Part 1356 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of September 1—30, 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:
This first item on this page doesn't exactly qualify as an "Assassination Argument", but it's quite interesting nevertheless....
On December 18, 2019, I found something on YouTube that I had never seen before — pre-1963 motion picture film footage taken in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. This footage (starting at 4:04 in the video below) is from late May of 1960, more than three years before Dealey Plaza became widely known.
Video Source: The G. William Jones Collection at SMU.
Official permission for DVP to re-upload verified HERE.
David Von Pein
September 1, 2022
================================
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Almost sixty years later, all anti-SBT scenarios that have been placed on the table by conspiracy theorists have been embarrassing failures. And the reason for that is quite simple: It's because the Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously the correct solution to explain the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally on 11/22/63.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Single-Bullet Theory In Action
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Ultimate In SBT Denial
-------------------------------
"Coming up with a believable and reasonable conspiracy-endorsing alternative to the Warren Commission's single-bullet conclusion is something that simply cannot be done. And that's mainly because the SBT is obviously the truth. And when you try to dismantle the truth and replace it with some kind of half-baked, incoherent "alternative theory" (such as the "TWO BULLETS WENT INTO JFK AND NEVER EXITED AND THEN DISAPPEARED" claptrap), you're not likely to find the alternative to be nearly as compelling (or reasonable) as the truth." -- David Von Pein; September 1, 2010
-------------------------------
"Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body. Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December 14, 2013
ALLEN LOWE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Finally found someone who agrees..." ??
Yeah, right, Allen. There's only several million people who believe the SBT is true. And yet you seem to think that I'm in a minority of one. Much the same way Jim DiEugenio holds the wacky belief that Vince Bugliosi's book has been endorsed by just two people in the whole world---myself and Tom Hanks:
"The only person who believed it ['Reclaiming History'] was Tom Hanks." -- James DiEugenio [4/15/2010]
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I wasn't talking about the number of people who believe in a conspiracy, Cory. I was only talking about the SBT. And the CTer anti-SBT versions of the shooting are---unquestionably---an embarrassment. That's a fact.
What's your version of the shooting that replaces the SBT, Cory? Can you avoid the embarrassing and absurd bullet-vanishing scenarios of your predecessors?
Good luck.
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You must be kidding by asking me this question, Cory!
There was no "shallow wound" in JFK's back. That's part of the CTer version of events. It's certainly NOT what I believe and it's certainly NOT what the autopsy doctors concluded:
"The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID ALL THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
At what point will conspiracy theorists begin to realize that their anti-SBT theories are far more ludicrous, unsupportable, and untenable than is the single-bullet conclusion endorsed by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
David Von Pein
September 2-3, 2022
================================
CHRIS BRISTOW SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And I never said Dr. McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives:
And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above.
Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance.
Also, please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that.
I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA Special. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland.
CHRIS BRISTOW SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's quite alright, Chris. And thank you for admitting you were mistaken. That's a refreshing thing to see here once in a while. 😁
JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Calling other members (whoever they might be) "Disinformation operatives" is most definitely against this forum's rules.
(Isn't it? It certainly should be anyway.)
David Von Pein
September 5-6, 2022
================================
JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're incorrect on this, Joe. Nobody gave Jackie a "Lambchop puppet" at Love Field, and that fact is proven in the film clip shown below. In this video clip, Jackie is clearly handling a cluster of flowers and not any kind of toy or puppet just after she enters the limousine at Love Field:
Photographs taken at Love Field (like the one shown below) also tend to debunk the notion that there was a "Lambchop" toy.
Click for a bigger view:
David Von Pein
September 6, 2022
================================
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The curtain rod "story" was most definitely a "story" (i.e., lie) invented by just one person---Lee Harvey Oswald. And unless conspiracy theorists think Buell Wesley Frazier was lying his ass off when he used the words "curtain rods" three separate times in his 11/22/63 affidavit (pictured below), then it's pretty obvious where the curtain rod "story" originated.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's "Curtain Rods" Lie
Click to enlarge....
David Von Pein
September 14, 2022
================================
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course Oswald didn't eat lunch on the first floor after his encounter with Officer Baker. That was merely one of the many lies Oswald told the police after his arrest.
Oswald also didn't "stand around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley" after the encounter with Baker either, which is yet another of Lee Oswald's lies that appears in James Bookhout's 11/22/63 solo FBI report.
One of the very few things that Oswald didn't lie about after he was arrested, however, was his encounter with Officer Baker in the lunchroom. And that's because he had no reason whatsoever to want to lie about that particular event. And he also knew he couldn't very well lie and say the encounter never took place at all, because there were two witnesses (Baker and Truly) who could easily prove that such an encounter did take place.
In order to believe that the authorities just MADE UP the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter from whole cloth, you'd have to believe (as many conspiracy theorists do) that BOTH Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were big fat liars, which is an absurd belief (for all the reasons discussed at the link below).
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
If Lee Harvey Oswald had said to Captain J.W. Fritz (et al) that he was outside on the steps at the time of the shooting, that key information would most certainly have shown up in the official reports of multiple people who were present to hear Oswald's statements during the interrogations (e.g., the reports of Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Kelley, and Holmes).
Instead, we have this:
"I [Captain Fritz] asked him [LHO] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." [Warren Report; Page 600]
And this:
"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." [Hosty/Bookhout 11/22/63 joint report; WCR, Page 613]
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Actually, Pat, Joe Ball didn't need to "trick" Buell Frazier into saying any such thing....because Frazier himself had already admitted to the FBI---months earlier, on December 1, 1963---that the bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) "could have been" the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination. That "could have been" information was brought out in Bardwell Odum's 12/1/63 interview with Frazier, which can be found here in Commission Document No. 7....
"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."
BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).
The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.
So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.
The two 12/1/63 FBI interviews with Frazier and Randle that I just linked to are quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when both Frazier and Randle were shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), they both told Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one they saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would they BOTH have said something like that to the FBI if the bag they each saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag they were shown by the FBI?
If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier saw Lee Oswald carrying had really been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag they were both later shown on December 1st, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in either Randle's mind or Frazier's mind—because the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag that Frazier and Randle saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.
But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....
Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.
....both Frazier and Randle, per Commission Document No. 7, tell two FBI agents that the "original" bag they were shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.
Do conspiracy theorists think that both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when they each said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one they saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Were both Frazier and Randle only concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in their FBI interviews?
In other words, both Buell & Linnie Mae knew the original bag was much too long, but neither one of them was able to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so they each said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of their eyes was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?
Or maybe some CTers think that FBI agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeely were merely putting words into the mouths of both Buell and Linnie Mae that neither of them actually uttered at all during their 12/1/63 interviews --- namely these words: "Could have been the sack".
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh yes, it's certainly very true that Buell Wesley Frazier has always strongly suggested that the bag he saw Oswald carrying into the Book Depository on 11/22 was way too short to be the bag that was found by the police in the Sniper's Nest (CE142).
But those FBI reports in CD7 have got to make you scratch your head just a little bit, though. Because if LHO's bag had really been only 24 to 27 inches in length, why would BOTH Frazier AND Randle have told the FBI that CE142 could have been the bag they saw Oswald carrying---regardless of the color?!
Plus, there's another FBI report from 11/22/63, in which Linnie Randle told James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that was her very first approximation of the bag's size.
Related discussion HERE.
David Von Pein
September 18-22, 2022
================================
RON EGE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.
MARK KNIGHT SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If JFK had been hit as early as Z190, we would not have him waiting until Z226 to jerk his arms upward toward his throat. No way. No how. If that arm movement was involuntary (and I certainly think it was involuntary), then such a reaction would be as immediate as humanly possible....which is precisely what we see in frames Z225 to Z230 of the Zapruder Film.
In a gunshot wound incident like this, a two-second delay is practically forever.
And when speaking about Jackie Kennedy's reactions, I'll remind you that I did say this in my previous post regarding that matter....
"...we ARE only talking about 1.86 seconds in real time--between Z190 and Z224..."
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Frankly, Gerry, I don't think there's anything particularly "odd" about JFK's movements just prior to the time he disappears behind the sign. And I can't see any odd facial expression being exhibited by JFK at that time either. But it is very difficult to discern any facial details at that point in the film, since the limousine is further away from Mr. Zapruder's camera than it is just a few seconds later.
https://drive.google.com/DVP Video File/The Zapruder Film
When comparing the Z-Film's "pre-sign" frames with the "post-sign" frames, it looks to me as if Kennedy's right arm is in pretty much the very same position AFTER he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign as it was before going behind the sign. And Dale Myers pretty much confirmed this fact years ago when he did his "interpolation" work to study the movements of both Kennedy and Connally in the Zapruder Film.
Myers said this (on his FAQ page at his "Secrets Of A Homicide" website):
"When the sequence is viewed without the sign's interference, it is clear that the interpolated motion forms a contiguous bridge between the known actions of the two men as seen both before and after the Stemmons freeway sign. In short, Kennedy and Connally made no large, dramatic movements while hidden from Zapruder's camera." -- Dale K. Myers
Some related SBT talk HERE.
MICHAEL GRIFFITH SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"As more and more time goes by, and as more and more convincing tests are produced that verify the factual nature of the Single-Bullet Theory (e.g., Dale Myers' excellent computer animation work and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT re-creation in "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"), it's my personal opinion that conspiracy theorists totally ignore the validity of the SBT merely because they think it's expected of them. They wouldn't be good "CTers" if they dared put any faith in anything Mr. Specter or Mr. Redlich or Mr. Belin said. So they are forced to discount the SBT as pure junk out of sheer habit.
But it certainly isn't out of necessity that the conspiracists scoff at the SBT. Not at all. For, the CTers can still pretend they see J.D. Tippit or some other "Badge Man" firing a shot from the Grassy Knoll...even WITH the Single-Bullet Theory intact." -- David Von Pein; August 19, 2009
SEAN COLEMAN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sean,
The Warren Commission definitely was NOT forcing itself into accepting the Single-Bullet Theory at all costs due to the existence of James Tague. How do we know what I just said is true? Because of Page #117 of the Warren Report itself, which states quite clearly and directly that the Commission was readily acknowledging the possibility that the damage to the Main Street curb (and, hence, the wounding of bystander James T. Tague) could have very well been caused by a fragment from the HEAD SHOT.
Therefore, via a possible scenario of Tague being wounded by a head-shot fragment, the SBT is not a MANDATORY conclusion to reach to still arrive at a final conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.
I, myself, do think that the Single-Bullet Theory is mandatory in order for Oswald to be the lone assassin of President Kennedy. But the Warren Commission's collective opinion was not as strict and restrictive as my own on the SBT matter....and Page 117 of the Warren Report (seen below) proves that fact.
Related Link:
http://jfk-archives/The "5.6 Seconds" Myth
RON EGE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Even an alternate version of the SBT would make much more sense than what most CTers seem to believe---which is that JFK & Connally were struck by at least THREE different bullets instead of just the one CE399 missile.
My point was: You can still very much be a conspiracy believer ("CTer") and yet still believe the SBT is true as well.
There's nothing in the JFK Assassination Manual (that I'm aware of) that prohibits a conspiracy advocate from endorsing the Single-Bullet Theory (whether it be the Warren Commission's version of the SBT or another version of a "single-bullet" conclusion).
And, frankly, it's always puzzled me as to why there aren't far more conspiracy believers endorsing the SBT. Because, in my opinion, Vincent Bugliosi was 100% correct when he said that "a child could author it" [the SBT]. [The full Bugliosi quote is below.]
"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it. .... Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it? .... When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed, Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-303 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
MICHAEL GRIFFITH SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Given the alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting, plus the location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza, plus the fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body at all, plus the fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken, plus the fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to an external stimulus at precisely the same moment in time on the Zapruder Film....I wonder how anyone in 2022 (or any other year or millennium) can be so blind as to not accept the Single-Bullet Theory as fact.
~shrug~
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no idea why you're labeling it "the DVP version", because the version of the SBT that you're talking about in your post above (as it relates specifically to Governor Connally having the ability to turn completely around in his seat AFTER being hit in the back, wrist, and leg by a bullet) is exactly the same as the Warren Commission's version and even the HSCA's version.....because both the WC and the HSCA also concluded that Gov. Connally definitely DID turn around in his seat and stare right at JFK at a point in time after Connally had been hit by the one and only bullet that pierced his body.
But it's still okay with me if you want to call it the "DVP Version". I like being associated with something filled with so much common sense and logic (plus the number of whole bullets that are in evidence---one).
David Von Pein
September 25-30, 2022
