(PART 1153)


Another inaccuracy found on David Von Pein's website:

This concerns the interval of time from when Oswald was shot to when the ambulance attendants were loading him into the ambulance. David says 4 minutes. It was actually 5 and 1/2.


You're right, Ralph. It was, indeed, 5.5 minutes and not 4 minutes. When I wrote that caption for this photo at my website, I was timing it from my copy of the KRLD-TV footage, which is edited slightly (as Ralph correctly pointed out), and I failed to take note of the edit. (It was edited by whoever put it up on the FOX/KDFW site years ago; and that's where I got it from.)

I've corrected my caption on my site, Ralph. Thanks for pointing it out too---because I hate inaccurate stuff like that on my sites, and I appreciate it when someone (correctly) points out any errors.


Thanks a lot, David. But, since accuracy is vital in this field of endeavor, why round down to 5 minutes, as you have it on your website? If you could put 5.5 in this response, why not put 5.5 on your site? And why not get rid of that edited footage which you describe as "raw"? You can use the other one that I posted. Don't go half-way. Fix it completely.




I think rounding off to a WHOLE minute number (five) is fine for the purposes of my Photo Gallery site (which is the site in question).

And just because there's a small 1.5-minute edit in the KRLD footage, that doesn't mean that the footage isn't still "raw" type footage. It's raw footage regardless of the edit.

"Raw" equalling this meaning:

KRLD kept the tape rolling even though that footage obviously wasn't meant to be shown to the public.

And most of it wasn't aired. Hence, the announcers [such as Huffaker and Benton] can be heard talking to the control booth and to each other. That's what I meant by "Raw". It wasn't a reference necessarily to "Uncut" or "Unedited" footage.


Do either of you gentlemen have the time from when Oswald was shot to when the ambulance first arrived on the scene?


The ambulance arrived in the basement approx. 4 minutes and 20 seconds after the shot was fired (which makes it 11:25 AM CST). The shooting occurs 2 hrs., 45 min. into this video [also embedded below]. The ambulance is first seen on camera at 2:49:45. And I don't think there are any breaks in the footage during that time....


David, I knew I could count on you. Many thanks.


Your video conflicts with your claim.


I've now removed the video from that webpage. So there's no "conflict" at all.


Do you think I am the only person who is actually going to check it?


Well, actually, yes. Not a single other person (before you) has ever informed me that they timed it out exactly (while utilizing the unedited TV footage). And I doubt very much that anyone has ever done so (before you did it). I certainly hadn't, because if I had, you wouldn't have been able to catch that error on my site in the first place, because I would have fixed it myself.


Why don't you respect your visitors more than you do?


I do respect accuracy. Very much so, in fact. As I said in an earlier post, I despise incorrect information on my sites. I hate it more than anything. And I'll always correct factual errors whenever I see them (or when they are pointed out to me)---just like I did in this instance when I changed "four minutes" to "five minutes". And I thanked you for pointing out that error. And I still do thank you for it. Because it's such a small thing that appears on just one of my thousands of webpages, I might not have ever caught that error myself.


In a case like this, there is no excuse for not being accurate. If it's 5.5 minutes, then you can easily say 5.5 minutes. Furthermore, in Math, one typically rounds UP when you get to .5. But, you're not going to say 6 minutes, are you? Of course not. But, you'll gladly deceive by half a minute, won't you? Why?


Even if I used the round-off method, I would still say FIVE minutes, because it had not yet reached the ".5" mark of the next minute. I just timed it again, and exactly 5 minutes and 25 seconds elapse between the time of Ruby's gunshot and the time when Oswald's head disappears into the ambulance.

You can time it for yourself if you'd like, using the two videos below. The first one is from the CBS coverage that was actually aired, which doesn't show the instant of the shooting, but that instant can be determined by comparing it to the second video below, which is the raw (and mostly unaired) KRLD-TV videotape footage which shows the moment of the shooting.

In the first (aired) video, these are the stats (and I can't believe I actually did this just to satisfy a rabid conspiracy hobbyist named Ralph Cinque, but I did it anyway, just for kicks)....

OSWALD IS SHOT --- At the 2:45:21 mark in the first video (even though the shooting isn't shown live, when adjusting the time backward, it would come out to the 2:45:21 mark).

OSWALD PUT INTO AMBULANCE --- At the 2:50:46 mark in the top video below.

TOTAL TIME ELAPSED --- 5 Minutes, 25 Seconds.

Ergo, it had not yet reached the 5:30 mark since the shooting occurred, therefore rounding DOWN to FIVE minutes for this particular event is perfectly reasonable and accurate, which is just what I did for the purposes of my webpage at my Kennedy Gallery site/blog....


It's because you have low standards. It is because you are first and foremost a propagandist. You are certainly not an uncompromising pursuer of truth.


Jesus H. Christ, what a bunch of bull!

I've wasted enough time on this silliness, Ralph. You can go away now. I'm done with this ridiculous topic. I still do thank you, however, for pointing out what was a totally UNimportant error (in the larger scheme of things) that I had on my website. I've now corrected that small mistake, and the revision is perfectly satisfactory and accurate. If you disagree, that's your problem, Ralph, not mine.


You [DVP] are...a propagandist.


That's the second time in this exact same discussion that a CTer has called me a "propagandist"....

"...you [David Von Pein] are first and foremost a propagandist."
-- Ralph Cinque; 7/12/16

Have the rules been relaxed around here, John McAdams? I didn't think such a direct between-the-eyes insult was permitted here at aaj. It seems as though that term comes mighty close to coming out and calling someone an outright "liar".

However, I don't want you to misunderstand my stance on this either. I'm not crying or complaining about it in any way, John. Not for a second. In fact, I kind of like it when these conspiracy-happy clowns* call me things like "propagandist" and "shill" and "disinfo agent". I always make sure to include those laughable insults when I transfer such posts to my own archives at my site.

* I hope that term is permitted here at aaj too. If it's not, John, then please change "conspiracy-happy clowns" to just "conspiracists". Thank you.

I'm merely asking about it to gain information about what words and terms are permissible here and which ones aren't. Until today, I hadn't thought it was permissible to come right out and say "...you are a propagandist...", which is what Tony Marsh just did above.

But, maybe I'm mistaken and that term has been allowed here in the past. I just don't remember that word (while being aimed directly at a member of the aaj forum) being permitted by the moderators here before.

No big deal to me either way. I was just curious since both Cinque and Marsh decided to pull that word out of their grab bag of silliness in two different posts in this very same discussion in messages directly aimed at me.

And while we're on the subject of silly CTers....let's have a few laughs by taking a look at what one of Mr. McAdams' adversaries at Jeff Morley's "JFK Facts" site, Willy Whitten, has said about me recently:

"Von Pein is clearly a madman. .... What a dumb jerk you are, VP. .... You can keep fighting the truth of this until you drop dead, Von Pein. It's your own vile legacy." -- Willy Whitten; July 2016

Obviously, those remarks above didn't originate here at the moderated aaj newsgroup. :-) They began at Amazon.com, and ended up on my website, here.


It seems to me that John [McAdams] made an appeal a while back for people to start being more civil with one another. When that didn't happen, he seemed to give up and things got a lot more lax.

I personally don't mind a little edge.


I agree. I don't mind it either.


It [the term "propagandist"] is not really even an insult. In fact, it applies to just about everyone posting here...

"a person who promotes or publicizes a particular organization or cause."


Well, yes, speaking in a literal "dictionary" sense, you are correct, Bud.

But to look at it from another angle (i.e., from my POV as an "LNer") --- I don't recall ever having called a conspiracy theorist a "propagandist". If anyone can prove me wrong about that, maybe they can point me to a post in which I used that particular word when talking about a JFK CTer. If such a post exists, I have forgotten about it.

In short, when you call someone a "propagandist", you are most certainly NOT paying that person a compliment. You are, in effect, insulting them. And in the case of a JFK CTer calling an LNer a "propagandist", I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what they are really calling them.

In other words, when Ralph and Tony called me (point blank) a "propagandist" earlier in this discussion, I kinda doubt that either one of them possessed the following mindset when they were uttering that word:

You, DVP, are a propagandist for the Lone Assassin scenario....but you are a totally honest propagandist.


"Propagandist" is just another word for "Liar" when it comes to a conspiracy theorist's dictionary. I know it, and so does everybody else who frequents any of the Internet's JFK forums.

BTW / FWIW....

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about "Propaganda":

Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.

Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.”


David Von Pein
July 10-18, 2016