SANDY LARSEN SAID:
This second report is self-contradictory because it has Oswald eating his lunch, etc., AFTER the shooting and with police already in the building. Which is a sure sign of alteration.
In fact, if you remove the parts of that paragraph referring to the police search and the Baker/Oswald encounter, it all makes sense again.
BART KAMP SAID:
Exactly, and that is why David von Pein [sic] is so silent all of [a] sudden. Once confronted with cold hard facts, he does a runner.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You CT guys see cover-up and "alterations" everywhere. It has reached the point of utter absurdity.
The things that Sandy Larsen think are "a sure sign of alteration" are things that can certainly be explained in non-conspiratorial ways. One such way is: Oswald couldn't keep his alibi straight, and his story changed and shifted slightly during his interrogation.
In short --- Even though CTers might strongly disagree, there can (and, IMO, are) "non-conspiratorial" explanations for the dozens of things connected with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases that the conspiracy theorists of the world are convinced are the product of a devious plot.
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/James W. Bookhout
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Lunchroom Encounter
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Oh yeah, Davey.
There are literally hundreds of benign explanations for every single anomaly there is in the JFK case. And that is because you know, like VB, that Oswald did it.
(Davey does not want to admit he just got another pie in the face.)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders is proven by the evidence. I don't think there's any room for reasonable doubt about that fact. CTers disagree, of course. (What else is new?)
Allow me to quote two authors who wrote "Lone Assassin" books a few years ago. These are four of my favorite quotes from those two books:
"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Oswald]. .... A cloud hangs over [JFK's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth -- that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man who left evidence proving his guilt. .... The case is solved." -- Mark Fuhrman; Pages 89 and 217 of "A Simple Act Of Murder"
"The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The [Mark] Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths merit no serious consideration. .... 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." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
BART KAMP SAID:
Just explain the difference between the two FBI reports instead of running in circles and calling every CTer's observation absurd etc.
Stop running, start explaining. You thought you had done so 9 years ago.
And I say you have not.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So, Bart, you think the evil masters of the Patsy Plot© wrote up a bogus second report (the Bookhout solo report), right? If so, why didn't they just destroy the first (joint) report?
Were the evil masters of the Patsy Plot© just being nice by leaving the conspiracy theorists a little clue to their dastardly crime to be found in the Warren Commission volumes?
Plus, both of those FBI reports can be found very easily in the 888-page Warren Report itself---just seven pages apart, on pages 612 and 619.
That was awfully nice of the conspirators to leave that bread crumb of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" right there in the Warren Report for guys like you to find so easily, wasn't it?
More about the various Bookhout reports can be found here.
BART KAMP SAID:
I am asking you to explain the difference between these two reports and its consequences.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The difference is:
The joint Hosty/Bookhout report (which was likely written up by Hosty alone; there's some testimony to back this up) doesn't mention the incident between Lee Harvey Oswald and the police officer, whereas the solo Bookhout report does mention it.
Does that mean I'm supposed to believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter never happened at all? (According to you, I guess I am supposed to believe it never happened.)
But there's Roy Truly's corroboration that proves that the encounter did occur---and on the second floor in the lunchroom, just as Truly said in his 11/23/63 affidavit.
And there's the 11/23/63 television footage with Police Chief Jesse Curry, as he talks to newsmen about how there had been an encounter inside the Book Depository Building between one of his police officers and Oswald just after the assassination. But since Curry didn't say the words "second floor" in that TV footage, this gives CTers the perfect excuse to pretend that Curry's officer encountered Oswald somewhere OTHER than the lunchroom.
But to that I say --- Hogwash!
The conspiracy theorists have nothing but wild speculation about corrupt FBI reports. I've got Roy Truly and Marrion Baker and Jesse Curry. (All liars, I suppose?)
BART KAMP SAID:
Lemme tell you straight to your face --- You are playing a really stupid game here and you get exposed more by the minute.
Page 2 of this joint report from Nov 23rd 1963 mentions the following:
Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the coca cola machine is located and obtained a bottle of coca cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building.
But it is his second, solo, report he turns things around.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bart thinks that one word -- "FOR" -- proves the solo report is a fraud. Hilarious!
Bart also apparently thinks that the ONLY time that Oswald could have purchased a Coke would have been BEFORE he started to eat his lunch.
Granted, most people would purchase their drink before sitting down to have their lunch, but that's not a mandatory rule for all people----especially for liars like Lee Harvey Oswald.
And for all we know, the notes that James Hosty took could have been slightly different than the notes taken by James W. Bookhout. And that difference in note-taking could very well explain the slight differences we find between the two FBI reports when it comes to the exact chronology of Oswald's (alleged) movements around lunchtime on November 22, 1963.
BART KAMP SAID:
You need to speculate and suck things out of your thumb to keep things going for you.
Your credibility has gone out of the window, Von Pein. You are nothing to me when you have to resort to the fairy tales you put on display.
End of message.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, you mean like HARD EVIDENCE, such as Roy Truly's affidavit (which says, clear as day, "SECOND FLOOR")? And Marrion Baker's testimony, which says "SECOND FLOOR"?
Those "fairy tales", you mean?
End of message.
BART KAMP SAID:
Like Baker's first day affidavit, written and typed up!!!!
Like Truly walking ahead of Baker.
Like Molina, Lewis and Frazier not seeing a helmeted officer going in.
Like Marvin Johnson's statement littered with BS.
Like Eddie Piper not seeing Baker.
Like both saying at different occasions "let's take the stairs".
Like the various positions of Oswald inside the lunch room during this encounter.
Like the 2nd floor lunch room being strictly for office personnel and mgt only, workers were only allowed with permission to go there.
Like Mrs Robert Reid's BS when Geneva Hine clearly stated that between 12:25 and 12:35 no one but her was inside the office.
Like numerous newspaper reports stating that the encounter happened near the front door, plus sightings of Oswald near that vestibule front door.
Etc etc
You are a relic.
GO HOME! (that's a euphemism...I leave it to you to figure that one out!)
REPLAY....
BART KAMP SAID:
Like the 2nd floor lunch room being strictly for office personnel and mgt only, workers were only allowed with permission to go there.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Tell that to Buell Frazier. He was completely unaware of that fact in this 2002 interview. (But Buell is just another liar, right Bart?)
REPLAY....
BART KAMP SAID:
Like Mrs Robert Reid's BS when Geneva Hine clearly stated that between 12:25 and 12:35 no one but her was inside the office.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Good! Yet another person CTers get to call a liar. Lovely.
REPLAY....
BART KAMP SAID:
Like Baker's first day affidavit, written and typed up!!!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I guess you were unaware that a handwritten version of Officer Marrion L. Baker's first-day 11/22/63 affidavit exists in the Dallas Municipal Archives....
Page 1 ---- Page 2 ---- Page 3
REPLAY....
BART KAMP SAID:
Like Molina, Lewis and Frazier not seeing a helmeted officer going in.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So do you now want to claim that Officer Baker never went into the TSBD at all?
Your entire list above is silly beyond tolerance. Nitpicky little points like the exact position Oswald was in during the brief 10-second encounter in the lunchroom.
And Piper not seeing Baker. As if that HAS to mean something suspicious. Geesh.
And "sightings" of Oswald near the front door. (Who else besides the wholly unreliable Carolyn Arnold said this?)*
Your list crumbles to dust when we have just one look at Truly's and Baker's statements and testimony.
* Edit / Addendum --- Click Here.
David Von Pein
January 16, 2019 [This forum link is no longer available.]
