JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1269)

STEVE THOMAS SAID:

If you don't have any eyewitnesses, "We can't place Oswald at that window with a gun in his hand." (Jesse Curry)

and you don't have Oswald's prints on the rifle that was found in the TSBD, even if you could prove it was his rifle,

and he's got an alibi by being seen on the second floor within 90 seconds of the shooting, and nobody saw him coming down the stairs...

there's no court in the land that would convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of being the shooter.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hogwash!

There's tons of evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald (and nobody else!) was the shooter:

...OSWALD'S rifle was the murder weapon without doubt -- with CE567 & CE569, the front-seat bullet fragments, providing the proof that Oswald's C2766 rifle was definitely being used by SOMEONE to fire bullets at Kennedy's car on November 22. No reasonable person can possibly deny this fact.

Plus, there are the three spent bullet shells (which were tied to Oswald's rifle as well) lying on the floor below the assassin's window, providing additional proof that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being used to shoot at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.

And as I've asked conspiracy theorists in the past --- Who is MORE likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on any day of the week (11/22/63 or any other day)---the rifle's owner himself or someone else? That simple and basic observation, all by itself, makes OSWALD much more likely to be JFK's murderer than any other person on the planet.

...OSWALD'S prints are on various things in the exact same tiny area where we know JFK's killer was located--in the Sniper's Nest.

...OSWALD is identified as the assassin by a witness. (Yes, conspiracy believers despise Howard L. Brennan, but his testimony is still part of the official record in this case and it always will be, despite the persistent and noisy protests from the conspiracy crowd--and despite that famous quote from Jesse Curry, which is a quote that is just flat-out wrong, to boot.)

...OSWALD is the only Book Depository employee who fits into this very incriminating category --- He was the only employee who is known to have been INSIDE the TSBD Building at the time of the assassination who left the building immediately after the shooting and did not return.

...OSWALD kills Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, which is a crime that is irrevocably linked to the JFK murder, with Oswald killing Tippit while in full flight from his Dealey Plaza murder.

All reasonable people realize that the last sentence I just wrote is 100% accurate and sensible.

...OSWALD lies repeatedly to the police after his arrest.

...And, despite what Steve Thomas said above, OSWALD'S prints were most definitely found on the C2766 Carcano rifle. More on that here.

...And why you, Steve, are saying that Oswald has "an alibi by being seen on the second floor within 90 seconds of the shooting" is a real mystery to me --- because you surely have got to know that anybody who wasn't walking on crutches could easily descend those Depository stairs and travel from the sixth floor to the second floor in under 90 seconds. The Secret Service man who performed such a test (twice) for the Warren Commission managed to travel that distance—at merely a "NORMAL WALKING PACE"—in just 78 seconds [Warren Report, p.152]. So to say that a "90-second" timeline provides Oswald with an "alibi" is just not accurate at all.

More about Oswald's very doable journey from the Sniper's Nest to the 2nd-floor lunchroom can be found here.

...And the reason why "nobody saw him [Oswald] coming down the stairs" isn't very difficult to figure out at all (whether you're referring to Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, Dorothy Garner, Jack Dougherty, or all four of those people). More about that here.

And so much more here....



Twelve jurors who would acquit Oswald must also be related (mentally) to all 12 O.J. jurors.


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

Oswald could easily have run down the stairs in 90 seconds.

But, I'm sorry. I must have missed something. Could you please provide me the name of the eyewitness who saw him running down the stairs?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And since Oswald wasn't seen by anyone running down the stairs, you think that means it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have done so?

Did Adams and Styles see Baker and Truly coming up the same stairs they were on?

Answer: No.

Does that mean that Baker & Truly never went up those stairs?

Answer: No.


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

Don't you think it's odd that you have the only eyewitness to the man committing the greatest crime of the 20th Century, and neither the Chief of Police, or the Captain of the Homicide Bureau could bother to be at the lineup where the perpetrator is identified?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So I assume the above comment, Steve, means that you now believe that Howard Brennan never even attended a lineup at the Dallas Police Department at all, is that right?

If so, you must think this testimony is just a bunch of made-up crap invented by Mr. Brennan, correct?....

DAVID BELIN -- "Now, taking you down to the Dallas Police Station, I believe you said you talked to Captain Fritz. And then what happened?"

HOWARD BRENNAN -- "Well, I was just more or less introduced to him in Mr. Sorrels' room, and they told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me to view it, which I did."


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

Again, I'm sorry, but were Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints found anywhere else on the sixth floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, indeed, his prints most certainly were found in various places on the sixth floor---on two different boxes which were located DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest. Plus, two LHO prints on the 38-inch brown paper bag that several police officers said they saw in the corner of the Nest before it was picked up. And, of course, Oswald's prints were, as already mentioned, on the Carcano rifle that Oswald ditched between some boxes in the northwest corner of the sixth floor.

And, IMO, the reason there weren't more of LHO's prints on the rifle is because he very likely utilized his brown shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag right after the assassination, wiping as many prints from the rifle as he could as he ran across the sixth floor. He then ditched the rifle near the stairwell and then put the brown shirt back on as he ran down the stairs, leaving it untucked and unbuttoned (hence the reason Marrion Baker thought the brown SHIRT resembled a JACKET).

All that stuff I just mentioned is my own opinion, and needs to be identified as just that--my OPINION--but it fits very nicely with some of the physical evidence in the case, and it fits fairly well with some of the witnesses who said the shooter was wearing only a "light-colored" or a "white" shirt (which would have been Oswald's white T-shirt, of course). He probably had the brown shirt resting on the floor (or on a box) as he pulled the trigger at 12:30.

Plus, my "Used The Shirt To Wipe Fingerprints" theory fits nicely with the evidence of similar shirt fibers being wedged in the butt plate of the rifle. As he was wiping off prints, fibers from the shirt could have easily found their way under the butt plate.


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

Please show me the fingerprints taken off the rifle. I'd like to see the actual prints please.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Check out Commission Exhibit No. 637 (which is Oswald's palmprint, taken off the rifle by Lieutenant J.C. Day on 11/22/63). Also see this important (often overlooked) document.

Now, if you were referring to the FINGERprints on the trigger guard of the rifle....well, those prints were definitely photographed and were examined in detail by many fingerprint experts---one of whom (Vincent Scalice) said:

"We're able for the first time to actually say that these are definitely
the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald, and that they are on the rifle.
There is no doubt about it." -- Vincent J. Scalice; 1993 [See the first video
on this page; the video is also embedded below.]



And although I myself have never seen the photos of the trigger guard fingerprints, some of the pictures of those prints are shown on camera in the 1993 PBS program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (during the Scalice segment above).


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

What test proved that those fragments [CE567 and CE569] came from the Carcano?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The same type of "striation" test the FBI has always used. Both fragments came from the C2766 rifle without a doubt. [See Robert Frazier's testimony here.]


MICAH MILETO SAID:

Joseph Nicol (the only expert out of 7 to claim the Tippit slugs matched the revolver in evidence)...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're overstating Nicol's testimony. Nicol only said that ONE of the 4 Tippit bullets could be matched to Oswald's revolver. Not all four.

But the thing that CTers never like to admit is that Tippit was killed by bullets that each exhibited unique and different characteristics. And OSWALD owned a revolver that fired such erratic bullets.

That's kind of interesting, don't you think?

It's only a circumstantial thing, but it certainly goes in the direction of OSWALD'S revolver being in the mix of potential weapons that could have killed Tippit. And then when you add in the ballistics PROOF that it was Oswald's gun (which he was holding 35 minutes after the murder)--namely the 4 bullet shells--then LHO's guilt becomes ironclad.


MIKE KILROY SAID:

David,

I've always wanted to ask the lone nut theorist -- where and when did Oswald assemble the rifle? There was no screwdriver found in the 'sniper's nest.' I never heard of any screwdriver being found on the Sixth Floor. He HAD to assemble it on the 6th floor but there were people up there until as late as 12:15 - 10 minutes before the motorcade was due to pass by. He couldn't assemble it on another floor and bring it up to the 6th.

The Carcano also broke down into about 9 different parts as I recall with screws. Was all that stuff rattling around in the "lunch" bag that Wesley Frazier said in no way was big enough to even carry the disassembled rifle? (And Wesley made a good point to me personally at the recent JFK Lancer conference - did the WC ever place the disassembled Carcano back in the bag that was found themselves to see if it fits instead of badgering him to say it did?).

And one more thing - the majority of witnesses said the shots came Pow!......[long pause].........Pow!Pow!

How did the Carcano, which the FBI said takes at least 2.5 seconds to recycle, manage those last two shots that were nearly on top of each other?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Mike K.,

There's testimony in the WC volumes to the effect that the Carcano can be assembled using nothing but just a regular ol' ten-cent piece. (Do you disagree with that?)

Re: the spacing of the shots....

There were several witnesses (at least 7 or 8) who said the shots were more "evenly spaced", instead of the last 2 being closer together. So there's certainly SOME conflicting testimony regarding that subject (although you'll never hear a CTer ever mention the eight witnesses I talk about in the post below when it comes to this topic)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710


MIKE KILROY SAID:

Thanks for replying, David. .... Did Oswald have a dime on him when arrested?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, he sure did. He had three of them, in fact. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1148 for the coinage breakdown.)


MIKE KILROY SAID:

So you think he dropped his bag in [the] sniper's nest when he came into the building and then later put it together with a dime with the clock ticking there?

I'd love to see a re-creation of someone putting together a working Carcano with a dime in a few minutes. At least one writer I've seen said he couldn't do it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know exactly how, when, and where Lee Harvey Oswald managed to assemble his rifle within the Book Depository on 11/22/63. Nobody knows those details. Oswald took that information with him to his grave, unfortunately. But I have speculated about some of the things Oswald might have done after he got to work on November 22nd, and when he might have done them --- here.

Plus, FWIW, I think it's quite possible that Oswald might have temporarily hidden his rifle package out on the loading dock of the Depository when he first got to work on 11/22. More about that here.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David,

Apparently there remains fodder for us CTers surrounding the palm print on the rifle.

First, we know that DPD Lt. Carl Day could find no identifiable fingerprints on the rifle. And his work was interrupted and the rifle sent to FBI Headquarters in Washington D.C. The FBI found no prints at all on the rifle.

According to this document, Day at one point had "raised" a latent partial palm print but ran out of time before photographing and lifting it. The pertinent question is, did Day actually photograph and lift the print before the gun was taken to Washington? He claimed he did, and claimed that he showed the print to FBI agent Vince Drain when he came to take the rifle. But Drain said he had no recollection of that.

In an October 1993 interview, Lt. Day said, "The prints on the rifle weren’t made the day of the assassination - or the day before that, or the day before that. The prints were at least weeks, if not months, old." So no prints from the day of the shooting were found.

According to Gerald Posner's book, the HSCA was able to determine that the lifted print came from the rifle.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

From another discussion that took place in March 2013, I can offer up the following information regarding the palmprint that Lieutenant J.C. Day lifted off of Oswald's rifle....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

In an actual court proceeding, [Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day would have been impeached by Drain and LaTona [sic] to the point that he would [have] been laughable.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just exactly HOW would Vince Drain and Sebastian Latona have "impeached" Lt. Carl Day of the DPD?

You actually think something Drain and Latona said means that Day couldn't possibly have lifted Oswald's palmprint from the rifle on November 22?

If you DO really believe that, you've taken a trip deeper into Rod Serling's T-Zone than even I had figured.

I'll also add this:

Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a liar regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799.

A key excerpt:

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print.

It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?"

But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted.

J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History"

[Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.]

[Another related discussion can be found here.]

David Von Pein
December 22-24, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1276)

CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence.

Photos can be faked.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not in this (JFK) case, it doesn't (if you're a conspiracy theorist, that is). Many CTers think it's ALL fake evidence --- both the actual physical evidence is fake/phony/planted/manufactured (per many CTers) and many of the photos are fake/phony (per many CTers) as well.

So if you're a conspiracy theorist in this case, nothing trumps anything (except the CTer's vivid imagination, which seems to trump everything under the sun---even Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual and guilty-like actions on Nov. 21st and 22nd, 1963).


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds.

So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid.

But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests?

Well, no, you can't.

The theory is valid, but not reliable.

A theory has to be both valid and reliable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you're saying that if it can't be duplicated A LOT OF THE TIME, then we have to say that Oswald couldn't possibly have done the deed on 11/22, is that correct?

(Excuse me if I giggle a little bit here.)

Also --- Do you think your same "Valid But Unreliable" conclusion also applies to the Single-Bullet Theory? I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

But until the SBT is duplicated perfectly a total of TEN times (or whatever number you decide on), then the theory is still to be considered "unreliable"? Is that it?

IMO, it sounds to me like you, Steve Thomas, are just looking for excuses to dismiss even a "valid" theory. So you're piling on more and more requirements to keep from having to accept a theory that destroys part of your "conspiracy" stance.

(There's a word for this type of thing, isn't there? It starts with a D, I think.)


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because during the SBT test done in Australia for the Discovery Channel program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", they didn't fire a bullet through two real human bodies (quite obviously). They used expensive surrogate torsos (dummies). Hence the reason I put quotation marks around the word "bodies".

(Were you just pulling my chain with that question, Steve?) :)

David Von Pein
March 21, 2018

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1281)

STEVE THOMAS SAID:

He [Lee Harvey Oswald] gave all his money to Marina remember?


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

So how did he pay the cab driver?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the bus ride? And the Coke?


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Exactly.

Wow. You and I are in agreement once more.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But in order to be totally fair to Mr. Steve Thomas with regard to his previous post when he said that Lee Oswald "gave all his money to Marina", perhaps we should cut Steve some slack and assume that Steve probably wasn't talking about every last coin that Lee had in his pants pockets on 11/22/63. Steve could have just been referring to "folding" currency. But, of course, even if that's what he was referring to, he would still be wrong, because Oswald did not leave behind all of his paper money on the dresser at Ruth Paine's house on November 22nd either. He still had $13 on him at the time of his arrest.

Speaking of the topic of "Oswald's Cash On Hand On 11/22/63"....

I've always noticed that the Warren Commission overlooked one very small purchase that Lee Oswald made on Nov. 22 --- the Coke purchase from the Depository lunchroom. The WC, in its very detailed anaylsis of Oswald's finances in Appendix XIV of the Warren Report, failed to mention anything about Oswald's probable Coca-Cola purchase on 11/22/63.

It's possible, however, that Oswald didn't actually purchase the Coke at all. He could have possibly grabbed an open Coke bottle off of one of the tables inside the lunchroom just after his encounter with Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. But, IMO, the thing that suggests that Oswald probably did buy the Coke is the fact that there is testimony from Mrs. Robert Reid which indicates the Coke she saw Oswald holding was a "full" bottle of Coke [see 3 H 278], versus it being a "used" bottle left on a table by someone else.

So, if Oswald did, in fact, buy the Coca-Cola with his own money on November 22, it means that Lee left the Paine house that morning with a total of $15.20 in his pockets. His expenditures on November 22nd would have included the Coke (10 cents), the short bus ride on Cecil McWatters' bus (23 cents), and the ride to Oak Cliff in William Whaley's taxicab ($1.00, including the 5-cent tip).



Some of my miscellanous thoughts [originally posted in 2013]....

Lee Harvey Oswald leaving behind the money and his ring doesn't PROVE he shot the President, of course. But the TOTALITY of unusual things he did on November 21st and 22nd certainly indicate that Friday, November 22, 1963, was not just an ordinary regular work day for Lee Harvey Oswald.

For example:

1.) Visiting his wife at Ruth Paine's house on a THURSDAY instead of his normal FRIDAY.

2.) Leaving Marina $170 and his wedding ring (in tandem) -- which left only approximately $15 in Lee's pockets when he left the Paine house on November 22 (and, remember, per Buell Wesley Frazier, Lee was not planning on returning to Irving on Friday night).

3.) Telling Marina to "take as much money as I [Marina] needed and to buy everything", which was highly unusual for the penny-pinching Mr. Oswald, according to his wife.

4.) Telling co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier he was going to Irving to get some curtain rods at the Paine house, which we know was a lie (based on the preponderance of evidence and testimony that proves it was a lie).

5.) Taking a large paper package into work with him on Nov. 22.

6.) Taking no lunch to work on Nov. 22, which was very unusual (per Buell Frazier's testimony).

And when we add in the evidence of Oswald's guilt that was discovered AFTER the assassination, then what do all of these things suggest--in combination with one another? Do they suggest the actions of an innocent patsy? Or do they suggest the actions of a person who had a one-man plan to murder the President?

Mr. Spence, your witness.




RON BULMAN SAID:

Suggest David? OMG you're speculating? You have a Theory? It suggests to me that maybe Oswald knew something about a operation he had been told about, not necessarily an assassination, that he had a maybe minor role in. And a further role in the aftermath of it? His actions at the Texas Theater suggest he was looking for a contact. A way out of Dallas, Texas, the country? Maybe he expected further funding from another source in that respect.

Then again, did he still wear his ring on a regular basis? He and Marina were separated. Maybe he decided, you won't even talk to me anymore, I'm tired of it, bye. On the other hand was he trying to provide for his family by leaving the $170? The 13.87 left out of the 15.20 he kept was more than enough for a poor guy to get by for a week in 63, eating cheese sandwiches in the lunchroom. The 23 cent bus fare and $1 taxi ride were unexpected expenses. A coke cost a dime. If the normally poor tightwad Oswald planned on killing the president, wouldn't he keep the full $185.20 for his unplanned unknown method of getaway?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's interesting how conspiracists can conveniently turn all the evidence around into a theory that "maybe Oswald knew something about a operation he had been told about, not necessarily an assassination, that he had a maybe minor role in" [Ron Bulman quote].

OSWALD brings the rifle into the TSBD (despite the protests of CTers who deny this fact).

OSWALD lies to Buell Frazier (and the police) about the "curtain rods" that LHO says were in the package.

OSWALD has no believable (or provable) alibi for 12:30 PM on 11/22.

OSWALD'S prints are all over the Sniper's Nest (the location of JFK's killer).

OSWALD shoots and kills J.D. Tippit shortly after leaving the TSBD.

OSWALD did numerous "odd" and "out of the ordinary" things on both November 21st and 22nd.

And yet CTers will come up with every excuse in the book in order to defend Lee Oswald for TWO murders. I can only wonder WHY they continue to do this, given the evidence that unquestionably ALL LEADS TO ONE MAN named Oswald. That might be the biggest "mystery" in this whole case. And to think ALL the evidence against Oswald is phony or manufactured----please----that's a sign of sheer desperation utilized by conspiracy theorists like Barry Scheck, Johnnie Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey --- i.e., defense attorneys who have no choice but to argue such wholesale fakery in order for their client to have even a slim chance of being exonerated.


RON BULMAN SAID:

Yes, David, what you quote which I said is speculation. Not totally unreasonable taken in the full context of what I stated.

You didn't address the funding issue you were originally trying to. Why didn't he take the money and run, after the assassination, if he was a lone nut? Why go to the Texas Theater and keep changing seats like he was looking for somebody?

Did he expect a ride, and funds? Was he led into a trap? To become a Patsy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I really don't think Lee Oswald thought---deep down---that he would actually have a chance to use his Mannlicher-Carcano on the President that day. Yes, he took his rifle to work with the hope in his mind of somehow being able to secrete himself somewhere within the Depository at the precise moment when Kennedy drove past the building. But he probably also realized as he was driving to work that morning with Buell Frazier that the odds of being able to successfully conceal himself from the view of everyone else in the building (i.e., being able to have an entire warehouse floor of the TSBD all to himself at just exactly the appropriate minutes before, during, and just after the President drove by the building) were very small odds indeed.

But, as Oswald's incredible luck would have it (and even though he picked a floor--the sixth--that had MORE than the usual number of employees working on it throughout the entire morning that day, due to the floor-laying project that was occurring on that floor), Lee had the good fortune of having the entire sixth floor all to himself at precisely the time he desperately needed to have it all to himself---between 12:20 and 12:31 PM.

It's always been my opinion that if Bonnie Ray Williams had decided to stay on the sixth floor, instead of moving down to the 5th floor at about 12:20, then JFK would not have been shot at all....because (IMO) Oswald wouldn't risk firing at the President if he knew for certain that somebody else was on that same sixth floor just a few feet away.

And if somehow he was able to pull off the shooting in total secrecy (which he was), I doubt if Lee thought he would live very long beyond 12:30. Hence, I don't think he cared too much about having a lot of money on him when he departed Ruth Paine's house on November 22.*

* Yes, I know that that last part about Lee thinking he wouldn't be long for this world if he shot the President is likely to be considered inconsistent with the portion of my theory which has Oswald not taking the risk of shooting if Bonnie Ray remained on the sixth floor. CTers can fire back with:

But, David, if he didn't think he'd get away alive, then why would he care if anyone else was up there with him to finger him for the crime?

Fair point (if someone wants to make it). But I think it's quite clear that Oswald did have a desire to continue living beyond 11/22/63. That fact is very clear to me when looking at Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 --- e.g., fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination, taking a cab to get back to his roominghouse (a very out-of-the-ordinary mode of transportation for Oswald), arming himself with a pistol and at least 15 rounds of ammunition within 30 minutes of JFK being shot, and then committing a second murder a few minutes later when he encountered Officer Tippit.

Having a desire to survive the aftermath of the assassination, vs. thinking he will survive, are two different things entirely. I would guess that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably very surprised that he was afforded the ideal opportunity to shoot at President Kennedy from a totally vacant sixth floor of his workplace and still live to see another sunrise.

IMHO.

YMMV.

David Von Pein
May 6-7, 2018

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1315)

STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

Where did Oswald develop the infamous gun photos?

If Marina took the gun photos of Oswald on March 31, 1963, where did they have the film developed? And when?

If Oswald was still working at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall [sic] then, he could have potentially developed them himself, except I think he lost his job right around then, didn't he?

A note from Seth Kantor's notebook in the Warren Commission exhibits
[at 20 H 376] says in part---

"Ask Fritz --

1 - Who N.C. preacher who tipped them about the mail-order purchase?

2 - 501 Elm is place that processed photo. What are details of photo (showing gun & Daily Worker head: "Be Militant")"

501 Elm is the Dal-Tex building, isn't it? Did they have a photo processing facility in March of 1963 among their offices? I couldn't find that information. And where did Mr. Kantor obtain this information about where the photo was allegedly processed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good questions, Stephanie.

I don't think I've ever heard anything about where the backyard photos might have been developed and processed.

But if it could somehow be established that one or more of the various backyard snapshots had been handled and processed by "XX Drug Store" or "XX Photo Lab" (or wherever), it would help to show that the photos were developed via normal non-sinister means and, therefore, are likely legitimate (i.e., non-fake) photographs.

But, as Stephanie herself alluded to in her opening post, it's very possible that Lee Harvey Oswald himself might have developed the backyard photos while he was still employed with Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas. It would appear that Oswald had six days of opportunity before he was fired (between March 31 and April 6, 1963) to take advantage of the processing facilities at Jaggars after the time when the backyard pictures were most likely taken (which was probably on March 31st).

I'll check Vince Bugliosi's book and see if he's got something in there about this topic.*

* EDIT --- Here's what I found:

"Oswald asked his [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall] coworker Dennis Ofstein whether the company equipment could be used to make copies of prints and enlargement of photographs that had been taken in small-format cameras. Ofstein told him that while Jaggers [sic] didn't sanction the use of company equipment for private projects, people did it now and then. He showed Oswald how to do it and watched as Oswald made photographic enlargements of snapshots taken in Minsk and while Oswald was in the service in Japan. Lee would later also do some other work that Ofstein never knew about, making calling cards for George de Mohrenschildt as well as Marina and himself. He also experimented with making photographic copies of some of his own documents—his birth certificate and his military and draft registration ID cards—which he would soon use in attempts to create crude forgeries. It was also during this period that Oswald started sending samples of his photographic work, apparently carried out in stolen moments at Jaggers [sic], to leftist organizations back East.

[...]

Oswald probably intended the backyard photographs to be of great historical significance, telling Marina the photos were "for posterity." He may have intended to leave them for inclusion in the dossier he was compiling on his assassination of General Walker. Or they could have been another exhibit he could flash at Cuban leaders who were going to welcome him with open arms when they realized that he was the one who killed one of Castro's greatest American enemies. If anything went wrong with his plan, the photo could still serve as a memento. Several days later, after developing and printing at least three of the negatives at Jaggers [sic], he gave Marina a print, on the back of which he had written, "For Junie, from Papa." Marina was appalled. "Why would Junie want a picture with guns?" she asked Lee. "To remember Papa by sometime," he said.

Sadly, the photographs did in fact turn out to be of historical significance, not because of Lee's bungled attempt to kill General Walker but because of his all too successful attempt to murder John F. Kennedy. One of the three received the accolade of becoming a front cover of Life magazine, and it has been reprinted countless times in newspapers, magazines, books, and television documentaries. The photograph Marina took that Sunday afternoon has become the enduring universal image of, for some, the assassin of President Kennedy, for others, the helpless patsy caught in the vortex of a dark conspiracy. Whichever it is, one thing is reasonably certain. It is the image by which, more than any other, Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to be remembered, not just by his baby daughter but by the entire world. And that wish came true." -- Pages 666, 685, and 686 of "Reclaiming History"


The two sources listed for this assertion by Bugliosi....

"after developing and printing at least three of the negatives at Jaggers"

....are:

1 H 16, WCT Marina N. Oswald

and:

McMillan, Marina and Lee, p.341.

Since there's nothing on 1 H 16 that says anything about Lee developing the pictures himself at Jaggars, that must mean that "Marina And Lee, Page 341" is the source for the info about Lee developing "at least three of the negatives at Jaggers [sic]".

I can't check Page 341 of the 1977 edition of Priscilla McMillan's book (I don't have it). So I'll have to assume that McMillan says something on that page that made Vincent Bugliosi 100% positive that Lee Harvey Oswald himself developed three of the backyard photos at Jaggars in early April of 1963. What that "something" might be, I haven't the foggiest. And Bugliosi's firm, definitive stance on this matter is even more questionable when we consider the following HSCA testimony provided by Marina Oswald in 1978:

~~~~~~~~~~~

MR. McDONALD -- "Do you know if Lee developed these by himself, at his place of employment?"

MRS. MARINA OSWALD-PORTER -- "I think once he worked somewhere, it was possible to do it at work, I believe. I really do not know if he developed himself or he send it for."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Bugliosi was probably right about LHO developing the backyard photos himself while Lee still worked at Jaggars (what with Lee having easy access to the photo-processing facilities at Jaggars just after the pictures were taken—and what with Lee also being such a cheapskate and all), but given the way Marina testified above, I think Vince should have probably phrased the relative sentence on page 685 of his book in this manner instead:

"...after PROBABLY developing and printing at least three of the negatives at Jaggars..."

But Vince is usually pretty good (and accurate, IMO) when it comes to his "reasonable inferences". Here's another example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Bugliosi And The Smelly Bus


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

Stephanie,

According to the 1961 Dallas Yellow Pages, there were a number of publishers that had their offices at 501 Elm:




JOHN BUTLER SAID:

Steve Thomas has 501 Elm Street listed in a reference. This is the Dal-Tex building. The book companies were still there if I am recalling correctly in the spring and then moved to the TSBD in the summer of 1963.


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

John Butler is absolutely right. The pages I posted were from a 1961 City Directory and are not helpful in your search for 1963 occupants of the Dal-Tex Bldg.

I should have done a better job in my research.


STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

So at that point in time, Oswald was working at (and about to be unemployed by) JCS. He was living at the Neely Street address. Are either of those addresses considered near the Dal-Tex building? The Neely Street address doesn't look close to me on a map, considering that Oswald was probably stuck to the bus, taxi or a friend with a car.

The Dal-Tex building may have had a photo developing business there or a camera shop, but we have yet to determine that one way or another. It is awfully conveniently located to his future employment at the TSBD. Were there any government offices at 501 Elm in 1963?

I'm not trying to prove that Marina took that photo (or the other gun photos). I'm not trying to prove that Oswald had the film developed. I am curious where Seth Kantor acquired that information and why some source told him that they thought that the photos had been developed there.

And I am curious where Oswald would have acquired the disposable income to have photographs developed, especially if his employment of record was so poorly paid and so sporadic. Perhaps it was that secret nest egg that funded his trip to Russia?


CHRIS SCALLY SAID:

Do I correctly recall a wall-mounted list of occupiers on the outside of the TSBD in a photo/film (the Cook film, perhaps?) taken in the immediate aftermath of the assassination? If my memory is anything like I think it is, the companies Steve identified in an earlier post are on the wall-list of the TSBD, which was at 411 Elm, not 501 Elm.

PS....Just found that Cook frame [below].




JEFF CARTER SAID:

The Imperial Reflex camera used 12-exposure spools of 620 film. The Backyard Photo prints found with Oswald’s possessions were printed using “drugstore print” finishing (description courtesy HSCA panel), which means an automated process common in drugstores, photomats, etc. This indicates a 12-exposure spool of film was inserted into one of these machines to produce the BYP prints (rather than using an individual negative).

No other “drugstore” finished photos were found with Oswald’s possessions, and the other photo from the time (March 1963) matched to the camera (photo of Walker house) and found with the Oswald possessions was not in the drugstore format, and was therefore developed at another time.

An important question that investigators did not ask is whether the photo ID’ed as 133-C came into the hands of the Dallas police also as a “drugstore” print.

The Seth Kantor note is intriguing, but unsourced and otherwise lacking further context. A photo developing activity tied to that address would need one of those automated machines to be responsible for the two BYPs (133 A/B).

My speculation is that both [of] the two BYPs and the Walker house photo were either given to Oswald by persons he knew, or they were planted. Or, cutting it finer, the two BYPs were planted, and the Walker house photo had been given to him in March 1963.


STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

This is all good information! Thank you to EVERYONE who has posted here! 🙂

The address issue is a bit confusing, but I understand what's been said so far. I have to think on this for a bit, but as far as the publishing companies moving en masse, we know that the TSBD building was taken over in 1963 for the purpose of school books, yes? Or was it? Can we fix the date of the move of those companies from their previous address as shown above and into the TSBD building? How does that correlate to Oswald's move to New Orleans?

As far as the method of development, that is extremely interesting. If you believe that Oswald developed them, then they were potentially done while he was at JCS. He had opportunity there, but did he have the means? Were there machines at JCS which could develop prints by the drugstore method? (I wonder how the HSCA determined that the prints were developed by the drugstore method? Is there any record that the Warren Commission or the HSCA tried to locate the drugstore at which they might have been developed?)

It's curious that the only other print matched to that camera (the Walker house) was not developed the same way. Back then, developing film was something of a luxury for people of limited means. You'd think that every print on the roll of twelve would show the same type of developing. So if the Walker house print was developed separately, how/when was it done?

The article by Ms. Minor is fascinating. I wouldn't have stumbled onto that one on my own!

I have yet to read Mr. Bugliosi's book or Ms. McMillan's. (I'm like years behind everyone here in research, so thanks for the quotes!)

And yes, I know the Seth Kantor note is unsourced. It's a tantalizing “what if” at best, but it started me thinking. So many things seemed to have been unresolved from the early research of many people who were on the scene. Could be dead ends. Maybe not. -shrugs-


STEVE THOMAS SAID:

If John [Butler] is right, those publishing companies would still have been located in the Dal-Tex building at the time the photos were taken. I wonder why they moved en masse?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's some more info that might clear up the confusion about why the various book publishers all moved from 501 Elm Street (the Dal-Tex Building) to 411 Elm Street (the TSBD Building)....

The text below comes from these two sources:

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48681#relPageId=25

http://deeppoliticsforum.com/411 Elm Street's Mysterious History

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

"1952 – the TSBD management and clerical personnel at Pacific Avenue building relocated to the first floor of 501 Elm St (the Dal-Tex building). At some point, Jack Cason decides to lease the building across the street, 411 Elm St. There is some confusion about when this happened. O.V. Campbell told William Weston that this happened around 1958. Spaulding Jones, former branch manager of MacMillan Publishing, thought the move to 411 took place in 1957 or 1958.

[...]

1962 January – the TSBD acquires the 411 Elm St location, leasing it from D.H. Byrd (SS report CO-2-34030 12/7/1963) The Polk’s criss-cross 1962 business directory shows that the TSBD was still listed as having an address on the first floor of 501 Elm St (Dal-Tex Bldg). The same directory lists the 411 Elm St building as vacant. The 1963 directory lists the book companies at 411 Elm. Also that year the first floor of the Dal-Tex becomes vacant. (William Weston)"


REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Bugliosi was probably right about LHO developing the backyard photos himself while Lee still worked at Jaggars...


DAVID G. HEALY SAID:

Nah, LHO creating composites that implicates himself? Common sense Sherlock. He'd of burned up a ton of print paper getting the composites aligned and correct. And it would take time... lots of time.

[...]

No, this took a pro.

Are you sure it wasn't Dale “wanna see my EMMY” Myers who wrote this nonsense you quote?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, David H., the facilities at Jaggars were certainly there and available for Oswald to use (if he, indeed, knew how) during that brief 6-day period in question (April 1-6, 1963, just before he was fired).

And if it could somehow be proven that Oswald did, indeed, develop the backyard pictures himself (which can probably never be done), then it would certainly eliminate for all time the decades-old (and also unproven) notion that the backyard photos are fakes.

Because, as you yourself implied, why would Oswald himself be creating and developing a series of fraudulent composite pictures that implicate himself? That idea, of course, is nuts.

David Von Pein
April 13-14, 2019

JAMES TAGUE (PART 3)

GLENN SARLITTO SAID:

After further review of the matter, it appears John [Fiorentino] is correct. There simply is no strong support for [James] Tague's claim regarding his cut and blood on his cheek. Chalk it under Live and Learn.

It's not John's problem to give a good reason for doubt. If there is no support, then there is no support. This is a good one. At least for me. I truly believe Tague got hit by something that day and that there was a small facial cut and some blood on his cheek. But sad to say, I for one am falling short on the support part.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree with everything you said above, Glenn.

When I first read John Fiorentino's post regarding the "cut" and the "blood" on James Tague's cheek, I raced to my bookmark labelled "WC Testimony" (via John McAdams' handy alphabetical listing for all testimony), and I immediately went to the link for Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission session.

I was fully expecting to find SOME reference in Walthers' testimony about seeing "blood" on the face of James Tague shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. But, alas, I found no such reference in Walthers' testimony.

Deputy Sheriff Walthers tells the Warren Commission that he (Walthers) was told by Tague himself that "something struck me on the face", with Walthers also adding this supposed quote from Tague's lips: "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting". [7 H 546]

But according to Tague's Warren Commission testimony [at 7 H 553]:

"And he [Deputy Walthers] looked up and he said, 'Yes, you have blood there on your cheek.' And I reached up and there was a couple of drops of blood." -- James T. Tague; July 23, 1964

So it would appear that the only source for a "cut" and/or "blood" on Tague's cheek is James Thomas Tague himself, although I believe that Tague almost certainly WAS slightly cut on his face by either a bullet fragment or a piece of the Main Street curbing.

One thing that certainly does gel together when comparing Walthers' and Tague's WC sessions (which both took place on the same day, btw, on 7/23/64) is the fact it would appear that Tague did tell Walthers that something did "sting" him on the face during the shooting. The word "sting" can be found in each man's WC testimony.

It's quite possible (and probable) that Deputy Sheriff Walthers did see some blood on Tague's face on 11/22/63, but (as John Fiorentino stated in his prior posts [see this forum thread]) that fact cannot be corroborated definitively by anyone else other than James T. Tague (at least as far as each man's Warren Commission testimony is concerned; it's possible that Walthers gave some private interviews after the assassination where he stated he physically saw the blood on Tague's face, but as of this writing I am not aware of any such interviews).

Another thing that gels perfectly between Tague's and Walthers' testimony is the Main Street curb damage that both Tague and Walthers noticed on November 22, 1963. Both men told the Warren Commission that the mark they remember seeing that day was a "fresh" mark on the curb near the Triple Underpass.

So, regardless of whether or not Tague actually suffered any minor cut on his face, it's pretty clear that there certainly WAS a "fresh" mark on the curb on Main Street on 11/22/63, which was a mark that was deemed to have been the result of a bullet or a bullet fragment striking that curb during the assassination of President Kennedy. And, of course, traces of lead (deemed to be bullet lead) were also later found on that same curbstone.

Although, to tell you the truth, upon looking at the very small nick (or mark) on the curbstone (as seen in the photo below), something that has always somewhat amazed me is the fact that anybody was able to spot this teeny-tiny mark on the curb as quickly as they did on November 22nd. But, then too, Tague and Walthers were searching for possible bullet markings near where Tague was standing, so I guess it wasn't a miracle that they were able to see this mark. It is mighty small, though:



David Von Pein
May 30, 2009


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

ADDENDUM:


JIM HESS SAID:

David,

Could it be Tague lied about being struck?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim,

I don't think there's any doubt that Tague was struck by something during the shooting. Within minutes of the shooting, Tague told Walthers he was "stung" by something.

If Tague was making up tall tales, he sure was fast.


JIM HESS SAID:

Yes, I was just reading Tague's WC testimony, and he did say he mentioned being stung BEFORE Walthers saw the blood (according to Tague).

It just seems odd Walthers never acknowledged seeing it or mentioned seeing it himself in any testimony.

I suppose this could be reconciled as being overlooked and just one of those loose ends.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think the key, though, Jim, is looking at WALTHERS' testimony on this issue---not Tague's testimony. And it's clear that Tague definitely DID tell Walthers within minutes of 12:30 PM on November 22nd that he had been struck by something.

And there's the curb damage near Tague too. That fact, in my opinion, is corroborative physical evidence to back up Tague's claim.

Surely nobody thinks Tague dug out a small gouge in the curb to support a lie within minutes of the shooting. Do they?


STEVE ROE SAID:

David,

I have serious doubts about Tague's claims. There is no question he was there and there was contact between him and Walthers. The "blood on the face" claim is in question.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve,

The BLOOD on his face might be in question, but how can you doubt he was hit by something during the shooting---with or without the blood? Walthers and the curb gouge pretty much seal the deal, IMO.


STEVE ROE SAID:

David,

The curb damage, noted by Walthers, was only a "mark". KRLD's Jim Underwood heard about that bullet mark from a deputy. He got hold of Dallas photographer Tom Dillard on Saturday the 23rd and took pictures. Dillard stated it was a mark, not a gouge, chip or crack.....only a mark.

When FBI agents went out in June or July 1964, they brought along Dillard and could not even notice the mark. So there was no concrete flying off hitting Tague. Now that gets into bullet fragments hitting Tague.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve, this is more than just a "mark". Granted, it's very small, but this a small gouge (with concrete missing), not just a "mark". Plus, there's lead on it too.




STEVE ROE SAID:

I haven't reviewed the curb analysis when it was jack-hammered out, but I understand it had lead detected.

So what is the possibility that this was all a big misunderstanding and that mark on the curb was nothing more than an old tire lead balance weight hitting the top of the curb?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure looks like an indentation (gouge) to me, Steve. Is the photo lying?


STEVE ROE SAID:

No, I'm going by this document that Dillard explains no gouge, chip or break in the concrete.

Additionally, FBI agents Lee and Barrett could not find a gouge, chipped concrete along that curb.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for the link, Steve. I guess the photo must be totally misleading then, since the report (on Page 3) does, indeed, clearly say there was "no nick or break in the concrete".

~shrug~

Another FBI report (this one) confirms the presence of lead on the Main Street curbstone that was removed from Dealey Plaza for analysis on August 5, 1964.

Also....

FWIW, Commission Document No. 205 includes an FBI report summarizing an interview the FBI had with James Tague on December 14, 1963, three weeks after the assassination. In that interview, Tague mentions being struck by something during the shooting, which "caused about two drops of blood to flow". Tague also said the curb had "a chip missing".

And Tague also confirmed in the 12/14/63 FBI interview that he was struck on the "right cheek" (as opposed to his left cheek).

In addition....

There's also some corroboration for Tague's story in the DPD radio tapes. Just seven minutes after the shooting, at 12:37 PM, we hear this over the Dallas Police radio --- "I have one guy that was possibly hit by a richochet from the bullet off the concrete."

Also see the September 1, 1964, Warren Commission testimony of FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt concerning the curb damage, beginning at 15 H 697, plus Shaneyfelt Exhibits 29 thru 35, showing photographs taken of the curb, beginning at 21 H 478.

Again, this sure looks like a gouged-out area of concrete to me, even though Shaneyfelt specifically said in his WC testimony at 15 H 700 that "It is not a chip. There is no indication of any of the curbing having been removed, but rather it is a deposit of lead on the surface of the curbing that has given the appearance of a mark."

So I guess I'll continue to shrug my shoulders some more as I look again at Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29....




DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Here's an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", concerning James Tague and the Main Street curb damage:


CLICK TO ENLARGE:


David Von Pein
June 18-22, 2016

DAVID VON PEIN VS. VARIOUS CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

DVP vs. DAVID LIFTON

DVP vs. JAMES DiEUGENIO

DVP vs. VINCE PALAMARA

DVP vs. DOUG HORNE

DVP vs. JAMES FETZER

DVP vs. JUDYTH VARY BAKER

DVP vs. PAT SPEER

DVP vs. ROBERT HARRIS

DVP vs. ANTHONY MARSH

DVP vs. GREG PARKER

DVP vs. GARY AGUILAR

DVP vs. JAMES R. GORDON

DVP vs. WILLIAM KELLY

DVP vs. JOSEPH McBRIDE

DVP vs. GIL JESUS

DVP vs. BARB JUNKKARINEN

DVP vs. LEE FARLEY

DVP vs. PAMELA BROWN

DVP vs. ORLANDO MARTIN

DVP vs. DON JEFFRIES

DVP vs. RAY MITCHAM

DVP vs. CLIFF VARNELL

DVP vs. COLIN CROW

DVP vs. WILLY WHITTEN

DVP vs. JIM HARGROVE

DVP vs. MARTIN HAY

DVP vs. BEN HOLMES

DVP vs. DAVID JOSEPHS

DVP vs. RAMON F. HERRERA

DVP vs. BART KAMP

DVP vs. HERBERT BLENNER

DVP vs. RON ECKER

DVP vs. GARRY PUFFER

DVP vs. SANDY LARSEN

DVP vs. THOMAS H. PURVIS

DVP vs. JON G. TIDD

DVP vs. DONALD WILLIS

DVP vs. STEVE THOMAS

DVP vs. GLENN NALL

DVP vs. TOM SCULLY

DVP vs. RICH DELLAROSA

DVP vs. SEAN MURPHY

DVP vs. MARTIN WEIDMANN

DVP vs. WALT CAKEBREAD

DVP vs. TOM ROSSLEY

DVP vs. CORY SANTOS

DVP vs. ALAN FORD

DVP vs. BOB PRUDHOMME

DVP vs. TONY FRATINI

DVP vs. DENNY ZARTMAN

DVP vs. JOHN IACOLETTI

DVP vs. KENNETH DREW

DVP vs. PAUL JOLLIFFE

DVP vs. RICH POPE

DVP vs. RON BULMAN

DVP vs. GREG DOUDNA

DVP vs. ROBERT CAPRIO

DVP vs. DAVID HEALY

DVP vs. MICHAEL CLARK

DVP vs. JOHN BARBOUR

DVP vs. RALPH CINQUE

DVP vs. EDUCATION FORUM


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


ALSO SEE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1063)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The link below contains yet another excellent and very detailed article by Dale K. Myers. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. ....

JFK Assassination Acoustics And The Photographic Record:
Why The HSCA’s Acoustic Evidence Of Conspiracy Is Invalid

The demonstrable PROOF that completely demolishes the HSCA's paper-thin "4th shot" conclusion has been available to read on Mr. Myers' website for years.

And Dale's new November 2010 article in response to Don Thomas' recent book only further enhances and supports the ironclad proof that no motorcycle was in a position where it needed to be to support the HSCA's acoustical findings of a fourth gunshot.

Why conspiracy theorists continue to cling to this acoustical nonsense is a bigger mystery to me than Bigfoot.

And, of course, Dale could have added still more insult to Don Thomas' injury if he had chosen to do so, because Mr. Myers' 11/19/2010 article doesn't even touch upon the OTHER major reason to know that the acoustical/Dictabelt evidence is invalid -- that being the very high likelihood (thanks to Steve Barber's 1979 discovery) that the "impulse" sounds that the HSCA said were "gunshots" on the Dallas Police Dictabelt are actually occurring about a full minute AFTER the assassination had taken place in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

So there are multiple reasons to be skeptical of the House Select Committee's acoustical analysis, and yet people like Donald Thomas seem totally oblivious to any of the various problems that exist with the acoustics evidence.

But, as Dale Myers himself said (when talking about another conspiracy theorist, Oliver Stone, and the same quote is certainly applicable here when discussing Donald Thomas' stubbornness regarding the acoustical evidence):

"Apparently, reality doesn’t set well with the Hollywood filmmaker [Oliver Stone]. Denial is SO much more comforting." -- Dale K. Myers; January 25, 2010

[Also see "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", Appendix 2, Pages 441-455, "Replication Of The HSCA Weiss & Aschkenasy Acoustic Analysis"
by Michael O'Dell.]

David Von Pein
November 22, 2010
November 4, 2015


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

MORE "ACOUSTICS" STUFF:










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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1367)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Part 1367 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of August 1—31, 2023. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.


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

BILL BROWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

FWIW....

In J.D. Tippit's last radio transmission concerning his location, I definitely can hear a "K" (or hard C) sound being uttered by Tippit, which almost certainly eliminates "Lansing" from the mix. And while the "S" in Lancaster can't be discerned, I think the "er" at the end of "Lancaster" can be heard. Sounds like an "er" to my ears anyway. It's at 5:04 in this video.


GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not hearing even a hint of an S. But I'm certainly hearing the K sound, plus the ER.

I've looped the Tippit transmission several times HERE.

David Von Pein
August 15, 2023





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


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mervyn,

The written section at the bottom of this arrest report showing the "other details of the arrest" was quite obviously not written at 1:40 PM (the time noted at the top of the card). Those details had to have been placed on that arrest card at a time considerably later than 1:40. In fact, there's no way that anything on that card was written as early as 1:40 PM, because Oswald wasn't even arrested in the theater until about 1:50 PM, and much of the information shown on the card wasn't confirmed by the Dallas police until much later than 1:40.

Therefore, given the above time factors, this statement made by Mervyn Hagger — "But within one hour, the Dallas Police Department has solved two murders and arrested the lone suspect. Simply amazing police work. Not" — is not a fair or accurate statement at all.


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But as far as that particular "Arrest Card" is concerned, we cannot possibly know exactly what time (or even what day, for that matter) that arrest report was written out. (I know of no specific info in the Warren Commission volumes that gives us that precise information. Do you?)

But one thing I do know for certain (based on logic and common sense) is this --- that arrest report most certainly was NOT written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22/63. Not even close. It was filled out much later than that.


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS AND THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mervyn, are you really suggesting that this arrest report was written at 1:40 PM Dallas time on November 22nd?

You surely aren't seriously advocating such an absurd position regarding that DPD arrest report....are you? Because it couldn't be more obvious that that report was filled out much later than 1:40. (As I mentioned before, Oswald wasn't even in custody until 1:50 PM!)

As to the possibility of the arrest report in question being a fake document, I really don't know for sure. But unlike a lot of conspiracy promoters, I'm not a person who is constantly claiming that documents have been manufactured by the authorities in order to frame the so-called patsy named Oswald. Therefore, I have no good reason to believe it's a phony document.

As for the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police Department at the bottom of the arrest report, I agree 100% with those conclusions. Based on the evidence, Oswald did, indeed, kill JFK and Officer Tippit.

But I'm not contradicting my own approach to "hard evidence", Mervyn. And the arrest report isn't really "hard evidence" anyway. It's merely a brief report providing us with the opinion of the people at DPD who were at that time processing and evaluating the "hard evidence" in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases.

I'm merely using my common sense to evaluate the timing of when the Oswald arrest report was created (which you don't seem to be factoring in at all). Given all the information we have concerning the gathering of the physical evidence against Lee Oswald, plus the "time" factors of when the Dallas police became aware of certain things concerning Oswald, I think it's safe to say that that arrest report was filled out much later than 1:40 PM on Nov. 22.

Now, you might want to argue that the Dallas police shouldn't have been so bold as to place this definitive statement on their Oswald arrest report:

"This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit."

But, based on the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt that was collected within the first few hours after both Kennedy and Tippit were murdered, such a statement can, indeed, be looked upon as a wholly accurate one.


STEVE THOMAS SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Steve, for providing this link to the full-sized (non-truncated) version of the Oswald arrest report being discussed in this thread (also seen below).

Now we know it's not a fake report, and we now know who the author of the report was (Dallas Police Officer M.N. McDonald).

CLICK TO ENLARGE:


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Click Here to see another version of the arrest report which doesn't include the "Deceased" stamp. This version also includes an extra charge: "Assault to Murder" (related to the wounding of John Connally).

And a third different version can be seen here.


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I had no idea Mervyn Hagger was so far out there in the "outer fringe".

David Von Pein
August 16-17, 2023





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


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is absolutely nothing odd or suspicious or "far out" about the KLIF Radio 11/22/63 broadcasts. Nothing.

When the topic of "What Radio Station Was Johnny Brewer Listening To On Nov. 22?" came up in 2019, I did a lot of work tracking some of the radio broadcasts I have in my collection. And at one point during that discussion [archived here], I provided this info....

"But it depends on which "shooting" you're referring to. If you mean the Tippit shooting, then I think you're right---there was no radio report regarding the shooter's description put out within 15 minutes (or so) of the Tippit murder. But there was most definitely a "description" of President Kennedy's assassin broadcast on the radio, and that description was aired on KLIF Radio (the station that Tony Krome just said Brewer was listening to) as early as 12:54 PM (Dallas time), which would corroborate what Brewer said to Eddie Barker in his CBS-TV interview in 1964 when Brewer said this:

"Right after the President was shot, they broadcast a description on the radio of this man..."

If, in fact, Brewer was listening to KLIF Radio that day, the description he would have heard at 12:54 PM would have initially come from a female telephone operator at the Dallas Police Department, who quickly provided the description of the alleged Presidential assassin for a KLIF reporter who was recording the phone call for later broadcast. The description she provided was: "White male, 30 [years old], 5-10, 165, 30-caliber rifle, and I believe it was at Elm and Houston where it came from; now I don't know definitely and I don't like to say." [The audio can be heard HERE.]" -- DVP; April 19, 2019

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

In reviewing my KLIF Radio files again just now [on August 17, 2023], there was a partial description of the assassin provided by KLIF even earlier than the 12:54 broadcast linked above.

That earlier description was reported by KLIF's Joe Long at 12:46 PM (per the timestamps provided throughout the KLIF coverage), which would have been just two minutes after the APB bulletin had been put out on the DPD radio system at 12:44 PM. Which almost certainly means that Joe Long and KLIF were monitoring the Dallas Police Department calls on a police radio of their own just after the assassination occurred.

Listen to the 12:46 PM description of the suspected assassin here.

I suppose the very early 12:46 PM description of the suspect aired by KLIF is the thing that makes Mervyn Hagger think something is fishy about the KLIF Radio assassination coverage. But Mervyn's suspicions go up in smoke if the KLIF reporters were, in fact, monitoring the DPD radio frequency on a police scanner on Nov. 22nd, which almost certainly had to be what happened that day.


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can tell by listening to just a little of KLIF Radio's assassination coverage that KLIF is a very efficient news-gathering organization. Joe Long's coverage of the day's tragic events on 11/22/63 was second-to-none in quality, competence, and professionalism, in my opinion.

And it should also be noted that the KLIF Radio reporters didn't just "rip and read" the news coming in from the wire services. They were actively seeking out as much news as they could get from the available sources, such as calling up the Dallas Police Department (twice) prior to 12:54 PM to try and pry some information out of their telephone operator. Plus, KLIF talked to various people at the Trade Mart and at Parkland Hospital as the events unfolded as well.

So the KLIF staff wasn't just sitting around on their rear ends waiting for the bulletins to come to them. They were going out and getting a lot of the early news that day for themselves.

And part of that news-gathering process, quite obviously, included monitoring the DPD radio calls within minutes of the shots being fired at the President. In fact, as I was re-listening to my KLIF files last night, at one point I heard what certainly sounds like chatter from a police radio/scanner in the background as KLIF reporter Joe Long was on the air live [go to 1:44:26 in this video].

Another solid indication that shows the likelihood that the KLIF reporters were, indeed, monitoring the DPD radio system comes at the 1:38:15 mark in the KLIF video I just linked above. At that point in the broadcast, you can hear Joe Long say this:

"There was that sudden call, 'All units report Code 3 in the downtown area to Elm & Houston'."

The above words are almost exactly the words that were uttered by the Dallas police dispatcher over the DPD radio at 12:41 PM. See the transcript of the DPD Radio Tapes here.

So when somebody (such as, say, a Mr. Mervyn Hagger) suggests that there was no possible way for the KLIF reporters to have legitimately acquired the information they gathered about the description of the Presidential assassin as quickly as they gathered it, then I think the best and most appropriate response to counter such an allegation is this one:

Bullshit!!

David Von Pein
August 17-18, 2023





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


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That 1962 song ("Point Of No Return" by Gene McDaniels, which first cracked the Top 40 on September 1, 1962, when it climbed to #36 on the Billboard "Hot 100" chart) just happened to be the next record queued up on the turntable for disc jockey Rex Jones to play on radio station KLIF in Dallas in the minutes just after the assassination occurred and prior to the time KLIF cut off all regular programming. There was nothing even remotely sinister or "sick" about it at all.

But once an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist's imagination starts working overtime, there's no limit to the amount of "sinister and sick" things he can dream up out of pure whole cloth. And that's just exactly what Mervyn Hagger's imagination has been doing lately—working overtime—with respect to his absurd allegations against Gordon McLendon and KLIF Radio.


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're right when you say I know virtually nothing about Mr. Gordon McLendon. But I really don't need to know anything at all about him to know with 100% certainty that your theory is just plain bunk concerning KLIF playing certain songs on Nov. 22 because those songs contained some kind of hidden messages or cryptic lyrics concerning the President's death. That's just plain crazy, and all reasonable and sensible people know it's crazy.

Let me guess....

You, Mervyn, also probably believe that the television announcer at the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth on the morning of 11/22/63 had advanced knowledge that President Kennedy was going to be killed later that day when he started telling the viewing audience all about President McKinley's 1901 assassination (at 17:03 in this video).

Do you think that chatter about McKinley's assassination is suspicious or sinister in some way, Mervyn? If not, you'd better put your imagination into overdrive and catch up, because a lot of other conspiracy fantasists are already aboard that sinking ship, including the CTers who created this awful documentary.

The fact that you, Mervyn, seem to actually believe that KLIF Radio in Dallas was part of some kind of "psyops" operation on 11/22/63---complete with Tommy Roe and Gene McDaniels playing unwitting parts in your fantasy via their Top 40 hits---is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous theories I've ever heard any conspiracy fantasist come up with since I first got interested in the JFK murder case in 1981.

Congratulations on the achievement.

David Von Pein
August 19-20, 2023





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


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The only way you can conclude that Lee Oswald did not purchase (and take possession of) "that handgun" (i.e., Smith & Wesson Revolver No. V510210) is to totally ignore all the evidence that tells us he did purchase it --- CLICK HERE.

David Von Pein
August 19, 2023





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID (ON FEBRUARY 13, 2010):

The ARRB was not an "investigative" committee. But, for some reason that I will never understand, Jeremy Gunn (and ARRB Chairman John Tunheim too, I guess) was/were talked into taking testimony from various medical witnesses, even though the ONLY thing the ARRB was responsible for was overseeing the release to the public of the various records and documents concerning JFK's assassination. Nothing more.

But thanks to a mega-kook named Douglas P. Horne, who joined the ARRB staff a year or two after it was originally created, apparently the ARRB's mandate and scope changed significantly. And I can't help but ask (and wonder) -- Why?


BEN HOLMES SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Congress did not, however, direct the Review Board to draw conclusions about the assassination, but to release assassination records so that the public could draw its own conclusions. Thus, this Final Report does not offer conclusions about what the assassination records released did or did not prove. Rather, it identifies records that the Board released and describes the processes and standards that the Board used to release them." -- ARRB Final Report; Page xxi

Also see these webpages.


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

Furthermore, Doug Horne has absolutely no medical credentials. He is a military man and was brought onboard to oversee the release of the military records. Since the autopsy was conducted by the military, those records were under his jurisdiction. His recycling of the David Lifton body snatching theory was nothing more than the musings of an incompetent layman. The corpse altering theory was dumb when Lifton proposed it and even dumber when Horne added his own embellishments.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You [DVP] asserted that there was something strange about their [the ARRB] taking of testimony. You're a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The "taking of testimony" of the various medical witnesses was most certainly not needed at all in order for the ARRB to complete its mission/mandate of releasing all of the various previously unreleased records and documents to the American public.

Also see the excerpt below from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", in which Vince talks about how "certain overzealous members of the ARRB staff took it upon themselves to go beyond the ARRB's limited mandate to release assassination-related documents, and decided to investigate what they perceived to be certain acts of conspiracy in the assassination".

CLICK TO ENLARGE:

David Von Pein
August 24, 2023





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


AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST CALLING HIMSELF “SKY THRONE” SAID:

The irony is that on her final ["What's My Line?"] show, Dorothy [Kilgallen] thought that the celebrity guest was Marilyn Monroe, even though Monroe had died 3 years before. Was she really that sloshed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nonsense. Dorothy thought nothing of the kind. The name "Norma" can apply to people other than just Marilyn Monroe.

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/What's My Line? (Nov. 7, 1965)


"SKY THRONE" SAID:

Dorothy knew Marilyn, and certainly knew that she was not the mystery celebrity on her final show...and yet she asked [Joey] Heatherton if her "real name" was Norma. DVP will not find another Norma that makes sense. He will just run away. So why would Dorothy on her last show cryptically point to Marilyn Monroe?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More conspiracies!


"SKY THRONE" SAID:

Name another celebrity at the time whose real name had been Norma! .... Who are all of those other "Norma's" you had in mind?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No idea. But there obviously was at least one "Norma" that Dorothy had in mind. Because she certainly didn't just forget that MM was dead.


"SKY THRONE" SAID:

DVP retreats to the circular reasoning of his Nutter Retard hamster wheel. He finds it comforting!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's called "logical thinking" and "reasonable inference" and "discounting things that are silly and ridiculous".

You, Mr. "Throne", being a conspiracy fantasist, wouldn't know what those things are all about, however.



David Von Pein
August 26, 2023





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


JONATHAN COHEN SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Jonathan. Plus there's the continual embarrassment that about 90% (perhaps even more) of the conspiracy theorists here at The Education Forum should be experiencing on a daily basis when they continue to embrace such absurd and wholly unprovable theories like these for years on end:

1. The second-floor Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never even happened at all.

2. Lee Oswald didn't carry any large-ish paper bag at all into the Book Depository on 11/22/63.

3. Lee Oswald never ordered any rifle at all from Klein's Sporting Goods and never once even touched Carcano Rifle No. C2766.

4. Lee Oswald never even went to the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico City at all in September of 1963.

5. Ruth Paine was up to her neck in conspiracy and patsy-planting in the weeks prior to Nov. 22nd.

6. Captain Fritz and other DPD officers were part of a pre-arranged plot on 11/24/63 which allowed Jack Ruby to have easy access to the City Hall basement in order to kill Lee Oswald.

....And so many more embarrassing theories that have been featured over and over again on this forum's pages.


BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I provide my "tumbling bullet" thoughts here.


BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There are many different reasons why the Single-Bullet Theory should be accepted as being true (all discussed here).

The "tumbling bullet" isn't the be-all/end-all deciding factor for the SBT's validity. Because even if the bullet—Commission Exhibit No. 399—wasn't tumbling at all as it entered the upper back of Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza, the SBT is still most certainly the most reasonable solution.

In fact, with or without any "tumbling", the SBT is the only truly reasonable and sensible solution that explains the initial wounding of JFK and all of Connally's wounds.

Here are a few SBT-related points I've made in the past that deserve a replay every now and then:

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

"Let me ask the following question one more time (I've made this inquiry in the past as well, without receiving any satisfactory answer from any anti-SBT conspiracy theorist):

If the animation project authored by Dale K. Myers is dead wrong in its depiction of the Single-Bullet Theory as being a one-bullet scenario that is not only POSSIBLE, but very, very likely a rock-solid FACT in all respects, then I want to know HOW in this wide world of ours it would have been even remotely possible for Dale Myers to have stuck THAT CLOSE TO THE REAL EVIDENCE in the case and to have produced a BOGUS animation (as CTers believe he has done) that comes so incredibly close to what a true and NON-BOGUS animation would have looked like?

To clarify what I mean by that --- The depiction of the victims (JFK and Connally) in Myers' animation (along with the general configuration of the limo and of Dealey Plaza and of the TSBD and of Elm Street, etc.) are certainly NOT so far "out of whack" that any CTer can look at it and say this:

"Myers is full of shit here! He doesn't have this model even CLOSE to being accurate in any way!"

So, even if the anti-SBT crowd wants to nitpick about the size of John Connally's head in Dale's 3D model, or about the height of the limo's crossbar seen in the animation.....those same CTers haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to the big-ticket question that no conspiracist has EVER been able to reconcile--and that question is:

If the SBT is only a wet dream of "Warren Commission shills" (et al), then how in the world did multiple gunmen firing multiple bullets (usually at least THREE missiles, per CTer accounts) into the bodies of two victims manage to MIMIC A PERFECT (or damn near perfect-looking) SINGLE-BULLET EVENT with those multiple bullets?

I'm still waiting for a single SBT-hating conspiracy theorist to logically and believably answer the above question.

In short, the Single-Bullet Theory makes a whole bunch of (common) sense. Especially when placed up against ANY alternate scenario that might be used to try and knock it down."

-- DVP; April 18, 2008

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

"And isn't it amazing that there just happened to be another bullet hole on the opposite side of JFK's body to meet the "SBT" needs of Mr. Specter, et al?

Has any conspiracy theorist in history ever made this basic observation?....

Boy, those assassins were sure a bunch of lucky sons of bitches when the guy who shot JFK in the throat from the front managed to hit Kennedy in exactly the right spot on his body so that (later on) the official investigators could utilize that entry wound in the throat as the point of exit for the SBT bullet. And then the multiple assassins got even luckier when the upper-back bullet and the bullet that entered the throat both decided not to exit the body and then both of those bullets vanished into puffs of smoke before either of those bullets (which obviously were still inside JFK's body when he was inside Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital) could be seen by any non-conspirator.

Can anyone truly believe that such incredible good fortune could possibly have existed amongst the (alleged) multiple shooters who were (allegedly) firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63?

(And yet CTers have the gall to tell me that I am the one who believes in "Magic Bullets". Oy vey!)"

-- DVP; July 1, 2018

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

"[Many conspiracy theorists] require absolute perfect to-the-millimeter perfection in a Single-Bullet Theory re-creation before [they'll] even begin to consider it valid. But, realistically, it's just not reasonable to expect an event like this to be able to be re-created right down to the last inch.

In my opinion, however, CE903 comes very close to SBT perfection (even though I realize that the 17.72-degree angle isn't exactly right, since it's an angle for the equivalent of Z217.5 and not what I believe is the true SBT Z-Film frame of Z224).

So, if you want to say I "want it both ways", okay. But the Z217.5 angle seen in CE903 is so incredibly close to being "perfect", why would I quibble with it and raise hell with Mr. Specter & Company (especially since I fully realize that complete and total "perfection" is not a reasonable expectation)?"

-- DVP; July 3, 2018

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

"Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:

After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike, which is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page 86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the entrance wound in Kennedy's head.

Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a tumbling missile?

The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr. Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a simulated Kennedy neck.

But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I think."

-- DVP; October 22, 2012

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


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The "Magic Bullet" topic is getting "rehashed" in this thread too because it's so much fun seeing the CTers at The Education Forum go into their Denial Mode whenever the subject of the SBT comes up.

How the conspiracists of this planet manage to sidestep the logic of the SBT is beyond my capacity to understand. But nearly 100% of them have been doing it now for pert-near sixty years. Very strange indeed.


MERVYN HAGGER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Funny you should ask about that. It's an interesting story indeed.....

As a young lad collecting Topps Baseball Cards in eastern Indiana in the year 1972, I was approached one day by a man who introduced himself as a Mr. Arlen Specter. I didn't know at that time who he was, but he asked me to sit down with him in front of the Kresge's store in Richmond's Gateway Shopping Center and he then proceeded to tell me a fascinating story. It was all about this "theory" he had concerning some kind of a "Bullet" that supposedly went through two different gunshot victims during an attempted murder somewhere in the state of....uh....Texas, I think it was.

Mr. Specter then told me to "spread the word" far and wide about this "SBT" nonsense. He said that something he called "The Internet" was going to be in everybody's home in about 20 or 25 more years, and when I grew up, he wanted me (of all people) to start up all kinds of "blogs" (whatever the hell those are) (????). And he wanted these "blog" things to all focus attention on JFK and this "SBT" thing he kept yammering about.

I didn't know what to think. Frankly, this Specter guy sounded like a nut. But he brainwashed me thoroughly (of course), so what could I do? I had no choice but to do as he said. And so, 35 years later, in August of 2007, I started my career as an Official JFK Assassination Disinformation Agent.*

* I had also spent the previous four years [2003-2007] as an ADA (Apprentice Disinfo Agent), mainly at Debra Conway's JFK Lancer forum.

It's not a very fun job (~sigh~), but I can't complain about the salary. (Plus the regular checks from the Arlen Specter Disinfo Estate keep coming in every month too. So that's another perk.)

David Von Pein
August 27-28, 2023





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


CHARLES COLLINS SAID:

Morphing Memories....

Buell Frazier is but one example [of] someone perhaps having a morphing memory. We haven’t seen any evidence of his morphing until recent years. But human memories can morph over time. Maybe a discussion of this is in order.

I am going to give an example based on a real event from about 50 years ago. While still barely teenagers but the drinking age lowered to 18 for a short while, some friends and I went to town to see an up and coming band (but mainly to drink beer). Here’s a photo of that band that was taken some 6 months before we saw them.

If you didn’t recognize them, that is Lynyrd Skynyrd before they became well known. Here is my memory of that night:

We got there early and snagged a table right in front of the stage, maybe 10 feet from the band. The pitchers of beer flowed all evening. Sometime later, one of our group said something like “Hey, there’s someone who looks like Mick Jagger.” I thought to myself “no way.” I don’t remember seeing Mick Jagger or anyone that looked like him. I do remember a discussion as we were returning to the car about how good Lynyrd Skynyrd was.

Now, here is the memory of one of my friends. He is currently a very healthy and fit individual and happily married and enjoying life. He “remembers” that Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones joined Lynyrd Skynyrd on the stage and performed together with them.

Now, I will confirm that we were all young and foolish and had had too much to drink. I can only guess that my friend had repeated the story over the years and it morphed (like a fish story) into what he actually believes at this point in time 50 years later.

I got away from the heavy drinking a few years after this episode. He continued to drink heavily until maybe 15 years ago. I didn’t see him for all those years but our paths crossed about 8 years ago. And he firmly believes he saw Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones that night 50 years ago.

I have researched enough to say that there is no evidence that Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones were there that night. But I doubt that anyone could ever convince my friend that he didn’t see them.

Anyway, this might be a good thread to discuss some of the witnesses to the JFK assassination whose memories appear to have morphed over the years. I already mentioned Buell Frazier, who else would anyone like to discuss?


MICHAEL CAPASSE SAID:

I'm not aware of Buell's story morphing. He has been consistent for 60 years. How has it morphed?


CHARLES COLLINS SAID:

Here is a snip from Buell Frazier’s 11/22/63 affidavit:

"I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor."

These days he claims that he saw LHO walking up Houston Street beside the TSBD soon after the assassination.


JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

Charles Givens’ story morphed between November 22 and his WC testimony.

Warren Reynolds’ story morphed after he was shot in the head.

Nick McDonald’s story morphed every time he re-told it.


CHARLES COLLINS SAID:

Morphing memories (as I am defining them) are ones that change character entirely. I am not interested in memories in which small details might be misremembered, because that is normal for us humans.

For an example of a morphing memory, as I define it, if Buell Frazier had really seen LHO walking up Houston Street after the assassination, I don’t think that there is any way he could have forgotten that when he swore that he didn’t see LHO after 11:00 am when he made his affidavit on 11/22/63.

Also, the WC testimonies included questions by the investigators which were meant to bring out additional details that might not have been included in earlier statements. So, that type of thing isn’t really a morphed memory, as I am defining it.


MICHAEL CAPASSE SAID:

Certainly Buell could have forgotten he had seen Lee for a brief moment in his one-time answer on an affidavit. I was referring to his consistency regarding the bag he saw. I'm not aware of that story changing in 60 years. .... Are we talking about stories that morph or minor details changed that don't really matter?


CHARLES COLLINS SAID:

Going from didn’t see him after 11:00 am to saw him walking up the street after the assassination is a major morph. .... Buell Frazier didn’t say a word about supposedly seeing LHO on Houston Street after the assassination until he wrote a book fifty something years later and was trying to sell it. Yes, he has been consistent regarding the size of the bag. But that is not the same as being correct.


JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

That’s false. His [Buell Frazier's] first public telling of the story of seeing Oswald on Houston street (that I’m aware of) was in an interview with Gary Mack in 2002. “Steering Truth” [Frazier's book] was published in 2021.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As John has mentioned above, Buell didn't wait quite 50+ years to start telling his "I saw LHO on Houston St." story. AFAIK, it was this interview with Gary Mack in 2002 in which that particular addition to Buell's story first surfaced.

Buell then, in later interviews (and in his book), started "adding" more things to his story (see this link).


CHARLES COLLINS SAID:

Thanks guys, I stand corrected. So, it was only about 39 years after the assassination that Buell Frazier announced his morphed memory.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Correct. That is, unless Buell did some other lengthy interviews prior to the one in 2002. But I know of none. He did some very brief on-camera appearances for various JFK anniversary documentaries prior to '02, but no long interviews (that I know of).

Let me also add....

During his Warren Commission testimony in March of 1964, some four months after he wrote his 11/22/63 affidavit, Buell Frazier also said just what he had said in that Nov. 22 affidavit---that he had not seen Lee Oswald at all after the late morning hours on 11/22:

JOSEPH BALL -- When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- You mean on the 22nd?

MR. BALL -- On the 22nd, that day.

MR. FRAZIER -- Somewhere between--it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, because I remember I was walking down to the first floor that day, that was the only time I went up on the elevator was, like I say, for a few minutes and, I put that box of books up and put it down, and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.

MR. BALL -- That was the last time you saw him all day?

MR. FRAZIER -- Right.

MR. BALL -- You didn't talk to him again?

MR. FRAZIER -- No, sir; I didn't.

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

David Von Pein
August 28, 2023





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