Part 1371 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of December 1—31, 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.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's clear as day (to me) that when Dr. Robert McClelland wrote the following words in this 4:45 PM Admission Note on 11/22/63....
"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."
....McClelland was only talking about where he thought at the time the bullet had ENTERED JFK's head (via the erroneous information he had garnered in Trauma Room #1 from Dr. Jenkins).
McClelland's "left temple" reference is obviously not meant to convey information concerning where the large wound was located on the President's head. McClelland never even attempts to mention the location of the large exit wound in his 4:45 Admission Note. He never says a word about the large wound at all.
So it's a mystery to me as to why on Earth Pat Speer seems to think that Dr. McClelland's initial 4:45 PM report suggests that he (McClelland) actually was implying he saw a huge hole in the "left temple" of President Kennedy. I don't interpret it that way at all. And I don't think very many other people would either.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why not? What rule book did you get that out of?
Anyway, you're obviously wrong in your above comment, because that is exactly what Dr. McClelland did do in his November 22 Admission Note -- i.e., he wrote a report in which he only described the location for where he thought (incorrectly, of course) the bullet had entered the head of President Kennedy, and he did not describe (at all) the location of the large wound of exit.
Like it or not, that's precisely what Dr. McClelland did.
[Also see the related discussion HERE.]
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
LOL back at ya! I certainly hope you're not placing me in the category of someone who actually finds the story of the late Dr. Robert McClelland "credible". Because nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I've been ripping McClelland's story to shreds for many years now (particularly his insane "pulled-up scalp" fantasy).
And I certainly don't require the assistance of Mr. Bugliosi (or anyone else) when it comes to evaluating the multiple things that Dr. McClelland gets wrong in his initial November 22nd statement. It's all right there on pages 11 and 12 of CE392, including the bizarre conclusion reached by Dr. McClelland about there being "a fragment wound of the trachea". What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway? It would seem as if McClelland was speculating that a "fragment" of some sort [bullet? bone?] had caused the wound in JFK's throat. Where that notion came from is a mystery to me.
In the final analysis, Dr. McClelland's conclusion concerning the location of JFK's large head wound (which was very similar to many of the other "Back Of The Head" witnesses) is provably wrong—as discussed in greater detail HERE).
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
A NOVA/PBS Addendum....
In my last post above, I linked to one of my webpages which includes this 5-minute excerpt from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program ("Who Shot President Kennedy?"), which was hosted by Walter Cronkite. And I recently noticed something odd in that program that I had never noticed before—it's when Mr. Cronkite utters this blatant falsehood to the viewing audience:
"The drawing [pictured below] suggests what many of the photos examined by the doctors and NOVA show—a large wound about this size and location."
The above statement made by Mr. Cronkite is, of course, just flat-out wrong, because there are ZERO autopsy photographs which support the notion of a large blow-out wound in the rear (occipital) portion of JFK's head. So I haven't the slightest idea how NOVA and Cronkite arrived at the conclusion that some of the autopsy photos depict a large back-of-the-head blow-out.
And I find it very strange that a statement like the one quoted above concerning the official autopsy photographs at the National Archives would have been aired on national television, especially when weighed against the observations of the HSCA's Michael Baden (who had full and complete access in the 1970s to all of the first-generation autopsy photographs):
"Clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head."
-- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Dead wrong. (As per usual.)
And CE903 forever provides the proof that Pat Speer is dead wrong when he says that "the autopsy photos show a back wound too low to support the single-bullet theory".
And Pat's above comment also means (I guess) that the Clark Panel was filled with nothing but scheming rotten liars too....
-----------------
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. .... The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body." -- From Clark Panel Report
-----------------
So, as we can see, the Clark Panel concluded that the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in his upper back.
But, instead of relying on the Clark guys, I'm supposed to trust Dr. Speer's analysis regarding the SBT and CE903 and lots of other medical issues.*
Thanks. But no thanks.
* Yes, it's true that I'm tossing in the trash the HSCA's ridiculous "11-degree upward angle" nonsense concerning the back and throat wounds. But any sensible person must do that after looking just once at the appropriate autopsy photos.
David Von Pein
December 2, 2023
================================
MARCUS FULLER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Marcus,
That's a pretty decent job at imitating Oswald's writing. Especially your two "Hidell" attempts. I salute you.
So, Marcus, do you think all of the various "Questioned Documents Experts" (i.e., the handwriting experts) who testified in front of the Warren Commission and HSCA were all wrong (or perhaps lying) when several of them testified that the writing on the money order was put there by Lee Harvey Oswald himself?
----------------------
Warren Commission Testimony:
Mr. EISENBERG -- Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN -- Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG -- What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN -- That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG -- The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN -- That is correct.
----------------------
HSCA Testimony:
Mr. KLEIN -- The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?
Mr. McNALLY -- It was; yes.
Mr. KLEIN -- And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?
Mr. McNALLY -- That is right.
----------------------
The second picture below is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, which is a higher-quality version of the Postal Money Order, which shows the money order prior to it being treated for fingerprints (hence, the "Bleed-Thru" mystery of CE788 is explained):
Mr. EISENBERG -- Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?
Mr. CADIGAN -- Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Indeed, Greg.
Here's what I said about that topic of "bulk batch" deposits during these marathon EF forum sessions concerning the Hidell money order back in 2015:
--------------------------
DAVID V.P. SAID:
I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago.
All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order.
I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too.
DVP LATER SAID:
To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.
If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?
Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".
It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....
"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorsement of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement."
And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But banks obviously didn't treat both checks and Postal Money Orders "exactly the same way" in 1963.
How can we know this is so?
1. There's no bank stamps on the Hidell Postal Money Order (other than the Klein's endorsement).
BUT, even though #1 is true with respect to Oswald's $21.45 money order....
2. There IS a File Locator Number (FLN) stamped on the Hidell PMO (just where it should be, in the upper left corner). And we know that FLNs are the very last thing stamped on a PMO after it has been deposited and processed.
3. And the PMO in question ended up in Alexandria, Virginia, at the Postal Records Center --- which is just exactly where it should have ended its journey after being properly processed.
Now, tell me again why anyone would believe the Hidell Postal Money Order was a fraudulent document.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The old, worn-out conspiracy myths never die. You should know that that is a basic and fundamental rule of JFK forums by now, shouldn't you Jim?
Another worn-out obsolete argument that's currently making the rounds at The Education Forum is "The SBT Is Impossible" claptrap.
Next week, the "Badge Man" and "Tippit Was Buried In JFK's Grave" myths will likely be revisited.
It never ends. And never will.
--------------------------
Related Discussions:
David Von Pein
December 3, 2023
December 4-6, 2023
================================
TODD VAUGHAN SAID:
There's no photo of the bag [CE142] inside the TSBD.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Actually, there is such a photo....discussed HERE.
PAT SPEER SAID:
Uhh, wait a second, that photo is a bigger problem for WC supporters than it is for those who doubt the veracity of the bag.
Where, exactly, did anyone say they found the bag and then left it sitting around on some boxes? I mean, we know it wasn't there all along.
Numerous witnesses were in that area prior to that photo being taken, and none of the witnesses saw the bag sitting on those boxes, and the Alyea film proves it wasn't there when the sniper's nest was discovered. So we know the bag was placed there shortly before the photo was taken. Well, hell, why?
You have Montgomery and Johnson claiming they found the bag, and that Studebaker then came over and dusted it, etc. And yet they just left it there for ??? how long? Okay, let's say an hour. This PROVES then that the bag was created and/or "found" LONG after the discovery of the sniper's nest.
And this leads back to the question of the day/year. WHY did none of the first men viewing the sniper's nest, including Capt. Fritz, see a bag purported to cover nearly half the open space in the corner of the sniper's nest? ANSWER: Because there wasn't one there at the time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The CE142 bag, of course, was indeed first seen/found in the southeast corner of the 6th floor (folded up, twice). And I think that bag was very likely initially considered to be merely trash (i.e., something not directly connected to the "crime scene").
But after it was picked up, it was unfolded and placed on the boxes. And then someone realized that this homemade bag could have held the rifle and it was put into evidence.
But to those who want to believe the bag was a complete concoction of the Dallas Police --- why bring it back up to the 6th floor? It certainly wasn't to photograph it, because the DPD never did photograph it (except by accident, just barely visible in CE508).
And if the paper and tape dispensers are located on the FIRST floor (which they were), why the need to bring a "fake" bag up to the 6th? Just to lay it on the boxes and then NOT take a good picture of it? I don't get that logic.
Anyway, there were 4 or 5 officers who testified that they definitely did see the bag on the floor in the southeast corner, folded up, before the police moved it. So the conspiracy theorists have more people to call liars now (I guess).
PATRICK COLLINS SAID:
David,
I agree and would add that the notion that the DPD would "concoct" the paper bag to somehow implicate Oswald is ridiculous. It also is, as you say, illogical. How would they know, for example, that Lee had carried a paper package to work that day? It was also, in my opinion, not needed. Was the rifle not enough?!
It is an example of playing games with the benefit of hindsight. In reality, in real time, you would need unparalleled foresight and luck.
It is a preposterous suggestion.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Indeed, Patrick. The notion of the "fake bag" (being created by the DPD at that very early hour on the afternoon of 11/22/63) is, indeed, "preposterous".
As to the reason(s) for why several of the police officers said they did not see the paper bag while it was still resting on the floor in the southeast corner, I offer up some possible explanations HERE.
PAT SPEER SAID:
Please present any evidence you have suggesting that those first on the scene saw the bag and dismissed it as trash. It seems clear you just made that up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no direct evidence relating to my "trash" comment. It's merely guesswork on my part. (And please don't tell me I shouldn't ever rely on "guesswork", because virtually every single thing that conspiracy theorists do regarding their analysis of the JFK case revolves largely around that very word—"guesswork". Without guesswork, in fact, CTers might as well pack up and go home, because they'd have nothing to pin their hopes on without relying on "guesswork" and "gut feelings", and everybody here knows it.)
Actually, I think my "trash" theory makes quite a bit of (common) sense. The notion that some of the officers could have merely thought the twice-folded-up paper bag that was resting in the farthest reaches of the dusty and dirty sixth floor's southeast corner was simply a piece of discarded trash lying in that corner makes a great deal of sense to me.
Plus, some officers who might have caught a glimpse of the bag might not have even realized it was a "paper bag" at all, seeing as how it had been folded up twice (per the testimony of Police Officer Marvin Johnson), thus reducing its size considerably as it lay in the corner. Johnson testified that the package he saw in the southeast corner was "a fairly small package".
Also....
Another possible answer to the "mystery" as to why some officers never saw the bag at all could be because those officers were simply never in a proper position within (or near) the Sniper's Nest itself to have seen the paper bag in the first place.
In offering up these various "Paper Bag" scenarios, I'm just trying to present some possible non-sinister and non-conspiratorial reasons to explain why we have one group of police officers who said they did see something on the sixth floor, while another group of officers said they didn't see it.
And if some of the members of that second group had actually seen the bag but failed at the time to associate the "fairly small package" with the crime scene, and instead had merely thought it was a piece of paper debris that had been swept into the far southeast corner, then that could (IMO) certainly account for some of the confusion revolving around the testimony of the various witnesses concerning the paper bag.
PAT SPEER SAID:
Those arriving on the scene before its discovery said they saw no such thing ["trash"] and those claiming to have discovered it said it was out in the open covering much of the open floor by the boxes, where anyone inspecting the boxes or looking out the window would have seen it. It’s a mystery.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The things you just said about the bag being "out in the open" and "covering much of the open floor by the boxes" are things that are totally contradicted by two of the officers who said they definitely did see the paper bag on the 6th floor:
MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner—in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was."
MR. JOHNSON -- "It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package. .... That sack was right in the corner. .... I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner."
That doesn't sound to me like Studebaker or Johnson saw the bag "out in the open".
Also....
Can anyone explain to me how the following four Dallas Police Department officers could have seen a brown paper object in the southeast corner of the sixth floor that was never ever there? ....
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143].
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97].
J.C. Day [4 H 267].
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103].
In some of my comments above, I've been attempting to reconcile the controversy surrounding the "Paper Bag Witnesses" without having to resort to calling any of the witnesses "liars". I think I accomplished that goal. I'm wondering if any conspiracy theorist could do the same. I doubt they can.
PAT SPEER SAID:
It seems apparent you don't know the record, David.
None of the witnesses who saw the sniper's nest before the arrival of Day and Studebaker recalled seeing the bag in the corner, even though the official story has the bag covering most of the open space by the so-called seat box, and at least three of these witnesses--Mooney, McCurley, and Fritz, actually stood in the SN within a foot or so of where the bag was supposedly discovered.
As far as witnesses claiming they saw it, they were all brought forth by Belin after he realized none of the first witnesses remembered anything about the bag. Most notoriously, he dredged up two motorcycle officers whose recollections were so meaningless to the investigation that they were never even asked to write a report on what they saw that day.
And yet, somehow, after going 0 for 7 or 8 or whatever, Belin suddenly coughs up two previously uninterviewed witnesses with foggy recollections of maybe seeing a bag.
It's clear from this--crystal clear--that he put out an APB... "Hello!! Will anyone testify to seeing that freaking bag?" and that he found but two takers.
The other supposed bag witnesses were either involved in its supposed discovery, or blurry headed and clearly incorrect in much of their testimony, like Sims.
And it's worse than that. On my website, I run through the evolution of the statements of Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day, and show how they are contradictory and not remotely credible.
I also show how at least one print on the bag was disappeared from the record and how the Warren Commission itself lied about the locations of the prints on the bag.
It's a minefield.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You, Pat, ACTUALLY think ALL FOUR of those Dallas police officers were liars (Montgomery, Johnson, Day, and Studebaker)?? Such a belief is simply ridiculous and over-the-top.
And you've also got to believe that Studebaker's lies concerning the bag were multi-layered....because he said he actually picked up the bag and dusted it for prints. (More lies?)
Plus --- Any idea how the patsy-framing plotters managed to plant Oswald's fingerprints on the paper bag? Lieutenant J.C. Day, as of 2002, didn't even think such a transfer of prints was possible (and he's talking about the rifle in the book excerpt below, but I think it's safe to assume that Lt. Day would have had the same opinion about the "impossible" nature of being able to transfer an inked print to a paper bag as well).
Via Page 802 of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"....
Click to enlarge:
David Von Pein
December 7-9, 2023
[Via E-Mail]
================================
MILES MASSICOTTE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
HERE'S another very "strange" Harold Weisberg clip (which, given the known evidence in the JFK case, is much more ridiculous than even Harold's ultra-preposterous notion that the DPD would have even cared about whether Buell Frazier was shacking up with Marina Oswald).
David Von Pein
December 8, 2023
================================
JOHN CORBETT SAID:
Question for DVP....
Your webpage on the SBT is one of the best examinations of the subject that I have come across. The toggling features are one of the most illuminating pieces of evidence regarding the SBT. It shows with clarity, the bulging of the jacket at Z224, that JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z225 when he first becomes fully visible, and it shows both JFK and JBC starting their upward arm movements simultaneously at Z226.
I have never seen this feature from any other source. I truly believe that these frames would be enough to convince most skeptics of the validity of the SBT if they would look at them objectively.
My question is whether you put together the toggling feature between enhanced frames yourself or did you discover them from another source?
If these are your creation and only available on your website, I would hope there would be a way to show these to a wider audience. If you got these from another source, is it one that is widely available to the public at large?
If there was a way to show these clips to a much wider audience than the people who frequent these discussion groups, I think it could be a game changer regarding public perception of the assassination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hi John,
The toggling (or looped) Zapruder Film clips that I have on many of my webpages are clips that I downloaded many years ago (thank goodness). However, they were not "created" by me specifically.
I think I got them from Bill Miller when he and I were both posting at Debra Conway's JFK-Lancer forum. Which means that I probably initially downloaded them prior to the Summer of 2005, because that's when I was tossed out the Lancer door by Conway.
Bill Miller, btw, is/was a conspiracy theorist, which is kind of ironic. (And I think Mr. Miller has since passed away.)
I'm actually a little fuzzy concerning the exact individual source for these excellent toggling Z-Film clips that I love to prop up (as do you, John) to illustrate the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory. But I'm almost positive the clips did originate at the now-defunct JFK-Lancer forum.
I have stated in the past that if I had ever had a chance to show those looped Z-Film clips to John and Nellie Connally, I think I could have probably made SBT believers out of both of them.
No hardline conspiracy theorist will ever be convinced by those clips, however. And for proof of that, all you need to do is click on this link here, which features a few of the Education Forum's CTers inventing brand-new ways with which to bury themselves in further "denial" when it comes to what they are seeing in those Zapruder Film clips.
GIL JESUS SAID:
[John Corbett] is convinced there was a "bulge" in Connally's coat caused by a bullet, although he can't prove it.
He's convinced Connally's arm moving upward was caused by a bullet, although he can't prove it.
Corbett believes in things that can't be proven. Speculations made by David Von Pein.
Could Connally's movements have been caused by something other than a bullet?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Is it possible for the anti-SBTers to exhibit MORE denial than the examples displayed here? It will, indeed, be difficult for Gil Jesus and Ben Holmes to top the hilarious and absurd excuses for ignoring the SBT that can be found at that link above, but we must never underestimate the "denial" power that exists within every JFK conspiracy fantasist.
David Von Pein
December 14, 2023
December 14, 2023
================================
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
According to Dale Myers' book "With Malice" (1998 Edition) [Page 650; Endnote #800], Myers had "contact" with George M. Doughty on March 14, 1996, which was four years after Doughty had suffered a stroke. This "contact", as Myers refers to it in his book (as opposed to an "interview"), was three pages in length (when put in transcript form) and was evidently mostly in reference to the mysterious "Wallet" issue. I'm not sure if Myers ever talked to Doughty about placing his initials on one of the bullet shells found near the Tippit murder scene.
More importantly....
If you turn to Page 267 of "With Malice" (1998 version), you'll find photos (taken by Dale Myers himself) of the bullet shell that has the initials of Captain George M. Doughty scratched into it. Quoting from Page 267 of Myers' book (1998 Edition):
"FBI Exhibit Q76 .... This Winchester-Western hull was identified by Dallas crime lab Captain George M. Doughty as the hull found by Barbara J. Davis. Three sets of markings are visible on the inside rim of the hull, including Doughty's initials, "GD" in script. Three sets of FBI related initials -- JH, CK, and RF -- are on the outside of the hull."
------------
So, as we can see from the above book excerpt, Dale Myers himself actually saw Captain Doughty's initials etched into the bullet shell in question.
The photos of the "Q76" shell that appear in Myers' book are, unfortunately, not distinct enough to clearly make out the "GD" initials that Dale says appear (in script) on the inside rim of that shell.
And since there are many conspiracy theorists who seem to enjoy calling Mr. Myers an outright liar when it comes to lots of stuff he has written about J.D. Tippit's murder, I'm guessing that those CTers must also think Myers was telling a tall tale about seeing Doughty's initials with his own eyes on bullet shell Q76.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, Greg, in this particular case (the Tippit murder case), wouldn't you agree that it's much (MUCH!) more likely that the ballistics evidence is just simply telling us the TRUTH, and that it was OSWALD who killed Officer J.D. Tippit....and it was OSWALD'S revolver that fired the fatal bullets into Tippit's body....and it was OSWALD who was really the one who was seen dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene of the crime on Tenth Street --- versus believing that all of the witnesses were either mistaken or lying or coerced or whatever else AND that the bullet shells were switched by the police to frame an innocent Oswald?
And in THIS case especially---the case where a local police officer has just been shot dead---don't you have a particularly difficult time believing that anyone in the Dallas Police Department would have had any desire at all to participate in some kind of a frame-up against an innocent Oswald, which would automatically mean those officers participating in such a frame-up would be deliberately allowing the real killer of their brother officer to get away scot-free?
Isn't all of that "frame-up" stuff rather hard to swallow in THIS (Tippit) case particularly? I sure think it is.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Greg Doudna's wild and fantastic (and, IMO, crazy) theory revolving around Mr. Curtis LaVerne "Larry" Crafard (not "Craford", as explained in the last paragraph of Crafard Exhibit No. 5226) made me want to read Crafard's complete Warren Commission testimony for the first time. It's quite a roller coaster ride of a read (starting at 13 H 402).
The long and rambling life story of this drifter named Larry Crafard, which the Warren Commission's Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin probed for hours on end for three days (April 8-10, 1964) and which takes up nearly 200 pages in WC volumes 13 and 14, could have been featured on The Edge Of Night, Guiding Light, and As The World Turns all at the same time, because this guy's constant travels and dozens of different jobs (not to mention a wife who left him twice, and gave birth to Larry's baby boy---or did she?) could probably fill up all three of those soap operas all at once.
Why on Earth all of the details surrounding Crafard's entire life prior to November 1963 were things that Mr. Hubert and Mr. Griffin deemed necessary to place into the Warren Commission's official record, I really have no idea.
Incredibly, Crafard's testimony consumes nearly seven times the number of pages than that of JFK's chief autopsy physician, Dr. James Humes. Humes' testimony takes up only 29 pages in total. Crafard = 197 pages. Unbelievable.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, you're right, Greg. I was mistaken about something I read about Crafard on Page 247 of Vincent Bugliosi's book. That page is in the middle of Vince's chronology of events for "Sunday, November 24", but Bugliosi suddenly goes back to talking about the events of Saturday on that page. And that's when the subject of Crafard leaving Dallas comes up.
But it was my error this time, and not Bugliosi's. Vince has it right in his book. Crafard left town on Saturday, Nov. 23rd.
Sorry about the mistake, Greg.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
$13.87 + $0.23 (bus) + $1.00 (cab) = $15.10
Mr. BALL -- "You let him on the bus, and he paid his fare, how much is that fare?"
Mr. McWATTERS -- "It is 23 cents."
------------
The price of a vending machine Coke was 5 cents thru 1959. Then it went up to 10 cents. So Oswald probably left Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 22 with $15.20 in his pocket.*
* Which assumes he bought just one Coke that day, and it also assumes he didn't merely swipe a bottle of Coke off of one of the tables in the second-floor lunchroom right after his encounter with Officer Baker, instead of buying one himself, which is quite possible, I suppose. I've seen photos of the lunchroom in which we can see bottles of Coke left on the tables ----> such as HERE and HERE.
------------
Here's an interesting hunk of trivia concerning Coca-Cola [copied from this Wiki page]:
The Coca-Cola Company sought ways to increase the five cent price, even approaching the U.S. Treasury Department in 1953 to ask that they mint a 7.5 cent coin. The Treasury was unsympathetic. In another attempt, The Coca-Cola Company briefly implemented a strategy where one in every nine vending machine bottles was empty. The empty bottle was called an "official blank". This meant that, while most nickels inserted in a vending machine would yield cold drinks, one in nine patrons would have to insert two nickels in order to get a bottle. This effectively raised the price to 5.625 cents. Coca-Cola never implemented this strategy on a national scale.
------------
I can certainly see why the Coke Company never followed through with that spiteful strategy of literally stealing an extra nickel from 11% of its vending machine customers by dropping an empty bottle into their hands. I have a hard time believing the company would have even considered such a deceptive act of thievery. Customers wouldn't have stood still for only getting what they paid for 9 times out of 10. And can you imagine a 7.5-cent coin?! Just think of the mess that would have caused for all of the nation's cashiers. They'd have to find a way to give back 2.5 cents change for a 5-cent purchase. What a nightmare! 😁
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's fun to play around with stuff like this from time to time, isn't it?
Here's another question for you to ponder, Gregory....
If, as you have suggested, Oswald purchased a movie ticket at the Texas Theater, then why wasn't the ticket stub found on his person after his arrest? And I can only assume that all Texas Theater patrons are, indeed, given a stub after their tickets are torn by somebody at the door who does that sort of thing, like we find at most U.S. theaters. Which, I guess, brings up another question: If Oswald didn't buy a ticket, how did he manage to slip past the "ticket taker" who should have been posted just inside the front door? ~shrug~*
* And the "ticket taker" on 11/22/63 would have been Butch Burroughs (who also sold the candy and popcorn at the theater)....
Mr. BALL -- "During the afternoon of the week, do you take tickets too?"
Mr. BURROUGHS -- "Yes, I take tickets every day."
[Later in Burroughs' WC testimony....]
Mr. BALL -- "If anybody comes in there without a ticket, what do you do, run them off?"
Mr. BURROUGHS -- "I make it a point to stop them and ask them to go out and get a ticket. I just failed to see him when he slipped in."
Oswald, of course, if he had purchased a ticket, could have just thrown his stub in a trash can inside the theater. But I'm wondering why he'd want to do that?
Because by keeping the ticket stub, he could then prove that he didn't "sneak" into the theater without paying. Which would certainly make him look at least a little bit less guilty of any crime --- because by simply being willing to take the extra time and pay for the cheap ticket at the outside box office, it makes him look a bit less desperate to get off the sunny streets in order to get inside that dark theater as fast as he possibly can get in there.
But if he didn't pay for that movie ticket (which I certainly don't think he did), it does indeed make him look mighty anxious (desperate perhaps?) to get off that police-filled Jefferson Boulevard and inside the darkened theater as quickly as possible.
And why would Lee Harvey Oswald be so anxious (even desperate perhaps?) to get inside that movie theater at about 1:40 PM CST on November 22, 1963?
The answer to that last question is, in my opinion, fairly obvious.
David Von Pein
December 18-21, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've become interested lately in the contradiction that exists in the various media reports and Internet articles relating to the second of the two assassination attempts against President Gerald Ford which occurred within 17 days of each other in September of 1975.
We all know that in the 2nd attempt on Ford's life (on September 22, 1975), a 45-year-old woman named Sara Jane Moore did manage to fire her pistol at the President in San Francisco, and all of the initial reports that I have seen (such as the newspaper seen below) indicate that only one single shot was fired from Moore's gun.
And there's also an audio recording of the shooting (via the CBS Radio Network), which can be heard HERE. In that audio recording, one gunshot can clearly be heard, but no more than one is heard.
But there are some people out there writing articles who evidently are of the opinion that Sara Jane Moore fired two shots at President Ford.
I think a lot of the articles that I've seen on the Internet that are claiming "two shots" have derived their information, in large part, from this Wikipedia page, which claims that the cab driver who was injured in the groin during the shooting was positively struck by a "second shot" fired by would-be assassin Moore. But the injury to the bystander could have been caused by the ONLY shot fired by Moore. A second shot is probably not required.
Based on the audio recording I linked to above, I favor just one single shot being fired by Moore. Because if a second gunshot had actually been fired from that very same weapon, I cannot fathom how the sound of that shot would not have been captured by the CBS Radio microphone that managed to easily capture the very loud noise caused by the first blast.
So, similar to the long-debated question of How many shots did Lee Harvey Oswald really fire?....
I'd like to now ask:
How many shots did Sara Jane Moore fire? One or two?
.jpg)
Also See:
http://dvp-video-audio-archive/Gerald Ford Assassination Attempts
David Von Pein
December 18, 2023
================================
GARY AGUILAR SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
My, my. How magnificently humorous Mr. Aguilar can be.
But when Gary's overpowering wit is set aside and the brass tacks of the case are examined (yet again, for the millionth time), nobody can fight the truth that exists in the following authenticated photos, which are photos that depict absolutely no portion of the REAR of JFK's skull OR scalp that is MISSING or BLOWN OUT.
Sorry, Gary.
David Von Pein
December 18, 2023
[Via E-Mail]
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Paula Bosse, the expert blogger when it comes to "All Things Relating To Dallas, Texas", recently posted the pictures seen below at her "Flashback: Dallas" website/blog. These 1962 photos depict ads for Jack Ruby's Carousel Club (which was being referred to as "The New Carousel" at the time)....
Click to enlarge:
A few more Carousel Club advertisements, plus one from Abe Weinstein's Colony Club (Jack Ruby's rival club, also located on Commerce Street), can be seen in Paula Bosse's complete blog post here.
David Von Pein
December 19, 2023
================================
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS AND THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And since you have "no respect" for Hugh Aynesworth, that means, according to you, that Hugh should "Burn In Hell", is that it Sandy?
What a ridiculous over-the-top emotion. You should be ashamed of posting such garbage on this forum. (And you, an "admin"/moderator yet. It's disgusting.)
BTW / FWIW,
Mr. Aynesworth was always very nice and pleasant and helpful in the few conversations I had with him via e-mail.
RIP.
http://Wikipedia.org/Hugh Aynesworth
David Von Pein
December 26, 2023
================================
VINCE PALAMARA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN POSTED THIS IMAGE:
Click to enlarge....
David Von Pein
December 26, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If you'd like to hear Rob Reiner misrepresent the evidence concerning the events surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald's movements on 11/22/63 and the "Coke" and the "Lunchroom Encounter", then CLICK HERE to listen to Part 8 of Reiner's
10-part "Who Killed JFK?" podcast.
Anyone who is not familiar with the things that Oswald told the Dallas Police after his arrest, and anybody also unfamiliar with the details concerning the Coca-Cola and Lunchroom Encounter topics, will probably tend to believe the untrue things that Mr. Reiner has uttered in Part 8 of his conspiracy-oriented podcast series, such as when Reiner tells us that Oswald told the police that he was on the second floor of the Book Depository when the President was shot.
But Oswald most certainly did not tell the police he was on the second floor at the precise time of the shooting. He specifically told Dallas Police Homicide Captain J.W. Fritz that he had been eating his lunch on the first floor of the building when JFK's motorcade passed the Depository....
From Captain Fritz' typewritten report:
"I asked him [Lee Oswald] 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
In his podcast, Reiner has utilized some sleight-of-hand to try and make his podcast listeners think that Oswald must have been located on the second floor all throughout the key minutes before, during, and after the assassination of President Kennedy. Because when Reiner selectively reads this direct quote from the Hosty/Bookhout FBI report that appears on page 613 of the Warren Commission's Final Report....
"[Oswald] went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch"....
....Mr. Reiner conveniently omitted the very next sentence that is written in that same Hosty/Bookhout report, which is this sentence:
"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." -- Warren Report; Page 613
So, as we can see, Oswald's "alibi" wasn't that he was on the second floor when JFK was shot. Oswald claimed he was on the first floor at that time.
In addition, Mr. Reiner's utilization of the wholly unreliable and inconsistent story of Carolyn Arnold is another sign that Reiner's arguments are mighty weak ones, as I discuss HERE.
And Rob Reiner engages in an even bigger and more blatant misrepresentation of the facts when he inaccurately claims that Roy Truly and Marrion Baker saw Lee Oswald "sitting in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand".
But anyone who knows the true facts relating to the testimony of both Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly and Dallas Police Officer Marrion L. Baker, knows that Oswald was most definitely not "sitting" when he was seen by Truly and Baker on 11/22/63. He was standing. Plus, neither Truly nor Baker testified that Oswald had a "Coke in his hand".
Mr. Reiner, like many other conspiracy theorists worldwide, has merely accepted as fact the long-ago-debunked myth about Oswald holding a Coke during the lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly.
Lots of additional facts concerning the Lunchroom Encounter and The Coca-Cola and Oswald's Whereabouts At 12:30 PM On November 22, 1963, sans any speculative conspiratorial spin, can be found at the link below:
DVP's JFK Archives / Index / Lee Harvey Oswald
David Von Pein
December 27, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The 1966 audio file linked below includes a very rare interview with assassination witness Victoria Adams, who is, of course, a witness that a lot of conspiracy theorists love to prop up as "proof" that Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have gone down the back stairs of the Book Depository just after the assassination due to the fact that Miss Adams did not see or hear anyone on those stairs when she and Sandra Styles used them to descend from the 4th floor to the 1st floor very shortly after JFK was shot on 11/22/63.
But the notion that the entire case against Lee Oswald should be flushed down the toilet merely due to the estimated timeline of events as described by Vickie Adams is a very silly notion indeed....as I talk about in great detail on my webpage LINKED HERE.
I think the most interesting thing that is heard in the 1966 interview with Adams is when she talks about the three mistakes that were made by the Warren Commission during the time she was providing her testimony to the Commission in April of 1964. And the three errors that Adams mentions are things that are completely innocuous and relatively unimportant in nature, with none of the three items dealing with any substantive matters at all.
And yet, to hear many conspiracy theorists tell it, Victoria Adams was one of the many witnesses who has said she had key portions of her published testimony "altered" or "changed" by the Warren Commission.
But if that had truly been the case, then why on Earth wouldn't she have said something to Mark Lane and Mort Sahl about that very important fact during her fairly lengthy 1966 interview when she starts talking about the various things that the Commission got wrong in her published testimony?
But instead of raking the Commission over hot coals for "altering" or "eliminating" some of the things she had actually said during her testimony, she didn't say a single word in her 1966 interview about the Warren Commission altering anything that anyone could possibly consider to be of great value or substance whatsoever. She talked only about three very unimportant things that the Commission stenographer got wrong, which are things that I would classify as merely "typos" and nothing more than that.
After hearing Vickie Adams' total silence in 1966 when it comes to certain parts of her WC testimony allegedly being "altered" before it was publicly published (relating specifically to Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady), it makes me wonder if this rarely-heard 1966 interview with Victoria Adams has inadvertently debunked (at least in part) yet another conspiracy-flavored myth that has endured for decades. That being: the "Altered Testimony" myth (at least with respect to Vickie Adams' testimony specifically, at any rate).
And we must keep in mind when listening to Adams speak in this interview that she most certainly doesn't come across as a fan or a supporter of the Warren Commission in any way whatsoever.
Therefore, I think it's also quite obvious that her complete silence about any alleged "Shelley/Lovelady alterations" during this interview was not brought about as a result of Miss Adams being frightened of what might happen to her if she dared speak out in a negative manner about Earl Warren's Commission.
This interview with the then-25-year-old Vickie Adams was conducted by Mark Lane and Mort Sahl on November 25, 1966:
Audio Source: Click Here.
Also see this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", concerning Victoria Adams (click to enlarge):
David Von Pein
December 29-30, 2023
