JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 949)

KENNETH DREW SAID:

He [DVP] says I am trying to say that JFK was shot with a handgun. Clearly anyone that read my statement knows that's not true.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Looks like Ken is suffering from another bout of his "false memory" again. He doesn't seem to recall much of anything he has written--even stuff he wrote yesterday. Just a little more than 24 hours ago, Kenneth Drew said the following in this Education Forum post....

"Certainly could have been with a handgun." -- K. Drew

My post in response to Ken's absurd "handgun" speculation is, therefore, a perfectly accurate summary of what Ken had said....

"To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that." -- DVP; June 2, 2015


KENNETH DREW SAID:

My statement clearly said that "there is no proof that he was shot with a rifle".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And that statement--all by itself--ranks as one of the dumbest statements ever written on any JFK forum since the invention of this great thing called "The Internet". Congrats.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

And, of course, there is no "proof" that he was shot with a "rifle".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Take another look at CE567 and CE569 again, Kenneth. How do you think those two bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle managed to get into the front seat of the President's limousine?

Just take a wild, off-the-wall guess.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Not one person has ever been linked, by evidence, to the shooting.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you just might have topped yourself in the "Dumbest Statements" category, Ken. Nice job.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

No gun is associated with the shooting.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A hat trick! Three incredibly dumb statements in just one single post. Not easy to accomplish, but Ken makes it look easy.

Ken thinks the C2766 Carcano rifle can't be "associated" with the JFK shooting. Even though the following items exist in the evidence pile....

...Three bullet shells from the C2766 rifle.

...Two large bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle.

...The stretcher bullet (CE399) from the C2766 rifle. (And as much as Ken and all other conspiracy theorists hate that CE399 bullet, it's still there in the JFK assassination evidence pile nonetheless. And it always will be.)

...And then there's the C2766 rifle itself, which I guess Ken wants to pretend really WASN'T found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building at all.

Isn't it embarrassing to be THIS wrong about everything, Kenneth? I would think it would be.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Would you please produce any document or record that shows LEE HARVEY OSWALD ordered a rifle which is not based on the HSCA's tainted handwriting analysis on reproductions. If the only evidence related to these purchases are only Xerox copies of copies from microfilm, the conclusions based on these copies are worthless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The C2766 rifle that Klein's mailed to Oswald/(Hidell) has LHO's prints on it, David. Three prints, in fact.

That's definitive proof that Oswald had the C2766 weapon in his possession at some point in time.

And since it's obvious that OSWALD had the C2766 weapon in his possession at some point in time, then why would you think that OSWALD did not ORDER the weapon himself from Klein's (especially in light of all that paperwork that proves he DID order it)?

Or are you going to argue that the three LHO prints were planted there too? (And, yes, I'm including the two trigger guard prints.)

Good luck in pretending those three LHO prints are "tainted" and "worthless" too.




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

If we look at the enlarged version [of this backyard photo], which DVP has been so gracious to provide us with, there is something very unnatural about the left hand, holding the rifle. Comparing the left hand with the right hand, we can see the entire length of the four fingers of the left hand. Looking at your own hand, you can see the thumb begins quite far back on the hand, and even when laid along the fore finger, does not even extend to the second knuckle of the fore finger.

In the photograph, you can see the thumb of the left hand in an impossible position on the opposite side of the rifle from where the thumb joins to the hand. The left thumb in this photo would have to be about 8 inches long to do what we are seeing.

Was LHO a circus freak, as well?

P.S.

Perhaps DVP would be so good as to take a "selfie" of himself, holding a rifle, and recreate this impossible positioning of fingers and thumb.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now wait a second, Bob. Isn't the most popular theory for the "fake backyard photos" the one that has a REAL PERSON standing in the Neely St. backyard holding a rifle and that only the HEAD of Oswald was pasted onto this "other person's" body?

So, if that's the theory, the Oswald stand-in would still have a THUMB on his left hand too. So the "stand-in" would be the "freak" with the weird thumb.

Just HOW MANY things can you guys come up with that "don't quite look right" in the backyard pictures? Is there any limit?

So, Bob, I guess you think that NOBODY was really standing in the Neely backyard at all, is that right? And pretty much everything except the background was added into the picture artificially? Including the freakish left thumb that apparently belonged to NO flesh-and-blood person? Is that correct?

And don't forget the alleged "impossible" leaning posture being exhibited by the "person" (or the drawn-in person) in the picture too.

And the stubby fingers on the "person's" right hand too. Don't forget that.

Plus the "impossible" shadows.

And the cropped chin.

Did I leave anything out?

Keep looking at the picture below. I'm sure before the end of the day, you can add a dozen more things that you see in the photo that are "impossible".

And keep ignoring Marina whatever you do. She has always said she took the backyard pictures. But she was probably just dreaming the whole thing. Right, Bob?




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Smoke and mirrors, Dave, and then distraction. You have been well trained for your job.

If you believe the freakish left hand holding the rifle with the impossibly long thumb is real, put your money where your big mouth is and re-create this photo. We all know it can't be done.

Know why they did such a sloppy job faking this photo? Simple, no one in 1963 ever thought every home would have a computer capable of analyzing things such as this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bob,

I'm not entirely sure that the "left thumb" is really a thumb at all in the backyard photo. It could be a situation similar in some respects to the alleged "sling mount" -- i.e., perhaps it's part of the lighter-colored background being seen through Oswald's left armpit.

I'll perform one of my patented ~shrugs~ here, because I really can't tell what the "thumb" is.

But let me add this.....

If it IS the "left thumb" of a person (and it might very well be), then it is unquestionably (at least IMO) the left thumb of Lee Harvey Oswald. And, therefore, Oswald must be holding the rifle in such a manner that has enabled his left thumb to wrap itself around the barrel of the gun in just the manner seen in the photograph.

This could be another situation when examining photographs when something just doesn't look quite right due to the angles involved or the quality of the photo itself, etc. It seems to me that a whole array of legitimate possibilities could conceivably exist to logically explain what appears to be an "eight-inch thumb" on the left hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in that picture without having to resort to the CTers' favorite alternative of "photo fakery".

And I'll remind everyone here, that neither I nor Robert Prudhomme are "photo experts". (Are you qualified to be labelled as such, Bob? I know I am not. And I'm doubting you qualify either.)

And I'll also remind everyone reading this of what the HSCA determined in 1978 (and they were looking at the ORIGINAL photographs, which had even better resolution and clarity than the pictures we have seen on the Internet)....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Vol. 6, Page 146

And, for good measure, I'll add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book....

"[Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

What about this re-creation photo below? Looks like that just might be a thumb being wrapped pretty far around the gun barrel here too. And, btw, this is the re-creation photo that proves the conspiracy theorists are all wet when it comes to the alleged "fake shadows" seen in the backyard photos of Oswald. The shadows seen in this re-creation picture are identical to the shadows Oswald was casting when he posed for the backyard pics in 1963....







ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

A careful look at your photo indicates that even the thumb in this photo is unnaturally long and, try as I might, I cannot reproduce this pose myself.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Bob, shouldn't that tell you something right there?

Or do you now want to say that the CBS/Schiller re-creation photo is a fake too?


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Where did you find this photo, Dave?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Via just a regular ol' "Google Image" search. Here are the search results.

BTW, the man in the re-creation picture can also be seen in the 1967 CBS video linked HERE. However, it appears that the picture used in the CBS video is slightly different than the re-creation photo I posted above.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

I seriously doubt the people behind the cover up are not above supplying a re-touched photo to CBS/Schiller. Of course there is a possibility this photo is faked! Everything else in this case has been a lie, why would one more re-touched photo matter?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why did I even bother to ask? I knew what Bob's ridiculous answer was going to be.

So now let's heap on still more plotters and cover-up operatives, Bob.

What's the number up to nowadays? Has it reached 5 digits yet? Must be pert-near that.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Instead of your usual drivel, Dave, explain to us how LHO's thumb can be in such an impossible position.

Can't do it, right? I thought so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not convinced it is Oswald's thumb. But it might be (as I said before).

But the things that CTers believe to be "impossible" are of no consequence whatsoever. And particularly when it comes to ANYTHING they declare as "impossible" regarding the JFK case. Because they are ALWAYS wrong about everything.

It was impossible for Oswald to fire the rifle in XXX seconds... (Wrong.)

It was impossible for Oswald to make it to the second floor in XXX seconds... (Wrong.)

It was impossible for Oswald to have gotten to 10th St. in time... (Wrong.)

It was impossible for a rear shot to result in JFK's head moving to the rear... (Wrong.)

The Single-Bullet Theory is impossible... (Wrong.)

The shadows in the BY photos are impossible... (Wrong. As I just proved above with the re-creation photo.)

And on and on to "impossible" infinity.

So when the all-knowing Bob Prudhomme tells me something is "impossible", forgive me for not bowing down and taking his word as Gospel.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Face it, Dave, the picture is a phoney. No one can re-create the impossible angle LHO is standing at, especially if the fence is put on the level.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What in the world is so impossible about the way Oswald is standing? I see nothing all that unusual about his pose here at all. Just because he's not standing rigid or ramrod straight up and down, you think his posture is physically impossible for a member of the human race? Silly.

So, once again, we're treated to CTers seeing "impossible" things that are far from impossible.

[For more about "The Leaning Tower Of Oswald", CLICK HERE.]


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

My son, a child of the Computer Age, looked at the BYP for about 30 seconds and pronounced, "Photoshopped!". :)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, that does it for me then. I'm throwing in the towel right now. Bob Prudhomme Jr. has declared one of the backyard photos to be fake, so nothing more needs to be said about it. Robert Jr. has the final word. Let's stamp it "MARK VII" right now. Thanks so much, Bob. (And Bob Jr.)


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The CBS Schillerman pose is nothing like the supposed pose of Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, it is. The two poses are nearly identical. CBS/Schiller did an excellent job of mimicking Oswald's stance and everything else associated with the famous backyard photo. The re-creation even nails the angled body shadow perfectly---right down to the exact slat on the back fence where the shadow of each man's head falls. The fourth slat from the left. Absolutely perfect....




CURTIS BERKLEY SAID:

During interrogations, wasn't Oswald speaking freely on any number of things, with the notable exception of when he would be asked about the rifle, at which point he would refuse to respond, or brush the question aside, entirely?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bingo, Curtis. You are 100% correct.

Also....

"Oswald consciously tried to distance himself from the murder weapon so much that he apparently even went to the following extreme: He and Marina and their daughter June lived at the apartment on Elsbeth Street in Dallas for exactly four months (November 3, 1962, to March 3, 1963), and then moved to the apartment on Neely Street for close to two months (March 3, 1963, to April 24, 1963). However, when he was asked to furnish all of his previous residences since his return from Russia, and the approximate time he lived at each, he gave all of them (including his residences in Fort Worth and New Orleans) with one notable exception. He omitted any reference to the Neely residence, the residence, of course, where he knew his wife had photographed him with the murder weapon in the backyard. He cleverly accounted for the close to two months at Neely by saying he lived seven months (not the actual four) at Elsbeth. And when Captain Fritz, during his interrogation of Oswald, asked Oswald about the Neely address, Oswald flat-out denied ever living there. All of this, of course, shows a consciousness of guilt on Oswald's part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 966 of "Reclaiming History"


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David J.,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6

and...

"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978.



In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."

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

An audio version of the above testimony by Marina Oswald can be found HERE.

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.


E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein

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

Hey Dave,

Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?

For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976". I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake.

So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies.

As for the copies, as we know from DPD reports and later interviews, Det. Studebaker made souvenir copies of them for many officers, including Rusty Livingstone and, apparently, Roscoe White. Of course, anyone could have acquired copies from other officers in later weeks and months and there's just no way to know now who did what and when.

What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.

I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.

What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. :)

Gary


E-MAIL FROM DAVID VON PEIN:

Date: 6/5/2015 (9:50:14 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack

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

Thanks so much, Gary. Your vast knowledge about this case continues to be amazing and almost beyond belief.

I love it so much that you feel comfortable writing to me all the time (and unsolicited too!) about everything under the sun which is "JFK"-related.

I'm so pleased to be able to have many of the crazy conspiracy myths so thoroughly debunked via your wealth of knowledge regarding this case.

And your messages to me also add a huge element of credibility and detailed info to my articles when I add them to my own website/blog (which as you probably know, I often do), such as your mail today regarding the backyard photos.

Many thanks.

Regards,
David Von Pein


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

The pose of Oswald holding the rifle above his head was taken in Russia, when he was hunting. His hosts said he was a lousy shot.


E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Subject: B.G. "Bobby" Brown
Date: 6/6/2015 (11:31:45 A.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein

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

Ha-Ha, now Mitcham makes up a story that the BY photo of Oswald holding his rifle over his head was taken in Russia! Based on what or who?

If he'd bothered to speak with the only two people on the planet who both saw and destroyed the picture, as I did decades ago, he'd know that the picture was definitely one of the BY photos we're all familiar with.

Marguerite, especially, was very knowledgeable about the BY photos and wanted desperately to find some proof her son was innocent. But as she explained to me in the late 70s, the picture location was the same as the other BY poses. Unless, of course, Marguerite and Marina were part of the dastardly evil plotters' cabal. :)

Here is Oswald's 201 file [and also see the photo below] with a report mentioning Brown, Fritz and others taking the re-creation pictures at 214 Neely and there's a 1992 Now It Can Be Told show in which Brown appears on camera telling what he did and why. I've got a tape of it somewhere, but maybe you have it too. Brown is the person IN the picture re-creating 133-C, so obviously he and perhaps other DPD people knew about it in 1963.

And it seems to me, in addition to a report on KDFW-TV here [in Dallas], there was a newspaper story about Brown and the photos, for they were a news item in the JFK movie days and the release of Dallas Police docs by the city. At the time, Brown was living in Oklahoma but he's since passed away.

Gary


CLICK TO ENLARGE:


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Also see these related links:

Bobby Brown Re-Creation Photo

Various Backyard Photos From The Dallas Municipal Archives





DAVID JOSEPHS SAID ALL THIS CRAP.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David J.,

The main point regarding the backyard photos, which you will forever ignore, is that Marina Oswald Porter has always and forever said that she took SOME PICTURES of Lee Oswald in the Neely backyard.

What difference does it make HOW MANY she took? Or if she remembers exactly how many she took? The key is --- she remembers taking pictures in the Neely backyard of Lee wearing all black and holding guns.

Why do you insist on calling this woman named Marina a bald-faced liar, David? Why?

And Marguerite Oswald must have been a liar too, right David? Because Marguerite told the Warren Commission that she flushed one of the backyard pictures down the toilet in her hotel room on Nov. 23rd....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."

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

Face it, fellows, those backyard pictures are real and genuine and they were taken in the Neely Street backyard in the spring of 1963, just exactly as Marina Oswald has always maintained.

Conspiracy theorists should (once again) make at least a tiny effort to discard some of the perpetual myths that have surrounded the JFK case for five decades now. And the notion that the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald are fake photos (regardless of how many photos Marina took) is one of those myths.

David Von Pein
June 3-6, 2015

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 948)

KENNETH DREW SAID:

DVP, you don't really believe that anyone has authenticated the back yard fake photos, do you?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course I do. The HSCA did a great amount of work on the photos and they found "no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials".

Go to HSCA Volume 6 and learn a few things, Ken.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

They didn't get the heads aligned correctly and they didn't get the shadows lined up correctly.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Watch the video below and then come back here and tell me that the shadows are all messed up....




KENNETH DREW SAID:

Even a complete novice could tell those photos are fake within a couple minutes of looking. But you're telling us that you buy it hook line and sinker. You can tell, without any doubt whatsoever, but for some reason you can't see any differences in that rifle and the TSBD rifle?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's why the HSCA hired a panel of several "experts" in the field of photography. They were hired to examine the backyard pictures in order to determine whether they were fake or not. And they did make a determination --- "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials."

You just don't like that conclusion, Ken. So, therefore, you have decided that YOU are a much better photo expert and analyst than the 20 members of the House Select Committee's Photographic Panel.

Pardon me if I go with the true experts in this field, however.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

We know that Marina only said that she took a photo after they told her she was booked on a flight to Russia, but if she remembered taking the photos, they could cancel her travel plans.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More pure bunk from Kenneth Drew's keyboard.

You really don't have a clue about the actual evidence in this case, do you, Ken? (Either that, or you have decided on your own to just totally dismiss ALL of the evidence as fake and phony. Right?)

Anyway, you should know that it was proven that Oswald's camera (and ONLY that camera) could have taken one of the backyard pictures (the one in which the negative still exists). Therefore, we know that LHO's own Imperial-Reflex camera took one of those pictures. Do you think the plotters stole Oswald's camera too? Or do you think the Warren Commission and the FBI lied through their collective teeth (yet again) when they said that Oswald's camera was the only camera on Earth that could have captured one of those backyard images?

A good hunk of advice for you, Ken, IMO, is this....

Stop the myths. And stop pretending every single piece of evidence pointing to Oswald is counterfeit.

That's good advice for any CTer, in fact. Too bad more of them don't take it.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest.

To sum it all up, your total is Zero.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good gosh Almighty, you really do reside in Fantasy Land, don't you?

Why not just pretend JFK wasn't killed at all?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Did I say JFK wasn't shot? I said "there is no proof he was shot with a rifle." Well, can you, or anyone, prove that? No.

I said there is no proof of what type of weapon was fired at him? Well, is there?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Ken.

Kennedy must have been shot with a bow and arrow instead of a rifle --- even though there were bullet fragments from a RIFLE found right there in the car. And those were fragments from not just any ol' rifle. They were from the C2766 rifle. But that little fact means zilch to a conspiracy hobbyist and fantasist like you. Perhaps you think those bullet fragments were already there in the limousine BEFORE the car passed the Depository on November 22, eh?

Your posts are getting more ridiculous with each passing hour.

Time for a new hobby, Ken. Maybe croquet. Or bird watching. Because you're really lousy at this "JFK" thing.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

There is not any evidence of any shot ever having been fired from the sniper's nest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, all those witnesses who saw a gun in the sixth-floor window (Brennan, Couch, Euins, Jackson, and Worrell) must have all been imagining it. They must have really seen a bow & arrow instead.

And those three spent bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest must have been figments of Luke Mooney's imagination when he found the Nest at 1:12 PM on November 22. Right, Ken?

And Williams, Jarman, and Norman must have been dreaming when they heard the shots coming from over their heads. And Norman was also dreaming when he heard three shells hit the plywood floor directly above him. Must have been nails or screws instead, just as Gerry Spence laughably suggested to Harold Norman when he had Norman on the witness stand in 1986. Right, Kenny?

During his cross-examination of Harold Norman, Spence was actually suggesting to the jury that perhaps--just perhaps--the jury should consider the possibility that the metal objects Norman heard hitting the floor on 11/22/63---at the exact same time JFK was being shot with rifle bullets from the Depository---were not bullet shell casings at all....but were, instead, possibly screws or nails striking the floor.

In other words, somebody just happened to be dropping some screws or nails on the floor directly above Norman at the same time somebody was ALSO shooting at JFK with a gun in the same location on the sixth floor.

If I had been on that jury in London in '86, I doubt I could have kept from busting a gut with laughter when Spence threw that one up for the jury's consideration. But, incredibly, Gerry threw it up there just the same.


STEVEN GAAL SAID:

The Three Headshot Scenario [LINK]

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

SPARKS BEHIND LIMO.

Golly, even if someone shot from 6th floor TSBD, no proof any hit POTUS. No proof LHO did any shooting.

You know, if only you could have place[d] LHO in the Dal-Tex building.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good gravy! Does anybody in this place (except me) ever say anything that isn't covered with a thick layer of myth and misinformation? It's unbelievable---even for a mostly "CT" forum.

If I were Kathy Becket or James Gordon, I'd be embarrassed by the provably wrong nonsense that somehow passes for intellectual discourse at this forum.

A bullet hole in the windshield (that got there BY THE DESIGN of the assassination plan)? (Too hilarious for words.)

Ken Drew thinks there's no evidence at all that JFK was shot with "a rifle".

Ken also thinks there's no evidence whatsoever of any shots coming from the Sniper's Nest.

Multiple Oswalds running around? And a "Frankenstein Oswald"?

All of the above are things that are downright laughable.

Thank goodness somebody named DVP (that's me) is here to provide at least some semblance of sanity to these absurd forum proceedings once in a while, huh?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

David - you remain the only person posting on this forum who has that "thick layer of myth and misinformation" you speak of....

Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai continually makes you sound like a grazing sheep willing to be happily led to slaughter.

I applaud your persistence though... for someone to remain as wrong about everything as you are and keep going back to the well as if the water wasn't poisoned is, well, the role of the WCR/HSCA defender.

The real problem is that discussing the case with you is akin to having a conversation with a parrot - you only have one channel and you present it as if you haven't given the topics a single thought since it was put on paper in 1964.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, David. Only in the world of JFK CTers could someone consider the huge pile of evidence against Oswald as being "outdated and debunked". I wonder how the facts and the physical evidence suddenly become "outdated". And none of that evidence has been "debunked", despite the CTer efforts to capsize the LN ship.

Nothing has come along to supplant the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police on 11/22/63 and by the Warren Commission in 1964. Certainly nothing you CTers believe happened can replace the hard evidence put forth by the DPD and the WC. That's not even a close call. You don't have a single piece of physical evidence to back up your claim of conspiracy. Not one. And you never did. And you never will. Because no such evidence exists. Nor did it ever exist.

To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at The Education Forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that.

In short -- LNers possess all the physical evidence. CTers have Prayer Man, Umbrella Man, and their overactive imaginations.

That's the way it's always been and always will be. Because Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LNers don't even need the Warren Commission to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD already did that on Day 1.


RON ECKER SAID:

I know nothing about guns, but I assume the empty shells could possibly be matched to the bullets that killed Tippit. If so, the only reason I can think of for emptying the shells from the gun would be so they wouldn't be found in his gun if he was captured. But unless the shooting was planned, would such a thing really occur to someone in a moment of flight? I guess it might if he was used to shooting a lot of people.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How about this reason? ....

Lee Oswald needed to dump the shells from his revolver so that he could then re-load the gun with more unfired bullets in case he needs to shoot more cops later on.

Seems reasonable to me.

And, of course, this topic about Oswald dumping the shells on the ground (manually!) totally defeats another common conspiracy argument---the one about Officer Tippit being shot with an automatic weapon.

If Tippit was killed with an automatic, can somebody explain to me WHY the empty shells were found up near the corner of 10th & Patton? And two of the shells were actually found by the Davis girls in their SIDE YARD--around the corner! (See Page 266 of Dale Myers' "With Malice".)

Which means that if a gunman had shot Tippit at the place where those shells were found, he would have been shooting right through the Davises' apartment house.

Plus, there is no witness who said the gunman was firing at Tippit from right AT the corner of Tenth & Patton. The gunman was located next to Tippit's police car up the street. So if the gunman had used an automatic, the shells would have been found right there next to the patrol car, not way up the street at the corner.

The only possible way for the conspiracy theorists to have a prayer at being right when it comes to their argument about an automatic gun being used in the Tippit shooting is for those CTers to totally disregard the uniform testimony of multiple witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides), who all said they saw--with their own eyes--the gunman physically dumping bullet shells from the gun just after the shooting.

And all three of those witnesses positively identified the gunman as Lee Harvey Oswald. The two Davis girls IDed Oswald right away, on the weekend of the assassination. Benavides later (in 1967) positively IDed the gunman he saw dumping shells in the bushes as Oswald. So if CTers want to toss aside Benavides' IDing of LHO, that's fine. But they've still got Davis and Davis to try and discredit.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Seriously, Dave, both brother and sister [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] make separate and independent estimations of the length of the bag, both are mistaken and, incredibly, both estimate the length to be 24-27" inches?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Linnie Mae Randle wasn't always saying the package was 24-27 inches long. On the day of the assassination, in fact, Linnie Mae told FBI agent James Bookhout that the length of Oswald's package was "approximately 3 feet".

And for David Wolper's "Four Days In November" film crew in 1964, she said the package was "approximately 2-and-a-half feet long" [see the video below].



Now, yes, it's true that both of those longer estimates supplied by Mrs. Randle are still wrong, because the package was, in reality, 38 inches long. But I don't expect every witness to nail things right on the money. Why would ANYBODY expect such pinpoint accuracy?

The fact remains, however, that both Frazier and Randle observed Lee Oswald with a large-ish (long-ish) brown bag on the day of the assassination.....and, subsequently, a long-ish EMPTY brown bag (with LHO's prints on it) turned up in the same place where a gunman fired shots at JFK.

Now, shouldn't those things make even the most stubborn "Anybody But Oswald" CTer stop and pause for a moment or two? And if not....why the heck not?


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Time Out for a Fact Break!

Sorry to interrupt all of the fantasy talk going on, but.....

There was no hole in the windshield.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Tell us again DVP why the limo was flown to Detroit and the windshield replaced.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It wasn't. That's merely Unproven Conspiracy Myth #4,106.

But I get a big kick out of the theory that has a group of assassins planning IN ADVANCE for a shot through the windshield. That's funnier than all these Jack Benny shows combined.

JFK is riding in an OPEN car. His whole upper body and head are exposed to the assassins. So what do these brilliant plotters want to do? They want to arrange a shooting that REQUIRES them to shoot through the windshield glass!

What's not to love about such idiotic assassination planning?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Or do you mean there was no hole in the windshield before the first shot was fired?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There was no hole in the windshield at ANY time---period. Only this crack. No hole. Just like Robert Frazier said in his testimony. (Another rotten liar, Ken?)


JON G. TIDD SAID:

DVP,

If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK (that's just an assumption I ask you to make for discussion purposes), do you believe the conspirators would be sophisticated individuals?

I know you don't believe in a conspiracy. That's fine by me. I'm just asking your opinion based on a given assumption.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In such a situation, I would lean toward the conspirators having at least a fairly decent amount of "sophistication".

And if that had been the case, I certainly cannot envision (for even a moment) a group of plotters planning the assassination the way most Internet CTers think it was planned (and the way Oliver Stone thinks it was planned too) --- i.e., a plot that requires three gunmen to fire up to six shots at JFK while also attempting to frame a single patsy named Oswald in the TSBD. That type of pre-planning isn't something any sane plotter would have considered. It's suicide. Not to mention, just plain dumb (as well as wholly unnecessary overkill).


KENNETH DREW SAID:

We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the sniper's nest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is called "TOTAL DENIAL", folks. There simply is no other way to describe it.

Kenneth HAS to know (or he SHOULD know) about all of the various SEPARATE pieces of evidence AND witness testimony that all indicate someone WAS firing rifle bullets at President Kennedy from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building located at 411 Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, USA, on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD. Kenny HAS to know that.

And yet we're treated to this brilliant and Oscar-winning quote from Louisiana's own Kenneth Drew....

"We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the sniper's nest."

After reading such claptrap, about the only thing a sensible person can do is just roll their eyes, smile a little half-smile, and then walk away in complete bewilderment by what they have just heard.

That's what I'm going to do now ....


JAMES GORDON SAID:

We have no image that shows the scalp resting down the back of the head. Dr. McClelland says that is why you do not see the hole in the back of the head. Right or wrong, the point is we do not have access to that image. So to say that the Autopsy images do not corroborate the Parkland doctors is not correct. Some of the images do not support them - but we cannot say that all the images do not support them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

We KNOW that McClelland's crazy "scalped pulled up over the wound in the BOH" theory is not accurate, because if it were accurate, then this X-ray pictured below would show a big hole in the back of the head---and it shows no such thing. This X-ray is the #1 pictorial item that proves there was no massive hole in the rear of JFK's head. There is NO MISSING BONE at the back of the head. And McClelland (and Company) insist that the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown out....




GLENN NALL SAID:

Perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And by improving my "reasoning skills", you mean I should accept the notion that the JFK X-ray is nothing but a lie and a sham. Right, Glenn? Even though I also know what is written on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."

Thanks, Glenn. But no thanks. I'll stick with my current batch of reasoning skills. Lest I end up in the "Everything's Fake" arena.


GLENN NALL SAID:

You do that. And keep relying on [the] HSCA while you're at it. That'll getcha far.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you keep relying on Doug Horne, David Lifton, David Mantik, and Mark Lane. They'll lead you to the promised land, no doubt.

David Von Pein
June 1-2, 2015
June 3, 2015
June 5, 2015
June 6, 2015
June 7, 2015
June 8, 2015

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 965)

GLENN NALL SAID:

A live camera from the 6th floor museum "sniper's position". .... Egads, how creepy. .... OK, not creepy -- I'm thinkin' tacky.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never thought of the "Dealey Plaza EarthCam" as being either creepy or tacky. (But to each his own, I guess.)

I've always thought of it as more of an "Eye on History", as the 24/7 camera is able to take all of us instantly to the location where an important historic event took place. It's fascinating, IMO. Sometimes I'll go to the Dealey Cam website and just watch for a little while, and count the number of people who dodge traffic in order to stand in the middle of the street on Robert Groden's "X". (Now THAT is something that qualifies as "tacky", Glenn---that "X" in the middle of Elm Street. I think it's rather offensive. But, YMMV.)

Here's the view through the "Dealey Cam" on the 50th anniversary (Nov. 22, 2013).....




I'm fascinated by old (and new) pictures of Dealey Plaza....




GLENN NALL SAID:

OK, so they [bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] blew out the RIGHT side of his head (with no damage to the left side of his head), then somehow got into the DRIVER'S seat...

How'd they manage that?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn,

The trajectory from Oswald's 6th-floor perch to the windshield of the car was just about perfect at the time of the head shot, as we can see in this SS re-enactment photo....



JFK's head was leaning forward and turned quite a bit to the left when Oswald's bullet struck high on the back of Kennedy's head. After the bullet entered his head, the explosive force of the blast blew out the right/top/frontal area of JFK's head (as is easily proven by looking at the Zapruder Film).

The two large bullet fragments then continued forward after exiting Kennedy's head. I.E., they were moving forward toward the front of the car and the windshield.

Everything seems perfectly consistent to me. There is nothing unbelievable about the above scenario at all.

(Also see CE875 for more Sniper's Nest views.)

In addition, Glenn, here's something else of importance that you might not have known....

JFK's head initially moved FORWARD, not backward, at the moment the bullet struck his head, as we can easily see here in this super-slo-mo clip....




KENNETH DREW SAID:

View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and put a shooter in that photo.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. And?

What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed.




KENNETH DREW SAID:

...you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that?

And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.




MARK KNIGHT SAID:

In agent Howlett's position, it's his LEFT hand approximating the position of the rifle. That would indicate that either the shooter was left-handed, and had most of his torso to the RIGHT of the position of the buttstock of the rifle...and LHO was a right-handed shooter, according to the evidence I've seen...OR the torso of a right-handed shooter would've been smashed through the wall...and the wall looks fairly intact to me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark,

How do you explain the fact that the HSCA was able to fire a rifle out that Sniper's Nest window several times in 1978 during the acoustics tests? Do you really think the person firing the rifle in '78 had to "smash through the wall" in order to get off his shots?

You can always say the HSCA's shooter was left-handed, of course. That seems to solve the problem for you. I have no idea whether the HSCA shooter was a lefty or not? Do you?

Below is another view of Agent Howlett in the Sniper's Nest. There's no problem for a right-handed shooter here.

CTers are merely creating problems for the sixth-floor assassin that don't exist and never did....




DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

With a stack of books taller than the man sitting on the box by the window, a person would have little if any room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave?

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor.

And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest....



Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd.

Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.)

But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill).

The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case.

Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted ----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94]

But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives).

As I have said many times before....

With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable.

As Larry Sturdivan said so well....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005)


And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words....

"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007


JON G. TIDD SAID:

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

True.

But that witness is a proven liar:

Roger Craig's Mauser Lie


JON G. TIDD SAID:

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridge.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

False.

What some people have claimed is an "unfired" bullet is not an unfired bullet at all. There seems to be a piece of trash or debris (possibly a small scrap of paper) on the floor right next to the easternmost bullet shell. The piece of debris is situated in such a way as to make it appear as though it could be a complete unfired bullet. But higher-quality photos of the shells indicate that all three shells are EXPENDED (SPENT) SHELLS. None are whole, unfired cartridges. HERE is one such high-resolution picture of the shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.

Also see:
http://TexasHistory.unt.edu


JON G. TIDD SAID:

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not sure if that is True or False.

Robert Frazier did talk about some corrosion on the inside of the barrel after the FBI received the weapon from Dallas. And I know that many conspiracy theorists contend that this "corrosion" (or "rust") issue means the rifle could not possibly have been fired on the day of the assassination at all.

Well, I'm certainly no gun expert (far from it), but the evidence is quite clear that the C2766 rifle in question (whether it had some corrosion/rust in the barrel or not) WAS fired into President Kennedy's vehicle on 11/22/63 without a doubt. The two bullet fragments in the front seat of the car are enough to prove that fact for all time (IMO).

I know that a lot of conspiracists don't think the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (like those two front-seat fragments) means anything at all. They'll just say "Prove they weren't planted". But it's my opinion that those fragments were not planted. In fact, I think it's dumb to believe those fragments are fraudulent fragments. But many CTers think differently. So be it.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Ever find it odd that, while the Carcano ejects empty cartridges to the right of the rifle, two empty cartridges should end up on the floor to the left of where the rifle would have been for the last two shots?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box.

You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see
in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510.

CE511 shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

You're right, I mixed up the windows.

He certainly does not have a lot of room in that corner, and the pipes do not help either.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room.

BTW / FWIW....

Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before.

A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it.

What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence....

Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because....


JOHN DOLVA SAID:

I started looking at the pipes about 2005 [CLICK HERE] and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints at the Education Forum.

It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest". :)


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

I'm not saying NOBODY could have fired that rifle from that window at that angle from that spot.

I'm saying that a RIGHT-HANDED SHOOTER couldn't do it. From what I see, there is plenty of room for a left-handed shooter.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.)

Also:

If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall.

Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose.

The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341.

EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is....




DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this discussion. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

[This DVP post] Shows your inexperience with a rifle. The LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.

You just made my case for me, on two points:

(1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and

(2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible.

Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible.

And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed).

Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.)

What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.)

But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible?

Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.)

But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest.

I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963.

Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

If you move the shooter to the right, you change the point at which the rifle muzzle is aimed.

Unless you move the entire rifle.

The FBI determined the position of the rifle from reports of witnesses, the Z-film, the surveys of Robert West, and many other factors.

SO if the position of the rifle is wrong in the reenactments, then the data from the reenactments is wrong as well.

You can conclude that the data is accurate ONLY if you accept that the position of the rifle is correct. If the position of the rifle is incorrect, then the data from that is flawed.

You seem to want to have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein. That CANNOT be.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark,

No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true, Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window.

And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies.

Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....




KENNETH DREW SAID:

Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent's right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, it's a cramped space for sure. I've never denied that. But a rifle WAS being fired from that very window on November 22. You know it, Ken (whether you'll admit it or not), I know it, and all reasonable people know it. So why pretend otherwise?

BTW, here's a high-quality picture which shows part of the Sniper's Nest with the shells still on the floor. So that pic was definitely taken on November 22 itself, not later on. And the Texas History site also says "November 22" for the date of that photo. And, yes, it is a tight squeeze for the gunman. We also know this from Luke Mooney's testimony. He said something about having to go in there sideways, I think. [See 3 H 284.]

But since there can be no REASONABLE doubt about a rifle definitely having been fired from this cramped space, CTers really have nowhere to go with their arguments about how it "can't be done". Those CTers are assuming exactitude regarding the precise position of every box and the exact posture and positioning of the sixth-floor sniper that simply cannot be ascertained.

And here's another view of the Sniper's Nest (CE512), which shows the shells on the floor (which means it's certainly NOT a "re-creation" photo; it was taken on 11/22). And notice how the stack of book cartons seems to END at the bottom of the photo.

Therefore, based on that photo in CE512, which was taken by the Dallas Police BEFORE ANYTHING WAS MOVED, I contend that Ken Drew is incorrect when he claims that the boxes were configured in such a manner that would have prohibited a shooter from sitting on the box near the corner (near where the pipes are located) and firing a gun out the window (even a righthander).

The boxes don't seem to be extending all the way into the area where the box was located that had Oswald's right palmprint on it (which was the box he probably sat on).


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Dave,

You are continually stating that it is a provable fact that shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor. How can you prove this, and how can you prove shots were not fired from the Dal-Tex Building?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Next question please. Because the one you just asked is too ridiculous to warrant any response.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Translation = We cannot prove shots were fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

It's those tough questions you don't like, right DVP?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Based on the sum total of evidence that proves shots WERE fired from the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th floor, the following inquiry asked earlier by Bob Prudhomme is not a reasonable question....

"You are continually stating that it is a provable fact that shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor. How can you prove this?"

In fact, it's a downright laughable question.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

As in you have to laugh because you can't answer it?

DVP, I'm sure that Bob doesn't expect you to have any proof that LHO fired a shot at JFK, as I certainly don't expect you to. When an event did not happen, it's a little tough to prove it did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Ken. You should be quite familiar with that line of thinking--being a JFK conspiracy buff and all.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

I wish you would share this evidence with us, Dave. Unless, of course, you don't really have any?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the cycle of madness continues. Round and round till infinity.

No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. Why do you suppose that is, Bob?

I know, I know. I'm supposed to just believe all three shells are fake....and the C2766 rifle is a plant and so is CE399....and the two front-seat bullet fragments are phony....and all 4 witnesses who saw a rifle in the 6th-floor window were wrong (or liars)....and Harold Norman didn't know what he was talking about when he said he heard three shells hitting the floor AS THE ASSASSINATION WAS HAPPENING. (I always get a chuckle out of that one --- Real-Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting In The Sniper's Nest! I love it. Either that, or Norman's just a blatant liar, which is apparently what many CTers believe he was.)


GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

I honestly don't know how you have the patience with some of these guys. Some recent CT posts on these pages [at The Education Forum] have serious evidence and logic problems.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can say that again, Gary. It borders on the unbelievable (and the bizarre).


GARY MACK SAID:

The Texas Portal pics ARE the original DPD negatives and pictures and they show the same things that appear in the early Tom Alyea/WFAA films. All other pictures were shot after 3:30 that afternoon - including those by Jack Beers - AFTER some boxes were moved.

The images showing a box on the window ledge show the scene AS FIRST FOUND. Many people have squatted at the SN window in the decades before the Museum had to close access to the area, but there was certainly room for a shooter. In fact, according to a home movie I filmed in 1988, I had to stand up a little for the early shot (Jack White and Robert Groden were there too, and it'd be great to include the film in a TV doc someday).

As a result, the Howlett/SS frame that folks are using shows a later shot because of the gun angle down the street and the lack of an elevation adjustment for it. The SS film, as you know, was made long before investigators had full knowledge of how the assassination happened, so Howlett's feet and shoulder positions cannot be used for accuracy conclusions AT THAT MOMENT.

Gary


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for your input, Gary (as always).


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Are you and Gary Mack in a legal arrangement where you are his 'official mouthpiece'? Is there a reason he can't say it for himself?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He did say it for himself. It's the stuff I posted right after the words
"GARY MACK SAID:". :)


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Is he paid to say the things he says to you but can't come on a public forum to say the same things?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary has been a member of this forum ["The Education Forum"] since
July 10, 2006. (Which, ironically enough, is almost--to the very day--when I first joined this forum. I lasted 4 days here in July 2006 before Mr. Simkin decided he had had enough of my silly LNer ravings and tossed me out the door.)


KENNETH DREW SAID:

His unwillingness to say if for himself lowers the value of what he says.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't see why. His information is either useful and accurate and valuable or it isn't -- whether he says it to me via an e-mail or whether he posts it himself in a post at this forum. It's the same information either way. And I happen to think Gary is loaded with good and useful info about the JFK case. I doubt there's another person alive who has so much overall knowledge about this case. And I, for one, appreciate it when he takes the time to write to me by e-mail with all kinds of informative details.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's not very nice, Ken. You're accusing me (by the implication in your question above) of deliberately misquoting someone (or misrepresenting myself by pretending to be Gary Mack). That's a despicable allegation, IMO.

FYI, I have never deliberately misquoted anyone. I am always very very careful when I quote another person. I never want anyone reading my posts to be confused as to who is saying what. And I don't appreciate the implied dishonesty you just accused me of. Because I would never even consider passing off my own thoughts as someone else's (or vice versa). And I really don't understand WHY you would think I would ever engage in such a silly tactic. Care to explain why you said what you just said, Ken?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

There clearly was not room for the shots to be made from that window, regardless of what DVP/Mack says.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you, Kenneth Drew, clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I didn't accuse you of anything. Give me the quote.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay....

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew

In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely by posting my own comments under Gary's name. There is no other possible interpretation of those words you wrote. I'd call that an "accusation".

But you don't even seem to remember (or comprehend) what you yourself wrote on this forum just a few minutes ago.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

You seem to have misunderstood that as you seem to misunderstand every other thing you read.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I understood it perfectly. You were implying that Gary Mack might not have written any of the words I attributed to him. And, instead, you were implying that I myself wrote those words and tried to pass them off as Gary Mack's words. How else could anybody interpret this question you asked?...

"Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?"


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I didn't accuse you of 'misrepresenting yourself'.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. And you know it. You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

If he's going to refer to me, or other commenters here, he should grow a pair and come on and post where we can comment to him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't control Gary Mack's actions. And I would never try to speak for Gary (even though that is exactly what you implied I might be doing in your earlier post). Gary can post in any fashion he sees fit. He chooses not to post on the forums. That's his choice. Sometimes I choose to post his e-mails here (when they relate to a particular topic or thread).

I, myself, would love it if Gary would start posting here (and at other JFK forums on the Internet). He has helped me out many times in the past via his evidence-packed e-mails that he has chosen to send me (and almost always unsolicited e-mails, I might add). He writes to me (and many other people too) when he feels the record needs to be set straight on a particular sub-topic of the JFK case.

Now, yes, I too would like it if he would post regularly (or even semi-regularly) on the forums. I'm sure we would be treated to even MORE useful information about so many JFK topics if he were to do that. But he has chosen not to post directly on the forums, and that's his decision.

But regardless of the manner or the frequency by which Gary's useful information gets passed along, I for one am grateful to Gary Mack for sharing it with me.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Did he 'ask' you to post his comments here, or did he give you his permission to post quotes by him here?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the second question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one.

The answer to your first question above, however, is No. Gary has never once "asked" me to post something on the forums for him. I do that on my own, usually because the info Gary imparts needs to get "out there" to the masses in order to set the record straight concerning so many of the myths that are still being spread by conspiracy theorists.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I understood the reason for personal messenging [sic] on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary never sends me his messages via the forum's Private Message service. He always uses e-mail. And many times I'll even show the precise date and time of the e-mails when I re-post his messages on the forums. I didn't format Gary's last message to me in that manner, but many times I have.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Answered above.

I suppose I could put a disclaimer such as "Posted here by permission of Gary Mack" on each of Gary's messages I have posted. But I don't feel that's really necessary.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Time for a Vince Bugliosi "Common Sense" break....




KENNETH DREW SAID:

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything.'

That's what Bug Man said. Wecht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he took off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one, DVP. It does not enhance your image.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Whenever Vince Bugliosi said in his many radio interviews that Oswald "would have been one of the last people in the world the conspirators would hire to kill the President", it is always based on the fact (based on the evidence) that Oswald DID KILL KENNEDY.

IOW, in almost all the interviews he did in 2007, Vince establishes (in summary form, of course) Oswald's GUILT first. He then goes on to talk about how ridiculous it would be for anyone to actually hire this unstable loser with a 12-dollar gun to perform such a big "hit" for the Mafia or CIA or whoever else the CTers want to have involved.

But the key in Vince's chronology is almost always to establish Oswald's guilt first. And from that POV and framework, Vince makes total sense to me, because it would be a situation where you'd have to believe (based on the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt) that the CIA or some other group actually DID hire Lee Oswald to murder the President for them, vs. the popular conspiracy theory we always hear about Oswald never firing a shot and then being used as the unwitting patsy for JFK's murder.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Are you still spinning in a circle, is your head pointed to the front or back? So there is no way that LHO could have made the shot, he had a rifle that could not have made the shot, he had a scope that could not have made the shot and he was in a spot where he could not have been and no one else (including top marksmen) has ever made this shot, but old Bug Man is sure LHO did it.

Let me know when you stop laughing and digging.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

THINK for two seconds, Ken! THINK!

Vince wasn't saying Oswald was INCAPABLE of the shooting. (Obviously he's not saying any such stupid thing, because Vince says LHO did it. Duh.) He's saying that Oswald---THE PROVEN ASSASSIN (regardless of his deficiencies)---would not have been a real good choice for any type of "professional" CIA or Mob hit on the President.

Got it now? Or will you still pretend that you don't understand Bugliosi's obvious point?


KENNETH DREW SAID:

DVP, what ever happened to the mini series about "Reclaiming History"? I can't seem to find the air dates for it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It got watered down to a 90-minute feature film -- "Parkland". (Which you probably already knew.)

"Parkland" is a pretty good film, too. (But I would have loved the 10-hour mini-series better, of course.)

Also visit:
Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2013/11/parkland.html

Note -- I don't really consider "Parkland" to be a "classic" movie, but since my movie website is called "Classic Movies", and I wanted to include "Parkland" on my movie site---well...what's a shill to do? :)


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Yes, all I can find about "Parkland" indicates it was a real bomb.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, by box office standards, I guess it was a bomb. Sort of like the JFK book I helped Mel Ayton write ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]. It's a very good book, but a complete bomb as far as sales go (just as I predicted). Sales could hardly be any worse, in fact.

But I'm proud of that book nonetheless, because in abbreviated form it lays out the actual facts of John F. Kennedy's murder, without all the conspiracy-flavored nonsense that permeates this case---with this current discussion being a prime example of the "nonsense". I mean, really, no shooter firing from the Sniper's Nest? Can a theory possibly get any nuttier than that one? Get real.

David Von Pein
June 28—July 1, 2015