JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1136)

DAVE REITZES SAID:

In her article in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York: Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination:

QUOTE ON -------------------------------------

"Lee Harvey Oswald, after taking a look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book Depository, ambles casually into the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's waiting for a telephone call that never comes." (p. 169)

QUOTE OFF ------------------------------------

Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to think you just made them up out of thin air.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that LHO was "taking a look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book Depository" is the Altgens photograph. (What else could she possibly be relying on for such a statement?)

Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in the James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just as Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as Buell Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986 [see video below].





The part about Oswald "waiting for a telephone call that never comes" is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly unsupportable idea.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

If a source isn't credible enough to be cited, then it's no source at all. And if a source is a work of fiction, well, enough said (except for some possible issues involving copyright infringement, which is not my concern). With fictional sources or no sources at all, Pam's published claims about Oswald and concerning the assassination itself (see my post, "Pamela McElwain-Brown takes the wheel") are nothing more than fiction.

I asked Pam a couple times last year if, when she sold her essay to the editor of the CAR CRASH CULTURE book, she'd represented it as a work of non-fiction. She never answered me. She knows she can't defend her work.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

"DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Pam's" pot/kettle gene is on full display here. If anyone has created a "strawman" regarding the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63, it is "Pamela" Brown.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

But then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to thinking on one's own, much less following the evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pot/Kettle #2!

"Pam" has no more "[followed] the evidence" regarding Lee Oswald's whereabouts and movements on 11/22/63 than Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison have.

She merely pretends that Oswald was outside on the front steps of the Depository "watching the motorcade", when there is documentary evidence to indicate Oswald was not on the steps (e.g., the Altgens photo, Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony, and Billy N. Lovelady's testimony).

You're doing great so far, "Pam". (If a .000 batting average is your goal.)


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no coincidence that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was waiting to be told where to go or what to do.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What was "Pam" saying about creating "strawmen" a second ago?

Pot meets kettle for the third time.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

It would also not occur to "DVP" most likely to accept the fact that LHO had nothing to do with the M/C [Mannlicher-Carcano] after his return from Dallas...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I guess Oswald went out to Irving for his unusual Thursday-night visit so that he could take a 38-inch-long submarine sandwich to work with him the next day.

What was "Pam" saying a second ago about "following the evidence"? Four pots and kettles so far.

Since "Pam" just said that it's likely LHO had "nothing to do with the M/C after his return from Dallas" [sic; "Pam" no doubt meant to say New Orleans here, instead of Dallas; or maybe "Pam" doesn't know what city Oswald was in at various times in 1963], maybe "Pam" thinks (i.e., pretends) that some evil "Let's Frame Oswald" conspirator broke into Ruth Paine's garage prior to the assassination and stole Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Perhaps "Pam" would like to tell us just exactly WHO stole Oswald's rifle and WHEN that theft took place.

As an alternative (and wholly unsupportable) conspiracy theory, "Pam" will probably claim that nobody needed to break into Paine's garage to steal the rifle, because the Carcano was never found in the TSBD at all on November 22, a Mauser was found.

And, therefore, "Pam" might just want to pretend that the DALLAS POLICE were the ones who placed Oswald's C2766 rifle into evidence -- even though, according to some researchers who are better at identifying rifles than I am, various frames of Tom Alyea's film prove that the rifle discovered on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher-Carcano and not a German-made Mauser.



So, regarding Oswald's rifle, whichever way "Pamela" chooses to go, she's got to rely on her own vivid imagination and/or a lot of crooked cops who couldn't have cared less about allowing the real killer(s) of the President to get away scot-free.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

...and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him [Oswald] in the SN [Sniper's Nest] during the assassination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, come to think about it a little bit more, "Pam" probably likes "The Cops Planted The Carcano" scenario better than the "Rifle Was Stolen From The Paine Garage" tripe.

In other words, when you've got absolutely NOTHING of a physical nature to back up your silly conspiracy theories -- just say that all the evidence has been fabricated/faked/manufactured/planted/manipulated. And then--you're home free.

Great work, "Pam". You're doing a fine job of showing your true "Everything Was Fabricated" colors today.

And, incredibly, per "Pamela", it is the lone-assassin believers who have failed to "follow the evidence" in the JFK case.

Why is it that in the world of a JFK conspiracy theorist, white is ALWAYS black, and up is ALWAYS down, and a guilty person is INEVITABLY an innocent patsy?

~shrug~


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then becomes, "where was LHO and what was he doing?"


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Looks like it's time for Pot/Kettle #5 here.

If "Pam" really wanted to think and reason logically, she wouldn't be so willing to sweep tons of Oswald-Did-It evidence under the rug and she wouldn't be pretending that ALL of that Oswald-Did-It evidence had been "fabricated" by evil plotters.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

But we won't wait with bated breath for "DVP" to research that; it isn't a picture, or a movie, or the WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Dallas Police Department figured out who killed John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit on Day 1 -- and that person was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that "Pam" cannot figure out something so incredibly easy to figure out is certainly not my fault. It's hers. (But I still have a feeling that Ollie Stone and Jimbo Garrison might have helped "Pam" to reach her strange conclusions--just a touch. Right, "Pam"?)

I'll close this post by repeating the following excellent common-sense quote from author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, although "Pamela" undoubtedly would qualify these words as coming from a person who possesses no common sense or logic whatsoever:

"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." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005)


BUD SAID THIS.


FOOTNOTE:

"FYI / BTW --- For those who care...the reason that "Pam" and I always place quotation marks around each other's names in our posts is due to the fact that "Pam" has a crazy idea that "DVP" (that's me) probably really isn't the person he says he is. I'm apparently supposed to be a collection of various aliases and unknown persons, posing as this person called "DVP". So...I have decided that "Pamela" deserves the same kind of reciprocal (albeit silly) "quotation mark" treatment." -- DVP; August 3, 2009

David Von Pein
April 30—May 5, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 699)

PAMELA BROWN SAID:

LHO had no connection to the M/C [Mannlicher-Carcano rifle] after he left NOLA [New Orleans, Louisiana]. Nobody ever saw him with it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Is this the best you can do, Pam?

Seeing as how most of Oswald's possessions (including the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) were packed up and stored away in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving during the entire time after LHO returned to Dallas from New Orleans (from late September 1963 right through the day of the assassination, which was only two months later), I wouldn't really expect anyone to have seen Oswald with his rifle after he left New Orleans in '63.

And this is a "so what?" type of thing anyway. Just because nobody physically SAW Oswald with his Carcano after he departed New Orleans, is that fact supposed to somehow ERASE the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of John F. Kennedy?

Come now, Pam. You must be joking.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

At the least, he [LHO] was enabled by hundreds if not over a thousand people who gave him a free pass. Many of those people had connections to intelligence. But don't let that bother you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't worry, I won't.

Pam's overactive imagination has been turned on (again).


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

Even the WCR couldn't find a motive. You, however, don't seem to have that problem, though you haven't shared with us just what you think a motive might have been.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Better think (and look) again: CLICK HERE.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

It took at the least a group of people to allow Ruby into the basement in the first place.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're silly.

Ruby merely had impeccable timing and some really good luck. That's all. He simply walked down the ramp (or he used the side door) to get into the basement:




PAMELA BROWN SAID:

Two lone-nut assassins? How convenient, DVP. Too bad it isn't true.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It most certainly is true. And all the evidence supports it.

But, then again, why do you really care, Pam? You've got your JFK conspiracy fantasies that you can't come even close to proving (nor can anybody else).

And those fantasies should comfort you nicely in your old age.

David Von Pein
September 11, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1363)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1363 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of April 1—30, 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.


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

CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

FYI / BTW / FWIW....

Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo of LHO on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists
think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos. I wonder if there are now CTers who think the picture
on the left is a fake too? ....




CHRIS BRISTOW SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see.

Main Point:

Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....




CHRIS BRISTOW SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.)

It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite.

Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

David Von Pein
April 3-4, 2023





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


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

On the contrary, Robert Stone's "Oswald's Ghost" is a very good film.

DVP Review:



David Von Pein
April 3, 2023





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Newspaper articles concerning author Jean Davison and her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" (click to enlarge):










Excerpts from my review of "Oswald's Game":


"In a (lone) nutshell:

1.) This book shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion) that Lee Harvey Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF the desire to shoot President Kennedy.

2.) The physical evidence positively indicates that Oswald's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WAS the one and ONLY weapon used to kill JFK.

Those two things go together like bread and butter. When adding #1 to #2 above, it's pretty clear that Lee Oswald was not the "innocent patsy" that so many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe he was. Instead, numbers 1 and 2 above, when merged, are telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game", and for the high road that you have taken since writing it when dealing with critics of your work regarding Oswald. I've yet to read an article or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense and reasoned thinking with respect to John Kennedy's assassination." -- DVP; Feb. 2006 and Jan. 2007

David Von Pein
April 8, 2023





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


"SKY THRONE" SAID:

There certainly is reasonable doubt about what Oswald carried into the TSBD on Friday morning.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But it's pretty clear that Oswald most certainly LIED to Buell Frazier about the contents of his package. (And why would I think for even a moment that the real liar in the "curtain rods" story is Buell Frazier? That is not a reasonable conclusion at all.)

We know Oswald lied to Frazier about the "curtain rods" package. Because if that wasn't a lie, Oswald would have certainly told the police that he had, indeed, carried some curtain rods into the TSBD building on Nov. 22---and Oswald would have then told the cops where they could find the rods within the TSBD.

What possible reason would Oswald have had for saying he had no rods if he really did take some rods into the building? That lie is one of the biggest (and most telling) of the lies Oswald told after his arrest, to be sure. Because if LHO had anything in that bag other than a rifle, he would have been shouting that fact from the roof of City Hall after he was arrested. Instead, he tells the police he took no large-ish package to work at all that day. But we know he did. That "large package" fact is confirmed by not only Buell Frazier; it's also verified by Linnie Mae Randle as well.

David Von Pein
April 8, 2023





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


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

Still waiting for someone to explain why Oswald needed to make a special trip to Irving on Thursday night to get curtain rods when he could just as easily have picked them up on his regular weekend visit to the Paine's house. Why the urgency? Hmmm! That's a head scratcher.

Unless someone can come up with a plausible answer for that, the whole question about whether Oswald's room needed curtain rods is moot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. And there's also this angle that nobody ever talks about....

Lee Oswald told Buell Frazier on Thursday morning (Nov. 21) that the curtain rods he wanted to get at Ruth Paine's house were rods that were going to support some curtains that Marina had apparently made for Lee.

So, with the above information in mind, I now ask:

Why on Earth would LHO have any desire to put up new curtains (and rods) in a room that we know he had every intention of vacating very soon thereafter? Makes no sense.

Plus: What happened to those curtains that Lee said Marina made for him? Where did those go?

More on Lee Oswald's "curtain rods" lie HERE.

Also see the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History" (click to enlarge):



David Von Pein
April 15, 2023





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


BEN HOLMES SAID THIS.


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

This is what conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and because that stand-alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.

The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the assassin and no one argues that it does. When we combine that with the fact that [Buell Wesley] Frazier testified Oswald carried a long narrow brown paper package into the TSBD, that an open brown paper package was found near the sniper's nest that had Oswald's prints on it and fibers that matched the blanket the rifle was stored in, that Oswald's rifle was found on the same floor as the paper bag, that shells that could only have been fired from Oswald's rifle were found at the location where several witnesses saw a gunman, that Oswald's prints were found at that same location, that fibers matching Oswald's shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle, and that the only two bullets recovered had been fired by Oswald's rifle, there is only one sensible conclusion and that is that Oswald made the unusual Thursday night visit to Irving to fetch his rifle and smuggle it into the TSBD in a brown paper package.

You can look at any one piece of evidence [and] can come up with a number of explanations for it, but if you take the body of evidence as a whole, there is only one explanation that makes sense. Oswald went to Irving on a Thursday night to fetch his rifle because he intended to use it to assassinate JFK.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

From a similar 2017 discussion:

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens' testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination???

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I said before, you have to ADD THINGS UP, Holmes. You never ever do any "adding up". You like to isolate and keep things separate. The "isolation" trick, of course, is the only conceivable way that you (or any rabid conspiracy theorist) can possibly even begin to justify your claim that LHO is innocent.

And because of this penchant for separating and isolating everything related to Lee Harvey Oswald, you are therefore not qualified to evaluate any of the evidence associated with JFK's murder. You are a total disgrace, in fact, when it comes to piecing together relevant evidence and testimony.

Such as....

You know perfectly well what I was talking about in my previous posts regarding Bugliosi PUTTING TOGETHER Harry Holmes' statements and Charles Givens' testimony, but you're too deeply invested in your silly "Oswald Is Innocent" policy to reasonably evaluate the sum total of all the evidence.

But as I also said, I'm not entirely convinced by Bugliosi's 13th item on his
"53 Items" list. I think Vince might be inferring too much when he said Oswald "slipped up". But I do think it's quite POSSIBLE that Mr. Bugliosi was, indeed, correct too. I'm perched on the fence about that particular item.

However, I do know that Ben Holmes is wrong when he said that there's no evidence AT ALL to support Bugliosi's Item #13, as I clearly have demonstrated in my previous posts in this discussion.

But no matter how many times Ben Holmes is reminded that he needs to ADD THINGS TOGETHER, he'll continue to keep every piece of evidence isolated from all the other things that ADD UP to Oswald's blatantly obvious guilt.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but....well, you know....

Lots more HERE and HERE.

David Von Pein
April 11-13, 2023





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


PAMELA BROWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Marina Oswald didn't "recant" her Warren Commission testimony. She just changed her opinion about whether LHO killed JFK (after she had been inundated, no doubt, with various crackpot [and unsupported] conspiracy theories over the years).

But Marina never "recanted" any substantive facts relating to Lee Oswald -- such as the two major facts that many conspiracy theorists, still to this day, think Marina was lying about:

1. Lee admitting to Marina that he had taken a shot at General Walker.

and

2. Marina confirming that she took the backyard photos of LHO.




PAMELA BROWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a silly statement that is.

You [Pamela Brown] think Marina's testimony was the sole basis for the Warren Commission finding LHO guilty of two murders? Come now. Let's not forget about the dozens of other things pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt, outlined here.


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The item below should not be on the list that appears in Pat Speer's post above, since it never happened:

"The CIA had asked DeMohrenschildt to keep tabs on [Lee Oswald]." -- P. Speer


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Click to enlarge:




PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Your point isn't confirmed at all via the book excerpt I provided. In fact, just the opposite. Because (via Bugliosi's research) the only "Moore/DeMohrenschildt" timeframe involved was from 1957 to 1961, which was BEFORE DeMohrenschildt ever even met Lee Oswald. So what makes you think there was any discussion about Lee Oswald between Moore and DeM. during that 1957-1961 time period mentioned by Bugliosi (which was a period when Oswald was either in the Marine Corps or in Russia)?


LAWRENCE SCHNAPF SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

FYI / FWIW....

Here's another excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book regarding George DeMohrenschildt, the CIA, and J. Walton Moore (who, btw, is also referred to by Bugliosi as Walter Moore; and both DeMohrenschildt and Albert Jenner refer to him as Walter Moore during DeMohrenschildt's WC session [at 9 H 235])....

Click to enlarge:



Related Link:
http://jfk-archives/George DeMohrenschildt's Suicide


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Pat. Point taken.


PAMELA BROWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's absolute nonsense, Pam.

If we were to completely eliminate and disregard all of Marina's testimony, Lee Oswald's guilt would still be ironclad in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases (based on the available evidence).


CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If you can't figure that one out, Charles, I feel sorry for you. That's an easy one.


SEAN COLEMAN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The more accurate equation is this one:

Oswald + Revolver that killed Tippit being in Oswald's own hands 35 minutes after Tippit was killed with that same revolver = No way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting Tippit ..... UNLESS.


CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~obligatory sigh~

But the shells dumped at the Tippit murder scene are a different story, as you no doubt know.

And how many gunmen were seen dumping shells at 10th & Patton?

And who did the witnesses say that ONE gunman was?

And what gun did Oswald have on his person when arrested? (Answer: Smith & Wesson Revolver No. V510210 --- aka: The gun that killed J.D. Tippit.)

But conspiracists always want to fixate on the bullets themselves, never the shells. And I can see why, of course. Because those shells convict Lee Harvey Oswald and no other person on the planet.

David Von Pein
April 16-21, 2023





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Below is a link to Pages 955—966 of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History". It's a PDF file which contains all 53 items of evidence which are included in the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter of Mr. Bugliosi's book:




AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

Number 9 [on Bugliosi's 53-item list] — HERE — Bugliosi tells us that contrary to routine, Oswald did not read yesterday's newspaper in the Domino Room. I've never heard this before. There's a footnote, but the DVP PDF doesn't have the footnotes. It's the change of routine thing, and there seem to be many of those on Oswald's Friday. That might imply guilt, but it does not imply lone nuttedness.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

FYI / FWIW:

The PDF file that I provided does, indeed, contain all the FOOTnotes that exist on pages 955 thru 966 of Bugliosi's book (4 footnotes in total).

There is no FOOTnote attached to the #9 item on Bugliosi's list (concerning Oswald's habit of reading newspapers at the Depository every morning). There is a SOURCE note (#27) listed, however. And that Source Note takes us to Charles Givens' Warren Commission testimony, at 6 H 352.

[A related "Oswald Reading The Newspaper" discussion can be found here.]

David Von Pein
April 22-25, 2023





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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 933)

PAMELA BROWN SAID:

[John] Simkin is pretty mellow; I would think you would have had to really cross a line to actually get kicked out of there [The Education Forum].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, come now, Pam. Let's be reasonable. No LNer lasts very long there. Ask Brendan Slattery.

And, AFAIK, there isn't a single LNer posting there as of this date [1/13/2010]. At least not any regular posters that I have seen. Not one.

To be perfectly clear (and fair) here:

I was ejected from Simkin's forum in July of 2006 (after posting for four days), and "officially" the reason I was given for my dismissal was because I had not added a photograph of myself to my profile. (John Simkin has a rule where every member who posts at the Education Forum must have a photo of himself/herself; it "personalizes" the experience for other readers, per Mr. Simkin. And that's fine. I didn't/don't particularly like that rule; but, after all, it is Simkin's house of kooks, so he can decide on the rules and regulations.)

However, several other long-time members as of that time (in July 2006) were not complying with the "photo" rule, which I pointed out to Mr. Simkin, which made John crack down on the rule immediately after I pointed out to him that other members didn't have personal pics either. He had evidently been lax in enforcing the rule up to that time.

I was e-mailing John back and forth a couple of times, trying to work out a compromise of some kind regarding the "personal photo" rule, because I did not have a photo of myself that I could use at all. (And I still don't have one to this day.) [EDIT: But I did later find a super-tiny picture of myself to use as a profile photo at the Education Forum when I re-joined that forum as a member in August of 2010. Amazingly, unlike last time, I wasn't booted out the door after just a few days either.]

If I recall correctly, John seemed to be willing to compromise on the picture rule for a certain period of time, allowing me to possibly use a "filler" picture until I could obtain and upload a decent picture of myself (which ain't easy with a mug like mine). ;)

So, I continued to post for about two more days or so (posting lots of actual evidence and citations from the witnesses and common sense, etc.), when suddenly I was banned from the forum via a very short and terse e-mail from Mr. Simkin.

So, make of that explanation what you will. But, IMO, the brevity of my stay at The Education Forum was based more on the "Lone Assassin" content of my posts than it was the silly "photo" rule.

YMMV.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

How anyone can objectively examine all the information we have about the Zapruder films and not ask questions is beyond me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Films"? As in "more than one"?

~shrug~

Well, Pamela, you and all other people who even BEGIN to suspect that Abraham Zapruder's home movie might have been "faked" or "tampered with" SHOULD be asking yourself the $64,000 question (to which there is no logical and reasonable and SANE answer whatsoever if the film was faked to ELIMINATE ALL SIGNS OF A CONSPIRACY; and what other possible reason could there be for anybody to want to fake the film other than that?), and that $64K question is this one:

WHY IS THE REAR HEAD SNAP STILL VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE COPY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM THAT EXISTS TO THIS DAY?

I await a logical, reasonable, and BELIEVABLE answer to the above inquiry.

To date, I've yet to hear such an answer.

David Von Pein
January 13, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 940)

THE MOVEMENT OF
GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S LAPEL....

DAVE REITZES SAID:

Has Pamela [Brown] refuted the lapel flip?

Actually, I think it's quite possible she has.

I paid little attention to her article on [the] SBT when it appeared [see the link below], as it's a pretty typical CT rant on that subject:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372

But, lo and behold, there is a little nugget of research buried within it that casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the "lapel flip," advanced by Robert Piziali and publicized by Gerald Posner (and endorsed by me for the past decade or so).

Pamela posted an animated GIF of Z223-226 [the one below] that appears to show that the lapel flip was no such thing, but rather a shadow. It looks awfully compelling to me.

Comments, anyone?




JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

Dave:

Yes, I can comment explicitly.

Firstly, Posner has nothing to do with this other than in supporting his own importance. He was very adept at taking credit for things which were observed/investigated/postulated by others without proper attribution.

I had numerous discussions with John Lattimer about this, and in fact have done some photo work on this myself which is on another computer, but which I have posted to this newsgroup [alt.assassination.jfk].

Rather than a "lapel flip", the correct term might be "suit jacket bulge." It's unclear as to whether the lapel actually "flipped." In discussions with Lattimer, he himself was undecided on this issue. My personal opinion is, and always was, that indeed it didn't. I have used the term lapel flip to describe this action however.

In fact, Piziali is a Johnny come lately. As our moderator Prof. McAdams can attest, the most unlikely of candidates, Cyril Wecht, was the first "official" proponent of this idea.

But "somebody" actually beat him to it.

I can assure you, it is no "shadow" and I go into this in great detail in my book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think Governor Connally's lapel is moving. It's not just a shadow (as some people have theorized).

Although, due to the apparent movement of that same part of Connally's jacket at a point which I believe was PRIOR to the bullet passing through the body of John B. Connally [JBC], I've revised my thinking on the "lapel flip" over the years.

I now feel it's quite possible that a combination of the wind (which was gusty that day) and Oswald's CE399 bullet are causing the movement of Connally's lapel that we see in the Zapruder Film.

Something appears to be happening with the right side of Connally's suit coat in this Z222-Z223 toggling clip:



And then we get the bigger "bulging out" (for lack of a better term) of that same area of Connally's jacket at the precise instant when I think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this is only a shadow, IMO [click to enlarge]:



In the final analysis, the "lapel flip" or "jacket bulge" is probably the LEAST compelling evidence on the Z-Film that proves the SBT is occurring at precisely Z224. There are multiple other indicators that show JBC is "reacting" to an external stimulus just after Z224, e.g.:

JBC opens his mouth at Z225 (his mouth is closed at Z224), and a startled (or pained) look comes over his face; his shoulders "hunch" up, or flinch, starting at exactly Z225.

This "hunching" is extremely important, IMO, because it's showing us an involuntary reaction on the part of the Governor. So we don't need to depend only on the CLOTHING (the lapel) of Connally to prove the Single-Bullet Theory. Connally's OWN BODY is telling us that the bullet has just pierced him. Just look:



Here's another clip showing the very noticeable (but often overlooked) "hunching" of Connally's shoulders and the distressed look that crosses his face at Z225:



And then there's also the very important "hat flip" of JBC's, which begins just an instant later, at Z226:



And I challenge anyone to look at the Zapruder Film clip presented below a few times in a row and arrive at the following conclusion ---- There's NO WAY that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by the same bullet! No way!



Anyone who could utter the above words after watching that Z-Film clip must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

That is just silly. There is no 'bulging' of the jacket. Has it occurred to you that there may have been a shadow from more than one source? Probably not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The bulging jacket is obvious.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

No it is not. It is a speculation imposed on us by Posner. It does not take into account the fact that there are much more reasonable explanations. The idea falls prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.


JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

The fact that you believe ANY of this was "Posner's" idea shows me that you really haven't done your homework.


JOHN FIORENTINO ALSO SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know if this has been mentioned before or not (it probably has), but it looks to me as though there is ALREADY A SHADOW covering portions of John Connally's shirt and tie even BEFORE his jacket bulges outward at Z224. You can easily see the varying degrees of "white" on Connally's shirt in these Zapruder clips:







JOE ELLIOTT SAID:

Yes, the lower part of Connally's torso is in shadow throughout z222-225. But this shadow only causes Connally's shirt to change from bright white to gray. This shadow does not cause the white shirt to look black.

Of course, up to now, my posts have not referred to the obvious horizontal shadow that covers the lower part of Connally's torso, turning his white shirt to gray, but to the alleged vertical 'shadow', matching the shade of Connally's coat perfectly, matching the shape of the (our) right edge of Connally's coat perfectly, giving us the allusion that Connally's coat either moved sideways or, more likely, bulged forward.

This video clip [shown again below] also shows coat movement between z222 and z223. As to be expected. Dr. Lattimer's experiments in the 1990s showed the coat bulge should take place a tenth of a second after the bullet passes through the coat. So the bullet did not strike at z224 nor z223 but at z222. This is also consistent with the camera jiggle at z227.



With the bullet striking at z222, it is to be expected to see some coat movement during z222-223, as well as z223-224, as well as a camera jiggle at either z227 or z228, just as the bullet at z312 caused a camera jiggle at z318.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So then, per your explanation, Joe, the bullet strikes at Z222, with the right side of Governor Connally's jacket then RETURNING to its "unbulged" condition at Z223, which was 1/18th of a second AFTER the bullet has gone through the coat.

And then, with the coat now seemingly in a FLAT or "not bulged out" state at Z223, the jacket then makes its huge "bulge" between Z223 and Z224.

Sorry, I can't buy into a Z222 SBT bullet strike. In my opinion, the bullet is going through Connally's torso (and his jacket) at exactly Z224. I'll have to assume the gusty wind blowing through Dealey Plaza at that time (coming from the north or northwest, I believe) is causing any jacket movement that we see in the Zapruder Film prior to Z224.

Question for Joe Elliott:

Why didn't Connally's jacket continue to bulge outward from the force of the bullet between Z222 and Z223? Instead, the coat seems to fall back down into place again, making the right side of Connally's shirt more visible in Z223.


JOE ELLIOTT SAID:

Actually, coat movement during z222-223 is something I heard about, possibly from CTers who argued the z222-223 movement proves the coat movement could have nothing to do with a bullet at z224 nor z223.

But looking closely...I can't say I see much difference between z222 and z223. The main difference is that z222 is more blurry than z223. I think that z222 is so blurry, I can't tell if during z222-223 the coat started to bulge outward, became flatter, or didn't move at all. More white is visible to (our) left of Connally's tie, all right, but could this be caused by z222 being blurry?



I leave it to others to decide if the difference between z222 and z223 is clearly caused by coat movement, or if z222 is too blurry for us to tell.

What is apparent is the coat did move during z223-224. I can clearly see the white of his shirt to the (our) right of his tie, but not to the left.

Everything fits with the coat movement being caused by a bullet....

* The strong camera jiggle at z227. The bullet at z312 caused a strong camera jiggle at z318. So the camera jiggle at z227 implies a bullet during z220-222.

* Dr. Lattimer's experiments in the mid 1990s, using models of JFK's neck and Connally's torso, caused a coat bulge in 4 out of 5 tests. And the coat bulge, when it did occur, occurred 0.1 seconds after the bullet struck. This corresponds with z222.

* The simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally during the z220s.

....all support a bullet striking at about z222, causing the coat bulge at z224.

Now, I don't know. Maybe the coat movement was a coincidence. A gust of wind moved coat, by coincidence, at the perfect time. Or less likely, there was no coat movement, a shadow or something, makes it appear the coat moved, by coincidence, at the perfect time. But most likely, it is no coincidence. Too many other things support the apparent coat movement being caused by a bullet.

********************************************

Question for David Von Pein:

If the bullet struck at z224, why wasn't their a strong camera jiggle at z229?

Why did the camera jiggle happen to occur at z227?

********************************************

As an aside, on a minor point, it could be argued that the camera jiggle at z227 implies a shot at z221, not at z222. But I would imagine a camera jiggle does not always occur precisely 307 ms [milliseconds] after the sound. It is probably something that may vary a little, even with the same person holding the camera. Also, the bullet strike at z312 occurred right at the end of z312. So the camera jiggle at z318 is more accurately described as occurring 5.75 frames after the bullet struck, not 6.0 frames later.

I think the tests of Dr. Lattimer probably provided us the most accurate measure of when the bullet struck. His tests showed the coat bulge reaches its maximum 100 ms after the bullet strikes. This test does not depend on a person's reaction time, which may vary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, I'll admit, I think we could (perhaps) be over-analyzing this thing to death here. ;)

You and I both know that a single bullet (Commission Exhibit Three-Niner-Niner to be precise) went through both limo victims in the early Z220s. No question about that fact.

As for the "jiggle" analysis -- that type of analysis only gets you a "range" of frames for the actual thing that caused the jiggling of Mr. Z's camera. And Z224 is certainly not a million miles away from your preferred SBT frame of Z222.

In my Internet post linked here, I was making fun of some of the conspiracy theorists at Duncan MacRae's JFK forum, accusing them of "hairsplitting" with regard to Dale Myers' excellent 3D computer animation. But now here I am engaging in some pretty good "hair-splitting" of my own with respect to the SBT's precise timing.

Oh, well. Nobody's perfect, I guess. Not even DVP or Whisky Joe Elliott. (Right, Joe?)

~wink~


JOE ELLIOTT SAID:

If the jiggle at z227 was caused by a shot at z224, it means Mr. Zapruder sometimes reacted within 170 ms to a loud shot and at another time, the jiggle at z318, it took him 310 to 330 ms to react. This seems to me to be a very wide range. I'm certain a person doesn't always react with a very narrow range of time, like always between 307 ms to 312 ms after a loud noise, but I find it hard to believe the time delay could range from 170 ms to 310 ms.

The camera jiggle at z227 is a strong argument against a shot right at z224. It could be that the jiggle at z227 was not caused by a loud noise, he just happened to jiggle the camera. And, for some reason, the loud shot did not cause him to jiggle the camera at z229 or z230. Possible, but not likely.

Pamela's video gave me the impression that the coat bulge took place over at least two film intervals. But looking at better quality stills, I only see clear coat movement between z223 and z224. I find myself changing my mind a lot on different issues.

Actually, it occurred to me after my last post, the one question I should ask is:

Why do you think that z224 is the frame the bullet struck JFK and Connally?

Why not frames z221, z222, z223 or z225?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

225 is certainly too late. JBC is already reacting at 225 (shoulder-hunching & open-mouthed "startle").

Z222 is too early, IMO. No reactions seen on JBC in 223 or 224. And an involuntary reaction, per the HSCA's FPP "would have occurred almost simultaneously with the injuries" (and Connally's initial reaction—open mouth, grimace, shoulders hunching—are most certainly "involuntary", IMO).

Quoting from Volume 7 of the HSCA:

"At issue is the time delay between bullet impact and the observable reactions of each man to his injury, which in turn is determined by many factors, including whether or not their reactions were voluntary or involuntary. If involuntary, they would have occurred almost simultaneously with the injuries." -- 7 HSCA 179

Z224 fits perfectly.


JOE ELLIOTT SAID:

Not with the coat movement it doesn't. The coat cannot move that fast.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Since Connally's coat is not connected to a human brain, and therefore not subject to the same "It's Got To Take XX Number Of Z-Frames To React To A Bullet Hitting It" rules that a human being's body parts must abide by, I disagree with your assessment that JBC's jacket "cannot move that fast".

[EDIT --- I'll also add this point (from a 2009 post)....]

"Some researchers prefer to say that the SBT is occurring at Z221 or Z222 or Z223 (Dale Myers prefers Z223), even though there's not a sign of such a SBT hit VISUALLY on Mr. Zapruder's film until Z224. As for me personally, I always go by this rule (just for clarity and consistency) ----> The Zapruder Film frames that I utilize when discussing the details of when JFK and Governor Connally were struck by bullets in Dealey Plaza are always the frames that equate to when the first SIGNS OF IMPACT upon the victims can be seen in the film (i.e., precisely Z224 and Z313)." -- DVP; July 11, 2009


JOE ELLIOTT SAID:

Connally's coat is not connected to nerves and not subject to the same sort of delayed reaction like muscles are. But it does contain a good deal of mass and inertia and Dr. Lattimer's tests of the mid 1990s show that it does take about two Zapruder frames for a coat to reach its maximum movement.

In the tests by Dr. Lattimer, the coat only moved at 3 MPH, moving about 6 inches in 100 ms, or about 2 Zapruder frames. Something like this is to be expected, since the coat weighs many times as much as the bullet and only a fraction of the original momentum of the bullet gets transferred to the coat.

To push the coat 6 inches within half a Zapruder frame, the coat would need to push the coat at a minimum of 12 MPH. So, if as the shutter opened at z224, by the time the shutter closed, the coat would move 6 inches, resulting in roughly what we see. But the Lattimer tests don't show anything like that.

If a test can be run where, within 25 ms, we get a coat bulge like we see in z224, then one can say the coat bulge at z224 may have been caused by a z224 bullet. But, until such a test is demonstrated, we have to go with Dr. Lattimer's results, which show that maximum coat movement takes place 100 ms after a bullet strike, not 0 ms nor 25 ms later.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Joe,

I'm just going by what I'm SEEING in the Zapruder Film. And what I am seeing is a portion of Governor Connally's suit coat which appears to be lying FLAT against his chest in Z223 (i.e., the coat/lapel is not in a "bulged out" state at all in Z223), and then we see that the coat has moved significantly (bulging outward) just one frame later, in Z224.

It's fairly obvious to me (when looking at a good-quality copy of the Z-Film clip in question, such as the one below), that Governor Connally's coat/lapel is moving (quite a bit) within the span of just ONE single frame of the Zapruder Film:



So, unless my eyes are deceiving me, then Joe Elliott is wrong when he said this on April 30, 2010:

"The coat cannot move that fast."

Governor Connally's coat DID, however, "move that fast" on 11/22/63, from Z223 to Z224. And, IMO, the above Z-Film clip proves it.

YMMV.

David Von Pein
April/May 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 510)

RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

Folks,

Today [April 10, 2009] I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary Baker. I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am as bewildered by this as anyone could be.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dave Reitzes,

Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that JFKResearch.com message on this forum?


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since he is not a member.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

I let my [JFKResearch.com] membership lapse some years back when they started demanding a donation.

Someone was clearly willing to risk their membership in order to forward me this breaking news about Judyth.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off Rich's forum:

"IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE POST IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM."

Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious restriction.


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know who can and cannot read their submissions.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Why?

If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout it to the whole wide world?

Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small group of people?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I said before, it's a very odd stance to take when it comes to "Internet Forums" (IMO).

I would think that if people are proud of what they post and they think it's worthy of being posted on a JFK forum (and why would anyone post stuff that they DON'T feel is worthy of posting?)....then why on Earth would any such person object to his or her messages being seen by the Internet world at-large?

~shrug of bewilderment~

I truly wish Mr. DellaRosa would remove his "Only Members Can Read Posts" restriction at JFKResearch.com, because I'd enjoy reading some of the stuff that is posted at that forum.


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and confidently. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."

Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct themselves with civility.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your forum's content?

I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just won't permit it.

You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

That is how we evolved. In the late 90s, we had various email groups, but at the time not everyone was capable of attaching or viewing photos. So we moved to a web based forum.

The folks who abide by the simple rules of civility can read and post to their heart's delight. And it is not necessary to agree with me or any other member. There is considerable debate, but the debaters don't use the "sharp stick in the eye" technique to get their points across.


JUDYTH VARY BAKER SAID:

I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above quote is a truly sad one indeed.

Judyth Vary Baker has some serious problems it would seem. I often wonder if Judyth has ever even studied ANY of the many, many pieces of hard evidence that easily would have convicted her "lover" (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a court of law, had he lived to stand trial, such as the stuff discussed at my blog below?



My guess is that Judyth probably has not seriously studied and evaluated the hard evidence that exists against Lee Oswald in the TWO murders that he was charged with in 1963.

Nor has Judyth focused very heavily on another very important aspect of the JFK murder case -- the ACTIONS and the PROVABLE LIES of her "lover", both before and after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Judyth even admits (as recently as her April 10, 2009, e-mail to Rich DellaRosa) that "I am not a 'researcher' about the JFK assassination".

In short, Judyth Vary Baker either has been inflicted with a terminal case of "denial" regarding the obvious guilt of Lee Oswald, or (perhaps) she can be defined as author Vincent Bugliosi defines her in VB's 2007 JFK book "Reclaiming History" -- "a sick puppy".


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

Interesting that you are comfortable pushing the fairy tale of the WCR, not to mention Bug's [Vincent Bugliosi's] fiasco, and yet complain at Judyth speaking out on behalf of Lee's innocence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, imagine the gall of me complaining about a proven liar (Judyth Baker) telling lies. Who'd ever thunk it?!

Two words that can never be placed together are these words:

1.) Lee's.

2.) Innocence.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

That's the easy way to avoid discussing tough issues. Just call everyone a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've called very few people outright liars. Very, very few, in fact.

By my rough count, I think I've only called three people who are connected in some way with the JFK case "liars" in any of my forum posts over the years:

1.) Roger Craig
2.) Jean Hill
3.) Judyth Vary Baker

It's possible (and probable) that a few more people could/should be added to the above list as proven liars, but I think I've used the word "liar" only when speaking of the three individuals named above. (Not counting members of JFK newsgroups and forums, of course.)


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

You seem to be comfortable calling people names who don't agree with you. You claim Judyth is a liar for believing in Lee's innocence? Guess that's an easy way to debate when you don't have any evidence.

[...]

"DVP" seems to think his credentials allow him to designate people as liars.

But just what does he say his credentials are?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Did Judyth ever say Lee was innocent?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good gosh, Tony....READ!!

What do you think these words from Judyth's own mouth mean?:

"I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary Baker; April 10, 2009

Tony,

Do you think that Judyth is seeking to "exonerate" and "vindicate" a person whom she believes to be GUILTY of killing President Kennedy and Officer Tippit? That would be a rather strange (not to mention evil) thing to do, wouldn't it (even if she DID have a love affair with Lee Harvey)?

David Von Pein
May 4, 2009
May 5, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 646)

PAMELA BROWN SAID:

"DVP" conveniently refuses to acknowledge that there was no provenance for CE399.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Pamela" continues to ignore the unified findings of both the Warren Commission and HSCA. Of course, as always, all conspiracy-happy wanderers will forever ignore everything that has an "official" tag wrapped around its findings.

But, regardless of "Pam's" disbelief, both of those entities (WC/HSCA) believed that Commission Exhibit No. 399 was the SBT bullet that struck both John Kennedy and John Connally.

And since both the Warren Commission and HSCA had some common sense (most of the time) when evaluating the evidence connected to the assassination of JFK, it probably wasn't too difficult to totally disregard the foolish and unprovable notion that Bullet Three-Niner-Niner was a "planted" or "substituted" missile.

Some of the common sense that can be utilized plays out as follows:

Since CE399 is a bullet that can be linked definitively to the rifle owned by the man who was also linked to a BUNCH OF OTHER EVIDENCE in the JFK and Tippit murder cases (including several additional pieces of BALLISTICS EVIDENCE linked directly to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle)....then what are the odds of Bullet CE399 NOT being legitimately connected to the shooting in Dealey Plaza?

The Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists will, as always, find a way to slither around the logic and garden-variety common sense that the above paragraph contains. Probably even "Pam".

But the logic and common sense will still remain (even after a CTer attempts to mangle the hell out of it).

Right, "Pamela"?


FYI FOOTNOTE --- For those who care and are unaware, the reason that "Pam" and I always place quotation marks around each other's names in our posts is due to the fact that "Pam" has a crazy idea that "DVP" (that's me) probably really isn't the person he says he is. I'm apparently supposed to be a collection of various aliases and unknown persons, posing as this person called "DVP". So, for the last few months, I have decided that "Pamela" deserves the same kind of reciprocal (albeit silly) "quotation mark" treatment.

David Von Pein
August 3, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 883)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why is this theory such a popular one?....

One of the most popular JFK assassination theories is that a massive conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the burdensome task of rearranging all of the various pieces of evidence surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many conspiracy believers advocate. And yet that's exactly what a goodly number of CTers think occurred in 1963.

Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in the conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was actually being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away and pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November 22 (physical evidence such as guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells, and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee Harvey Oswald. ....

CONTINUE READING HERE:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Insane Assassination Plot


CHRIS SAID:

The most popular foolish comments are from those LNs that say it would take a massive force of conspirators to accomplish the plot described by some CTs. It just ain't so!

It would take a few main conspirators in good positions in government, and a higher up, probably just one hungry politician. The plot could be accomplished by 10-20 people at most, then the cover-up can be done by many worker bees who need not know of the plot. They only need to be given a good excuse for doing what had to be done. If told that they were helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!

It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of thousands.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Chris, do YOU think it would be a GOOD and WISE decision to try and frame a lone gunman in the Book Depository by utilizing multiple gunmen firing at JFK from both the back and the FRONT?

Is that a GOOD plan, Chris? And would YOU have tried to frame a patsy in such a reckless manner?

(I'm dying to hear Chris' fascinating reply.)


CHRIS SAID:

Apparently you have no reply of your own to our previous discussion, and have decided to use that ploy to escape having to have one.

The answer is not difficult, since the method you outlined worked!

First, you had to use multiple shooters to be sure you killed JFK. The main reason being that he was the POTUS, and had great resources to chase down any plotters and see to their imprisonment if left alive. If the VP were the leader or a main mover of the plot, then most would be safe.

Second, having a 'patsy' would be a necessary element in a plot like this one, since without someone to take the fall, the real plotters would be chased to the ends of the earth to be captured. Simple.

BTW, the prosectors at the autopsy discovered a wound clearly saying that there were indeed wounds from both front and back of JFK. The frontal wound was the small (5mm) wound in the right temple/forehead seen by a number of witnesses, and completely left out [of] the Autopsy Report (AR). That wound was also seen by Pierre Finck, the Forensic Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert. He recognized it as an entry wound, partly because it had a grey ring around the circumference of the wound, which sometimes happens with lead bullets. An X-ray by technician Jerrol Custer proved that the small wound was the entrance because of the metal fragments seen in the skull originating [from] the small wound toward the rear of the skull in an expanding cone to the blow-out at the rear of the skull seen by over 40 witnesses.

All the above is recorded in sworn testimony in ARRB files, and is NOT a theory like the WC lawyers made. Links provided on request.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Chris actually thinks it's "ridiculous logic" for me to think that it's silly for a group of plotters to want to frame a lone patsy by firing shots at JFK from both the front and rear.

Therefore, per wise ol' Chris (aka "mainframetech"), it WAS indeed a great idea (a perfect plan!) to try and set up Oswald IN ADVANCE of November 22 by placing a gunman on the Knoll.

The only thing left to be said now is ---- Incredible!


CHRIS SAID:

Yep. You still don't get it. You see, when you have the resources of a government to do your bidding, you can get a lot done.

First, having multiple shooters does a better job of guaranteeing that you will get the target, who in this case could use his position to track down the guilty with a vengeance if left alive.

Second, by having the government at your beck and call, you have what you need to make it look like there was only one shooter! And that is exactly what happened! The FBI was the most responsible for modifying evidence and changing testimony and statements, and the custodian of the bullet evidence was able to do some work that helped.

Yep, once the idea sets in, you see what can be done with multiple shooters and a single 'patsy'...:)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure, Chris. Just snap your fingers and get the evil Government to do anything you want them to. What fabulous power "they" possessed, huh?

And Chris/"Mainframe" still misses the key point -- nobody would dare risk undertaking such a foolhardy Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plan in the first place. The built-in hazards and complications are all too obvious. But those hazards are things that Mr. or Mrs. Mainframe/Chris think the plotters welcomed with open arms (and with multiple guns).

Mainframe/Chris is evidently built in the "David Lifton" mold, with this motto hanging above his/her desk -- Complicate things to the max, even when you don't need to.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

It's such fun to see a WC defender creating a conspiracy theory and blaming it on the CTs.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh sure, Pam. Try to spin things around to where it's the "WC defenders" who have "created" the "Patsy" theory. (That's a howl!)

And I suppose you also think it's the LNers who have created the theory that JFK was shot from the FRONT and the REAR in tandem with the "Patsy" theory. Is that what you're implying?

Pam....you're a riot.


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

There is such an obvious explanation for the differences in the state of the body and evidence -- when you move everything 1600 miles from the crime scene, you lose control of the evidence and all sorts of confusing things can happen. And that isn't even a theory -- it just happens to be a fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And how does anything you just said have anything whatsoever to do with the crazy "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" theory that I was talking about in my thread-starting post, Pam?

Regardless of WHERE the evidence was located at any point in time AFTER the assassination, many conspiracy theorists DO believe that BEFORE the shooting ever took place in Dealey Plaza, the following two things were being planned and co-existed PRIOR to 11/22/63....

1.) At least two (or more) gunmen, located both in FRONT of and BEHIND the President's car, were going to be stationed in Dealey Plaza to take shots at President Kennedy on November 22nd.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald was being "sheep-dipped" (i.e., he was being set up and framed) to take the lone fall for JFK's murder PRIOR to November 22nd.

Tell me, Pam .... Do you disagree with either of the two points I just mentioned above?

Were there at least TWO shooters stationed in Dealey Plaza?

And was Lee Oswald being sheep-dipped as the patsy IN ADVANCE of the actual shooting?

If you answer "Yes" to both questions, you've got a serious problem, Pam. Because only a conspiracy team that WANTED to get caught would have had a desire to incorporate both #1 and #2 above into their plan to assassinate America's 35th President in Dallas, Texas, in 1963.

David Von Pein
February 2006
January 2015