DIGITALLY PRESERVING THE JFK ASSASSINATION BULLETS

RELATED ARTICLE:







Below are some of the hi-def digital replicas of the
JFK assassination bullets created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2019 (click to enlarge):














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

ALSO SEE:

STEVE BARBER

2019 INTERVIEW:



















STEVE BARBER ON THIS SITE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1337)

ALAN FORD SAID:

The lunchroom encounter story was contrived.

Mr Oswald, we now know, actually told Captain Fritz he had visited the second-floor lunchroom for a coke before the assassination and then went back down to the first floor to eat his lunch... and then 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Captain Fritz & co. kept these explosive claims a secret----------and the truth only came out very recently....when Agent Hosty's notes were unearthed!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The recent "Hosty's Notes" revelation doesn't come close to erasing the Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter or exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's murder. And if Oswald had actually been "outside to watch P. Parade" when JFK was shot, then please tell me why I don't have this statement coming directly from Oswald's own lips in my extensive JFK assassination audio/video collection (which is a statement that all sensible people know most certainly would have been uttered by the accused assassin in front of the live television cameras and microphones on either November 22nd or November 23rd if that accused assassin had really been standing on the front stoop of the Book Depository at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63)....

"I can't possibly be the killer the police are looking for! I was standing outside drinking a Coke with my fellow employees Buell Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady when the President passed by my building! So how could I be the assassin?! This is nuts!!" -- Lee H. Oswald; Nov. 22 or 23, 1963

More on Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22, 1963....




ALAN FORD SAID:

Officer Baker encountered Mr Oswald at the front entrance to the building. He needed to know if Mr Oswald was an employee so he could show him the way to the stairs. Mr Truly then intervened and offered to escort Officer Baker.

There may have been no 'man walking away from the stairway' on the 'third or fourth floor'------------Officer Baker may have been told 'We have the assassin, he worked in the building, we need you to add him to your story'.

And then----------while Officer Baker is giving his affidavit statement based on a suspect description handed to him----------who is brought in past him? Only the guy he ran into at the front door!!

Does Officer Baker's affidavit note that the man in handcuffs was the man on the third or fourth floor? No.

Does Officer Baker identify Mr Oswald in a subsequent lineup as the man on the third or fourth floor? No.

Most likely Officer Baker agreed to invent an encounter with an employee by the back stairs up a few floors, but----------when he found out that the employee being accused of shooting JFK was an employee who couldn't possibly have been up on the sixth floor at the time-----------he was stunned. It would explain why he took so long to put his name to the official story!

But! If Officer Baker really did encounter a man walking away from the stairway a few floors up, it was someone involved in the assassination. Which raises the question: Why did Mr Truly vouch for him as an employee?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All of the above is pure crap, of course.

It's intriguing to watch the Internet conspiracy theorists---decade after decade---invent their made-up scenarios so they can continue to pretend---year after year---that Oswald didn't fire a shot at anybody in Dallas on November 22nd. A very strange hobby, indeed.

Lots more on the Lunchroom Encounter: HERE, HERE, and HERE.


REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

...please tell me why I don't have this statement coming directly from Oswald's own lips in my extensive JFK assassination audio/video collection...


ALAN FORD SAID:

Because, Mr von Pein [sic], the interrogations weren't recorded!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Ford,

Oh, for Pete's sake! I wasn't talking about the "interrogations" of Oswald. As I clearly said, I was talking about the "live television cameras and microphones" that were being stuck in Oswald's face on multiple occasions on both Nov. 22nd and 23rd.

If Lee Harvey Oswald had really been located on the TSBD front steps when the assassination occurred, then no conspiracy theorist can possibly explain (in a reasonable fashion) why Oswald didn't shout out to the many reporters in the DPD hallways, "I was on the steps at 12:30, so I can't be JFK's killer!"

And the fact that Lee Oswald didn't make such a statement to the press in the corridors of the Dallas Police Department (when he obviously could have very easily done so, and the DPD wouldn't have been able to stop him) is one of the main reasons we can know, with nearly 100% certainty, that Lee Harvey Oswald is not "Prayer Man".


ALAN FORD SAID:

Mr von Pein [sic], you believe the second-floor lunchroom incident involving Officer Baker and Mr Oswald and Mr Truly took place, yes?

Well, let's run with that, shall we?

What a stroke of luck for the assassin, Mr Oswald! He gets spotted just after the shooting, way way way down on the second floor.

Why didn't he shout out to the many reporters in the DPD hallways, "I was in the second-floor lunchroom the whole time, ask the cop and my boss------they saw me there right after the shooting!"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nice attempt at dodging the point I was making.

The point (again) being:

If Lee Oswald WAS REALLY INNOCENT of shooting the President, and if Oswald had REALLY BEEN located out on the front steps of the Book Depository Building at the exact moment when JFK was getting shot (as many Internet conspiracists firmly believes is true), then it's virtually impossible to believe that Oswald would have remainded DEAD SILENT about his FACTUAL ALIBI when those live television cameras were staring him in the face on both November 22nd and 23rd.

And the fact that Oswald actually told reporters that he was located inside the TSBD building at the time of the assassination eliminates the idea that LHO was standing outside on the front steps when JFK was being shot (unless some inventive conspiracy theorist can come up with a plausible reason for an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald to want to LIE to the press when he said he was INSIDE even though he was really OUTSIDE)....

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







ALAN FORD SAID:

Because Captain Fritz was managing his perception of what was happening to him.

He may simply have told him, 'Look, we know you were out front at the time, that's been corroborated, but we're charging you because we can tie you to the rifle used in the shooting'.

------> Risk of Mr Oswald blurting out his alibi to the cameras? Zilcho!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More made-up garbage (of course).


ALAN FORD SAID:

What you need to explain, Mr von Pein [sic], is why Mr Oswald's claim to have gone 'outside to watch P. parade' was hushed up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It wasn't. CTers just can't properly evaluate the evidence, that's all. For example....Click Here.

David Von Pein
October 24, 2019

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1336)

SPENCE SAID:

Fetzer finally gets what's coming to him. I hope all the parents sue....

[Click:]



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excellent news! More power to Mr. Pozner!!

Now we need to convince Ruth Paine to start up her series of defamation lawsuits against a whole host of silly JFK conspiracy theorists who continue to say stupid things like this....

"Who can believe these people [Ruth and Michael Paine]? Both of them as phony as three dollar bills. .... I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book." -- James DiEugenio; April 13-14, 2013

http://jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87


STEVEN M. GALBRAITH SAID:

Recorded on November 19 of this year and just uploaded:




AN ANONYMOUS CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

Somewhat sad, really. Ruth is like Sinatra in his last years, just stumbling around and forgetting her lines. Now it was Marina and not Odum who asked for the ring.

She probably spends most of her time envying the mysteriously dead, who died in their primes with all their faculties intact. That Jada! She knew how to live and she knew how to die, getting hit by a bus while riding her motorcycle. That's the way to go, not lingering around for years in a Friends hospice, watching movies of folk dances and gumming down the oatmeal. Very sad indeed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think what you just said about Ruth Paine is ridiculous.

IMO, for a lady in her late 80s now, I think she is still very lucid and coherent, and she always gives a great interview. I love her. Always have, always will.

You should apologize to Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine. And a lot of other people (i.e., conspiracy theorists) should too. (IMHO.)

David Von Pein
October 17, 2019
December 14, 2019

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1335)

CHUCK SCHUYLER SAID:

I've always said that belief in a JFK assassination conspiracy is a mile wide and an inch deep. The AVERAGE person--who perhaps has read Crossfire and saw the movie JFK and heard the dad of one of his friends who was in the Marines say that the shots were impossible--can be convinced Oswald acted alone if they read both sides of the argument.

However, the hardcore hobbyist/buff--Anthony Marsh at this board being the prime example--will NEVER be convinced that a large conspiracy didn't kill JFK. Marsh will take it to his grave that a large conspiracy killed JFK, as did Mark Lane and tens of thousands of lesser known buffs.

Anecdotally, I do believe minds have been changing, at least regarding those who participate in online discussions about the case. It is true that the older buffs are retiring from the hobby or passing on, but among the younger buffs without a connection to the 60s, there is at least a willingness to read both sides of the debate and be more objective about it. I participate at a Facebook JFK board which is over 50% CT, and it's remarkable how often these same people who join the group, after perhaps trotting out out a cherished factoid about the assassination that is quickly and convincingly rebutted, announce at some point that they've "converted" to the Oswald Alone viewpoint. It seems that many of these casual buffs have one or two sticking points, and when the sticking point is "unstuck", their mind is free to accept the obvious: Oswald alone, no known help. There's just too much evidence pointing directly to Oswald.

This willingness to convert to the Oswald alone camp can in part be chalked up to the larger number of folks who believe there WAS a conspiracy, but nonetheless I do not see people who read in their HS history book that Oswald killed JFK then going online to this board or watching ABC's Beyond Conspiracy on YouTube, etc. and suddenly becoming a JFK buff.

I'm an example of a converted "buff" who spent my teen years in the 70s believing Oswald killed JFK but that there was foreknowledge and some additional connections. I stumbled upon John's [McAdams] website in the early 2000s and read it for five minutes and all of the CT silliness fell away from me. It turns out that the internet--which is great at spreading fake news--is also pretty powerful in combating it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's nice to hear that there are at least some people who post on Internet forums who are willing to accept the evidence in the JFK case as valid evidence, instead of trying to pretend (as most Internet conspiracy theorists do) that all (or most) of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was fake, planted, or manufactured from whole cloth.

Here are some recent quotes I saw at The Education Forum from a CTer named Rich Pope:

"I don't think LBJ did it, I know he did! .... Anyone who claims Jack Ruby wasn't connected to Carlos Marcello is a fool. .... Anyone who doesn't think LBJ was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK is laughable."

Now, we all know as surely as night follows day and as surely as a thunderstorm follows a car wash that Rich Pope has absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever to back up his claims about LBJ, Ruby, and Marcello. Mr. Pope is doing nothing more than talking through his hat (as all JFK CTers have been doing since 1963).

But despite a total lack of evidence for their claims, the JFK conspiracy theorists continue to spout their unsupportable and outlandish claims year after year (such as Pope's rant that I quoted above). But no matter how dedicated the CTers of the world remain, the true FACTS of Lee Oswald's lone guilt in John Kennedy's murder will never fade into cyberspace.

Here's an exchange I had just a couple of days ago at Duncan MacRae's JFK forum. (For some reason, though, Duncan decided to delete this whole thread entirely, which has me perplexed. So I'm glad I copied these posts before they disappeared.) ....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Does this mean that I have to agree with your opinion to be deemed to be reasonable?

DVP SAID:

Yes. Of course.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Or could it be you are in fact the unreasonable one by considering your opinion to be superior to those of people who disagree with you?

DVP SAID:

No. And for one simple (and blatantly obvious) reason:

The evidence (overwhelmingly) shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of two 1963 murders.

Therefore, the opinion of a person who thinks Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22/63 cannot possibly be a "reasonable" opinion. .... The evidence shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that all this stuff was faked.

David Von Pein
October 8, 2019

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1334)

CHRISTINA FLOWERS SAID:

During Mr Oswald's nighttime press conference, a lot of loud chair noise was heard going on in the background in the audio.

Someone in authority then yells, "At ease!"

The chair noises then cease and Oswald continues his answers to the press. As Oswald was stating "No, no one has said that to me yet", someone loudly interrupts him and states, "Nobody said what! Nobody said what!"

Oswald then looks straight toward the general position that Jack Ruby was standing in and then Oswald tightens and purses his lips.

Has anyone ever heard anything at all about who that may have been making all that racket with the metal chairs and who it may have been who stated loudly "Nobody said what! Nobody said what!"..?

The reason I ask is because if it was Jack Ruby himself who was the one making all of the racket with the metal folding chairs, who then was told to stop, and if it was Jack Ruby himself who was the one who interrupted Oswald by saying "Nobody said what", then we could have all been witnessing a major witness intimidation episode on live national TV during that nighttime press conference.

Jack Ruby of course is the one who finally did shut Oswald up for good one and a half days later on that fateful Sunday morning of that very same weekend.

If anyone ever runs across a reference in their reading material or could ask around to their colleagues as to who that may have been, could you please post it here in this thread and thank you in advance.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1221#Nobody Said What?

Also See:

http://jfk-archives/Oswald's Midnight Press Conference


BILL BROWN SAID:

In my opinion, Oswald tightens and purses his lips upon hearing Chief Curry say "Okay men. Okay." To me, this is obvious. Curry was calling for an end to the press conference and Oswald was not ready for it to be over just yet.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"The major reaction that I see from Oswald at his famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. Poor Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed from that room right after his brief press conference.

Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being officially charged with the President's murder.

Knowing that he assassinated Kennedy AND that he had left a popcorn trail of physical evidence behind on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building AND that he had been arrested earlier in the day on a charge of murdering a policeman, Oswald therefore couldn't possibly have thought that he WOULDN'T eventually be officially charged with the President's murder too.

Unless Oswald was completely retarded (which he certainly wasn't), he had to realize that Presidential assassins aren't normally given just a light slap on the wrist and a $10 fine for having assassinated a U.S. President.

Given these undeniable facts regarding Oswald's guilt, there's no way that Lee Harvey could have been shocked very much (if at all) when the reporter told him he had already been charged with JFK's assassination.

Here's my guess (and I fully admit this is just a wild guess, and I certainly could be wrong about this)---

Oswald looked a little bit surprised possibly due to the fact that a NEWS REPORTER was breaking the news to him that he was being charged with the death of the President.

This was probably a very unusual case where the prisoner (being held in a police station, with policemen and detectives all around him for ten hours!) first learned of a murder charge against him from a news reporter, instead of first learning of that murder charge from the police themselves. This possibly startled and surprised Oswald a little bit, to hear that news FIRST from a newsman, vs. the cops who were surrounding him.

Again, that's just a pure guess on my part. But there's no way in Hades that Oswald truly thought he WOULDN'T be charged with JFK's murder, in light of the massive amount of evidence he conveniently left behind (not to mention the circumstantial stuff, such as the many lies he told the police in those first ten hours of interrogation).

I'll also add this -- It's quite possible that Oswald didn't even hear the reporter say the words "You have been charged". There was quite a bit of noise in that room at that particular time, so maybe Oswald didn't even hear the reporter. On the videotape version of the midnight press conference, the reporter's words "You have been charged" are, indeed, quite audible and clear. But from where Oswald was standing, I'm wondering if he heard those words as clearly as we do on the videotape? We can never know this for certain, of course.

But if, in fact, Oswald didn't even hear the reporter, it puts a whole new light on any "reaction" that we see on LHO's face, because under those conditions, it would obviously mean that Oswald's reaction wasn't one of "surprise" at all."
-- DVP; March 1, 2010


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

"...since all reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy..." [-- DVP]

Does this mean that I have to agree with your opinion to be deemed to be reasonable?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. Of course.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Or could it be you are in fact the unreasonable one by considering your opinion to be superior to those of people who disagree with you?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. And for one simple (and blatantly obvious) reason:

The evidence (overwhelmingly) shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of two 1963 murders.

Therefore, the opinion of a person who thinks Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22/63 cannot possibly be a "reasonable" opinion.

~~Mark VII~~


JERRY FREEMAN SAID:

Yawn...Everyone knows by now that Mr Von Pein's brain is ceaselessly and irrevocably super glued to the Warren Report. 😏


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The evidence shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that all this stuff was faked.

~reciprocal yawn~

David Von Pein
October 5-6, 2019 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1333)

JERRY FREEMAN SAID:

Two weapons ...Ordered a month apart...yet conveniently arrive on the very same exact day?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's fairly clear from the Seaport records that Oswald didn't mail the order form for the pistol in January. The Seaport order coupon says "January 27", yes. But that doesn't mean it was put in a mailbox on Jan. 27. He probably mailed the order forms for both the revolver and the rifle on the same day (March 12). Otherwise there would be an inexplicably long (month-and-a-half) delay in processing the Seaport revolver order, which does not seem likely at all.




JERRY FREEMAN SAID:

The pistol came COD? [not available anymore these days] So where are the Post Office records of the $10 advance payment and the $19.95 pickup payment?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Re: the initial ten-dollar payment....

Why would there be any "Post Office record" of that $10 cash payment that Oswald mailed directly to Seaport Traders?

Please explain why you think the post office would have even SEEN that $10 CASH payment sent by LHO. It was inside an envelope all the way from Dallas to Los Angeles.


JERRY FREEMAN SAID:

Good question. Supposedly, Oswald was a believer in money orders. Why didn't Hidell/Oswald just send $30 for the pistol and be done with it? Why would a Hidell/Oswald individual then allegedly buy the money order to order the rifle [which was cheaper than the revolver if we can believe this to be any quality of a rifle]? I mean just stuff $22 in the order envelope and be done with it.


JERRY FREEMAN ALSO SAID:

I will say this about David Von Pein [if I haven't before]...We certainly don't agree on the conclusions of the REPORT, but his work compiling his abundant JFK assassination materials is exemplary.

That stated...can he supply the links pertaining to the revolver order as requested above?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pistol Talk....

http://jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42

http://jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69

http://jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-75


JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:

There’s either evidence of this alleged COD payment or there is not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is. CTers, of course, will forever ignore it, but there is evidence that the COD balance of $19.95 was paid to Seaport. It's in Heinz Michaelis' Warren Commission testimony [7 H 378-379]....

JOE BALL -- Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?

HEINZ MICHAELIS -- The fact that the exhibit number...was attached to the red copy of the invoice...indicates that the money was received.

Plus, the word "Paid" is written right on the Seaport invoice too (Michaelis Exhibit No. 2). But I guess CTers must think the word "PAID" means exactly the opposite and that Seaport never received the $19.95 balance at all, huh? ~shrug~


OTTO BECK SAID:

Prove that the control number above the serial number was an actual Klein's control number, then you have a minute chance of keeping your fantasy alive.

Good luck!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Waldman Exhibit No. 4 proves that Klein's assigned the Control Number of VC-836 to the exact rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald, Serial Number C2766.

And the VC-836 / C2766 match is confirmed by Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman in his Warren Commission testimony (at 7 H 364)....

DAVID BELIN -- Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

WILLIAM WALDMAN -- This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.

MR. BELIN -- Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?

MR. WALDMAN -- That's correct.

MR. BELIN -- Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C2766?

MR. WALDMAN -- Yes.

MR. BELIN -- And what is your control number for that?

MR. WALDMAN -- Our control number for that is VC-836.

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

Am I supposed to now believe that the document marked as Waldman Exhibit No. #4 is a fake document too? And am I therefore also supposed to believe that William Waldman was lying through his teeth in his above testimony?

I'll repeat here something I asked the stubborn batch of conspiracy theorists at The Education Forum a few years ago....

How many things that appear to be kosher does it take to make an item cross over into the category of "Real and Legitimate"? Or is that a stupid question to ask a conspiracy believer?



David Von Pein
October 1-4, 2019

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1332)

LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

Regarding the "Domino Room Alibi" ——

We know Oswald was an incredible, bald-faced liar in almost every conceivable situation – even, as Marina chided him, when the truth would have served him just as well. It’s no more surprising that he would've claimed to be eating lunch in the domino room than that he would've claimed (as he did) to have never owned a rifle or to have claimed that his mother was dead and he had no siblings (as he did in Minsk).

If Oswald wasn't going to confess to sitting on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hand, a lunchroom was probably the most plausible noontime alibi. And he certainly would have known that he had in fact been seen downstairs, albeit not at the time of the assassination. It isn't implausible that he would have made sure he was seen downstairs, thereby laying the groundwork for an alibi.

The domino room was in fact regularly used by both Jarman and Norman. Almost every day, in fact. But very seldom by Oswald.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald brought or bought any lunch on November 22nd, let alone a cheese sandwich and an apple.

Fritz's notes stated "two negr. came in.....one Jr. + short negro."

Fritz's report stated Oswald "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short man whose name he did not know."

Bookhout's report stated Oswald "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period."

Kelley's report stated Oswald "said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as ‘Junior,’ a colored boy, and the other was little short negro boy."

(Hosty’s note that Bart reproduces has Oswald getting his drink from the second-floor lunchroom before returning to the domino room to eat lunch but says nothing about Jarman and Norman.)

Thus, two sources report Oswald as saying he ate with Jarman and Norman. One says they “walked through the room.” One says they “came in.”

Thus, three of four sources indicate Jarman and Norman were actually in the domino room with Oswald.

It appears that Fritz’s “came in” note is being interpreted as meaning Oswald saw Jarman and Norman as they “came in” the loading dock door at about 12:25 while he was eating in the domino room. In light of the other three sources, this interpretation is completely unwarranted and seems unlikely given the eating arrangements in the domino room and the sight line from there to the loading dock entrance.

Some CTers suggest that Oswald actually saw Jarman and Norman through the domino room window when they were on the sidewalk outside the loading dock, which doesn’t fit any of the four sources. (And what about conspiracy saint Carolyn Arnold, who decided years after the event that she had seen Oswald eating in the second-floor lunchroom? Oops.)

Query: Why would the nefarious Fritz, Bookhout and Kelley (and Hosty) even have reported these statements by Oswald? Why would they not have made sure their notes and reports included no possible alibi for Oswald? Again, we see the familiar game of the conspirators being geniuses at steps 1-3-5 and dolts at steps 2-4-8.

Moreover (as DVP would point out if he were here), this interpretation views the Domino Room Alibi in a vacuum and ignores a boatload of inconvenient evidence, including Oswald’s curious trip to Irving on Thursday, Frazier’s testimony that Oswald did not bring a lunch, the existence of the sixth floor sniper’s nest with Oswald’s rifle in it [sic], the complete lack of evidence of any other gunmen in the building or being observed leaving the building, the second-floor lunchroom encounter with Baker and Truly, Oswald’s inexplicable actions after the assassination, and Oswald’s failure, despite multiple opportunities, to scream to reporters and everyone else within earshot “I was eating in the first floor lunchroom, for God’s sake!!! After that I was standing on the front steps with Shelley and all the other employees!!!”

For this alibi to work, an almost incredible number of people from diverse walks of life would have to have been conspirators or accessories after the fact. Which, of course, they were – if one is neck-deep in the Conspiracy Game. But even then, you’re left with all of the other evidence that would become inexplicable if the alibi were true.

Put the Domino Room Alibi outside the TSBD if you like – but I probably wouldn’t put it in stone. Maybe you can hire a homeless guy to hold a cardboard sign?

I previously caused a furor by referencing some of the peer-reviewed literature on the conspiracy mindset. I won't wade into those waters again, but it would be very enlightening for you to study some of the professional literature (of which there is a mountain) regarding the psychology and unreliability of eyewitness testimony and specifically recollections of highly traumatic events. You will learn that the wildly conflicting stories and timelines, far from being evidence of conspiracies and lies, are exactly what we would expect if the witnesses were telling the truth to the best of their ability. As Sean DeGrilla points out in his recent book Malcontent, which I did buy and read, Oswald's words and actions are exactly what we would expect from someone who was guilty.


PAT SPEER SAID:

You still won't address the elephant in the room, Lance. Oswald cited two people as possible witnesses to his being in the domino room. And these were the only two people to admit walking by the domino room within ten minutes or so of the shooting. What are the odds? I mean, there must have been 10 regulars who used the domino room, right? And Eddie Piper admitted seeing Oswald at the beginning of the lunch period. But Oswald didn't mention any of them, did he? No, he mentioned Jarman and Norman--the only two men to walk by the domino room in the minutes leading up to the shooting.

Let me make an analogy. Snoopy's been accused of stealing Linus' blanket from the pumpkin patch. But he says he was at Violet's house watching Lucy make goo-goo eyes at Schroeder, while Schroeder played the piano. Now, neither Lucy nor Schroeder remember seeing Snoopy at Violet's party. But they both admit they were at Violet's party when Linus' blanket was stolen, and that Schroeder was playing the piano at the time.

I mean, seriously, was this just a lucky guess on Oswald's part? Really? Would you expect a jury to believe this? I mean, I'd love to have seen Bugliosi tackle this. "You see, jury, how Oswald claimed Jarman and Norman as witnesses to his being downstairs, and how they were, in fact, the only people walking past the domino room when Oswald said he was in there. Well, disregard this. We all know he was really up on the sixth floor at this time, quiet as a mouse, putting his rifle together with a dime while a clueless Bonnie Ray Williams ate his chicken sandwich but yards away."

It just doesn't hold together, Lance. Whether or not he was the shooter, whether or not he was part of a conspiracy, the evidence is quite strong that Oswald came downstairs during his lunch hour--and that Joe Ball and David Belin tried to conceal this from the public. (They claimed Givens was the last to see Oswald before the shooting--and that he saw him on the sixth floor--when it was actually Eddie Piper who last saw Oswald--on the first floor).


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

OK, at least you’ve reduced the odds of Oswald’s inclusion of Jarman and Norman in the Domino Room Alibi to a mere 2 of 10, as opposed to the usual 2 of 75 (i.e., all the TSBD employees). Jarman had engaged Oswald in two short conversations earlier that morning (the one by the first-floor window being an unlikely detail to insert into cooked-up WC testimony – yes?). Jarman said he always kept his lunch in the domino room, ate there regularly, and had seen Oswald there on at least a few occasions. Thus, he was hardly an unlikely person for Oswald to insert into the Domino Room Alibi.

Norman saw Oswald at the first-floor window earlier in the morning and had been on the sixth floor “shooting the breeze” with the floor repair crew. He likewise kept his lunch in the domino room and actually ate there that day (as did Arce and Dougherty). He then got together with Jarman, went outside with Jarman, and went up to the fifth floor with Jarman – indicative of at least some friendly relationship. Thus, it would not have been unlikely for Oswald to insert Norman as well into the Domino Room Alibi.

Eddie Piper? In his affidavit, he reported Oswald as saying he was going “up” to eat his lunch – consistent with Oswald going up to the sixth floor (where I believe the sniper’s nest had been prepared earlier that morning). When Piper testified to the WC, however, he wasn’t sure whether Oswald had said “up” or “out.” Does it seem plausible that the nefarious WC attorneys, who had supposedly coached, badgered and threatened witnesses, would have allowed a barely-educated 56-year-old Black janitor like Piper to make the Domino Room Alibi screamingly more plausible, as opposed to warning him “You said ‘up’ in your affidavit and that’s all we want to hear now, pal”? They fiendishly inserted Shelley/Lovelady three separate places in Vickie Adams’ transcript, but they dropped the ball that badly with Piper?

The elephant in the room that advocates of the Domino Room Alibi ignore is that Oswald supposedly saying he saw Jarman and Norman come through the door to the loading dock is a complete invention unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. With three of the sources, two have Oswald saying he ate with Jarman and Norman. One says they came into the room. The Domino Room Alibi pretends these sources don’t exist or are fabrications and interprets the bland “came in” in Fritz’s note as meaning “came in through the loading dock door while I was eating in the domino room.” This interpretation has utterly no foundation and is flatly inconsistent with the other sources. For some reason you are choosing to make Oswald’s alibi better than anything he actually said (or at least than we have any reason to believe he said). This is the real elephant in the room.

If Oswald had actually said "I saw Jarman and Norman enter through the loading dock door while I was eating in the domino room," I would agree that this was a game-changer. But he didn't. He simply inserted two very likely characters into the Domino Room Alibi for added believability. Just as with "No, I never owned a rifle" and "My mother is dead and I have no brothers," the Domino Room Alibi was not going to survive even the mildest scrutiny - but that was Oswald.

In my first post I should have emphasized the significance of the second-floor lunchroom encounter. If it occurred, as I believe it surely did, then Truly and Baker handed Oswald an alibi on a golden platter. Perhaps Oswald ducked into the lunchroom because he heard Truly and Baker coming up or Adams and Styles coming down or perhaps something else spooked him. But when it was over, he would have realized “My God, I just encountered Truly and a police officer and survived! The two best alibi witnesses I could imagine have seen me in the second-floor lunchroom! Bingo!!!” Now he buys a coke, strolls out of the TSBD like any other employee, and finds himself out on the street to his utter astonishment. I frankly don’t think Oswald had any expectation of surviving or any escape plan (hence his note to Marina before the Walker shooting: “If I am alive and taken prisoner...”), but the second-floor lunchroom encounter pretty much wrote the script of the Domino Room Alibi for him.

While we’re on the subject of elephants and unlikely odds, let’s consider
Prayer Person – a natural adjunct to the Domino Room Alibi that is predictably alluded to above:

1. Numerous TSBD employees were on the front steps at the time of the assassination or in the immediate vicinity. Not everyone recalled everyone else, but their recollections were quite good and paint a solid picture. Not one person recalled Oswald standing in full view where Prayer Person is standing. Does it seem plausible that not one person said “Gee, I seem to recall the guy you folks think is the assassin standing right there on the steps with us. Maybe you should look into that, huh?” But wait, there’s more …

2. Of all the photos and films taken that day – or that might have been taken that day – Prayer Person appears in precisely one. It is pure happenstance that there aren’t 15 photos in which Prayer Person is clearly identifiable. And in that one photo Prayer Person conveniently appears as such an amorphous blob in the deep shadows that debate continues as to whether said blob is a man or a woman. Prayer Person could be literally anyone – but, voila, it’s Oswald! But wait, there’s more …

3. What conceivable assassination conspiracy would have allowed the patsy who was supposed to be on the sixth floor shooting the President to be standing in full view on the front steps?

Nevertheless, to Prayer Person advocates, items 1-3 are no hindrance at all (precisely because Conspiracy Logic is essentially anti-logic). But the notion of Oswald inserting Jarman and Norman into his Domino Room Alibi? Oh, please, that’s completely off the scale of plausibility! The only plausible explanation - put it in stone - is that Oswald was eating lunch in the domino room.

Of all the aspects of conspiracy theorizing that I regard as laughable, the notion that the TSBD was teeming with conspirators and accessories from Roy Truly to Eddie Piper and everyone in between, while innocent young Oswald was placidly eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room, is one I regard as so self-evidently absurd that I can’t believe intelligent people are even discussing it. From my experience as a lawyer, this is the sort of explanation people resort to when they are truly (or maybe Truly) desperate.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

FWIW - what "Oswald said" as opposed to what the FBI/DPD/SS/USPS said he said is two different universes.


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

But the problem is, even in Harvey & Lee World, you don't know what Oswald said. So you speculate that he said something entirely different from what multiple documents report he said, and what you speculate he said always conveniently fits your pet conspiracy theory. It goes beyond Conspiracy Logic. It's a sort of Conspiracy Alchemy.

At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, the same question I posed in relation to Prayer Person applies to the Domino Room Alibi: What sort of conspiracy goes to all the trouble of framing a patsy, including the planting of a rifle traceable to him on the sixth floor, and then allows Mr. Patsy to be eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room moments before the assassination? What sort of conspiracy requires the sort of after-the-fact mopping up that you believe occurred, with literally everyone in the TSBD being coached or threatened, testimony being altered, people dying mysteriously, yada yada yada?

I’m just a neophyte assassination-planner, but one thing I think I would have made sure of is that Mr. Patsy was under control and nowhere to be seen at the time of the assassination. Yet the domino room was a popular location on the first floor and Oswald ostensibly could have been seen by any number of people who could have blown the whole patsy thing.

The other thing that occurs to me is that if I actually were a patsy in the circumstances of a Presidential assassination, the one thing I would’ve done was run to the nearest police officer and begged “Take me into protective custody now!!! I don’t know what’s going on here, but someone is trying to frame me for assassinating the President and I’ll tell you everything I know.” I probably would not have gone home, got my revolver, shot a police officer, acted about as suspiciously as I possibly could, and attempted to draw my pistol and said "It's all over now" when confronted by a bevy of officers. But maybe that’s just me.

Whatever enjoyment it is that you Harvey & Lee-type folks derive from all this electron-microscope scrutiny of the evidence and connecting of imaginary dots, I just don't get it. But then there are plenty of other hobbies whose appeal is lost on me. If I had approached the practice of law the way you folks approach the assassination, I'd still be working on my first fender-bender 37 years later.


ANDREJ STANCAK SAID:

It was not that important for the conspirators where Lee Oswald was during the shooting provided they controlled the whole crime scene, all pieces of evidence, information going out, and even could allow silencing Oswald.


LANCE PAYETTE SAID:

This is the Conspiracy Game to the hilt. Take the Harvey & Lee route and postulate two "main" Oswalds with possible additional imposters all over the place and all bets are off. You can make the evidence say anything you want. Ditto for what you are suggesting - this fumbling, bumbling conspiracy that left 4,832 clues for future conspiracy theorists to drool over was, on the other hand, such a tightly controlled operation that they didn't even care if their patsy was eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room and standing out on the front steps. Does that actually make sense to you??? Why would they run all of these unnecessary, pretty-much-insane risks with the idea "We can mop up the convoluted mess later" when it would have been far simpler to just do things right (from a conspiracy standpoint) from the get-go?

I'm not trying to demean your efforts. Go for it, if you have the time and interest. I just say the effort makes no sense at all to me. Prayer Man will never be anything more than Badge Man Revisited unless and until you have a clear photo that shows it actually is Oswald - at which point I will immediately become a gee-whiz conspiracy theorist, ready to believe almost anything.


LANCE PAYETTE LATER SAID:

I’ve been responding to Prayer Person posts for years. Don’t pretend I’m some neophyte. (I actually find Bart’s PP site an absolute goldmine of documents and information. Kudos, Bart.) The same enhanced photo is used again and again, as it is here, to identify PP. To me, as Pat Speer said, it doesn’t look anything like Oswald. It frankly looks like a woman with considerably meatier arms than Oswald had. But this is just a general impression, and I concede that I can’t make a definitive identification from the blurry image any more than you can. .... The image could be anyone who was in Dealey Plaza that day who hasn’t been definitively identified from other photos as not being PP.

You believe this figure standing in the shadows has “dark” hair, and this is one of your “Oswald features.” How many different shades of hair would have photographed as “dark” under those conditions? OK, you’ve perhaps eliminated people with very blonde hair. Your “Oswald feature” is really “not having very blonde hair,” not “having hair just like Oswald’s.” Again, you’re pretending to a level of scientific certainty that you simply don’t have.

Ditto with the height analysis. This is the game that conspiracy theorists play with almost all of the evidence. It’s the game Cliff plays with the clothing and the throat and back wounds. You have no real idea as to exactly how the PP figure is standing – knee positions, possible bend from the waist, possible bend from the neck, slouching, etc. You’re attempting to cloak what is little more than a Rorschach test with the trappings of precise scientific analysis. Your “Oswald feature” is really a guesstimate that can say no more than “it could be someone of Oswald’s height.”

Ditto for the receding hairline, if that’s what it is. Oswald was severely balding, to the point that Robert actually examined him to see what the heck had happened while he was in the USSR. Many women have precisely the same hairline when they brush or pull their hair back. This is no “Oswald feature” in any meaningful sense.

But, please, be my guest – if the possibility PP might be Oswald makes a scintilla of sense to you, devote all the time to it you wish. You’re never going to move the dial of history with this sort of thing. It will always remain, and rightly so, Badge Man Revisited, Umbrella Man Revisited, Manhole Shooter Revisited. Conspiracy theorists have made fools of themselves too many times, and fundamentally changed their convoluted theories too many times, for any of this to be taken seriously unless you have a clear and definitive photo of Oswald.

“You Lone Nutters can’t say for sure that isn’t Oswald,” is never going to move the dial. Until there is definitive proof to the contrary we can say it isn’t because the possibility is contrary to basic common sense and not one person saw Oswald standing there. If you want to indulge the fantasy that he only appeared for 2.3 seconds and everyone else was looking the other way, you’ll be right in the mainstream of the Conspiracy Game. That’s how inconvenient facts are always explained in the Conspiracy Game.

Did someone actually ask me what difference it would make to the patsy aspect of the assassination if Oswald were in the domino room or on the TSBD steps at the time of the assassination??? [Yes, incredibly, someone did ask that question, here.] Well, uh … Why would conspirators plant the patsy’s rifle on the sixth floor if they were going to allow the patsy to be standing outside? Wouldn’t that pretty much scream “Something is very wrong here?” Wouldn’t that increase the odds of the conspiracy unraveling and being exposed by, oh, a factor of about 17,000,000? Comments like this are so bizarre as to be disorienting. I actually use my friends as a sanity check: Do these people seem as whacked-out to you as they do to me, or is there something I’m not seeing? (One of my friends, a hydrologist, observed yesterday after reading this very thread that “There is a thin line between a hobby and insanity.”)

The fact that this sort of thinking defies logic and common sense is why you’re driven to positions such as Sandy’s suggestion from a few years ago: They wanted Oswald to be seen. They were sending a message. “We’re so completely in control here that we want you to understand we don’t even care if it makes sense.” Andrej is regurgitating essentially the same thing here. They were so in control of every aspect that nothing mattered. They knew they could mop up any problems after the fact.

Doesn’t this suggest to you some larger questions: Then why the F bother with a patsy at all? Why the F undertake all the multiple steps required to frame Oswald? Who needs Oswald at all? Who needs the TSBD at all? Who needs to try to make it appear all the shots came from the rear? Again I say: The fact that this sort of thing actually makes sense to some of you is completely disorienting to me.

Like conspiracy theorists always do, here the evidence against Oswald is parsed and pigeonholed. “All” we have is Oswald’s rifle on the sixth floor with his fingerprints on it, as though this were essentially irrelevant. Apart from this brute fact, we have nothing to tie innocent cheese-sandwich-eating patsy Oswald into the assassination. Never mind how the rifle got there or how many unlikely people would have to have been involved in a conspiracy to get it there from Ruth Paine’s garage. Never mind that none of the employees of the TSBD saw any strangers. Never mind that the sixth floor was occupied by the floor repair crew virtually the entire time.

Oh, Oswald brought the rifle in and placed it there himself because … because … well, because he thought it was for some lesser conspiracy than killing JFK and it made perfect sense for him to be eating a cheese sandwich or standing on the steps of the TSBD while the motorcade went by and his rifle was sitting up on the sixth floor. Oswald had the IQ of a mentally challenged turnip, is that your theory? Rather than telling the truth after being captured, he denied owning a rifle, denied what Frazier and Randle had said, and claimed he had brought his lunch. And he did this because … because … because …

And then, after eating his cheese sandwich and lingering briefly on the steps, he proceeded to set in motion a chain of events that made him look like The Guiltiest Person on Earth. But this was also irrelevant because he knew he’d been set up as a patsy and he was understandably worried and thus vanishing from the TSBD, retrieving his revolver, shooting Tippit, scurrying through the neighborhood like a fleeing felon, ducking into a darkened theater, pulling his revolver on a bevy of officers, and proceeding to tell one bald-faced lie after another to his captors seemed like a good idea under the circumstances.

Oh, I know, none of those things happened … or that wasn’t Oswald … or they were consistent with his status as a cheese-sandwich-eating innocent because … because … because …

As I say, simply disorienting. This is why I am now more interested in “Why do seemingly sane and intelligent people think this way?” than in “Could Oswald actually have been eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room or standing on the TSBD steps at the time of the assassination?”

Sorry for the length of this post, I didn't have time to write a shorter one.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'd like to also point out something else here that Lance Payette didn't mention in his excellent posts above....

For the sake of argument, even if all three of the individuals being discussed in this "Domino Room Alibi" discussion were, in fact, together at the same time in or near the Domino Room on the first floor of the Book Depository Building shortly before JFK was killed on 11/22/63, that fact most certainly does not exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald as President Kennedy's assassin.

Why?

Because we know that two of those three people—James Jarman Jr. and Harold Norman—were present on the south side of the fifth floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. They were photographed by Tom Dillard just seconds after the last shot was fired.

Therefore, since we know that Jarman and Norman had the capability of getting from the first-floor Domino Room to an upper floor of the Depository prior to the time when President Kennedy arrived at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, then why wouldn't Lee Harvey Oswald have possessed that same capability?

Conspiracy theorists would no doubt argue that the above scenario is not very realistic, in that it would be hard to believe that a person who was planning on killing the President would have been located on the first floor (and at the back of the building) at a time when he should have been in his sniper's perch on the sixth floor waiting for the President to arrive in Dealey Plaza.

But there are several "unknown" factors associated with Lee Oswald's pre-assassination actions and mindset that have never been proven or firmly established—such as the "unknown" answers to these three questions:

Where and when did Oswald assemble his rifle (and how long did it take him to do so)?

and...

How long did it take Oswald to construct his "Sniper's Nest" of boxes?

and...

What exactly was Oswald thinking in the hours and minutes leading up to JFK's arrival?

I'm not saying that I think that Oswald was in the Domino Room with Jarman and Norman just a few minutes before the assassination. I don't believe he was. But I am saying that the so-called "Domino Room Alibi", which many conspiracy theorists think is some sort of rock-solid proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence, is really nothing of the kind—even if Oswald had been located in that Domino Room a few minutes before 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963.


ROYELL STORING SAID:

Your saying Oswald had time to get into the sniper's [nest] is a double edged sword. This time variable would also apply to Oswald claiming to have gone outside to watch the "Pr Parade" per the alleged Hosty Notes of Oswald's very 1st interrogation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think your example is analogous to mine at all. Please elaborate further.


ROYELL STORING SAID:

If you are buying into Oswald being down in the Domino Room on the 1st floor and having time to reach the 6th floor, he certainly has that same amount of time to eventually amble out of the TSBD to watch the "Pr Parade".

Why would anyone planning on firing a rifle out of the 6th Floor of the TSBD horse around on the 1st Floor mere minutes prior to the JFK Limo passing by?

Putting Oswald inside that 1st Floor Domino Room makes it FAR more likely for him to go out the front door and watch the "Pr Parade", vs his hustling up to the 6th floor and climbing into the sniper's nest. Anybody at any point during that journey could have seen him heading for/climbing into the 6th Floor sniper's nest.

If you believe Oswald fired the Carcano, you need to stay away from even considering his being inside the Domino Room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I was merely pointing out a verified FACT---i.e., that even if LHO had been in or near the Domino Room at approximately 12:25 PM CST on 11/22/63, it would NOT give Oswald an alibi for 12:30 PM when the President was shot.

A related thought....

At another forum a few years ago, an LNer named Bud put a theory on the table that I thought was kind of interesting. It can never be proven, of course, but I thought it was intriguing nevertheless....

Bud's speculation was that Oswald might have gone back downstairs to the first-floor Domino Room shortly before he assassinated the President in order to retrieve the rifle bullets that he had forgotten to take up to the sixth floor earlier in the day. (I think Bud was theorizing that Oswald probably had the bullets in the pocket of his blue coat which was later found in the Domino Room.)*

Such a quick bullet-retrieving trip could have afforded Oswald the opportunity to see James Jarman and Harold Norman as they entered the building via the loading dock door at the rear of the TSBD. Oswald would have then hustled right back up to the sixth floor after grabbing the bullets. Time elapsed for such an excursion would likely have been less than 3 minutes.

* EDIT/FWIW -- Shortly after I posted the above comments, I looked up Bud's original 2011 Internet message regarding this topic of Oswald's rifle bullets. Here is that message:

"He [Oswald] doesn't need to see them [Jarman & Norman] on the first [floor], he only needs to have seen them outside, and heard them come in down below him. And it doesn't matter if he did see them on the first floor, I've always felt it was possible for a smart guy like Oswald to keep the bullets apart from the rifle, to allow for deniability if the rifle was discovered. If he left the bullets in his jacket pocket in the Domino room and went down to retrieve them, he might have seen them (although you [Donald Willis] are nowhere near establishing that he did with the weak out-of-context nonsense you are trying to use for support). You see, it doesn't matter if Oswald was on the first floor then, it doesn't afford him an alibi, nobody was killed then. It doesn't matter when the motorcade was due to arrive, if circumstances prevented Oswald from getting to where he hid the rifle, or he had trouble assembling it, these things would dictate more than the clock." -- Bud; July 1, 2011


ROYELL STORING SAID:

The malarkey above is hilarious. So Oswald is smart enough to hide the bullets to HIS rifle, yet he leaves HIS rifle at the scene of the crime after killing a POTUS?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, you're right, he probably should have just walked out the front (or back) door of the TSBD carrying the 40-inch Carcano in his hands. Who's gonna notice, right?

Is that what you think a Presidential assassin should have done with his rifle after having just shot the POTUS?




ROYELL STORING SAID:

And then parks himself inside a theater with absolutely no avenue of escape?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, instead of ducking into a nice dark theater, Oswald should have just stayed right out there on sunny Jefferson Boulevard, in full view of the passing police cars who were searching for Officer Tippit's killer....right?

Replay

------->

ROYELL STORING SAID:

Regarding possible forgotten bullets, where does the Carcano Clip come into this? It would be far easier to already have the bullets in the "now you see it, now you don't" Carcano Clip.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I agree with you there. It would make sense for the bullets to already be contained within the rifle clip.

But how about this for yet another (admittedly) wholly speculative LN theory concerning this topic? ....

It's Thursday night (Nov. 21st) in Ruth Paine's garage....

Lee Oswald is busy in the garage preparing his rifle package (aka: the "curtain rod" package) for the next day's trip into work with Buell Frazier....

Oswald seals up the brown paper bag with disassembled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 inside....

After taping down the top end of the package, Oswald then remembers something....

He has forgotten to put the rifle's clip (which contains the four 6.5 mm. bullets) inside the now-sealed brown paper package....

What should he do now? Should he unwrap and unseal the taped package in order to place the clip and bullets inside it (perhaps running the risk of ripping the bag and/or possibly not being able to re-tape the end of the bag adequately enough to ensure that it stays sealed during the entire ride to the TSBD the next morning in Frazier's car)? Or should he not disturb the already-sealed bag and just carry the clip (w/bullets) in the pocket of the jacket that he will wear to work the following morning?

Possibly....just possibly....perhaps Oswald decided on the latter option.

Food for (bullet) thought anyway.


COLIN CROW SAID:

So for this theory to have traction Oswald has to take the NW staircase or the west elevator. Jarman and Norman took the west elevator to the 5th and shut the gates, allowing it to be "called" down. For Oswald to have used this method he would have had to wait for it to go to the 5th, then down again, and back up to the 6th. He then shuts the gates so that it can be used by Dougherty just a few minutes before the shots.......seems doubtful time wise.

This leaves the back stairs and a race across to the SN on the 6th floor. Not anywhere a convincing theory I am afraid.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I said earlier, the total time to do all that would have probably been less than three minutes. Maybe even less than that if Oswald moved at a good rapid pace. But, just like with LHO's trip from the 6th floor to the lunchroom after the shooting, to hear a CTer tell it, such a simple journey from the sixth floor to the first floor and back was Mission Impossible.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

I agree that when Norman and Jarman could make it to the 5th floor, Oswald could indeed have made it to the 6th. But IMO there are two flaws in this reasoning.

First of all, we now know that the motorcade was running late. At the time it happened, the shooter wouldn't and couldn't have known that. So, for the shooter to show up on the 6th floor just prior to 12:30 pm seems an unlikely scenario. Even more so as witnesses said [they] saw movement in the window from 12:15 pm, which would make a lot more sense as it computes far better with the scheduled time the motorcade was due to pass by the TSBD. It obviously doesn't compute well with a scenario in which Oswald stays in the Domino room until just prior to 12:30 pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree with everything you just said, Martin.

My earlier point was not that I believe Oswald was down on the first floor at about 12:25. (As I said previously, I definitely do not believe such a thing.) I merely was pointing out the fact that a 12:25 alibi is not the same thing as a 12:30 alibi. And 12:30, as we all know, is the key time here.


COLIN CROW SAID:

Don't see much traction from Lance's post, David....looks a flop to me.....just some made up stuff. Is he really a lawyer? A practicing attorney or just someone with a law degree?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In that Education Forum thread, Lance Payette is doing the same thing I've been doing on JFK forums for the last 15 years—he's pointing out the (very) flawed thinking of the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists.


COLIN CROW SAID:

Why would he need to make up stuff about Oswald rarely eating lunch in the Domino room? It is easily dismissed as unsupported rambling of those too lazy to read the testimonies or unable to interpret the information. .... Put your LN narrative into the reality that is supported by the assembled evidence.


COLIN CROW LATER SAID:

A question to the original poster DVP. Do you think that Lance's use of the word "seldom" is supported by the evidence? If yes, please provide any references that support its use.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Although I can't be sure, it could be that Lance Payette's "very seldom" remark concerning Oswald eating lunch in the Domino Room was derived from this testimony provided by TSBD worker Billy Lovelady [at 6 H 337]....

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did Oswald ever eat lunch with you?"

BILLY LOVELADY -- "He ate two or three times in that little domino room, but not by himself, with the rest of the boys."

Now, given the fact that Oswald was employed at the Book Depository for a little more than five weeks (27 work days to be exact* [October 16—November 22], not counting any Saturdays [and in his 2002 interview with Gary Mack, Wesley Frazier did say that the warehouse workers would sometimes work on Saturday]), I would say that "two or three times" (out of a possible 27) would, indeed, qualify as "very seldom".

* The above figure of "27 work days" does not include the date of Monday, November 11th, 1963, which was a federal holiday (Veterans Day), and we know that Lee Oswald spent that whole day at Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas.

Perry.....your witness. 😁


COLIN CROW SAID:

If he [Lance Payette] was basing his "very seldom" remark on Lovelady's comments, why not support his assertion with them? In any event, Lovelady's comments are in answer to a question where Oswald ate lunch with him. Seems Lovelady did not eat regularly in the domino room and he was merely relating the number of times he saw Oswald in there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong. Lovelady told the Warren Commission that the place he "generally" ate his lunch was in the "domino room" [at 6 H 338]....

MR. BALL -- "What did you do after you went down and washed up? What did you do?"

MR. LOVELADY -- "Well, I went over and got my lunch and went upstairs and got a coke and come on back down."

MR. BALL -- "Upstairs on what floor?"

MR. LOVELADY -- "That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there."

[DVP's emphasis.]


COLIN CROW SAID:

So my counter would be Arce, Jarman and Givens, throw in Shelley's "usually"......vs Lovelady.....doesn’t justify "very seldom".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

OK. You might very well be correct on this point, Colin. I was merely providing a possible answer (re: "references") to this question that you asked me....

"Do you think that Lance's use of the word "seldom" is supported by the evidence? If yes, please provide any references that support its use."

I provided a reference (Lovelady's testimony).

That's all. (FWIW.)


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

According to some interrogation reports, Oswald made some vague comment about two negros being in (or walking through) the room where he was. Unfortunately, we don't really know what Oswald actually said verbatim, so we have to rely on the notes made by the interrogators and their choice of words for writing it in their report. However, having said that, I think that the combined reports do clearly suggest that Oswald did in fact make some comment about negros being in (or walking through) the room.

So, as he identified one of them by name, some time ago, I tried to establish a timeline for the movements of Jarman and Norman prior to their arrival at the 5th floor, and the conclusion was that these two men did indeed pass through the shipping area (visible from the Domino room) just minutes prior to the shooting.

I am aware of the LN theory that Oswald first saw Jarman and Norman from the 6th floor window and later heard them talking (and identifying them) below him, which is why he concocted the story of seeing both men, but IMO that's a very weak narrative for two reasons:

(1) During my visit to the TSBD, some years ago, I tried to look down to where I understood Norman and Jarman were supposed to have been and found it impossible to see that location from there and

(2) If Oswald was able to identify both men by the sound of their voice, IMO those men on the 5th floor should also have been able to hear the movement on the floor above them, prior to the shots, which they didn't!

Which leaves me with a bit of a mystery. If I am being kind to Oswald, I could argue that he was indeed in the Domino room when he saw Norman and Jarman enter the loading area and walking towards the elevators, which means that it is possible that the interrogators simply were not precise enough in their reports.

So, here's the question: since we have already agreed that Oswald could have made it to the 6th floor in roughly the same time Norman and Jarman made it to the 5th floor, why are the LNs fighting so hard to ridicule and dismiss the scenario I have just outlined based on nothing else than those vague (and possibly wrong or incomplete) remarks in the interrogation reports?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There are numerous possibilities here:

1. Oswald could have just simply guessed (correctly) when he said to Fritz he had seen Jarman & Norman on the 1st floor. After all, we know for a fact that both Jarman and Norman DID see (and talk to) Oswald a little earlier in the morning on the first floor. So Lee knew that both men did come to work that day. And there weren't THAT many warehouse workers to choose from (via a "wild guess" scenario). And maybe Oswald had seen Jarman & Norman together on previous days and assumed they hung out together. ~shrug~

2. Oswald could have actually been in the Domino Room shortly before 12:30 and could have physically seen J&N. (I don't think this is the correct solution, but I can't entirely discount it either.)

And how about this possibility....

3. I'm wondering if it's just remotely possible (due to the open windows on both the 5th and 6th floors) that Oswald could have leaned out of his SN window, looked down toward the fifth floor, and caught a glimpse of Jarman & Norman leaning out of their respective windows below him? (Granted, this is probably not a likely solution---especially since Oswald would not likely want to "advertise" his presence in the Sniper's Nest by leaning out of his window---but can it be ruled out entirely?) ~additional shrug~

More food for thought anyway.




COLIN CROW SAID:

So, can we agree that it is likely that Oswald did not claim to eat lunch with them [James Jarman and Harold Norman]? But made some other reference to those two in particular that he believed might help his situation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, no. I think Oswald probably did (at one time or another on Nov. 22 or 23) claim to be eating lunch with Jarman & Norman.

But I can see your point regarding Oswald trying to use Jarman & Norman as alibi witnesses—even though LHO would have to know that BOTH men are obviously going to say they didn't eat with Lee at all.

I think Lee's thoughts were a bit muddled right after he shot the President. His "alibi" plan was not exactly—shall we say—a good one.


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

Oswald was no dummy, and his brazenly claiming that he had seen "Junior" and another Negro walking through the first floor while he was (not) having lunch in the D.R. [Domino Room] was pretty clever of him, imho.

If Jarman and Norman were noisy (laughing, yelling) on the fifth floor while waiting for the motorcade to come by, Oswald in his sixth floor sniper's nest, could have heard them and recognized their voices (at least Junior's), and intuited that they must have recently walked through the first floor to get there, and maybe even walked by the D.R. in doing so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, in your opinion then, Oswald must have never claimed to have actually HAD LUNCH with Jarman and/or Norman, correct? You think Oswald ONLY told the police that he had seen J&N walk past the area of the Domino Room. Is that correct, Thomas?


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

Yes. Evidently Bookhout wrote down that Oswald said he saw Junior and another Negro walking through the "room" while he was eating his lunch in the D.R.

We all know that the D.R. had only one door (didn't it?), but maybe Bookhout didn't realize that. Oswald's claiming he'd seen Junior and the other guy on the first floor "room" from inside the D.R. that lunchtime would seemingly place Oswald there (inside the D.R.) without the messy stipulation or implication that they must have seen him "in there".


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

It doesn't make sense for Oswald to try to establish some sort of alibi by telling his interrogators a story which could easily be dismissed, if not true. Oswald clearly intended to place himself at a location which he had seen Norman and Jarman pass by just minutes prior to the shots. That, IMO, was the intended alibi instead of that Norman and/or Jarman had seen him. All the latter two really needed to be asked was if they passed by the Domino room minutes prior to the shots. No need for them to see Oswald, just confirmation that they were there where Oswald said he saw them would have sufficed.

Unfortunately, Jarman and Norman were (IMO) asked the wrong questions about having eaten lunch with Oswald or even seeing him.

Having said this, I would be interested in why you feel this is not the correct solution, David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You could very well be right. Perhaps that is the correct solution.

But, as discussed earlier, it still does not provide Oswald with an alibi for precisely 12:30 PM.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS AND THIS.


COLIN CROW SAID:

What do you base your belief that those two [Jarman & Norman] arrived on the 5th floor before 12:15 pm on?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only because I'm kind of stuck with the "12:15 PM" time you've placed on Rowland's observation of Rifle Man. But I think a better chronology is probably to move up Rowland's 12:15 Rifle Man sighting to right after Givens cigarette trip and just before Williams arrives on 6th floor.

But we must always remember that all "witness times" are approximate times. They're not written in stone. And it's not reasonable to assume that EVERY witness nailed their times right to the minute.

And, as I said previously, it's possible Oswald needed to go back down to the first floor a little later than 12:15 and then return to his Nest. We'll never know for sure.

Also See:
http://jfk-archives/Lee Harvey Oswald Timeline


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Then please explain how Lee Oswald could have known that Jarman and Norman passed through the first floor on their way to the west elevator at about 12:26 / 12:27??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Walt, of course, has decided to put a definitive "12:26 / 12:27" timestamp on an event that cannot possibly be trimmed to such a specific exacting time.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

A definite time stamp?? Yer kidding. I allowed a time period of 120 seconds. While your tale builders cut seconds into fractions in their tale about Lee dashing from the SE corner of the sixth floor to the second floor lunchroom. ....AND...since Jarman said they arrived on the fifth floor at 12:28...my estimation of 12:26 / 12:27 is logical and reasonable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hilarious. Walt thinks he WASN'T being "definitive" when he mentioned a time variance which spanned a mere 120 seconds. As if 2 minutes is a huge variable time-wise. Incredible.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID THIS.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Lee Oswald was wearing dark colored clothing.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

His T-shirt wasn't "dark". And there are witnesses who said Oswald often worked in only his T-shirt.

Oswald (IMO) probably shot JFK while wearing just his white T-shirt. His brown "arrest" shirt was likely lying at his feet in the Sniper's Nest (or on a box nearby). Oswald then used the brown shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag as he raced to the northwest corner of the TSBD after the final shot. He then put the brown shirt on as he was quickly descending the stairs to the 2nd floor---leaving the shirt unbuttoned (see Marrion Baker's testimony; with Baker mistaking the shirt for a jacket).


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Jarman said they arrived on the fifth floor at 12:28 and just a couple of minutes before the motorcade arrived.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Where/when did he say that? Certainly not in his Warren Commission session.

Plus, there's a need for some more time to pass in order for Bonnie Ray Williams to join Jarman & Norman on the 5th floor.....just as James Jarman told the WC here (which is a further indication that Jarman's "12:25 or 12:28" estimate for when they got on the elevator to go up to the fifth floor was not entirely accurate):

Mr. BALL -- Did somebody join you then?
Mr. JARMAN -- Yes, sir; a few minutes later.
Mr. BALL -- Who joined you?
Mr. JARMAN -- Bonnie Ray Williams.


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

"A few minutes" is nothing but a vague reference to a short period of time. Your desperation is hangin' out a country mile.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No more so than your desperation when you say things like this (which you know is not true based on the Bonnie Ray Williams timeline)....

"Jarman said they arrived on the fifth floor at 12:28 and just a couple of minutes before the motorcade arrived."

There's also this testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams, which destroys the "12:28" timeline....

Mr. BALL -- Were you there any length of time before the Presidential parade came by?
Mr. WILLIAMS -- Well, sir, on the fifth floor?
Mr. BALL -- On the fifth floor, yes, with your two friends, Norman and Jarman.
Mr. WILLIAMS -- I was there a while before it came around.

It just goes to show (once again) --- If you dig into the records and testimony deep enough, you can almost always find something to support whatever position (or timeline) you wish to promote concerning the events of Nov. 22nd.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

To David Von Pein - the problem with your "All Oswald All of the Time" is you simply cannot accept the fact that from the get-go, the whole "investigation" was a whitewash. Yes, it's true, David. It's as simple as that. It was written for lawyers by lawyers to fudge the record and sweep it under the rug.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, spare me the "whitewash" refrain. It's as old as dirt. And it's just another cop-out excuse utilized by conspiracy theorists who want to continue to pretend that Oswald was some sort of patsy/pawn.

When you dig up the very first piece of physical evidence that doesn't point directly at the feet of Lee Harvey Oswald, let me know. I've been waiting 30+ years to see it.

David Von Pein
September 12-20, 2019


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




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