Part 1361 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of February 1—28, 2023. 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.
BILL BROWN SAID THIS.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not necessarily, Pat.
Oswald was, of course, in a very big hurry right after shooting the President, and as he moved quickly from the Sniper's Nest to the stairway, he simply forgot to wipe off the trigger guard of the rifle (IMO). He was more concerned with the stock of the weapon (IMO).
A dumb mistake on Oswald's part? Yes, it sure was. No doubt about that. But I think he made that mistake nonetheless.
Can I prove any of this? Nope. I sure can't. It's one of those things that can never be "proved"---by anyone. (Unless we have a seance and are successful at making contact with Lee Oswald from his residence down below. Do you happen to know any good spiritual mediums?) 😁
BTW, the scenario that Bill Brown laid out in his forum post linked above (regarding Oswald shooting JFK while only wearing his white T-shirt and then wiping off prints with his brown shirt) is the exact same scenario that I believe is true as well. I talk about it at my "Oswald Timeline" page, originally written in 2007.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But that doesn't mean that Lee Oswald would have necessarily been aware of this "rare" fact about the "wooden stock" on 11/22/63, does it Pat?
I think he did wipe down most of the gun with his brown shirt....but he missed the trigger guard prints.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Pat, I certainly don't believe for a single solitary second that any of the authorities planted the shirt fibers on the rifle in order to try and frame Oswald. (Which quite obviously is what you believe happened.)
Therefore, I believe there must be a non-"planting" (i.e., non-conspiratorial) answer to what you just said above about the fingerprint powder and the fibers. Just like there is a non-conspiratorial explanation for ALL other "conspiracy" claims made by JFK conspiracy believers (to date). (IMHO.)
Maybe Lieutenant Day did miss seeing the fibers initially. Isn't that a much more likely answer than the CTer "The fibers were planted" explanation?
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What Pat Speer just said above — "The most likely solution--by far--is that the fibers were planted" — is total bull!
Always remember Hanlon's Razor, Pat....
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Pat,
The key word in Hanlon's rule of thumb which you seem to have sidestepped in your courtroom scenario above is this important word: "Adequately."
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, via Hanlon's adage, the "stupidity" you laid out in your simulated scenario is certainly NOT "adequate". And, just as you said, nobody with an ounce of brains could possibly even begin to believe such nonsense. Therefore, Hanlon's Razor cannot possibly be applied in your given scenario.
But the "Fibers Wedged In The Butt Plate" situation is rather different, and when looking at the WC testimony of the FBI's hair and fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, I see no problem at all in believing that the fibers became legitimately adhered to Oswald's rifle via ordinary non-conspiratorial, non-planted means.
It seems likely to me that when Lt. Day was dusting the rifle for prints, he merely pushed the fibers into the butt-plate crevice. And that's precisely what Stombaugh says in his testimony (excerpted below):
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
[...]
Mr. STOMBAUGH. ...This was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were these fibers in a position where they could have easily been knocked off by rough use?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.
Mr. EISENBERG. In the crevice?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice.
Mr. DULLES. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in part by the dusting?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.
Mr. EISENBERG. Of the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice.
Mr. EISENBERG. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had been folded into the crevice by the dusting?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.
-------------------
Pat,
Where did you get your information about the fibers being ON TOP of the fingerprint powder? I can't find anything in Stombaugh's testimony where he says any such thing. The closest would be this passage here, but he doesn't specifically say the fibers were resting ON TOP of the powder:
"These were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good."
Is there other testimony from somebody other than Stombaugh about the rifle fibers which says they were "On Top" of the powder?
Also....
Pat, do you also believe that the fibers found in the CE142 paper bag (which generally matched the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage) were "planted" by the cops too? Just wondering.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Your last comments about the rifle fibers didn't "prove" your point that those fibers were planted at all, Pat. Not even close.
You're being too overzealous in your efforts to paint the DPD as rotten evidence-planters here, Pat. You're telling us what you THINK Stombaugh SHOULD have said in a given scenario. But I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about Stombaugh's testimony at all.
Because there's no reason to believe that Lt. Day's dusting of the rifle couldn't have resulted in some of the fingerprint powder working its way down into the crevice of the gun. And this section of Stombaugh's testimony says that the fibers were "caught" on a "jagged edge" of the gun, and then Lt. Day pushed ("folded") them further down into the crevice:
"I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed."
Nothing sinister or even unusual there at all, IMO. And there's most certainly nothing in Stombaugh's testimony that would lead me to think the fibers were definitely resting ON TOP of all of the fingerprint powder. He just simply did not make any such definitive statement.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're totally misrepresenting what Stombaugh said. He said (my emphasis):
"I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed."
It's the "jagged edge" that tore the fibers from Oswald's shirt. They were adhering to that "jagged edge" and then when Lt. Day came along with his brush, he "folded" them down into the crevice.
That's a very logical conclusion, and it doesn't require any conspiracy or cover-up involving anyone.
And there's no reason at all why a scenario couldn't have occurred which had Lt. Day dusting the crevice area of the rifle FIRST (before he ever touched the fibers), thus filling the crevice with powder, and only THEN he folded the fibers down into that crevice which was now filled with fingerprint powder. You can't possibly prove some scenario like that didn't occur.
In my opinion, Pat, the manner in which you have evaluated Paul Stombaugh's testimony and the whole "Fibers On The Rifle" topic is the only thing here that "smells to high heaven".
Plus....
It looks like most CTers here have decided to just take the word of the accused assassin when he claimed that he changed his shirt at his roominghouse on Nov. 22 (from a red one to a brown one)---even though we know from the testimony of at least three witnesses (and there's probably even more) that Oswald WAS wearing a BROWN shirt on 11/22 before he ever went to his roominghouse that day. (See my next post for more about this.)
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But there are statements from multiple witnesses who saw Oswald on Nov. 22 BEFORE he ever went home to his Beckley room, with those witnesses saying that they saw Oswald wearing a BROWN shirt. Marrion Baker being one such witness (and I think it's reasonable to think that when Baker said "brown jacket", he was talking about LHO's brown untucked shirt, because we know that Oswald didn't even own a brown "jacket").
Another "brown shirt" witness is Mary Bledsoe, who saw Oswald on Cecil McWatters' bus, which was also before Oswald ever had any chance to get to his roominghouse to change any clothes on 11/22:
Mr. BALL -- Now, what color shirt did he have on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE -- He had a brown shirt.
And another "brown shirt" witness is cab driver William Whaley:
Mr. WHALEY -- He had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And your thinking that no powder at all could have gotten into the crevice is mind-bogglingly silly on your part. (After all, those DPD cops were nothing but incompetent boobs most of the time, right?)
Anyway, obviously SOME powder DID seep into the crevice, whether it was intentionally done by Day or not.
Once again, like most CTers in the world, you're putting some kind of conspiratorial/sinister spin on something that doesn't require it at all. You should stop doing that, Pat.
Nothing about this "Fibers In The Butt Plate" issue seems the slightest bit suspicious or strange or "cover-uppish" to me. It's the CTers who are creating the "strangeness" and the "suspicion" (IMO).
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Also see the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book concerning the topic of Oswald's brown shirt:
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But if there had REALLY been any curtain rods (i.e., if Oswald really had rods in his large package on 11/22), then Oswald would (of course) have told the police that fact after he was in custody. That only stands to reason. But he didn't do that. Instead, he denied all knowledge of any curtain rods.*
* Yes, I know CTers will insist that I'm supposed to believe that Captain Fritz was the "real liar" in this regard....but IMO that solution is just not a reasonable one. Certainly not as reasonable or realistic as having the accused assassin being the one telling the police tall tales. Plus, it's not ONLY Fritz we'd have to call a liar here. It's other people too--like Jim Bookhout of the FBI and Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service:
"He [LHO] denied telling Wesley Frazier that the purpose of his visit to Irving, Texas, on the night of November 21, 1963, was to obtain some curtain rods from Mrs. Ruth Paine." -- James W. Bookhout; 11/23/63 FBI Report
----------
"In response to questions put by Captain Fritz, Oswald...denied that he brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he had ever had any conversation about curtain rods with the boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment." -- Thomas J. Kelley; Warren Report, Page 626
David Von Pein
February 1-3, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.
DAVID JOSEPHS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh no! Tell me you're just kidding! I'm destroyed beyond repair! I've been put on Ignore by a conspiracy fantasist! Oh, the horror of it!!!
And this is a conspiracy fantasist who thinks there were two Lee Oswalds and two Marguerite Oswalds and who also has the temerity to gush forth this ridiculous and absurd statement:
"There is not a single item of evidence you can offer that cannot [be] shown to be inauthentic...not one."
Fantasy at its best right there.
More absurdities authored by David Josephs over the last several years are archived below:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=David+Josephs
DAVID JOSEPHS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Quoting the late Vincent Bugliosi (who knew more than just a little bit about the subject of "Admissible Evidence" at a court trial):
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. .... The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.
I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And here are two more quotes from Mr. Bugliosi that should be very easy for any reasonable person to wholeheartedly agree with who has been exposed to the threadbare arguments presented by the various conspiracy theorists since 1963:
-------------------
"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen. In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators behind the assassination were. So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 982 of "Reclaiming History"
-------------------
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History"
-------------------
Dozens Of Bonus VB Quotations (Culled By Yours Truly):
http://jfk-archives / DVP's Favorite Vince Bugliosi Quotes
A LITTLE BIT LATER, DVP ADDED:
One more VB gem---just for the common sense (and the laughs):
"The Garrison devotees have apparently never been troubled by the question of why [Clay] Shaw and [David] Ferrie would select Oswald, of all people, as their hit man...or patsy when they had no way of knowing that the president would even come back to New Orleans, where Oswald lived at the time. Or were they planning to finance Oswald as he traveled, Carcano in his violin case, all around the country stalking Kennedy for a good opportunity to kill him or be the patsy for someone else who would? If the latter, aren't they troubled by the fact that we know, from Oswald's known whereabouts, that he never did travel around the country?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 847 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes
David Von Pein
February 3-4, 2023
================================
LANCE PAYETTE SAID THIS.
RON BULMAN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oswald, himself, admitted to having the gun in the theater (see Warren Report, Pg. 601).
Plus, in order to promote the "Oswald Didn't Really Have Any Gun In The Theater" theory, you'd have to call civilian witness Johnny Brewer a liar too. And is that a reasonable thing to do?
Plus:
If Lee Oswald had really been innocent of killing BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many CTers seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like such a GUILTY person in the Texas Theater?
Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? Things such as pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it". Those two verbal statements—all by themselves—are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.
What do CTers think Oswald meant by "It's all over now" or "This is it"? (And he most certainly uttered at least one of those phrases, if not both, on Nov. 22 in the theater.) Can any conspiracy theorist explain (in a reasonable and believable way) what the "IT" means in each of those statements?
More on Oswald's post-arrest behavior here.
RON EGE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
IMO, Oswald's "Assassination Plan" (if we can call it that) has all the earmarks of being a virtually last-minute plan with no advanced thought at all of any escape plan. I think that's obvious by just examining the things he did on both Nov. 21 and 22.
I also think that Oswald himself truly felt (on Friday morning) that he very likely would have no real opportunity to pull off a successful assassination from anyplace within the Book Depository.
So many things could have interrupted his plan to shoot from any of the windows within the TSBD. But luck was certainly with him that day, no doubt about it, when Bonnie Ray Williams elected to vacate the sixth floor just in time for Oswald to accomplish his task on an empty 6th floor.
If only Bonnie Ray had decided to finish his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich on Floor #6. If he had done so, would tragedy have been averted? I think so. (Apart from Bonnie Ray's tragic dental bill, that is.)
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO ADDED:
A few other thoughts [via a 2015 discussion]....
"Lee Oswald might just have been winging it. (Who knows.) His assassination plan, as we know, was practically done at the last minute. I think he was probably extremely surprised that he was actually able to have that 6th floor of the TSBD all to himself long enough to get the job done and fire those three shots at JFK --- because given all the obstacles and potential witnesses that could have caused him to abort his assassination efforts, I just don't see how Oswald's state of mind on the morning of November 22nd could have been anything other than this one ----
"Since I'm not on a suicide mission today, and since so many things could happen that could cause me to change my mind about pulling the trigger on the President (including the weather and the actions of other people in the building), I'm not too confident of being able to pull this assassination off. If I'm able to do it, fine. But if not, that's fine too."
Now, given such a mindset leading up to 12:30 PM on 11/22/63, it's quite possible that Lee hadn't put any thought at all (or very little thought) into what he would do afterward. Therefore, after he did the dirty deed and was able to escape the building, his mindset could very well have been --- "Gee, what the f**k do I do now?!" " -- DVP; March 1, 2015
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I would guess that when given a choice of which political figure to take a shot at (Kennedy or Nixon) during those days in late November of 1963, Lee Oswald had his "sights" set a little higher than Mr. Nixon (plus there's also the important additional fact that one of those political figures was going to be driving slowly past the front door of Oswald's very own workplace). So I don't imagine the choice was too difficult.
Or are you suggesting that Oswald could have killed two birds with one Carcano in Dallas in Nov. '63? I suppose he could have bagged Nixon at his Pepsi convention on November 21st and then while Lee was at work on Nov. 22, he could get himself a second politician in JFK.
And he could have gone for the Hat Trick by also taking out Lyndon Johnson while his car was also on Elm Street on 11/22. 😁
BTW, speaking of Oswald wanting to take a shot at Nixon, I've added this page to my website ---> Oswald And The Nixon Incident.
David Von Pein
February 4-16, 2023
================================
FRED LITWIN SAID:
The CIA Wants You to Read My Book! ["Oliver Stone's Film-Flam"]
A one-star review on Amazon reveals I am being paid by the CIA. The accusation that I am some sort of shill for the CIA surfaces every week.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Like Fred, I too have grown accustomed to being called a "CIA asset" by the conspiracists. In this review for my 2014 JFK book, here's somebody who thinks I'm "friends" with the CIA:
"I guess that the friends of the CIA and the perpetrators of a coup d'état have nothing better to do after fifty years than to lie, lie, and tell more lies."
And here's another mental giant who seems to want to tie me (and Mel Ayton) in to the Langley agency:
"Is this author...on the payroll of the CIA or some other perpetrator of the crime of the century?"
Overall, though, the Amazon reviews and ratings for my book have been pretty decent (averaging 4.2 out of 5 [as of 2/11/2023]). The "DVP is CIA" mob is lagging behind! 😁
David Von Pein
February 11, 2023
================================
VINCE PALAMARA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
After taking a quick glance at Matt Douthit's review/hit piece of Fred Litwin's latest book, here are just three things (among many) that Douthit gets wrong:
1.) Fred Litwin never implied that O.P. Wright gave CE399 to Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen at 7:30 PM. That's absurd. The 7:30 time comes from Johnsen's memo that he wrote after he returned to the White House on 11/22. Johnsen wrote that memo at 7:30. That's the "7:30" that Fred Litwin is referring to in his book. And Bob Frazier would have no doubt seen Johnsen's "7:30 note", which was still stapled to the envelope containing CE399 when Todd delivered the bullet to Frazier.
2.) And Fred is certainly correct when he says that John Connally's account of the shooting generally supports the SBT. And that's mainly because all reasonable people know that John Connally is just about the WORST EYEwitness in Dealey Plaza when it comes to the question of: Did the first shot hit JFK? John B. Connally could not possibly have answered that question knowledgeably....because he never saw JFK during the operative timeframe. Why CTers ignore that basic fact is beyond me.
3.) Then, of course, there's the ridiculous assertion made by Douthit (and other CTers, such as DiEugenio) that Fred Litwin's book ("Oliver Stone's Film-Flam") isn't really a book at all---simply because much (or most) of the contents of the book started out in blog form on Fred's website. But....so what? I'm sure that many books have been published that started out in different non-book forms. But once they're compiled and completed and edited (with sources added), etc., they become books. (Duh.) This repeated "It's not really a book" refrain is nothing but an additional excuse used by conspiracy theorists to trash and disregard the well-sourced contents of Fred's book. In short, it's a pathetic (and totally absurd) complaint.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're dead wrong here, Pat. As I said, John Connally was THE WORST eyewitness in Dealey Plaza. He himself (sans his wife) cannot say which shot hit Kennedy. No way. No how. And he's always said he was not hit himself by Shot 1 and he was hit by Shot 2. Perfectly consistent with the SBT.
In my opinion, 99% of John Connally's anti-SBT stance over the years came from his wife and his unwillingness to go against Nellie's account. And, of course, we know via the Zapruder Film that Nellie herself was certainly not turned in such a way at the proper time to see whether JFK was hit by Shot #1 or not. So she's not really a very good EYEwitness either (with respect to the validity of the SBT).
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I still wonder why CTers refuse to admit this fact:
John Connally HIMSELF could not possibly have KNOWN FOR CERTAIN whether he was hit by the same bullet that struck President Kennedy due to the fact that Governor Connally DID NOT SEE JFK at the point in time when Kennedy was first struck.
Therefore, based on his own personal observations, how can John Connally KNOW that the Single-Bullet Theory is untrue. He can't. He couldn't. And he didn't.
I don't yet recall speaking to a single conspiracy advocate who will admit to the fact I just outlined in the above paragraph. Why is that?
~strokes chin in bewilderment~
Another Fact:
Governor John B. Connally's anti-SBT stance was derived almost totally from his wife Nellie's adamant anti-SBT opinions. And I don't see how anyone can possibly argue otherwise.
ANDREW PRUTSOK SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I disagree (in this instance). Because the three things in my last post that I put in ALL CAPS are absolute FACTS that (for some mysterious reason) almost all CTers just glide right past and ignore entirely.....as if John Connally HAD actually SEEN the President at the proper "SBT" timeframe and did KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the SBT was pure bunk. But neither of those things are true, and never were true.
So why do CTers continue to use John Connally as the perfect anti-SBT witness when he's really just the opposite?
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
John Connally's never-wavering statements regarding the sequence of the shots and which shot hit him are fully supportive of the SBT. Those are the statements I was talking about. Not his misguided belief that the SBT is wrong. (Which is a belief we all know he inherited from his wife, because it's certainly not based on anything Mr. Connally himself saw or heard.)
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
John Connally was highly influenced by his wife's opinion. You surely don't deny that, do you?
You, Pat, put a lot of stock in Governor Connally's "impressions". But, IMO, such "impressions" aren't worth very much when we realize (as we must) that Mr. Connally's "impressions" were derived without even seeing the President at any time during the critical time period in question.
Also:
Please post something to verify this statement of yours, Pat:
"At times he [John Connally] even said he'd heard the impact on Kennedy." -- Pat Speer; 2/14/2023
Because I never once heard Governor Connally say (or even vaguely imply) any such thing when talking about the first shot that was fired.
Mr. Connally always said he heard the impact of Kennedy getting hit with the head shot, yes. But shot #1? I don't think so.
I think you're mixing up your "heard the impact" shots, Pat.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thank you for forthrightly clearing that up, Pat. I appreciate it.
But, despite what Governor Connally "sensed" (but didn't SEE, remember), the Single-Bullet Theory is most certainly not the "hoax" that Pat Speer believes it to be.
The following statement is one I make with all sincerity...
When ALL the evidence is considered (including the large number of "SBT"-like things that exist surrounding the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally), it would truly be a miracle if the SBT were NOT true.
David Von Pein
February 11-15, 2023
================================
JOE BAUER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Henry Wade's news conferences on the weekend of the assassination:
http://dvp-potpourri/henry-wade-press-conference-11-22-63
http://dvp-potpourri/henry-wade-press-conference-11-24-63
The name "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" was mentioned on NBC-TV at about 4:00 PM (Dallas time) on 11/22 [audio and video linked here]. And the FPCC was undoubtedly also mentioned on other TV and radio outlets as well (because if NBC had it, you know other networks had it too).
So Jack Ruby (and everybody else in America) could have easily known about Oswald's affiliation with the FPCC many hours before Henry Wade's late-night press conference on Friday night.
RON BULMAN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Any number of media people who had contact with Lee Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of '63 could (and probably did) provide all the information they had on Oswald immediately after the assassination (seeing as how Mr. Oswald was the most talked-about person on the planet during the hours just after JFK was murdered).
And that info coming from New Orleans would have included information about the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee", which was info that was originally provided (voluntarily) by Lee Oswald himself in August of '63 via his radio and television interviews on New Orleans stations WDSU-TV and WDSU-Radio.
I would guess that right after the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" was first revealed as the prime suspect in the assassination, the people at WDSU in New Orleans were on the phone as quickly as they could dial, providing national media outlets with all the information they had on Oswald (including their video and audio tapes of Oswald's interviews).
There was nothing sinister about such "FPCC" information being shared with the national news media very quickly. Given the fact that every newsman in the country was no doubt hungry for ANY info pertaining to this guy named Oswald in the hours after JFK was shot, I don't find it surprising in the least that the national television networks found out that Lee Oswald was affiliated with the FPCC by 4:00 PM CST on Nov. 22. In fact, I would have expected that information to come out very quickly. Because that's what good newsmen and reporters do---they dig stuff up. And many times they dig it up very quickly.
David Von Pein
February 20-21, 2023
================================
IAN LLOYD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, it looks like yet another conspiracy myth has sprouted up out of the woodwork, with this newest myth revolving around the subject of "outside contract workers laying the new plywood floor on the 5th & 6th floors".
But, however, we know from the Warren Commission testimony of various witnesses that the floor-repairing project that was going on in the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63 was most definitely not being done by "outside contract workers" at all. It was, instead, being done by the regular TSBD employees. And that fact is confirmed in the testimony of multiple Depository workers, including Bonnie Ray Williams [at 3 H 163], Billy Lovelady [6 H 337], Danny Arce [6 H 364], and Superintendent Roy Truly [3 H 237].
Also:
Here's an excerpt from page 26 of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", concerning the topic of the floor-laying crew (click to enlarge):
David Von Pein
February 23, 2023
================================
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nonsense. There's no problem whatsoever with the validity of the bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder. The only "problem" lies with the conspiracy theorists and their constant inability to fairly and properly evaluate the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.
All four of the Tippit bullet shells were conclusively tied to the .38 Smith & Wesson revolver that Lee Harvey Oswald had in his possession when he was arrested inside the Texas Theater—which is an arrest that occurred a mere 35 minutes after Officer Tippit was shot. Which, of course, can only lead to one logical conclusion——Oswald killed Tippit. (With the only other alternative being this very absurd one.)
A key fact concerning the murder of J.D. Tippit that most conspiracy theorists continue to deny to this day is this fact:
The two shell casings found by the two Davis girls have a rock-solid and clear chain of custody after those shells made it into the hands of the Dallas Police Department, with Captain George M. Doughty and Detective C.N. Dhority of the DPD both placing their marks on the one shell (each) that they handled on 11/22/63.
Dale Myers saw and photographed those shells at the National Archives many years ago, with Myers taking note of the markings that exist on the inside lip of each shell. (See pages 267 and 268 of Myers' book "With Malice" [1998 Edition].)
And Myers also points out in his book the fact that each of those police officers (Doughty and Dhority) positively identified those bullet shells (one each) in 1964 (via Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011, on Page 7 and Page 8).
So, even if we were to throw out the two "Poe" bullet shell casings (due to the confusion of whether or not Officer J.M. Poe marked those two shells), it wouldn't make a bit of difference....and everybody (even all CTers) should know why it doesn't make a bit of difference. It's because we know from the witness testimony that there was only ONE gunman at the Tippit murder scene. And, quite obviously, that ONE gunman was only dumping shells on the ground from ONE single gun at Tenth & Patton on 11/22/63.
Therefore, ALL FOUR shells that were found at 10th and Patton (including the two Poe shells) were obviously dropped there by the ONE AND ONLY gunman who shot Officer Tippit. (Why does logic and common sense like this never seem to enter the heads of JFK conspiracists?)
And with respect to Gerald Hill's 11/22/63 radio transmission about the Tippit shells being from an "automatic" weapon, let's hear what Sergeant Hill had to say about that subject in this 1993 interview (fast-forward to 15:05).
David Von Pein
February 26, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The fact is: ALL Depository witness "timelines" of when they saw Oswald are GUESSES and "approximations". A 12:15 witness might very well be off by several minutes in their estimate. Nobody was looking at a clock when they said they saw LHO at a certain time.
And it's silly for CTers to place so much weight on Carolyn Arnold's "12:15" timing or Eddie Piper's "Just at 12:00" testimony, with those CTers all the while ignoring all the evidence pointing to LHO as the assassin.
Plus: there's Oswald's HUGE "curtain rods" lie that he twice dished up for Buell Frazier. That one single provable lie, virtually by itself, proves Lee Oswald's guilt. (At least for reasonable people.)
David Von Pein
February 28, 2023
