JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 966)


MICHAEL MORROW SAID:

I think it is very likely that Oswald, or whomever you think took the shots on the 6th floor, was on the West side of the 6th floor with the rifle while Williams was eating his lunch. There was quite a few places to hide and avoid Williams' detection, so I believe when he says nobody else was up there with him, that is what he believes, but it certainly does not mean for a fact nobody else was on the 6th floor.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You could possibly be correct about Oswald hiding somewhere on the west side of the sixth floor as Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch. I favor the likelihood that Oswald was probably hiding in the Sniper's Nest on the east side of the building during the few minutes Williams was up there eating his lunch, but it's certainly possible that LHO could have secreted himself elsewhere. There were boxes stacked all over the sixth floor.


MICHAEL MORROW SAID:

Upon him [Williams] leaving, the shooter might have realized the East window would be a better shot, or perhaps the sniper's nest was already completed and they simply returned to it after Williams leaves.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've speculated about a similar scenario myself....

[Quote On:]

"11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag).

Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times).

It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes.

Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner).

It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him.

Now, I cannot fully explain why Oswald wanted to take the empty paper bag WITH HIM to the east end from the west end via this scenario I'm laying out here....but I've got to assume (naturally) that he DID do just that after assembling the rifle on the west end.

Perhaps--just perhaps--Oswald had it in his mind that he would be able to re-insert the weapon back into that bag and, just maybe, get the incriminating rifle out of the building the same way he smuggled it in--in the brown paper package that supposedly contained those never-found "curtain rods".

Yes, that last part is fairly weak...I'll admit that. I don't much like that idea either. For, Oswald would surely have known that he wouldn't have the time (or want to take time) to dismantle the rifle AFTER shooting at the President.

But, then too, who can know what crazy thoughts might be swimming through the head of a person who is contemplating murdering a U.S. President from his very own place of employment? That's a difficult type of mind to thoroughly probe and to figure out indeed."
-- DVP; April 2007

More "Timeline" talk HERE.


MICHAEL MORROW SAID:

As for [Harold] Norman's testimony, I don't find it unlikely that he could hear the shells. The floors and ceilings were not built like they would be in an office building. They were a single layer of wood, that you could visibly see through in spots. It is not beyond the realm that you could easily hear sounds such as shells being dropped on the single layer of wood above your head. It is certainly probable and I would say likely that you would hear a significant report from a rifle fired above you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's also the fact that the Warren Commission conducted four separate "Shell Dropping" tests throughout the year 1964 (on March 20, May 9, June 7, and September 6). The last three of those tests were done with various members of the Warren Commission present each time. Here's what the Commissioners heard....

"All seven of the Commissioners clearly heard the shells drop to the floor." -- Warren Report; Page 71

David Von Pein
June 30, 2015




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 965)


GLENN NALL SAID:

A live camera from the 6th floor museum "sniper's position". .... Egads, how creepy. .... OK, not creepy -- I'm thinkin' tacky.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never thought of the "Dealey Plaza EarthCam" as being either creepy or tacky. (But to each his own, I guess.)

I've always thought of it as more of an "Eye on History", as the 24/7 camera is able to take all of us instantly to the location where an important historic event took place. It's fascinating, IMO. Sometimes I'll go to the Dealey Cam website and just watch for a little while, and count the number of people who dodge traffic in order to stand in the middle of the street on Robert Groden's "X". (Now THAT is something that qualifies as "tacky", Glenn---that "X" in the middle of Elm Street. I think it's rather offensive. But, YMMV.)

Here's the view through the "Dealey Cam" on the 50th anniversary (Nov. 22, 2013).....




I'm fascinated by old (and new) pictures of Dealey Plaza....




GLENN NALL SAID:

OK, so they [bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] blew out the RIGHT side of his head (with no damage to the left side of his head), then somehow got into the DRIVER'S seat...

How'd they manage that?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn,

The trajectory from Oswald's 6th-floor perch to the windshield of the car was just about perfect at the time of the head shot, as we can see in this SS re-enactment photo....



JFK's head was leaning forward and turned quite a bit to the left when Oswald's bullet struck high on the back of Kennedy's head. After the bullet entered his head, the explosive force of the blast blew out the right/top/frontal area of JFK's head (as is easily proven by looking at the Zapruder Film).

The two large bullet fragments then continued forward after exiting Kennedy's head. I.E., they were moving forward toward the front of the car and the windshield.

Everything seems perfectly consistent to me. There is nothing unbelievable about the above scenario at all.

(Also see CE875 for more Sniper's Nest views.)

In addition, Glenn, here's something else of importance that you might not have known....

JFK's head initially moved FORWARD, not backward, at the moment the bullet struck his head, as we can easily see here in this super-slo-mo clip....




KENNETH DREW SAID:

View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and put a shooter in that photo.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. And?

What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed.




KENNETH DREW SAID:

...you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that?

And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.




MARK KNIGHT SAID:

In agent Howlett's position, it's his LEFT hand approximating the position of the rifle. That would indicate that either the shooter was left-handed, and had most of his torso to the RIGHT of the position of the buttstock of the rifle...and LHO was a right-handed shooter, according to the evidence I've seen...OR the torso of a right-handed shooter would've been smashed through the wall...and the wall looks fairly intact to me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark,

How do you explain the fact that the HSCA was able to fire a rifle out that Sniper's Nest window several times in 1978 during the acoustics tests? Do you really think the person firing the rifle in '78 had to "smash through the wall" in order to get off his shots?

You can always say the HSCA's shooter was left-handed, of course. That seems to solve the problem for you. I have no idea whether the HSCA shooter was a lefty or not? Do you?

Below is another view of Agent Howlett in the Sniper's Nest. There's no problem for a right-handed shooter here.

CTers are merely creating problems for the sixth-floor assassin that don't exist and never did....




DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

With a stack of books taller than the man sitting on the box by the window, a person would have little if any room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave?

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor.

And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest....



Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd.

Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.)

But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill).

The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case.

Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted ----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94]

But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives).

As I have said many times before....

With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable.

As Larry Sturdivan said so well....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005)


And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words....

"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007


JON G. TIDD SAID:

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

True.

But that witness is a proven liar:

Roger Craig's Mauser Lie


JON G. TIDD SAID:

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridge.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

False.

What some people have claimed is an "unfired" bullet is not an unfired bullet at all. There seems to be a piece of trash or debris (possibly a small scrap of paper) on the floor right next to the easternmost bullet shell. The piece of debris is situated in such a way as to make it appear as though it could be a complete unfired bullet. But higher-quality photos of the shells indicate that all three shells are EXPENDED (SPENT) SHELLS. None are whole, unfired cartridges. HERE is one such high-resolution picture of the shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.

Also see:
http://TexasHistory.unt.edu


JON G. TIDD SAID:

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not sure if that is True or False.

Robert Frazier did talk about some corrosion on the inside of the barrel after the FBI received the weapon from Dallas. And I know that many conspiracy theorists contend that this "corrosion" (or "rust") issue means the rifle could not possibly have been fired on the day of the assassination at all.

Well, I'm certainly no gun expert (far from it), but the evidence is quite clear that the C2766 rifle in question (whether it had some corrosion/rust in the barrel or not) WAS fired into President Kennedy's vehicle on 11/22/63 without a doubt. The two bullet fragments in the front seat of the car are enough to prove that fact for all time (IMO).

I know that a lot of conspiracists don't think the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (like those two front-seat fragments) means anything at all. They'll just say "Prove they weren't planted". But it's my opinion that those fragments were not planted. In fact, I think it's dumb to believe those fragments are fraudulent fragments. But many CTers think differently. So be it.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Ever find it odd that, while the Carcano ejects empty cartridges to the right of the rifle, two empty cartridges should end up on the floor to the left of where the rifle would have been for the last two shots?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box.

You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see
in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510.

CE511 shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

You're right, I mixed up the windows.

He certainly does not have a lot of room in that corner, and the pipes do not help either.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room.

BTW / FWIW....

Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before.

A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it.

What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence....

Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because....


JOHN DOLVA SAID:

I started looking at the pipes about 2005 [CLICK HERE] and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints at the Education Forum.

It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest". :)


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

I'm not saying NOBODY could have fired that rifle from that window at that angle from that spot.

I'm saying that a RIGHT-HANDED SHOOTER couldn't do it. From what I see, there is plenty of room for a left-handed shooter.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.)

Also:

If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall.

Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose.

The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341.

EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is....




DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this discussion. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

[This DVP post] Shows your inexperience with a rifle. The LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.

You just made my case for me, on two points:

(1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and

(2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible.

Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible.

And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed).

Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.)

What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.)

But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible?

Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.)

But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest.

I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963.

Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

If you move the shooter to the right, you change the point at which the rifle muzzle is aimed.

Unless you move the entire rifle.

The FBI determined the position of the rifle from reports of witnesses, the Z-film, the surveys of Robert West, and many other factors.

SO if the position of the rifle is wrong in the reenactments, then the data from the reenactments is wrong as well.

You can conclude that the data is accurate ONLY if you accept that the position of the rifle is correct. If the position of the rifle is incorrect, then the data from that is flawed.

You seem to want to have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein. That CANNOT be.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark,

No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true. Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window.

And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies.

Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....




KENNETH DREW SAID:

Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent's right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, it's a cramped space for sure. I've never denied that. But a rifle WAS being fired from that very window on November 22. You know it, Ken (whether you'll admit it or not), I know it, and all reasonable people know it. So why pretend otherwise?

BTW, here's a high-quality picture which shows part of the Sniper's Nest with the shells still on the floor. So that pic was definitely taken on November 22 itself, not later on. And the Texas History site also says "November 22" for the date of that photo. And, yes, it is a tight squeeze for the gunman. We also know this from Luke Mooney's testimony. He said something about having to go in there sideways, I think. [See 3 H 284.]

But since there can be no REASONABLE doubt about a rifle definitely having been fired from this cramped space, CTers really have nowhere to go with their arguments about how it "can't be done". Those CTers are assuming exactitude regarding the precise position of every box and the exact posture and positioning of the sixth-floor sniper that simply cannot be ascertained.

And here's another view of the Sniper's Nest (CE512), which shows the shells on the floor (which means it's certainly NOT a "re-creation" photo; it was taken on 11/22). And notice how the stack of book cartons seems to END at the bottom of the photo.

Therefore, based on that photo in CE512, which was taken by the Dallas Police BEFORE ANYTHING WAS MOVED, I contend that Ken Drew is incorrect when he claims that the boxes were configured in such a manner that would have prohibited a shooter from sitting on the box near the corner (near where the pipes are located) and firing a gun out the window (even a righthander).

The boxes don't seem to be extending all the way into the area where the box was located that had Oswald's right palmprint on it (which was the box he probably sat on).


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Dave,

You are continually stating that it is a provable fact that shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor. How can you prove this, and how can you prove shots were not fired from the Dal-Tex Building?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Next question please. Because the one you just asked is too ridiculous to warrant any response.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Translation = We cannot prove shots were fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

It's those tough questions you don't like, right DVP?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Based on the sum total of evidence that proves shots WERE fired from the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th floor, the following inquiry asked earlier by Bob Prudhomme is not a reasonable question....

"You are continually stating that it is a provable fact that shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor. How can you prove this?"

In fact, it's a downright laughable question.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

As in you have to laugh because you can't answer it?

DVP, I'm sure that Bob doesn't expect you to have any proof that LHO fired a shot at JFK, as I certainly don't expect you to. When an event did not happen, it's a little tough to prove it did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Ken. You should be quite familiar with that line of thinking--being a JFK conspiracy buff and all.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

I wish you would share this evidence with us, Dave. Unless, of course, you don't really have any?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the cycle of madness continues. Round and round till infinity.

No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. Why do you suppose that is, Bob?

I know, I know. I'm supposed to just believe all three shells are fake....and the C2766 rifle is a plant and so is CE399....and the two front-seat bullet fragments are phony....and all 4 witnesses who saw a rifle in the 6th-floor window were wrong (or liars)....and Harold Norman didn't know what he was talking about when he said he heard three shells hitting the floor AS THE ASSASSINATION WAS HAPPENING. (I always get a chuckle out of that one --- Real-Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting In The Sniper's Nest! I love it. Either that, or Norman's just a blatant liar, which is apparently what many CTers believe he was.)


GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

I honestly don't know how you have the patience with some of these guys. Some recent CT posts on these pages [at The Education Forum] have serious evidence and logic problems.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can say that again, Gary. It borders on the unbelievable (and the bizarre).


GARY MACK SAID:

The Texas Portal pics ARE the original DPD negatives and pictures and they show the same things that appear in the early Tom Alyea/WFAA films. All other pictures were shot after 3:30 that afternoon - including those by Jack Beers - AFTER some boxes were moved.

The images showing a box on the window ledge show the scene AS FIRST FOUND. Many people have squatted at the SN window in the decades before the Museum had to close access to the area, but there was certainly room for a shooter. In fact, according to a home movie I filmed in 1988, I had to stand up a little for the early shot (Jack White and Robert Groden were there too, and it'd be great to include the film in a TV doc someday).

As a result, the Howlett/SS frame that folks are using shows a later shot because of the gun angle down the street and the lack of an elevation adjustment for it. The SS film, as you know, was made long before investigators had full knowledge of how the assassination happened, so Howlett's feet and shoulder positions cannot be used for accuracy conclusions AT THAT MOMENT.

Gary


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for your input, Gary (as always).


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Are you and Gary Mack in a legal arrangement where you are his 'official mouthpiece'? Is there a reason he can't say it for himself?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He did say it for himself. It's the stuff I posted right after the words
"GARY MACK SAID:". :)


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Is he paid to say the things he says to you but can't come on a public forum to say the same things?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary has been a member of this forum ["The Education Forum"] since
July 10, 2006. (Which, ironically enough, is almost--to the very day--when I first joined this forum. I lasted 4 days here in July 2006 before Mr. Simkin decided he had had enough of my silly LNer ravings and tossed me out the door.)


KENNETH DREW SAID:

His unwillingness to say if for himself lowers the value of what he says.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't see why. His information is either useful and accurate and valuable or it isn't -- whether he says it to me via an e-mail or whether he posts it himself in a post at this forum. It's the same information either way. And I happen to think Gary is loaded with good and useful info about the JFK case. I doubt there's another person alive who has so much overall knowledge about this case. And I, for one, appreciate it when he takes the time to write to me by e-mail with all kinds of informative details.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's not very nice, Ken. You're accusing me (by the implication in your question above) of deliberately misquoting someone (or misrepresenting myself by pretending to be Gary Mack). That's a despicable allegation, IMO.

FYI, I have never deliberately misquoted anyone. I am always very very careful when I quote another person. I never want anyone reading my posts to be confused as to who is saying what. And I don't appreciate the implied dishonesty you just accused me of. Because I would never even consider passing off my own thoughts as someone else's (or vice versa). And I really don't understand WHY you would think I would ever engage in such a silly tactic. Care to explain why you said what you just said, Ken?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

There clearly was not room for the shots to be made from that window, regardless of what DVP/Mack says.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you, Kenneth Drew, clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I didn't accuse you of anything. Give me the quote.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay....

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew

In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely by posting my own comments under Gary's name. There is no other possible interpretation of those words you wrote. I'd call that an "accusation".

But you don't even seem to remember (or comprehend) what you yourself wrote on this forum just a few minutes ago.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

You seem to have misunderstood that as you seem to misunderstand every other thing you read.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I understood it perfectly. You were implying that Gary Mack might not have written any of the words I attributed to him. And, instead, you were implying that I myself wrote those words and tried to pass them off as Gary Mack's words. How else could anybody interpret this question you asked?...

"Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?"


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I didn't accuse you of 'misrepresenting yourself'.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. And you know it. You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

If he's going to refer to me, or other commenters here, he should grow a pair and come on and post where we can comment to him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't control Gary Mack's actions. And I would never try to speak for Gary (even though that is exactly what you implied I might be doing in your earlier post). Gary can post in any fashion he sees fit. He chooses not to post on the forums. That's his choice. Sometimes I choose to post his e-mails here (when they relate to a particular topic or thread).

I, myself, would love it if Gary would start posting here (and at other JFK forums on the Internet). He has helped me out many times in the past via his evidence-packed e-mails that he has chosen to send me (and almost always unsolicited e-mails, I might add). He writes to me (and many other people too) when he feels the record needs to be set straight on a particular sub-topic of the JFK case.

Now, yes, I too would like it if he would post regularly (or even semi-regularly) on the forums. I'm sure we would be treated to even MORE useful information about so many JFK topics if he were to do that. But he has chosen not to post directly on the forums, and that's his decision.

But regardless of the manner or the frequency by which Gary's useful information gets passed along, I for one am grateful to Gary Mack for sharing it with me.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Did he 'ask' you to post his comments here, or did he give you his permission to post quotes by him here?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the second question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one.

The answer to your first question above, however, is No. Gary has never once "asked" me to post something on the forums for him. I do that on my own, usually because the info Gary imparts needs to get "out there" to the masses in order to set the record straight concerning so many of the myths that are still being spread by conspiracy theorists.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I understood the reason for personal messenging [sic] on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary never sends me his messages via the forum's Private Message service. He always uses e-mail. And many times I'll even show the precise date and time of the e-mails when I re-post his messages on the forums. I didn't format Gary's last message to me in that manner, but many times I have.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Answered above.

I suppose I could put a disclaimer such as "Posted here by permission of Gary Mack" on each of Gary's messages I have posted. But I don't feel that's really necessary.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Time for a Vince Bugliosi "Common Sense" break....

video


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything.'

That's what Bug Man said. Wecht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he took off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one, DVP. It does not enhance your image.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Whenever Vince Bugliosi said in his many radio interviews that Oswald "would have been one of the last people in the world the conspirators would hire to kill the President", it is always based on the fact (based on the evidence) that Oswald DID KILL KENNEDY.

IOW, in almost all the interviews he did in 2007, Vince establishes (in summary form, of course) Oswald's GUILT first. He then goes on to talk about how ridiculous it would be for anyone to actually hire this unstable loser with a 12-dollar gun to perform such a big "hit" for the Mafia or CIA or whoever else the CTers want to have involved.

But the key in Vince's chronology is almost always to establish Oswald's guilt first. And from that POV and framework, Vince makes total sense to me, because it would be a situation where you'd have to believe (based on the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt) that the CIA or some other group actually DID hire Lee Oswald to murder the President for them, vs. the popular conspiracy theory we always hear about Oswald never firing a shot and then being used as the unwitting patsy for JFK's murder.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Are you still spinning in a circle, is your head pointed to the front or back? So there is no way that LHO could have made the shot, he had a rifle that could not have made the shot, he had a scope that could not have made the shot and he was in a spot where he could not have been and no one else (including top marksmen) has ever made this shot, but old Bug Man is sure LHO did it.

Let me know when you stop laughing and digging.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

THINK for two seconds, Ken! THINK!

Vince wasn't saying Oswald was INCAPABLE of the shooting. (Obviously he's not saying any such stupid thing, because Vince says LHO did it. Duh.) He's saying that Oswald---THE PROVEN ASSASSIN (regardless of his deficiencies)---would not have been a real good choice for any type of "professional" CIA or Mob hit on the President.

Got it now? Or will you still pretend that you don't understand Bugliosi's obvious point?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

DVP, what ever happened to the mini series about "Reclaiming History"? I can't seem to find the air dates for it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It got watered down to a 90-minute feature film -- "Parkland". (Which you probably already knew.)

"Parkland" is a pretty good film, too. (But I would have loved the 10-hour mini-series better, of course.)

Also visit:
Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2013/11/parkland.html

Note -- I don't really consider "Parkland" to be a "classic" movie, but since my movie website is called "Classic Movies", and I wanted to include "Parkland" on my movie site---well...what's a shill to do? :)


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Yes, all I can find about "Parkland" indicates it was a real bomb.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, by box office standards, I guess it was a bomb. Sort of like the JFK book I helped Mel Ayton write ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]. It's a very good book, but a complete bomb as far as sales go (just as I predicted). Sales could hardly be any worse, in fact.

But I'm proud of that book nonetheless, because in abbreviated form it lays out the actual facts of John F. Kennedy's murder, without all the conspiracy-flavored nonsense that permeates this case---with this current discussion being a prime example of the "nonsense". I mean, really, no shooter firing from the Sniper's Nest? Can a theory possibly get any nuttier than that one? Get real.

David Von Pein
June 28—July 1, 2015




MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 102)


SQUEEZING INTO THE SNIPER'S NEST:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307431
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307473
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307507
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307597
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307601


WHERE DID THE SHELLS END UP?:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307484


WHERE ARE THE WOUNDS?:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307721
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307787


OSWALD ON THE SIXTH FLOOR:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22020&entry307075


OSWALD'S SHOOTING PERFORMANCE:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307303
http://educationforum.com/topic=22020&entry307835


THE TRAJECTORY OF THE HEAD SHOT:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307411


THE FREEWAY SIGNS:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22043&entry307723


VINCENT BUGLIOSI AND LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307589


GARY MACK:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307690
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307704


THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS AND X-RAYS:
http://amazon.com/forum/MsgID=Mx2BK0D28T4N88C
http://amazon.com/forum/MsgID=Mx2XYN5P5SU74LI


KOOK ALERT!:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22003&entry307135


ANOTHER KOOK ALERT!!:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/DVP On Assignment?



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










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 964)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All of the stuff in this post written by Greg Burnham becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy theorists (aka denialists) when we realize this fact....

Regardless of whether Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was a so-called piece of "crap" or not, the fact remains that that exact C2766 rifle, "to the exclusion", put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63. And that fact is proven via the front-seat bullet fragments seen in CE567 and CE569.

And there are a variety of reasons to know that CE567 & 569 are fragments from the HEAD SHOT. So, "crap" or not, Rifle No. C2766 was GOOD ENOUGH to put a bullet into John F. Kennedy's head.

And when we sensibly talk about Commission Exhibit 399, which most CTers can never do, then we're up to TWO verified "C2766" bullets being pumped into President Kennedy's car on November 22, 1963.


GLENN NALL SAID:

Nicely put, Dave - some reasoning I can agree with....

"...put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63."

...which is contrary to your assertion that three empty shells virtually proved three shots were fired from the 6th floor, and is exactly the argument I used in rebuttal.

While I still hold that there's no proof putting CE399 in the limo, I feel that you've made great progress and am looking forward to more in our next session.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn,

I don't think my "at least one bullet" remark is "contrary" to my additional thinking about three shots coming from the Sniper's Nest (and all from Lee Oswald's rifle, as proven by those three shells themselves).

I worded that statement the way I did in that post -- "put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63" -- because I knew I would get slapped in the face by CTers if I even DARED say that TWO bullets positively were fired into the limousine. (So I decided to tack on the stuff about CE399 at the end of that post, after the prefacing remark of "...And when we sensibly talk about CE399".)

But from the limited POV of Bullets being found inside the limousine that can be tied to the C2766 rifle, I am, of course, forced to stop at just ONE bullet POSITIVELY being pumped into the car by that rifle, because I believe Oswald's first shot missed the whole car and therefore could not be recovered at all, and CE399 was found outside the automobile--in the hospital.

The CE567/569 fragments are devastating blows to the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that NO SHOTS whatsoever were fired from the C2766 rifle on November 22. What those CTers are therefore forced to do is what they do with CE399 as well --- they'll just pretend those two front-seat bullet fragments were planted (or that the "real" fragments--from a different rifle--were disposed of and then replaced with two banged-all-to-hell fragments fired from Oswald's rifle).

Frankly, the "Everything's Fake In This Case" refrain has been laughably out of tune for decades (as far as I'm concerned anyway). It's just a crutch and a cop-out for CTers to use to try and--yet again--exonerate Mr. Oswald. (IMHO.)


GLENN NALL SAID:

Unless you can tell me how a bullet that could not be recovered at all can be shown to have been POSITIVELY shot AT the limo from C2766, then you cannot say that the three shells POSITIVELY contained the bullets that are found in the limo (aside from CE399).

All you did was inadvertently agree with logic. I know it was an accident, but you did it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Shouldn't just plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning spell out the answer here, Glenn? It sure does for me.

Why can't any conspiracy theorist manage to perform this 4th-grade math? ....

1.) A bullet from Rifle C2766 (split in two parts) was recovered in the President's car.

2.) A whole bullet from Rifle C2766 was found in Parkland Hospital (which is where the two limo victims were taken right after the shooting occurred). [Let the booing and hissing from the "Planted Bullet" brigade begin.]

3.) Three spent bullet shell casings from Rifle C2766 were found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

4.) No whole bullets were recovered from the bodies of either of the two victims. (Only tiny fragments were recovered from Kennedy's and Connally's bodies.)

5.) The enormous majority of the earwitnesses heard exactly THREE shots being fired at the Presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza.

Therefore, given the above starting points, please explain to me why I should NOT conclude that ALL of the shots fired on 11/22/63 (three in number) came from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?


GLENN NALL SAID:

...and THIS CTer has never once implied that he thinks everything is fake.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good. Then Oswald's almost certainly guilty, isn't he? (Under such conditions, how could he not be?)

To use your own words....

...all you did was inadvertently agree with logic. I know it was an accident, but you did it.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID ALL THIS STUFF.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

IMO, Oswald was merely feigning ignorance when he spoke to James Jarman (and I think maybe even Harold Norman) about the motorcade route on the morning of November 22. LHO knew darn well what route the motorcade was going to take when he talked with Jarman.

As for knowing the EXACT time when JFK would pass the building ..... Well, nobody could have known the precise time. But Oswald surely knew it would have been around noon or shortly after noon. And I think the overall weight of the testimony indicates that Oswald WAS on the sixth floor from noon forward, which means he would have been up there in (or near) his sniper's perch in plenty of time.

Yes, CTers can utilize Carolyn Arnold's statements. But her account is tainted in numerous ways. And if you discard Arnold, who else do you have to keep LHO off of the sixth floor between 12:00 and 12:30? Is there anyone else? Eddie Piper won't do it. Neither will Shelley.

I think it's also important to remember that Oswald was very likely quite literally winging it for most of the day on November 22. There were so many variables and so many things that could have spelled doom for his plan to kill the President, things that he could not possibly have controlled -- like people staying on the sixth floor to watch the parade (which could have easily happened, but didn't). Plus the weather. If it kept raining, the bubble would have been on the car, making a kill shot much more problematic and uncertain.

So I believe a lot of "winging it" and "flying by the seat of his pants" was going on with Lee Oswald that whole day.

I've always said that Oswald's mindset from the beginning of the day on 11/22/63 was likely this one:

If I get a good chance to shoot at Kennedy today from my workplace, I'll take it. If I don't, so be it.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Can any conspiracy theorist answer this for me?.....

If firing those shots at JFK from the sixth floor (while using the Carcano rifle) was so utterly "impossible" (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think it truly was)....and if a large part of the assassination "plot" was to frame Lee Harvey Oswald....then why were the architects of the "frame-up plot" so reckless? Did they think (on 11/21/63) they could make people believe Oswald could really do the impossible?

In reality, of course, the shots from Oswald's sniper's perch were not difficult shots at all. All of the shots were under 90 yards. And even if LHO didn't use the scope, so what? He was trained to use a rifle in the military. And he compiled some pretty decent shooting statistics (while firing at targets a lot farther away than 88 yards). And he certainly didn't have the benefit of a four-power telescope to aid him when he attained the ranking of Sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956. So why would shooting at a target that was barely in motion at all (JFK's head), from a distance of under 90 yards, be such an arduous chore for a former Marine like Oswald?

In short, the notion that Oswald's shooting performance in Dallas on November 22, 1963, was more difficult than building the Pyramids is yet another conspiracy myth that was disproven decades ago. And yet the myth persists.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

David...who found these items [CE567 & CE569], when and were they photographed within the limo? Or are we supposed to take the SS or FBI's word for it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, we are.

What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything. Since neither you nor I were there in the White House garage when the two front-seat bullet fragments were found by the Secret Service, then we are forced to either "take somebody's word" for the details surrounding the discovery of those fragments (and the ballistics tests that were performed on them by the FBI), or we must just throw up our hands and say (as you seem to be saying) -- I have no idea whether anybody is telling us the truth about these bullet fragments; therefore, I can't use those fragments at all when trying to solve JFK's murder.

But, of course, ANY piece of evidence COULD conceivably be planted or switched. But why would I go down that "Planted" path when I also know that there is so much other C2766 rifle evidence found elsewhere---in the hospital and in the TSBD? And neither the FBI nor the Secret Service collected any of the Depository C2766 evidence. The DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers found and collected all that TSBD evidence.

So, should I pretend there was some kind of amazing "Let's Frame Oswald" like-mindedness occurring between the SS, FBI, and the Dallas local police on November 22?

Why on Earth would anyone believe such craziness?

There is just too much evidence--which all points to Oswald's gun--to conclude anything other than this:

Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy.

I'm not like the conspiracy theorists. I don't automatically think J. Edgar Hoover and his employees were trying to frame a man for murders he never committed. YMMV (and obviously does).


GLENN NALL SAID:

"Yes, we are. [We must always take somebody's "word" for everything.]" -- DVP

Ah, this explains pretty much everything.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn, if you don't "take somebody's word" for SOMETHING somewhere along the line, how can you ever even begin to try and solve the case?

Are you actually suggesting that conspiracy theorists NEVER "take anyone's word" for anything connected with the JFK murder?

Example #1 ---

Aren't CTers "taking the word" of Earlene Roberts when she said Lee Oswald stayed in his room on Beckley Avenue for "3 or 4 minutes" on 11/22/63?

Example #2 ---

Aren't CTers "taking the word" of both Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley when they said the murder of J.D. Tippit occurred at specific times on November 22nd?


GLENN NALL SAID:

I take the word of people who are not proven hypocrites and liars. That's the difference.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I see.

And YOU get to decide who the "proven liars" are, right Glenn?


GLENN NALL SAID:

"Can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence?" -- DVP

Remember lesson 1 in making accusations, Davey? It's not the Defender who has to prove the Accuser wrong, it's the Accuser who has to PROVE his accusations.

We don't HAVE to effin' prove they are fraudulent. YOU have to effin' prove that they're evidence.

Why is that so effin' hard to understand??? :)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Glenn. You've got everything backwards (as usual).

It's the conspiracy buffs who are always arguing that the various pieces of evidence are fake/phony/planted/manufactured/fraudulent/worthless. Therefore, it's THAT accusation that must be PROVED. And since it's an extraordinary and outrageous accusation (particularly when it involves nearly ALL of the evidence in BOTH murders--JFK's & Tippit's), then the accusation requires an extraordinary amount of proof to back it up.

Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant Conspiracy Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked---let alone the DOZENS of pieces of evidence the CT Brigade claims were faked.

Try again, Glenn. I need another laugh before supper. And you seem to be making a habit out of impersonating Red Skelton.

David Von Pein
June 26, 2015
June 26, 2015
June 27-28, 2015




MICHAEL BADEN VS. CYRIL WECHT
(NOVEMBER 22, 2013)


video


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


ALSO VISIT:








O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL TESTIMONY:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 963)


VIA A DISCUSSION AT YouTube....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your message and questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can below.


PAUL SAID:

O.K., SBT. .... Please explain the following: You say part of the proof is that both people respond at the same time to being hit. Wouldn't physics, let alone common sense, suggest that they should respond at different times and they could not possibly be both hit at the same time?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It seems to me as if you're saying this: Since we can see the two victims reacting at the same time, this must mean they were hit by two separate bullets instead of just one.

Anyway, if you look at the various SBT clips I have provided (including the one below), you can easily see that those two men (Kennedy and Connally) are definitely reacting at the same time just after Frame 224 of the Zapruder home movie:



Most people apparently never take the time to focus on the movements of the two victims, IN UNISON, just after Z224. Normally, the researchers seem to want to focus on only one victim at a time. I guess it is kind of difficult to focus on TWO things at once (i.e., the two victims), but it can be done by focusing your attention between the two men. I have found this better enables me to see what's happening with both victims at once.


PAUL SAID:

Further, you also say that Connally only reacts when his wrist is hit (being broken into at least 7 pieces). This guy must be somehow superhuman, because using your own theory, he DOESN'T react to the entry wound in his back, he DOESN'T react to his 5th rib being hit, he DOESN'T react to his lung being lacerated, and finally he DOESN'T react to the bullet exiting his body! Sounds like you are being very very selective with what you are promoting as fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not at all, Paul. If you have seen all of my articles that I posted at my "Single-Bullet Theory" blog location (HERE), you would have seen where I discuss all of John Connally's reactions in some detail. Pay particular attention to the Z224-Z225 clip below (for the initial INVOLUNTARY reactions on the part of Governor Connally):




PAUL SAID:

I totally agree with your argument regarding the high-powered weapon to be used to assassinate a chief of state. So this begs the question: why would Oswald buy one of the most unreliable rifles ever made? Surely he would have some knowledge of rifles after being in the Marines.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't fall into that trap, Paul. Oswald's rifle was not the best rifle in the world, that's true. But it hardly was a total piece of crap either. In fact, the FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier said that Oswald's Carcano was a good choice for an assassination weapon.

Here's what Frazier told the Warren Commission on that subject in 1964
(at 3 H 413):

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139 [Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle], and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I would."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain that?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And did you find this shot accurately?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."


~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll also add this additional fact here:

Oswald didn't have a whole lot of money when he purchased his rifle in March 1963. So he certainly couldn't afford a very expensive weapon. So he bought a second-hand war surplus rifle from a mail-order house.


PAUL SAID:

Further, why wouldn't he [Oswald] at the very least buy a rifle with a clip, so he can fire off possibly more shots and in quicker succession?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald's rifle did have a clip, Paul. The clip is part of the evidence now at the National Archives. It is Commission Exhibit No. 575 (seen here and here).


PAUL SAID:

Your point [is a] fair claim [when I asked Paul: "Where are all the other bullets?"] Let me ask you exactly the same question. Where are the other 2 bullets you say Oswald fired? If it is unrealistic to have not found any [of] the CT's bullets, then it is fair for the Lone Assassin purveyors to produce the other 2.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only one of Oswald's three bullets was not found, Paul. And that was the bullet from his first shot, which missed the whole limousine and everybody in it. That bullet (IMO) is the one that resulted in the slight injury to James Tague, who was standing by the Triple Underpass on Main Street.

But Oswald's two bullets that made contact with the two victims were found and recovered and are in evidence -- CE399 and the two large fragments from the head shot that were found in the front seat of the limousine (CE567 and CE569).

Most conspiracy theorists think that CE399 (the "stretcher bullet") didn't hit either victim on November 22, 1963. I, however, vehemently disagree with such a conclusion. And I think I make a good case for CE399 being a legitimate bullet connected with the wounding of both JFK and Connally in the articles HERE.


PAUL SAID:

Connally [is] still holding onto his hat. How is this possible if his wrist is virtually shattered?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Governor Connally held that hat ALL THE WAY to the hospital, Paul.

So we know for a fact that Connally definitely COULD have still held his hat after his right wrist was broken. Have a look at what Nellie Connally said about the "hat" in this article.


PAUL SAID:

The biggest problem of the SBT is that you and other "kooks" (using your word) cannot explain how a bullet that has made as much damage as this one is left virtually intact. Forget theories, forget physics, just use common sense. This is simply impossible, even the WC couldn't replicate this with all their experts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the Warren Commission really never TRIED to replicate the damage of Bullet CE399. The WC did various tests with Oswald's ammunition, that's true enough. But they never did the ULTIMATE "SBT" TEST, which would be to shoot a Carcano bullet like CE399 through TWO mock victims in order to simulate ALL of the conditions of the real CE399.

Instead, the Warren Commission shot bullets SEPARATELY into goat ribcages and human wrist bones. So, naturally, those bullets were bound to be more damaged than CE399. That's common sense too, Paul.

It wasn't until 2004 that we finally got a good realistic simulation of CE399, when the Discovery Channel tried to duplicate the path of the so-called "magic bullet" by firing a Carcano missile through two simulated torsos. And that test bullet took a path that generally mimicked the path of the real CE399, and the test bullet emerged in ONE UNFRAGMENTED PIECE. Here's that test bullet:



The test bullet pictured above isn't quite as undeformed as CE399, I don't deny that fact. But one possible reason for the extra flattening of that test bullet could be the fact that the test bullet actually struck and broke one additional rib in the mock-up of Governor Connally. The test resulted in two broken ribs in the "Connally" torso; while the real John Connally only suffered one broken rib on 11/22/63.

Plus: In 1992, ballistics expert Dr. Martin Fackler fired a Carcano bullet like Oswald's directly into a human wrist bone at a reduced muzzle velocity of 1,100 feet per second (which was probably even a little faster than Oswald's bullet was traveling when it hit Connally's wrist on 11/22/63), and Fackler's bullet ended up in perfect condition. It was totally undeformed.

Here is what Dr. Fackler's test bullet looked like after striking a human wrist at 1100fps:




PAUL SAID:

Cheers,
Paul

P.S., Whilst we are on different sides of the fence, I will say you have given me food for thought though. :-)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Paul.

I hope you'll read some more of my Internet articles concerning the way President Kennedy died. I think if you do, you might just discover that the people who have spent the last several decades promoting a conspiracy in the JFK murder case are the ones you should really distrust and disbelieve, instead of the Warren Commission.

Best regards to you,
David Von Pein
May 20, 2010




MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 101)


CTer GARBAGE ABOUT STARTLE REACTIONS & PLANTED SHELLS:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22020&entry306720


RE-CREATING THE ASSASSINATION:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22003&entry306785
http://educationforum.com/topic=22025&entry306893


COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 903:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22003&entry306530


HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22003&entry306886
http://educationforum.com/topic=22003&entry306943


RIFLE C2766 WAS GOOD ENOUGH:
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-964


IF ONLY:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/FKUfqhF3Iyk/8nZER60b71cJ


THE BULLET FRAGMENTS IN THE FRONT SEAT:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307346
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307373
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307403


WHO SHOULD BE BELIEVED?:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307382
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307386


INSIDE OR OUTSIDE?:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22035&entry307105
http://educationforum.com/topic=22035&entry307134
http://educationforum.com/topic=22035&entry307155


THE MARY FERRELL & HISTORY MATTERS WEBSITES:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22032&entry306998


FAKE EVIDENCE?:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307386


"DEALEY CAM":
http://educationforum.com/topic=22037&entry307305


MORE KENNEDY PICTURES UNVEILED:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3136206



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










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 962)


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

So you believe he [Buell Wesley Frazier] was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken-down Carcano.

No?

You just believe the parts you want to believe?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray?

You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag".

But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright liar) when he said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22/63.

I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "liar" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars.

But you MUST think Frazier WAS a liar regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right?

And yet you don't seem to realize the hyprocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me:

"You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham

Pot meets up with Kettle yet again.

There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is....

IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag?

If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right?

But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged liar has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existent bag way too small.

Brilliant, huh?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag.

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Which is it -- "No bag" or "too short bag"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?)

I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy.

Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag.

Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed:

"If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size."

Hilarious.


INSTANT REPLAY....

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The bag was an invention, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you really do believe what I suggested previously --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it.

So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really shitty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

What part of "The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag" do you not understand?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And what part of this logic do you not understand, Ray? ---

If the bag was merely an "invention", then Frazier (or the police) would have invented a bag LONG ENOUGH to hold the rifle owned by the person you think Frazier (or the police) was framing.

Believing that Frazier INVENTED a bag AND believing that Frazier would ever say the bag was only "2 feet" long are two beliefs that do not go together at all.

The fact that Frazier always has maintained the bag was too short to hold Oswald's rifle is virtual proof, all by itself, that Frazier really did see Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on 11/22/63.

Unless, as I said before, Mr. Frazier was one really stupid liar and patsy framer.

And then Frazier decided to voluntarily tell his alleged "paper bag" lie yet again, in front of millions of potential movie-goers, in David Wolper's 1964 feature film. Spunky little liar, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he? ....

video


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

How would he [B.W. Frazier] know what size bag the rifle would fit into?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out.

But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

He [B.W. Frazier] made the bag theory up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked?

And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Once he and his sister had decided on the size, they couldn't retract.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why not? People change their minds all the time.

David Von Pein
June 23, 2015


LOTS MORE "PAPER BAG" TALK: