JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 272)

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Actually if you go back to the original evidence, it indicates conspiracy." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah.....

Lee Harvey Oswald's gun.
Bullets from Oswald's gun.
Shells from Oswald's gun.
Only Oswald's prints on gun.
Only Oswald's prints discernible on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest.
Oswald's prints on empty paper bag in Sniper's Nest.
Oswald seen with "bulky" paper bag that morning.
No alibi for Oswald for 12:30.
Eyewitness verification of ONE SHOOTER (named Oswald).
No other shooters seen in Dealey Plaza.
Oswald kills Tippit (alone).
Oswald tells lie after lie after he's arrested.

Great case for a multi-gun conspiracy there, huh?

Time for a new hobby, Tony. DVD collecting is fun. (Including some
JFK discs too.)


>>> "Which is what Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald with [a "Communist conspiracy"]." <<<

Sure. After the DPD learned that the lone-nut kook named Oswald had tried to defect to Russia, naturally the thought of a "Communist conspiracy" entered their brains. Why wouldn't it have? It had LBJ paranoid on Day 1 too. So what?


>>> "Only a series of carefully crafted lies fooled people into thinking it was a lone nut." <<<

With Oswald HIMSELF aiding the people who were attempting to "fool" the masses. Right, Mr. Theorist?

In reality, of course, there was absolutely NOTHING that Oswald did or said between November 21 and his death on November 24, 1963, that would lead a reasonable person to think that he was anything BUT a lone-nut assassin. Nothing. Not even when he had ample opportunity to spill his guts on Live TV for two days. But Lee spills NOTHING.

Wasn't it nice of the proverbial "patsy" to go to his death as he helped (immensely!) to frame himself as the lone killer of the President of the United States?

You don't run into patsies who turn out to be THAT cooperative very often. Do you, Tony?

Let's now watch Anthony Marsh make up some more bullshit about Oswald and the devious "plot" that swirled all around LHO (aka: The Patsy That All CTers Love).


>>> "So, you don't see anything suspicious about a Mafia flunky killing the suspect while in police custody?" <<<

Why, then, didn't that very same "Mafia flunky" kill the suspect much earlier, when he had ample opportunity to do so?

If Jack Ruby had been "assigned" the job of rubbing out Lee Oswald, Oswald would never have been arrested. In such a case, LHO would have been found dead in a pool of blood shortly after leaving the TSBD on 11/22/63.

David Von Pein
July 6, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 271)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

As for being who you [John R. King] say you are, okay, but I repeated that more to tweak DVP than anything, as he is known to do such a thing even though he vigorously denies it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is nothing but a lie. "Known to do such a thing"?? By whom? Where? On what websites? What names do I supposedly use? Any chance you'll tell me any of these things? Or would you prefer to remain wishy-washy and perpetually vague?

But here's a hint: The whole "DVP Is Posing As Somebody Else" crappola was, AFAIK, started by Dave Healy at the acj forum/newsgroup. That kook's lies about me then spread to the Black Op Retard Radio Network [THIS EPISODE], where James DiEugenio and Len Osanic declared that I was probably Dave Reitzes. Nothing to back up such a belief, of course. Just the mindless allegation spouted by Dave "Zapruder Wasn't Even On His Pedestal" Healy. Nothing more.

A false rumor that has been started by a JFK conspiracy theorist is like a batch of weeds in your backyard -- unwanted, ugly, and hard to get rid of. And, in the case of this stupid rumor about me -- it's just plain wrong. Nobody can ever prove I have used "aliases" in any of my online articles or posts, and that's because I have never once done such a thing. And never will.

Re: Garrison's despicable case vs. Shaw:

A little bit of ordinary common sense can go a long way when talking about Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie. I have displayed that common sense in my series of online battles with Jim DiEugenio. And that common sense has never been defeated.

In short: Nobody has EVER proven that any of the individuals in the New Orleans gang of purported "conspirators" had anything whatsoever to do with the murder of President Kennedy.

For some reason, that basic, simple fact I just stated above doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to certain people in the "conspiracy community". They'll ignore that basic truth until the pallbearers come to fetch them.

And that basic truth really has little or nothing to do with Jim Garrison himself. It's about the EVIDENCE. And there is NO EVIDENCE that links the New Orleans gang to the assassination of JFK. None.

David Von Pein
October 28, 2012

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 270)

HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

>>> "[This] graphic shows the anterior-posterior X-ray of President Kennedy's head. Why does the title of the X-ray, "Figure 17 - Photograph of the anterior-posterior X-ray of the skull (autopsy X-ray No. 1), showing the occipital defect and a small [sic] missile fragment" [Figure 17 actually says "adjacent missile fragment", not "small missile fragment"] refer to an injury that you deny?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't refer to an injury that I deny at all. The caption accompanying that particular X-ray photo (Figure 17, which is located in the House Select Committee volumes at 7 HSCA 109) is referring to the small ENTRY wound in the "occipital" region of John Kennedy's head.* It's not referring to any kind of a large, gaping EXIT wound in the occipital region of the head.

That fact becomes quite clear when reading the text that surrounds Figure #17 in HSCA Volume 7 (on page 109 and page 110 of Volume 7).

And please note how, on page 110, the caption used for a computer-enhanced version of the LATERAL X-ray (autopsy X-ray #2) utilizes several of the EXACT SAME WORDS that are also used in the caption for Figure 17 (which is a picture of the A-P X-ray) -- i.e., "adjacent missile fragment" and "occipital defect" [plus the key words "with beveling", indicating that the HSCA is certainly NOT talking about an exit wound here; they're referring to an ENTRY wound that is "beveling" inward].

I'll readily admit that, at first blush, the A-P autopsy X-ray shown in Figure 17 seems to give the false impression that the entire right side of JFK's head was missing (from front to back). But when we go to page 111 of HSCA Volume 7, we get to see a better, more detailed view of that A-P skull X-ray (via computer enhancement).

And we can easily see that the enhanced A-P X-ray aligns itself very nicely with the lateral (enhanced) X-ray of the right side of President Kennedy's head (i.e., the BACK of JFK's head is STILL THERE in both computer-enhanced autopsy X-rays):







* Although, technically, the entry wound in the back of JFK's head was not really located in "occipital" bone. It was closer to "parietal" bone.


>>> "Why is the transmittance of the right side of this X-ray consistent with big holes in the right-front and the right-rear of the head?" <<<

See explanation above. Figure 17 is somewhat misleading. This computer-assisted version of that very same X-ray makes things much clearer.


>>> "Finally why [does] the Fox Photo F1 show intact scalp overlying the position of the large hole in the front-rear of the head?" <<<

This autopsy photo [below] shows no such thing. You're interpreting it incorrectly:




>>> "I extend my apologies for mistaking you for a member of the cowlick club." <<<

Oh, I'm definitely a member of the "cowlick club". The entry wound was most certainly located high on JFK's head, near the cowlick, just as the HSCA determined.

The term "occipital" in Figures 17 and 18 of HSCA Volume #7, however, is still referring (obviously) to the BACK-OF-THE-HEAD ENTRY WOUND NEAR THE COWLICK. That location is, indeed, technically a bit above the "occipital".

But the term "occipital" (as used in those HSCA exhibits) is positively referring to the bullet's ENTRY hole at the back of the head. That's obvious by the verbiage we find in the caption for Figure 18, which says: "occipital defect with beveling". Plus, there are the words "inward beveling" that appear just below Figure 18 on that same page of Volume 7 (page 110).

Therefore, what other head wound (with references to "beveling" and "inward beveling") could the HSCA possibly be referring to on page 110 of Volume 7 if not the ONE AND ONLY bullet wound of entrance in the back of Jack Kennedy's cranium?

Try again, Herbert. You've lost this round.

David Von Pein
July 6, 2008
July 6, 2008
October 28, 2012

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 269)

Assorted conspiracists on Internet forums have said things in the past regarding animator, author, and lone-assassin believer Dale K. Myers, with those CTers implying that Mr. Myers was never a "conspiracy theorist" himself at any point in his life.

Those CTers apparently think that Myers is lying when he talks extensively in his FAQ section at his website about formerly being in the "conspiracy" camp himself prior to approximately 1993 or 1994:

Here's just one sample verbal exchange related to this particular topic concerning Mr. Myers (an exchange from June 2006 that involved myself, Anthony Marsh, and Ben Holmes). I'm quite sure there are many other similar examples; this one just happened to be the first one I came across when searching the forum's archives:


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And, naturally, Dale K. Myers is a dirty, rotten bastard...with nothing on his mind other than putting forth the rotten lies of the WC & SBT....even though when he began his computer animation project he was a CTer himself. Right, Ben?


TONY MARSH THEN INTERJECTED:

Nah, never. Many WC defenders have tried to trick us by claiming that they were originally conspiracy believers, but they never produce any messages or articles they wrote at the time arguing conspiracy. They are simply lying. Pretending. Argument by Authority. .... What did Dale Myers ever say or publish that you think means he was once a conspiracy believer? Quotes please. .... He [Myers] is now pretending that he used to be a conspiracy believer.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Myers was obviously exhibiting "I'm A CTer" qualities/tendencies when he appeared in the '93 PBS special ["Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"].


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

I saw a post by John Kelin at The Education Forum that totally destroys Tony Marsh's above-mentioned comments about Dale Myers. Kelin interviewed Myers in 1982, and Mr. Kelin still has some audio tapes from that interview, including an MP3 audio file which contains the voice of Dale Myers in 1982, which was 16 years before he wrote the definitive book on the J.D. Tippit murder ("With Malice").

In the short audio clip that Kelin posted at The Education Forum [which is a clip that is no longer available, but I heard the audio clip for myself before it vanished from the Internet], Myers can be heard stating his belief that "I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger". And in that quote, Myers was talking specifically about JFK's murder, not J.D. Tippit's.

But Myers also told Kelin this:

"I think I will be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Oswald was not the killer of J.D. Tippit."

So, another myth goes up in smoke. Mr. Myers is positively ON TAPE in 1982 stating his belief that a conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza when JFK was killed. Since that time, however, Mr. Myers has come to his senses and has changed his opinion about a conspiracy.

The complete transcript of Kelin's 1982 interview with Myers is available.
CLICK HERE to see it. Here are a few excerpts:


John Kelin: What do you think about Lee Harvey Oswald? Could he have done it by himself?

Dale Myers: Oh, certainly: anybody could have done it by themselves. First off, I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger.

John Kelin: The trigger, or a trigger?

Dale Myers: Okay, a trigger.

John Kelin: I mean – you know, if there were two gunmen, could he have been one of them?

Dale Myers: Exactly. Okay. Well the gun that was fired from the Texas School Book Depository was the gun that fired all the shots that hit any victims. And including the fatal shot. But I don't think he was the finger that was behind that trigger. Although there's no doubt that it was his rifle. And to say that he did not pull the trigger does not mean that he was not involved in some way; he obviously was involved. But as far as saying that he was guilty, I find that extremely hard to believe. And I think I'll show enough evidence to indicate, or that I think I could circumstantially beyond a reasonable doubt, so to speak, prove to anybody else, that he was not the man behind the trigger.

[...]

Dale Myers: Pretty much we're back at square one, where we were back in 1964. Or at least prior to '78, where there's really just no hard evidence that there was a man firing from the grassy knoll. Again, there's a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, and I still believe there was someone firing from the grassy knoll. But again, there's no hard evidence.

[...]

John Kelin: What do you think Oswald was doing at the time the shots were fired?

Dale Myers: Well, I think that he ---

John Kelin: This is just your opinion, I know...

Dale Myers: Exactly. Because there were no witnesses to what he was doing, which obviously makes it extremely suspicious. But just as there are no witnesses that give him an alibi, there are also no witnesses that can put him in the window with the gun in his hand. You know, in 1963, Police Chief Jesse Curry said, "This case is cinched. This is the man who killed the President." [DVP Interjection: Dale is incorrect here. It wasn't Jesse Curry who said the case is "cinched". It was Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz who made that statement.]

Three years later, he [Curry] told reporters, "We never had any evidence that Oswald was the man in the window." He says, "We don't have any witnesses that can put him in that window with the gun in his hands."

I think the evidence indicates – and there are a lot of eyewitnesses who saw him immediately before the shots – that he was probably on one of the lower floors having lunch.

John Kelin: Wasn't he seen on the lower floors just a minute or so after the shots were fired, by a cop and the building foreman?

Dale Myers: Exactly. That's an extremely – well, that really is pretty much the alibi. If you're looking for an alibi that Oswald would have had, that would have been his alibi. And I will go into that in depth in the lecture. In fact, I've got photographic evidence – because I like to use hard evidence in my lectures as well – I've got photographic evidence that indicates that not only is – well, it's extremely unlikely that Oswald could have been the gunman, based upon that. There are some photographs that were taken that indicate the gunman lingered in the window ... it deals with the boxes in the window.

[...]

John Kelin: Your area of expertise is J.D. Tippit's murder?

Dale Myers: Exactly.

John Kelin: How does that figure in?

Dale Myers: Well that's the amazing thing. Because, you know, that's one of the most under-researched, the little-talked about – you know, Mark Lane, it was a chapter in his book. Most other writers – Summers, it was a half a page, you know – well, they're trying to encompass the whole assassination, and it's really all they could devote. But really, you could write a book on just the murder of J.D. Tippit [and Dale did precisely that, with the book "With Malice", released in 1998]. And it's extremely important.

And I think the best person to quote on that would be one of the Warren Commission staffers himself, David Belin, who of course was one of the prime motivators, a prosecutor so to speak, proponent, of the lone gunman theory, and the fact that Oswald was alone in this whole thing.

And he said about the Tippit murder, that "The murder of Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit is the Rosetta Stone of the assassination of President Kennedy." It's the Rosetta Stone of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald. In other words, if Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit, in other words if we can prove that, then it stands to reason, and extremely logical, and I would follow his logic, that he also killed President Kennedy. Because we show a capacity for violence. And not only violence in his lifetime, but forty-five minutes after President Kennedy is shot. Okay?

But also, let's look at it the other way. If we can prove, or show, that Oswald did not kill J.D. Tippit, then we raise the question of whether or not he murdered President Kennedy. Because we remove the capacity for violence that David Belin used to help the Warren Commission paint the picture of a lone gunman, you know, on Lee Harvey Oswald.

I think I will be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Oswald was not the killer of J.D. Tippit. That Tippit's murder was connected to the assassination of the President. And that the reason Oswald was arrested was because the FBI had advance knowledge of his activities.

[End Interview Excerpts.]





Maybe Anthony Marsh (or other conspiracy theorists) can now start up a new theory -- the "Kelin Tape [And Transcript] Is A Fake" theory. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if such a theory sprouted wings. After all, as Vincent Bugliosi has said, conspiracy theorists are "allergic to the truth".

David Von Pein
June 5, 2006
July 5, 2008
October 27, 2012

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 268)

JOHN CANAL SAID:

>>> "Here's real nonsense: me taking more of the moderator's time to explain to you, once again, that, in the first place, that photo was taken late in the procedure, and, in the second place, the scalp was eventually successfully stretched and sutured to close up openings (the photo was obviously taken after some of that occurred)." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All together now -- "LOL!!"


>>> "And I find it remarkable that you keep flaunting this photo as some sort of proof that dozens of doctors were lying or hallucinating about seeing a BOH [Back Of the Head] wound." <<<

This photo (which you, John C., SHOULD be running from as fast as you possibly can) is a very good photo to "flaunt", as it (all by itself) proves that your BOH/LN theory is full of holes (pardon the pun):



And when the above photo is viewed in conjunction with the lateral X-ray of JFK's head (which, just like the above pic, shows not even a hint of the large BOH hole that John Canal imagines)....well, the math then becomes pretty easy to do.



It should be fairly easy math for everybody--even John Canal. But, evidently, John prefers to ignore the BEST, HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE concerning this particular matter (the authenticated photographs and X-rays). Instead, John would rather latch onto the evidence that isn't nearly as good, or "hard", or "physical", or definitive -- the subjective observations of witnesses.

Also:

Incredibly, John Canal thinks (a la the similar mindset exhibited by author David S. Lifton, it would seem) that somebody at the autopsy stitched up the rear of JFK's head so PERFECTLY and so SEAMLESSLY that EVERY LAST TRACE of the huge, gaping hole that John believes was present in the far right-rear part of Kennedy's head became completely INVISIBLE and UNDETECTABLE in the above color photograph.

Worth a replay ---

Incredible!


>>> "...And you wonder what fuels the arguments of the CTs--if you do, it's this B/S you keep shoveling out!" <<<

After that nonsense you just tried to push about the huge hole in JFK's scalp being "sutured" to utter perfection, so as to eliminate all traces of your make-believe gaping hole (and, remarkably, it eliminated every trace of the SUTURING as well...those surgeons were sure good at stitching up a scalp!) within the autopsy photos, you still have the gonads to say that it is I who is shovelling the "B/S"? That's rich! Really rich.

Where's the scalp damage here, John? (Just more good fortune for Humes & Company?):



David Von Pein
July 4, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 267)

MORE "HEAD WOUND" DISCUSSION (RELATED TO THE THREADS LINKED HERE, HERE, AND HERE)....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



Apart from the autopsy X-ray shown above, which (by itself) proves
that John Canal's odd "BOH/LN" theory is inaccurate, John has another
very big photographic problem in trying to fit all of the pieces of
his BOH/LN puzzle together cohesively and believably....

And that problem is: the autopsy photograph below, which shows
President Kennedy's SCALP on the back of his head to be completely
INTACT (including the entire area of the head/scalp at the far-right-
rear portion of JFK's head where John Canal insists a large hole
existed, with that large hole being easily visible and viewable by the
various doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63):



But when examining the above photo, it's quite evident that JFK's
scalp was undamaged (except for the perforating entry hole near
the cowlick, of course, which was where Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5mm
bullet entered the President's head).

This "scalp" issue has been discussed previously on this forum, with
Mr. Canal theorizing that a relatively small area of the scalp was, in
fact, torn (or cut), which in turn allowed the people at Parkland to
observe the gaping hole at the right-rear of Kennedy's head.

Such an argument is just nonsense, of course....because even if a very
SMALL portion of the scalp had been torn or damaged (which is
perceived damage that is certainly not visible in the autopsy pictures
at all), how in the world could a very SMALL tear in that scalp
somehow translate into this (as described by Parkland witness Dr.
Robert McClelland)?:



In my view, the best explanation for the admittedly major discrepancy
that exists regarding this controversial "BOH" matter between the official
record and the observations of the Parkland witnesses was probably
given by Dr. Michael Baden (during a telephone conversation he had
with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi on January 8, 2000).
Baden said the following to Bugliosi during that phone call:

"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as
the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. That's why we have
autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this.
Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at
Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of
the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain
tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the
occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push
his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably
assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But 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; 01/08/2000

John Canal would probably be better off if he were to believe what
many conspiracy theorists firmly believe -- i.e., that the autopsy
photo and X-ray pictured above are fakes (and/or have been "altered"
in some manner).

Because just one good look at each of the two photos (the X-ray and
the color image of the back of John Kennedy's head after he died) should
be enough visual proof right there to know that Mr. Canal is barking up
the wrong tree as he searches for a hole in the President's head that
simply was never there.

Thank you.

David Von Pein
July 3, 2008

WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD "DOORWAY MAN"? (PART 2)

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it. And now we'll let the new pictures do the talking. We'll see about the vee-shaped shadow that people have been claiming and relying on to avoid admitting that Doorman is wearing Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt. Do you think it was just a v-shaped shadow? Well,
we are putting it to the test, and when the results come in, [we'll] all know the truth.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a question for Ralph Cinque that I don't think has surfaced in the past
(has it?).....

Why couldn't Lovelady have been wearing a V-neck T-shirt on 11/22/63?

Was Lovelady ever asked precisely what type of T-shirt he was wearing that day? Isn't it possible that he could have owned some V-neck T-shirts as well as some that had a "round" neck?

Granted, I suppose most men would buy and wear just one type of T-shirt (whatever their preference might be), but isn't it possible that Lovelady wore a "V" type once in a while? And can Ralph prove that Lovelady never wore (or owned) such a "V"-neck T-shirt?

I'll admit, I have no answers to those T-shirt questions, but, then too, I don't think it matters at all -- because Billy N. Lovelady is Doorway Man. That fact was proven for all time by Lovelady HIMSELF in 1964.


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


COLIN CROW SAID:

I'm not convinced it's even a V-neck t-shirt [being worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63; see photo below]. It looks like a wide round neck that has been stretched in the TT [Texas Theater] struggle. No doubt a grabbing point by one of the officers.




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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It took me about 30 seconds of searching through my photo website to pretty much prove that Colin Crow is 100% correct. Oswald wasn't wearing a "V"-neck T-shirt at all on November 22, 1963, as the two pictures below verify.

These pictures were taken during Oswald's midnight press conference, just 12 hours after the assassination. Does Ralph Cinque think Oswald changed from a V-neck T-shirt to a round-neck one between 12:30 PM and approximately midnight? ....







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


COLIN CROW SAID:

The midnight press conference t-shirt might have been a new one even though the [outer] shirt appears the same. Certainly doesn't appear as stretched then. That's why I used the earlier photo, just after the arrest, in my post.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Is there anything in the records to indicate Oswald was brought a fresh T-shirt by midnight on the 22nd? I'll admit, I haven't cared enough to ever look into this sort of thing (and, of course, WHY would I have ever wanted to?), so I guess that somebody could have brought him a fresh T-shirt to put on from his Beckley residence (or the Paine residence). But he certainly hasn't changed his rust-brown outer shirt by the time of the midnight conference. I can't really see why he would have changed his T-shirt either. But, yes, I guess that COULD have happened. ~shrug~

Either way, it's fairly clear that there's no "V" in the neck of that T-Shirt that Lee Oswald is wearing during the midnight press conference.




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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

I really resent you people wasting my time with this. [LOL. Pot/Kettle Alert!!] Oswald's t-shirt sometimes manifested as a vee, and sometimes it didn't. But Lovelady's t-shirt NEVER manifested as a vee. Why should it have? There was nothing wrong with it. Its fibers hadn't been stretched and disrupted. There were no v-neck t-shirts by design at the time. Oswald's was unique- homemade. Doorman's t-shirt looks vee, and the only one who at any time manifested such a vee- ever- was Oswald. Never Lovelady.




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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How on Earth do you KNOW these things for a fact, Ralph?

You're just making this crap up as you go along, it would seem.

You're now an expert on the subject of whether or not Billy Lovelady ever stretched his T-shirts into a "V" shape, is that it? You must be delusional.

In point of fact, your argument about how OSWALD'S T-shirts behaved and looked in photos could just as easily also apply to LOVELADY too. How do you know that Lovelady too didn't tug or pull on his T-shirts occasionally to make them form the same kind of "V" shape that we see in some of Oswald's November 22 photos?

Answer: You don't know this for a fact. You're GUESSING. Pure and simple.

Therefore, the "V" trait we see in the Altgens photo could just as easily be forming on a T-shirt being worn by Billy Nolan Lovelady, versus a shirt that Lee Harvey Oswald HAD to be wearing.

In short, I think you've debunked your own "T-shirt theory", because nobody can possibly know for sure (here in 2012, with Mr. Lovelady having been dead for several decades now) whether or not Billy Lovelady ever "tugged" or "distorted" the T-shirts he wore back in 1963.


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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Are you getting the idea now that sometimes the vee manifested on Oswald, and he is the only person who ever manifested a vee? And Lovelady never did?


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why in the world would I (or any sensible person) ever make such an outlandish claim?

You have no idea what Billy Lovelady's personal habits were in 1963. None whatsoever. But you talk as if you had a conversation with Lovelady on the day of the assassination and asked him this: Hey, Billy, do you ever tug on your T-shirts, so that they become a bit distorted and out of shape? Have you ever done that before?

Did you ever have that conversation with Mr. Lovelady, Ralph?

Didn't think so.

Therefore, when you made the following foolish statement, you were merely MAKING IT UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH:

"The only one who at any time manifested such a vee- ever- was Oswald. Never Lovelady." -- R. Cinque

Can anyone imagine somebody making such a stupid blanket statement like the one I just quoted above? Incredible.

And don't miss my next post, Ralphie. It's gonna "rock your world".*

* My "rock your world" comment above was meant as a sarcastic jab aimed at Ralph Cinque, since Ralph used those exact words in this October 22, 2012, post at The Education Forum.

[NOTE -- That post is no longer there. It's been deleted. And it appears that John Simkin and/or his moderators at The Education Forum have totally removed just about every thread started at that forum by the kook named Cinque. Therefore, I can't link to that 10/22/12 post any longer, which was a post that had Cinque telling me that his bombshell discoveries during a 2012 re-enactment of the Altgens photo in Dealey Plaza were going to "rock your world". As usual, Cinque's promises turned out to be nothing but hot air -- and a big belly laugh.]


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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

There were no v-neck t-shirts by design at the time [1963]. .... They didn't make them commercially at the time. .... That would have been pretty funny if Little Boy Lee was wearing v-neck t-shirts. .... There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The following photo is a screen capture from a 1963 episode of the TV sitcom "Leave It To Beaver" (which aired on network television from 1957 to 1963, finishing its run just a few months before JFK's assassination).

The person wearing the V-neck undershirt in this screen capture is Tony Dow (who played "Wally Cleaver" in the TV series). This episode aired, by the way, on May 23, 1963. The episode is entitled "Wally's Practical Joke", in case Ralph wants to now accuse me of "faking" the image of Wally Cleaver below. The episode has been available on DVD since June of 2010.

Would you still care to claim that V-neck T-shirts were not around and were not available in 1963, Ralph? .....



I never thought that one of my favorite TV shows would ever be able to help me debunk the foolishness of a JFK conspiracy clown. But Wally and The Beav have been able to do just that. Go figure.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if I could come up with more pictures showing people wearing V-neck type undershirts and T-shirts during the 1940s and 1950s too. Why Ralph thinks that those type shirts didn't exist at all prior to November 1963 is yet another mystery.

But, as proven above via Wally Cleaver's photo, once again we can see that Ralph Cinque has decided to just make up a bunch of crap out of thin air, like when he uttered these bladder-busters earlier today [October 26, 2012]:

"There were no v-neck t-shirts by design at the time." -- R. Cinque

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them." -- R. Cinque


10/18/2013 EDIT --- Just for the heck of it, here's a second still frame from another "Leave It To Beaver" episode, which again shows "Wally" (Tony Dow) wearing a V-neck T-shirt. This is from the episode "Wally's License", which first aired on October 11, 1962:




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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

You know, research isn't about hoping for things because you want them so bad.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Look out--- It's another Pot/Kettle Alert!!


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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

You going to keep going with this, Peinhead? Are you determined to cling to the idea that Lovelady wore a vee-neck t-shirt and that's the reason why we see it on Altgens Doorman? Then why don't we see it on Wiegman Doorman?


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another Pot/Kettle Alert is upon us!

Cinque has argued in this very Internet discussion--just hours ago!--that the SAME T-shirt on Oswald's back could sometimes be pulled down into a "V" configuration, while at other times, the SAME shirt would look perfectly round and tight at the neck.

But when it comes to LOVELADY'S T-shirt, a whole new set of rules apparently applies, with Lovelady "never" (per Cinque) tugging on his shirt so that it could look anything like Oswald's.

If we look up "Pot/Kettle" in Merriam's Dictionary, I'm nearly certain we'll see Ralphie's photo amid the definition.

Plus:

Ralph's theory is that the SHIRT was NOT FAKED in the Altgens photo. And Ralph is surely not going to now start suggesting that the WIEGMAN film has been faked in some manner to eliminate the "V" shape of Doorway Man's T-shirt. Are you, Ralph?

Therefore, Cinque seems to be arguing in favor of a "V" in the T-shirt in the Altgens picture, but he is also arguing AGAINST such a "V" in Wiegman's film -- which makes NO SENSE whatsoever, since he has claimed in the past that the T-SHIRT should be identical in all of the photos and films, because only the HEAD/FACE of Lovelady was added to the Altgens photo.

So, Ralph, why are you now saying that the T-shirts look different when comparing Altgens with Wiegman? You don't even seem to know WHAT your conspiracy theory really is. Because, according to your previous arguments, if the shirt is in a "V" shape in Altgens, then it should also be in a "V" shape in Wiegman because you don't think the shirt was manipulated at all by your forever-unseen and unidentified band of photo fakers.

But you claim the T-shirt is not in a "V" in Wiegman, even though we know that the images we see in both Dave Wiegman's motion picture film and James Altgens' still photograph were being exposed through those two cameras at almost the exact same time (i.e., within seconds of each other).

Do you know which way is "up", Cinque? I'm doubting it at this point in the proceedings.

Additional hilarity relating to Cinque's last remarks:

Cinque thinks that this film taken by NBC-TV cameraman Dave Wiegman evidently provides enough information within its few blurry frames when "Doorway Man" is visible to determine exactly what type of T-shirt is being worn by the man standing in the Depository entrance. Ralph Cinque, of course, is nuts.

Relating to what I just said above about the blurriness of the Wiegman film, I will also say, however, that when freezing certain frames in Wiegman's film, the blurriness of the image can be reduced quite a bit, such as the still frame below, which shows "Doorway Man" and the front entrance of the Book Depository at just about the same time when the first shot was being fired at President Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald from Oswald's Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of this same Depository building:



But even with the sharpness and clarity increased in a Wiegman still frame (such as above), it is still very difficult to determine the precise configuration or type of T-shirt being worn by Doorway Man. I certainly wouldn't want to go out on a limb and declare with any degree of certainty anything relating to that T-shirt. And, of course, if the above still image is blown up to isolate and enlarge just "Doorway Man", the image quality only naturally gets much worse. But Ralph Cinque has no problem performing such photo analysis. Remarkable.


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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

But go ahead, Peinhead, make your move. Are you sticking to the claim that Lovelady wore a v-neck t-shirt? Is that your position?


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't know. And, more importantly, I couldn't care less.

Why?

Because it doesn't make a lick of difference. Oswald was not Doorway Man. Lovelady was Doorway Man. Period. Lovelady said so himself. Frazier said so in this 1986 video. The Warren Commission said it was Lovelady. And the HSCA said it was Lovelady.

And a fact you still will not logically assess if your life hung in the balance is the fact that Oswald HIMSELF essentially TOLD THE WORLD that he was not Doorway Man:

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."
REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

I wonder why you think Oswald HIMSELF was trying to set himself up as a patsy. God only knows why you'd think that.

In other words, when Oswald COULD have said this to the world:

"No, I was not inside the building at the time of the shooting. I was standing out front with Wesley Frazier and some of the other guys. Just ask them!"

Oswald instead tells the world this:

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Go figure.





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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ralph,

I don't give a damn about the "Vee"-shaped shadows or the "V"-neck T-shirts. It doesn't matter. Lovelady pointed HIMSELF out as being Doorway Man. And only a total loony bird from the Jim Garrison or James H. Fetzer School Of Loony-Toons would think that Billy Lovelady lied when he drew an arrow to himself (Doorway Man) in the Altgens photo.

My whole purpose in getting into this fray today was so that I could watch you (Ralph Cinque) squirm and flop around like the conspiracy-happy kook you are with respect to my T-shirt inquiries and, subsequently, the screen capture I provided that proves you didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you said this:

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them."

But now, of course, you want to move the goal posts [which Cinque did in a later post] and claim that only people who wanted to look "sexy" would buy a V-neck in '63 or that a person needed to be on the "cutting edge of fashion" to have a V-neck undergarment or that such shirts were "not popular" in '63.

But I'm afraid you're still left with this crow to chew on for all time. You said it and you can't take it back (IOW--you didn't have a clue what the hell you were talking about):

"There were no v-neck t-shirts back then. Nobody had them." -- Ralph Cinque; Resident Conspiracy Kook At All JFK Forums


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


FRANCOIS CARLIER SAID:

My God! What a long, long thread. With dozens of messages added in just one day. After reading everything, I realize I have learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Kennedy assassination.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I agree, Francois.

But, then too, it's kind of hard to learn anything from someone like Ralph Cinque who actually believes that various films (the Martin Film and the WFAA-TV news film taken at the DPD) were "faked" in order to "plant" the image of Billy Lovelady in them.

The unbelievably farfetched theory regarding those "fake" films with Lovelady, as I understand it (unless Cinque and Fetzer, et al, have moved these goal posts too since I last battled with them over this issue a few months ago [in early 2012]), is this:

The authorities who wanted desperately to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for JFK's murder knew, of course, that Oswald was really in the doorway of the TSBD at 12:30, and therefore they needed to replace OSWALD in the Altgens photo with LOVELADY (who, of course, looked somewhat like Oswald).

So the authorities (via magic it would seem, and with the help of Superman's speed to aid them in this) somehow faked the Altgens photo within minutes of Altgens snapping the shutter of his camera, and they pasted LOVELADY'S head over OSWALD'S head in the picture.

But, per the latest round of hokum from Dr. Cinque, they used a really old photo of LOVELADY to paste over OSWALD'S head (the hairline, per Cinque, is the telltale sign that the head of LOVELADY is really a much younger LOVELADY than he was in November 1963, even though, as anyone can easily see when comparing the 1963 LOVELADY with the 1964 picture of LOVELADY (shown below), the hairlines match almost perfectly; but, for some reason, Cinque thinks otherwise).



Also: The authorities didn't bother to REPLACE the shirt OSWALD was wearing in the Altgens picture. They left OSWALD'S brown shirt in the photo, even though they could, of course, have replaced the shirt too. Go figure.

And then (get this for moronic behavior) -- Per Cinque, the authorities faked the Martin and WFAA films because they needed to have some films on hand that showed LOVELADY wearing the patterned shirt that he wore on 11/22/63. This film fakery, per Cinque, was supposed to make it MORE likely that the public would believe it was LOVELADY in the doorway. But the kicker is: They apparently forgot that they ONLY faked the HEAD of Doorway Man in the Altgens picture, while leaving OSWALD'S brown shirt in the "faked" photo, thereby making their fakery of the films useless.

In fact, such fakery of those films made it almost a certainty that they would EXPOSE the conspiracy, because people would then be able to see for themselves that LOVELADY'S shirt in the fake films doesn't match OSWALD'S shirt in the halfway-faked Altgens photograph, because it's still the real OSWALD shirt in the halfway-faked Altgens picture.

Whew. How's that for cloak-and-dagger skullduggery being orchestrated by people who can only be categorized as: Complete and utter idiots of the first order?

Of course, the reality is that the patterned shirt of Lovelady is a closer match to the shirt worn by Doorway Man than Oswald's brown shirt is. Cinque and company will forever ignore this passage that appears on Page 58 of the HSCA's Final Report:

"The photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady."

And apparently Cinque doesn't even realize that his "faked films" theory, when coupled with his theory that has OSWALD'S shirt still present in the Altgens picture, makes no sense whatsoever, and is, in fact, a theory that contradicts itself and contradicts the whole motive for anyone wanting to fake the Martin and WFAA films in the first place.

(Let's watch Cinque try and dig himself out of the hole I just dug for him regarding the "fake" films. Maybe he'll weasel out of it by now saying the films weren't faked after all, or by saying that I totally misunderstood his theory on the whole. Let's watch the weasel wiggle.)


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


RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Regarding that other version of the WFAA film [referred to by DVP in
THIS POST], why is it so different from the other? You mentioned yourself
that you have to hit the pause button if you are to catch him at all. The
walk-by clip in A YEAR AGO TODAY was 13 seconds long! So, you mean to
say that on the very day of the assassination, they had the time and the wherewithal to be editing that clip of Lovelady? Why would they do that?

And just because they are claiming NOW that that's what was shown on 11/22/63, there is no reason to believe it. I've already shown you that the film was EDITED, and you certainly can't deny it. So, if they were editing on 11/22/63, they certainly could have edited since then, including yesterday. It proves nothing, Von Pein. It adds just another version to a lot that already consists of 5 or 6 others. All of that effort, and for what? To show a plaid shirt. Too bad the real Lovelady didn't know anything about it.

Ball: Did you EVER see him [Oswald] again that day?
Lovelady: No.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Cinque thinks that just because WFAA stopped short of showing ALL of the DPD film on 11/22, this means the film that was briefly shown on the afternoon of 11/22/63 on WFAA is yet another "version" of the film and has been "edited" yet again. This is the way a crackpot thinks.

It's funny, too, because Cinque now seems to be implying that WFAA was deliberately "editing that clip of Lovelady" on 11/22 (although Billy is still quite visible in the clip for a couple of seconds).

In other words -- WFAA wanted to REMOVE some of the footage of Lovelady on November 22nd, even though Cinque's whole theory on this "DPD film" subject is that the plotters wanted to ADD IN the fake image of Lovelady sitting at a desk while wearing a particular shirt.

So which is it, Cinque -- did WFAA edit the film to REMOVE Lovelady? Or to ADD IN Lovelady?

Let's watch Ralphie fly by the seat of his pants yet again, as he tries to think up a reason for anyone wanting to do BOTH of those things--remove Billy Lovelady AND add him into the film at the same time.

Also:

Cinque is evidently not capable of properly evaluating (via common sense) Billy Lovelady's Warren Commission testimony when Billy was asked "Did you ever see him [Oswald] again that day?" -- with Lovelady then answering "No".

The context of the question was fairly clear (especially given Ball's previous question to Lovelady) -- Joseph Ball wanted to know if Lovelady had seen Lee Oswald at any time again IN OR NEAR THE DEPOSITORY BUILDING (i.e., the scene of the assassination).

Cinque, of course, can't figure this easy stuff out. A third-grader could figure out what Joe Ball meant by his question to Billy Lovelady, but Dr. Cinque can't.



In addition, Cinque is also apparently not capable of figuring out that Lovelady's arrow in Commission Exhibit No. 369 has to be pointing to the same person in the Altgens picture that Wes Frazier's arrow is pointing to. We know this to be a fact because of these words spoken by Joe Ball -- "And one in the white pointing toward you."

Cinque, however, needs to be talked through this stuff like a kindergartner. But since the arrow drawn by Frazier (the one "in the white") is "pointing toward you [Billy Lovelady]", then it obviously means that the figure commonly known as "Doorway Man" IS Billy Nolan Lovelady. The word "YOU" being the key word that Cinque tries to ignore.

So, Ralph, do you think that Lovelady was acknowledging in his Warren Commission session that he was in TWO different places at the same time in the CE369 photo? I guess you must think that Lovelady was saying that very thing, because you seem to think that Billy drew an arrow to someone OTHER than Doorway Man, even though Lovelady HEARS Ball say "pointing toward you" when referring to the arrow that is "in the white".

Hint for Ralph -- there can be only ONE "you" [i.e., Lovelady] in CE369. And it couldn't be more obvious who the "you" is in the Altgens photograph.


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


STEVE BARBER SAID:

Do any of you know why this guy Ralph Cinque is claiming that a woman and her baby were a "cartoon" added to the Tina Towner film, and that the same woman and baby were inserted into the Altgens photograph?

This guy [Cinque] is making all sorts of outrageous claims pertaining to the Altgens photo, the Towner film, and such.


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


BILL BROWN SAID:

I doubt that he really believes half of what he claims.


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


GAYLE NIX JACKSON SAID:

hahahaha!! Really? I keep hearing about this "Cinque" guy and am happy to say I know nothing of him or his "theories". I don't understand, truly, why some people in this case find the most far-out people in the world to believe.


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


DAVE REITZES SAID:

If you Google Cinque, you'll find he's into all kinds of wacky stuff. With any luck he'll burn himself out on this subject and move on.


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


KYLE GIZAS SAID:

I've never heard such an in-depth discussion about a V-neck before.


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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL. And Cinque can rattle on for days about Lovelady's forehead, and various sinister activities by his always-unnamed plotters related to the half-assed patchwork job Cinque thinks they did on Doorway Man's face.

I guess it never occurred to the bumbling plotters to just TOTALLY ELIMINATE the "Doorway Man" figure in the Altgens picture entirely. Noooo. Instead, they replaced only PARTS of Oswald's face in the picture (and eliminated his shoulder, per Jim Fetzer).

Apparently they wanted to leave SOME elements of the real Oswald in the photo, so they left parts of his face and his SHIRT too, even though that shirt is something they should have certainly "Lovelady-ized". But nooooo. They were leaving Cinque bread crumbs evidently.

Ralph Cinque is a comedy team of eight---all inside one chiropractor.

David Von Pein
October 2012
May 2013
October 2013
March 2014


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


ADDENDUM....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's remarkable how Ralph Cinque can so easily convince (and delude) himself into thinking he has actually "proved" something with respect to his "photographic research" (please note the deliberate use of sarcastic quotation marks there).

Ralph hasn't moved or displaced the conclusions of the Warren Commission one inch, and yet we get fantastic declarations like the ones below from his keyboard on almost a daily basis:

"It's Oswald in the doorway; there is no doubt about it."

"New large photographic alteration discovered."

"The likenesses to Lovelady were faked."

"Bookhout shot Oswald. It wasn't Ruby. It was Bookhout."

-----------

Some questions for us to ponder....

1.) I wonder what Ralph's "secret" is to unlocking all of the sinister "fakery" that he insists exists in virtually every picture and film taken on 11/22/63, 11/23/63, and 11/24/63?

2.) What special "talent" does Dr. Ralph Cinque possess that nobody else in the history of JFK assassination research has ever possessed when it comes to evaluating and assessing the photos and films associated with the JFK murder case?

3.) How has Ralph been able to uncover so much fakery in such a relatively short period of time on the Internet, which is alleged fakery that nobody else on the planet has ever seen or uncovered, even though every one of those pictures and films has been available to everybody for decades?

I know the answers to the three questions I just asked. Do you, Ralph?

David Von Pein
March 21, 2017


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


"DOORWAY MAN"
(PART 1)

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





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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 266)

ROB CAPRIO SPEWED:

>>> "So Dave thinks this is NOT odd in the least? That two men would return to or come to Dallas in the months leading up to the assassination, and would wind up 1/2 block from each other; get jobs at the same
place (the alleged shooting location); and share rides with each other
to work." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once more the kook (Rob) is looking at things from the wrong POV
(i.e., in total hindsight).

The ONLY reason Oswald was hired at the TSBD was because of the
happenstance occurrence of Ruth Paine's house being so close to Linnie
Randle's (and Dorothy Roberts', as it was at Roberts' home where the
women got together and the subject of LHO's unemployed status came
up...which, btw, was quite obviously just another "happenstance"
occurrence, i.e., not pre-arranged in any way).

So, if the Randle and Paine houses had been--say--3 miles apart, Lee
Oswald would almost certainly have never gotten a job at the TSBD.
Because the only reason he got that job is because of the word of
mouth from Frazier, to Randle, to Paine, to Marina, to LHO.

And the only way for that word of mouth to have come about is because
of the proximity of the three homes in question -- Paine's, Randle's,
and Roberts'.

Rob, of course, thinks the ladies' coffee klatch at Dorothy Roberts'
house (NOT at Paine's house or Randle's house, keep in mind) was "pre-
arranged" in some way, in order to start the "setting-up" process of
poor schnook Lee Oswald.

Rob only works BACKWARDS, though, starting with the assassination and
then going back in time until he reaches something that looks
"suspicious" to him -- the coffee klatch at Roberts' home.

But if Robby The Idiot would simply START with the ladies' meeting at
Roberts' house and work FORWARD from that point, it should become
obvious to any reasonable person that there was nothing hinky or
conspiratorial about the way LHO got his Depository job in the
slightest.

For one (big) thing -- These ordinary Irving housewives who Rob
thinks, incredibly, were setting up and framing poor Lee Oswald
couldn't possibly have known (as of 10/14/63) that the TSBD would even
be a good spot to "place" their so-called "patsy" in. The women didn't
even know that ANY motorcade through Dallas would take place at all
during JFK's visit to the city. And they certainly didn't know any of
the detailed routing of the motorcade as of October 14.

Once you can accept the obvious answer to how LHO got his job in the
TSBD (pure ordinary everyday happenstance), the rest of Rob's
"suspicions" go flying out the window by way of the same kind of
"happenstance" and ordinary occurrences.

Such as:

Oswald couldn't drive. Wes Frazier could. And Wes Frazier had a car.
Therefore, LHO hitched a ride with Frazier down the street from the
Paine home when Lee visited his wife on weekends. Totally reasonable
and totally logical. (Unless you're a kook like Robby.)

I wonder who will be next on Rob's list of evil conspirators? He's
already got several innocent Irving housewives on his list (such as
Randle, Paine, and Roberts....and I don't see how Rob can keep Dorothy
Roberts out of his make-believe plot here either, since it was at
Roberts' own house where the so-called "setting up" of LHO took place.

I'm guessing that Rob's next targets will be Ruth Paine's young
children. And Marina's two babies too. Rachel and Junie SURELY are co-
conspirators, being as close to Marina and Ruth as they were each day.
And we probably shouldn't leave out J.D. Tippit's three kids either.
They were probably "in" on the plot too. As was Mrs. Marie Tippit.

Via a CT-Kook's mindset, the world is at your feet....and everybody
should be considered "Guilty" of being a co-conspirator.

Funny, too, isn't it? Rob doesn't want sweet Lee Harvey to be branded
as "Guilty" of any 1963 crimes (despite the barrel of evidence to
illustrate how insane that notion is)....but Robby is all too eager to
label certain housewives in Irving as "Guilty" plotters in a
conspiracy to murder the President (without a stitch of proof, of
course).

Nice double-standard you've got there, Robby. Very nice.

David Von Pein
July 1, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 265)

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Any good crime investigator will tell you there are NO coincidences in a murder case." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Go tell that to Mary Bledsoe, Johnny Brewer, and Abraham Zapruder (to name just three people who were part of the JFK Assassination landscape and who would all fit into a peripheral type of "coincidence" category with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald.

And there are probably several more examples connected to the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases that are similar to these three as well:

Coincidence #1:

Mary Bledsoe knew Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination (renting a room to him just one month prior). Bledsoe saw Oswald on Cecil McWatters' bus just minutes after Oswald murdered President Kennedy.


Coincidence #2:

Johnny Brewer was the Hardy's Shoe Store employee who was chiefly responsible for LHO's arrest after noticing Lee's "scared" and "nervous" behavior as LHO lurked in Brewer's storefront on 11/22/63. Brewer testified that he had probably seen Oswald in the Hardy's Shoe Store prior to November 22:

DAVID BELIN -- "Why did you happen to watch this particular man?"

JOHNNY C. BREWER -- "He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny."


Coincidence #3:

Abraham Zapruder took the famous 26-second home movie in Dealey Plaza that shows the entire assassination of JFK. Somewhat amazingly, Zapruder was acquainted with Jeanne LeGon several years prior to President Kennedy's assassination. LeGon would later marry George DeMohrenschildt, who would later become a close friend of Lee Harvey Oswald's.

Quoting from the book "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film":

"An interesting factoid is that Zapruder worked side by side with Jeanne (Fomenko) LeGon at Nardis of Dallas, she being a clothing designer who in 1959 married an interesting character of the same White Russian nationality named George deMohrenschildt. In the fall of 1962 the DeMohrenschildts met and befriended Lee Oswald and his Russian wife, Marina." -- Richard B. Trask; Page 353 of "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film" [Endnote](c.2005)


But, since Rob insists that "coincidences" of this nature can't possibly occur surrounding a murder case, it must certainly mean (per Robby The Idiot) that Bledsoe, Brewer, and Zapruder must have all been part of some nefarious plot to assassinate the President in Dallas.

Right, Rob?


>>> "Everything happens for a reason, this doesn't mean all of them pan out, but they are things that need to be investigated and can lead you elsewhere." <<<

And that's where you desperately want to go, of course -- "elsewhere". As long as you can stay several hundred miles away from the real murderer of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit (Lee Oswald), you're satisfied and very comfortable "elsewhere".

David Von Pein
July 1, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 264)

CONSPIRACY KOOK ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "What a sucker Bud is. Or is he the dreaded "L" word?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep -- "Logical".

>>> "The odds her brother (Linnie Mae Randle) would come to Dallas (Irving) and move in with her..." <<<

Linnie Mae doubled as her own brother, eh?


>>> "...and that her house would be just a few blocks away from Ruth Paine..." <<<

Why do you keep saying "a few blocks"? Paine's and Randle's homes
weren't nearly that far apart. They were only a half-a-block from one
another.

So, now Robby The Mega-Kook probably thinks he has even MORE of a
reason to believe there's something "suspicious" about the proximity
of the two houses in Irving (seeing as how I just placed the two
houses even closer together than the Mega-Kook was aware of).

I love watching a kook doing things backwards--like Robby always does.
He's Monday-morning quarterbacking the whole business about the
distance between the Paine and Randle houses.

Nobody but the Mega-Kook faction (like Robby Caprio) thinks there's anything
the slightest bit "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" about the general proximity
between those two Irving homes, or about the way in which LHO got his
job at the Book Depository.

So, once again we're treated to a kook's ultimate motto --
ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER.

And just think, Robby claims that the DPD, the WC, the HSCA, DVP, Bud,
and all other LNers "have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive LHO
shot JFK and JDT". But when it comes to Rob (and all other CTers)
going about the burdensome task of actually providing some PROOF for
any of their conspiracy allegations (such as this current loopy one that
the kook is implying; i.e., that Randle, Frazier, Paine, Truly et al, were
involved in some kind of plot to place LHO in the TSBD)....forget it.
It'll never happen. They can't, because no such CT proof exists, and
never did.

But a total lack of proof never stopped a CTer from accusing all kinds
of innocent people of being criminals. Right, Rob?


>>> "Do you have any clue how many homes are in Dallas and the surrounding suburbs (of course not)? Now add in her brother (Wes Frazier) getting a job at the TSBD with NO connections (supposedly)..." <<<

Yeah, I imagine getting a minimum-wage job pushing a two-wheeled cart
full of books required a massive number of inside "connections", huh?
Nobody could ever HOPE to get hired there without some "connections",
right?

~LOL Break~


>>> "LHO needed a job and they could get one so easily for him when there were NO openings (Roy Truly said so)..." <<<

Bullshit.

Let's take a look at what Roy Truly actually said (sans any CTer's
mangling and misrepresentations):

ROY TRULY -- "I told Mrs. Paine to send him down, and I would talk to him--that I didn't have anything in mind for him of a permanent nature, but if he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time."

I'll repeat this part for the kooks:

"If he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time." -- R. Truly

BTW, let's have a look at the following additional hunk of Roy Truly's
testimony -- with these words, keep in mind, coming from the lips of
one of THE MAIN "CONSPIRATORS" in a plot to murder the President of
the USA, per many CTers. He'd have to be one of the main plotters,
since it was Truly who hired Oswald:

ROY S. TRULY -- "I believe that was the first and the last time that I talked to Mrs. Paine [referring to the phone call between Truly and Paine on October 14, 1963]. In fact, I could not remember her name afterwards until I saw her name in print, and then it popped into my mind that this was the lady who called me."

So, I guess Roy Truly was a pretty decent liar, wasn't he Robby?
Because you obviously must believe that Ruth Paine and Mr. Truly were
in cahoots with one another prior to that 10/14/63 telephone
call....which means that Truly lied when he said he couldn't remember
Paine's name and he must have certainly been telling a whopper of a
lie (per the CT nutjobs) when he said he had only ONCE talked with
Ruth Paine in his entire life (on 10/14/63).

Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is
to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE
regarding Paine, Truly, Frazier, and Randle in order to weave the
magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" conspiracy plot that
kooks like Rob imagine took place.

But just because no CTer 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 morons like Rob from
pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those
very people really did occur in 1963.


>>> "You [referring to Bud] are insane." <<<

Bud is being called "insane" by a person who has said "LHO shot no one
that day [11-22-63]."

The irony abounds. (Pot & Kettle, too.)


>>> "Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO. Where is the film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass right beneath the windows of his workplace?" <<<

Searching for answers to stupid questions like the one asked above is
the forte of a good conspiracy-giddy mega-kook.

Oswald's gun, bullets, shells, fingerprints, and flight from the crime
scene (plus a positive "It Was Oswald" identification by a witness)
aren't nearly good enough for the Conspiracy Kook Faction. They enjoy
wallowing in forever-unsolvable chaff surrounding the JFK case (such
as the unanswerable question of exactly how and when LHO learned that
JFK was coming to Dallas), so the CT-Kooks will continue going around in
circles for all time, instead of following the evidence where it actually leads.

In Rob's strange world (where only Kook Rules apply), a jury could
probably never convict a defendant of a crime without having the crime
on film. If Rob were sitting on the jury during an armed robbery case
(and even though there was an eyewitness verifying the defendant's
guilt, plus fingerprint and ballistics evidence leading to the same
person), the guilty defendant would go free because the D.A. couldn't
answer this question: "Can the prosecution prove that the defendant
was even aware of where the liquor store was located prior to the date
of the robbery?"

The prison population would certainly be a lot smaller if Rob's oddball rules
for proving a person's guilt were applied in the real world.


>>> "Where is the proof that LHO even knew JFK was coming to
Dallas?" <<<

~sigh~

Reprise from one of my previous posts on this matter:

RUTH PAINE -- "As I entered the house [at approx. 5:30 PM CST on Nov. 21, 1963] and Lee had just come in, I said to him, "Our President is coming to town". And he said, "Ah, yes", and walked on into the kitchen, which was a common reply from him on anything. I was just excited about this happening, and there was his response. Nothing more was said about it."

Would Rob now like to pretend that LHO just didn't hear Mrs. Paine's
words "Our President is coming to town"? Or would Rob like to continue
to pretend that nearly every word that came out of Ruth Paine's mouth
was a lie?

Either way, Rob still will look like a kook on this one (as usual).


>>> "You're right, there is nothing suspicious here." <<<

Glad you agree. There was nothing suspicious at all about the way Lee
Oswald got his Depository job. It was all pure HAPPENSTANCE (i.e.,
EVERYDAY LIFE OCCURRENCES). And if conspiracists want to believe
otherwise, then the burden is on those conspiracists to prove it. And
wild guesses don't count as "proof". Sorry.

David Von Pein
July 1, 2008