Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Greg Doudna. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Greg Doudna. Sort by date Show all posts

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1369)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1369 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of October 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.


================================


AN ANONYMOUS AND EXCEEDINGLY OBNOXIOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We know that BOTH Domingo Benavides AND T.F. Bowley were inside J.D. Tippit's police car trying to report the shooting of the officer on Tenth Street on 11/22/63. But only one of those two men is heard on the DPD radio tapes---and that's Bowley.

The Warren Commission, however, was confused about who it was who actually had used the police radio, and they incorrectly said on Page 166 of the Warren Report that it was Benavides (and not Bowley) who got through to the Dallas Police Department dispatcher on Tippit's radio.

But if BOTH men had actually gotten through to the DPD dispatcher that day, then we'd have a total of THREE "citizens" (civilians) being heard on the DPD radio tapes. But we don't have three such transmissions. We only have two---Bowley's and then Ted Callaway's.

During a 2019 discussion, DVP said....

"There is at least one mistake to be found in the Warren Commission's Final Report. (And there are probably several other errors in the Report too, which wouldn't surprise or shock me at all. Finding a few relatively minor errors in a report that's nearly 900 pages in length is, I would think, perfectly normal and to be expected.)

The WC mistake I had in mind today can be found on Page 166 of the Warren Report, where there's an error concerning Domingo Benavides and the J.D. Tippit murder. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Benavides who had made the citizen's call on Tippit's police radio ("We've had a shooting out here"). But it was later learned that it was really another witness, T.F. Bowley, who made that radio call, which was done only after Benavides had been pumping (or mashing) the microphone for about ninety seconds. [See the quote below from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice".]

"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (1998 Edition)

The Warren Commission was apparently relying on a truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of Commission Exhibit No. 1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes).

The Commission, therefore, in trying to pinpoint the precise time of Officer Tippit's shooting, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.

So the actual time when Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed had to be sometime prior to 1:16 PM, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16."
-- DVP; August 2019


THE ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

Just listen to the recording, kiddies. There is not 90 seconds of microphone keying, whoever the f**k was talking on the radio.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What difference does it really make if there's any "keying of the microphone" or not? It makes no difference in the long run. Since we know that somebody is FIRST reporting the shooting over the radio at about 1:17 or 1:18 PM (per the DPD radio transcripts), then it's logical to assume that the shooting itself probably occurred a very few minutes before that time, at about 1:15 PM or so.

And this timeline is a big problem for the conspiracy crackpots who love to cling to their beloved "1:06" and/or "1:10" times for the Tippit shooting, because we would then have to believe the ridiculous scenario of Benavides and/or Bowley waiting for up to TEN full minutes (or more) before they got on the police radio to report the shooting. And such a long delay is utter nonsense. There's no chance in hell they waited that long to use Tippit's radio.

Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

And also see the December 2, 1963, affidavit of T.F. Bowley (excerpted below):

"On Friday, November 22, 1963...I was headed north on Marsalis and turned west on 10th Street. I traveled about a block and noticed a Dallas police squad car stopped in the traffic lane headed east on 10th Street. I saw a police officer lying next to the left front wheel. I stopped my car and got out to go to the scene. I looked at my watch and it said 1:10 pm. Several people were at the scene. When I got there the first thing I did was try to help the officer. He appeared beyond help to me. A man was trying to use the radio in the squad car but stated he didn't know how to operate it. I know how and took the radio from him. I said, "Hello, operator. A police officer has been shot here." The dispatcher asked for the location. I found out the location and told the dispatcher what it was." --T.F. Bowley; 12/2/63

David Von Pein
October 1-2, 2023





================================


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greg,

You're severely overstating (i.e., misstating) Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged "alibi". Oswald never once said he was outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building at the time when President Kennedy was being shot.

When Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", Oswald was clearly indicating to Fritz that he had only gone "out" of the building AFTER he had already had his encounter with Police Officer Marrion Baker in the second-floor lunchroom, which was an encounter that occurred, of course, after the assassination had already taken place.

(See James W. Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report—HERE—for verification of the chronology of Captain Fritz' sketchy "out with Bill Shelley in front" note.)

The key words in Bookhout's report, chronology-wise, are these words:

"He thereafter went outside..."

And the more-recent discovery of James Hosty's "went outside to watch P. Parade" notes—discussed in detail HERE—have also been mischaracterized by conspiracists (IMO), because the basic chronology of those Hosty notes is identical to Bookhout's report, with Oswald (per the Hosty notes) only going outside after he had gone to the second floor to get a Coke....and we know the "Coke" excursion coincided with Oswald's encounter with Marrion Baker, which was AFTER the assassination, not DURING the assassination.

FWIW....

With regard to the identity of "Prayer Man", I'll re-post the following comments made two years ago by someone whose presence on the Depository front steps on November 22nd is not disputed by even the most hardened of conspiracy theorists:

"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee."
-- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021



DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

And even though I don't believe for one second that "Prayer Man" is Lee Harvey Oswald, I still would very much like to see the original versions of the Darnell and Wiegman films, and I'd very much like to have those films enhanced and restored to the best possible quality.

I certainly think that any such project, if a definitive "Is it Oswald or isn't it?" identification of the Prayer Man figure can be obtained, will prove very disappointing to the people who keep insisting that the blurry Prayer Man figure has got to be Lee Oswald. But I certainly am not against such a project taking place. Not in the least. As I've said before, I'm all for it.

Also See:
http://DVP's JFK Archives/"Prayer Man" Discussion


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I do think that Oswald claimed during his police interrogation that he ate his lunch after the assassination. And that's because this chronology....

1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.

2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.

3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.

....is confirmed (or at least it is present and exists) in THREE different places within the reports or notes written by the various officials:

1. Captain Fritz' notes --- HERE.

2. James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 FBI report --- HERE.

3. James Hosty's recently-discovered notes --- HERE.

In Hosty's notes, however, he doesn't say anything about "Shelley". He, instead, says Oswald went outside to watch the "P. Parade". But, IMO, Hosty is, in effect, conflating "Shelley" and "P. Parade". But in any event, Hosty, just like Fritz and Bookhout, has Oswald going outside only after the "Coke" and the "Lunch on 1st floor".

And Hosty, in his notes, doesn't mention the encounter Oswald had with Baker either. But there's no indication in the existing records and reports that Oswald ever said anything about going to the second floor TWO times to get a Coke on Nov. 22. So, IMO, Hosty's "went to 2nd floor to get Coca-Cola" is essentially the same thing as also referring to the encounter between LHO and Baker.

And as "absurd" as it might be to think that anyone would want to go and eat his lunch after having such an encounter with a police officer (at gunpoint) and after discovering that the President had just been shot right outside the front door of your workplace, we also have to realize that such a chronology was being provided by the person to whom all of the evidence in the assassination leads --- Lee H. Oswald.

In other words, Oswald's absurd and crazy chronology was all just one big fat lie being told by the actual assassin of President Kennedy (except for the Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker, of course, which actually did occur and wasn't just one of Oswald's made-up tall tales).


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The key point isn't really the specific "lunch" aspect of any of Oswald's lies. (And maybe Oswald himself was having a hard time keeping his "lunch" lies straight after he was arrested.)

But the most important point, IMO, is the chronology of the "Coke/Lunchroom Encounter" and "Out front with Shelley" aspects of Oswald's attempted alibi. And whether you choose to believe Bookhout, Fritz, and Hosty or not, the fact remains that those three men (Bookhout, Fritz, & Hosty) did write things down in their notes and/or reports that definitely give the impression that OSWALD HIMSELF said he followed this chronology at around 12:30 on Nov. 22:

1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.
2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.
3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.


Plus: Can anyone who believes that Oswald is the "Prayer Man" figure really and truly also believe that Oswald then decided he wanted to immediately go back into the TSBD Building and dash up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke within seconds of JFK being shot out on Elm Street in front of the building?

That scenario of Oswald being Prayer Man and then immediately having a burning desire to go get a Coca-Cola on the second floor is a very loony scenario, if you ask me. But for the conspiracy theorists who wholly endorse the "Oswald Is Prayer Man" theory, then they really have no choice but to believe such an absurd scenario. Because we know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was in that 2nd-floor lunchroom with Officer Baker just a few minutes after the assassination took place.*

* Notwithstanding the many CTers who now belong to the INHAA club.


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greg,

I think your made-up scenario of Oswald going back into the TSBD after the shooting is totally ludicrous. You've got him going up and down stairs and then out the back door for no really good reason (IMO).

Via your scenario, Oswald was ALREADY OUTSIDE THE BUILDING (on the steps, I assume? Or do you have him INSIDE the building, on the 1st floor, at 12:30? You seem to imply that it could have been either). But in either case, why would he possibly want to take a circuitous UP-AND-DOWN route via the two staircases just in order to get outside?! It's incredibly silly.

It's especially ridiculous from the standpoint of Oswald being INVOLVED (in at least SOME peripheral fashion) in a plot to kill JFK, because via such an involvement, Oswald would have no doubt wanted to get away from the scene of the crime as fast as he could....and since he was ALREADY OUTSIDE (if you think he is Prayer Man) or (alternatively) very near the FRONT DOOR on the 1st floor (if you think he took the SOUTHEAST stairs, which are practically right next to the FRONT entrance)....then why the heck wouldn't he just walk out the FRONT DOOR?

Plus, via your scenario, going back INTO the building itself (via the Prayer Man theory) would be mighty risky from LHO's POV too, because he would certainly have to think that the whole building was going to be sealed off very quickly after the shooting by the police (and it was, at about 12:37). So why would he have the slightest desire to go back into the building at all?

And I can't see why he would feel that leaving via the front entrance and being seen by somebody would look any worse (or be any more suspicious) than leaving by the back door. In fact, I can easily argue the opposite---that leaving by the BACK DOOR would look way more "suspicious" to anyone who might catch a glimpse of him than simply walking out the front door and exiting Dealey Plaza.

Sneaking out the back way is always a little more "fishy"-looking to most people, isn't it? In fact, aren't there many CTers who DO believe that one or more of the "real killers" of Kennedy did, indeed, sneak out the back door of the loading dock in order to make their getaway on 11/22?

I'd advise you to try again, Greg. Because your scenario of having Oswald going up and down the various stairs just in order to get out of the building is just laughable.

But, Greg, I do appreciate all the time and effort you have been putting into your very well-written posts in this thread over the last few days. I've enjoyed reading them. But this latest bit about Oswald's totally superfluous post-assassination escapade within the Book Depository is just not the slightest bit believable (IMO) and, frankly, reeks of CTer desperation.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Below is a review of Bart Kamp's new 2023 book "Prayer Man: More Than A Fuzzy Picture". This well-written review, which contains opinions that I agree with 100%, was posted at Amazon by an individual using only the initials "LBP" [who, I later learned, is former Education Forum member Lance Payette]....

Review Title:

"Well-meaning and worthwhile
presentation of patent nonsense"


Full Text Of Review:

"Bart Kamp is a serious and well-meaning JFK assassination researcher who is a fixture at the Reopen the Kennedy Case forum, where the overarching theme is that LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT!!! This book thus reflects that perspective. More to the point, one of the obsessions there is Prayer Man, an exceedingly fuzzy photo of someone on the Texas School Book Depository steps who might well be a woman but WAS IN FACT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!!!

There is an initial mental hurdle you must overcome to find this book fascinating and worthwhile. It must make sense to you that Oswald, the designated patsy whose rifle would be found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was nevertheless allowed by the bumbling conspirators to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

A secondary mental hurdle is accepting that it "just so happens" that Oswald was captured in a single fuzzy photo that could well be your Aunt Tillie but not in pristinely clear photos that were or well could have been taken in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day.

A third mental hurdle, I suppose, is that Oswald never said he was standing on the steps--as I probably would've done if I'd been in his shoes and had such an ironclad alibi--and precisely no one, including the TSBD employees who actually were standing on the steps, ever said they saw him.

I confess, I am of such puny and limited imagination that I am incapable of clearing these hurdles and entering into the wild and wacky world of Prayer Man enthusiasts. I can conceive of no possible conspiracy scenario this side of "Reptilian aliens did it!!!" that would have allowed Oswald to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Nope, sorry, I regard Prayer Man as utter and self-evident nonsense.

That being said, I emphasize again that Mr. Kamp is a serious assassination enthusiast whose Prayer Man website is a veritable goldmine of documents and information even if you regard Prayer Man as nonsense. Ditto for this book. It is chock-full of worthwhile information and links regardless of your perspective on Prayer Man. I give it 4 stars for sheer effort. I am constantly agog at some of the wild and wacky notions that seemingly sane and intelligent conspiracy enthusiasts manage to compartmentalize in their otherwise sane and intelligent minds, and this book also serves as a good illustration of why I am constantly agog."
-- Lance B. Payette; August 4, 2023


DVP THEN ADDED:

For the sake of fairness and "Equal Time" with respect to reviews for Bart Kamp's "Prayer Man" book, here's a link to Greg Doudna's Amazon review of that same book:




GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Greg, for your detailed explanation of why you think Lee Harvey Oswald just might have had a desire to go back inside the Book Depository Building after the assassination (even though, via the "Prayer Man Is Oswald" theory, he was already outside when the shooting occurred).

You, of course, surely already know all the problems with your scenario which has Oswald possibly going back inside the building in order to get his "gray" jacket. The main problem there, of course, being that Earlene Roberts said that when Oswald came rushing into the Beckley roominghouse shortly after the assassination, he was not wearing any jacket. In her Warren Commission testimony, Mrs. Roberts said:

"He [LHO] went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket."

And there's also the testimony of Mary Bledsoe, who saw Oswald during the brief time when both she and Lee were on Cecil McWatters' bus on Elm Street on Nov. 22. Bledsoe is clearly a witness who aligns with Earlene Roberts' observations of Oswald not wearing any jacket between the hours of 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM CST on 11/22/63.

You can always resort to using cab driver William Whaley to support a proposed claim that Oswald was, indeed, wearing a jacket of some kind just after he left the TSBD. You can even utilize Whaley to try and support the very weird idea that Oswald was wearing a total of "two jackets" when he was riding next to Whaley in his taxicab on Nov. 22.

But if you choose to use Whaley's testimony, you'll then have to wonder why neither of those other witnesses (Bledsoe and Roberts) saw the jacket(s) that Mr. Whaley said he saw Oswald wearing. ~shrug~

Another one of your "possibilities" (to potentially explain why LHO would want to go back into the TSBD after the shooting) is based on something that is unquestionably a lie that was told by Lee Oswald --- the "curtain rods" story. So Oswald, quite obviously, could not possibly have wanted to go back into the Depository to retrieve any curtain rods, since those "rods" only existed in Oswald's made-up story that he fabricated for Buell Wesley Frazier's benefit.

I, of course, have an advantage over conspiracy theorists like Gregory Doudna, in that I don't need to concoct all kinds of cloak-and-dagger scenarios to explain Lee Oswald's behavior on November 22nd. And that's because I'm confident of the following fact (beyond all reasonable doubt):



David Von Pein
October 4-6, 2023





================================


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Lunchroom Encounter (Revisited):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Lunchroom Encounter

Excerpt....

"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017


GREG PARKER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excerpt from FBI agent James Bookhout's 11/22/63 report:

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."

Key phrases in the above Bookhout report:

"OSWALD STATED..."

and

"HE WAS ON THE SECOND FLOOR..."

So, apparently Greg Parker thinks that James W. Bookhout just IMAGINED Oswald saying those things (even though Bookhout was right there in Fritz' office with Oswald when Oswald "stated" those various things.

Or did Bookhout just MAKE UP those things that he said Oswald had "stated"?

You've got room for one more liar (Bookhout) on your front porch, don't you Gregory?


GREG PARKER SAID:

Why do you believe Bookhout?

Fritz report: "I asked him 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. Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in."

So Truly initially lied saying the encounter was near the back stairway AND OSWALD told the truth that it was in the 2nd floor lunchroom -- according to you? Correct?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The encounter WAS near the "back stairway". The stairs are practically right next to where Baker stopped Oswald.

And the Holmes/Batchelor stuff certainly does NOT, in any fashion, negate the 2nd-Floor Lunchroom Encounter. No way. No how.

Harry Holmes' Warren Commission testimony [at 7 H 302], which you [Greg Parker] referred to in a previous post, is quite clearly referring to the 2nd-floor encounter, not anything that happened between Oswald and a police officer on the FIRST floor.

How can we know that for certain?

Easy. Because there were no cops in the Book Depository clearing the employees to leave at 12:33 PM (which is the approximate time Oswald left the building). Hence, Harry Holmes can't possibly be referring to the "Police Clearing The Employees At The Front Door" situation when referring to anything relating to OSWALD on 11/22/63.

David Von Pein
October 15, 2023





================================


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Seems like a mighty weak theory to me, Greg. And many (most) of the things on your 10-item list that you've labelled as "facts" are, of course, not really "facts" at all. They are merely your own opinions and suspicions.

Like nearly all JFK conspiracy theories, Greg Doudna's latest effort is full of guesswork and speculation, and is merely another attempt by a conspiracist to avoid the obvious. With that "obvious" being (IMO):

Lee Oswald brought his own rifle to work with him on Nov. 22 (after an unusual Thursday-night trip to Irving), with Oswald himself then using that rifle to shoot JFK from the sixth floor of the Depository.*

* With Oswald unquestionably lying to Wesley Frazier about his real reason for going out to Irving on Thursday night. (The curtain rod story being the provable lie that he told to Frazier.)

But at least you (Greg Doudna) have found a way to get that rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage without anyone needing to break into the garage in order to steal it (as some CTers have theorized). You certainly deserve a point for that.

But via your theory, if Oswald himself didn't bring the rifle into the TSBD, who do you think did? Do you think it might have been one of Oswald's fellow TSBD employees? Or was it a stranger? Any idea at all?

Related thoughts:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/two-things-that-prove-oswald's-guilt


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greg,

If Oswald had actually given his rifle to somebody else between Nov. 11 and 22, then Oswald would have certainly told the police that very important fact after he was arrested and charged with committing a murder that he (under those conditions) very likely never committed.

Would Oswald have had every reason under the sun to admit to the cops that he had given his rifle to another person prior to Nov. 22 if such a rifle transaction was actually the truth? Yes, of course he would. (Especially after being shown the backyard photo on Nov. 23.)

But did Oswald say anything to the authorities about some other person coming into possession of his Carcano rifle? No, he didn't.


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Lee Oswald was an accomplice, then you're right. Oswald, under those make-believe conditions, certainly wouldn't have wanted to tell the cops that he had handed off the murder weapon to somebody else within the context of Oswald himself KNOWING that the "other person" was going to kill the President with it.

But my last post was based on an assumption that you, Gregory Doudna, were very likely of the opinion that Lee Oswald was completely blameless for the assassination (i.e., he wasn't a shooter and he was also not an "accomplice").

Maybe my assumption was inaccurate? ~shrug~

In any event, your entire "November 11" theory is nothing but 100% guesswork and speculation on your part, and you've got a HUGE hurdle to climb if you really expect anyone here to believe that Lee Oswald REALLY had his "lunch" in that large-ish paper sack on 11/22. Because if that was the case, then we've got no choice but to paint Buell Frazier as a major story-teller (liar) with regard to TWO key aspects of his post-assassination story and testimony---

1. The part about Lee telling Buell that the package contained curtain rods (a very silly thing for Oswald to say, of course, if the bag really had a sandwich and an apple in it).

2. And the part of Buell's story where he says he specifically asked Oswald about his lunch that morning (Nov. 22), with Oswald telling Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day.

And I think any explanation that you (or anyone else) comes up with to try and logically explain away BOTH the "curtain rods" lie that Oswald quite clearly did tell Buell Wesley Frazier on both Nov. 21 and 22....plus the "No Lunch / LHO Said He Was Going To Buy His Lunch" testimony provided by Frazier....is destined to be a very weak (and desperate!) explanation indeed.

Plus, if Oswald's paper bag contained merely his lunch, then why didn't Lee fold down the bag after he put his lunch inside of it? Don't tell me a cheese sandwich and an apple took up 27 inches of space? Remember, the amount of the bag that was visible on the back seat of Frazier's 1954 Chevy, according to Frazier's own observations, was measured and was found to be about 27 inches (per Frazier's own estimate).

In addition, there's Frazier's "Tucked under his armpit" story too, which would mean that this long bag that you (Greg) think held merely a person's "lunch", was being carried by Oswald into the Book Depository in a very strange manner---with Frazier claiming Oswald had one end "cupped" in his right hand, with the other end stuck up under his armpit. Who on Earth would carry their lunch bag in such a strange non-folded-up manner? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. You'd be better off going back to saying the package contained curtain rods.

And....

No, I do not think that Lee Harvey Oswald removed his rifle from Ruth Paine's garage on November 11th, 1963, and I most certainly do not believe that Oswald (with Marina and his two daughters in tow) .... quoting Greg Doudna .... "borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it."

That latter part about Oswald using Michael Paine's car is, in my opinion, a preposterous story. (For one thing, why would Lee want to drag his wife and two tiny children with him to the Irving Sports Shop? For what purpose would they be needed on such a journey?)


GREG DOUDNA SAID:

https://scrollery.com/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop.pdf


MARCUS FULLER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book (click to enlarge):




MARCUS FULLER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Marcus,

Lee's wife, Marina, testified that she personally saw the rifle inside the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. So it wasn't merely a wild GUESS on the part of Marina that a rifle was in the blanket.

Many conspiracy theorists, naturally, think Marina Oswald was telling a bunch of lies when she testified in the following manner in early 1964:


MARINA OSWALD -- After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

[Later....]

J. LEE RANKIN -- After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time?

MRS. OSWALD -- I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

MR. RANKIN -- Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?

MRS. OSWALD -- I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

MR. RANKIN -- When was that?

MRS. OSWALD -- About a week after I came from New Orleans.

MR. RANKIN -- And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?

MRS. OSWALD -- Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.



MARCUS FULLER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But given the situation Marina Oswald was confronted with after the assassination --- her husband is dead, she has no money, very few friends, speaks very little English, and she's now on her own and living in a country that's foreign to her --- can you think of one good reason under the sun WHY she would be afraid (or unwilling) to go back to her native Russia?

In other words, why on Earth would she have been afraid of being "deported"?

The "Marina Was Afraid Of Being Deported" line of reasoning has never made any sense to me at all. But apparently it does make sense to most conspiracy theorists. But I would think that Marina would have been anxious and eager to get back to her USSR homeland, which is where her family and friends were located.

Marina did later say that she did want to remain in the United States. But the notion that has been advanced over the years by various conspiracy theorists that she was deathly afraid of being "deported" back to the Soviet Union (and therefore she lied her ass off on numerous occasions in her Warren Commission testimony in order to avoid deportation) is, in my opinion, a totally ridiculous and illogical notion.

David Von Pein
October 16-19, 2023





================================


GARY AGUILAR SAID:

The only non-rigged skull shooting tests were done by the US Government. They showed the obvious: when a bony skull is struck with a MCC shell it travels away from the shooter, not toward her.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, technically, JFK's head initially did travel away from the shooter --- for about 2.3 inches anyway:



Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html

And the "Jet Effect" has been proven (over and over again), such as this example:




GARY AGUILAR SAID:

Oh, so your "proof" of "jet effect" comes from two comedians? That's hilarious!

Back here on earth, here's what credentialed authorities, working for the U.S. Government, found when they did credible "duplication" skull shooting tests.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Comedians or not, this video proves the "Jet Effect" can (and will) occur when an object is struck by a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm bullet. That's the point.

WHO CARES who it was who did the firing of the rifle? I sure don't. Captain Kangaroo or Pee Wee Herman could have been doing the shooting for all I care. The Jet Effect would still have been proven.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

I know that Luis Alvarez' "Jet Effect" theory is a very controversial and debated theory indeed. But any "problems" that anyone has with the "Jet Effect" theory are completely irrelevant when it comes to the two most important questions that need to be answered concerning President John F. Kennedy's head wounds, which are these two questions:

1. How many total bullets struck JFK in the head?

and

2. From what direction did those bullet(s) come?

And the answers to those two questions, based on the official autopsy findings, are crystal clear and ironclad (albeit disputed, as always, by virtually every conspiracy theorist who walks the planet), with those ironclad answers being (regardless of whether anybody believes in the "Jet Effect" or not):

ONE and only ONE bullet struck the skull of President Kennedy, with that one bullet entering the BACK portion of JFK's head. Hence, the one and only head shot came FROM BEHIND the Presidential limousine in Dealey Plaza.

An exasperated Dr. James J. Humes put it very well in 1992 when he said this (which is as true today as it was then):



David Von Pein
October 23-24, 2023
[Via E-Mail]


================================


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

After having just now [on October 13, 2023] read the key "bullet" portions of Paul Landis' newly-released book "The Final Witness" (via the book excerpts that have been made available on this webpage), some additional problems and questions arise, with one of these problems being a massively important one regarding the precise location of where Landis says he left the whole bullet that he says he found on the top of the back seat in the Presidential limo.

All of the available testimony from the Parkland Hospital personnel makes it clear that President Kennedy was never moved from his stretcher (gurney) during the entire time the President was being treated in Trauma Room No. 1. This fact is confirmed in the Warren Commission testimony of Parkland's Dr. Robert McClelland:

ARLEN SPECTER -- Was he [President Kennedy] on the stretcher at all times?

DR. ROBERT N. McCLELLAND -- Yes.

MR. SPECTER -- In the trauma room No. 1 you described, is there any table onto which he could be placed from the stretcher?

DR. McCLELLAND -- No; generally we do not move patients from the stretcher until they are ready to go into the operating room and then they are moved onto the operating table.

MR. SPECTER -- Well, in fact, was he left on the stretcher all during the course of these procedures until he was pronounced dead?

DR. McCLELLAND -- That's right.


----------------

Plus, there's this information concerning JFK's stretcher.

Former Secret Service agent Paul Landis, however, says something completely different in his book. He says this (quoting from the book itself):

"As I entered—or, more to the point, was pushed into—the trauma room, the president’s lifeless body was already being lifted off the gurney and placed onto a white cotton blanket that covered the surface of a stainless-steel examination table in the middle of the room." [End Quote.]

Landis then goes on to say this in his book:

"I removed the bullet from my pocket, and reaching out over the examination table, I carefully placed it on the white cotton blanket next to the president’s left shoe." [End Quote.]

But let's now compare the above book excerpt with the following statement made by the same Mr. Landis just one month ago:

"I put the bullet on the gurney right by his [JFK's] feet" -- Paul Landis; September 12, 2023 (NBC Interview)

So the question of great importance now becomes: Did Landis drop the bullet onto JFK's stretcher/"gurney"? Or did he leave it on an "examination table"?

That's an exceedingly important question to answer, because if we're to believe he left it on an exam table instead of the stretcher (with a stretcher, of course, having wheels on it, which means it could easily be moved from one part of the hospital to another), we've then got to ask: How, then, did that bullet (if it was really CE399, which Mr. Landis does seem to think it was) manage to get from the exam table to a stretcher in the corridor of Parkland Hospital, where it was then found by hospital employee Darrell C. Tomlinson a short time later?

Another possible problem with Landis' story crops up in the book excerpts linked above, although this "problem" isn't nearly as important or imperative as the "gurney vs. exam table" head-scratcher. This additional problem concerns the timing of Vice President Johnson's arrival at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. Landis says in his book that LBJ and the Vice President's Secret Service car had not yet arrived at Parkland Hospital by the time JFK's body was being lifted out of the back seat and onto a stretcher. Quoting again from Mr. Landis' book:

"The vice president’s limo had yet to arrive, so there were no agents from his detail in sight. In fact, there were no other agents in sight anywhere to the rear, to my right, or to the front. Where are they? Where the hell is SA Greer? He was driving the president’s limo. He should be here. The follow-up car was empty too. Where the hell is Special Agent Sam Kinney? He was driving it. Jeez, oh man! Where the hell is everyone? Where did all the agents go? Who is going to secure the car AND THE CRIME SCENE? Everyone seemed to be crowded around the president’s body. No one was paying attention to anything else. My immediate concern was the bullet. It would be visible to anyone happening to walk by. What about photographers? Or worse yet, What about a souvenir hunter? Thoughts continued to race through my mind." [End Quote.]

But with regard to Vice President Lyndon Johnson and his exact whereabouts at the time when President Kennedy was being wheeled into the hospital, there is evidence (via the observations of ambulance driver Aubrey Rike) which would indicate that Johnson actually entered Parkland Hospital prior to the time when either JFK or wounded Governor John Connally entered the emergency room entrance.

Listen to the chronology of events provided by Aubrey Rike, in two separate interviews he did on November 22, 1963, HERE.

If Rike's chronology of the timing for when each man entered the hospital is correct --- i.e., Johnson, then Connally, then Kennedy --- that would, in my opinion, place a serious cloud of doubt over Mr. Landis' account (and his mindset) concerning those same events.

Because if LBJ's car and his Secret Service follow-up car were actually there at the hospital prior to Landis and JFK and Mrs. Kennedy exiting the limo and going into the emergency room, it would also mean that Mr. Landis would very likely have had no reason to say this to himself --- "Where did all the agents go? Who is going to secure the car AND THE CRIME SCENE?" --- because there would have still been plenty of SS agents there at Parkland to look after the limousine/"crime scene".

So with each passing glance at Paul Landis' new 2023 story regarding the events of November 22nd, more and more questions (and doubts) seem to surface.

---------------------------------

Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Paul Landis


---------------------------------

David Von Pein
October 13, 2023





================================










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1399)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1399 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of April 1—30, 2026. 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.


================================


GREG DOUDNA SAID:

...the evidence indicates there was a seamstress and the only issue is the scope of the relationship, not whether there was one...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good heavens, Greg! You must be joking here!

You really think "the evidence indicates there was a seamstress" who was in the process of making curtains for Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63? Oh my!

Instead of any real "evidence" to support such a claim, I can see only a large amount of (fairly wild) speculation and a whole lot of "wishful thinking" on your part when it comes to your "Oswald and the Seamstress" theory.

Here's a point relating to Oswald's alleged desire to have a seamstress manufacture some custom-made curtains for his crackerbox of a room on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff....

Why on Earth would that penny-pinching miser named Lee Oswald have wanted to spend his own money to purchase some hand-crafted curtains and (possibly, per your theory) some additional curtain rods as well*, in order to dress up a closet-sized room that (logically) Oswald had no intention of retaining for any extended period of time after November 22? That makes no sense to me at all.**

Plus, it also doesn't make sense that Oswald would have thought that he himself would have to be the person to arrange for new curtains and curtain rods to be installed in his rented room at the Beckley roominghouse (in order to replace damaged curtains or rods). That would have been the responsibility of the owners of the roominghouse, Mr. and Mrs. A.C. Johnson. That's not a tenant's burden.

* And I can only assume, Greg, that your theory involving the seamstress includes some form of cash payment that would eventually be forked over by Oswald to pay for the services of the alleged seamstress, right? This mystery curtain-maker of yours surely isn't doing all of this for free from her Dal-Tex workplace, is she?

** And I think even all conspiracy theorists would agree that Mr. Oswald wasn't planning on setting up permanent residence at 1026 Beckley in late 1963. I doubt that Lee, Marina, and their two infant girls would have been very comfortable in those cramped quarters for very long.

Also .... It doesn't make sense to me that Lee Oswald (even from the POV of your "seamstress" theory) would have wanted to tell a lie to the police about the innocuous curtain rods. Because even if he did not want to be tied directly to your mysterious seamstress (for fear of Marina finding out), telling the truth about bringing curtain rods to work—if that was, in fact, what had occurred—would still have been much more preferable than telling a blatant lie to the authorities on the day the President was killed, because such a falsehood would only tend to make Oswald look more guilty.

Although I disagree strongly with the vast majority of your analysis, I did, however, enjoy reading your full 104-page treatise. But when all the evidence relating to the events of November 22, 1963, is weighed and judged, it's my opinion that you, Gregory Doudna, are missing the vast forest for the trees.


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the seamstress is going to make the curtains from her workplace, while she's on the clock at the Dal-Tex, using Dal-Tex equipment....all at no cost to anybody? Her boss must be very tolerant.

Allow me to harp a tad longer on this portion of your theory....

Lee Oswald lying to the police about the curtain rods, which really WERE in the package he took to work, but yet he decided to lie about this harmless item after his arrest anyway.

Your reasoning related to that Curtain Rod lie is mighty weak, IMO. If it was only Marina that worried LHO in this regard, Lee could have simply said he was only interested in getting the curtains and denied he was having a torrid affair with Miss Seamstress.

And even via your made-up theory, why couldn't that have been the case anyway? No affair. Just curtains. Therefore, no lie needed to be told to anyone. After all, this whole "seamstress" thing has been created out of nothing but whole cloth in the first place. Ergo, all theories can work equally well.


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Knowing the core evidence in the JFK assassination case as I do, it's my opinion that a person would have to stretch his or her imagination to absurd boundaries in order to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald actually carried curtain rods (or anything else) into the Book Depository on 11/22/63, instead of carrying his Carcano rifle into the building that morning.

And to believe, as Mr. Gregory Doudna does, that Oswald did have curtain rods with him on Nov. 22 but then later in the day he decided to lie to the police and tell them he had no large-ish package with him at all on Nov. 22 and that he had never uttered the words "curtain rods" to Buell Frazier....well, that's something that doesn't make any sense at all.

Because if Oswald had actually taken curtain rods to work that day, then how could Oswald possibly think that it would be better for him to lie to the police and deny all knowledge of any curtain rods, particularly in light of the two murder charges that LHO was facing?

Telling lies makes a person look very suspicious in the eyes of the authorities. But telling the truth about some curtain rods certainly wouldn't.

Re: The Length Of Oswald's Brown Paper Bag.....

In Buell Wesley Frazier's 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Frazier tells the Commission TEN SEPARATE TIMES that he wasn't paying very close attention to Oswald's paper bag or the way that LHO was carrying that bag on the morning of November 22nd. Let's have a look at Frazier's exact words:

"I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?""

"I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."

"Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

"I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it."

"Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that."

"Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--"

"I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there."


[End Frazier Quotes.]

And there's also Frazier's testimony at Oswald's 1986 mock trial in London, which included this exchange between Frazier and prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi:

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

------------------

Greg, do you think Frazier was lying to Vincent Bugliosi here?....



------------------

In my opinion, one of the biggest reasons to think that Lee Oswald did bring his rifle into the TSBD on 11/22 is the presence, after the assassination, of the 38-inch empty paper bag near the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor, which is a bag that has two of Lee Oswald's own fingerprints on it.

Is it more reasonable to conclude that the empty bag with LHO's prints on it was manufactured and planted after the fact by the police and that the real paper bag that Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22 just disappeared completely?

Alternatively, is it more reasonable to believe that the 38-inch bag was taken into the building by Oswald (or somebody else) on some other day prior to November 22nd?

Well, I suppose anything can be the subject of conjecture and theorizing, whether it be paper bags, rifles, bullet shells, or (in Greg Doudna's case) curtain-making seamstresses.

But when all dust has settled, I think the most reasonable conclusion to reach regarding the CE142 paper bag is that that is the only large-ish paper bag that ever existed in this entire JFK Assassination case, and that the only two people (Frazier and Randle) who ever laid eyes on that bag (besides Lee Oswald) prior to JFK's assassination were just simply wrong when they said the length of the bag was less than 38 inches.

Allow me to also stress this important fact concerning Linnie Mae Randle's very first estimate as to the length of the bag she saw in Oswald's hands....

In James Bookhout's Nov. 22 FBI report [in Commission Document No. 5], Randle said (according to Bookhout) that the paper bag Oswald was carrying was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches".

------------------

Excerpt from "Reclaiming History":

"[Buell] Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.

Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....

Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."

Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....

In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded, "That's true."

The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [of CBS News in 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I also think Oswald might have temporarily stashed his rifle package somewhere in the loading dock area after he entered that first TSBD door. And that action by LHO would explain why Jack Dougherty didn't see anything in Oswald's hands when LHO entered the TSBD proper.

There were no curtain rods in Oswald's package though. If there had been, Captain Fritz would never have had this exchange with Lee Oswald:

"I asked him [Lee Oswald] if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it." -- Captain Will Fritz' written report [Warren Report; Page 604]

------------------

Related Links:

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Curtain Rods (Part 1)

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Curtain Rods (Part 2)

David Von Pein
April 3-8, 2026





================================


BILL BROWN SAID:

[Bonnie Ray] Williams is eating his chicken on the bone sandwich (what's up with that, by the way?) over near the southeast corner.


JOHN MYTTON SAID:

A chicken on the bone sandwich is nothing I ever heard of, but apparently it's a southern thing? I found quite a few examples on the net.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More "Chicken-On-The-Bone Sandwich" Fun 😉 ....

The Bonnie Ray Williams KFC Special

The Chicken-On-The-Bone Conspiracy Theory

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Chicken-On-The-Bone Sandwich

David Von Pein
April 14, 2026





================================


GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

After watching the entire 47-minute video in Gerry Down's post above, I find it really strange that we don't hear Robert Groden, at any point in the lengthy video, say a single word about the so-called "Prayer Man" figure in the TSBD doorway. Not a word. Bob only talks about the decades-old "Billy Lovelady / Doorway Man" controversy.

Based on the fact that Groden only brought up the topic of Lovelady as the man in the Depository doorway, I got the strong impression that Mr. Groden isn't even aware of the newer "Prayer Man" theory.

Is it possible that Bob actually thinks the reason that Jefferson Morley and others are so anxious to see the original versions of the Wiegman and Darnell films is to only focus on the Billy Lovelady figure in the films, rather than focus on the Prayer Man individual? Sure sounded that way to me in the above April 2026 video interview. Very odd.

I'm also perplexed by this oddity that I noticed while watching the above video....

Why does Mr. Groden's DVD copy of his 1995 "Assassination Films" DVD display the Wiegman Film in a widescreen format? It was certainly not filmed in widescreen. It should be viewed in the proper 4x3 ratio, which is exactly how it is displayed on the version of Groden's DVD that I own. (The version I have was released by Delta Entertainment in 2003, but it has the exact same DVD menus and narration as Groden's original 1995 edition.)




GERRY DOWN SAID:

Groden would have seen the original Wiegman in the 1990s before the Prayerman theory was developed as far as I understand it. So Groden possibly never even looked for the Prayerman figure when he had the opportunity to do so.

Isn't Lovelady supposed to be walking down the Elm Street extension in the Wiegman/Darnell film? So no one is putting Lovelady at the doorway in the Wiegman film anyway.

This would mean that the only known living person to have viewed the original Wiegman film, Groden, quite possibly never even looked at the figure in the doorway that later developed into the Prayerman theory.

Either that or he did look at the figure that would later become known as Prayerman and determined it was not Oswald and proceeded to mistake the figure as being Lovelady.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I doubt very much that anyone looking at the Dave Wiegman film in the 1990s would (or even could) have determined that there was even a human being standing in the "Prayer Man" position on the top TSBD step. And that's because the Wiegman copy presented by Mr. Groden on his 1995 DVD (which I just watched again this evening) is just too dark and shadowy in the area of the Prayer Man figure for any definitive conclusions to be made. It's much worse than Jimmy Darnell's film, that's for sure.

The Wiegman print presented on Groden's '95 DVD just barely allows us to tell that a person is even there in the shadowy doorway, let alone permitting any kind of positive identification. It's impossible to even identify the gender of the person. The same can be said, of course, for the Darnell Film as well. The gender of the Prayer Man figure in the Darnell copies we've got now cannot be definitely established either.

And even going on the assumption that the "camera original" of Wiegman's film (which Groden says he has stored in Long Island) is of better quality and can be enhanced and tweaked to some extent, I doubt very much that enough detail and clarity can be extracted from the shadowy indistinctness that exists in the doorway.

BTW, the copy of the Wiegman Film that I saved to my computer several years ago (linked below) is derived from Robert Groden's 1995 DVD, but this copy isn't as good as the version I watched on my DVD copy tonight. This copy below doesn't even permit us to see any kind of human figure in the Prayer Man spot at all. That area of the doorway contains nothing but pitch-blackness....




ROY WIESELQUIST SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID [QUOTING BUELL FRAZIER]:

"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021


ROBIN UNGER SAID:

Baylor University Wiegman scan:




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Robin. That Baylor scan is just about identical to Groden's 1995 DVD version, with the "Prayer Man" area displaying pretty much total darkness.

But I'll certainly have to give credit to whoever it was who enhanced and "lightened up" the doorway in the Wiegman copy seen below, because that version is by far the best I've seen when it comes to at least being able to see that there is a person standing in the "PM" location on the steps:



And to illustrate how the various copies can vary in quality, here's what my crappy copy of the Wiegman film shows. (You wouldn't even know that the Prayer Man person was there at all.) ....



David Von Pein
April 16-17, 2026
April 16, 2026




AND....




================================


BILL BROWN SAID:

Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work. He told Buell Frazier that this special trip was so that he could retrieve some curtain rods for his room on Beckley.

After the assassination, Oswald leaves work and makes his way to the rooming house on Beckley. He does not have any curtain rods with him.

If Oswald simply left the Depository because he was told there would be no more work that day and therefore decided to go to his room, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him as he traveled from the Depository to his room on Beckley?


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

I don't believe for a second that Oswald went to Irving to get curtain rods. I believe it was a white lie to avoid having to tell a 19-year-old co-worker that he was really going to try and save his marriage. He had not seen his kids during the previous weekend and Marina was angry with him.

It would be a valid question to ask why he did not wait until the upcoming weekend, but when matters of the heart come into play, people are frequently not rational. Frazier said he loved kids. Not only his own, but all sorts of kids in Inving that he would play with. The human side of Oswald is very often ignored or simple dismissed. We don't know what happened between Marina and Lee from Monday to Thursday, but perhaps Oswald simply figured he couldn't wait any longer.

Nobody knows what was in the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning, so it could easily have been a mere prop to satisfy Frazier's possible curiosity that he got rid of as soon as he entered the TSBD. Was that the case? I honestly don't know and nobody does. It's just a possibility which LNs will instantly dismiss. Some things will never change.

The problem with this case is there are so many assumptions and so few verifiable dots to connect that you can make up any kind of narrative you like and that's exactly what happened. Does the narrative have any relation with reality? I seriously doubt it.


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

I guess he couldn't have waited one more day to save his marriage.

He couldn't wait any longer to kill the POTUS. That's the one thing that couldn't wait for the weekend.

I know exactly what was in the bag and why it was in the bag. I'm amazed it has you stumped. Like CTs being unable to figure out an open and shut double murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hours.

There are no problems in figuring out what happened. That's why Wade formally charged Oswald for both murders in the first 12 hours. He had a slam dunk case.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

This [John Corbett's post above] is what a post by a pathetic fanatic looks like.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, it's what a post looks like that was written by someone (John Corbett) who actually knows how to properly and sensibly assess and evaluate the evidence in the JFK case.

Incredibly, though, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that ALL OF THIS WEALTH OF EVIDENCE can actually exist in the JFK and Tippit murder cases and yet still end up with Lee Oswald being innocent of shooting anyone on 11/22/63.

But reasonable and sensible people who live here in the World of Reality just can't stretch their imaginations nearly that far. Because people like John Corbett and I prefer to remain in this universe of reality instead of wandering into the CT world of fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

If you have to use massive amounts of assumptions to connect the dots, it can never result in a "reasonable and sensible" scenario.

The thing is that I am not trying to come up with a scenario. On my side there is no wild speculation, tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses. I try to look at the evidence objectively and try to make sense of it.

Take the paper bag issue. Yes, there is a heavy duty paper bag with a partial print of Oswald on it. That bag must have been made at the TSBD but Troy Eugene West, who stated that he just about constantly (I'm paraphrasing) stayed where his work was (i.e. at the wrapping table), was absolutely clear about the fact that he had never seen Oswald anywhere near the wrapping machine area. Buell Frazier was asked if Oswald carried any package with him during the trip to Irving and his answer was: No.

Obviously Frazier could have been wrong and simply not have seen a folded up bag, and somebody must have made the heavy duty bag, but it would be a mere assumption that it was Oswald. There is no evidence that shows that the heavy duty bag ever left the TSBD and a bag made at the TSBD and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked provides very little evidence of anything.

[...]

I personally believe, but I can't prove it (words you seldom see a LN write), that the bag was nothing more than a prop. So, it's absolutely possible that Oswald at some point quickly left the TSBD and dumped the package in a dumpster.

Alternative, it could be that the package contained something that he had agreed to bring with him for some unknown third party to whom he gave the package to. The latter scenario obviously implies the involvement of at least one other person, but as I said, there is no evidence for it.

Nowhere in what I have written is there "fantasy, tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses" and where there is speculation I call it exactly that.

I'm not a great believer in planted evidence theories, but manipulated and misrepresented evidence in Henry Wade's days can most certainly not be ruled out.

Having said that, here's my question for you, David. Based on all the factual information given [HERE], how do you get to concluding that the heavy duty bag was nevertheless the bag Oswald carried?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because it fits together perfectly with several other pieces of evidence and witness testimony connected with the JFK case.

Such as:

.... The location where the paper bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)

.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.

.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.

.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?

And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.

And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):

On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Your reply is disappointing, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But your reply to my reply is even more disappointing, Martin. Especially this part (which is just downright laughable):

"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."

(Oh brother!)


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Without speculating, prove to me that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession. I bet you can't!

Oh btw, David, I don't do propaganda!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.


ALSO SEE:


David Von Pein
April 17-18, 2026





================================


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

DVP has argued that at Z225 JFK and JBC both show other signs of being struck and he might be right about that. He bases that on JFK's facial expression at Z225. Given the low resolution of the Z-film and we can't compare JFK's facial expression to Z224, I don't think that is conclusive.

There is no question that JBC's right shoulder dips dramatically at Z225 but I simply can't say whether that is a reflexive response or it is being moved by the force of the bullet. Either seems possible to me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's not just Connally's right shoulder that is moving around between Z224 and 225, it's both shoulders that are (IMO) unquestionably flinching. And this flinching is occurring in the exact same Zapruder frame (Z225) in which Connally's facial expression changes and his mouth opens.

Also take note of Connally's necktie curling up, which was being caused no doubt by the sudden flinching of the shoulders, forcing the tie to move. What we're seeing here are the immediate involuntary reflex reactions being exhibited by Governor Connally after being struck by a bullet:



And then, just one frame later, the Hat Flip:




ANDREW MASON SAID:

The movement couldn’t possibly be preparing to turn around because:
1. JBC had just heard a rifle shot.
2. He feared an assassination of the President was underway.
3. He wanted to turn around to look behind him to see JFK.

That would require evidence.

Oh, but there is a lot of evidence that the first shot struck JFK but did not strike JBC in the back.

And there is a lot of evidence that the first shot was after z186.

And there is really a lot of evidence that the last two were closer together, which would mean that the second shot has not occurred at z225.

But that’s just evidence. Your ability to interpret equivocal parts of the zfilm is better than the observations of many witnesses who were there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You, therefore, think that John Connally is exhibiting classic signs of sudden distress (flinching, suddenly opening his mouth, and jerking an arm up then down) merely because he was "preparing to turn around"??? Oh brother!

Looks like Andrew is in just about as much SBT Denial as Mr. James R. Gordon of The Education Forum. Mr. Gordon, btw, totally denied the Connally "hat flip" altogether. He thought it never occurred:

"Nor does John Connally’s hat begin to flip at Z 226 forwards. .... These “jerky” and “startled” reactions that you talk about only occur between Z 226 and Z 228. And these are blurred frames. These reactions have nothing to do with John Connally, they are a consequence of Zapruder moving his camera." -- James Gordon; May 15, 2015

How's that for a severe case of Denial?

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/A Bitter SBT Debate

David Von Pein
April 20, 2026





================================


DAVID VON PEIN POSTED THIS VIDEO:




JOHN CORBETT SAID:

The CBS reporter said...the three shots were fired in under 10 seconds. Apparently the Six Seconds in Dallas myth had not yet been formulated.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Related to what John Corbett just said above, in the 11/29/63 phone call between Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover (linked below), Mr. Hoover
made this statement to LBJ (at the 9:15 mark):

"Those three shots were fired within three seconds."



Now, as I think some more about the seemingly absurd "within three seconds" remark made by Hoover, I suppose it's possible that what Hoover meant to convey to LBJ is this:

"[Each of] those three shots [was] fired within three seconds [of each other]", which would mean about a six-second shooting timeline in total.

But Hoover's statement as it was spoken certainly makes it sound as though the FBI (as of November 29th) thought the entire assassination, from start to finish, took only three seconds (at most). ~shrug~

More of the FBI's early mistakes relating to JFK's assassination are discussed in my article HERE.

David Von Pein
April 23, 2026





================================


"TEXEXTRA" SAID:

You can't prove there weren't curtain rods in the bag because you can't prove what was in it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald TOLD US that there weren't any "curtain rods" in that bag (or ANY other bag)! He told us that when he denied (to the police) that he had ever said anything to Wes Frazier about "curtain rods".

Oswald also flat-out denied ever taking any large (non-lunch) bag into the TSBD on 11/22. That, too, is a provable lie. (Unless you'd rather take the word of the accused murderer on this matter, rather than the word of TWO people who weren't being charged with double-murder -- Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle.)

Oswald's lies, alone, prove that there were no curtain rods. Because if there had been any innocuous "rods" in the bag (and not something like, say, a rifle, that Oswald desperately wanted/needed to distance himself from), Lee would have said to the cops: "Yeah, I took some curtain rods into work".

And then, Oswald would have been able to produce some physical curtain rods to back up that claim. Or at least tell the police what he did with said rods.

No rods in TSBD + No rods at LHO's roominghouse + Oswald's lies to police regarding the rods/Frazier = There never were any curtain rods....period.


"TEXEXTRA" SAID:

There are many things that could have been in that bag about which Oswald might have wanted privacy for one reason or another -- a children's toy, a medical sample container, erotica, family heirlooms, etc.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, anything could have been in that bag except Rifle C2766...right?

Anything but that!!!

A "family heirloom" or "child's toy" that Oswald feels he has to lie about to both Wesley Frazier and the Dallas Police Department???

~~laugh~~


"TEXEXTRA" SAID:

Ah, but HE [Lee Oswald] didn't say it was a family heirloom or child's toy. He said there was no bag.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right. Which was positively a lie right there. Unless, as I said, you want to accuse Frazier and Randle of telling tales out of school. Do you?

And what possible reason would Lee Oswald have had to lie about an innocent package (especially AFTER he's arrested and charged with murders that CTers think he never committed)?

Via a scenario of LHO being INNOCENT....would he want to lie about a toy package even? A rubber ducky is a whole lot better (for LHO) in that package than a Mannlicher-Carcano. But STILL he wants to lie about it if he's innocent??!

Boy, what a nice patsy!


MARTY SAID:

Frazier saw him [Oswald] going through the door into the loading dock area with the package but, if I recall, that door did not directly lead into the TSBD. One would have to go through another door to go into the building itself. Someone explained this to me years ago when I was musing about where he might have stashed the package. Two or three people saw him at/around 7:30 am, but he wasn't carrying anything. This package wasn't exactly the size that you could stick down your pant leg or hide under your shirt.

We don't know when he took the package to the sixth floor, presumably via the stairwell. Amazing luck that he wasn't seen.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't deny the "luck" factor for a moment. LHO was VERY lucky on 11/22. Esp. in that he had the WHOLE sixth floor all to himself at precisely the right time.

I often wonder how many times Bonnie Ray Williams might have said to himself -- "If only I had stayed up there for a few more minutes, maybe Oswald wouldn't have done it."

IMO, Oswald wouldn't have attempted the killing if he knew that a witness was on the same 6th Floor.

Although, hindsight, you know.... ;)


"TEXEXTRA" SAID:

So, how do you suppose the shooter knew there WASN'T a witness on the same floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a fair question indeed (what with Oswald being surrounded by high box cartons in his Sniper's Nest).

My guess -- Oswald listened very intently. He heard nobody moving around on the 6th Floor (after Bonnie Ray Williams left at approx. 12:15 to 12:20). But if Arce, Norman, Jarman, Lovelady, et al, had decided to go to the 6th Floor to watch the parade, instead of other areas within the Depository, there is no way in this world that Lee Oswald fires that rifle from that Sniper's Nest at 12:30.....especially if he hears MULTIPLE people moving around and talking on that same sixth floor.

I somehow doubt that that ONE (4th) extra bullet is going to take care of multiple sixth-floor eyewitnesses. And, of course, from a pre-shooting LHO mindset, he couldn't possibly have known how many of those 4 bullets he would need to get the job done on Mr. Kennedy. It might very well have taken all four bullets for all he knew at 12:29. Who could know?

In a (lone) nutshell....

The totally deserted state of Floor #6 at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63, in effect, cost the President his life.

IMHO. YMMV.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

One thing seems to be missing from this discussion. Common sense. If there happened to be a spectator on the fifth floor, just move up to the sixth floor. If there happened to be a spectator on the sixth floor, just walk up to the seventh floor. If there is a spectator on the seventh floor, go up to the roof.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And then Oswald would be hauling his rifle from floor to floor (in full view of these other people on these different floors he was trying to distance himself from) until he finds an empty floor???

Is that about the size of your proposal?? That's using "common sense" in your view?

And then, via such a floor-hopping proposition, Oswald gets to start building his Sniper's Nest all over again on the 5th Floor and then possibly on the 7th Floor.

Were there even enough box cartons to build such a shielding Nest on those floors, btw? Beats me. But Floor #6 was just right for Oswald's purposes....a re-flooring project taking place on that floor that day, which meant boxes were scattered hither & yon, with a large quantity of cartons already on the east end (per Williams and Givens) that day, with which Oswald could easily build his Nest without too much difficulty.

And you should know, Tony, that the roof was out of the question as a shooting perch. Marrion Baker verified that fact in his testimony. Any gunman would have needed a stepladder to see above the high wall that surrounded the rooftop area.

Of course, to be fair, it's likely that Oswald wouldn't have known how the wall was laid out up on the roof before 11/22, unless he scouted out possible shooting locations earlier in the week, which certainly is a possibility, with Oswald possibly realizing that the sixth floor was his best bet for a shooting location, what with him probably knowing that the re-flooring project would be continuing on Floor #6 on Nov. 22....making his task of building his Nest all the easier and less noticeable.


MARTY SAID:

Hmm - I have thought about Williams and re-read his statement several times trying to visualize the scene. He said he heard nothing while sitting there until he heard the voices on 5th floor. Yet Brennan stated he watched the man in the window move about. Stocking feet?

IF the rifle was in the paper bag, would not that have made some noise when it was removed - i.e., "crinkling"? What about the clinking of metal when the rifle was re-assembled? We have to assume this was the area where the rifle was re-assembled, because if you believe DPD, this was where the bag was found.

From Brennan's observations, one does not get the impression the man in the window was busy putting together a dismantled rifle. It would be reasonable to assume the rifle was already assembled. Where and when?

Was the man in the window aware Williams was sitting within feet of him? And, what was he prepared to do about that situation if Williams had not left? Lucky man - Williams.

Now consider the two men directly below on the fifth floor. They did not say of hearing movement directly above them pre-shooting (think Brennan). At some point in time, the boxes piled for the "shooting bench" had to be arranged.

So, if we believe Williams arrived on the 6th floor between 12 and 12:20, then our man was already in the SN [Sniper's Nest] according to Brennan.

You are a very smart and observant guy, David. So help me with a re-enactment.

Thanks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



David Von Pein
April 5-16, 2007
Re-posted April 4, 2026





================================


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

By your own chronology, [Roy] Truly would have had to seen Oswald as he climbed the stairs.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My chronology doesn't require Truly to have seen Oswald. Oswald probably ducked off the stairway just a matter of seconds before Truly appeared on Floor #2.

But for some stupid reason, you seem to think Truly was "several seconds" ahead of Baker (vs. "a few feet", per Truly himself). Go figure.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

You claim that Oswald reached the lunchroom six seconds before Baker arrived.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Those are the estimates provided by the average times of the four Warren Commission re-creations, yes. And those re-creations perfectly align with what the WC says Oswald probably did after shooting JFK.

I guess, per conspiracists, it's just another "coincidence" that the Warren Commission (and Baker himself) were able to re-create something that CTers say was utterly impossible, huh? Just like the Discovery Channel re-created the general path of the Single-Bullet Theory, even though that too is considered an absolute impossibility according to most conspiracy theorists. Go figure.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

But you claim that Oswald WALKED from the sixth floor to the lunchroom.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I never once said that Oswald positively "walked" to the 2nd Floor. He could have run part of the way. I said that John Howlett, the Secret Service Agent who did the re-creations of Oswald's probable movements, performed his reconstructions at two different "walking" paces, yes. But that doesn't mean that Oswald "walked" it. Maybe he did run. Who can know? No one can.

But the point is -- even if LHO had only WALKED to the 2nd Floor, it was still a doable journey in order to arrive on the second floor approx. 6 to 7 seconds before Baker/Truly.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

He [Marrion Baker] said he looked up after the FIRST shot and noticed pigeons bursting from behind the Hertz sign on top of the TSBD and thought that was where the gunman was, so he immediately sped up his motorcycle and ran into the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Wiegman Film shows Baker just after he dismounted his cycle, which equates to ______? Fill in the blank concerning this unknown, because without sound on Wiegman's film, we can't tell if the shooting is completely over when we see Baker, but it's certainly close. Plus there are Baker's own words, when he said (in his Warren Commission testimony) that all three shots had already occurred by the time he dismounted his cycle:

"Before I revved up this motorcycle, I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots." -- Marrion L. Baker [3 H 247].


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Baker said the door was closed. Therefore Oswald was not the sniper.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, a door has proved Oswald's innocence. The fact that a door was deemed closed is a good enough reason to make a conspiracy theorist named Walt declare Oswald innocent of shooting President Kennedy.

Great logic there. Let's just ignore all of that OTHER evidence against Mr. Oswald, and stick by that door with the automatic closing mechanism on it to prove Oswald's innocence.



Oops....looks like Walt needs to re-think the "closed door" thing after all. Because we have this testimony from Officer Baker, in which he comments on the status of the vestibule door:

MARRION BAKER -- "All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was—this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time."

MR. BELIN -- "You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?"

MR. BAKER -- "Yes, sir."


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Thank you....You've just stepped in it again. You said that Oswald could have reached the lunchroom in 78 seconds. And since the door was either shut or "almost shut at that time", Oswald would have had to reach the lunchroom about 15 or 20 seconds PRIOR to Baker's arrival.

If it took Oswald 78 seconds to reach the lunchroom and 15 seconds for the door to close, then it's elementary that Oswald would have had to descend from the fake "sniper's nest" to the lunchroom in 63 seconds.

The Warren Commission said that he would have needed 78 seconds to reach the lunchroom, and if it took 15 seconds for the door to close, then that means the door closed 93 seconds after the LAST shot and Baker would have been there watching it close....because you said it took Baker 82.5 seconds to reach the lunchroom after the LAST shot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And this must mean that Walt The Super-Sleuth has timed the door-closing mechanism on the TSBD lunchroom vestibule door, correct? He knows it takes that door at least "15 seconds" to fully close. It must have been a door made by the "Snail-Pace Door Co. Inc.". Fifteen seconds for a door to close, even via an auto door-closing device is unGodly slow. No door is likely to take that long to fully shut.

But even if it took 60 seconds to fully close, Walt's still living in a dream world by attempting to micro-manage every tiny detail surrounding Oswald's and Baker's post-12:30 movements on 11/22/63 -- movements that shall forever remain guesswork to a substantial extent. There's no way around this "guesswork" when it comes to Oswald's movements, and to some degree Baker's as well. But the best evidence is that Oswald did descend those back stairs after the shooting and ended up meeting Baker in the vestibule or lunchroom area just seconds after he (LHO) arrived on the 2nd Floor.

It's also quite likely (common-sense-wise here) that Oswald didn't take the time to FULLY OPEN the vestibule door. Why would he? Who opens a door to its full extent before entering a room...EVER? Very unlikely occurrence. Therefore, Oswald might very well have only opened that door far enough to allow him to slip inside it quickly.

Meaning: the door would not have had nearly as far to close, since it probably wasn't opened all the way by Oswald in the first place. Just a very few seconds...tops. Certainly not nearly as many as fifteen seconds.

Rabid conspiracy theorists like Walt Cakebread, however, will do anything necessary to deviate from the "Oswald Did It" path. Even if they have to micro-manage the case right down to counting the number of seconds it takes a door to close (which, of course, was never "timed" by anyone as far as I am aware; but Walt seems to be an expert in this field of door-closers, so I guess he just expects everyone to take his word for anything he says).


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

You know and acknowledge that Lee's movements are nothing but "guesswork", but in the very next sentence you say...."But the best evidence is that Oswald did descend those back stairs".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. Exactly. So?

The "Best Evidence" (by far) is that Oswald did descend those stairs after being on the 6th Floor at 12:30 while shooting the President.

Some guesswork is (inevitably) involved in trying to piece together Oswald's movements, since Lee wasn't nice enough to tell Capt. Fritz, et al, his step-by-step activities on 11/22.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

In one breath you acknowledge that there is no solid evidence that Oswald descended those stairs after the shooting, but in the very next breath you say there is evidence that Oswald descended those stairs.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's solid evidence that Oswald was firing a gun on the sixth floor at 12:30....and there's no question that Oswald was in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom at approx. 12:31:30. It doesn't take a genius to do the math here, does it?

The exact number of steps it took for Lee to get from floors 6 to 2 is unknown, and the exact number of seconds it took him to do it will forever be guesswork as well. But the best guess is that he DID perform his trip from Floor #6 to Floor #2 in the allotted timeframe.

And then there are the other little things to consider too. Things like:

Oswald's prints all over the joint up on the 6th Floor; Oswald's very own rifle on that same floor (and those three spent bullet shells); and that pesky paper bag with LHO's prints on it.

That's an abundant amount of "Oswald Was Up Here On The Sixth Floor Shooting A Gun" evidence to fake, isn't it?

To believe all of that stuff was conveniently "arranged" by conspirators is to believe in some really fanciful clandestine handiwork.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Anybody who knows the facts knows that the Warren Commission depicted Oswald as running as fast as he could to get away from the scene. They certainly never depicted him as WALKING from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor. How utterly ridiculous.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Walt thinks he's going to tell me the "facts" about this matter. That's a laugh!

The Warren Commission re-created Oswald's movements (using Special Agent John Howlett)....and BOTH re-creations were done at a "walking" pace....not "running as fast as he could", as Walt seems to think.

Let's have a look:

"Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test, at a "fast walk", took 1 minute, 14 seconds." -- Warren Report; Page 152

But Walt must think the Warren Commission is full of crap there on Page 152. I guess he thinks they were lying through their collective teeth when they said "normal walking pace" and "fast walk".

~shrug~


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

The conspiracy fantasist named Walt Cakebread has placed "cloak & dagger" crap around every single piece of evidence in the case, and around every movement made by Lee Harvey Oswald. And why has he done this? Quite simply, to keep the notion of conspiracy alive in his mind (where no "conspiracy" need exist at all).

Walt is certainly not a fan of "Occam's Razor", that's a certainty. He would prefer to muddy the fairly clean waters by adding mountains of unsupportable stuff that doesn't need to be added in order to resolve this case.

A strange hobby, to be sure.

David Von Pein
September 29—October 4, 2006
Re-posted April 4, 2026





================================


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Upon reading John Canal's footnote concerning Ken O'Donnell on Page 60 of John's book "Silencing The Lone Assassin", it only further reinforces the idea that the selection of the Trade Mart could not possibly have been conspiratorial in any way at all.

Because if Governor Connally was twisting O'Donnell's arm to get the Trade Mart approved as the luncheon site (which I think is very believable, given the newness and attractive nature of the Trade Mart vs. the less-attractive alternatives that were available), then there's no way possible that such a "Connally push" for the Trade Mart was done to promote some assassination conspiracy plot.

Or do some CTers want to actually believe the ultra-silly notion that John Connally would deliberately want to place himself in harm's way, only inches from the target of the assassins, when he would be travelling through Dealey Plaza on the way to the Trade Mart?

Not to mention the fact that O'Donnell, TOO, was right smack-dab in the middle of Elm Street (in the center of the Secret Service follow-up car) when the bullets started flying!

Is it likely that even O'Donnell would have wanted to be THAT CLOSE to the gunfire that HE, essentially, arranged (in a logistics sense) by selecting the Trade Mart and, in effect, the route the cars would take to get there?

And the idea that BOTH Kenneth O'Donnell AND John Connally conspired in some fashion to "control" some kind of conspiracy plot to kill the President is just too silly an idea for even all of the lifelong CTers to believe (or at least it should be that silly to everybody's way of thinking).


PETER FOKES SAID:

The word "arranged" is rather nebulous.

In "arranging" the trip, one would naturally assume O'Donnell was carrying out instructions.

David claims that if there was a conspiracy then O'Donnell must have been involved because he helped arranged the trip.

Of course, that premise is nonsensical.

Would it have been impossible for Oswald to fire at JFK from another building? No.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And how many buildings did Oswald WORK IN, where he could blend in with other workers very easily and get cleared by the cops within minutes of shooting the President because he worked in that building?

BTW, I agree with an earlier post about Oswald being able to probably still kill JFK even if the limo had gone straight down Main Street instead of turning onto Elm. But that undeniably would have been a more difficult shot for sure, with the car moving faster (more than likely) and with Oswald not having the built-in Elm Street advantage of having the car slowly moving in a direct line away from his gun.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Wasn't it Kenny O'Donnell who gave the order to remove the bubble top?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. Indeed it was.

And don't forget it was also Mr. O'Donnell who was chiefly responsible for taking JFK's dead body out of Dallas and back to Washington.

In other words -- O'Donnell is firmly fixed in MANY different places where conspiracy buffs NEED A CONSPIRATOR CONTROLLING STUFF!

And since it's obvious to even a blind rat that Mr. Kenneth P. O'Donnell was NOT on any kind of Assassination Conspiracy Payroll on November 22, 1963, how do the CTers (who need an "inside plotter" doing things and approving things that Mr. O'Donnell did and approved) explain the stuff O'Donnell did as "conspiratorial"?

Did the REAL (non-O'Donnell) plotters just GET LUCKY when O'Donnell did many things that greatly aided the conspiracy plot?

Things like:

1.) Selecting the Trade Mart as the Dallas luncheon site (with another non-plotter's major assistance, John Connally's).

2.) Ordering the bubbletop to definitely be "off that car" if the rain cleared in Dallas.

3.) And by practically bulldozing JFK's casket past Dr. Rose at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

That's called HAPPENSTANCE...not CONSPIRACY. And those things were controlled chiefly by someone who cannot possibly be painted as a "plotter".

So, either the plotters just got unbelievably lucky ALL DAY LONG on November 22nd....or: there was simply no conspiracy at all in Dallas.


PETER FOKES SAID:

Jackie could have said "Leave the body in Dallas and follow the law." Did she? No?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Jackie didn't say "Take JFK to Walter Reed" either, did she? So the CT after-the-shooting at-the-autopsy cover-up plot that many, many CTers advocate requires Jacqueline Kennedy to be involved too.

Or: it requires another layer of PURE LUCK for those amazing plotters. Lookie..."They" just GOT LUCKY once again when Jackie said "Bethesda".

Yes, JFK was a Navy man, so the plotters could have guessed right on this one fairly easily...but how do they "control" Jackie AND O'Donnell AND O'Brien AND Kilduff AND on and on?

How do "they" control all of these people who could have nixed a Washington autopsy at any point in time?

They just GOT LUCKY (again), right?

The horoscope for "Assassination Plotters" must have revealed this on the morning of November 22, 1963:

TODAY IS YOUR LUCKIEST OF LUCKY DAYS! GO FOR IT! NOTHING CAN STOP YOU! NOT EVEN JACKIE! NOT THE PRESIDENT'S DEVOTED STAFF! NOT JOHN CONNALLY! NOBODY! KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A PATSY WILL AUTOMATICALLY FALL INTO PERFECT PLACE!


PETER FOKES SAID:

O'Donnell was not involved in a conspiracy. The more you try to say other people think he was, the more silly your theory becomes. Your premises are all wrong.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You still don't get my main point at all, do you?

Of course O'Donnell was not part of any conspiracy. Which means, by default, that if the general type of conspiracy exists that many CTers advocate, the plotters were the luckiest bums since Lucky Lindy in '27.


PETER FOKES SAID:

If JFK wanted the bubble top to stay on, it would have stayed on. If Jackie wanted the body to remain in Dallas, it would have remained in Dallas.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right. Which also indicates the whole day of Nov. 22 revolved around PURE HAPPENSTANCE, CHANCE, AND REGULAR ORDINARY-LIKE DECISIONS.

I.E.: Nothing is being "controlled" by any evil forces on Nov. 22. Jackie, O'Donnell, O'Brien, and Connally prove that to be the case.

Are you starting to get the whole drift of my "Happenstance" thread now?

If anyone is to believe anything in Oliver Stone's movie, or if they believe anything uttered by Jim Garrison, then they have no choice but to believe one of the following two things:

1.) Ken O'Donnell and John Connally and Jackie Kennedy must have been part of the plot too.

Or:

2.) The plotters who were orchestrating the "Let's Kill JFK And Blame Everything On Oswald" plot were the luckiest assassins/plotters on the planet when the three above-named individuals did things that made that patsy plot succeed to absolute perfection.


PETER FOKES SAID:

Trouble is NO ONE believes what you say they believe, nor is it necessary for them to believe what you say they believe to believe in a conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Depends on how deep into Absurdville a CTer wants to go. If a conspiracy believer is in bed with Garrison or Groden or Stone (and a whole bunch of them are), then YES, such a CTer must believe in one of the two options I offered above.

If you're in a conspiracy camp of a less-kooky nature, then you're correct. (But not by much really.)

But when I talk about "CTers", I have a habit of aiming my comments at the more extreme fantasists within that faction. It's a habit that's hard to break.

And since many people I've talked with do sincerely believe that Oliver Stone's "Triangulation Of Crossfire" craziness is the Gospel when it comes to the shooting scenario in Dealey Plaza...I tend, therefore, to aim my comments at them more than the conspiracists who possess the following mindset....

Oswald Was A Shooter, But I Still Think There Was A Conspiracy Even Though I Have No Bullets Or Other Hard Evidence To Support That Belief.


PETER FOKES SAID:

No one needs O'Donnell to do anything. At any time, his "arrangements" could have been altered by JFK or Jackie.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is proving my MAIN POINT all the more, Peter.

Thanks.


PETER FOKES SAID:

You mean when JFK wanted the bubbletop removed? You mean when Jackie agreed to the moving of her husband's body?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More proving of my main "Happenstance, Not Conspiracy" point.

Thanks again.


PETER FOKES SAID:

The Trade Mart has nothing to do with the conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure it does. (Per Stone's "Triangulation on Elm St." crap anyway.)

If the limo wasn't headed to the Trade Mart, that Elm Street turn would never have occurred...and Stone's/Garrison's whole PRE-PLANNED "Blame It On The Patsy In The TSBD" and "Triangulation" theories are shot down right there.

Garrison/Stone (and those who prop them up) definitely NEED the luncheon site to be at the Trade Mart. Because they need the car on Elm. Or else the shooting is much more difficult.


PETER FOKES SAID:

I hope Bugliosi uses better logic than you are.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you really think that Vincent Bugliosi WON'T be mentioning something very similar in nature to what I've been saying here regarding "Pure Chance" and "Happenstance" and "Those Plotters Sure As Hell Got Lucky", etc.?

If he doesn't mention a lot of stuff like that I'll be severely disappointed, because such arguments positively need to be made (with zeal). And such arguments, all by themselves, go a long way toward debunking many of the conspiracy theories that have been offered up since '63.

In short -- Oswald shot the President mainly BECAUSE THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED HIM...FROM HIS OWN WORKPLACE (where he could blend in with other employees and BE CLEARED AS AN EMPLOYEE, which did occur).

The President probably lives past November 22nd if Oswald had not been hired by Roy Truly on October 15th, 1963.

YMMV concerning that last declaration. And I will readily admit that's just my own opinion. But since I know that Oswald was not suicidal in any way (he proved that several times on Nov. 22; mainly on Tenth Street when he encountered Tippit), I have my doubts that he would have attempted to kill the President if he had not been employed in a tall building which he knew, days in advance, would overlook the motorcade route.


PETER FOKES SAID:

And if JFK didn't want [the] bubbletop removed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then he probably lives to see his 47th birthday. Or at least he's got a much better chance of reaching it anyway. Oswald might very well have shot through the bubbletop though. But it might have deflected a fatal shot. Nobody can know.

Plus: I also wonder if Oswald could have possibly known for certain whether the bubbletop was bulletproof or not. Knowledge of that important detail about the car's bubbletop roof would probably have affected his decision to shoot, if he had seen the bubbletop on the car as it approached the TSBD that day. If he thought the bubbletop was bulletproof (which it wasn't of course), there would obviously be no point in shooting at all.


PETER FOKES SAID:

And if Jackie didn't want the body moved?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then David Lifton has to reconfigure his 700+ pages of body-stealing idiocy. And a lot of other CTers must alter their "cover-up plots" too. Because many CTers certainly have Humes, Finck, and Boswell (and other military bigshots) up to no good at Bethesda.

No worries though....those same CTers can just accuse Dr. Rose of phonying-up the autopsy, right?


PETER FOKES SAID:

JFK was dead. The plotters had no need to worry about an autopsy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Even within the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison patsy plot, eh?? (Which is a plot that a huge number of people actually believe in.)

LOL. This is a riot.

Per the Stone crowd, assassins fire 6 shots at the President (all of which COULD have hit JFK, of course, from varying angles/directions)...and then "they" try to blame the whole nine yards (6 shots) on Lee Harvey Oswald by planting only THREE bullet shells and firing the 6 shots so close together that there's no way in hell that all of those shots could all have been fired by the resident "Patsy For All 11/22/63 Murders".

And yet Peter F. has this to say: "The plotters had no need to worry about an autopsy."

Yeah, that's right. The plotters just had a feeling that all of the autopsists would hide the bullets and cover up everything that looked like a frontal shot, right? The plotters just had a INKLING that the U.S. Government would be wanting to frame the very same lone patsy that the pre-arranging plotters were attempting to frame.

~~Awaiting Pete's or Tony's proverbial "Not my theory" response~~

But, of course, I don't care if it's particularly YOUR theory or not. I was talking about the people who DO buy into Ollie Stone's fairy tale...which is a very large number of people.

And THAT type of plot requires a good deal of pre-planning....some of which was done by John Connally (who was almost killed himself on 11/22 and who was responsible for approving ANY motorcade through Dallas in the first place) and Kenneth O'Donnell.

So, more lucky breaks for the plotters. Their luck never ran out. And it still hasn't, as long as people continue to prop up Stone's film (or similar nutty theories) as the truth of 11/22/63.


PETER FOKES SAID:

A conspiracy depends on certain factors occurring in ADVANCE of the attempted assassination. If they don't, the assassination does not occur.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once again, you're proving my main point for me. Some of the important "IN ADVANCE" stuff was done by people like Connally and O'Donnell. And since nobody paints them as plotters...where do the CTers go from there?

Do you get it now?

-------------------------------

DVP Addendum.....

Just name any location on the "JFK Assassination Map" (so to speak), and I'll give you the names of at least two people (plus the wealth of associated "lone assassin" evidence that comes from said locality) who debunk the notion that any conspiracy theory or cover-up plot could have occurred from such a location....including all of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, Tenth Street, Parkland, Bethesda, the DPD, and right on in to the places where the Warren Commission assembled and/or questioned witnesses.

There are conspiracy-refuting people in all of those locales, including the previously mentioned Kennedy aides (plus Governor Connally), whose actions and decisions PRIOR to November 22 would have made it virtually impossible for the kind of conspiracy plot that many CTers advocate to have been pulled off in the first place.

The only type of "conspiracy" that cannot be thoroughly trashed is the type that would have involved JUST OSWALD as the lone shooter in Dealey Plaza and on 10th Street (which he so obviously was) and the aid of one or more behind-the-scenes co-plotters who encouraged Oswald or (in some small way) helped him to reach his ultimate goal of killing John F. Kennedy.

But even THAT type of smaller "JUST OSWALD AND ONE OTHER PLOTTER WHO NEVER PICKED UP A GUN" conspiracy is very, very unlikely...and for an obvious reason. That reason being: Oswald's SOLO-LIKE actions following the assassination of JFK.

If LHO had had "help" of some kind, where was that other plotter when Lee Harvey Oswald needed him most -- i.e., just after Oswald shot the President and needed a getaway driver fast?

In short, just about the only location where a JFK conspiracy cannot be almost totally debunked is in a RABID CONSPIRACIST'S MIND. That fertile "Conspiracy" ground can probably never be exorcised of its conspiracy-tinged demons.

David Von Pein
April 28—May 1, 2007
May 1, 2007
Re-posted April 4, 2026





================================