JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1218)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Anyone who can't figure out that Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit should probably not even be walking around.

But, somehow, the Tippit murder is a big mystery to many conspiracy theorists -- despite a dozen witnesses, from various walks of life (all non-Governmental), who all place Oswald at or near 10th & Patton after 1:00 PM CST on November 22, 1963.

That's called ignoring the best evidence completely.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

DVP,

Among your dozen witnesses who saw Oswald in Oak Cliff, do you include Oswald buying the ticket to [the] Dick Clark show at Top Ten? Oswald showing a driver's license with his name on it to buy a beer? Oswald sitting in Mather's car at the Mexican restaurant? The Oswald look-alike - Cuban at the Alpha 66 house who was mistaken for Oswald in Oklahoma? And which one was it who killed Tippit?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bill,

I'm talking, of course, about the dozen witnesses who were in the immediate vicinity of Tenth & Patton at approximately 1:15 PM on November 22 and saw Oswald firing bullets into the body of a policeman and/or saw Oswald leaving that murder scene with gun in hand, dumping shells out of that gun.

I'm not talking about people who think they saw Oswald elsewhere in Dallas, doing things that we know he could not have been doing at about that same time.

Tell me, Bill, do you really and truly think that all (or any) of those other "I Saw Oswald" witnesses saw the real LHO or an "imposter" on November 22?

And if it's the latter, then what kind of goofballs were those patsy-framers anyway? They've got Oswald driving a car (when they should know the real LHO couldn't do that--at least not very well anyway), and they've even got him in other CITIES, like Oklahoma City, when he's being framed for two murders in DALLAS??

The various "mistaken identity" witnesses are fun to play around with, but they obviously were all truly mistaken. Because the real Oswald's whereabouts are accounted for. And you know that--don't you Bill?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How do you know they were "mistaken identity" witnesses, and if they were, how come the ones who saw "Oswald" shoot Tippit at 10th & Patton didn't make the same "mistaken identity," especially if there was someone or more than one person who either looked like Oswald or was intentionally impersonating him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Come on, Bill. You're kidding with this question, right?

The answer is, if course -- Because Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon
ON HIM when he was arrested, Bill.

Do you want to theorize that an Oswald "look-alike" shot Tippit with Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210, and then handed off that gun to the real Oswald less than 35 minutes later in the theater?

That's just crazy talk, Bill.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How come all the Tippit murder witnesses, at least in your mind, say they saw the historic LHO, when the others were mistaken, even though Oswald was certainly in the hood at the time?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Again, the gun.

There was only ONE Tippit murder weapon (despite Don Thomas' recent goofy claims). And that ONE gun was in the real Oswald's hands 35 minutes after Tippit was shot.

This one's a no-brainer, William. Why in the world CTers even consider this topic to be "in doubt" is the bigger mystery.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who said he was Oswald buying jeeps in Louisiana, when Oswald was in USSR?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Beats me. But I know it wasn't the same guy who shot J.D. Tippit in Oak Cliff on November 22nd.

And why on Earth would any plotters who were attempting to frame Oswald for some later crime even WANT to do something so silly by having a person pretend to be a guy who they surely knew was thousands of miles away (in Russia) at the time he was being impersonated in the state of Louisiana?

Did these so-called plotters have any brains at all?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who shot at the targets they say was Oswald when Oswald was at the Paines?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think one of those LHO sightings at the rifle range might have really been Oswald. Although the part about Oswald possibly driving away in a car is a bit hard to buy. That's the part of the story that makes me think it wasn't Oswald. But Malcolm Price and Garland Slack are pretty convincing.

And, I'll be honest, I kinda want that guy to be the Real McCoy (i.e., the real Oswald).

Why do I say that?

Because if the real Lee Harvey Oswald was target-shooting at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in September of 1963, it means that the conspiracy theorists are dead wrong about yet another one of their many theories associated with the JFK murder case -- and that's the theory about how Oswald never practiced with a rifle in the months leading up to President Kennedy's assassination.

Frankly, I'd love it if it could be proven that the person who was firing bullets into Garland Slack's paper target was, in fact, Lee H. Oswald. I know that that can never be "proven". But I wish it could be (for the reason I just stated).


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who called the embassy in Mexico City and claimed to be Oswald?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That was the real Lee Harvey Oswald, of course.

Given the wealth of documentary evidence that indicates that the real LHO was, in fact, in Mexico City in September and October of 1963, the idea that he called up the embassy in that city during the time he was down there isn't really the mystery of the ages.

Since the topic of Mexico City has arisen in this discussion, let me ask you this question Bill (which is a question that I don't recall anybody ever asking--or reasonably answering--in the past):

If the real Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT in Mexico City in late September and early October 1963, then can you tell me WHERE THE REAL LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS LOCATED during that time period in question?

As far as I am aware, there is not a single person who has ever stated that they saw Lee Oswald in New Orleans or in Fort Worth or in Dallas or in Muncie, Indiana, or anywhere else on the planet other than Mexico City during that time period when the Warren Commission said he was in Mexico City, Mexico.

How come Marina didn't see her husband during that time period if he really WASN'T in Mexico?

Did he make himself invisible for eight days and nights? Was he hiding somewhere else OTHER than Mexico City during those eight days? Where was Lee Oswald during that time if not in Mexico City?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who tried to get the job at the radio stations in Alice, Texas?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the foggiest. (And neither do you, Bill.)


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who drove the Ford down Stemmons?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think that could have been the real Oswald too. But, just like all of your other "Oswald Double" examples, it doesn't really matter in the long run. Because the ONE AND ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and J.D. Tippit. And his own actions (both before and after the shooting of the President), coupled with the physical evidence of his double-guilt, make that fact abundantly clear.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who hitchhiked a ride in the pickup to the TSBD with a rifle?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's almost certainly a bogus "sighting", Bill. The fellow who made that claim could have had knowledge of all of those details prior to telling his tale. And the kicker there, IMO, could very well be the words "window shades" (the exact words in Mr. Yates' and Mr. Jones' story), which were also the exact same words spoken by District Attorney Henry Wade during his 11/24/63 press conference after Oswald was shot and killed:




WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy with the foreign wife, little girl and baby who went to the furniture store looking for a gun shop?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no idea. (And neither do you, Bill.)

But even if it was the real Lee Oswald in that furniture store, please tell me how that fact means diddly when it comes to the evidence in the JFK/Tippit cases?

And if the family was an "Imposter Oswald Family", please tell me why any conspirators setting up Oswald for the President's murder would have wanted to go through some silly charade at a furniture store prior to the assassination? Were the plotters bored that day? And they employed a WHOLE FAMILY to impersonate the Oswald family? It's silly beyond belief.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy named Oswald who had his gun sight adjusted?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dial Ryder's story is almost certainly bogus. Bugliosi has a nice section in "Reclaiming History" which destroys Mr. Ryder.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who signed his name Lee H. Oswald; Dallas at the Nuclear Energy Museum in Tennessee?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

When you get to the Oswald sighting in my hometown of Richmond, Indiana, let me know. Because I want to know if Lee was hiding in my basement on Pearl Street while I was upstairs in my crib. (Don't forget about Ruth Paine's visit to Richmond in September of '63. There's probably a "connection" there for an industrious conspiracy theorist, don't you think?)


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How can you be so convinced that Oswald shot Tippit and then went to the movie theater when others at the theater say Oswald showed up earlier and bought popcorn? Who was that guy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, let me get this straight, Bill -- you're saying that an "Oswald" person went into the theater prior to the time when Johnny Brewer saw Oswald go into the theater?

Which would mean one of two things (both equally silly):

1.) It was the same "Oswald" who entered the theater on both of those occasions on November 22, 1963. Which would also mean that Oswald decided to GO BACK OUTSIDE after going into the theater and buying some popcorn, so that he could be seen acting "funny" and "scared" by Johnny Brewer in the lobby area of Brewer's shoe store.

or:

2.) There were two different "Oswalds" who entered the theater that day, which means that the goofy plotters were pulling another scenario like Edwin Lopez has suggested occurred in Mexico and just like John Armstrong has said occurred in the TSBD on November 22 -- with BOTH an "imposter" and the Real McCoy showing up at the same place at the very same time (or pert-near the same time anyway).

If #2 is correct, wouldn't the plotters be a little hesitant to allow an imposter to be seen in the very same place as the guy he was impersonating?

Or didn't the brain-dead conspirators give a damn about potentially blowing their "patsy" plot to bits by risking having an unknown number of possible witnesses seeing TWO Oswalds walking around in the same building at the same time?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How do you differentiate between the positive identifications of Oswald and the bogus ones?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, in the case of any sightings of Oswald being somewhere other than near Tenth & Patton at about 1:15 PM CST on 11/22/63, it's very easy to differentiate between a "bogus" sighting and a real sighting. All sightings of an "Oswald" being someplace other than near Tenth Street and Patton Avenue at that time are definitely "bogus" (for the reasons stated previously).

Common sense and geography debunk several of the other bogus sightings -- such as the ones about seeing "Oswald" in cities that we pretty much know he was not in at the time in question.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And if the bogus ones aren't a case of mistaken identity but intentional impersonation, what was that all about?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, IMO, that would be a case of the plotters who were supposedly setting up the real Oswald being mighty, mighty stupid. Because they're having him do things and be in places that only tend to advertise the fact that it's a fake Oswald.

Plus there's the fact, of course, that on Game Day (Nov. 22) all of their detailed "imposter" preparations would be sliding right down the toilet because these incredibly dumb conspirators then decided to shoot JFK with multiple guns in Dealey Plaza (according to 99% of all conspiracy theorists on the planet), thereby assuring that their lone "patsy" could never be proven to be the SOLE ASSASSIN of President Kennedy.

Apparently gray matter was in short supply in the "Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald As Our Lone Patsy" Department at Langley in 1963. Wouldn't you agree, William Kelly?

David Von Pein
December 6-7, 2010


RELATED ARTICLES:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1217)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The bald-faced lie told by Roger Craig, when he said he saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped, plain as day, on Oswald's Carcano rifle as it was discovered on the TSBD's sixth floor on 11/22/63, was certainly THE biggest and most blatant lie told by anyone connected in any way with the JFK murder case.

But try and get any conspiracist to say a single bad word about Big Fat Liar Roger Craig. Since Craig was on the "conspiracy" side of the equation, naturally all of his many lies are supposed to be ignored altogether--like his doozy about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on Oswald's Carcano (which was proven to be a Carcano via the Alyea film, which is another thing that all CTers will ignore until the cows come home).




WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

David,

Will you please explain then, why officers Weitzman and Boone, who found the rife and stated in their reports later that day that the rifle was a Mauser, aren't Big Fat Liars too?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Boone and Weitzman never claimed to see the words 7.65 MAUSER on any rifle in the Depository. Therefore, they didn't LIE.

They were merely mistaken about the type of rifle that was being hoisted in the air by J.C. Day.

And when we look at the similarities, it's easy to see how such a mistake could easily be made:




DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Take note of Roger Craig's comments in this article:



Craig claims he had no idea what type of gun was recovered from the boxes on the sixth floor, even though he said he HANDLED the rifle himself (another big fat lie from Craig).

Craig also talks about a Mauser being found on "the roof" of the TSBD (another ridiculous statement).

I guess Craig later decided to add his tall tale about actually seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on a rifle that was supposedly (per the above article) found ON THE ROOF, and not on the sixth floor at all.

That's the trouble with evolving lies like Roger Craig told. It's hard for the liar to keep all of his lies straight....as we can easily see via that interview with Craig.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Typical Von Peinian BS, all assumption, presumption and no research except what he wants to say to smear someone. This is nothing but a brief extract of an interview. Very little follow-up, if any. So one cannot ask the subject: did they eventually bring down the Mauser from the roof? When exactly did you get there? How long after the original rifle discovery?

DVP does not like it since Bernice just blew up the developing story to discredit Craig, namely that the inscription "7.65 Mauser" did not appear on the Mauser at all. She proves that on the Argentine model it did.

Oh yeah Davy, Bernice photoshopped the interview out of her imagination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More B.S. from Jimmy D., of course.

After Roger Craig invented his bald-faced lie about seeing "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle, he always maintained that it was stamped on the rifle that Lt. J.C. Day had just lifted out of the boxes on the northwest corner of the sixth floor.

Craig never claimed to see the stamp on a rifle that had later been carried down from the roof.

Craig's 7.65 Mauser lie is exposed in this [1968] article that Bernice Moore linked to earlier [in a post at The Education Forum] (even though Bernice undoubtedly thinks that that article she posted is further proof that Roger D. Craig is the Saint to end all Saints.)

But the clincher is contained in the video below, which proves for all time that Craig's lies evolved over a period of time. In the 1968 article, Roger Craig said this:

QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was pulled from the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?"

ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

But in Mark Lane's video from the 1970s, "Two Men In Dallas", Roger Craig specifically says that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that had just been lifted from the box stacks on the sixth floor. [See video below.]



The combination of the 1968 Craig interview and the above video clip exposes Roger Craig's "7.65 Mauser" lie like never before.

But I'm sure conspiracy mongers like James DiEugenio and Lee Farley will continue to pat Roger Craig on the back and treat him as a perfectly truthful and upstanding witness when it comes to this 7.65 Mauser B.S. and his tale about the bullet shells being only about three-fourths of an inch to one inch apart and all facing the exact same direction (and who would even want to PLANT shells in such a silly manner anyway?), etc.

Plus, there's also the fact that Roger Craig never said a single word about seeing any rifle with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on it during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission either. Which is, of course, yet another indication that Deputy Sheriff Craig invented his "Mauser" story only after appearing before the Warren Commission.

The word "Mauser" is not mentioned once during Craig's 1964 Warren Commission session, even after David Belin said this to Craig right after Craig told the WC about the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor:

"Anything else happen up to that time that you haven't related here that you feel might be important?"

Roger Craig's answer to Belin's above question:

"No."

In addition, Craig never said a word about seeing the Mauser stamp on the sixth-floor rifle during his 1969 Clay Shaw Trial testimony either. And also contradicting his 1968 interview, Craig never mentions handling the rifle during his testimony at Shaw's New Orleans trial either.

In short -- Anyone who supports Roger Dean Craig is supporting a known liar.

David Von Pein
October 10, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1216)

DAVID ANDREWS SAID:

It was planned to remove all bullets and identifiable fragments from the wounds before the official autopsy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But what about the potential bullets and fragments in John Connally's body?

Connally didn't die, and therefore could not be subjected to any kind of "rigged" or phony autopsy (which is what many conspiracy theorists think happened with JFK's autopsy).

So did the plotters of this grandiose "REMOVE ALL BULLETS AND IDENTIFIABLE FRAGMENTS FROM THE WOUNDS BEFORE THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY" scheme just get lucky when no bullets or large, identifiable fragments were recovered from the wounds of Governor Connally at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas?

Conspiracy theorists sound so silly when they start talking about the physical evidence in the JFK case. And what makes it so incredibly silly, of course, is the fact that none of this stupid crap they think happened with the bullet evidence ever really happened at all. Nor COULD it possibly have happened--unless all of the plotters and conspirators had the same talents and abilities as magician David Copperfield.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Regarding the shells, DVP, there is also testimony in evidence that the shells were bunched together when first discovered.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, I see that the chronic liar named Roger Craig has you hypnotized, eh?

Can't you see the idiocy of Craig's statement about the shells being only about an inch apart and all pointing the same direction?

Who would even WANT to plant shells in such an obvious "THESE SHELLS WERE PLACED HERE, THEY DIDN'T FALL THIS WAY ON THEIR OWN AFTER BEING FIRED FROM RIFLE C2766" fashion?

Just how stupid were those patsy-framers anyway? I'd really like to know.

Let's take a quick "How Stupid Were These Plotters?" inventory:

They supposedly planted a bullet on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland (per some CTers).

They planted shells in the Sniper's Nest in such a manner to make it look like they were placed there by hand (per some CTers).

They wait until Sunday, November 24th to shoot Lee Oswald, so that their "hit man" named Ruby could perform the murder on live television in front of millions of people.

They allow their one and only patsy to wander around on the lower floors of the Book Depository at the exact time they desperately need him upstairs on the sixth floor firing a gun at the President. (This one is momumentally stupid on the part of the unknown and unseen "they".)

They go to the immense trouble of impersonating LHO all over God's Creation PRIOR to November 22, and they take the time to "fake" the backyard photos (and then they get Marina to lie about them by getting her to say for the rest of her life that she, herself, took those pictures of her late husband) -- and yet when Game Day (11/22) rolls around, what do "they" do? --- They start popping away at JFK from several different directions in Dealey Plaza, even though they are supposed to be framing just ONE guy in the TSBD.

These bumbling patsy-framers must have all attended Idiots 'R Us University before commencing their "Let's Frame Oswald" project.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

If we are to accept CE399 on face value, then we must also accept other testimony that appears as evidence in the WCR, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If it's the testimony of a known liar such as Roger Dean Craig, then no.

As far as the JFK murder case goes, there was no bigger and more blatant PROVABLE liar than Roger D. Craig. No question about that fact. And anyone who places a single ounce of faith in anything that liar says in connection with the JFK assassination is nothing but a fool.

David Von Pein
September 21, 2010

EULOGIES TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY (DELIVERED IN THE CAPITOL ROTUNDA ON NOVEMBER 24, 1963)

AN ALTERNATE VERSION:



TRANSCRIPTS:



ALSO SEE:

MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 124)

OSWALD ON WDSU-TV:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25450/comment=391747


JAMES P. HOSTY VS. THOMAS J. KELLEY:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25532/comment=395575


WAS THE ZAPRUDER FILM ALTERED?:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25562/comment=395329


JIM MOORE:
http://jfkassassinationforum.com/topic=1743/message=45136


BEING OSWALD:
http://jfkassassinationforum.com/topic=1789/message=47359


A "BUMP FOR THE AGES":
https://alt.assassination.jfk/tDw1ESGChGQ/QBvL8TAaBQAJ


THE “WELL-OILED” RIFLE:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Firearms Factoids


SENATOR JOHN F. KENNEDY IN 1957 (AUDIO):
http://jfklibrary.org/archives/JFK/Audio/July 4, 1957


JFK RIDING IN LIMOUSINE (JULY 1962 PHOTO):
http://educationforum.com/topic=24892/comment=395942


DEALEY PLAZA ON 11/23/63 (PHOTO):
http://facebook.com/groups/permalink/1190622071098275


RARE DALLAS MOTORCADE PHOTOS:
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/JFK Motorcade (11/22/63)


DR. PEPPER:
http://educationforum.com/topic=24489/comment=392393


NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25472/comment=392751


COMMISSION EXHIBIT 903:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25404/comment=392421
http://educationforum.com/topic=25404/comment=392466


OSWALD'S OUT-OF-THE-ORDINARY BEHAVIOR:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25472/comment=392543


OSWALD'S WISHFUL THINKING:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25472/comment=392735


MARINA AND THE RIFLE:
http://educationforum.com/topic=25472/comment=392591
http://educationforum.com/topic=25472/comment=392596
http://educationforum.com/topic=25472/comment=392611


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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1215)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Penn & Teller weigh in on JFK conspiracy kooks:




"NICKNAME" SAID:

If ever there was an encyclopedic knowledge of the case evidence, it would be Penn and Teller. DVP needs help. He's citing non-experts again! LOL!!!!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Penn & Teller prove the "jet effect" theory is valid in that video. I don't care if it was Jack Benny and Mel Blanc doing the shooting of that melon, the point is still a valid one.

What difference does it make WHO pulls the trigger?


"NICKNAME" SAID:

As always, murder apologists like Von Pein like to have it both ways. Namely, they point to JFK's head going forward to prove a shot from behind. Then point to the "jet effect" to explain why it went backwards.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

JFK's head DOES go both directions, "Nick". Who can possibly deny that fact? And we know beyond doubt that BOTH of those actions were caused after just ONE bullet struck his head from behind. (The autopsy proves that fact.)

Ergo, there must be some explanation to reasonably explain both movements. And the jet effect can, indeed, explain the backward movement.


R. ANDERSON SAID:

I have to say though: I've never bought the jet effect (by itself) explaining the movement. I've always thought we are talking some sort of (muscle) reaction as well.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's quite possible, RA. I, too, have endorsed a COMBINATION of the two theories in conjunction with one another. We'll never know for sure, of course.

But a "jet effect" HAS been proven with melons AND with human skulls (via Dr. Lattimer's tests). So we know the jet effect is valid. There's no doubt about it.


"NICKNAME" SAID:

Unfortunately, you're at an impasse, Von Trapped. You just admitted the head goes both ways. The "jet effect" only allows for it to go one way. Now tell me, do believers or do believers NOT point to a "forward motion" on JFK as proof that the shot came from behind? One is a contradiction of the other. It takes a LNer to believe both.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The forward motion is caused by the bullet's initial contact with the skull. The jet effect occurs after the bullet passes through the skull, propelling the head in the opposite direction. So, of course, the LNers CAN "have it both ways". And they should. Because ONE bullet DID cause the head to move in different directions at different points in time.


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

Pen and Teller [sic] didn't prove squat, Von Pien [sic]. They use a honey dew melon wrapped in tape, just like "Nobel Prize winning physicist, and personal buddy of JFK, Dr. Luis W. Alvarez" used for his bogus experiments.

These melons are NOT an adequate analog of a human head. Especially one attached to the body - as Kennedy's obviously was.

You are a crank, Penn and Teller are cranks, and Dr. Luis W. Alvarez is a crank. It is a BS experiment.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Go watch Lattimer's skull tests then, Whitten. The skulls always flew backward. Every time. [See video below.]




WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

Utter nonsense. A skull sitting atop a ladder, attached to nothing, is simply not an acceptable analog to a human body. Totally bogus pseudoscience.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The fact that Dr. Lattimer's test skulls were UNTETHERED skulls on a ladder makes the backward movement of those skulls even more impressive, given the fact the bullet COULD have blown the skulls dozens of feet FORWARD off the ladder....but that didn't happen. The skulls still went backward, even though they weren't attached to anybody's "neck". (Think about it from that standpoint for a minute.)


"NICKNAME" SAID:

You guys need a new official story. For God's sake, even Specter's SBT was supposed to be a temporary placeholder until they "figured out" what happened.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

WTF?? "Placeholder"? Where did you get that from?


"NICKNAME" SAID:

Specter dreamed up some nonsense as a hypothetical theory, which was adopted at once as fact. The "proving it" came later. As you well know. Not that I hear Henry, Anderson or any other troll demanding to see Specter's "credentials" and "expertise" in ballistics, forensics, geometry, physics and so on. He just stated it; it became truth.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Given ALL the facts and factors of the shooting, the Single-Bullet Theory is the ONLY reasonable conclusion that can be reached. Any other non-SBT scenario falls way short, as conspiracy theorists surely have to know (but refuse to admit it).

Two bullets going into Kennedy and never exiting? (Ridiculous.)

Or:

A bullet passing through JFK and barely missing Connally, with Connally then being struck by a SECOND bullet IN THE UPPER BACK at virtually the exact same instant as Kennedy? (Ridiculous.)

The SBT defeats all other comers....if only via common sense alone.

David Von Pein
December 13, 2016


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

ADDENDUM....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The video below contains a rarely-seen film which depicts some of the experiments that were conducted in May of 1970 by physicist Luis W. Alvarez. The film was taken by Don Olson and made available to me in September 2023 by long-time JFK assassination researcher Paul Hoch.

Note: The unseen gunman in each of these filmed tests, from the point-of-view of the camera, is located to the RIGHT of the target....


1970 MELON EXPERIMENTS BY LUIS ALVAREZ:


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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1214)

PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Hi David,

Can you help on this one?....

In the chapter entitled "Summary of Oswald’s Guilt", Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History:

“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor.”

Bugliosi is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.

It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the 6th floor when JFK was shot. This could either be a written statement from a witness such as [an] individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.

It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the 6th floor leading up to the assassination. Anyway, I am not aware of any such statement from Oswald. Have you heard any such thing?

Thanks,
Patrick


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Go to page 957 of "Reclaiming History"....

"During Sunday's [11/24/63] interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. .... In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined. .... He said before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "WENT DOWNSTAIRS," a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one of their employees. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM? The sixth floor." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 957 of "Reclaiming History" [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Have you any idea where Bugliosi gets the info? Is it Chief Curry's notes?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bugliosi uses Page 636 of the Warren Commission Report and Harry Holmes' testimony at 7 H 302.

But we must take Holmes' notes with a granule of salt, because the word "downstairs" isn't really a direct quote attributed to Oswald. It's a paraphrased report of the things Oswald said during his November 24 final interrogation with Holmes present.

I'm wondering: Did Oswald himself really say that he "went downstairs" just after the shots? Or was that something that was perceived to be the case by Holmes?

LHO did, of course, admit to being on the upper floors of the Depository building shortly before the shooting and he admitted that he asked Charles Givens to send an elevator back UPSTAIRS to him. That information can also be found in Harry Holmes' Warren Commission testimony at 7 H 302.

Plus, of course, Charles Givens himself testified that Oswald had been on the sixth floor at about 11:55 AM and had asked Givens to send an elevator back up to him [6 H 350-351].

So, Oswald obviously HAD to have travelled "downstairs" at some point around lunchtime anyway.

But Vince Bugliosi seemed convinced that Oswald "slipped up" with the "downstairs" reference. But I'm not entirely convinced that LHO did slip up. Perhaps he did; but perhaps not. A tape recording of Oswald's exact remarks sure would be nice to have.

[Also see this related discussion.]

David Von Pein
December 12, 2016

"THE FIRST FAMILY" RECORD ALBUMS (FEATURING VAUGHN MEADER)

VOLUME 1:


VOLUME 2:






CLICK TO ENLARGE:



ALSO SEE VAUGHN MEADER
ON "WHAT'S MY LINE?":

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1213)

LEE FARLEY SAID:

You finally did it. You've left me speechless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You sound much better that way too. Maybe you should make it a habit.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

The only evidence you have is a bus ticket that was found by ole' kind hearted Priscilla [McMillan].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~chuckle~

Lee Farley thinks the bus ticket inside a book is "the only evidence" for Oswald being in Mexico City.

That is hilarity at its finest.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

I'm actually agnostic on LHO being down there, my instinct tells me he wasn't...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's because you have conspiracy instincts in your genes. No reasonable person, however, can possibly believe that Oswald was NOT in Mexico City in September and October of 1963.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

...but I'd be willing to change my mind if there was any cast iron evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, you wouldn't. That's obvious. Because there is plenty of "cast iron evidence" to prove Lee Harvey Oswald visited Mexico City in September '63. [Click here to see it.] You just want to ignore it all. (As usual.)

You WANT to believe in shady goings-on in Mexico City. You have no intention of following the real evidence where it leads--to Oswald actually being in Mexico City.

You want to believe somebody faked the hotel register. And you want to believe that all of the bus witnesses talked to an "imposter" Oswald on the busses to and from Mexico.

And you want to believe Marina is a liar when she talked at some length about Lee going to Mexico.

And you want to think that Oswald's 11/9/63 letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington is some kind of fraud too, even though that letter [Commission Exhibit No. 15] is SIGNED BY LEE H. OSWALD.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

But for you to honestly say that he wasn't impersonated is complete garbage.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The REAL Lee Harvey Oswald was positively in Mexico City. So why would anybody want to impersonate LHO when the real McCoy was already down there? You're nothing but silly.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

So it was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald down there then?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure was. Just take another quick gander at CE15. Oswald HIMSELF admitted he went to Mexico. What more proof do you need--Silvia Duran's fingerprints all over his johnson?


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway were nuts and unreasonable people, eh Dave?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Damn straight.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Whilst David Slawson was above reproach and totally reasonable?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolutely.

Maybe you should go back to being speechless again, Farley. Because your junk about Mexico City is pathetic.

David Von Pein
September 16, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1212)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Attempting to resurrect that fraud of a New Orleans prosecutor named Earling C. (Jim) Garrison (with respect to the JFK assassination case and Garrison's bogus prosecution of Clay Shaw) is enough to make anybody laugh so hard, they are likely to bust wide open.

But Jim DiEugenio seems to enjoy endorsing an obvious fraud (Garrison) who decided to prosecute his own "patsy" named Clay Shaw on a charge of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States, despite the fact that the fraud named Garrison had zero pieces of evidence to prove Shaw's complicity in the crime he was being charged with.

To show just how much of a fraud Garrison was, when Garrison boldly announced to the world on February 24, 1967, that he and his staff had "solved" the JFK case, Garrison's "star" witness, Perry Russo, had not even come forward to tell his tale of lies to Garrison and his prosecution team.

Quoting from "Reclaiming History":

"On February 24 [1967]...Garrison...announced that "my staff and I solved the case weeks ago. I wouldn't say this if I didn't have evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know the key individuals, the cities involved, and how it was done . . . There were several plots . . . The only way they are going to get away from us is to kill themselves . . . It's a case we will not lose, and anybody that wants to bet against us is invited to, but they will be disappointed." Garrison said, "There is no doubt that the entire thing [alleged plot to kill Kennedy] was planned in New Orleans."

For good measure, Garrison told the press, "I have no reason to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed anybody in Dallas on November 22, 1963." Garrison said that "the key to the whole case is through the looking glass. Black is white. White is black. I don't want to be cryptic, but that's the way it is."

Of course, Garrison was just bluffing. In fact, Perry Russo, Garrison's star witness and the one around whom he virtually built his entire case, hadn't even been interviewed by Garrison's staff yet. That took place the following day, February 25, when they spoke to him for the very first time.

Not one scrap of evidence has ever emerged that on February 24, the day Garrison announced that he and his staff had "solved the case," he had any evidence connecting anyone, in any way, with the assassination. If there were nothing else at all, this alone, by definition, would be enough to prove beyond all doubt that Garrison had no personal credibility with respect to this case.

No assassination theory, many originating with the Dealey Plaza Irregulars and bought by Garrison, was too wild or far-out for Garrison's taste. .... It is said that no other people love fantasy more than the people of New Orleans, and their elected DA intended to give them as much as their girths could hold.

Before he finally settled in on elements of the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans working for "war-oriented elements of the American power structure" as being behind the plot to kill Kennedy, the fertile-minded Orleans Parish DA saw many other different villains behind the plot and had screwy visions of how it was pulled off.

In her book about Garrison and the Shaw trial, 'False Witness', the best book on the case, Patricia Lambert chronicles, with citations, Garrison's progression of fantastic and bizarre theories, all of which he shared with the media." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1365-1366 of "Reclaiming History"

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

To hear a quick overview of the kind of "fantastic and bizarre theories" that Vince Bugliosi was referring to in the above book quote, check out Jim Garrison's January 31, 1968, interview with Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show".

At the link provided below, Carson provides the audience with a rundown of some of the various theories that the Jolly Green Crackpot named Garrison had placed on the table within just the previous eleven months prior to his 1/31/68 appearance on Carson's late-night NBC-TV program.



David Von Pein
September 6, 2010

"THE FOUR DARK DAYS" (CBS-TV SPECIAL) (AIRED ON NOVEMBER 25, 1963)

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

ALSO SEE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1211)

VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

Clint Hill is a fraud...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a lousy thing to say, Vince.

Among other things, you seem to like the idea that Agent Hill has said "the back of the head was gone", and yet you still feel comfortable labelling him as a "fraud"? Sounds a little inconsistent to me.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

I had never heard this story about Jackie clipping a lock of Kennedy's hair. But why in the world would he [Clint Hill] wait 53 years to reveal this in a book he's trying to sell? And why would he reveal such a personal moment?

Because don't you know...it's the dollars. Always the dollars.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That information about Jackie Kennedy snipping off a piece of JFK's hair in the East Room isn't a new revelation by Clint Hill. It's been out there for almost 50 years. It was revealed in William Manchester's 1967 book "The Death Of A President" (on page 517) and in Jim Bishop's book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" in 1968 (page 678) and in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (page 199). So it's certainly not brand-new information coming out for the first time in 2016.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

Thank you, David. I had no idea this was an old / regurgitated story about the hair snipping. In TDOAP, whose POV was the story told from? Just curious.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here are the exact quotations from the book:

"Together, the President's widow and brother knelt by the open coffin. This was the first time Mrs. Kennedy had seen her husband since Parkland. It isn't Jack, it isn't Jack, she kept thinking; and she was so glad Bobby had agreed to keep it shut. She put the three letters, the scrimshaw, and the cufflinks in the coffin. Bob Kennedy took off his PT tie pin. He said, "He should have this, shouldn't he?" "Yes," she whispered. Then he drew from his pocket an engraved silver rosary Ethel had given him at their wedding. Bob placed this with the letters. Then, with a lock of her husband's hair, she went out with Bob. To all of those awaiting the motorcade's departure for the rotunda, it was clear that the widow was in agony. Mary Gallagher, standing with Dr. Walsh, thought that "I had never seen her look worse. Bobby was leading her by the arm, holding her up; she was limp, with her head down, weeping. She looked as though she were ready to fall." She was swaying visibly; Clint Hill was afraid she might faint. She didn't." *

-- Page 517 of "The Death Of A President: November 20—November 25, 1963" by William Manchester (1967)

* Two necessary commas added by DVP due to Mr. Manchester's inexplicable lack of proper punctuation in various portions of his book.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

FYI / FWIW,

Here's the related passage concerning the hair-snipping done by Mrs. Kennedy that appears in Jim Bishop's book:

"Robert Kennedy held her elbow and whispered to her. They started slowly across to the center of the room. General McHugh barked an order: "Honor guard, leave the room!" There was a hesitation. Each man did an about-face and started to walk away. "No," Mrs. Kennedy said, holding up a hand. "No. They can stay." They stopped but did not turn back. One man was in midstep, and remained in that attitude. Robert led her to where Clint Hill stood. The Secret Service man lifted the lid high and stepped down. The Attorney General helped the lady up the step. She stood looking in, still wearing his dried blood on her strawberry dress and on her stockings. She stared at the image and asked for scissors. Hill got them. She reached in and snipped a lock of hair. Robert Kennedy glanced at his brother and turned his glance down. Mrs. Kennedy held the snip of hair and the scissors. Then she turned away. "It isn't Jack," she said."

-- Page 678 of "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1968)


VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

See? That wasn't even new. Thanks for proving that, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't understand, Vince. Are you saying that Clint Hill is saying that the hair-snipping incident is being revealed for the very first time in his (Hill's) book(s)?

If that is what you are implying, Vince, can you show me where within this Esquire article Clint Hill says that he's revealing the hair-snipping event for the first time? I don't think Hill is saying any such thing.

BTW, for the record....

Somebody has made a mistake concerning WHEN that hair-snipping incident took place. I just now noticed the discrepancy when comparing the various book excerpts I previously cited.

William Manchester's book has Jacqueline Kennedy performing the hair-snipping on Sunday, November 24th between 12:30 and 1:00 PM (EST), which aligns with Clint Hill's version of when that event transpired via the excerpt in the Esquire article linked above.

But Jim Bishop's book claims the hair-snipping occurred shortly after JFK's body arrived back at the White House from Bethesda in the early morning hours of Saturday, November 23rd. (Vince Bugliosi, in his 2007 book, agrees with Bishop's account.)

Since Clint Hill was actually there at the time and was a witness to the hair-snipping event as it was occurring, I think it's pretty safe to say that the November 24th date is the correct one.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

Wow, that sure is a mixed bag of messages between Manchester and Bishop. Both of their writings seem a little hackneyed, full of hyperbole, and somewhat hysterical.

McHugh "barked" - yeah right.

And other stuff. Whew.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, come now, Michael. You know what that is --- it's called "dramatic license". Some "over the top" license is always used when an author is writing in narrative style like that.

Think maybe you can cut Manchester and Bishop some slack in that "license" regard? :)


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

BTW - who in the hell wrote that book review on TDOAP [linked below]? Jesus, talk about one-sided.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's my review (of course), which is quite obvious since I "signed" it at the end.

Sorry you disapprove, Mike. (Should I have pretended Oswald was innocent because he never went to trial, like most Internet CTers keep telling me I should do?)

David Von Pein
November 25-26, 2016


BOOK REVIEW:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1210)

LEE FARLEY SAID:

I'm 100% convinced that there are saner people than you locked away.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess that must mean that I share a padded cell with Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Dave Reitzes, Larry Sturdivan, Jean Davison, Jim Moore, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and many other "LNers" who hold the same opinion I hold about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in JFK's murder. Right, Lee?

Boy, it sure is crowded here at the insane asylum.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Will you please "prove" the speculation in the points I have made?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Every single one of the points you made is nothing BUT speculation [as Farley attempts to "connect" the assassination of JFK in Dallas to the Chicago incident involving Thomas Vallee in early November of 1963].

Let's review your points:

"Point 1. The first connection is that there was a plot to assassinate the president. Pretty basic connection you've missed there."

No. It's not a "pretty basic connection" at all. And that's because you haven't proven that "Oswald/Dallas" was a "conspiracy" plot at all (i.e., a plot involving more than just Lee Harvey Oswald).

That's your first big mistake right there. You think that a conspiracy has been PROVEN in the Oswald/Dallas case. But it hasn't. Not even close, in fact. To this day, there is still not one SOLID piece of evidence that connects the assassination of JFK to anyone but Lee H. Oswald.

And that's because Oswald acted on his own on 11/22/63, and every single piece of physical evidence indicates that lone assassin fact, plus every single thing Oswald did and said (and lied about!) on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 indicates that lone assassin fact as well.


"Point 2. The second connection is it was covered up. The American public didn't hear much about it. Probably wasn't that important eh, Dave?"

The President's life is threatened on a regular basis. And JFK was no different. There are unquestionably many, many threats made against various Presidents that the public is never made aware of.

The Chicago threat by Thomas Vallee was a bit different (and certainly more serious) due to the fact that Vallee was caught with a large amount of weapons and ammunition in his car and in his apartment on the very day that JFK was scheduled to visit Chicago (November 2, 1963). This resulted in the President's trip being cancelled, because the Secret Service and other authorities had no way of knowing whether Vallee might have had any accomplices.


"Point 3. Thomas Arthur Vallee was stationed at Atsugi. Big CIA recruitment centre from what I hear. Have you heard?"

You're now implying that Thomas Vallee was connected to the "CIA" via Atsugi, which is more pure speculation, of course.


"Point 4. The plot was designed to patsify TAV [Thomas Arthur Vallee] while the assassination was going to be executed by others unknown. Get it?"

More pure speculation, of course. You have absolutely no PROOF of anything you've said in Point 4.

And your next hunk of speculation is....


"Point 5. No one knows what happened to the men who were arrested. Do you?"

Hilarious, Lee. Something that "no one knows" about is considered PROOF of a tie-in between Chicago and Dallas.

You're a speculation-filled howl, Mr. Farley.


"Point 6. Abraham Bolden's life was ruined in the most disgusting manner for attempting to speak out. Sound familiar?"

No. Not really.

Who else had their lives "ruined" by attempting to speak out about conspiracy regarding the JFK assassination? Are you referring to people like S.M. Holland? Or Jean Hill? Was Jean's life "ruined" by her book deal in 1992 and her association with Oliver Stone?

Or maybe you mean Jim Garrison. Was Jim's life "ruined" after he prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to kill JFK? Hardly.

The life of Garrison's "patsy", Clay Shaw, was certainly ruined, however. That's for sure. But Garrison was re-elected as New Orleans District Attorney by the largest margin ever. And Jim then went on to be elected twice as a judge.

Or maybe you're referring to Lee Bowers, who was killed in a car crash in August of 1966, AFTER he had already spilled his guts to Mark Lane ON CAMERA for Lane's film "Rush To Judgment".

So, it's just like I said, Lee -- You've got nothing but speculation on your pathetic list of half-a-dozen items above. And the very first item on your list pretty much makes all five of the other points completely moot right off the bat--because you can't even prove the case for conspiracy in the Dallas/Oswald shooting.

Well, I'll go back to my insane asylum now. I've got a date to play checkers with Bugliosi through the bars of our adjoining padded cells.

David Von Pein
September 5, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1209)

PAT SPEER SAID:

Come on, Dave, you can do better. That last post [linked here] was a total embarrassment.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's odd. I just now re-read it and thought it was quite good, lucid, and reasonable. (Especially considering the fact I am up against an ABO CTer [i.e., an Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorist]; and those people can be knocked down without even trying.)


PAT SPEER SAID:

I think Martin is right, and that the heat here [at The Education Forum] is too hot for you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL. What heat, Pat? All I'm hearing is Jim DiEugenio's usual Anybody-But-Oswald take on everything from Hoover, to Warren, to Specter, to the SBT, to the HSCA. And he relies almost exclusively on other conspiracy authors for his sources. (And no conspiracy-promoting authors would ever have an agenda, would they Pat?)

And, btw, yes, Vince Bugliosi DID have an agenda from Day 1 of writing "Reclaiming History". He knew by the time he started writing his book in 1986 that Oswald killed two people and very very likely had acted alone. So, yes, that IS an "agenda". I don't deny that fact.

So, if you want to toss Vince and his huge tome of rock-solid evidence and facts under the bus because of his Oswald-was-guilty "agenda", well, then, I guess you can do that if you want. But I'll hang on to my copy of "Reclaiming History", because in my opinion it contains the truth about the way John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963.


PAT SPEER SAID:

It certainly appears that you're trying to get yourself booted so you can crawl back to aaj complaining about how all those kooks over on the ED Forum teamed up on you....waaa!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong about that, Pat. I'm just passionate about my position. And I get a little testy and irritable when confronted with someone like Jim DiEugenio, who believes in two things that are just not supported by ANY of the evidence in this case -- 1. Oswald was innocent of shooting Jack Kennedy; and 2. Oswald was also innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit.


PAT SPEER SAID:

Dr. Lattimer said that the bullet entering Kennedy's back entered at the level of his chin. He also said that he thought the autopsy measurements were correct, and that the back wound was roughly 14 cm below the bottom tip of the right mastoid process. Do you agree?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree with the autopsy measurements, of course. After all, that's one of the few precise measurements regarding the wounds that we've actually got to rely on. The back wound was certainly 14 cm. below the mastoid (although the HSCA said it was 13.5 cm.). But I can live with either of those measurements, to be honest. And either measurement most certainly places the back wound anatomically higher than the throat wound.



As for Lattimer's "chin" reference -- The diagram Dr. Lattimer uses on page 180 of his book [pictured below] appears to me to have an angle through JFK's body that is too steeply downward. It looks steeper than 17.72 degrees [17 degrees, 43 minutes] to me anyway.



If the angle were to be lessened to the correct 17.72-degree figure, then the back wound would be LOWER than where Lattimer shows it to be on page 180.

Of course, via Lattimer's diagram, if the back wound were to be lowered, it would likely mean that a bone in Kennedy's back would be hit. But since we know no bones were hit in JFK's upper back, then I have no choice but to conclude that Lattimer's illustration is flawed in a "bone structure of the human body" regard as well.

David Von Pein
September 1, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1208)

BERNIE LAVERICK SAID:

David, I have asked this question a few times on here, but as yet no one has dared to give an answer. Even a ridiculous one! Maybe you could tell me when YOU think Oswald first made the decision to kill Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The answer to that question can never be known. You know that. Everybody knows it's an unanswerable question, and different people will have different opinions about it.

My own "opinion" is that he probably made the decision to try to make an attempt on JFK's life sometime on Wednesday evening, November 20th. He then asks Wes Frazier for the unusual ride to Irving on Thursday morning and LHO invents his "curtain rod" lie at that time.

So it's pretty clear that by Thursday AM, he had it in his mind to make an attempt on JFK's life.

But on Thursday night, per Marina, LHO says that he would get an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if she would agree to come back to Dallas with him to live right away. So it's highly unlikely he would have taken that rifle to work with him on Friday if Marina had said "Yes".

The rest is history, of course. LHO took his rifle to work on Nov. 22 and got extremely lucky when he found himself completely alone on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30.

If Bonnie Ray Williams (or other employees) had been up there on the sixth floor at 12:30, there is no way, IMO, that Oswald would have fired a single shot at JFK.

So, yes, Oswald was one LUCKY Presidential assassin on November 22, 1963. No question about that. But he WAS a Presidential assassin that day. There's no question about THAT either.


J. RAYMOND CARROLL SAID:

In the immortal words of John McEnroe:

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

Lee Oswald never harmed anyone.

YOU GUYS ARE BUSY COVERING UP THE REAL KILLERS!


JACK WHITE SAID:

Good grief! Von Pain [sic] is back.


BERNIE LAVERICK SAID:

Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them. If not they wouldn't be patsies, would they?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, sure. And the police in the Texas Theater just shoved the Smith & Wesson .38 into Oswald's hands in the theater and whispered to him --

"Hey, Lee, would you be kind enough to go along with this patsy plot we're undertaking today, and take this gun and act like you want to shoot a bunch of us cops with it? How 'bout it, buddy? Will you help us out with this thing? I'll buy you a beer (or a Dr. Pepper) if you do."




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP likes to make up unlikely scenarios that he can then ridicule. All the time ignoring much more likely ones that he cannot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, sure. It's much MUCH more "likely" for the revolver to have been "planted" on Oswald in the theater than it is to believe Johnny Brewer and all of the cops who were there (who all said Oswald pulled the gun out of his waist and tried to shoot some people with it) -- right Jim?

Jim, please stop! You know my bladder is a very weak one!




DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

BTW, on John McAdams' moderated forum at alt.assassination.jfk, one of my very favorite "LNers" chimed in today with this excellent message about The Education Forum that I wanted to share:

[Quote On:]

"Hey David, good to see you back stirring up the retards on the Education Forum. It's unbelievable the type of responses your return is generating. One stupid idea after another offered, they've created this image of Oswald and just plug in everything into this mythical creation.

A lot of things said in the one post you started about Oswald's room had me shaking my head, but this one by Bernie Laverick has to be the topper...

"Yes, David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them. If not they wouldn't be patsies, would they?"

Mind-numbingly retarded on many different levels. How can you tell innocent people from guilty people if not by incriminating evidence (in fact, it seems the incriminating evidence is seen as an indicator of Oswald's innocence)?

Who carries things that they don't know the "whys" about? Oswald was taken alive, why isn't he making any effort to set the record straight about this incriminating evidence he is caught with? [The] kooks just have a flawed way of looking at things, and nothing anyone can do is going to change that."

-- Bud; August 3, 2010


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

See, unlike the world of Reclaiming History, we all know that the FBI lied, distorted, manipulated and manufactured evidence in this case. It started the very day of the assassination with the FBI call to Tomlinson telling him to shut up about the bullet he found.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't believe for a single solitary second that the FBI called up Darrell Tomlinson on the night of the assassination and told him to "shut up" about the bullet he found. I find it impossible to believe that the FBI actually said those two words ("shut up") to Tomlinson.

My guess is that the conspiracy author who wrote about that FBI phone call to Tomlinson was putting a nice healthy layer of "conspiracy spin" on the whole thing. And it's possible that Tomlinson himself was putting a layer of CT spin on the story too. Tomlinson, after all, is a man who told the Warren Commission no fewer than TEN TIMES that he was "not sure" which stretcher he had taken off of the elevator at Parkland, and yet Darrell's memory improved greatly in the 24 years following his 1964 WC session, when he told the PBS-TV cameras in 1988 that he was absolutely positive that the stretcher he took from the elevator was the stretcher that did NOT have a bullet on it.

What very likely happened is this:

The FBI called up Darrell Tomlinson (which, I'll admit, is a telephone call that the FBI could have possibly made), and since it was very late on Nov. 22, it probably meant that Oswald had already been formally charged with the murder of President Kennedy (LHO was officially charged with the assassination at 11:26 PM CST on Nov. 22).

The FBI, knowing that Tomlinson had found a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then told Tomlinson it would probably be a good idea not to discuss the details of his finding that bullet with anyone until Oswald's court trial could take place.

Yes, the above scenario is just a guess on my part. But it makes a lot of (common) sense to me. And I certainly don't believe for a minute that the FBI was involved in any kind of a cover-up or a conspiracy in connection with the stretcher bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland. And I'd bet the farm that the words "shut up" were never uttered by any FBI agent during the course of any telephone call between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Darrell C. Tomlinson.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP [in this post] is actually using the Klein's money order to prove that Oswald used the alias Hidell.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL. Of course I am. And any rational, sensible, reasonable person would do the very same thing.

Jim apparently thinks a key piece of evidence like the money order Lee Oswald made out to Klein's Sporting Goods is supposed to be IGNORED and/or DISMISSED.

How nice and convenient for you, Jim, that you feel so comfortable merely dismissing the testimony of the handwriting experts.

Of course, as we all know, Jim and his fellow Anybody But Oswald groupies don't have the slightest hesitation whatsoever in throwing ALL of the evidence that points to Patsy Oswald out the nearest window.

My, how convenient.

It means NOTHING to Jim D. and the ABO crowd that every official investigative committee who has ever looked into JFK's murder has determined that LEE HARVEY OSWALD killed President Kennedy.

The irrevocable fact that has BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee coming to the same conclusion about OSWALD being the only person in Dealey Plaza who hit any victim with any bullets on November 22 is a fact that people like Jim DiEugenio will totally ignore.

Mind-boggling....isn't it?


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

[Lee] Farley is citing passages from John "Two LHOs & Two Marguerites" Armstrong to bolster his claims about the wallet.

Hilarious.


JACK WHITE SAID:

VonPain [sic] obviously does not know how many Marguerites there were.




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ohhhh, my poor, poor bladder!




A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

William Whaley claims his reenactment took him 9 minutes to get from where he picked Oswald up to the rooming house and that was when the lights went his way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, cab driver William W. Whaley did say it took "nine minutes" to perform one of the re-enactments from Greyhound to Beckley and Neely [at 2 H 259]. But you're leaving out the other re-enactment, which was performed on the same day Whaley gave additional testimony in front of the Warren Commission (April 8, 1964).

In that second re-enactment with Whaley and Warren Commission counsel member David W. Belin present, the cab ride was reconstructed from the Greyhound bus terminal to the intersection of Beckley Avenue and Neely Street in Oak Cliff (which is where Whaley said Oswald got out of the taxicab).

That 4/8/64 re-creation was timed by stopwatch at 5 minutes and 30 seconds [see 6 H 434 and WCR Page 163].

DAVID BELIN -- "When we went out there today, when we started the stopwatch from the Greyhound bus station to the 700 block of North Beckley, do you know about how many minutes that was on the stop watch?"

WILLIAM WHALEY -- "A little more than 5 minutes, between 5 and 6 minutes."

MR. BELIN -- "Would your trip that day, on November 22, have been longer or shorter, or about the same time as the trip we took today?"

MR. WHALEY -- "It would be approximately the same time, sir, give or take a few seconds, not minutes. Because the man drove just about as near to my driving as possible. We made every light that I made, and we stopped on the lights that I stopped on."

MR. BELIN -- "Let the record show that the stopwatch was 5 minutes and 30 seconds from the commencement of the ride to the end of the ride."


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

So Dave,

Why do you think Oswald had Whaley drive him FIVE blocks past his rooming house, so then he had to walk back?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Simple, Bill. The reason was very likely two-fold on Oswald's part:

LHO didn't want the cab driver to know exactly where he lived. And #2 (which is even a better reason IMO), he wanted to see if any police or strangers were lurking near 1026 Beckley. After all, he had just killed the President, and he had to know that the cops would be hot on his trail very soon.

Yes, he could, of course, have checked the immediate area around his roominghouse for cop cars and "strangers", etc., and then have Whaley let him out just a few yards beyond the roominghouse, which would have made the walk back to his room much shorter. But he didn't do that. And since nobody can read his mind on this issue, we'll never know for sure exactly why Oswald did all of the things he did on November 22. But we know he DID do them.

And: Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).

I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).

But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.

Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate.

BTW, Oswald was driven only THREE blocks past his roominghouse, Bill. Not five. LHO had Whaley drop him off in the 700 block of N. Beckley, instead of travelling all the way to the 500 block, which LHO originally told Whaley was his destination.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Now you are saying that you want to use the official Whaley reenactment time of 5 minutes, 30 seconds. That's fine. Use the official WC timing. Will you also be using the official Warren Commission timing of Oswald's walk from Beckley to Patton? 17 minutes and 45 seconds. Are you going to use this in your timeline, Dave?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You obviously cannot read. Because David Belin fully explains at 6 H 434 that the 17:45 timing was the "LONG WAY AROUND ROUTE". Taking a more direct route (plus moving a little faster than the "AVERAGE WALKING PACE" that was utilized during the Commission's 17:45 trip) would have shaved considerable time off of that 17-minute journey.

Who's cherry-picking now, Lee? You seem to leave out quite a few important addendums when talking about the evidence (like Belin's "Long Way Around Route" verbiage).


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Why are you showing me a picture of a brand spanking new bus ticket? Oh, wait. That's "THE" bus ticket, isn't it? The one that had a fight with 10 police officers? I forgot about the third tactic that you and your ilk use, didn't I? I defined two. The "Who shot JFK then?" fall back position. The "How many people were involved in the massive conspiracy?" fall back position. And now we add the "So how many people were liars then?" fall back position.

If it wasn't so predictable, it would be somewhat amusing.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All three of those "fall back" positions are perfectly reasonable. You only mock them because you have no reasonable answers to combat them.

Your silly Anybody-But-Oswald theory requires the coordination of dozens upon dozens (maybe hundreds) of people, cutting across all walks of life (both civilians and otherwise), working in concert to frame your innocent, snow-white patsy named Lee Harvey.

So, now the bus ticket is a plant too. Great. What's next? Oswald's brown shirt which was consistent with the fibers found in the rifle's butt plate? Was that shirt planted right on his back on November 22?

BTW, please prove to the world that a paper bus transfer that was in a person's shirt pocket MUST be mutilated beyond recognition after a brief scuffle with police officers in a theater. I'd like to see that proof.

If you ABO nutjobs weren't so predictable....you'd still be predictable (and really, really silly, to boot).


LEE FARLEY SAID:

How long does Oswald have to walk the distance to kill Tippit at 1:09 PM? I've walked the distance myself. It took me just under 20 minutes.

But granted, I didn't know the area very well and it wasn't the best of neighborhoods, so I didn't want to draw attention to myself by walking too quickly. Hey, a bit like Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The trip from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit murder scene has been done in about 11 minutes, Lee. You know that.

And the most important re-creations are the ones that can determine (if possible) the MINIMUM amount of time that these things can be done in -- like the cab re-enactments. We've got two conflicting times, yes. No doubt about that. We've got a nine-minute trip and a 5.5-minute trip.

But since we know beyond all doubt that the trip can be made in 5-and-a-half minutes, why on Earth would the Warren Commission assume that the nine-minute trip is more reasonable, even though they also knew darn well that maybe Oswald and Whaley made the cab trip in just 5.5 minutes?

Another LNer at another forum pointed out a similar line of thought regarding the re-creations of Oswald's alleged movements when he went from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunch room.

The other LNer made a good point in asking (in essence): Why in the world didn't the WC and FBI do a reconstruction of Oswald's movements AT THE FASTEST SPEED POSSIBLE by Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett (who is the SS man who performed two such re-creations in the TSBD in 1964 for the Warren Commission)?

But the Warren Commission and Howlett didn't perform a "FASTEST TIME POSSIBLE" re-creation. If they had, Howlett would certainly have been able to shave quite a few seconds off of his two "walking" times.

Howlett did one reconstruction at a "normal walk", which was 78 seconds; and he performed another re-creation at a "fast walk", which only shaved four seconds off his time, with the "fast walk" re-creation clocking in at 74 seconds.

But an out-and-out RUNNING re-creation would have resulted, quite obviously, in a much quicker time on the stopwatch -- probably well under 60 seconds.

But, even though the WC did not perform such a "fastest time possible" test, Howlett (even while WALKING) was able to get to the second floor in only 78 seconds, which was a few seconds ahead of Marrion Baker's average of 82.5 seconds for his two re-creations of his November 22 movements.

I wonder why more conspiracy theorists never bother to take note of the raw FACTS that I just mentioned in my last paragraph? (Maybe it's because such raw FACTS would shoot to hell their silly notion that they've embraced for decades, and that is the notion/myth that Oswald could not possibly have made it from the Sniper's Nest to the lunchroom in under two minutes.)

David Von Pein
August 2-21, 2010
November 21, 2016