Part 1355 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of August 1—31, 2022. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's truly astonishing (and sad) that Bonar Menninger's absurd 1992 book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" currently has a very nearly perfect rating at Amazon.com (4.8 stars out of 5 as of this writing on August 1, 2022, based on over 320 ratings, which includes both written reviews and other people who simply gave the book a "rating" of one to five stars).
That level of high praise for a publication that promotes such an obviously bogus theory only tends to prove the age-old adage: There's one born every minute.
Here are my thoughts about the notion that Secret Service agent George W. Hickey accidentally ended the life of the 35th U.S. President (the second link below includes my lengthy [text] debate in 2006 with an almost-forgotten conspiracy theorist who went by the name "Grizzlie Antagonist" in his online posts; anybody here remember him?)....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/The Hickey Theory
http://groups.google.com/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Hickey Theory (Part 2)
DAVID VON PEIN LATER ADDED:
BTW / FWIW....
I pretty much agree with Vince Palamara's earlier post in which he said:
"The three most obscene theories I have heard:
1) Jackie did it/was involved
2) Greer shot JFK
3) Hickey shot JFK
The most popular dumb theories:
1) Greer shot JFK
2) Hickey shot JFK"
[End Quote.]
I can tell everyone here from my own personal experience of having to wade through hundreds of comments each week written by ill-informed people at my JFK YouTube channel that Vincent Palamara is 100% correct when he said that the #1 "popular dumb theory" about JFK's assassination (at least at the present time) is the "Greer shot JFK" theory.
When I read through the comments at my YouTube channel, I've been keeping track (loosely) of which theories are being supported by my YouTube followers, and I'd say in the last year or two, the theory that most YouTube commenters seem to endorse far more than any other is the insane theory about limo driver Bill Greer turning around in his seat and firing the fatal shot into JFK's brain.
And it doesn't seem to matter how many times you tell them that what they think is a gun in the Zapruder Film is, in actuality, merely sunlight reflecting off of Roy Kellerman's head, the theorists still won't budge an inch. They're convinced beyond all doubt that Greer is the killer.
Another ultra-crazy theory that popped up several years ago that could also be attached to Vince Palamara's list of "obscene" theories is the one created from whole cloth by a certain Brian David Andersen (for a good laugh, click that link and watch that first video). Andersen believes (or says he does) that President Kennedy wasn't really killed at all in Dealey Plaza. Andersen says the whole "incident on Elm Street" (as he calls it) was a staged/fake assassination, with JFK himself taking part in the charade by activating a "pyrotechnics device" that was situated on his head, and it was really that "device" that exploded and not Kennedy's cranium.
As I said before --- There's one born every minute.
David Von Pein
August 1, 2022
================================
JOE BAUER SAID THIS AND THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Joe, you really should read THIS BLOG ARTICLE written by Dale Myers in 2017. It's a very interesting piece, which reveals several things relating to Mrs. Acquilla Clemons that had never before surfaced or been discussed previously.
Here's an excerpt:
"Here, for the first time, we have Mrs. Clemons explaining that it’s not a
cadre of faceless, nameless law enforcement officers harassing her to keep
quiet (as everyone has been led to believe by Mark Lane and the conspirati),
but rather, a strong suggestion by her employers – John and Cornelia Smotherman – who are no doubt sick and tired of the parade of “journalists” (remember, this is the third visit in as many weeks) who keep showing up at
her home." -- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017
----------------------
I've selected what I think are the top highlights from that Myers' article at my own webpage below:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Acquilla Clemons & The Tippit Murder
"After reading all of Mr. Myers' excellent 11/1/17 blog article, there can
be no doubt [that] Mrs. Acquilla Clemons, when her statements are not
edited and trimmed and molded by conspiracy theorists such as the late
Mark Lane, definitely was NOT the type of bombshell "conspiracy" witness
that she has been portrayed to be by conspiracists for the last fifty-plus
years." -- DVP; November 1, 2017
David Von Pein
August 1, 2022
================================
CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You want Lone Assassin believers to explain why they think Oswald went into the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?
Well, okay. That's actually an easy one to figure out, Charles. Very easy....
Lee Harvey Oswald ducked inside the Texas Theater (without paying) shortly after he killed Police Officer J.D. Tippit because he figured that a nice dark movie theater would be a good place to hide out from the police---i.e., the police that Oswald knew would be searching the Oak Cliff area high and low for Tippit's killer.
And if it hadn't been for the very observant Johnny Brewer, Oswald might very well have succeeded in not being seen or detected while hiding out in the theater.
We can't know, of course, exactly how long Oswald would have stayed inside the movie theater if he hadn't been spotted by Brewer and then subsequently arrested just minutes later, but Oswald might have had it in his mind to stay in the theater until it got dark and then he could try to get away under the cloak of darkness.
That plan certainly makes sense to this "Lone Nut adherent" anyway.
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
To throw your own words back at you --- You're kidding, right?!
You MUST be kidding here. Because nobody could possibly think Johnny Brewer was lying when he said Oswald went into the theater.
Why?
1.) Brewer, while standing on the sidewalk on Jefferson Boulevard in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store, sees Oswald approaching the Texas Theater.
2.) Brewer then sees Oswald turn right toward the front entrance to the theater.
3.) Brewer then walks toward the theater himself.
4.) After starting to walk toward the theater and after reaching the front of the theater, at no time did Brewer see Oswald come back out to the sidewalk on Jefferson.
5.) The logical conclusion that Johnny Brewer reached, therefore, was that the man who was acting "funny" and "scared" and "nervous" in front of his shoe store just a minute earlier (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) must have physically entered the Texas Theater because (similar to the logical reasoning that explains where Bullet CE399 went after it came out of John F. Kennedy's throat)---He had nowhere else to go but into the theater. (Unless you want to theorize that Oswald was able to cloak himself somehow and become invisible.)
GIL JESUS (INCREDIBLY) SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Boy, talk about taking something OUT OF CONTEXT. Geez, this takes the cake, Gil!
When I said "He had nowhere else to go but into the theater", I was (of course!) talking about what Brewer was observing with Oswald's movements when we add up my #1 thru #4 items on my previous list. I certainly wasn't talking about what LHO's options were PRIOR to the time when Oswald was seen walking in front of the theater.
Gil, you knew you were taking my "nowhere else to go" comment completely out of context, right?
[Gil's response to my post above was ...... Dead silence.]
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
It’s just a fact. If you can’t see somebody enter the theater, then you didn’t see him enter the theater. By the way, Brewer wasn’t watching the “funny-looking” man the entire time. He said he went back into the shoe store first and talked to the two “IBM men” who were hanging out there (?), and then walked down to the theater.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, John, I suppose you could conceivably be right, but the 1996 interview that contains that information about Johnny Brewer going back into his shoe store after going out to the sidewalk to watch Oswald needs a little bit of clarification if you ask me.
Because in that '96 interview that Brewer had with Ian Griggs, Brewer seems to be saying (or at least implying) that he left the immediate area in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store before he ever "went back" inside the shoe store. What I just said is, indeed, implied when Brewer told Griggs that his store was "locked" when he "came back" to the store. And according to Brewer's own chronology in that 1996 interview, that was before he went up the street to the theater to talk to Julia Postal.
Now it stands to reason that if Brewer was merely standing a few feet outside the front door to his shoe store, why in the world would there be any need to lock the door? It seems logical to me to conclude that the only reason there would have been to lock the door would be if Brewer had gone some distance away from his store down the street.
But if Brewer was merely standing right in front of his store the whole time (before going back inside), why would there be any need for either Brewer himself or the two IBM guys (who were in the store at the time) to physically lock up the property so that no more customers could enter?
The interview excerpts seen below, therefore, are telling me that Johnny Brewer might very well have gone up to the theater entrance a total of two different times. Hence, we find Brewer telling Ian Griggs that he "went back" and "came back". And when Brewer said those words, he was referring to a point in time that was BEFORE he ever went up to the theater to talk to Julia Postal.
If you, John Iacoletti, or anyone else reading this, has a better explanation for what we find in the interview excerpt seen below, please chime in and let me know what it is. But these remarks by Mr. Brewer sure make it sound as though Brewer walked up the street (i.e., some distance away from his shoe store) twice on 11/22/63.
ILG = Ian Griggs (interviewer);
JCB = Johnny Calvin Brewer:
The complete 1996 interview:
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
Are you suggesting that Brewer walked all the way down to the theater, but didn’t talk to Postal, then went all the way back to his store, told the IBM men that he was going to go check, and then went back down to the theater? That makes ZERO sense.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm suggesting he went at least part way down toward the theater initially. Otherwise, the chronology that Brewer himself laid out in his 1996 interview makes ZERO sense too. The key portions that make zero sense IF he really made only one trip up to (or near) the theater entrance are these two sentences: "When I came back, the store was locked. I said I'm going to check."
Obviously those two sentences, being in the order Brewer uttered them, would mean the store was locked BEFORE he went down to the theater to "check". That makes no sense, unless he left the area of his store initially, thereby making the locking of the shoe store a necessity.
But this whole sub-topic of "Did Brewer physically see Oswald go into the front doors of the Texas Theater?" is totally ridiculous, superfluous, and downright stupid in the first place.
Why?
Because we KNOW without a shred of doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald DID go into the Texas Theater on the afternoon of 11/22/63 and was apprehended by the Dallas Police Department at approximately 1:50 PM CST on that same afternoon while inside that same theater.
To deny my last statement is to deny a fact and to deny a physical reality.
And since everybody knows—even all conspiracy fantasists—that Oswald was inside the movie theater between the hours of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM CST on November 22nd, then somebody please tell me what the odds are of Johnny Brewer somehow being wrong (or lying) when he said he saw Lee Oswald go into the theater between the those same hours of 1:00 and 2:00 PM on 11/22/63?
David Von Pein
August 1-3, 2022
August 2, 2022
================================
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Pat, since you said "There is strong reason to believe that Shelley did, in fact, tell Oswald it was okay to leave", that must mean you think that Bill Shelley was telling some pretty big lies in his Warren Commission testimony (below), right?
Any particular reason WHY you think William H. Shelley would want to tell all these lies? (Emphasis provided here by DVP.)....
JOE BALL -- On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
BILL SHELLEY -- It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
MR. BALL -- Where?
MR. SHELLEY -- On the first floor over near the telephone.
MR. BALL -- Did you ever see him again?
MR. SHELLEY -- At the police station when they brought him in.
MR. BALL -- Did you see him in the building at any time after 12?
MR. SHELLEY -- No.
MR. BALL -- Did you at anytime after the President was shot see Oswald in the building?
MR. SHELLEY -- No, sir.
MR. BALL -- Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
MR. SHELLEY -- No, sir.
MR. BALL -- Did you tell anybody to go home?
MR. SHELLEY -- No.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I can see your point, Pat. But, then too, no reasonable and sensible person could possibly have placed any blame or guilt on Bill Shelley's shoulders for not stopping Lee Oswald at the front door of the TSBD at 12:33 PM (assuming that Oswald DID, in fact, see Shelley out in front when LHO left the building; and I do believe Oswald probably was telling the truth about that; it's a question, then, of whether Shelley saw Oswald or not)....because Shelley didn't have any reason at all to suspect Oswald of being involved in the assassination. If Shelley did see him leaving the building, Oswald would have been (in Shelley's mind) just one of the many employees moving in or out of the building at that particular time.
Also....
You wondered why nobody saw Oswald leaving by the front door of the Depository....
But we can also ask that very same question of many of the people who were standing near the TSBD front door at about 12:31 PM who claimed they never saw the white-helmeted Marrion L. Baker enter the building either. And yet we KNOW Baker DID enter the building nonetheless.
And we could probably engage in the very same kind of "Why Didn't Anybody See This Person Do This?" speculation when it comes to various other aspects of the JFK and Tippit cases.
ROGER ODISIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
My $0.02 (originally posted on February 24, 2019)....
I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Regarding the possibility of Lee Oswald "standing at the back of the steps" with his co-workers at 12:30 PM CST on November 22, 1963....
Buell Frazier disagrees with you....
"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021
-----------------
But you can always show Frazier that "Gorilla" video you spoke of in your last post. After watching it, maybe Buell will then change his mind about Lee not being on the steps.
And then I can always come back with my favorite video of Oswald telling the press that he was INSIDE the Depository building at the time of the assassination, while not uttering a single word to the press (and hence, to the world) about his perfect and ironclad "I Was Really On The TSBD Steps" alibi that would have forever proven him innocent of the Presidential murder that he was about to be officially charged with.
And 'round and 'round we go.
😁
David Von Pein
August 4-5, 2022
================================
RICK PLANT SAID:
[Quoting from PBS-TV's YouTube channel:]
Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (full documentary) | FRONTLINE --- An investigative biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man at the center of the political crime of the 20th century, the assassination of JFK. (This version aired 2013. Original broadcast 1993.)
The two-hour documentary special traces Lee Harvey Oswald’s life from his boyhood to that fateful day in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, posing a number of questions: Was Oswald the emotionally disturbed “lone gunman”? Was he one of two gunmen that day in Dallas? Or was he an unwitting scapegoat for the real assassins?
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
I couldn't watch the entire video. What a mountain of BS!
It's downright insulting that they would present such rot, and think that the American people are too damned dumb to realize that the program is nothing but propaganda. The way they have spun Lee's life in a way to portray him as a looney and a lone nut assassin is sickening.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Even though it is the truth. No spin is even necessary. Just following Oswald's life provides the answer. And then when you follow Oswald's actions and movements on November 21st and 22nd in 1963, the JFK case practically solves itself.
But, as we all know by now, Walt Cakebread is allergic to something known as "the truth".
BTW, the video of "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" that is linked above presents only half of the documentary. Here's the whole thing:
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
I never said that the program was presenting lies. But the spin they put on the various events in his life is pure BS. His sojourn to Russia and home again is a good example. Are you so stupid that you can't see that he was sent to Russia by the US government?
[...]
All I can say for you, Mr Von Pein.... You are either one of the most gullible suckers I've ever encountered.... or you're part of the official US government approved disinformation squad.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
To quote from one of Mr. Cakebread's recent posts above:
What a mountain of BS!
(Walt thinks LHO was "sent to Russia by the U.S. Government".)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
"Documentaries" like this are for the largest part merely window dressing to create a negative impression about Oswald, which makes it easier to conclude that he must have been the lone shooter. For the actual killing of Kennedy, it makes no difference where the killer has been in his life yet in this case they make a big deal out of his trips to Russia and Mexico etc.
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
It’s what people like DVP trot out as “evidence” when they don’t have actual evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And the above quote by John Iacoletti is one of the things that CTers love to do when they decide to pretend there's no "actual evidence" at all against that poor sapling named Oswald.
John knows there's more than enough "actual evidence" to hang Oswald 20 times over (for TWO murders). But the "Conspiracy" gene inside him won't let him type it on his keyboard.
And John also knows full well that Oswald's own actions on 11/21 and 11/22 would have convicted him if he had made it to trial too. But, again, John's CT gene won't allow him to admit the obvious.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Amazing stupidity! Let's examine the facts of "Oswald's own actions" on 11/21 and 11/22. On 11/21 he went to work as normal, asked Frazier for a ride to Irving, went to Irving to visit his wife and kids and stayed the night. The next morning, he walks over to Frazier's home for the ride back to the TSBD, where he worked normally that morning.
Those are the undisputed facts and none of it would have resulted in a conviction at trial.
Everything that happened between Kennedy's killing, at 12:30, and Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater are allegations based on speculation and highly questionable evidence and witness testimony. The only really established fact is the arrest at the Texas Theater. Everything else would be scrutinized (imo, much of it successfully) by the defense.
To claim that Oswald would have been convicted based on his actions on 11/21 and 11/22 is just plain ridiculous and extremely naive.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's absolutely incredible that anybody who has studied the evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murders, even a conspiracy theorist named Martin Weidmann, could actually say (and believe) the things I just quoted above.
Martin apparently thinks that the things Lee Oswald did on both November 21st and 22nd were just ordinary things that Oswald did every day -- things such as:
.... Taking a bulky package to work with him and lying (twice) to Buell Frazier about the contents of that package.
.... Walking several blocks east of the TSBD just minutes after a Presidential assassination in order to catch a bus.
.... Getting off the bus just a few minutes after boarding it and then getting into a taxicab to take him (Oswald) to his roominghouse.
.... And then having the cab driver take him three blocks beyond his real destination, so that he'll have to backtrack the three-block distance on foot.
.... Dashing in and out of his room on Beckley in order to grab his .38 revolver.
.... Murdering a Dallas police officer about 15 minutes after hurriedly leaving his roominghouse.
.... Sneaking into the Texas Theater without buying the cheap ticket.
.... Fighting with the police and attempting to shoot one of them in the theater after merely being told to "get on your feet" by Officer McDonald.
.... Making multiple provably false statements to the police after his arrest.
Just a ho-hum Friday in the dull life of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Right, Martin?
Martin will very likely now go into "None Of That Stuff You Just Talked About Can Possibly Be Verified And Confirmed By Anybody Because I Think Everybody In Dallas Was Trying To Pin The Murders On Only Oswald" mode.
And 'round and 'round we go. (Yet again.)
Still More:
http://jfk-archives/Everything Oswald Did Indicates His Guilt
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
I have studied the evidence, which is exactly why I can say what I am saying. To return to my earlier point; you can call anything you like "evidence" but that doesn't mean it's actually proof of anything. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
[More of Martin's post HERE.]
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What a surprise. CTer Martin Weidmann is just like all other JFK conspiracy theorists --- a total failure at math. (Particularly addition.)
Let's have a look at another conspiracist who garnered an F- in the subject of "Adding Things Up":
David Von Pein
August 11-12, 2022
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
On August 15, 2022, veteran Internet conspiracy theorist Gil J. Jesus started this discussion thread at The Education Forum:
My response to Gil's misinformation....
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago was positively advertising the 40-inch rifle as early as April of 1963. This fact was proven many years ago when Gary Mack sent me an e-mail which featured the info about all of the Klein's ads that appeared in American Rifleman magazine throughout the year of '63. (The Sixth Floor Museum had copies of all those magazines.)
And since we can see that the 40-inch version of the Italian carbine was being advertised in the April issue, that has to mean that people were actually seeing that ad in the month of March '63 (the same month Lee Harvey Oswald placed his order with Klein's), because the magazine would certainly have hit the newsstands well prior to April 1st.
Here's the American Rifleman listing that Gary Mack sent me back in 2010:
Jan 63 -- p. 61 -- 36-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)
Feb 63 -- p. 65 -- Same ad as above
Mar 63 -- No ad
Apr 63 -- p. 55 -- 40-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)
May 63 -- Missing pp. 63-66
Jun 63 -- p. 59 -- 40-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)
Jul 63 -- p. 67 -- 40-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.78 -- $19.95 (with scope)
Aug 63 -- p. 79 -- Same ad as above
Sep 63 -- p. 89 -- Same ad as above
Oct 63 -- p. 85 -- Same ad as above
Nov 63 -- No ad
Dec 63 -- No ad
[Source: E-mail to David Von Pein from Gary Mack,
August 18, 2010.]
[2022 notes concerning the above list of Klein's advertisements ---- According to this information from John Armstrong, there was no Klein's ad in the May issue at all. Armstrong also says that there was a Klein's ad in the December issue, with that ad appearing on page 75. And, per Armstrong, Klein's also went back to advertising the 36-inch version of the rifle in the December issue.]
More info below refuting the ultra-stupid "Oswald Never Ordered The C2766 Rifle And All Of The Klein's Paperwork Was Faked" theory that never stops getting repeated by Internet conspiracy theorists:
GARY MURR SAID THIS.
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
~sigh~
And here we go again with "phony" stuff. And "It's Phony" continues to be the CT mantra with respect to Oswald's Postal Money Order even after Lance Payette, at this very forum in 2015, proved that that money order (CE788) has the File Locator Number on it which proves that it was processed at a Federal Reserve Bank facility.
But evidence like this never fazes a staunch Anybody-But-Oswald CTer. When confronted with such proof of processing, the CTers just turn to something else they think looks suspicious. (Or: they'll simply say, as many have done since Lance's 2015 discovery, "Well, that FLN must have been added by the conspirators after Nov. 22.")
Look no further than Gil Jesus' latest post to prove my prior point about CTers turning to something else that they feel is suspicious after having one of their pet theories debunked (and Gil's "Klein's Didn't Start Selling The 40-Inch Rifle Until August 1963" pet theory has most certainly been debunked in this very thread):
"That's all well and good but the Depository rifle wasn't purchased in March and it wasn't purchased by Oswald." -- G. Jesus
David Von Pein
August 15-16, 2022
================================
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong when you say that the curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage (Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 and 276) were "wrapped" in "paper". Ruth made it quite clear in her Warren Commission testimony that those 2 curtain rods were NOT "wrapped" in any kind of paper or wrapping at all. (See the testimony below.)
You're probably confusing the curtain rods with the other two packages that Ruth did unwrap in her garage during her WC session. Those two packages were wrapped in paper, with one of those paper packages containing venetian blinds and the other containing window shades (or "pull blinds"). But the two curtain rods in Ruth's garage were not wrapped at all. And, therefore, no paper wrapping connected with those rods could have possibly been checked for Oswald's (or anyone else's) fingerprints.
--------------------
MR. JENNER -- "It was your impression as you testified last week that you had some curtain rods on the shelf wrapped in a paper wrapping?"
MRS. PAINE -- "Well, I testified that---."
MR. JENNER -- "That was your impression, was it not?"
MRS. PAINE -- "And as part of the testimony I said they were very light and might not deserve their own wrapping."
[...]
MR. JENNER -- "Is there another shelf below the shelf on which you found the first two packages?"
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, there is."
[...]
MR. JENNER -- "Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "That's correct."
[...]
MR. JENNER -- "Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett. How many do you have there?"
MR. HOWLETT -- "There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored."
[...]
MR. JENNER -- "Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has taken down from the lower of the two shelves the two curtain rods to which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last week?"
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, they are."
MR. JENNER -- "And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your garage during the fall of 1963?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No, I do not."
MR. JENNER -- "And in particular, no other curtain rods in your garage at any time on the 21st or 22nd of November 1963?"
MRS. PAINE -- "None whatsoever."
----------------------------------------
And there's also this testimony from an earlier Warren Commission session with Ruth Paine:
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But Ruth Paine maintained that she had only TWO curtain rods (total) in her garage. Whether they were wrapped in paper or not, the total number of rods that Ruth said she had in her garage was TWO. And that's the number of curtain rods that were found on a shelf in Ruth's garage during her Warren Commission testimony.
Pat, do you think Ruth was lying about having just two rods in her garage? Or do you think she was merely confused about how many rods she might have had in her house during the 1963-1964 time period? [Pat Speer's response is here.]
I don't deny that my last suggestion is most certainly a possibility, particularly since Ruth was quite obviously hazy about the way the curtain rods were wrapped (or even if they were wrapped in paper at all).
But the thing that makes your suggestion unbelievable about Oswald possibly helping himself to a set of Ruth's curtain rods is the fact that if Lee Oswald HAD done such a thing on 11/22/63, he most certainly would have admitted that fact to the police after his arrest. Instead, he tells Captain Fritz that Buell Frazier was the liar when it comes the topic of any curtain rods.
It makes no sense for Oswald to deny all knowledge of any curtain rods unless Oswald had something ELSE inside that package that he was desperate to hide from the police.
(Yes, I know you're going to tell me that we don't really know anything that Oswald really told the cops after his arrest, and therefore I'm supposed to assume that the DPD was putting all kinds of things into LHO's mouth in order to frame him more conveniently. But forgive me if I don't follow you down that murky and unprovable path.)
Bottom Line....
The package that Lee Oswald carried into the Book Depository on 11/22/63 did not contain any curtain rods, and Oswald lied to Buell Frazier when he (Oswald) said the package did contain curtain rods. And the fact that Oswald told such a blatant lie to Frazier (and then told another blatant lie to the police when he denied ever saying anything at all about "curtain rods" to Frazier) is extremely powerful circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And if what you just suggested had, in fact, been the case in November 1963 (i.e., Oswald damages the curtain rod in his room, so he would want to replace the rod himself to make sure he gets his deposit back), then Oswald would have had no reason at all to deny the existence of any curtain rods. And yet we know (from Captain Fritz' report on his interrogations with LHO) that Oswald did deny taking any curtain rods into work on the day of the assassination.
Plus, we know that Oswald himself didn't damage the curtain rod in his Beckley room. The police caused that damage. The owner of the roominghouse, Gladys Johnson, confirms that fact in Commission Document 705. Now, is there any reason why I should not believe what Mrs. Johnson says there?
Here's a photo taken on either 11/22 or 11/23 showing the bent curtain rod:
Also....
No curtain rods were tested other than CE275/276 (the Paine rods). The "March 15" date at the top of CE1952 is simply a mistake. (Much like other documents connected with this case, such as the duplicate First National Bank receipt related to the deposit that Klein's Sporting Goods made on March 13, 1963. It shows an obviously incorrect date too.)
The March 15 date on CE1952 is almost certainly merely a slipped digit or a clerical error, because everything else in CE1952, as Vince Bugliosi put it in the book excerpt pictured below, "relates precisely to the events surrounding the curtain rods recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage on the night of March 23".
Click to enlarge:
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's downright silly for conspiracy theorists to suggest that the FBI and/or DPD and/or Warren Commission "faked" or "doctored" this version of CE1952 in order to fool the American people into believing that the fingerprint check that was done on some curtain rods was done after Ruth Paine's curtain rods were submitted as evidence on March 23rd. And that's because the alleged "fake" document still includes the "March 15" date at the top.
Therefore, what good did this alleged "fakery" accomplish?
The alternate version of the CE1952 document can be seen here.
Did the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald screw up big-time when they failed to change the March 15 date to March 23 or March 24? Or could it be that the conspiracy theorists are (once again) trying to make something out of nothing?
TOM GRAM SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And then the people who created the "phony" document decided to retain the original document, instead of deep-sixing it. Right? Why would they retain it, when they could have just as easily destroyed that unwanted piece of paper so that nobody would ever see it again?
That same question -- Why would the plotters/cover-uppers retain this original document? -- can be asked when discussing other allegedly "suspicious" documents as well. And the fact that such original documents even exist now for us to examine is, in my opinion, a strong indication that those documents are not the sinister and conspiratorial documents that many CTers suspect they are. For if they truly were signs of an actual cover-up, you've got to ask: Why on Earth did these guys leave behind evidence of their wrong-doing?
But maybe all the trash cans at City Hall were too full. Maybe that's the explanation for why those dastardly guys at the Dallas Police Department just refused to get rid of something that they really should have gotten rid of (if, that is, they were truly the cover-up artists that CTers make them out to be).
David Von Pein
August 25-28, 2022
================================
ROBBIE ROBERTSON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What do you mean? I merely utilized the embedding feature that YouTube has always had. And why on Earth have you turned off the ability to embed your Posner video? Just to spite me? There's nothing illegal or underhanded when somebody embeds a YouTube video on their own sites. That's what the embedding feature is for, for Pete sake.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
I'm not positive, but I would think that embedding individual videos would very much help and aid a channel's overall viewership and analytics.
Plus, YouTube does, indeed, provide a handy link at the top of every embedded video that takes you directly to that channel's main (Home) page. And when you mouse-over the channel icon in the upper left (the portrait of JFK in my example below), the full name of the channel pops up.
So, YouTube has done a nice job of providing the dual functionality (within the same embedded player) of having the ability to embed individual videos while also being able to access the channel's home page in one easy click.
Plus, the option is also provided (twice) to watch the embedded video on the YouTube site too. It's a win-win-win situation if you ask me. Which is why I always allow my videos to be embedded into other websites:
GIL JESUS SAID:
Von Pein should have asked permission before he did anything with that video. He assumed it was ok to do whatever he wanted with someone else's property. Just because it wasn't illegal, doesn't make it ethical.
Von Pein f**ked up as usual and he's not man enough to apologize. Par for the course.
GIL JESUS ALSO SAID:
This isn't about Robbie Robertson, this is about DVP and what HE did.
Any decent person would apologize to the guy instead of saying, "there was nothing illegal or underhanded about it", trying to justify his embedding of the Posner interview because "youtube allows embedding".
Who GAF what Youtube allows? Does Youtube own the video? No.
Von Pein assumes that he's entitled to embed anything on the internet into his blog. That's where he screwed up. By doing something that the video owner did not appreciate and he doesn't have the balls to admit it and apologize for it.
The man has ZERO credibility, as we all have known.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What an idiotic thing to say. I merely did what I've done dozens of other times with dozens of other YouTube videos. I embedded an embeddable video into one of my webpages.
It must be assumed (quite naturally) that if the "Embed Video" feature is not disabled by the channel owner, then it means that that channel owner APPROVES of his videos being embedded into third-party sites. A "permission" slip most certainly is not required, as Gil Jesus ridiculously claims it should be.
Gil's stupid response above is just another example of his recent mantra, which is: "Let's Bash DVP Even Though I Know He's Done Nothing Wrong Here".
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And this, folks, shows Von Peiny's character more fully than anything I could say.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Holmes, of course, knows full well that Gil's comments concerning me and the subject of embedding YouTube videos were incredibly stupid and idiotic comments, and yet Holmes still tries to make ME out to be the villain in the story.
And this, folks, shows Holmesy's character more fully than anything I could say.
BARRY KEANE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, Barry, I took notice of the "cab/bus" mistake in Robbie's interview with Gerald Posner too. In fact, both Gerald and Robbie got it backwards regarding the bus and the cab. Robbie seems to think it was the taxicab that got stuck in traffic, causing Oswald to vacate the cab and get on a bus. Of course, as we all know, it was the bus that got stuck in the traffic jam, with Oswald then switching to William Whaley's cab.
And Mr. Posner, of course, knows perfectly well what the order of Oswald's movements really was on Nov. 22. Gerald even mentions the "Bus then Cab" chronology in some of his other interviews. He merely suffered a slight brain cramp when talking to Robbie Robertson in Aug. 2022. Which just goes to prove that even a person who knows the JFK case inside and out can innocently say something that is not accurate.
I've pointed out in the past numerous similar "brain cramps" (aka "senior moments") that were suffered by Vincent Bugliosi during his "Reclaiming History" book tour in 2007. The biggest of which actually occurred in multiple radio interviews (one of them even years later, in 2013) when Vince (incredibly) actually said that Jim Garrison's initial interest in the JFK murder case was sparked when the Zapruder Film was shown on television for the first time---which (of course) was an event that didn't occur until 1975, six years after Garrison's case against Clay Shaw had ended.
It should have been a rather embarrassing radio moment for Mr. Bugliosi, but it wasn't (at least not at the time of the interviews), because the radio hosts never corrected Vince on the air and never even noticed VB's "brain cramp" at all.
I think that I, too, as old age creeps up and up, am experiencing more "senior moments" and "brain cramps". Especially with people's names and dates. Drives me nuts too. I hate the thought of my memory going bye-bye in future years. I just hope I can remember who J.D. Tippit and Buell Wesley Frazier and Domingo Benavides are several years from now.
If I ever start scratching my head and looking skyward as I try to contemplate "Who the heck is John F. Kennedy?", I will then know that I'm in big trouble. 😁
ROBBIE ROBERTSON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I just listened to the excerpt in question again (exactly ten minutes into the interview). And I want to now apologize to Robbie Robertson for my earlier comment about Robbie saying that the chronology was "Cab then Bus". I was wrong. Robbie never said that. But what Robbie did say was also incorrect. He said that Oswald "gives up the taxi to some lady". But that's not right either, because Oswald never did "give up the taxi" to a lady on Nov. 22.
According to cab driver William Whaley, Oswald did offer to let the lady have the cab, but Oswald never got out of the cab. Here's what Whaley told the Warren Commission:
"And about that time an old lady, I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me a cab down here?" She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one too, and he opened the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will let you have this one," and she says, "No, the driver can call me one." So, I didn't call one because I knew before I could call, one would come around the block and keep it pretty well covered."
Therefore, Oswald stayed put in Whaley's cab.
So I apologize, Robbie, for my earlier mistake. But you still made a mistake yourself. It's just not the same one I accused you of making. 😄
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've been asked a few times to do online interviews, but I'm much more comfortable when I can write out my responses to questions that interviewers ask. (Perhaps that comes from a persistent fear of my responses coming out all "Uhhhhh's" and "Duhhhh's" in audio/video form.) 😁
And so I prefer to do "text" interviews, which I've done (twice)--in 2011 and 2021. If you'd care to read them, I (of course) have them both archived at my website (below)....
13 MINUTES LATER, DAVID VON PEIN ADDED:
I did get my courage up and challenged Jim DiEugenio to a radio debate back in 2010 [Click Here], but Jim wouldn't have any of it. He didn't like my proposed format for the debate. (And, to this day, I still can't figure out why my terms were so unpleasing to him.) ~shrug~
David Von Pein
August 30-31, 2022
August 30, 2022
