JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1123)

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

[Marrion] Baker had no intention of running into the TSBD when he began his mad dash, and didn't enter till later. As you will see, this is yet one more nail in the coffin of the Baker-Oswald second-floor lunchroom encounter myth.

The key to following the path taken by Baker is to follow his footsteps. As obvious as that sounds, it has surprisingly never been done. At least not seriously.

[...]

Marrion Baker was not headed for the TSBD. Not to go inside. No way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The utter desperation of conspiracy theorists is astounding, as Sandy Larsen's ludicrous claim regarding Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in this forum thread clearly demonstrates.

Sandy thinks Baker told one lie after another FOR DECADES ON END after the assassination.

Now, all Sandy needs to do is to logically and reasonably tell us Why Marrion Baker would want to tell a bunch of lies about his movements on November 22, 1963.

Was he paid very handsomely for lying so much, Sandy? Or did the FBI threaten Baker's life if he didn't go along with the "LN" story?

Here's the proof that Sandy Larsen is dead wrong:




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David, have you no eyes to see? The photographic evidence is irrefutable. Unless, of course, you believe the Darnell video has been altered.

I believe Marrion Baker initially told the truth, and after that was convinced by powerful people to be a Patriot and protect the nation from America's "enemies." And thus his lies -- as hard as they were for him to keep straight -- were justified.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, for Pete sake. Get real, Sandy. The Darnell film doesn't come close to providing "irrefutable" evidence that Baker bypassed the Book Depository and was headed for the Dal-Tex Building instead. The film clip stops short of showing Baker actually reaching the Depository's front steps. So your "irrefutable" evidence is nothing but pure speculation and amateur photographic (film) interpretation on your part.

I, on the other hand, have Marrion Baker's own words and testimony, which make it clear that he immediately ran into the Book Depository after the shooting. And Baker's own signed affidavit, which he filled out on the day of the assassination itself, also bears out the fact that he went straight to the Depository after jumping off of his police motorcycle:

"I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building." -- Marrion L. Baker (Via Affidavit); November 22, 1963

And, by the way, Sandy, this statement you made in your thread-starting post is not accurate at all:

"The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- S. Larsen

Where on Earth did you get the "20 to 25 seconds" timing? Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the second-floor TSBD encounter between Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald occurred as early as "20 to 25 seconds" after the assassination. It is generally accepted by almost everybody (even most conspiracy believers) that the encounter in the lunchroom took place approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, just as Officer Baker estimated in his CBS-TV interview in 1964.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Great work, Sandy. You know that you're square on the mark when you've got DVP on your tail trying to shoot you down.

Someone is worried.

Note the obvious attempt at distraction as DVP appears to be "confused" about how Baker made it to the 2nd floor in 20-25 seconds. He knows darn well this time refers to Baker's claim as to how long it took him to reach the front door.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Can't you read, Bob? That's not what I'm talking about at all. I just posted the relevant (wholly wrong) quote written by Sandy on this matter. And Sandy wasn't ONLY talking about Baker's time to get to the TSBD's front door. Here's what Sandy said....

"The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- Sandy Larsen


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

So Sandy made a little mistake. Get over it, Davey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Should I take that as an official apology, Bob, after you made a mistake when you accused me of being "confused" earlier?


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Take it any way you want, Davey. And you know where you can put it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And if I do put it there, what good would it do? You'd just accuse me of being "confused" as to which orifice I stuffed it into.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

I knew what he [Sandy] meant.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So did I. He meant just exactly what he clearly said in Post #1. And he's dead wrong.

EDIT: As I knew Sandy would do (because I do not think he is a dishonest person), Sandy has changed his first post to read "90 seconds" instead of "20 to 25 seconds". But I wanted a copy of the original post, just to prove that I did not "invent" anything I attributed to Mr. Larsen, so I quickly saved Sandy's initial erroneous post by creating this screen capture of it.

But thanks for your honesty in changing the time to "90 seconds", Sandy.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I no longer believe that Baker was ever headed toward the west half of the TSBD entryway. In fact, I don't believe he was ever headed toward ANY part of the entryway.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's amazing what a fertile imagination can do when a conspiracy theorist gets ahold of a GIF clip. Remarkable.

BTW, here's another of Marrion Baker's statements that Sandy Larsen is now forced to completely toss into the nearest gutter or trash can:

"I, Marrion L Baker, being duly sworn say:

1. I am an officer in the Dallas Police Department.

2. On November 22, 1963, upon hearing shots I rode my motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, parked the motorcycle, and ran 45 feet to the Texas School Book Depository Building.

3. On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot." -- Marrion L. Baker; August 11, 1964


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

Sandy,

I appreciate the work you put into this, but I'm really not seeing the relevance. I mean, it's a great little slice of the event captured on film of him running into the TSBD. And the far more intriguing part of it is the Prayer Man figure still standing there at the top of the stairs.

There are people standing, looking, walking, and running amid the confusion of what just happened in that clip, but I just don't see how you can take such a huge leap to assume he's heading over to D-T [Dal-Tex], then cuts and runs into TSBD. And even if he did cut and run, what does it really matter anyway?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree with everything you just said, Michael.

Plus, I think one of the most intriguing parts of the GIF clip below is the fact that we can see TWO different people who appear to be looking UP toward the upper floors of the Depository -- "Stetson Hat Man" and the man in the dark suit on the far right:



In addition, when looking at the full-sized version of the GIF clip presented by Sandy (1024 x 613), it looks to me as if a pretty good argument could be made for Baker's last step in that GIF clip representing a bit of a "jump up" by Baker as he goes from street level "up" one step to the higher level of the sidewalk that is right in front of the Book Depository Building. (Click the above clip to enlarge it to full size.)

And if that is the case (Baker "jumping" up onto the sidewalk), that would certainly not be consistent with him continuing to run in the street toward the Dal-Tex Building.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

Baker is about six feet away from the sidewalk in the last frame we see him in Darnell. We know that because his shadow (which happens to be about six feet long) just barely hit the face of the curb before the clip ends. So it is quite unlikely that he is jumping up on the sidewalk at that time. I'd say impossible.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I respectfully disagree. I see Baker taking a long stride in that last step, in order to step up onto the sidewalk. Looks to me like Baker is striding directly toward the sidewalk and the Depository (running directly into the shadow his body is casting).


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

You are respectfully blind. Not only is Baker six feet from the sidewalk, he is taking a big step parallel to its edge... thus maintaining his six-foot distance from it. Follow my blue line.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Your silly blue line is worthless and meaningless. You can't start drawing lines on photos or films and expect to extract perfect three-dimensional information, which is something Dale Myers has been trying to drill into the heads of you know-it-all conspiracy hobbyists for years:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can
be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional
images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information."
-- Dale K. Myers


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

In Officer Baker's early statements, he gives no account whatsoever of pulling a gun on Oswald, or even seeing him in the second floor lunchroom.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But what about Roy Truly's CORROBORATION of Baker's encounter with OSWALD (not some other unknown person) in the LUNCHROOM on the SECOND FLOOR?

We have TRULY corroborating BAKER.

Should I believe they BOTH lied?

Why should I believe such a thing, Sandy? Why?

And furthermore, WHY would they both lie about an encounter on the SECOND FLOOR? Such an encounter most certainly doesn't prove Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR shooting at President Kennedy 90 seconds earlier. So why on Earth would anyone create and act out such a charade, which, in effect, proves NOTHING?

~great big shrug~


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Show me a first-day affidavit from Marrion Baker that is corroborated [by] a first-day affidavit from Roy Truly, where the topic of corroboration is Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, first off, there is no "first-day" affidavit by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly. He didn't fill out his affidavit until the next day (November 23). So does that mean I should think it is not an accurate statement by Mr. Truly? Is that it, Sandy?

It's certainly true that Officer Baker doesn't mention the "lunchroom" or "second floor" or "pulling a gun on Oswald" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, but if we compare the two affidavits — BAKER'S and TRULY'S — the reasonable conclusion to reach, despite Baker's error about the event occurring on either the "third or fourth floor", is that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter.

Another reason we can pretty much KNOW that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter with Oswald in their respective Nov. '63 affidavits is because each man described just ONE single encounter with ONE single man during their trek through the building on 11/22/63.

And if you want to believe that Baker really DID encounter a person on the "third or fourth floor" of the TSBD, then what possible reason would there be for anybody (including Roy S. Truly) to want to lie and change the location of the encounter to the SECOND floor, which is two additional floors further away from the sixth floor where the crime was committed? Does that make a lick of sense? It sure doesn't to me.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

[Quoting] DVP: "It's certainly true that Officer Baker doesn't mention the "lunchroom" or "second floor" or "pulling a gun on Oswald" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, but if we compare the two affidavits...the reasonable conclusion to reach, despite Baker's error about the event occurring on either the "third or fourth floor", is that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter."

LOL

ROTF

LMAO


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Jimmy, it's either the SAME encounter, or Roy S. Truly was a big fat liar.

Now, guess which option I'm going to pick?


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Sure is fun to watch the deniers coming out of the woodwork. It's just unfortunate that it distracts from serious discussion on this topic which is, of course, the primary purpose of deniers being on this forum.

I always measure how close a theory, such as Mr. Larsen's current theory regarding Baker, is to the actual truth by how frantic the opposition to it by DVP is.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bob P.,

Do you really think Roy Truly was lying through his teeth here? Really? ....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Somebody had to be lying, why not Truly?


Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him [Roy Truly]?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.

~~~~~~~

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

~~~~~~~

Here is a question for you, Davey; was Baker invisible?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just as invisible as Oswald, I guess, since nobody on the steps saw Oswald walk right past them at 12:33 either.* Funny, huh?

* Not counting Buell Frazier's 2002 story of seeing Oswald walking down Houston Street, which is an observation totally at odds with what Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

First, I want to apologize for my earlier knee-jerk response (where I said, "You are respectfully blind.") Your constant disagreeing with me got the better of me. I actually value a lot of your posts because I want to be made aware when there is a problem with a CTer's POV, including when it is my own.

You are right, of course. Photo analysis is something the needs to be approached very carefully and is something best left to experts.

However, that doesn't mean that simple analyses cannot be made by people who aren't experts but who do understand the tricks that can be played by perspective, focal length, etc.

In my analysis, I chose to focus on where the feet of Baker (and the young woman) touch the ground. There is nothing ambiguous or that can be misinterpreted about these points. I then connected these points with a smooth line. Had Baker been walking, the straight-line may not have perfectly represent[ed] his path. But he was running fast and momentum would have prevented him from varying directions appreciably from my smooth line. Estimated locations of his foot-landings behind others are in support of my smooth line.

Only the very last footstep is up to any kind of interpretation. But 1) knowing the location of this step is not necessary in showing that Baker was not headed for the TSBD entrance, and 2) I'm confident the any impartial interpretation of the final step would indicate that Baker's direction at that point would be roughly parallel to the curb.

That Baker was running roughly parallel with the curb is verified by the fact that we see him from his side (and not his BACK side), whereas we see the BACK side of the nearby woman who is undoubtedly running toward the sidewalk. (And there is [a] second nearby woman walking to the sidewalk whose back side we see.) This is the clincher to the argument if you ask me.

As for Baker's distance from the curb/sidewalk at that point, it is easy to see in this clip, where Baker's shadow hits the face of the curb and quickly rises to the top of the curb. (Remember, the gray line I drew represents the base of the curb.) When that happens, we know that Baker is a distance from the curb that is equal to the length of his shadow. I haven't done a careful measurement, but on my monitor, with its aspect ratio, I can see that that the lengths of people's shadows are roughly the same as their heights. And so I conclude that Baker is roughly six feet away from the curb/sidewalk at the end of the clip.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, Sandy, how can Baker's shadow "[hit] the face of the curb and quickly [rise] to the top of the curb" if he's not running TOWARD that curb?

If he's running parallel to the curb, then why do we see his shadow hitting the curb and rising, as if he's running right toward the curb/sidewalk?

Please explain further. Thank you.


SANDY LARSEN SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

That's a lot of nice technical talk, but....

From strictly a layman's point-of-view, Baker's shadow hitting the curb and RISING onto that curb would most certainly indicate that Baker was GETTING CLOSER to that curb and sidewalk. Hence, his body was moving toward the Texas School Book Depository Building.

IMO, your analysis is a lot of wishful thinking (which is not supported by Marrion Baker's shadow).

David Von Pein
April 18-20, 2016

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1376)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1376 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of May 1—31, 2024. 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.


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

SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have frequently experienced that exact type of attitude being aimed at me by conspiracy theorists during the last 20+ years—at this forum and also at every other Internet forum I've joined since 2003—without exception.

Most CTers I've encountered just simply cannot stand having their unprovable and untenable theories torn to shreds by anyone—be it an LNer or a fellow CTer like Patrick J. Speer. Such conspiracists prefer fantasy over reality (and facts).

Sad indeed. But that's the way it is. At least that's been my experience since plugging in my first computer in September of 2000.


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Pat, given the wholly-untenable alternative(s) that would have no choice but to be true in order for the Single-Bullet Theory to not be true, I do indeed believe that the SBT can be categorized as more of a "fact" versus merely a "theory".

After weighing all of the possible options and alternatives, it couldn't be clearer to me that the single-bullet conclusion is by far the best solution. And it's rather incredible to me that so many people have such a hard time seeing the obvious truth that resides within those three controversial letters—S.B.T.




PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

1. The Rydberg drawings are, of course, a total mess. Both of the entry wounds are in the wrong place. Those drawings are completely worthless and useless. But I think the Warren Commission was doing the best they could with what they had....i.e., the memory of Dr. Humes and the total lack of relying on the best evidence for the wound locations---the autopsy photos.

The silliness of the WC's decision to not rely on or thoroughly review the autopsy photos still boggles the mind. A crazy, nutty decision to be sure. So, the LNers and CTers are therefore left to fight about the awful Rydberg drawings.

2. Re: the strap muscles and Arlen Specter's placement of those muscles. It's not that important in the long run, in my view, because the totality of the evidence indicates that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back most certainly did make its way thru Kennedy's upper body without hitting any bone and without doing any severe damage to any internal structures in the body. And this is true regardless of the precise location of the strap muscles.

Key Fact Reminder --- No bullets were found in JFK's body. That's a fact, and it's a fact that most certainly supports the idea that one bullet traversed the President's upper body from back to front. (And I don't think it's a very good idea to utilize Paul Landis' recent 2023 anti-SBT story. Here's why.)

3. Dr. John Lattimer's work on the JFK case was quite solid and factual (IMO). CTers, of course, totally disagree. Like Lattimer, I believe the bullet (CE399) did, indeed, traverse JFK's upper back and neck and emerge from the throat intact to go on and hit John Connally. No other alternative, IMO, comes even close to matching the known facts (and wounds) in this case.

4. Re: Dr. Vincent P. Guinn and his NAA studies --- Let's all ponder the "What Are The Odds?" question after probing Dr. Guinn's findings HERE.

5. Yes, in my opinion, the HSCA was most certainly incorrect in its assessment that JFK was showing signs of being struck by a bullet as early as Zapruder frame 190. And I think the proof that the HSCA was dead wrong about that timing issue can be found later in that same Zapruder Film, in frames 224 thru 226. Because if Kennedy was hit as early as Z190, then there's no way we'd be seeing JFK doing what he's doing with the hands as late as Z226. That jerking upward of his hands would certainly have occurred well prior to Z226 if he had been hit as early as Z190.


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Pat, let's assume just for the sake of this discussion that Dr. Guinn was, indeed, a big fat liar (as you apparently believe). I'd still like to know what you think the odds are of a multi-gun conspiracy taking place in Dallas, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the two limo victims, and yet, after the bullets stopped flying, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street?

I think that's an important "What are the odds?" question to ask, because that's precisely what did occur in this JFK murder case. No bullets or fragments exist in this case that were definitely determined to be from some OTHER non-Oswald gun.

With or without any Neutron Activation Analysis entering into the discussion, what I just said above is a proven fact. And it's a proven fact that conspiracy believers should be a little concerned about. Wouldn't you agree?

And the traditional CTer responses of "Nothing in this case can be trusted" and/or "Everything's been faked" are worn-out and unprovable responses that reek of conspiracy theorist desperation. Would you not agree, Pat?

David Von Pein
May 5, 2024





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


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?

And a member now gets punished for expressing his OPINION about a particular subject, eh?

Pat seems to really believe that McClelland (in his initial report) was talking about a large wound in the left temple. I think Pat is dead wrong on this McClelland/Left Temple subject. McClelland's "left temple" reference, as you and others have correctly pointed out earlier, was referring to the alleged ENTRY wound that McClelland said was being pointed out by Dr. Jenkins.

This was, of course, all just one big misunderstanding on McClelland's part. But Pat Speer evaluates this situation differently. And Pat's certainly entitled to his opinion....as am I and all other EF forum members.

So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours. I don't think that's fair.


SANDY LARSEN & PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's kind of fun watching two conspiracy theorists calling each other liars on a daily basis now. I'm enjoying it. Even though such accusations are, of course, in direct violation of one of the most fundamental rules of this forum [The Education Forum]....

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying." -- Education Forum Rules and Membership Behaviour *

But I guess if you're a moderator (or two), you can get away with such infractions. And maybe that's why we can now write out the word LIAR at this forum without it being X'ed out. Perhaps the mods removed that restriction so they themselves can utilize that word more often and more freely (on each other). Nice. 😁

* This forum rule about calling members liars has now been reworded by Administrator/Moderator Sandy Larsen. The new rule, put in place about an hour after Larsen decided to call Pat Speer a liar in one of his forum posts, now reads like this:

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of posting a falsehood without definitive proof of it being so."

And Sandy Larsen seems to think that he has "definitive proof" that Pat Speer lied in various forum posts.

What a crock. **

** Within minutes of my posting the words "What a crock" on the forum, Sandy Larsen deleted my entire post and imposed this penalty against me, prohibiting me from posting on The Education Forum for 24 hours.

That was Crock #2 for the day.

Ah, well....such is life at a JFK Assassination Internet forum. 😁


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You, Sandy Larsen, just don't seem to understand Pat Speer's basic point.

I think Pat is most definitely incorrect regarding his evaluation of the "McClelland/Left temple" matter. Pat is overstating the importance of this brief hospital admission note.

Plus, after reading over that admission note again just now, it's fairly clear that Dr. McClelland does tell us, on Page 1 of the two-page admission note, that he did, indeed, see a large wound in President Kennedy's head when he says that JFK had suffered "a massive gunshot wound of the head". McClelland just didn't give the specific details concerning the exact location of where that "massive wound" was situated on the President's head.

And I don't think that McClelland's reference to a "left temple" wound on Page 2 of his admission note is referring to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" that he mentions on Page 1. I think the (erroneous) "left temple" reference is meant to indicate the place on JFK's head where Dr. McClelland at that time (at 4:45 PM on 11/22/63) thought the bullet had entered the President's head.

But at least I understand the basic point that Pat Speer is trying to get across (even though Pat is wrong, IMO). You, Sandy, apparently cannot grasp that point at all.

David Von Pein
May 6-8, 2024





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Prior to reading this 1964 newspaper article on May 10th, 2024, I had never heard about any of this "William Bobo" secrecy surrounding Lee Oswald's grave and burial....



David Von Pein
May 10, 2024





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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1374)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1374 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of March 1—31, 2024. 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.


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

ALAN FORD SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The GIF clip below shows that Officer Baker was certainly moving toward the curb, with his shadow "climbing the curb" (so to speak). And this "curb-climbing shadow" fact is occurring directly in front of the steps to the Depository, which is perfectly consistent with Baker's never-wavering claim that he went straight from his motorcycle to the front entrance of the TSBD.

I can't recall who created this clip, so I don't know who inserted all the colored lines on it. But it wasn't me. Click to enlarge:



Related Discussion From April 2016 ----> Click Here.

David Von Pein
March 1, 2024





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


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE regarding [Ruth] Paine, [Roy] Truly, [Wesley] Frazier, and [Linnie Mae] Randle in order to weave the magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" plot that conspiracists imagine took place. But just because nobody has yet been able to come close to weaving that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people (like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop conspiracy theorists from pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those very people really did occur in 1963." -- David Von Pein; July 1, 2008

More HERE.

David Von Pein
March 1, 2024





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


VINCE PALAMARA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good Lord, what a bunch of malarkey! (And TWO make-believe frontal head shots yet! Geesh. What a fantasy tale.)

Now, back to reality.....

"Clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000

And....

"It is the firm conclusion of the [HSCA FPP] panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull [of President Kennedy] other than the single one in the cowlick...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But it's not just Baden. It's the entire 9-person Forensic Pathology Panel which came to this conclusion unanimously:

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978

David Von Pein
March 10-11, 2024





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

On March 22, 2024, Francois Carlier e-mailed me the link to the video below, which contains Francois' recent interview with Pat Speer. Thank you, Francois, for sending it. I enjoyed watching it. Good stuff.

I've had my share of battles with Pat Speer over the years (most of which are archived HERE), but I like him and I enjoy talking with him. He's one of my favorite "CTers" on the Internet.

(BTW, Francois, my last name is pronounced Von PINE.) 😇




PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Marrion Baker did, of course, mention his encounter with Lee Oswald in his
first-day affidavit. He merely got the floor number wrong. The "second floor" portion of the encounter was confirmed by Roy Truly in Truly's 11/23 affidavit.

Lots more Lunchroom Encounter Denial by a variety of conspiracy theorists can be enjoyed HERE.


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And, as usual, you too are also going to ignore Roy Truly's "It Was Oswald" confirmation.

Tell us, Sandy: Why are you so convinced Roy S. Truly was a liar and a CIA operative? What possible (good) reason could anyone have for treating Mr. Truly like a criminal?

BTW, Marrion Baker never said he saw anyone drinking a Coke in the TSBD on 11/22. The crossed-out "Coke" reference in his Sept. '64 statement has a perfectly logical explanation ---> Oswald, Baker, Truly, And Coca-Cola.


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you surely are aware, Sandy, that Oswald himself confirmed the fact that his encounter with a policeman after the assassination occurred on the 2nd floor and in the lunchroom. Both Captain Fritz and FBI agent James Bookhout wrote in their respective reports that Oswald had confirmed the "second floor" location of the encounter.

So that means, according to the members of the increasingly popular "The Second-Floor Encounter Never Happened" club, that either Oswald was himself lying about where the encounter took place or that Fritz and Bookhout were lying in their reports concerning some of the things they supposedly heard coming out of Oswald's mouth.

I think you, Sandy, have chosen to believe the latter option, which adds two more people to your list of cover-up operatives with respect to this Lunchroom Encounter topic.

Like you said above, Sandy --- Wow...incredible!


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, of course THAT portion of Oswald's statement (about eating lunch after the shooting) is, indeed, nonsense. It's just one of the many lies LHO told after his arrest.

But other things he said to Fritz and Bookhout were not lies---like the fact he had an encounter with a policeman (Baker) in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor after the shooting. That was, of course, true.

But Oswald then decided to add the lie about eating his lunch (post-assassination) on the first floor, and also the lie about standing around outside for "5 or 10 minutes" with Bill Shelley, which would have been impossible for him to do since we know he hopped aboard McWatters' bus at about 12:40. So he couldn't have been out in front of the TSBD shooting the breeze with Shelley at that very same time.

Ergo, some of the things Oswald told Fritz and Bookhout and Hosty were, indeed, truthful, but some were provable falsehoods.


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

One of the biggest liars in the history of Presidential assassinations (Lee H. Oswald) is treated like a snow-white truth-teller by Mr. Larsen.

Absolutely incredible. (And hilarious.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Liar Oswald (Part 1)


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But even if Oswald had said he ate lunch before the assassination occurred, that too would have been a lie, of course, because LHO didn't eat lunch at all on 11/22. He was much too busy upstairs on the sixth floor.


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, you're right. Just because every scrap of evidence points directly at this guy named Oswald, why would I even begin to suspect him (of all people) of any wrongdoing?

The new policy endorsed by many conspiracy believers seems to be:

The More Evidence There Is Against Oswald,
The More Innocent He Becomes.

A very strange policy indeed.


CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Cory, I think that's likely.

Here's what I said about this matter in 2019 in this Education Forum discussion....

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

"Even if the handwritten notes were written by James Hosty (and they probably were; I'm not arguing that they weren't), then IMO it's just another in a long list of lies being uttered by Lee Oswald after he was arrested.

My goodness, are LNers supposed to now fold up their tents and go home whimpering because another lie has been discovered coming from the lips of Lee Harvey Oswald (assuming LHO actually did say those exact words about going outside to watch the "P. Parade")?

LNers didn't fold their tents after seeing that Oswald told Fritz he was on the first floor (and not the sixth) at the time of JFK's murder. So why would LNers now decide that this new revelation discovered by Malcolm Blunt in the National Archives is revealing something TRUTHFUL being spoken by Oswald? That'd be crazy.

So, nothing's changed for Lone Assassin believers. Nothing at all. The hard evidence of Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders doesn't suddenly stop being in existence just because of one additional lie being told by the assassin himself. To think otherwise is to be mired in the "Prayer Man" garbage, which is where "Wishful Thinking" and a reference to "P. Parade" will now merge to provide the "PM" disciples with something to make them feel that their fantasy about Oswald being on the TSBD steps has now turned into reality. But, at most, all that's been "discovered" is just one more lie being told by a World Class Liar named Oswald."
-- DVP; February 2019

[Later....]

"My best guess is: I think James Hosty's "went outside to watch P. Parade" note was very likely referring to a point in time that was AFTER the assassination, not before (even though Hosty used the words "P[residential] Parade"). That note is likely referring to the "out with Bill Shelley in front" situation (which appears in Captain Fritz' notes).

And that "out with Shelley" chronology, according to James Bookhout's solo FBI report that appears on Page 619 of the Warren Report, is clearly something that occurred AFTER the assassination and AFTER Oswald's encounter with the policeman on the second floor.

With respect to why there are two separate FBI reports regarding some of this same information, well, I think it's quite possible that the two FBI agents involved in the first report (Hosty and Bookhout), after filing that first report (dictated on Nov. 23), realized that a relevant and important piece of information (the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter) had not been included in that first joint Hosty/Bookhout report. Therefore, the necessity arose for a second report to be written which would include the information about Oswald being stopped by the police on the second floor (which became the "solo Bookhout" report that was dictated a day later, on Nov. 24).

But please keep this in mind --- the Warren Commission didn't HIDE or DESTROY either of those two FBI reports. The Commission didn't conceal their existence from the public. Both of those reports—warts, omissions, and all—are readily available for anyone to view and can easily be found right there in the Warren Commission's final report, just a few pages apart in Appendix XI." -- DVP; February 2019

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

The full 2019 discussion is archived HERE.


GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Greg,

Regarding James Hosty's "parade" note and Thomas Kelley's report being compatible and not contradictory....

Yes, I think that certainly is possible, based mainly on my belief (which I posted above via a replay of my 2019 comments) that Hosty's "Presidential Parade" note is almost certainly (IMO) referring to the "Out Front With Shelley" timeline that also appears in another FBI document---James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 report.

When comparing the Hosty note with Bookhout's solo report, we can see that the chronology of the following three things perfectly blend together and match each other, indicating that Hosty's "parade" reference is, indeed, referring to a time that was AFTER the shooting had taken place and not DURING the assassination or BEFORE the shooting:

1. Oswald going to the 2nd floor to get a Coke (which we know, via the extra details revealed in the solo Bookhout report, occurred AFTER the shooting and at the same time Oswald encountered Officer Baker in the lunchroom).

2. Oswald then going to the 1st floor to eat lunch.

3. Oswald then going outside.

I created the photo below so that a direct comparison between the two documents in question can easily be done....and, in my opinion, the words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" are meant to convey the same meaning as "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley". I think this conclusion becomes an obvious one to make after taking a look at the chronology in Bookhout's 11/22 solo report.




There's also this excerpt below from another FBI report, which totally negates the idea that Lee Oswald was standing outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building when the assassination of JFK was occurring:




GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Regarding the questions concerning Oswald's Carcano rifle....

Whether or not the rifle's scope had to be "sighted in" after being reassembled is something that I don't think has been proven one way or the other. And it's largely a moot point when we consider that Oswald might very well have utilized the rifle's iron sights instead of using the scope on November 22nd.

We can never know which method he used, but the iron sights are certainly an option that cannot be ignored.

I myself am of the opinion that Oswald very likely did try to utilize the 4-power telescope on his rifle for the first shot he fired at the President, but when that shot went wild and missed the entire limousine and everyone in it, he then quickly switched to using the gun's iron sights for his second and third (successful) shots.

It's possible, IMO, that Oswald abandoned the scope upon realizing (after his first missed shot) that the cheap four-power telescope did, indeed, require some readjusting after the rifle had been broken down and then reassembled.

But, as I said, we'll never know for sure which method of sighting Oswald used in Dealey Plaza. It will forever remain one of the several "unknowables" in the JFK case.

As an addendum to the "Assembled vs. Disassembled" topic, allow me to offer up these remarks from a few years back (taken from a lengthy discussion I had with David Lifton concerning the rifle and curtain rods and, of all things, fishing poles).


SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It wasn't the HSCA who first noticed and documented and reported on the fact that the autopsy doctors were wrong about the location of JFK's head entry wound....it was the Clark Panel ten years earlier. The HSCA merely confirmed the obviousness of the "cowlick" entry location:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report

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

From a 2015 discussion....

PAT SPEER SAID -- There is a red oval in this photo that resembles a gunshot wound. But it was not the bullet wound identified at the autopsy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID -- Yeah, yeah. Sure, Pat. That's why there's a ruler up next to the red spot. And that's why the red spot is the ONLY thing in that picture which comes even close to resembling a bullet hole. And that's why the HSCA and the Clark Panel BOTH confirmed via multiple measurements (in both the SCALP and the SKULL) that the entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head was located approximately 100mm. above the EOP.



David Von Pein
March 22, 2024
March 23-28, 2024




AND....




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


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And to believe the police actually did find a Mauser in the Book Depository instead of Lee Oswald's Carcano is to believe the plotters who were attempting to frame Oswald for JFK's murder* must have had the collective I.Q. of a box of broken toothpicks, as they apparently thought they could frame Oswald by planting a Mauser in the TSBD even though they had to know that their designated patsy owned a Mannlicher-Carcano. (Brilliant move there, huh?)

* And a huge number of conspiracy theorists all around the globe do, of course, hold the wholly unsupportable belief that Oswald was, indeed, being set up as the proverbial patsy on 11/22/63 AD.

http://DVP's JFK Archives/Mauser Or Carcano?


NICK BARTETZKO SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bottom Line (re: the rifle found in the TSBD) --- It was a Carcano, as
THE ALYEA FILM plainly illustrates (see photos below).

CLICK TO ENLARGE:

David Von Pein
March 30-31, 2024





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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1292)

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why would LHO switch fingers for his ring while posing?

http://reopenkennedycase/the-backyard-photos-ring-transposition


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

The ring can be seen on Oswald's RIGHT ring finger in 133A and 133B. But on his LEFT ring finger in 133C.

Regarding 133C, look for the ring on the other hand to confirm the finding. It's not there.

This is yet one more discrepancy indicating the photos are fake.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"I was very nervous that day when I took the [backyard] pictures. I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Marina Oswald; Early 1990s (Via Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed", Page 106 [footnote])


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

From her HSCA testimony, it is painfully obvious that Marina didn't have the slightest idea how to use the Im­perial Reflex camera that supposedly took the backyard photos.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what? Lee told her what to do and what button to press, and she did it. No big deal.


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

Hogwash! The Imperial Reflex was a view camera, meaning you had to hold it at roughly waist level and look down into the large, rectangular view finder to see the subject. Even then, the view was an inverted mirror image. Pretty unforgettable, but Marina testified she held it up to her eye.

If I took a picture with that weird camera of my wife with a pistol and holding a rifle and commie literature, I’d remember the camera. And so would you in a similar situation.


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

David Von Pein sez “the Warren Commission figured it all out!, There’s nothing to see here!”

It is more like “The CIA told her what to do and what button NOT to press, and she didn't. It’s a very big deal.”

I fixed it for you, David Von Pein!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good job, Michael. Just keep ignoring what Marina herself said....

"...I took the pictures..."


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Marina's HSCA testimony (re: the backyard photos)(audio)....




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David, do you think that Marina held the camera up at eye level? Or at waist level?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Waist level (of course). She just didn't remember that detail about the camera when she was asked about it later on.


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

Right! Lol!


MICHAEL CLARK ALSO SAID:

Surely, David Von Pein, in your vast archive you have collected all of Marina’s changes, contradictions along with the refutations of her claims, all in one place; and you are going to share that with us here, right? Right!


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I believe that, when held upright, cameras take pictures in "landscape format." That is to say, the developed photo will be longer horizontally than vertically.

Yet the backyard photos are all in "portrait format." So Marina must have tilted the camera by 90 degrees in order to get those photos, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know. I've never looked into it that deeply.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

How about just using your brain to figure it out?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay, she might have tilted the camera 90 degrees. Again---no big deal. (It's only a "big deal" to conspiracy theorists who are bent on finding "conspiracy" around every corner and in every Neely Street backyard.)

The long and short of it is....

Seeing as how Marina didn't know the first thing about how to take a picture with Lee's Imperial Reflex camera, she did whatever Lee told her to do in order to get the pictures to come out correctly. And when she was asked to recall the specific details of how she held the camera and how many photos she took, she just flat-out forgot. Yes, she did remember some of the details about the Backyard Photos session---such as the detail about how silly and "crazy" she thought Lee looked that day in his all-black outfit with his guns....

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper." [1 H 15]

....But the details of how the camera worked and the exact number of pictures she took were things that obviously were not important enough to her at the time for her to make a mental note of such trivial things. And so, almost a year later when she was asked to recall such things, she was not able to do so. That's certainly not an unheard-of situation at all, IMO.


TOM HUME SAID:

Sandy,

I think the Imperial reflex used 620 film and yielded a square negative. CE133A and CE 133B were commercial square prints. 133C is not square because the negative went missing and what we were left with were rectangular prints (taller than they are wide) made on the Dallas Police Departments enlarger (133C-Dees, and 133C-Stovall). There is also the rectangular enlargement given to de Mohrenschildt (133A-de Mohrenschildt) that was enlarged from the square negative.


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

You [Francois Carlier] let me know when you, like David Von Pein, are ready to have anything to say besides ... “but, but, but.... the Warren Commission sez....”.


FRANCOIS CARLIER SAID:

Pay attention, please!

David Von Pein didn't quote the Warren Commission, he quoted Marina Oswald. The wife of the assassin. The very person who took the pictures. And who has maintained throughout the years that she indeed took those pictures. She remembers that. Well, she may not remember exactly how she was holding the camera (I mean, come on!), but she does remember taking the pictures. That's important!


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

So Marina remembered the CONTENT of the photos, but remembered nothing about how and when she took the photos.

Oddly, that is how all of us here would testify if we PRETENDED to have taken those photos. In other words, we all know the content of the photos, but not how and when they were taken. Just like Marina.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Given the manner in which Lee Harvey was dressed (including the two guns he was outfitted with that day in their backyard), I would say that Marina remembering the CONTENT of the pictures more so than the number of pics, the date, and the exact details of how the camera worked, was perfectly reasonable and understandable.

Naturally, though, the conspiracy theorists have to add in a dash of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" where none has ever existed. That's to be expected, of course.

Also....

If Marina never took any backyard pictures at all in late March of 1963, then where do you suppose she got ahold of the photo that she and Marguerite Oswald destroyed in their hotel room on 11/23/63? Do you think Marguerite was lying in her testimony too [at 1 H 152]? ....

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely."

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."

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

2015 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 [Back Yard] photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?

[...]

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


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I'll bet Marina testified to taking only one picture because only one was shown to her during her coaching session.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Marina's memory has always been fuzzy when it comes to the precise number of backyard pictures she took of her husband. She just simply could not remember how many she took, and she couldn't remember the exact date she took them. Big freaking deal!

Of course, had she stopped to think really hard about this subject just a little bit more, she would have realized that she had to have taken a minimum of two photos, because she and Marguerite destroyed one of the pictures on 11/23/63. So she could have easily figured out that she took at least two.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Hey that's right guys... where DID Marina get ahold of that photo that nobody ever saw??

LOL


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you DO think Marguerite Oswald was telling a big fat lie in her Warren Commission testimony. That's the very same Marguerite Oswald who hired Mark Lane as her lawyer and the very same Marguerite who was always speaking out about how her son was an agent of the U.S. Government, like in this 1964 interview:



(Should we now get bogged down into a silly conversation about "Imposter Marguerites"?)


JOHN BUTLER SAID:

We all know the photos are FAKES.

Jack White listed 15 things. I listed one. Ed Ledoux listed another. I believe Sandy Larsen listed problems. And, many others have pointed out things. What more do you want?

People like Von Pein and people like him will never accept that you are right. They have their beliefs and they are religiously applied.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In addition to Marina Oswald's decades-long insistence that she, herself, took the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, here's another good reason for "people like Von Pein" to disagree with the conspiracy theorists who continue to believe that the backyard photos are fakes:

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

The full HSCA "Backyard Photographs" report begins here.

But, since the HSCA's "No Fakery" conclusion was reached by an official U.S. Government committee, it means that that conclusion will automatically be ignored by many conspiracy theorists. After all, those expert CTers know way more about the ins and outs of photographic interpretation than any of those 20 or so experts who were part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel, right?

Per the CTers, those 20 photo experts (as a unit) were all apparently either despicable liars or totally incompetent when it comes to their conclusions concerning not only the Backyard Photos, but they were also completely wrong when they said that President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner". (The same goes for the "Handwriting Experts" panel as well. According to many conspiracists, those handwriting guys got everything wrong too. Go figure.)


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

Did the HSCA explain why it is Oswald's ring switched hands between shots? Oh yes, I know... no big deal, he simply moved the ring for no reason. Sure.

I did read the HSCA's (very lame) explanation for why the head-to-body proportion changed (quite noticeably) between shots. They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller. But the head is rigid and therefore cannot change size. Right away -- after reading that explanation -- I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or both.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just think---there were TWENTY such "corrupt" and/or "stupid" so-called "photographic experts" working for the HSCA in 1978. That's a lot of corruption on just one panel. (And, remember, they were all "stupid"/"corrupt" when it comes to the autopsy pictures too.)

There was no end to the corruption (and/or stupidity) in the JFK case, was there Sandy? It extended all the way from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to lying witnesses like Marina and Marguerite, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA as well. Right?




JOHN BUTLER SAID:


David Von Pein,

There are things that I do not find credible. Among these are the Warren Commission, the conclusions of the HSCA, and Marina Oswald, the double or triple agent.

This happened on Main Street in the AMIPA film shot by Robert Yeargan. I'm sure you can explain this some way:




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Explain what?

I haven't the slightest idea what you think it is that needs to be "explained" in this film clip.

Please enlighten me.


JOHN BUTLER SAID:

I have made some notes on a frame of the second back wound on Market [Main?] Street. I'm sure you will not understand or see what I am talking about. You won't or can't explain what's in the photo because it negates nearly everything you believe about how President Kennedy was assassinated.




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Heaven help us! John Butler is actually suggesting (in his last post above) that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back and head while the President's car was on Main Street!

Any idea, John, why JFK kept on smiling and waving for several more minutes (on Main, Houston, and Elm) AFTER he was struck by multiple bullets?

John, can you possibly be serious when you speak about such a preposterous theory? Or are you just a few months late with an April Fools gag? Either way, such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other).


JOHN BUTLER SAID:

David Von Pein,

I see that you are finally getting the picture and beginning to understand what I am saying. Actually, I am not saying this but, the AMIPA film and Jackie Kennedy's statements are: [Click Here]

[...]

From a Jackie Kennedy Interview:

Jackie says:

“All I remember was a blue grey building up ahead; then turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out...”

Can you find for me that blue-grey building on Houston Street? On Elm Street?

You could find it in those days on Main Street just east of the Old Court House. That blue-grey building was torn down sometime later and a parking area was put there. This then changed into the Kennedy Monument.

Have you ever wondered why they put the Monument there?

You can make preposterous claims but, have you looked at the evidence?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll repeat what I said earlier, John....

"Such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other)."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I would like to ask, since I started this thread:

What does an early back wound on something called the AMIPA film have to do with Oswald switching the ring from one hand to the other between poses for the BYP [Backyard Photos]?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Moreover, what do John's posts in this thread have to do with anything real (or even remotely possible) when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination?

Even in the super-bizarre world of conspiracy theorists, John Butler's "JFK Was Shot On Main Street" theory would have to be considered "outer fringe" and worthless.

Does a single other person believe in your theory, John? Just curious.


JOHN BUTLER SAID:

The point is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence.

Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing.

The main point of these posts is nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion.

If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. There are other parts on Houston Street and Main [Elm?] Street.

It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This only goes to prove a very significant point....

I.E.:

A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President.

Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you.

David Von Pein
August 18-22, 2018


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


ALSO SEE:




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