Where did David Von Pein get A Year Ago Today to post on Youtube?

[Ralph Cinque]

Where did David Von Pein get that program, A Year Ago Today, to post on Youtube?
It was a 1964 documentary program on television. I don't see it for sale anywhere online. So, where did he get it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI

If you click on it, you'll see that it was put up by David Von Pein. It's the whole hour program in one shot.

It says that he put it up on August 12, 2012. So, I'm going to assume that he came into possession of it shortly before that. After all, if he had it much before that, why wouldn't he have put it up sooner?

So, exactly how did David Von Pein come to acquire this in mid-2012, and in what format did he get? A DVD? From where? I suspect it was not through any regular commercial outlet. Do your own search for "A Year Ago Today" WFAA. Under Google Shopping I got:

https://www.google.com/#q=%22A+Year+Ago+Today%22+WFAA&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=R5Z4UbHICce72wWP-oHoDA&sqi=2&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45645796,d.b2I&fp=c82d9255b72c90f9&biw=1440&bih=719

In case the link above doesn't work, it says that there are no shopping results for "A Year Ago Today" WFAA.

So, where David Von Pein get it?

[David Von Pein]

Ralph,

It's on the DVD linked below. It came out in 2003. It's out of print
and unavailable now, though:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001GHDYFY


E-Bay has one for sale, but I don't think it includes the DVD. It
appears to be the CD-ROM disc only, which doesn't have the '64 special
on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Story-Behind-The-Story-JFK-PC-CD-historic-reference-/280692226475?pt=US_Education_Language_Reference_Software&hash=item415a8f79ab

[timstter]

On Apr 25, 11:37 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where did David Von Pein get that program, A Year Ago Today, to post on Youtube?
> It was a 1964 documentary program on television. I don't see it for sale anywhere online. So, where did he get it?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
>
> If you click on it, you'll see that it was put up by David Von Pein. It's the whole hour program in one shot.
>
> It says that he put it up on August 12, 2012. So, I'm going to assume that he came into possession of it shortly before that. After all, if he had it much before that, why wouldn't he have put it up sooner?
>
> So, exactly how did David Von Pein come to acquire this in mid-2012, and in what format did he get? A DVD? From where? I suspect it was not through any regular commercial outlet. Do your own search for "A Year Ago Today" WFAA. Under Google Shopping I got:
>

> https://www.google.com/#q=%22A+Year+Ago+Today%22+WFAA&hl=en&source=ln...

>
> In case the link above doesn't work, it says that there are no shopping results for "A Year Ago Today" WFAA.
>
> So, where David Von Pein get it?

What does it matter where he got it from?

What we worry about is where you get your ideas from.

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

He may not have had the software or hardware to convert it to video
until then. A lot of real researchers have hundreds of VHS tapes that
the average public has never seen.

[Ralph Cinque]

Thanks, but I actually discovered it on my own. And I have written it up:

There is success in locating the source of that WFAA television program.
It's part of a DVD under the title: JFK: The Story Behind The Story. And
we know the year of its release: 2003, to commemorate the 40th
anniversary.

It's available for sale from various retailers online, for instance:

http://www.loriferber.com/jfk-the-story-behind-the-story-cd-dvd.html

But, as to who made it, it was a collaboration between the Dallas Morning
News (which is a major Dallas newspaper) and the Sixth Floor Museum (run
by Larry Dunkel, who goes by the alias Gary Mack) and a company called
Belo Interactive, which is the internet division of the Belo Corporation.
Here is a press release.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DallasNews.com+Publishes+%27JFK%3a+The+Story+Behind+The+Story%27+CD-ROM.-a096906579

So, it involved the Sixth Floor Museum, which, from its inception has been
an ardent defender of the official story. I have visited the Sixth Floor
Museum. It is fully entrenched and immersed in JFK officialdom, and I mean
to the nth degree. Anyone who is a genuine conspiracy theorist will not
grant the slightest bit of objectivity and authority to the Sixth Floor
Museum.

Of course, Joseph Backes has no problem with the Sixth Floor Museum. He
and Larry Dunkel seem to be pals. If that seems to be a contradiction, it
isn't because Backes is a phony CT.

Let me make an analogy to the LBJ Presidential Library. It's located in
Austin, Texas, where I live, and I have gone there many times, mainly for
the sake of out-of-state visitors. And frankly, it has some interesting
and varied exhibits, including lots of 1960s memobilia, including exhibits
on the music of the '60s, the cars of the '60s, etc. So, I don't say it
isn't worth seeing. But, as far as what they present about the JFK
assassination, it is, of course, a total regurgitation of the official
story, and anyone who is a CT- and I mean a real CT, not Joseph Backes-
will find it revolting.

Well, the Sixth Floor Museum is exactly the same- in spirit and purpose-
as the LBJ Library, and you should think of it just that way. It is pure
propaganda, the selling of lies.

The Dallas Morning News has supported the official story of the JFK
assassination from November 22, 1963 and every day since. They have
ardently supported it- and without the slightest exception. They have
never published one article that was pro-conspiracy. To say that they are
and have been biased in favor of the official story is a gross
understatement.

The Belo Corporation is the media company that owns the Dallas Morning
News. They also owned WFAA Television in Dallas, which is an ABC
affiliate.

Remember the ABC program about the JFK assassination with Peter Jennings,
where he said that the movement of the head in no way indicates the source
of the shots, and then he gulped? That sums up how ABC has addressed the
JFK assassination.

Belo is a major mainstream media corporation, and obviously, their support
for the official story goes back to 11/22/63.

So, here is my accusation: I accuse Belo of corrupting that film, A Year
Ago Today, altering its content to include that phony footage of Lovelady
at the Dallas PD being passed by Oswald, and I further allege that they
merged together divergent footages of different Loveladys and used speed
and blur to pass off two men as the same individual. Let's get specific
here about this. Look at the collage below:

http://tinypic.com/r/15fhaav/4

The above tri-age captures the essence of what they did. In the top left,
you see a frame with the first Lovelady figure, who is a slimmed down
version of the one I call DeNiro Lovelady. In the center, you see the
successive frame with the big linebacker cop getting in the way, taking up
the screen for the bait and switch. Then, in the lower right, the frame
that follows shows what you get after he steps aside: a different
Lovelady, the one whom I call Embedded Lovelady.

Now, keep in mind that I am very sure that the version with Embedded
Lovelady came first. It was made with original, real footage. They just
embedded the Lovelady figure into it. The other one, with DeNiro Lovelady,
came later. I don't know how much later, but probably a lot later.

In the 2003 altered version of the film, they show DeNiro first and then
go to the other one. But, they had to do it that way because they wanted
to include the part where the big uniformed cop took Oswald to Fritz' door
to discuss what to do with him, and that was never a part of the DeNiro
version.

For example, tn the Three Shots film from the History Channel, they use
only DeNiro Lovelady, and that's why they had to reduce it to 2
seconds.

Well, they didn't originally make it that short. In the version of Three
Shots that I have on DVD, the walk-by lasts for 4 seconds. But, they have
since reduced it to 2 seconds, as I have seen online. I'm sure glad I've
got my copy.

So, that's it. Basically, a vast media giant, in concocting a propaganda
piece to support the Big Lie for the 40th commemoration, altered that 1964
film in the most devious and dastardly way, very reminiscent of the Nazi
propaganda films that were churned out before and during World War II by
the Third Reich.

Here is that tri-age again. Please study it carefully. Get out a
magnifying glass if you have to. They are different men. Those two
Loveladys are different men. I would bet my life in a heartbeat that they
are different men.

http://tinypic.com/r/15fhaav/4

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

Here is my accusation: I accuse Belo of corrupting that film, A Year

Ago Today, altering its content to include that phony footage of

Lovelady at the Dallas PD being passed by Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now all Ralph has to do is to figure out how on Earth the fake 2003
Belo footage somehow showed up in David Wolper's movie in 1964 (top
link below), which was 39 years before it was faked by Belo?

That was a cool trick, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JH3zvuVoevM#t=3976s

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html#Lovelady-And-Oswald

[Ralph Cinque]

David, are you blind? In the Wolper film, the footage is very different.
You only see the one guy, the right-turning Lovelady. You don't see the
other guy, the left-turned Lovelady. In the WFAA version, they are strung
together. This isn't that hard to see.

Here it is in WFAA. It's dark and blurry, and that was done on purpose
since they're pulling off a con. It starts at 39:02, but the first two
seconds showing the backs of the cops is missing from the Wolper film.
Then the big linebacker cop gets in the way, and then when he steps aside,
we're into the Wolper footage. It's strung together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI

Now go watch the Wolper version. Since it's only involves one Lovelady,
they could show it clear and sharp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JH3zvuVoevM#t=3976s

Both are supposedly from 1964, so why is the latter so much sharper than
the former? It's because the WFAA film involves two different Loveladys
who are strung together, sequenced together in a clever ruse. It's a bait
and switch.

Here are three successive frames from the WFAA film. The Lovelady in the
top left is not the same man as the Lovelady in the bottom right.

http://tinypic.com/r/24chytj/5

[Anthony Marsh]

Time travel? Planting evidence to make it look as if it was always there
years earlier?
Didn't you see the movie Wag the Dog where they plant the "old" record
of the song The Good Ol' Shoe in the Library of Congress?

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you remember that DeNiro film where they faked a record they said
came from 1930 and the planted it the Library of Congress then a
researcher found it not knowing it was a fake? Wag the Dog. You should
be alleging that was the trick they used.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "David, are you blind? In the Wolper film, the footage is very
different. You only see the one guy, the right-turning Lovelady. You don't
see the other guy, the left-turned Lovelady. In the WFAA version, they are
strung together." <<<

Oh, for Pete sake. You get sillier every day, Doctor.

[John Fiorentino]

Cinque:

Might I inquire what kind of a doctor are you?

John F.



"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1571918-4aae-47a4...@googlegroups.com...

David, are you blind? In the Wolper film, the footage is very different.
You only see the one guy, the right-turning Lovelady. You don't see the
other guy, the left-turned Lovelady. In the WFAA version, they are strung
together. This isn't that hard to see.

Here it is in WFAA. It's dark and blurry, and that was done on purpose
since they're pulling off a con. It starts at 39:02, but the first two
seconds showing the backs of the cops is missing from the Wolper film.
Then the big linebacker cop gets in the way, and then when he steps aside,
we're into the Wolper footage. It's strung together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI

Now go watch the Wolper version. Since it's only involves one Lovelady,
they could show it clear and sharp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JH3zvuVoevM#t=3976sBoth are supposedly from 1964, so why is the latter so much sharper thanthe former? It's because the WFAA film involves two different Loveladyswho are strung together, sequenced together in a clever ruse. It's a baitand switch.Here are three successive frames from the WFAA film. The Lovelady in thetop left is not the same man as the Lovelady in the bottom right.http://tinypic.com/r/24chytj/5

[Ralph Cinque]

It is not silly. It is actually what happened. They did it. They strung those two divergent films together, but in order to make it work, in order to sell it, they blurred it up and sped it up, as they had to. It was the only way.

Here is how the two men look clearly:

http://tinypic.com/r/4pvxw3/5

Stare at that a long time, David, because that is how they really were. That is the reality. They are not the same man.

[Ralph Cinque]

Here is a little exchange between me and David Von Pein on McAdams' forum. He was responding to my claim that there were different men playing Lovelady in the different versions of the footage of Oswald walking by Lovelady at the Dallas PD:

David Von Pein: Oh, for Pete sake. You get sillier every day, Doctor.

Ralph Cinque: It is not silly. It is actually what happened. They did it. They strung those two divergent films together, but in order to make it work, in order to sell it, they blurred it up and sped it up, as they had to. It was the only way.

Here is how the two men look unbefuddled:

http://tinypic.com/r/4pvxw3/5

Stare at that a long time, David, because that is how they really looked. That is the reality. They are not the same man.

1. One was stocky, muscular, and thick-chested while the other was slender and sunken-chested.

2. The weight difference between them had to be at least 20 pounds and probably more.

3. One had his shirt sprawled open in a totally impossible way while the other's shirt was cinched up practically to the very top.

4. One had his hair combed straight back while the other had his hair parted and combed over.

5. One had a big ear- big as a Mousekateer- and the other had a small ear.

6. One has his whole forearm resting on the desk while the other has only his elbow on the desk.

They are not the same man! Those differences are irreconcilable, and all you have to do to see it is to look at it. But, you have to look at it with an open mind. If you look at it with blood-covered glasses (and I mean the blood of Jack Kennedy) you wouldn't see anything.

They say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Well, you can lead a mind to evidence but you can't make it register. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

To those reading this: David Von Pein will never come around. But will you?

[Jason Burke]

On 4/27/2013 10:08 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Cinque:
>
> Might I inquire what kind of a doctor are you?
>
> John F.
>

One who's thrown away everything he's ever learned about the
"chiropractor biz" to embarrass himself concerning the Kennedy
assassination.

[timstter]

On Apr 27, 12:29 pm, Ralph Cinque <budab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, are you blind? In the Wolper film, the footage is very different.
> You only see the one guy, the right-turning Lovelady. You don't see the
> other guy, the left-turned Lovelady. In the WFAA version, they are strung
> together. This isn't that hard to see.
>
> Here it is in WFAA. It's dark and blurry, and that was done on purpose
> since they're pulling off a con. It starts at 39:02, but the first two
> seconds showing the backs of the cops is missing from the Wolper film.
> Then the big linebacker cop gets in the way, and then when he steps aside,
> we're into the Wolper footage. It's strung together.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Qtj7vSJVI
>
> Now go watch the Wolper version. Since it's only involves one Lovelady,
> they could show it clear and sharp.
>

>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JH3zvuVoevM#...

>
> Both are supposedly from 1964, so why is the latter so much sharper than
> the former? It's because the WFAA film involves two different Loveladys
> who are strung together, sequenced together in a clever ruse. It's a bait
> and switch.
>
> Here are three successive frames from the WFAA film. The Lovelady in the
> top left is not the same man as the Lovelady in the bottom right.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/24chytj/5

Lord help us! He's off on ANOTHER tangent!

[Ace Kefford]

I think you have CRACKED the coverup!

[John Fiorentino]

With "cracked" being the operative word!


John F.


"Ace Kefford" <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91aad33c-68be-4998...@googlegroups.com...

[Ace Kefford]

YOU said it!