JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1314)


"BOZ" SAID:

[Quoting DVP:]

"And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed, being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?" -- David Von Pein [August 2009]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html


STEVE M. GALBRAITH SAID:

Does Mr. DiEugenio believe Garrison's allegations that Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie and others conspired to kill JFK and that, as Garrison claimed, Oswald brought the rifle to the building and yet also believe that Oswald was totally innocent of any involvement in the assassination?

Yes, Garrison said that Oswald was left to take responsibility for the act -- i.e., a "patsy"; but he also believed that Oswald was "in" on the act from its inception. Of course, Garrison (and I guess DiEugenio) believe that Shaw, using the alias Clay Bertrand, tried to hire an attorney (Dean Andrews) to defend Oswald. I wouldn't consider that abandoning Oswald.

Furthermore, does he believe that these three oddballs--Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald--hatched this idea at a party in New Orleans (with people around them listening to them discuss the idea!) and then somehow got the CIA, DPD, Pentagon and dozens of others to go along with it?

Are their any limits to the credulity of some in the conspiracy crowd?


STEVE M. GALBRAITH ALSO SAID:

How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth [sic; I think Steve meant to say "Irving" here] with Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.

In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at the time.

So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?

We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that they pulled it off. No details are needed.

And so it goes.


GREG PARKER SAID:

You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve. They kept him away from legal counsel, hammered him with questions, lied to him, presented false evidence to him, took his palm-print just prior to doing the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands, intimidated witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better dressed police personnel in line-ups, and on and on.

If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the Altgens frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the interrogations that he was out on the steps?

I will say again for the umpteenth time -- they didn't care where Oswald was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the building. No shortage of potential there.

The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that failed, he was executed without trial.


GREG PARKER ALSO SAID:

Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they had?

It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to the requested switch to a LN scenario.

Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely on them to do whatever it took to nail him.

If the Darnell or Weigman [sic] films had been immediately available, if they had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.

DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one lone nut.

It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?

Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you think your made-up conspirators (aka: the unknown/unseen "they") actually had MULTIPLE "patsies" lined up to be framed for the murders of both JFK and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63?

Such a "Multi-Patsy" scenario, of course, would have made it DOUBLY (or triply?) difficult for the patsy-framers that day. Keeping just one guy where they needed him to be in order for him to be conveniently framed would be a hard enough chore. But you're now suggesting that the make-believe "they" had more than one such patsy ready to go on November 22. (That's hilarity at its finest, Greg.)

Care to go out on a limb and tell us WHO the second patsy was supposed to be on 11/22? And was there a third one waiting in the wings on "stand by" status as well?


REPLAY....
GREG PARKER SAID:

Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the African-American workers instead.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Greg. And the DPD could have also called up "Patsies For All Occasions, Inc." (located on Commerce Street in downtown Dallas) and ordered two or three more back-up patsies (just in case Wesley Frazier, Joe Molina, or one of the African-American TSBD workers didn't work out as the #2 patsy behind Oswald).

In other words, according to Greg Parker, it seems that all the Dallas Police Department had to do was snap their collective fingers and--Voila!--a patsy is born! Nothing to it at all. It's as simple as moving bishops and pawns around a chess board. Right, Greg?

And let me ask this----

If Depository employee Joe Molina had been utilized as a "back-up patsy" by the DPD (or FBI or Secret Service or whoever), just exactly how do you think that frame-up would have been accomplished on 11/22/63? Would they have (somehow) quickly created a new set of fake documents to show that it was really Molina, instead of Lee Oswald, who owned the C2766 Carcano rifle (which is the rifle that all reasonable people know killed President Kennedy)? Or would "they" have framed Molina using a different weapon entirely?

And how on Earth could the DPD have possibly "framed" Joe Molina for the murder of J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street? Would the crooked cops have been able to get Ted Callaway and Helen Markham and Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis and all of the other "I Saw Oswald" witnesses to somehow say they saw Joe R. Molina instead?!

In other words, how could all of that "OSWALD KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence that we currently have piled up against the door in this case somehow get turned into "MOLINA KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence?

And just SAYING it could easily be done isn't going to cut it.

Talk is mighty cheap. But most conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on such inexpensive chatter.


GREG PARKER SAID:

You once again demonstrate that the only way you can debate is by putting words in the mouths of others and "debating" what you wish they had said.

Let me spell it out for you. The frame was so shoddy, it could have had only limited pre-planning, if any at all. If there was any "patsy" pre-planning, it was in having potential patsies in other parts of the motorcade. Russell McLarry might be one example.

If they had to rely on framing someone inside the TSBD and they were unable to use Oswald for whatever reason, I suspect that the next in line was probably Givens.

The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect.

Your desperation in trying to twist this into a complicated multi-level conspiracy involving a cast of thousands won't work with me friend.

It was your garden variety DPD frame which just happen to be applied in the biggest case of the 20th century.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, like I said before, you think the cops could (and would!) just snap their fingers and come up with an instant patsy on a moment's notice.

You don't even seem to realize how silly and utterly ridiculous this statement of yours is....

"The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect."

David Von Pein
March 18-20, 2019









JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1313)


RICH POPE SAID:

David,

Just let me ask...And I'm being very serious...

Do you honestly think that one person, any person could outwit the USSS, the DPD, and the FBI to assassinate the President of the United States?

I mean MAYBE Jason Bourne could do this. But LHO? Just look at the guy. He has no special skill set, his highest recorded IQ was 118 (nothing to write home about), he was diagnosed as dyslexic by the same people who tested his IQ...

His weapon of choice is so far from what a serious assassin would use...

Be honest with yourself. Let's assume that it WOULD be possible for one man do achieve all of this. Give me a name other than LHO? Someone with the skills, intelligence and expertise and I might be able to buy the lone-nut assassin theory. But LHO is like the Barney Fife of assassins.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why do CTers always make Lee Harvey Oswald's feat sound more difficult than climbing Mount Everest?

What's so difficult or impossible about Oswald wrapping his own rifle in a homemade paper bag, lying to his co-worker about the contents of that bag, and carrying that bag into his own workplace?

And as far as LHO's ability to make the shots needed to accomplish the assassination....well, he was only 1-for-3 (i.e., hitting his intended target [JFK's head] just one time out of three shots fired), which is very good for a big-league baseball player, but .333 isn't all that great for an assassin.

But I can't fault Oswald's performance too much, since he certainly did accomplish what he set out to do on November 22nd---he killed the enemy of Fidel Castro that he wanted to kill.

I just wish conspiracy theorists would stop trying to make Oswald's shooting feat something that nobody could possibly have achieved---because it certainly wasn't as difficult as conspiracists want to pretend it was.

And whether CTers like it or not, Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766 rifle WAS the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy! The evidence proves that fact for all time---CTer protests notwithstanding.




RICH POPE SAID:

David,

The easiest shot for Oswald would have been when the president's limo was making the slow turn onto Elm street. The car was at the closest point and moving very slowly. The shot you are suggesting Oswald made was the most difficult shot. It was at the greatest distance, with a car moving down and away from the shooter. If Kennedy had been shot at the easiest point, I would agree with you. Yet he wasn't. He was shot at the most difficult point for Oswald, but the easiest shot for a second shooter behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet, as I said before, we KNOW that Oswald's Carcano WAS the murder weapon.

How did damaged bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle manage to get into the front seat of Kennedy's car if that gun wasn't being used to shoot at JFK? (And most CTers seem to think the C2766 Carcano was NOT used at all that day.)


RICH POPE SAID:

That's a good question. But answer this if you can. Why were some of the bullets full metal jackets while others were hollow point? The shots that came from behind were the full metal jackets and the fragmented bullets found in Kennedy's skull were hollow point. You can't have Oswald's Carcano firing both types of bullets.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What makes you think the skull bullet fragments WEREN'T Carcano fragments? The FBI's Robert Frazier said the two bullet fragments removed from JFK's head (CE843) were "similar" to CE567, one of the front-seat fragments, which we know was a fragment fired from Carcano #C2766. So where are you getting the "hollow point" stuff? There's absolutely no proof of that.


RICH POPE SAID:

And all your statement proves is that the Carcano was used. It doesn't mean Oswald shot it. No one saw him shoot it. No one saw him carry it. No one saw him hide it. The paraffin test was negative for firing a rifle that day. Also, no one has ever used C2766 to duplicate what Oswald is suspected to have done that day.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Question for you....

Who, on ANY given day, is MORE LIKELY to have used OSWALD'S rifle?----

The owner of the gun? Or some unknown person?


RICH POPE SAID:

I believe Oswald knew the person who shot the Carcano. I don't believe he was an unknown person as you say in your post. So if you want to argue that Oswald purchased the rifle, brought it into the TSBD and hid it for the real shooter, THAT I might most certainly consider.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you won't even begin to consider the idea that the owner of the murder weapon was the person who actually fired it at the President on November 22, 1963....is that right? (Even though the rifle owner in question—a certain Mr. Lee H. Oswald—did not have any kind of a definitive or corroborated or provable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being shot on 11/22/63!)

And you won't consider the idea that Oswald was the TSBD gunman even though you know that an eyewitness did (albeit belatedly) positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the person who was firing a gun from the Book Depository Building at the time of the assassination....is that also correct?

And you won't consider the idea that Oswald himself was the "Carcano Shooter" even though you know that Oswald's prints are all over multiple objects found in the assassin's Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor....right?

Allow me to ask my previous question one more time (just for the emphasis, because I think this is a really good "garden variety" type of logical question to ask conspiracy theorists every once in a while, don't you?)....

Who, on ANY given day, is MORE LIKELY to have used OSWALD'S rifle? ---- The owner of the gun? Or some unknown person? *

* And by "unknown person", I mean: Unknown to everybody in the world who has ever looked into the details of the JFK case, not necessarily "unknown" to Lee Harvey Oswald himself.


RICH POPE SAID:

Oswald simply was not a good enough shot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Even though you surely must know that the guy you say was "not a good enough shot" qualified as a "Sharpshooter" in the United States Marine Corps.

I guess Rich Pope must think that the U.S. Marine Corps regularly issues Sharpshooter rankings to people who are really not very good shooting a rifle at all. (A curious thing for the Marine Corps brass to do, isn't it?)


RICH POPE SAID:

I do not believe Oswald was the shooter because the paraffin test came back negative.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you can somehow make the above statement even though you also surely know (don't you?) that a NEGATIVE paraffin cheek test result CAN and WILL occur (on occasion) even though the person being tested definitely did recently fire a rifle [see CD787 below].



More "Paraffin" talk HERE and HERE.


RICH POPE SAID:

Of course Oswald's fingerprints were on things. He worked there. His job was to move boxes around, inventory the contents, etc. I would expect his fingerprints to be everywhere.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, the "He Worked There" argument is what I always get from CTers when I bring up the prints on the boxes. But, in my opinion, the fact that Oswald's prints were on those Sniper's Nest boxes is more important and significant than conspiracy theorists think. Here's what I said about it in 2007:


"The LHO prints on the SN [Sniper's Nest] boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest. It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there". The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists
is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found
under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd."

-- DVP; November 2007



RICH POPE SAID:

Oswald's job was to get a job in the TSBD, get the rifle there, hand it off to the shooter and that's it. That's the extent of his involvement.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which means you've pretty much got no choice but to include Linnie Mae Randle as a "co-conspirator" with Oswald, because it was really Mrs. Randle (along with Ruth Paine, who made a phone call to Roy Truly at the TSBD on Lee's behalf) who got the ball rolling toward Lee getting his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. Oswald certainly didn't decide by himself to apply for a job at the TSBD. It was only because of Linnie Randle's suggestion about a possible job opening at the Book Depository that prompted Oswald to seek employment at that location in the first place.

Do you think Oswald just got lucky when Linnie Mae made that "TSBD" job suggestion to Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald on October 14, 1963?

Come now, let's be reasonable here.



But, Rich, at least you don't reside quite as far down Fantasy Lane as most of your CT colleagues. Unlike most Internet conspiracy theorists, you will at least acknowledge these two undeniable facts:

1. Oswald was the owner of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766.

and

2. Oswald did unquestionably take a large-ish paper package into the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.



RICH POPE SAID:

David,

Sharpshooter is the lowest ranking in the Marines.  Oswald passed his shooting test by two points. I wish you would research this and then commit it to memory. To the layman, a sharpshooter sounds impressive. To a Marine, a sharpshooter is a bad shot. And Oswald barely earned that sharpshooter title.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sharpshooter isn't the lowest ranking. "Marksman" is lower than Sharpshooter.

Better do some reading up yourself...

http://wikipedia.org/Marksmanship Badges (U.S. Marine Corps)


RICH POPE SAID:

In 1959, Oswald qualified as a marksman. Do you disagree with this?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I don't disagree with that. He qualified as a Marksman in 1959, with (I think) a 191 score.

But you said this just a few moments ago --- "Sharpshooter is the lowest ranking in the Marines."

And that's not right.

Also....

Oswald was just about to get out of the service when he made the "Marksman" grade....but he still DID "qualify" as a Marksman. And a MARINE MARKSMAN is certainly not a lousy shot either.

Why do CTers always pretend that even the lowest of the three qualification levels makes Oswald a rotten shot? It doesn't. It makes him a Marine-qualified "Marksman" shooter---even as late as 1959.

Plus....

JFK was virtually a stationary target (no lateral movement at all) when Oswald aimed for his head at Zapruder frame 313.

And the target was a mere 88 yards from Oswald's gun barrel at Z313.

Now, ask yourself, Rich....

Was that REALLY a tough shot for a Marine-trained "Marksman" (or "Sharpshooter") to make---even with a Carcano?


RICH POPE SAID:

Maybe Oswald isn't squeaky clean in the matter, but he certainly isn't a genius mastermind who managed to pull off the crime of the century.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It didn't require a "genius mastermind" to pull off the assassination. All it took was a guy who owned a gun and who saw for himself a golden opportunity to use that gun to change history and kill the most powerful man in the world (who also happened to be an enemy of Oswald's favorite leader at the time, Mr. Castro). When Oswald learned that the President of the United States was going to be driving slowly past the front door of the place where Lee worked, he couldn't pass up such an opportunity....

"Lee Harvey Oswald was a first-rate, bona fide kook. And he killed President John F. Kennedy, by himself, when he was afforded the perfect opportunity on November 22, 1963. Knowing Oswald ([who] we know for an absolute fact had murder in his veins, via the attempt on General Edwin Walker's life 7 months earlier), it would probably have been criminal (from Oswald's POV) to have allowed such a golden opportunity to pass him by when the President of the country he hated conveniently drove right by the Texas School Book Depository at 11 MPH. How often does a chance like that drive by your workplace doorstep (in an open-top convertible, no less)? It's almost as if Oswald was daring HIMSELF to take those shots at the President."
-- DVP; September 11, 2007


JOHN KOZLOWSKI SAID:

Then why did he deny it? He would've been seen as a hero to everyone who hated Kennedy. He was caught and would have spent the rest of his life in jail or be put to death. Why deny it up until he was killed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think he wanted to play the part of the "Innocent Patsy" to the hilt for a while longer (maybe forever). But it's possible he would have confessed at some point down the road, but since he was killed just two days later, we'll never know.

But also keep in mind that by just playing the part of the "Patsy", Oswald was still becoming ultra-famous.

So he knew he didn't have to shout "I did it" from the rooftops to gain the fame and attention he might have been seeking. Just by clamming up and NOT confessing and pretending to be the snow-white patsy was serving his "fame" purposes just fine, thank you.


TONY KROME SAID:

"Do you believe that the first shot was aimed at the head of JFK and the scope was utilised for this purpose?"

The above should be an easy question for a LNer to answer.

How about an easier question ... was the first scope-assisted shot aimed and fired at an area within the confines of the Limo?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I would guess --- Yes and yes.

But, again, we can't know WHEN the scope became misaligned. Maybe it WAS misaligned prior to 11/22. I don't know. No one does.

We also can't know all the dynamics going on with Oswald at that moment of the first shot --- e.g., his state of "nervousness" or "anxiety" or "fear", etc. Such factors could have made him shoot too soon and miss on his first shot.

Well, then, you might ask....

But, David, if he was so damn nervous on the first shot, how the heck did he manage to IMMEDIATELY compose himself to the point that he was able to then put two bullets directly into Kennedy's upper body?

To that fair inquiry, I'd have to say --- I have no idea. (But isn't there some military term for this type of "Nervous One Minute, Calm The Next" condition? I think I've heard of something like that before. Or is it in the field of psychiatry?) ~big shrug~

In any event, any number of "unknowns" could have caused Oswald to miss on his first shot. Fifty-plus years later, we can now only guess about what those "unknowns" might have been.


RICH POPE SAID:

I am suspicious of LHO. Ever since his "defection" to the USSR, I've been very puzzled by his behavior. His strange behavior continued when he returned to the United States.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald was one strange bird alright, no doubt about that fact. But, IMO, his "strange bird" character is much more in line with a "Lone Assassin" than it is with a person who was involved in any kind of an "Organized" (and pre-planned) plot to kill the President.

Just take a good look at his "strange behavior" on the two days surrounding the assassination (November 21 and 22). Everything this guy did on those two days indicates (to me anyway) that LHO was on his own when he did the things he did on those two days.

For example----

If Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a prearranged "plot" to murder JFK, and if he had "co-conspirators" to help him (ANY co-conspirators at all), then why in the world does he need to ask his co-worker, Buell Wesley Frazier, to take him to Irving on Thursday night (11/21) and then to drive him back to work on 11/22, thus making it necessary for Oswald to tell his "curtain rods" lie (twice) to Frazier on those two days? All of that could have been avoided (and would have been totally avoided, IMO) if Oswald had had any co-conspirators at all.

And why would Oswald need to use his own rifle in the assassination if he had some co-conspirators to aid him on Nov. 21 and 22?

Somebody please tell me.....

Where were Oswald's accomplices when Lee needed them the most?!


B.A. COPELAND SAID:

How the heck did he [Lee Harvey Oswald] get that bag into the TSBD?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He walked in the back (loading dock) door with it. Why is that simple scenario so impossible?

Do you think there should have been a Secret Service guard at the back door of the Depository to keep out all "suspicious packages"?


B.A. COPELAND SAID:

Any witnesses see him with it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. One witness (Buell Wesley Frazier) saw Oswald carry the long-ish package into the back (loading dock) door of the TSBD on November 22....

"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; 11/22/63 Affidavit

And another witness (Linnie Mae Randle) saw Oswald carrying a long(ish) paper package as he walked toward Randle's house at about 7:10 AM (CST) on the morning of November 22nd....

"I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car." -- Linnie Mae Randle; 11/22/63 Affidavit

You, Mr. Copeland, of course already know about the above two "package" witnesses. Do you think they were BOTH lying (as early as November 22nd!) about seeing Lee Oswald carrying such a package on the morning of the assassination?





CORY SANTOS SAID:

David, did the attempt in Chicago happen? Yes no and basis for your opinion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. There was no "attempt" on the President's life in Chicago. The Secret Service was able to thwart any "attempt" in advance of JFK's arrival.

Or did you merely mean Thomas Vallee's "planned attempt"?

If you meant the latter, then yes, it would appear that Vallee was planning an attempt on JFK in Chicago.


CORY SANTOS SAID:

Did the attempt in Tampa happen? Yes no and basis for your opinion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I know of no "attempt" on JFK's life in Tampa. Please elaborate. Maybe my memory is failing me.

(You're not talking about the Milteer/Somersett thing, are you? That was Miami.)

[DVP EDIT -- I was able to refresh my memory (a little) with respect to the apparent "Tampa" threat against President Kennedy by reading Page 765 of the Endnotes in Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History".]


CORY SANTOS SAID:

Then, if you concede either or both happened, did the plotters get lucky in Dallas someone beat them to it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, since there were no "plotters" in Dallas (other than Lee Oswald), then nobody got "lucky" when Oswald shot JFK.


REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're not talking about the Milteer/Somersett thing, are you? That was Miami.


CORY SANTOS SAID:

No I meant Tampa. But, let us stick with Chicago. Why was the story about the landlady and multiple shooters fake? You did not answer that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You never asked such a question. So why would I answer it?


CORY SANTOS SAID:

About Vallee, what evidence do you have he acted alone?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

None. I know very little about it. It's covered by Vincent Bugliosi in his book, of course [see Pages 711-712 of the Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"]. But I haven't memorized every word. I know it had NO connection whatsoever to Lee Oswald and the Dallas shooting, however.


CORY SANTOS SAID:

Since you admit Vallee was plotting to shoot JFK, then why did you say there was no Chicago plot?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I didn't.


CORY SANTOS SAID:

I asked if there was an attempt in Chicago. Then to explain your reason.

You dodged it by saying there was a planned attempt. Legally, I see no difference.

Let's ask this way, was there an investigation into a landlady reporting boarders with weapons in Chicago? I know you know what I am talking about.

As far as Vallee, if you agree he was plotting to kill JFK, then do you admit based on that, there was a Chicago plot?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes.


B.A. COPELAND SAID:

Why not consult Edwin Black's article instead [of consulting Vincent Bugliosi's book regarding the Vallee/Chicago incident]?

You cannot possibly or logically believe that it had absolutely nothing to do with Dallas given the striking similarities (possibility of a connection but not direct proof) and given that much of the evidence of that plot has been hidden from the public.

In fact, 2 suspects got away who may have made it to (or had something to do with) Dallas. The 2 suspects who were apprehended, well, I do not know who they were but they may have had something to do with Dallas as well, we simply don't know and unless you've read all the documents pertaining to that event, even the documents suppressed from the public, you really cannot say with any intellectual honesty that Chicago had "nothing" to do with Dallas.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There are many threats made against every United States President each and every year. And my guess would be that the year 1963 was no different.

And for every "threat" that the general public knows about, I'll bet there are two or three (or more) other "threats" made against the President that the public has not been made aware of. It's a built-in hazard of being POTUS. The President is always going to have somebody who wants to harm (or kill) him. And some of those threats make the pages of our daily newspapers, but a lot of them don't. And it takes some digging to unearth the details concerning many of the more "obscure" Presidential threats that have occurred over the years. Check out author Mel Ayton's two recent books on that very subject....



REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You, Mr. Copeland, of course already know about the above two "package" witnesses. Do you think they were BOTH lying (as early as November 22nd!) about seeing Lee Oswald carrying such a package on the morning of the assassination?


MICAH MILETO SAID:

From the HSCA interview of TSBD employee Edward Shields:


SHIELDS: I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.

DAY: This is the morning of the assassination?

SHIELDS: Mm-hmm.

DAY: Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."

SHIELDS: Yes.

DAY: Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?

SHIELDS: No I didn’t.



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Re: Edward Shields....




MICAH MILETO SAID:

Ooh, a treasure chest full of JFK debunking wisdom.

*opens link*

[Quoting DVP:]

"The only thing I can think of there is that Shields must have been thinking of some other day when such a thing happened."

🙄


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for that vote of confidence in my analysis, Micah. 😜

In evaluating the "Shields/Frazier" situation, anyone who doesn't wish to call Buell Wesley Frazier an outright liar knows that my above comment quoted by Micah is very likely an accurate appraisal of the situation. And since I don't think Edward Shields was lying either (he was merely mistaken about the date of the incident)---what the heck ELSE could be the answer?

Any ideas in your treasure chest of JFK-related wisdom, Micah? Or would you rather just go ahead and call Buell Frazier a rotten liar?


CORY SANTOS SAID:

How can anyone be sure Vallee and LHO had no connections? 

Has it been researched?

Has anyone researched whether there was a connection between Vallee and Ruby or anyone Ruby called during those hectic months before November?

Has anyone researched to see whether there was a connection between Vallee and anyone else that is associated with 11/22/63?

If not, please, someone answer me, how can anyone say there was no connection between Chicago and Dallas?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the exact same question could easily be asked about ANY other "threat" that was ever made against President Kennedy. And there were undoubtedly MANY additional threats made against JFK during his 34 months in the White House---and most of those threats have never even been made public (as far as I know).

So, who wants to start the ball rolling in trying to "connect" the Dallas shooting (and Lee Harvey Oswald) with any and all other threats that might have been made against John F. Kennedy during the 1,037 days he was President?

Might as well start with Day 1 so that we can cover them all. Fill in the blanks when any information concerning any threats against the President is discovered. And I think everyone here will agree---there were no doubt quite a few threats made....

Threats made against President John F. Kennedy
on Inauguration Day (Friday, January 20, 1961): ______________ .

Threats made against President John F. Kennedy
on Day 2 (Saturday, January 21, 1961): ______________ .

Etc.

David Von Pein
March 3-7, 2019