JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1069)


MARK WENGLER SAID:

Is anyone else a member of this [Facebook] group --- "JFK --- The Truth"?

There is a guy named Ed Cage. It says both sides welcomed. But if a person posts anything about a Knoll shooter, he or others shoot you down.

He calls Mark Lane and Lee Bowers dim-witted screwballs.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Then he should call it JFK: The Lie.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Always be wary of those who put the word "truth" in the title of their enterprise.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep....




And be wary when the word "Facts" is used too....




BRIAN SCHMIDT SAID:

Why would Lee Bowers be considered a screwball?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I certainly don't consider Bowers to be screwy. He's actually a pretty decent "LN" type of witness -- CLICK HERE.


SCOTT KAISER SAID:

Yeah, I had a lot of fun in that ["JFK --- The Truth"] group.

[Ed] Cage brought me in thinking he could [prove] me wrong. I laid it all out for him and his little friends too, to read. I even told him I'd put up something like $10,000 or $20,000--can't remember how much it was--if he was willing to do the same. If he could prove me wrong. I was prepared to send him a contract, and we would both agree on the same mediator. The cost for the mediator would be split, it would be based on who provided more [facts].

He shot off his mouth quite a bit, but would never put up, so his friends joined in. All they succeed[ed] to do was try and insult me, but they never could keep up. DVP said, "I think it was a mistake allowing Scott in this forum", so he [Ed Cage] kicked me out because he refused to answer any questions, or counter my discoveries. No one at that forum would challenge me.

In my opinion, they're all talk, no action. Goes to show, they're nuts!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've been searching Ed Cage's Facebook group (forum) archives and my own Facebook group archives (the group that I own is called "JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS, & DISCUSSION") --- and I can't find any post authored by me that says what you've quoted me as saying above, Scott.

Can you provide a link to that quote?

I'm not saying I didn't say it. Perhaps I did. I'm just saying I don't remember saying it at Ed Cage's group, and I couldn't find the quote even when doing a specific word search within the two groups I just mentioned.

But, anyway, regardless of that quote attributed to me, here's an example of the type of commentary I was treated to by Scott Kaiser at my own Facebook group after I accepted Scott as an active participant in June 2015. If this is the way he behaved over at Ed Cage's group too, then the quote that Scott attributed to me above would, indeed, be quite appropriate and reasonable....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID [ON JUNE 11, 2015]:

Scott [Kaiser] appears to be relying ONLY on the Z-Film. And a very subjective view of the Z-Film at that. All the while ignoring THE BEST evidence that proves JFK was shot only once in the head, with that shot coming FROM BEHIND. That evidence being the autopsy photos & X-rays, plus the autopsy report and the testimony and statements of the autopsy surgeons.

Scott, can you possibly believe that ALL of the above things I just mentioned are ALL bogus (or liars)?

Here's the entry hole---and it ain't in the front.


SCOTT R. KAISER SAID:

As far as I'm concerned I'm throwing out everything from the WCR and the HSCA simply because neither reports the findings I'm working on.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gee, there's a shocker. Scott's "throwing out" the ENTIRE two Government reports! The ONLY major investigations re: this case. And Scott, just like that, has decided to chuck them both. Isn't that special?


SCOTT KAISER SAID:

With so much conservatory questions going on as to the altered photos, altered xrays, and altered films, I'm taking my chances on what I believe to be best evidence.

I'd rather have the truth, [than] to be told, "this is the truth", seek, and ye shall find.


DAN PAUL SAID:

This is a hoot!! Because Scott says so, we should all believe him and not the experts who conducted the official investigations and were able to examine all the evidence.

This altered Zapruder film nonsense is a huge laugh!!!!!


LATER IN THE DISCUSSION, SCOTT KAISER SAID:

I can't be surrounded by idiots Lord, please let it not be so.


AND A LITTLE LATER, MY GROUP DISCUSSION WAS TREATED TO THESE ENTERTAINING GEMS FROM SCOTT R. KAISER:

What a freaking numbnut!

[...]

Chuck, "as far as I'm concerned", you're an idiot!

[...]

There you go, the three musketeers have now graduated to four, and, now, it's complete, the four numbnuts.

[...]

As a child, I could still remember my father say, if you don't have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. This was growing up as a child, some of you adults can't help it. I understand.


SOURCE OF ABOVE DISCUSSION:
http://Facebook.com



DAWN MEREDITH SAID:

I have an idea folks: Why doesn't everyone here simply ignore DVP and post around him. Arguing with professional lone nutters is a total waste of time. But then that's the idea.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No worries, Dawn. Most of the CTers in this place already agreed (many weeks ago) to put me on "ignore".

So you can rest easy. Oswald's guilt will still conveniently be sidestepped and ignored by about 85% of the Education Forum members, regardless of anything ol' DVP has to say. Pretty much the same way Oswald's obvious guilt is totally ignored at your Deep Politics Forum as well (via the complete silencing of any anti-conspiracy opinion).

Quoting from this September 2014 webpage:


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014:

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time."
-- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14





David Von Pein
November 28-29, 2015




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1068)


JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

By setting up a series of straw men, adopting a supercilious tone, and ignoring new evidence, Dale Myers [in this article] manages to unpleasantly restate the official theory of a lone gunman in a way that makes it less convincing than ever.

“Fifty-two long years, and still *nothing* to exonerate Oswald or uncover the so-called 'true conspirators'.” -- Dale K. Myers; November 22, 2015

Myers is correct on one point: there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that any specific named individual conspired to kill President Kennedy. This factual statement also applies to Lee Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I keep hearing conspiracy theorists constantly talking about the “new evidence” and all of the many ARRB documents that supposedly “prove” a conspiracy in the JFK case.

James DiEugenio, for example, just loves to declare victory for the CTers by claiming there are a number of “ARRB documents” that serve as the bombshell proof that a conspiracy exists in the JFK assassination. But whenever I ask Jim D. (or any other conspiracy theorist) to link to just ONE specific document made available by the ARRB that proves a conspiracy, all I get in return is dead silence or stuff like this (which doesn't “prove” a conspiracy at all).

So, can somebody PLEASE provide a link to just ONE document released as a result of the JFK Records Act of 1992 that allegedly “proves” that John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy? I’ve yet to see such a document produced by anyone.

And the reason I’ve never seen such a document is quite easy to explain — it’s because no such “bombshell” document(s) exists—and never did. It’s all a matter of flawed interpretation on the part of people who are anxious to confirm their beliefs in a make-believe plot that only exists in the minds of individuals who are desperately seeking a conspiracy in the JFK murder case.


PAUL F. SAID:

David:

Show me a single document that proves that Oswald did it. You can’t, that’s a silly argument.

There is not a scintilla of proof that Oswald shot Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

“Not a scintilla”, eh Paul? You surely must be joking.

The amount of evidence that indicates “Oswald did it” is staggering in depth, scope, and diversity — from the bullets, to the guns themselves (Oswald’s very own guns), to the bullet shells, to the witnesses, to Oswald’s lies that he told the police after his arrest, and also to Oswald’s very own actions, which practically convict him all by themselves, including the scuffle in the Texas Theater, where Oswald tried to kill another policeman.

(Yeah, innocent patsies are always whipping out pistols in movie theaters and threatening cops [and then making statements like this]. Right, Paul?)

And I include the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit in my above remarks concerning the evidence too, because the Tippit slaying is inexorably linked to President Kennedy’s death (IMO).


DAVID REGAN SAID:

For starters, how about evidence of a second bullet being recovered? FBI Assistant Director Allan H. Belmont wrote a memo to his direct superior, Clyde Tolson, stating “that Secret Service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President’s ear and we are arranging to get both of these.”

A notation in the memo indicates the time to be 9:18 PM, which is after FBI agent Robert Frazier and Special Agent Elmer Todd claim to have accepted custody of CE 399.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David R.,

If that’s the best you’ve got, then you’ve got very little. That document about a bullet being lodged behind JFK’s ear was written as a result of the initial confusion in the hours that immediately followed the President’s death.

And some of those things that were first reported turned out to be incorrect. So I see no reason to still adhere to bad information — like all of these inaccurate early stories:

>> A “Mauser” or an “Argentine” rifle being found in the Book Depository.

>> The false rumor about a Secret Service agent being killed in Dealey Plaza.

>> The erroneous version of the Tippit shooting which had Officer Tippit being killed inside the Texas Theater itself.

>> The rumors about Vice President Johnson either being shot or having a heart attack.

>> Dr. Robert Shaw's inaccurate statement made during his 11/22/63 press conference about the bullet that struck Governor Connally still being in the left leg of Mr. Connally.

>> The “bullet lodged behind JFK’s ear” story.

>> Dr. Humes’ remark about “surgery of the head area” (which was repeated in the Sibert/O’Neill FBI report).

>> The initial erroneous speculation entertained by the autopsy doctors that the bullet which entered JFK’s upper back “did not exit” the body at all.

All of those things (among other false stories) were corrected at a later time.

And even FBI agent James Sibert later abandoned a couple of theories that some conspiracy theorists are still stubbornly clinging to even today — i.e., the “surgery of the head” remark and the notion that ANY “whole bullet” was recovered at President Kennedy’s autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital....





STEVE STIRLEN SAID:

David,

You and I have e-mailed each other through your site, and I find you are one of the more reasonable proponents of the government’s version. I do have a question that the other government folks won’t answer. First, a quote from Jeff Morley:

“The CIA retains a 123-page file on Harvey’s assassination-related activities that has never been seen by bloggers, reporters, scholars, or Congress. When the CIA’s secret Bill Harvey file is made public, Talbot’s claim will be clarified. It is pathetic and outrageous that such material remains hidden, but that’s reality.”

David—how is anyone—you, I, or Dale Myers—able to determine what REALLY happened when documents that STILL EXIST—forget the ones that were destroyed or never even made in the first place—are not made available to folks?

[...]

How can we know the FULL truth when the CIA continues to stonewall? Can you PLEASE talk to the folks at Langley and ask them to release the 1100 pages that still are being held?

One more comment for you to consider:

“I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the [HSCA] committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”
-- Robert Blakey

I think his line of never knowing the full truth is quite telling.

Your thoughts?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve,

I think ALL Government documents pertaining to the assassination should definitely be made public. No doubt about it. And nearly all of them have been made public.

But I also know that whenever “new” documents are finally released after a period of years under wraps, they always end up not meaning very much. And none of them has ever “proven” a conspiracy took place in Dallas. (Do you really think any of the documents released through the ARRB have “proven” a conspiracy?)

We may never know with 100% certainty if Oswald had a helper to aid him in November 1963. But from the things we do know about Lee Harvey Oswald, it’s highly unlikely (IMO) that anyone was conspiring with him in Dallas on 11/22/63.

For one thing, if Oswald had a co-conspirator to help him that day — then where the heck was that co-conspirator when Oswald needed him most — just after the assassination?

Everything Oswald did on both November 21st and 22nd indicates to me that LHO was working alone. There’s nothing in his movements on those two days to indicate–in any way–that he was part of a multi-person plot to kill the President.

As for the CIA and its intense desire to keep some things hidden (even if they only relate in a marginal way to the events in Dallas), Vincent Bugliosi said this in his JFK book:

“The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst enemy.” — V. Bugliosi


AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID:

There is indeed a “staggering” amount of evidence implicating Oswald as one of the assassins – a staggeringly small amount.

If you discard the discrepancies in the paperwork, you could make a plausible case that in March 1963 Oswald purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor. That implicates Oswald in the assassination, but doesn’t put him on the sixth floor with the rifle eight months later. The evidence of Wesley Frazier and his sister make it clear that it wasn’t Oswald who brought the rifle into the book depository.

To place Oswald at the scene of the crime, we have his fingerprints on two cardboard boxes, and some eyewitness testimony. But the fingerprint evidence doesn’t implicate him either, because Oswald’s job required him to handle boxes of books on the sixth floor. And the eyewitness evidence is vague and contradictory: the gunman was white and slender (like Oswald), with light brown hair (like Oswald) or dark hair (unlike Oswald) and a bald patch (unlike Oswald), and was wearing a light-colored open-neck shirt (unlike Oswald) over a white T-shirt (like Oswald).

The main eyewitness against Oswald was Howard Brennan, who declined to identify Oswald as the man he had seen, then changed his mind, then changed his mind again. And of course Oswald was seen elsewhere in the building at the same time as the gunman was seen on the sixth floor.

So much for the fingerprint and eyewitness evidence. What’s left? Oswald may have been less than truthful to the police, although we only have the authorities’ word for what he said. Guilty, your honor!

He behaved strangely after the assassination, by going to watch a film. Guilty, your honor!

He may have shot Officer Tippit, although the evidence for that is as shaky as the evidence that he shot JFK.

If Mr Von Pein is ever convicted of murder, I hope the evidence against him is a lot stronger than the evidence he uses to convict Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You know as well as I do that ALL of the physical evidence points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald, so why pretend it doesn’t?

E.G.,

The Carcano rifle, the Smith & Wesson revolver, the fingerprints and palmprints, the 38-inch paper bag with his (Oswald’s) prints on it, bullet fragments from his rifle found right in the Presidential limousine itself, and bullet shells from his guns littering TWO separate murder scenes.

(And that's not even counting Commission Exhibit No. 399.)

And yet I’m supposed to believe that the above wealth of physical evidence, plus the “I Saw Oswald” eyewitnesses at or near the Tippit murder site, plus Oswald's lies and guilty-like actions following the assassination, somehow make Oswald look innocent of killing BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

Puh-lease!

And listening to the CTers make their perpetual lame excuses as they try to take the Tippit murder weapon out of Oswald’s hands too (as they always attempt to do when discussing the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as well) is the perfect example of “CTer Desperation” on full display.

For a barrel of “V510210 revolver” laughs (at the expense of desperate conspiracy theorists), go HERE.


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

If you are really going to deny that the US Intelligence services lacked the resources and the connections to pull off a staged coup d’etat in Dallas, Texas, you have a impossible task in front of you to convince anyone with any historical knowledge and common sense.

You may be able to convince the average simple minded TVZombie with your tootie-fruity Pied Piper pan pipes lullaby, but you will not be successful in a debate with informed researchers like those attending this blog.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Willy. Whatever you say.

I guess you must think that Lee Oswald was merely a subservient puppet, willing and eager to have his strings pulled by any number of CIA operatives (including Michael and Ruth Paine). Right, Willy?

And just because ALL of the evidence (and a dozen eyewitnesses near or at the site of J.D. Tippit’s murder in Oak Cliff) points toward Lee Harvey Oswald as a double-murderer, why should those trifling little facts get in the way of believing (as most Internet CTers do) that Oswald was merely an innocent “patsy”?

Right, Willy?

[Quote On:]

“Who can believe these people [Ruth and Michael Paine]? Both of them as phony as three dollar bills.” — Jim DiEugenio

Rebutting DiEugenio's crap about the Paines:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 87)


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet’s [sic] murder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you have no problem with Oswald being able to make it all the way to the Texas Theater from his roominghouse (where we know he was at about 1:00 PM, per Earlene Roberts) in time to be inside the theater BEFORE Tippit was even shot.

Most CTers moan about how Oswald couldn’t possibly have made it from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton in time to shoot Tippit. And yet Willy has just made Oswald an Olympic track star by getting LHO all the way from 1026 Beckley to the Texas Theater in even LESS time. Amazing.

But the “Texas Theater Oswald” was probably just an imposter, eh Willy?


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

I’ve seen the map of the area. Taking a route from Beckley to the Texas Theater, by going through the park and through the school yard, Oswald could have made that distance in less than 15 minutes at a brisk walk.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But I’ll bet you don’t think the same man (Oswald) had a prayer of making it to 10th & Patton in just about the same length of time, and probably less time — i.e., “less than 15 minutes at a brisk walk”. Right, Willy?

This reminds me of the (unintentional) hypocritical approach that Oliver Stone and other conspiracy nuts have taken with respect to trying to prove that a Carcano rifle like Oswald’s couldn’t possibly have been fired three times in 5 or 6 seconds — even though Stone filmed one of his actors dry-firing a Carcano 3 times in 5.5 seconds — and he even kept that scene in the finished movie. Hilarious.


EVAN CERNE-IANNONE SAID:

Watching CNN special on JFK assassination. I forget how stupid some people are.

Honestly, why do they think there was a conspiracy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's probably mostly just a "follow the leader" mindset. Most people don't know very much about the details of Oswald's guilt. They watch Oliver Stone's fantasy film, or they read the latest crazy conspiracy book (like David Talbot's new one about how Allen Dulles Did It), and they conclude that those silly theories must be correct.

Too bad they don't read this instead....




MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

David,

It is extremely weak and dishonest to ask for just ONE document that would prove a conspiracy, when at the same time you rely on a very selective set of (sometimes extremely dubious) pieces of highly circumstantial evidence to conclude that Oswald must have been a lone gunman.

There is no ONE single piece of evidence that conclusively proves Oswald's guilt and there isn't one to prove a conspiracy.

IMO, there are two ways of looking at this thing:

You either accept a selection of the "evidence" (and ignore the rest) to conclude that Oswald was the lone gunman or you look at the totality of the evidence and conclude that there is enough reasonable doubt to dismiss the lone gunman theory, which by implication justifies the conclusion that there must have been some sort of conspiracy instead.


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

In David's simplistic world, where conspiracists [Johnny meant to say "conspirators" here] helpfully leave behind a single damning piece of evidence to show their conspiracy, we look forward to David producing the single piece of evidence that comprehensively proves Oswald's guilt.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can easily provide hundreds of documents and photos and witness testimony that, IMO, "prove" that Oswald murdered JFK and J.D. Tippit. The Warren Report volumes and HSCA volumes are riddled with such material (of course). Almost all of which has been totally dismissed by most Internet conspiracists.

I'm merely asking for ONE document (or, if you prefer, a series of documents) that I keep hearing certain CTers insist prove the conspiracy in the JFK case.

And, yes, I have been a big proponent of the "Totality of Evidence" approach to the case. That is, the "totality" (or "sum total") of ALL the evidence and testimony, when put together and not isolated, proves Oswald's guilt.

But, in my opinion, that "Totality of Evidence" approach will not--and cannot--work for the conspiracy theorists in the JFK or Tippit cases. Mainly because there is not a scrap of physical evidence in EITHER murder case that points in any direction other than to Lee Harvey Oswald and HIS guns and HIS bullets and HIS prints, etc.

I suppose CTers could try to rely on a "Totality of Speculation" approach. Or maybe the "Totality of 33-Year-Old Memories".

But CTers certainly aren't going to win the debate based on any kind of "Totality of Physical Evidence" in the John F. Kennedy assassination. Because the conspiracy proponents are holding an empty box when it comes to the "physical evidence" topic.


PAT SPEER SAID:

If you actually researched the case, David, as opposed to recycling VB's [Vincent Bugliosi's] arguments, you'd find this wasn't true. I mean, why weren't you in Dallas, or Bethesda, the last few years when I totally deconstructed and destroyed the single-bullet theory? Or just a few days ago, when I went through the fingerprint evidence, and proved lie after lie?

The LN position Oswald fired at Kennedy and killed Tippit is basically a sideshow at this point. The more important question--historically speaking--is why the DPD, FBI, WC staff, Justice Dept., and even HSCA staff lied so often and with such reckless disregard for the truth? Why--if it was just Oswald--did they find it necessary to lie so much?

Until an LNT is willing to deal with this now-proven fact---that lie after lie was told to support the Oswald-did-it theory--your side is hopeless, David. I mean, I can do it--I could sit down and cook up a theory whereby Oswald did it, but where most everyone involved in the investigation was scared he didn't, or was scared the public might think he didn't, and decided to pollute the record with lie after lie. But few if any LNTs are willing to do as much...and hopelessly tie themselves to such clear liars as Humes and Day and Specter and Guinn and Canning (not to mention Lattimer and Alvarez) in the process.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I couldn't disagree more strongly with Mr. Patrick J. Speer above.

The EVIDENCE proves Oswald's guilt---and always has---right from Day 1 on 11/22/63.

Apparently CTers think the "fix was in" against Oswald right from Day 1 (practically Hour #1 or Hour #2 on November 22). And this "fix" would, of course, have HAD to include the DPD, the Dallas Sheriff's Office, the Secret Service, and the FBI.

And ALL of these organizations got together on Day 1 and decided to join forces to manipulate the evidence so that ALL of it--collected from FOUR different locations (the TSBD, the hospital, the Presidential limousine, and 10th Street in Oak Cliff)--would conveniently point to only ONE MAN, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yeah, right. And my mother once pitched a perfect game for the Seattle Pilots in 1969.


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

"It's easy to "investigate" when you simply dismiss everything
you don't like."
-- Martin Weidmann; 2015

(He's right.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. And the CTers who conveniently "dismiss" every single piece of evidence that points to ONLY OSWALD are the absolute proof that Martin is correct in that quote.

Thanks for today's Pot/Kettle laugh, Johnny. Irony has always been a CTer's forte.


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

If I was as blinkered as DVP, and so ignored chains of evidence for the guns, bullets, prints etc, then I too could ignorantly claim,

"There is not a scrap of physical evidence in EITHER murder case that points in any direction other than to Lee Harvey Oswald and HIS guns and HIS bullets and HIS prints, etc." -- DVP

Mysterious sudden appearance of the bag at the sniper's nest, tricky, it doesn't fit in with the simpletons' view, best ignore this.

The posted paper bag that appeared after the shooting, best ignore this.

Lack of prints on the rifle, until Oswald is dead, and lo and behold they are suddenly seen, best ignore this.

Tippit shells that were clearly switched.

The jacket found after the Tippit shooting that had no link with Oswald, no one knew who found it, but (in the absence of any solid evidence) was still presented as proof of Oswald's guilt.

The fix was on before Day 1, setting up someone in advance was hardly rocket science, the Milteer tapes mention how easy it is to set someone up, the mafia also talked of setting up a nut.

All of DVP's evidence fades away under close, neutral inspection. That is why he hasn't got a single piece of conclusive evidence he can quote that confirms Oswald's guilt.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There are so many crackpot, unproven myths in Johnny's last post, I could write all night long about how stupid his claims are. (And, as usual, Hartley will just pretend that the two NON-POE bullet shells on Tenth Street have a weak chain of custody too--even though those two shells have a perfectly fine chain.)

And this 11/23/63 document proves that the CTers in the "NO PRINTS WERE FOUND ON THE RIFLE ON DAY 1" club are totally nuts (and dead wrong).


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

That is your problem DVP, you keep pushing your hopeless bluffs.

The chain of evidence for the shells is non existent, as the police were busy detaching themselves from admitting anything to do with them, as they knew how bogus the shells presented in evidence were.

DVP can lie about this all he wants, but there is nothing to prove the shells officially presented as having been fired on the day were the same ones found on the day of the Tippit shooting.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure, Johnny. Just pretend everyone was switching evidence to frame the sap named Oswald.

I mean, can ANY person on ANY jury really be 100% certain that evidence was handled with perfect care and with a perfect "chain of possession" in ANY murder case or ANY criminal case? Of course they can't. And that's what slick and slimy defense attorneys rely on when some of the evidence in a case isn't as "perfect" as the prosecution would like.

Heck, anybody can just SAY "the evidence has all been planted or faked". But don't you think a TAD bit of PROOF should be required in order to dangle that claim in front of a jury (or, in the JFK case, in front of anyone interested in the Kennedy murder)?

And what PROOF do you have that ALL FOUR bullet shells on 10th Street were faked or switched?

Answer---Johnny's got NO proof at all. He THINKS they were planted, because Johnny doesn't even like the idea of Precious Patsy Lee Harvey being guilty of Tippit's murder.

You're a joke, Johnny. Get a new hobby. This "Everything's Fake" schtick is outmoded.


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

DVP, your document of 23.11.63 is worthless, it is dated 23.11.63, but is stamped for filing on 22.11.63. Now surely even you can see that a document can't be filed before it is written.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, great! Another fake document! The 11/23/63 document written by FBI agent Nat A. Pinkston is "worthless", per Johnny Hartley.

Hartley thinks that just because somebody stamped it "Nov. 22", and the date in the upper-right says Nov. 23, that means it's a fake. Hilarious.

The document obviously refers to things that happened ON NOVEMBER 22. It was then typed up the next day. Almost all FBI documents, in fact, have this one-day (or two-day) lag in the dates.

Try again, Johnny. What about those Dhority/Doughty shells?? They're fake too, right?


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

Ah, this is more like the real DVP. When asked to support his claims with evidence, he can't, so he just insults the questioner.

[...]

Folks, watch how the lightweight DVP always tries to change the subject when challenged... or just ignores the questions until it is safe for him to reappear and the questions have stopped being asked of him.

Lightweight DVP.

Laugh at the way he now says there is no need for a chain of evidence. Hey DVP, let's go further than that, find someone guilty without needing any evidence. Oh yeah, silly me, that already happened with Oswald.

Ah, so his official 22 November document he pitifully relies on to prove there were Oswald prints on the rifle he now thinks could have actually been typed up the next day. But why then, Fool? Why not a week later? A month later? You see, David Von Pein, your evidence (as usual) is worthless as you have no idea where it came from or when it was produced.

And that seediness of yours is why your case against Oswald, based on fabricated, unauthenticated evidence, is as shoddy as you.

And despite all your years writing about the case, you haven't a single piece of solid definitive evidence against Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Johnny. Pretending that ALL of the many pieces of Oswald-Did-It evidence are fake is a much more reasonable way to go, isn't it?

Also....

Even if I had zero pieces of physical evidence, a good case can be made for Oswald's guilt based on his guilty-like actions ALONE.

Or do you think it's common for innocent people to act the way LHO acted in the Texas Theater?

Let's watch Featherweight Johnny now pretend that Oswald's actions and statements in the theater don't mean a darn thing. We should just ignore Oswald pulling that gun out of his pants (the same gun used to kill J.D. Tippit 35 minutes earlier, of course).

And I also predict that Featherweight Johnny will totally deny that Oswald even pulled a gun on Patrolman McDonald at all. That was just a lie cooked up by McDonald and shoe store manager Johnny Brewer.

Right, Featherweight?

Re: the Pinkston FBI document....

Of course it was typed up on November 23rd. It has "11/23/63" right there in the upper-right corner. And it's no different than the multi-date dating system that we see in hundreds of other FBI reports (the FD-302 reports), in which there are many times THREE different dates attached to the report.

Here's one such "three dates" example — CD7; Page 228 — which is a document that was written by the FBI agent on 11/29/63, dictated on 11/30/63, and typed into its final form on 12/2/63. Is it a phony FBI report too, Johnny?


DILLON RANKINE SAID:

Officer McDonald’s tale about Oswald pulling a gun fails under a cursory examination of the physical evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. Right on cue. Another CTer pretends that Oswald had NO GUN at all in the theater.

Pathetic.

And that makes two more rotten liars (M.N. McDonald and Johnny Brewer) to add to the never-ending list of liars compiled by CTers.

No jail in Texas would have been big enough to hold all the crooks, liars, and patsy framers that existed in Dallas on November 22nd.


DILLON RANKINE SAID:

Clearly Pat Speer was correct in his statement about you recycling Bugliosi’s arguments.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh sure, Dillon. I needed Vince to take me by the hand regarding the theater scuffle between McDonald and Oswald. I couldn't possibly have known about it and reached any conclusion about it without Vincent's assistance.

You're actually also implying that I knew nothing about the theater scuffle prior to May 15, 2007 (the publication date of Bugliosi's book).

Oh, brother.



David Von Pein
November 26-28, 2015
November 29, 2015




THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(KXA-RADIO COVERAGE)
(SEATTLE, WASHINGTON)


video


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


LONGER VERSION:





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


BULLETINS ONLY:


video


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


ALSO SEE:






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1067)


LEE FARLEY SAID:

The FBI and the DPD had to get him [Lee Oswald] out of that Rambler and onto McWatters' bus.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

TIME OUT FOR A REALITY BREAK HERE!!

Surely Lee Farley MUST realize how totally silly he sounds when he purports such total nonsense.

Because why on Earth would the FBI and/or the Dallas Police Department feel the need to jump through so many hoops regarding Lee Harvey Oswald--even if we make the kooky assumption that they WERE wanting to frame him for JFK's murder?

In other words, why not just say that Oswald took the cab to his roominghouse, and skip the unnecessary bus "story"?

By adding a story about a bus, the "plotters" (FBI/DPD/Mother Teresa, et al) now only add more complications and hazards to the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot that so many of you conspiracy-happy folks like to think really took place on November 22nd.

Via a phony bus story, the authorities now have to have more and more people in their hip pockets to tell lies for them (mainly Mary E. Bledsoe in this bus instance), PLUS they've got to plant a phony bus transfer in Oswald's pocket after he's arrested.

And please note that bus driver Cecil McWatters apparently resisted the FBI's and Mother Teresa's attempts to place Oswald on his bus, because McWatters refused to make a positive identification of Oswald.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

The evidence we have tells us he [LHO] wasn't on the bus. The evidence tells us he wasn't in the cab.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good God, what crap you're spewing here, Lee.

Of course, the exact OPPOSITE is the truth regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's bus and cab rides on November 22nd, 1963 -- i.e., the evidence that exists demonstrates beyond ALL reasonable doubt that Oswald was, in fact, a passenger on Cecil McWatters' bus AND a passenger in William Whaley's taxicab on 11/22/63.

But it's always nice to know that conspiracy theorists like Lee Farley are still hard at work at revising the true facts surrounding JFK's tragic murder.

Well, maybe "nice" is the wrong word to use there -- "pathetic" is a more appropriate term for what kooks like Farley are doing to the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. (And "sickening", too.)


LEE FARLEY SAID:

You are a Goddamn fool.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I knew I would very likely hit a nerve with Farley by pointing out his last post regarding the bus and cab (wherein Farley totally changes all the evidence to his liking so that he can pretend his favorite patsy Lee Oswald was totally innocent).


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Let's not get into your inability to see through the bucket of [expletive] you have your head in.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, it's always best to pretend that the Dallas Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to jump through numerous ridiculous and complicated hoops regarding the bus and the cab rides to frame a guy named Oswald -- even though those same authorities had plenty of evidence to prove Oswald's guilt ALREADY.

Great plan. Looks like they probably put Farley in charge of that scheme. Sounds like he'd be just the person to orchestrate such totally unnecessary nonsense.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

And do me a favour -- shove your "sickening" comments where the sun don't shine, because let's face it, what I really think about you, I'm unfortunately not allowed to say.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You already did when you broke forum rules by calling me a "Goddamn fool" just a minute ago. Why stop there, Farley? I can take it. My skin's thick enough. (After all, it's "extra crispy". Right?)

And the day I'll do an evidence-mangling conspiracy theorist like Lee Farley any favors (or even any British favours) is the day when Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence in the JFK and Tippit murders is proved.

In other words, it's never going to happen.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Oh and yeah, before I forget -- in addition to McWatters not IDing Oswald, you do know that Whaley didn't either[?]

Or is that information not in your stinking bucket?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You just don't give a damn how much revising of history and the facts you have to do in order to clean the skirts of your lover boy, Lee Oswald, do you?

Truly pa-thet-ic. (As usual.)


LEE FARLEY SAID:

There's one born every day.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Lee Farley is living proof [that a conspiracy kook and clown is born every minute].

Have a great day.

(And tomorrow will be even better! Because I think Farley plans on resurrecting the false story about how Oswald was such a lousy rifleman, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. And the day after that, Farley will be spreading the additional hunk of misinformation about how the Warren Commission was boxing itself in to a 5.6-second timeline for the shooting of President Kennedy. I can't wait.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2010




"JFK: THE FINAL HOURS"
(2013 DOCUMENTARY)






PART 1:
video



PART 2:
video


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


PHOTOS FROM
"THE FINAL HOURS":

















Copyright:


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


RELATED VIDEO:


video

MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST
(PART 111)


CBS VIDEO: "WHO KILLED JFK: THE FINAL CHAPTER?" (1993):
http://dvp-video-audio-archive/Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?


11/22/63 AUDIO: KXA-RADIO (SEATTLE, WASHINGTON):
http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened/KXA-Radio In Seattle


52 YEARS OF COMING TO TERMS WITH OSWALD:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/Dale Myers' Article (Nov. 22, 2015)
http://jfkfacts.org/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1068
http://jfkassassinationforum.com/topic,12910.msg410616


"NO COGENT CONSPIRACY THEORY IS POSSIBLE":
http://amazon.com/forum/MsgID=Mx1WP7HMASTT0GV


"PRAYER MAN":
http://amazon.co.uk/review/R39UNZ3EJHRI25


INCREASED SECURITY AT WHITE HOUSE DUE TO CUBAN CRISIS:
http://jfklibrary.org/Photos/October 23, 1962


JFK AND JUDY GARLAND, CAROL BURNETT, & DANNY KAYE:
http://jfklibrary.org/Photos/November 28, 1962


JFK AND THE PRESIDENT OF HONDURAS:
http://jfklibrary.org/Photos/November 30, 1962


JFK AND ASTRONAUT GORDON COOPER:
http://jfklibrary.org/Photos/May 21, 1963


SCOTT R. KAISER:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22483&entry319353


IGNORING OSWALD'S GUILT:
http://educationforum.com/topic=22483&entry319357


HUMOR BREAK:
http://box.com/Barney Fife And 411 Elm Street


MISCELLANY:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/m-hDUMDy2ng/v4oE6aig98AJ
http://educationforum.com/topic=22439&entry319526
http://educationforum.com/topic=22174&entry319562
http://educationforum.com/topic=22174&entry319683
http://jfkfacts.org/why-so-many-books-supporting-the-official-theory?



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










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1066)


PAUL DANZIG SAID:

Why do you Honestly think Oswald went to the movie theater?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To get off the sunlit streets and into a place where he thought he could temporarily hide from the cops that he obviously knew were chasing the man who killed Officer Tippit.

Duh.


PAUL DANZIG SAID:

What do you think was Oswald's plan after the movie theater?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He had no "plan" at that point. That fact is obvious. He was winging it. He knew he had been seen by multiple witnesses shooting Tippit. He was trying to buy a little time by slipping into the dark theater (which, fortunately for him, was right there on Jefferson Boulevard for him to use as a temporary "hideout"; whether Oswald knew ahead of time that the theater was there or not, we can never know for certain).


PAUL DANZIG SAID:

He had no plan....So taking the rifle to the TSBD is no plan...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald had a plan to kill the President. That's obvious. But it certainly wasn't an extended plan, and it certainly wasn't a plan that was thought out a long time in advance. That's obvious too, since he couldn't have known about the motorcade driving right past his workplace until the morning of 11/19/63, at the earliest.

But his escape "plan", if he even had one fixed in his warped mind, sucked.


PAUL DANZIG SAID:

The distance between the Tippit killing and the theatre IS no walk in the park. There were no other places to hide in the surrounding area.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Is that last sentence supposed to be a question?

Anyway, Oswald's escape plan definitely lacked preparation. But, so what? How does a crappy escape plan erase the evidence of his guilt in the two 11/22/63 murders?


PAUL DANZIG SAID:

To have a plan to kill the president and no EXIT plan doesn't makes sense.

Supposedly he was smart enough to climb down from the 6th floor in 90 seconds and be spotted by Baker, NOT OUT OF BREATH I MIGHT ADD.

You make Oswald out to [be] a smart person before the shooting, but a dumbass after.

JUGGLING ACT IS FOR THE CIRCUS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wasn't it a shame that Oswald wasn't nice enough to plan his murder of JFK in a manner that would better suit the conspiracy theorists of the world?

The willy-nilly, nearly-last-minute effort on Oswald's part is good circumstantial evidence that NO PRE-PLANNED CONSPIRACY existed in this case at all.

Naturally, all CTers want to believe otherwise (i.e., they wish to pretend that Oswald was framed and apparently ALL of the mountain of physical evidence against him was planted).

In other words, what we have in this topsy-turvy world of conspiracy promoters is this:

The conspiracy theorists actually have the guts to argue that since all of the evidence points toward Lee Harvey Oswald, this therefore means that OSWALD IS INNOCENT!

Talk about turning logic upside-down. The CTers are experts at doing just that in this case, and they always have been, all the way back to Mark Lane's early efforts in the 1960s to try and get a double-killer named Oswald off the hook.


COLIN CROW SAID:

2 things come to mind, David.

First....Mike [Williams], who is an authority on ballistics and weapons, tells us that the rifle would have to have been sighted in or practiced with to ensure accuracy after its return from New Orleans.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pure speculation, of course. And it's meaningless speculation.

How come?

Because we KNOW that Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the murder weapon. There's no doubt about that proven fact.


COLIN CROW SAID:

Yet Oswald did not know of the parade route until 11/19/63. So was it him, seen at the Sports D[r]ome on more than one occasion, practicing in anticipation of the visit but unaware of the exact route? Or was it someone else who looked like him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Probably somebody who looked like him.

But even if it was Oswald -- so what? Who cares? What does it prove or disprove?

I'll tell you one thing that it WOULD prove, however (if that person whom Garland Slack saw WAS Lee Oswald) -- it would prove that the conspiracy theorists are dead wrong about something else -- i.e., their theory that Oswald never practiced at all with his Carcano prior to the assassination.


COLIN CROW SAID:

Second....Was Oswald's escape plan really that crappy?

Admittedly, how could he know it would take as long as 20 minutes or so for them to find the SN [Sniper's Nest], even though the DP [Dallas Police] has witnesses who described its exact location within minutes of the shooting?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you're a mind-reader now, eh? You somehow KNOW that Oswald knew it would take "as long as 20 minutes" for the police to find the Sniper's Nest?

What in the world makes you think that Oswald was thinking any such thing?


COLIN CROW SAID:

Let's face it, if it were not for the acutely observant supercop Tippit, the super observant Brewer and some sirens and cars, Oswald would have been free and possibly able to get across the border to Mexico. Then to Cuba.

What do you think?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Could be. That's quite possible indeed.

But, so what? What are you implying here? Are you saying that the "acutely observant supercop" named J.D. Tippit and the "super observant" shoe store manager named Johnny Calvin Brewer were NOT really "acutely observant" and "super observant" on November 22, 1963?

Are you saying we should all be suspicious and skeptical about the things Mr. Tippit and Mr. Brewer did on that day in Dallas? If so, why?

Brewer, IMO, was a real hero that day. (So was Ted Callaway. Can you imagine actually having the balls to take the gun from under a dead policeman's body and use it to try and track down the murderer YOURSELF before the police arrived on the scene? Incredible. And brave. Of course, some CTers think Callaway is nothing but a rotten liar too. But such is the way with conspiracy kooks.)

video video

David Von Pein
April 13, 2010




DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 113)


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

You know, Davey Boy, it's bad enough when you deny the evidence. Which you always do. For instance, the idea that the WC really was not tied to a six-second shooting interval.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

They weren't tied to a 5.6-second shooting interval (or even 6 seconds). And the Warren Report makes that very clear on Page 117 (which you apparently want to totally ignore).


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

As always, we have been down that road. You make like you forgot it. So when Jesse [Ventura] does it in [a] best time of 8-9 seconds you say: See, what the WC said was possible! Leaving out all the other problems with this--like the fact that Jesse's targets were not moving--you leave out a very important fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And according to an expert for the HSCA, Lee Oswald's target was essentially a "stationary target" too, Jim.

You like to ignore the fact that when Oswald killed President Kennedy, he was shooting at him from behind, when LHO's target was on virtually a straight line from the barrel of his Mannlicher-Carcano on Elm Street (as we can see from the Secret Service photos in Commission Exhibit No. 875; example below):



The conspiracy theorists like Jesse Ventura (and many others) who love to go around declaring that Oswald's shooting performance was "fucking impossible" [Ventura quote] just do not know what the hell they are talking about. Period.

Maybe Jesse should take a good look at the many photos from Oswald's Sniper's Nest that can be found in CE875. It might do him good. (But I doubt it.)


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

The WC was limited by Z 313. Any shot interval had to have ended there for them. Therefore, anything over six seconds, the time had to come from BEFORE JFK DISAPPEARED BEHIND THE SIGN.

But here is your problem, which somehow you fail to mention even though I pointed it out to you: The oak tree made this impossible! Therefore, your imaginary shot had to have come before Z 166.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The simple (and obvious) answer to that is: Oswald squeezed off one (missed) shot prior to the President's car going behind the oak tree. And the Warren Commission fully recognized and acknowledged that possibility on Page 111 of the Warren Report:

"If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree."

On the same WCR page, however, the Commission covered the other side of the coin:

"On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile."

So, as we can see, the Warren Commission was covering ALL the bases. They weren't saying which one of Oswald's three shots definitely missed the limousine. They were laying all of the possibilities on the table for the readers of the Warren Report to consider.

You'd think that the conspiracy theorists would be willing to give the Commission at least a little bit of credit for NOT trying to definitively state which shot missed. Shouldn't such "covering all the bases" be looked upon as a GOOD thing, instead of a "cover-up" by conspiracists? Such as, for example, when the Commission said this on Page 111:

"The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed."


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Recall, you are tied to three shots, period. One is the Tague strike, one is the head shot.

Therefore, your last remaining shot has to be the Magic Bullet.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now it is YOU, Jim, who is not considering alternate possibilities for James Tague's cheek wound and the Main Street curb damage. You are placing too much definitive emphasis on the missed shot having to be the shot that caused Tague's slight wound. But that's not the case at all (although I, myself, do, indeed, think that Oswald's first missed shot did cause Tague's injury).

But there are other possibilities, which the Warren Commission also presented (on Page 117 of the WCR), with the Commission once again being shown to be flexible in its scenarios, allowing for the possibility that the Main Street damage (and, hence, Tague's cheek injury) "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" [WCR; p. 117].

So, as we can easily see from just those two excellent Warren Commission pages (pages 111 and 117), which are pages that apparently very few conspiracy theorists have ever read or paid any attention to whatsoever, Earl Warren's Commission was considering various possibilities regarding the shooting timeline and the missed shot.

Yes, the Commission was pretty definite on what they felt was the total number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza -- three. But there were plenty of reasons for the Commission to accept a definitive "Three Shots Were Fired" shooting scenario, including the presence of the THREE bullet shells being found in the Sniper's Nest right after the assassination, plus the vast number of witnesses who said they heard exactly THREE shots being fired.

But as far as the Commission boxing itself into a corner regarding a
"5.6 second" shooting timeline or which shot missed the limousine, that is simply untrue. Such talk is merely another one of the hundreds of myths about the JFK case that have been spread by conspiracy mongers over the last 47 years. And it's easy to prove that it's only a myth by taking just one quick look at pages 111 and 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report.

David Von Pein
November 28, 2010


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


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

I think the argument that [Josiah] Thompson makes based upon Dave Wimp is better. Namely that the frame [Z313] is smudged or blurred [and it's this blurring that is making it look like JFK's head is moving forward between frames 312 and 313, when his head isn't really moving forward at all].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

IMO, that is a ridiculous argument, and for this reason:

Frame 312, which is just an instant before the bullet hits JFK in the head, is probably the clearest frame in Mr. Zapruder's whole film (it's certainly one of the very clearest and non-blurred frames in the whole 26-second home movie, at any rate).



So, to believe that the forward head movement between Z312 and Z313 is caused by the film being "blurred" or "smudged" (smudged? WTF?), we'd have to believe that this blurring occurred immediately after one of the very clearest of all frames in the entire Zapruder film had just been exposed through Mr. Z's camera.

Now, I'm no photography expert, and I suppose such blurring is possible under the right circumstances, but I think a key to knowing that the "blurring" theory at Z313 is not valid is by looking at Z312, which is a beautiful frame, with no blurring whatsoever. It would seem to me, therefore, that BOTH Z312 and Z313 would need to contain some degree of substantial blurring in order for any such theory to be plausible concerning the forward head movement being caused by merely blurring of the film frames.

Also: What do you suppose the odds are of such a theory being accurate? I.E., a separate "blurring" event occurs on the film at the exact instant when President Kennedy just happens to get struck in the head by a bullet and his head appears to be moving forward slightly.

It appears to me that certain conspiracy theorists will do anything and propose virtually any alternate theory in order to deny the obvious fact that President John F. Kennedy was struck in the head by just one bullet--which was a bullet that came from behind.



David Von Pein
June 3, 2011




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1065)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The handwriting was *NOT* "verified" on the Money Order.

No handwriting expert in the world would have survived cross examination on their "verification" of a xerox copy made from a microfilm. (a copy of a copy)

You *DO* know that the money order was a xerox of a microfilm, right?

I *DEFY* you to produce a citation stating that handwriting can be "verified" under those circumstances.

But you won't.

And I know you won't retract your lie...

As the HSCA stated, "Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

So I'll just label you a coward and a liar right now...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben [a disgraceful and disgusting conspiracy theorist, as everyone can see above],

The FBI saw and examined the ORIGINAL money order---not a Xerox copy of a microfilm. Klein's never even had a microfilmed record of the money order at all.

We know via Commission Document No. 87 that the original money order was recovered from the Federal Records Center at Alexandria, Virginia.

So why would the FBI and the Treasury Department experts use a copy when the original was readily available? The same thing with the HSCA handwriting experts. It makes no sense at all to do that.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

It wasn't "experts"... it was *ONE* expert... his name is Cole... go review his testimony. He states that he *WAS* using the actual original of the Money Order.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what's the beef? The ORIGINAL was examined by a questioned documents expert. And he said CE788 had the writing of OSWALD on it [at 4 H 373]....

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?"

ALWYN COLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?"

MR. COLE -- "It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."


~~~~~~~~~~~

But you disagree with Mr. Cole, right Ben? Why?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The only "verification" ever made on the original CAN NEVER BE DUPLICATED OR DOUBLE CHECKED BY ANYONE ELSE.

And when it came time to check the work of the Warren Commission - IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO "VERIFY" ANY OF THE HANDWRITING THAT TIED THE RIFLE TO OSWALD.

Let's hear *YOU* state that publicly.

Dolce said that CE399 could not have done the damage it was said to have done - and you *ABSOLUTELY REFUSE* to accept what he stated...

Despite the fact that the same tests could be done *TODAY* (although the ammo might be a tad difficult to obtain.)

YOU COULD REPEAT EVERY TEST MADE BY DOLCE *TODAY* IF YOU WANTED TO...

You're asking me to believe an expert whom I know *NOTHING ABOUT* regarding his character or motives, who was never cross-examined, and on a subject that can *NEVER AGAIN BE EXAMINED BY ANYONE*.

In other words, you want me to believe on faith.

I think I'll pass.

Now... let's hear you again whine that the handwriting was "verified"...

You know the facts now... let's hear you flagrantly lie again...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben is nuts. It wasn't just ONE expert. It was several. There first was Alwyn Cole. Then there were the several handwriting analysts who served on a panel for the HSCA, including Joseph McNally. McNally and his panel came to the same conclusion Cole came to --- the money order and all other documents relating to the rifle purchase were written by Lee Harvey Oswald [see McNally's testimony
at 4 HSCA 355].

And please note that McNally, just like Cole 14 years earlier, examined the original money order, not just a photo or a microfilmed copy....

MR. KLEIN -- "Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?"

MR. McNALLY -- "They did."

MR. KLEIN -- "What was that conclusion?"

MR. McNALLY -- "That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm."

MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?"

MR. McNALLY -- "It was; yes."

MR. KLEIN -- "And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?"

MR. McNALLY -- "That is right."


~~~~~~~~~~~

There's your "verification", Holmes.

Care to revise these blatantly incorrect statements of yours repeated below? Or would you rather remain the obnoxious pussy you're portraying on the Internet?....

"It wasn't "experts". It was *ONE* expert. His name is Cole. .... You *DO* know that the money order was a xerox of a microfilm, right?"
-- Ben Holmes

And we've got other questioned documents experts (including James Cadigan and Joseph McNally) testifying that it was their opinion that all of the documents they examined associated with the Carcano rifle purchase (most of which were copies and not the originals, that's true) were in the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.

So even with the stipulation that "COPIES WILL NOT YIELD ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" regarding handwriting analysis, is it your opinion, Ben, that Lee Oswald's writing is on NONE of those rifle-related documents? None at all? Not even CE788--the money order--which we know was examined in its ORIGINAL form, not just a photocopy?

Put it in print, Benji. I want to read this from your keyboard----

*** I, Ben Holmes, think that every document that the WC and HSCA "experts" said were written by Lee Harvey Oswald were really ALL forged documents and were written by someone else---INCLUDING Commission Exhibit No. 788, the United States Postal Money Order, which existed in its ORIGINAL form when examined by at least one questioned documents expert for the Warren Commission in nineteen hundred and sixty-four AD. ***

Please say that in public, Ben. I need my daily belly laugh.


"IGS" SAID:

Dave,

As you know, absolute certainty is not the standard. In fact it is not even attainable. This is the troubling bit for the conspiracy crowd, they expect certainty when there simply isn't any to be had. No legal/factual situation comes with certitude. That is why the standard is reasonable doubt. As you are well aware, that sets Ben off the boat from the start.

If I were to opine, how do we know that Oswald's signature signed by him was actually his signature? This is the pathetic level of abstraction from reality that these people use.

In fact, exposure to this thread has exposed me to a type of logic I don't see in the real everyday world. That has been an education.


BEN HOLMES SCREAMS AT ME SOME MORE HERE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

OK, Ben, answer this....

What's the purpose of EVER having a questioned documents expert testify about anything relating to a COPY that he examined?

If the conclusions reached by looking at only copies are utterly WORTHLESS (as you seem to think), then why did the WC and HSCA even bother with it? Might as well have just done no handwriting analysis at all.

Right, Benji?

Ben, of course, totally IGNORES the perfect blending of the evidence into the
"IT WAS OSWALD'S HANDWRITING" pile. The original money order was in OSWALD'S writing (as "verified" by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts). And multiple experts said that copies of various documents were, in their professional opinions, OSWALD'S writing.

That's called corroboration. (At least I'd call it that.)

But in Ben's world of wholesale fakery and worldwide patsy framing, that kind of corroboration and PATTERN of evidence means zilch. Even with an ORIGINAL document in the mix, Holmes will still pretend ALL the rifle documents are forgeries.

What a silly "Let's Exonerate The Patsy" hobby Ben is engaged in every day.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Re: The money order....

8 HSCA 230 indicates that the money order (Item 29) was definitely NOT merely a copy.

And at 8 HSCA 246 (140), it says that "the original of the money order (item 29) was examined".

As to why it says that the money order (Item 29) was "a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy" at 8 HSCA 239 (75), I have no idea. But the testimony of the HSCA's handwriting experts most certainly overrides that "Xerox copy" info.

Plus, I think we can know that that "Xerox/microfilm" remark has to be a mistake, because as far as I am aware there was NO "microfilm copy" made of the Hidell money order. I know Klein's didn't microfilm it. And neither did First National Bank of Chicago. So WHO would have had a need to "microfilm" the original money order? ~shrug~

I think somebody slipped a digit there on Page 239 of HSCA Volume 8. They must be talking about a document other than the postal money order there. And the testimony of Joseph McNally (alone) would tend to verify that fact.

Plus, as I said previously, why on Earth would the handwriting analysts utilize ONLY a Xerox copy of a microfilm copy when the ORIGINAL money order was definitely available for them to examine? It just makes no sense.

David Von Pein
November 10-13, 2015