conspiracy theorists seem to believe?

Are we really supposed to believe that the two murder charges that the DPD filed against Oswald were trumped up charges, with all of the evidence in both murders being manufactured or planted to frame an innocent man? Can any sensible person really believe such a thing? (I sure can't.)

A big clue to Oswald's guilt (in addition to the pile of evidence that convicts him ten times over) is the crucial and often-overlooked fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was already, in effect, a political assassin seven months before President Kennedy ever went to Dallas, when Oswald took that shot at General Walker on April 10, 1963. For some reason, however, conspiracy theorists seem to want to exonerate Oswald of that murder attempt too.

But I guess that's understandable from the POV of the standard Anybody But Oswald conspiracist, because if they were to admit that Lee Oswald took a gun and aimed it at the head of a retired United States general, then they'd have to admit something they fear -- i.e., Lee H. Oswald had murder running through his veins in the year 1963.


JOHN SIMKIN SAID:

I happen to believe that the [JFK] assassination was organized by CIA officers David Morales and Carl Elmer Jenkins and carried out by a team led by Rafael (Chi Chi) Quintero. However, I am fully aware that people like John McAdams and Gary Mack will have little difficulty in questioning the reliability of the evidence I could produce.

Some researchers believe the answer to the question of who killed John F. Kennedy will be found in the archives of the CIA and FBI. However, is it possible to imagine what kind of document will convince McAdams and Mack that he was murdered as part of a conspiracy? The same is also true of those who believe in the idea of a conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary Mack isn't an "LNer". He's a conspiracy believer. Why on Earth many people continue to think that Gary Mack thinks Oswald acted alone is anyone's guess. But the CTers continue to call Mack an LNer every single day. But he's not.

David Von Pein
March 30, 2014







MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 20)


BUGLIOSI, LANE, FRITZ, AND OSWALD:
http://amazon.com/R1S95P93PLA7OF


WHERE DID THE BULLET GO?:
http://amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A


ASSASSINATION FILM FAKERY?:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/zTDTjg20Gwo/rqm7DUhDNjYJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/zRJcDFrGd3I/F_Z5rDrsX34J


WAS OSWALD'S FIRST SHOT A "DUD"?:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/3eRZ2tyjjSs/fusjjqn_a8IJ


JACK RUBY'S JUNK-FILLED CAR:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ZkGX7FRKJ04/3ZFEokyx968J


DEBATING ACOUSTICS (VIA THE HUGHES FILM):
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/Woed18m7_VQ/HapovlW018wJ


JIM GARRISON:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/QUzV8CTTMB8/yT8DP8xtT5MJ
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/jim-garrison


GERALD POSNER:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/Dh97PH7DE7g/HlkEmrJM27YJ
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/gerald-posner


HENRY WADE AND A MOVIE SCRIPT:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ZkGX7FRKJ04/Mcx-reSk_nIJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ZkGX7FRKJ04/clucWPYnYwYJ


ROBERT HARRIS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/4n75ri4ifZI/DsrmqC7NM2wJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/3eRZ2tyjjSs/eA7djbd7h4wJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/qfeI_EGGwk4/2k9VMwtbypkJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/qfeI_EGGwk4/zP8W1-Ms5U0J


OFF-TOPIC -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI AND GEORGE BUSH:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/uF9EXD6XDUg/CjpBVqMUu0wJ
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/the-prosecution-of-bush


MORE WRANGLING:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/RC7sHkHb3Gc/HVXk0r-7sLgJ



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










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 688)


IN THIS ARTICLE, PAT SPEER SAID:

Historians, of all stripes and shapes, operate under the assumption the documents they are studying are written on the day they are dated, and are written by those signing the document. If Vincent Drain, when given the chance, had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and that his superiors had forced him to rewrite an inaccurate report, and that this was the only time this happened, perhaps we might still feel confident this holds true of FBI documents.

Drain's initials, after all, appear on the revised document. But he did not. He either lied or forgot entirely about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part. As a consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the "same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample and bag "found not to be identical"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As is always the case when JFK conspiracy theorists get ahold of something they deem to be suspicious or misleading or conspiratorial, this whole issue about the two different FBI reports (concerning the paper sample that was taken from the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the assassination) is another tiny anthill that conspiracists like Patrick Speer have decided to turn into Mount Everest.

The two documents, which conspiracy theorists believe are totally contradictory documents regarding the sample of paper that the FBI obtained from the Depository on November 22 (not to be confused with the December 1st paper sample, which was used to construct the replica "bag"), are not really "contradictory" at all, in my view.

One of the documents (almost certainly the original report filed by Vincent Drain in late November 1963) states that the sample paper was "found not to be identical" with the paper bag found in the Depository's Sniper's Nest (CE142), while the "corrected" document states that the sample paper exhibits the "same observable characteristics" as CE142.

But those two statements are not really contradictory at all, IMO. The sample paper could very well have had the "same observable characteristics" and yet not be "identical" to the paper in CE142.

To offer up a parallel circumstance -- It's very similar to the situation that occurred with the bullets that were removed from Officer J.D. Tippit's body. The FBI's firearms experts couldn't say that those four bullets had positively been fired from Lee Oswald's revolver, but the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham did say that "the rifling characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143 [Oswald's revolver] are the same as those present on the four bullets".

So, the "characteristics" are the same, but the word "identical" cannot be used. And I think the same thing applies to the paper sample. There were "characteristics" that were the same in both the sample paper and CE142, but the FBI might have also been correct in stating that the two paper items were not "identical" to one another.*

* Although the FBI's James Cadigan DID refer to the 11/22/63 paper sample as being identical to that of CE142 (the Sniper's-Nest paper bag) when Cadigan said "Yes" when answering the following two questions asked by Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission:

MR. EISENBERG -- "In all these cases, did you make the examination both of the tape and the paper in each of the bag and the sample [referring here to CE677, not CE364]?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Oh, yes."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And they were all identical?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes."

-----------

But in the final analysis, the second version of Vincent Drain's report (Commission Document #5) is probably the most accurate of the two reports, because the specific words that appear in Drain's initial version of the report -- "found not to be identical" -- are too restrictive and a little misleading. And those words are also totally at odds with James Cadigan's testimony that I provided above, as well.

Whereas, the following verbiage that is found in CD5 is probably more accurate verbiage and is not as misleading (which is undoubtedly why the change was made in the first place; but a conspiracy theorist's mileage will, of course, vary on that particular point):

"This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building." -- Via Commission Document #5


WAS BUGLIOSI WRONG CONCERNING THE DATES? NOT AT ALL:

As for Pat Speer's complaint about Vincent Bugliosi not recognizing something shady or suspicious with respect to the DATE on the November 29, 1963, FBI report submitted by Vincent Drain (with Mr. Speer hinting that the FBI was up to no good because the 11/29/63 Drain document was dated BEFORE the "replica paper bag" was created by the FBI on December 1, 1963) --- apparently Mr. Speer is unaware that the 11/29/63 Drain document is NOT referring to the replica paper bag that was made by the FBI on 12/1/63.

As I alluded to earlier in this post, there were TWO different samples of paper taken from the Book Depository--on two separate dates--after the assassination, with the first of these samples being taken on the day of the assassination itself (11/22/63). And Vince Bugliosi discusses both of these paper samples in his book "Reclaiming History".

In fact, the "RH" book excerpts cited by Speer in this article verify that Mr. Bugliosi was aware of (and discusses in his book) the TWO different samples of paper that were obtained by the FBI.

The November 29th FBI/Drain document is referring to the sample of paper (not a "replica bag") that was obtained by the FBI from the Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd (which is viewable in Commission Exhibit 677).

James Cadigan of the FBI testified about the two different paper samples in his Warren Commission testimony. Here are some excerpts from that testimony:

JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "I first saw this paper bag [CE142] on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1 [aka Commission Exhibit 677]."

[Later...]

MR. CADIGAN -- "This is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought...it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask, "Did you see a bag like that?", so they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag."

-----------

As we can easily determine from the above testimony of James Cadigan, the paper sample that Vincent Drain refers to in his 11/29/63 FBI report is obviously NOT the "replica paper BAG" that was fashioned by the FBI two days AFTER Drain's report was written.

Therefore, Drain's November 29th report MUST be referring to the sample of paper that was obtained on November 22nd, one week prior to Drain's report being completed.


FOOTNOTE:

I do want to give Patrick Speer ample credit for one thing in his above-linked article -- Pat does a fantastic job at providing the proper citations and links to all of the pertinent documents concerning this topic. Excellent job on that, Pat.

It's just a shame that all of that research and source citing has been wasted on something that is so totally unimportant and insignificant as the two statements repeated below....which are statements that are, in my opinion, not necessarily contradictory at all:

"SAME OBSERVABLE CHARACTERISTICS"

and

"FOUND NOT TO BE IDENTICAL".

David Von Pein
September 2, 2009







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 687)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a snippet of Garrison's nonsense from '67 (anyone who would put one ounce of faith in this crackpot should seek medical treatment immediately):

"There were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967


TONY FRATINI SAID:

That really is an unfair and unjust comment to make regarding Jim Garrison. .... Don't belittle the man, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't ask me to go easy on King Kook Garrison, because that's not going to happen. While Garrison might have been a good District Attorney and courtroom prosecutor in other cases he handled, that doesn't excuse his behavior in the Clay Shaw case (which was a case that should have never gotten beyond the Grand Jury phase--if that).

Garrison knew damn well he was prosecuting a man he had absolutely no evidence against.

How do we know this?

Because, as Vince Bugliosi points out in his book (and I'll admit, I didn't know this fact prior to Bugliosi's book coming out in May 2007), Garrison mentioned Clay Shaw's name just ONE SINGLE TIME in his closing arguments to the jury. ONE time! And that one time was merely to tell the jury something they obviously already knew--that they were there to decide whether or not Shaw was guilty or not guilty. (Duh!)

But not once did Garrison lay out any EVIDENCE against the man whom he was prosecuting. Not once did he say to the jury something along the following lines (as any prosecutor undoubtedly would have done--dozens of times!--if the prosecution had some evidence against the defendant)---

[Vince Bugliosi Mode On:]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this piece of evidence and this piece of evidence prove Clay Shaw's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. And then there's this piece of evidence that Mr. [so-and-so] told you jurors about from the witness stand last week, which also proves Mr. Shaw's guilt.

So, as we can easily see, ladies and gentlemen, Clay Shaw's guilt has not only been proven beyond all REASONABLE doubt at this trial....his guilt has been proven beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT at this trial! Mr. Shaw is as guilty as SIN....and there's nothing that Mr. Shaw's defense team can do about it!


[/Bugliosi Mode Off.]

Nothing like that escaped the mouth of Jim Garrison in February 1969 at the Shaw trial.

And the reason it didn't is because Garrison didn't have a speck of evidence against the man who was on trial in that New Orleans courtroom.

David Von Pein
September 2, 2009







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 686)


OTUS CHAMBERS SAID:

David Von Pein:

Some comments published at Jeff Morley's website concerning the edited AF-1 audio tapes, the hunt for the phantom C-130 'death car' crew & information about all in & out air traffic at Love Field 22 Nov 1963 have aroused curiosity.

Since you have a massive video & audio collection available for free to the public both at your blogs & YouTube I assume you know your material better than anyone else in the process of downloading & studying them. Do you know of any media or police broadcasts to the public that instructed the public to stay away from Love Field during the time frame that JFK's body was illegally transported from Parkland to AF-1 & flown to Washington after LBJ was sworn in? Do you have any info on when the C-130 took off from Love Field?

One of Jeff Morley's readers commented that there isn't video showing spectators at Love Field to watch the departure of AF-1 nor [are] there any interviews of spectators at Love Field for AF-1, AF-2 & the phantom C-130. Have you located any such material in your collection? Do the DPD audio tapes cover the period of when JFK's body was transported to AF-1 & subsequently flown out from Love Field?

There may be something in your radio broadcast collection that can answer these questions. I don't recall anything in the local Dallas TV coverage that picks up from after JFK's hearse left Parkland & spectators were interviewed at Parkland (but not Love Field).

I've seen just a brief video of AF-1 taking off from Love Field & several photos of Jackie at the bottom of a passenger stairway ramp while Clint Hill & Roy Kellerman & others brought JFK's casket into AF-1. Nothing showing spectators at Love Field.

One commenter found it odd that the people that came to see JFK arrive in Dallas apparently didn't return to Love Field to watch his body & entourage depart that city. Perhaps there were spectators there & the media missed it in its coverage of Lee Oswald's arrest?

I thought I'd ask you here first before starting from scratch. When you post anything on [The Education] Forum non-members cannot respond or ask you questions there. I'm currently looking through 'Death Of A President' by William Manchester to refresh whatever he may have reported in his 1967 book about all of this.

Sincerely,

Otus Chambers


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Otus,

I can't help you out much with the questions you posed. I, too, have wondered why there are no pictures of the limousine departing Parkland or arriving at Love Field. And I have no audio or video regarding the C-130 cargo plane that transported the limo back to Washington.

My guess would be that no unauthorized people would have been allowed anywhere near AF1 or the C-130 plane at Love Field after the assassination. Hence, no crowds there at all (except perhaps well beyond the outer fences and perimeter of the airport).


RELATED NOTE --- Conspiracy theorists, IMO, are making another huge mountain out of another molehill with regard to the Air Force One tapes.

CTers seem to think that if every second of the aircraft transmissions could be heard, the tapes would reveal something even more sinister and underhanded than is already suspected by the CTers.

Of course, in reality, the confusion and awkwardness that exists on the AF1 tapes is not conspiratorial in nature whatsoever. The type of uncertainty and confusion that is heard in portions of the tapes is perfectly natural given the circumstances. The authorities were arranging things minute by minute en route to Washington. It wasn't anything that could have been rehearsed or pre-planned.

No big "Cover-Up" was being orchestrated during the flight from Dallas to Washington. The U.S. Government was flying by the seat of its pants during those few hours just after the President was murdered. And that type of chaotic situation doesn't usually result in perfection or in "apple pie order".

But to many conspiracy theorists, a sudden change in plans to take the President's body to Bethesda instead of Walter Reed, or an urgent call from a military man who wants to immediately get in touch with one of his bosses, is deemed "suspicious" or "sinister" in the CTer's eyes.

A conspiracist who holds that view, however, doesn't seem to want to take into account the incredible suddenness of the events in Dallas on 11/22/63, or the immense speed at which events were proceeding in the hours right after JFK was killed. So a "fly by the seat of your pants" situation becomes a "sinister pre-arranged plot" in the eyes of some conspiracy believers. To that I say -- hogwash.

David Von Pein
March 25, 2014










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 685)


JOHN BECKHAM SAID:

DVP! Anyone who has not read this definitive book by Vince ["Reclaiming History"], should shut up! There is NOTHING closer to the truth about this assassination written EVER! Those who defy it must not have read it. .... You, Rietzes [sic], [and] Bill [Brown] are a shining light of facts. Everyone else seems lost in speculation, seems purposely, to keep that conspiracy alive.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, John. I appreciate your words of support.

You're a rarity, John -- a former CTer who came to realize that the conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's death are nothing but, to quote my favorite author named Vince, "pure moonshine".


JOHN BECKHAM SAID:

I drank that moonshine till I thought on my own. DVP, you are like a hero to me. Call them kooks if you like. I think you call them as you see them. I have NO problem with that. I think it was great that you and Reitzes are accused of being one another. I love it!!!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Believe me, John, I love it too. Nothing makes me smile more broadly than when some conspiracy theorist posts something about me being another person (or "persona"). I hope they never stop thinking that, because it just creates more reasons for me to know they are DEAD WRONG about something they seem to firmly believe in.

BTW, as for Jim DiEugenio apparently accepting (as true) the rumor that Mr. Reitzes and I were the same person (although I'm not sure if Jim believes that as of this moment), that whole thing probably began with our Internet friend/retard named David Healy.

The reason I say that is because, as far as I'm aware, Healy is the ONLY person who ever said he thought I was Reitzes on the Internet (prior to Osanic and DiEugenio parroting that belief on Black Op Radio in late 2008).

What probably happened is this --- Either Healy himself e-mailed Len Osanic to tell him the blockbuster bulletin--"Von Pein Is Really Reitzes!"--or another Healy-like conspiracy kook could have seen Healy's "DVP Is Reitzes" posts on the Internet and the other kook mailed Osanic....with Osanic then repeating the rumor on Black Op (without bothering to confirm it, naturally).

Then, incredibly, DiEugenio decided he was going to join in and start believing that I was Reitzes too. (Although Jim used a bit softer language; he said that he thought the rumor might be true.)

And the reason for DiEugenio thinking the DVP/Reitzes rumor might be true is merely because--get this--my JFK Blog is linked on Dave Reitzes' and John McAdams' websites (in the "JFK Links" areas of both sites).

Due to that kind of "linkage" between our sites, DiEugenio thinks it's possible that Dave R. and myself are possibly one entity.

Of course, just exactly WHY either Mr. Reitzes or myself would want to play such a silly shell game with our names and our websites is anyone's guess. If I was really Reitzes, why wouldn't I just post ALL of my JFK material under my real name of David A. Reitzes, instead of utilizing two different names to say basically the EXACT SAME THING?

What possible useful purpose would be served be posing as two different people? (Just to increase the number of online "LNers" by ONE?! Is that perhaps the reason for it, per the CT nuts? Come now.)

A recent quote from John Beckham is worth a replay here (and I firmly agree with John on this point):

"[Jim DiEugenio] lacks logic at a very basic level." -- John B. Beckham; 08/28/09

David Von Pein
August 31, 2009







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 684)


MARTIN HAY SAID:

>>> "You're quick to jump on me for calling Marina a liar, so I assume that it is your opinion that Marina has always been entirely honest?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, not at all. When she jumped shipped and did her 180 after spending 20+ years in the "MY HUSBAND'S GUILTY" camp, she showed a little dishonesty....or, at the very least, quite a bit of bad judgment (which was undoubtedly brought on by reading and/or being exposed to the wealth of kooks who were telling her that her wonderful hubby was nothin' but a patsy).

So, you're right, Marina isn't ALWAYS 100% correct in what she says.


>>> "Just out of curiosity, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy?" <<<

No. I stopped believing in them the same day I stopped believing in David Lifton's fable. (I decided to shed all the "Couldn't Have Happened" fables all at once, you see.)

You conspiracy kooks believe in a fairy tale that's even more miraculous than Santa though -- you believe that THREE separate rifle bullets did the work of the single bullet of the Single-Bullet Theory, with this trio of missiles performing so many SBT-like parallels (plus the fact all of these bullets VANISHED without a trace), it SHOULD make any conspiracy theorist blush at the thought of actually buying into such a three-shot replacement for the SBT.

But will it make the kooks blush? No. Because in order to be embarrassed by something, you must first possess some common sense and realize that the thing you're believing in is just plain silly and impossible. And kooks can't elevate themselves to that common-sense level with respect to the Single-Bullet Theory (even AFTER watching a bullet similarly slice through two mock "victims" in slow motion in 2004 on TV, via the Discovery Channel's well-done documentary "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet").

Go figure kooks. They're harder to believe in than Kris Kringle.


>>> "Only a complete idiot would come to Marina's defence, Mr. Von Pein." <<<

But you'll do it today, I'll bet. (Due to that 180 she did with respect to her husband's guilt.) Do you "defend" her current belief that LHO was just a "patsy", or not?


>>> "And, to be honest, I don't think you are an idiot. Which I guess makes you a first-class cherry-picker." <<<

Actually, my current title is this one......

HARVESTER OF JFK WHEAT; DISPOSER OF CHAFF.


>>> "BTW, your hero-worship of Bugliosi is sickening." <<<

Would you say the same thing if my allegiance was placed mainly in the basket of one Harold Weisberg? Or Mark Lane? Would you find such allegiance "sickening" then? I'd bet not.

So, it's all in how you look at things, isn't it? You kooks prefer Weisberg, Marrs, Fetzer, Garrison, Stone, Waldron, Lane, and Armstrong, etc.

I, OTOH, prefer non-kooks like Mr. Bugliosi who can assess and evaluate the SUM TOTAL of the hard evidence (and the circumstantial evidence) in the JFK case. And Vince has done just that, over the course of 21 years and 2,792 pages.


>>> "I seem to remember a little over a decade ago, you lone-nutters felt the same adoring admiration for Gerald Posner before honest researchers ripped his book to shreds." <<<

I still have a HUGE amount of respect and admiration for Gerald Posner. All the more so since he decided, in 1993, to buck the enormous "Oliver Stone" tide after Stone's fairy-tale motion picture came out in December 1991.

Posner had to know, of course, that "Case Closed" was going to be ridiculed incessantly by the "Stone Got It Right" crowd. And "CC" was still a national best-seller and proceeded to make a lot of people see the LN light and to realize that Stone's film was filled with unsupportable non-evidence and NONsense from start to finish.


>>> "But don't worry, I'm sure once the same has been done to Bugs, there will be another "definitive" lone-nut book for you to take to bed at night while you sleep safe in the knowledge that you alone know the answer to the "Great American Murder Mystery"." <<<

That's odd....I seem to recall (via recent Forum postings [linked below]) that it is some kook named Thomas H. Purvis who (alone) knows the answer to the JFK "mystery".

Don't tell me that Tom "TWO HEAD SHOTS FROM THE REAR" Purv-man is wrong??? Surely not!

http://google.com/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bac6812ff9d8f836

http://google.com/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bbcd3f516de37fa



REALITY BREAK........

"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others." -- Vincent Bugliosi

~~~~~~~

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi

[END: REALITY BREAK.]


>>> "Us "kooks" will just have be content with actively searching for the truth." <<<

The "truth", of course, was arrived at in November of 1963. But when someone as rabid as a CT-Kook doesn't like the taste of something, they usually spit it out and place something in their mouth that's a little more tasty. And "chaff" seems to be a kook's delicacy of choice when it comes to things relating to the death of the 35th U.S. President (and has been their favorite food for 40+ years).

David Von Pein
October 21, 2007




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 683)


DEBUNKING JFK CONSPIRACY MYTH #89:

James Tague's slight injury and the Main Street curb damage did NOT result in the Warren Commission being forced to adopt the "Single-Bullet Theory" at all costs.

How do I know the above paragraph to be an ironclad fact without any doubt?

Answer: Page #117 of the Warren Report itself, which states in black-and-white and as plain as day that the Warren Commission considered the possibility that the damage to the curb on Main Street (and hence, Tague's injury) "might have come from the bullet which hit the President’s head" [WR; p.117].

More from Page 117:

"Even if it were caused by a bullet fragment, the mark on the south curb of Main Street cannot be identified conclusively with any of the three shots fired. Under the circumstances it might have come from the bullet which hit the President’s head, or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area. Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague’s testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities."

Why is it that no conspiracy theorist will ever (ever!) take a good look at Page 117 of the Warren Report?

I can answer that last question too -- It's because if they were to actually read and evaluate what the Warren Commission said on Page #117 of its final report (including the "probably" verbiage utilized by the Commission in the "Conclusion" paragraph on that same page), those conspiracy theorists would be forced to toss one of their pet theories (aka myths) out the nearest window. And that theory/myth is the following one:

James Tague's injury and the damage to the curb on Main Street forced the Warren Commission to adopt the Single-Bullet Theory. Because without the SBT, the Commission knew it could not explain Tague's wounding and the curb damage within a shooting scenario that did not include one bullet that went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

David Von Pein
August 30, 2009


WARREN REPORT, PAGE 117:




MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 19)


ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/5Hdq74jC47k/27jxNjPcFPwJ
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399


C2766:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/LrCS9OZBeew/7KOgvjwuAiAJ


THE ABSURD VS. THE RATIONAL:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/jw1yZDPWBa8/rdEB21hIpNQJ


LEE BOWERS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/4yOGRRu2F3k/lJPJbE7U-8QJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/4yOGRRu2F3k/Ip8-ONKeZ6EJ
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/lee-bowers


A CONSPIRACY "TOO BIG"? NOT FOR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORISTS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/QrOGP1rGJys/b1wVdK9p5lwJ


WEITZMAN, HUMES, AND CBS NEWS:
http://amazon.com/R1S95P93PLA7OF


BLOOD SPOTS, BULLETS HOLES, AND THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/J9sKKrGgHyI/zXkIT5IETqMJ


CONNALLY'S POSTURE, JFK'S BACK, ABRASION COLLARS, & RULERS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/jw1yZDPWBa8/_BiwsHL6j8cJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ABTJ7TYjLe4/aS8Rl6ODVJAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/ABTJ7TYjLe4/tvtobOkmIvkJ


LOOK, MA! MORE CONSPIRACY KOOKS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Ryw3EaJeKI/LH6Rc-jaoa4J
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/qfeI_EGGwk4/Y_Owv2rwoBsJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/1Zrbjs7L9lM/5MU-H5D-f_UJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/-hO5_CRA7JY/CyDiFVE8MPsJ


71% OF REVIEWERS GIVE "RECLAIMING HISTORY" A POSITIVE RATING:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/BQlXpUPGiYw/6wsllTG-ShIJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/BQlXpUPGiYw/StiOAbss9wEJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/BQlXpUPGiYw/RalvSFaWYQoJ



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










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 682)


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

On Travel Channel tonight was a program about a nutcase who built a bomb and was going to kill JFK while president-elect and on vacation in Palm Beach. He came very close. What saved him was that Jackie stuck her head out and he chickened out.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I've heard about that incident. The kook/bomber decided against his murder attempt when he saw that JFK had his wife and children with him that morning.

The kook's name was Richard P. Pavlick. More info HERE.

Quoting from the Wikipedia article linked above:

"Richard Paul Pavlick was a retired postal worker from New Hampshire who stalked U.S. President-Elect John F. Kennedy, with the intent of assassinating him. On December 11, 1960 in Palm Beach, Florida, Pavlick positioned himself to carry out the assassination by blowing up Kennedy and himself with dynamite, but delayed the attempt because Kennedy was with his wife and children. He was then arrested before he was able to stage another attempt.

Pavlick, 73 years old at the time of the assassination attempt, had previously lived in the small town of Belmont, New Hampshire with no family. He became known at local public meetings for his angry political rants, which included complaints that the American flag was not being displayed appropriately, and also criticized the government and disparaged Catholics, focusing much of his anger on the Kennedy family and their wealth. On one occasion, Pavlick's anger erupted when he met the supervisor of the local water company at his home with a gun, which was then confiscated."



GLENN SARLITTO SAID:

Dave, now to find a pic of Pavlick.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That might be a bit tricky. Like finding a picture of Thomas Vallee. I've never seen his pic either (that I can recall).

You'll note that Pavlick was an old codger at the time in 1960. He was 73.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Went straight to the nuthouse.


GLENN SARLITTO SAID:

Found a pic of [Pavlick's] car....




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This blurb from Wiki is interesting. Did anybody see this program? Sounds rather intriguing....

[WIKI QUOTE:]

"In 2013, the Military Channel produced a mockumentary, What If...? Armageddon 1962, in which Pavlick did kill Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson's inept handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in a nuclear exchange."


VINNIE TIETO SAID:

I didn't see the Military Channel show David mentioned, but it was inspired by an interesting book written by Jeff Greenfield called "Then Everything Changed," which includes a couple of other "What If?" scenarios as well.


GLENN SARLITTO SAID:

Found a pic of Pavlick:




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ain't Google grand?


GLENN SARLITTO SAID:

And there's also Wayne Gainey...the guy who was on the SS Agents Flashcards. He wrote a letter in Oct '63 stating he was gonna assassinate JFK.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And then, of course, there's Thomas Vallee in Chicago and the Florida incident revolving around Joseph Milteer.

Just goes to show: The President of the United States is constantly being threatened by somebody. It's not uncommon at all. But it seems that conspiracy theorists want to link all of these incidents together, funnelling down to Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

Unquestionably (IMO), all other attempts or threats against JFK were unrelated in any way at all to Lee Oswald's solo act in Dallas on November 22nd.

David Von Pein
March 17, 2014




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 681)


RONALD MOSHKI SAID:

How did they know Oswald was in a theater? And THAT theater?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Answer:

Shoe-store manager Johnny C. Brewer observed Lee Oswald lurking in the lobby/entrance of Brewer's shoe store on Jefferson Blvd., with Brewer noting that Oswald was acting "funny" and that he seemed "scared" and seemed to be avoiding the wailing police cars.

Brewer, who was listening to the radio at this time and had just heard about a police officer being shot just blocks from his shoe store, then followed Oswald up the street to the nearby Texas Theater, where Brewer observed Oswald entering the theater without stopping at the box office.

Brewer then checked with ticket-seller Julia Postal to see if she had sold the man a ticket. She said she had not. Postal then called the police, telling them that she and Brewer were of the opinion that the man was "running from them" for some reason.

The police then arrived (in mass) a few minutes later.

This was a perfectly ordinary and to-be-expected chain of events that led to Lee Harvey Oswald's arrest inside the Texas Theater on Jefferson Boulevard in Oak Cliff at approximately 1:50 PM CST on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD.

So, when watching Oliver Stone's fictional version of Oswald's theater capture, try to keep in mind the following fact.....

OLIVER STONE'S VERSION OF THIS EVENT IS PURE BULLSHIT AND AVOIDS BREWER'S AND POSTAL'S INVOLVEMENT ENTIRELY.

Thanks. And God bless.


RONALD MOSHKI SAID:

Thanxx to David; can you summarize what Stone did, please? Have not seen that but once or twice a long time ago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oliver Stone (in his 1991 movie "JFK"), via voice-over narration from Kevin Costner (playing Jim Garrison) during the courtroom scene, claims that when the police converged in mass on the Texas Theater it was (quoting verbatim from the movie itself) -- "The most remarkable example of police intuition since the Reichstag fire. I don't buy it. They knew--someone knew--Oswald was going to be there. In fact, as early as 12:44, only 14 minutes after the assassination, the police radio put out a description matching Oswald's size and build."

But there was nothing whatsoever "remarkable" or unusual about the police converging quickly (and in great numbers) on the theater where Oswald was hiding.

A police officer had been gunned down in the street only half-an-hour earlier. The police knew that the killer was ON FOOT and heading down Jefferson Boulevard. When they received that call from Julia Postal, OBVIOUSLY the police were going to move (fast) to check out the "suspicious" man who just went into the dark movie theater.

And yet, to hear Stone telling it (through Garrison/Costner's words in the script), the cops swarming the theater was some incredible piece of fortune-telling and crystal-ball-gazing. Nonsense.

I need to correct an error I made in my earlier post --- Upon being reminded of some additional dialogue in Oliver Stone's film (via this link from Dave Reitzes' excellent website), I will retract my earlier statement where I said that Stone avoided Brewer's and Postal's involvement entirely in the "JFK" movie. I see now, via Mr. Reitzes' site, that I was not correct there, because Brewer is, indeed, mentioned (and so is the "cashier", who was Postal).

However, it's still fairly obvious (via the dialogue I quoted above) that Mr. Stone just doesn't want to believe that the ONLY reason the police descended upon the theater on November 22nd was because of the observations of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal. Stone doesn't "buy it".

But if anybody, after researching the true facts regarding Brewer and Postal, still "buys" Stone's version put forth in his movie, then they'd probably buy that bridge that's always for sale in Brooklyn too.

Also -- The 12:44 PM police broadcast put out by the Dallas Police Department for the assassin of JFK was not the slightest bit suspicious or "conspiratorial" in any way either (contrary to what Oliver Stone wants his viewing audience to believe).

Howard Brennan almost immediately approached the police after the shooting to give them a description of the man he had clearly seen pulling the trigger from the sixth-floor TSBD window -- with that description generally matching Oswald's "size and build" (as Stone/Garrison/Costner said in the film).

So, quite obviously, the police didn't just sit on their collective hands sipping sodas and munching on Dunkin' Donuts for an hour. Instead, they acted on this witness' information and put out an APB broadcast over all channels of the police radio at 12:43-12:44 PM on November 22nd, less than 15 minutes after the last shot came out of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

So, once again, as can be easily determined once the true facts of the case are researched, Ollie Stone has deliberately deceived and misled his movie-going audience.

David Von Pein
October 21, 2007







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 680)


TOM Di EVA SAID:

Please observe the rigid thinking of the WCR supporters. I've been reading many of their messages. But haven't responded to their baited theories and answers.

WHAT IF I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY EITHER?

Watch their reaction to that statement. Their fixed thinking can't let them "think outside of the box" which is the WCR 26 volumes of toilet paper.


BUD SAID:

I'm an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions. They don't like that concept very much, because Oz [Lee Harvey Oswald] was a lefty, and they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters throws their fixed thinking outside the box.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Two unconnected shooters with the same goal, firing from the same area, at exactly the same time???? Can you calculate the odds??


BUD SAID:

It isn't a matter of odds. We know why Oz chose to shoot from where he did. Another person who decided Kennedy should die might not have access to a building like Oz did, thus necessitating an open yet secluded area to shoot from. How many of those do you suppose were along the motorcade route?

So, it wouldn't be that far fetched for 2 shooters to choose the same area, if one worked along the route, and one didn't have any options along the route except the knoll. Many a kook has remarked at what a perfect shooting opportunity the knoll presents.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

The hatred for Oswald is so deeply ingrained in you that aren't willing to open your mind to the idea that he was simply a gullible patsy,


BUD SAID:

It is possibly one of the stupidest, most unsupportable ideas ever uttered by morons (and it was up against some stiff competition from the "we never landed on the moon" kooks).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My 2 cents on this.....

I agree that the theory of "2 LN Shooters" firing in tandem in DP [Dealey Plaza] on 11/22 is a pretty far-fetched idea....but I will add this:

I think that the idea of 2 LN shooters (unconnected to each other) is probably MORE likely to have occurred (had there actually been some proof of multiple shooters in DP, which, of course, there isn't) than the Oliver Stone "3-Shooter, 1-Patsy" plot that was thrown up on the big screen in 1991.

Virtually NOTHING beats Stone's and Garrison's multi-gunmen, solo-patsy scenario for sheer absurdity and DELIBERATE PRE-PLANNED STUPIDITY on the part of the assassination plotters who, per Stone/Garrison, actually DID pre-plan such a crackpot plot.

And, incredibly too, is the fact that Stone certainly wasn't the first CTer to endorse that EXACT type of 3-shooter, 1-patsy theory....Mark Lane (and others) endorsed just such a plot in the 1973 movie "Executive Action" as well (which I hadn't remembered at all until rewatching that film recently and seeing the Oliver Stone plot unfold on the screen once more, 18 years before Stone regurgitated the nonsense for his own movie).

Maybe I'm misreading or mislabeling Bud's intentions and his thoughts, but I've always assumed that the times when Bud has suggested that a "2 LN Shooters" plot made some degree of sense, he was actually playing a bit of a game with the CT-Kooks....i.e., he was throwing up in the CTers' faces a lone-nut plot that was equally as ludicrous as the widely-accepted-as-FACT "Multi-Gun/One-Patsy" plot which is believed by many CT-Kooks of the world....with Bud thereby, in effect, demonstrating the "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IF I BELIEVE IN IT ENOUGH" school of thought.

If I misinterpreted you, Bud, I apologize. But I always felt there was a little sly "game-playing" going on from your POV whenever the topic of the highly unlikely shooting scenario of "Two LN Shooters" has arisen here.


BUD SAID:

No, you were right, David. The kooks hate the idea, so that lends a certain validity to the concept. The whole idea of their game is to point an arrow in the direction of their choosing, but they actually can't take the very first step, identify the shooter(s).

Without an identity, they have no way to determine motivation. They always press for Oz's motivations to be stated, when there is ample evidence of his political fanaticism. They can't make that connection with Oz, yet claim to know the motivations of an anonymous shooter they know nothing about.

It's a similar approach I take in the "Kennedy committed assisted suicide" theory I've broached. If there was a conspiracy, who is more in position to put into motion the necessary plan and cover-up than the most powerful person on the planet?

Kennedy was in constant pain, had banged some of the most desirable women, was looking at a probable loss in the upcoming election, he could even have been the victim of blackmail for his infidelities, so why not go out with a bang while on top?

Could Oz have been put along the motorcade route because they knew from his profile that he would take a shot if the circumstances were right?

The Kennedy/suicide theory would also explain the Kennedy interference with the autopsy. This theory answers more questions than any I've seen proposed by the kooks, yet they won't touch it, as it doesn't take them where they want so desperately to go.

Another theory the kooks dislike for the same reason is the idea that Oz was working on behalf of the Cubans. There is a lot of support for this, much more than the idea that Oz was an intellegence agent, but the kooks don't like this concept either, for the same reason. It doesn't allow them to blame the people they prefer to blame.

November 2007