Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Assorted LN Vs. CT Arguments

64 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 9:08:24 PM8/22/07
to

http://www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/2/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=40&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxVP90UN3OHGM1#MxVP90UN3OHGM1

>>> "Why, then, is the print in the national archives labled "unidentified"?
Again, David. Box A, CE 656, the print under the "9" in 29. If that
print is identified, tell me who it belongs to." <<<


CE656 contains MULTIPLE prints labelled "unidentified". But they have
been identified SINCE that label was attached to them. CE3131 proves
that fact.

Some of this fingerprint identification work wasn't completed until
just DAYS before the Warren Report went to press and was turned over
to LBJ on 9/24/64.

The FBI was still comparing the prints in Aug. & Sept. of '64!

When were those photos of the prints in CE656 taken, Richard? Do you
know? I contend the "unidentified" comments on those prints were there
well prior to the FBI gaining positive I.D.s on EVERY box print except
the one palmprint discussed by Hoover in CE3131.

If you want to believe otherwise, fine. Go ahead.

CE656:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0164b.htm

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 9:20:57 PM8/22/07
to
VIA ANOTHER FORUM........

"Mark {Lane} also had a conversation with Cyril Wecht. Cyril told Mark
the only thing that was true in the {"Reclaiming History"} chapter
dedicated to Cyril was that Bugliosi did have a phone conversation
with him. Other than that, the whole chapter is a fabrication of their
conversation." -- Richard Van Noord; 08/22/2007

Huge LOL needed here.

So, per Mark Lane (and maybe Cyril Wecht, if Lane is to be believed,
whom I wouldn't believe about anything in the JFK case if my life
depended on it), Mr. Bugliosi puts IN WRITING in his book a gob of
stuff in the chapter labeled "A Conversation With Dr. Cyril Wecht"
that supposedly came directly from Wecht's lips, but (per Lane) are
total "fabrications".

Didn't Vince know that such a thing would be a really stupid thing to
do? That is, to try and "fabricate" an actual phone conversation (it
was actually 2 phone calls) with somebody (Wecht) who would KNOW that
any remarks that were "fabricated" were, indeed, total lies.

But Bugliosi just went ahead and did it anyway, right?

Or didn't Vince think that Cyril would care at all or say anything to
anybody about that whole chapter in "Reclaiming History" being a
"fabrication of their conversation"?

When does the silly madness from the conspiracy nuts end? When?

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 9:28:21 PM8/22/07
to
FIVE *****STARS***** DVP!

And just to give you and the other guys in here
I thought I might post a little dialog exchange
between myself (LN) and Admiral Clark Wilkins
(CT/LN/Screwball) It's on topic and might give
ya a mild chortle:

ED ON:
> You are you own worst enemy Clark.. And you never
> explained this Hall-of-Fame clunker post:
> "..there was a "BETTER" chance the Battleship
> Bismark (sic) and its crew of 800 men were in
> the bag than the rifle."

CLARK'S REBUTTAL:
"And you still haven't proved me wrong.
Why is that, Ed?"

ED ON:
> Good grief Clark.. If you are going to stand by
> this nutty idea that Oswald deliberately ( gULp )
> *planted* evidence to help set himself up, may we
> ask WHY he would do that?

CLARK'S REBUTTAL:
"To fix blame. So, Ed?
Why did Lee draw a 6 shot revolver on MacDonald with
17 other officers in the Texas Theater?"

Cripes David.. Clark's got me stumped here what with
17 cops and only a 6 shot revolver!? Reckon we could
put our heads together and come up with an answer for
the Admiral?

MR :~? ED
2024Aug2207

On Aug 22, 8:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum...


>
> >>> "Why, then, is the print in the national archives labled "unidentified"?
>
> Again, David. Box A, CE 656, the print under the "9" in 29. If that
> print is identified, tell me who it belongs to." <<<
>
> CE656 contains MULTIPLE prints labelled "unidentified". But they have
> been identified SINCE that label was attached to them. CE3131 proves
> that fact.
>
> Some of this fingerprint identification work wasn't completed until
> just DAYS before the Warren Report went to press and was turned over
> to LBJ on 9/24/64.
>
> The FBI was still comparing the prints in Aug. & Sept. of '64!
>
> When were those photos of the prints in CE656 taken, Richard? Do you
> know? I contend the "unidentified" comments on those prints were there
> well prior to the FBI gaining positive I.D.s on EVERY box print except
> the one palmprint discussed by Hoover in CE3131.
>
> If you want to believe otherwise, fine. Go ahead.
>

> CE656:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...


David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 10:14:18 PM8/22/07
to
Well, Ed, to try and think like a CTer for a minute --- Oswald DID
have 5 more bullets in his pocket. That's 11 total. I guess he figured
that no more than 11 cops would get in his way after he shot Tippit.
~grin~

I doubt that Clark was serious when he asked that question. But, with
some CTers (or fence-riders, or whatever Clark is)...who can tell???

It's not like Oswald had much of a choice on November 22, huh? He only
had the one revolver. Did Clark expect Oswald to load up with 5 or 6
guns before leaving his roominghouse?

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 10:14:36 PM8/22/07
to
>>> "It {a fingerprint from CE656} is STILL labeled unidentified in the National Archives." <<<

Well, let me ask you this, Richard --- Are there OTHER prints in the
National Archives that came from original Commission Exhibit #656 that
are still labeled "unidentified"? Or is there just ONE single print in
the Archives with such an "unidentified" remark written on it? (I'll
admit, I haven't the slightest idea what the answer to that Archives
question is.)

At least three of the prints in the CE656 exhibit that appears on the
HistoryMatters website say "unidentified" on them, one saying "palm
print" and two others that don't say "palm".

If there are other prints in the Archives that aren't labeled with the
specific person they were identified with....then what does it prove
to pick out just one print and run with that to the CT endzone?

Okay, so it still says "unidentified". But, as I said, there's at
least one other one in CE656 that says that same thing. But what does
it PROVE? Those prints were unquestionably identified LATER, after
they were originally labeled "unidentified". CE3131 proves this.

>>> "No professional would ruin his career saying a fingerprint is a palm print." <<<

And Darby never did say that. And Bugliosi never said that Darby said
that. So why are you saying this?

Darby did compare a fingerprint to a Wallace fingerprint, yes. But the
big problem for the "I Want Wallace To Be In The TSBD" conspiracy
theorists still remains the September 18, 1964, letter from J. Edgar
Hoover to J. Lee Rankin (CE3131), wherein Hoover tells Rankin and the
WC that all other prints from the TSBD have been identified positively
as either Oswald's or that of DPD personnel, except for one PALMprint.
Not a FINGERprint.

THAT is what the record shows. Like it or not. Is CE3131 a total lie?
If so, why didn't Hoover extend the lie a little more by saying that
ALL prints had been identified? It doesn't make any sense, even from
the standpoint of a conspiracist.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0418a.htm

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 10:44:47 PM8/22/07
to

www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md_plReviewDetail/?ie=UTF8&cdForum=&ASIN=0393045250&cdPage=12&cdItems=10&asin=&store=yourstore&cdSort=ByDateCreated&cdThread=TxQIH1BIQ3NHWQ&reviewID=R2WGEQ6VP0PJD8&displayType=ReviewDetail&cdSortDir=Ascending#Mx1TO9S3RL2YFO4

>>> "I am open to ALL the evidence." <<<

But you'll gloss over the BEST stuff (e.g., all of that Oswald-Did-It
stuff...bullets, shells, prints, guns, his actions, his lies, etc.).

That's what CTers do best. They'll latch on to as much chaff as
humanly possible and toss away most of the wheat.

Lovely policy indeed. If you're a conspiracy-loving kook, that is.

Happy chaff-hunting (and non-C2766-bullet-hunting, too; good luck on
that last one).

YoHarvey

unread,
Aug 22, 2007, 10:53:22 PM8/22/07
to
On Aug 22, 10:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md_plRevi...

>
> >>> "I am open to ALL the evidence." <<<
>
> But you'll gloss over the BEST stuff (e.g., all of that Oswald-Did-It
> stuff...bullets, shells, prints, guns, his actions, his lies, etc.).
>
> That's what CTers do best. They'll latch on to as much chaff as
> humanly possible and toss away most of the wheat.
>
> Lovely policy indeed. If you're a conspiracy-loving kook, that is.
>
> Happy chaff-hunting (and non-C2766-bullet-hunting, too; good luck on
> that last one).

The evidence is so overwhelming against Oswald to believe in any
conspiracy is to believe Gil Jesus can THINK. Case closed :-)

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 12:15:35 AM8/23/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/3/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=55&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3TL3SVF9ROAUZ#Mx3TL3SVF9ROAUZ

>>> "Why do you hate Mark Lane so much?" <<<

Oh, come now, my good man. You know damn well what Mark Lane is all
about. He's all about exonerating poor, sweet Lee Harvey -- at ANY
cost.

The link below vividly puts on display the underhanded tactics Mr.
Lane has employed over the years. .....

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f

If you want to support a man who does things like that...feel free.
But don't ask me to support him.

>>> "In the conversation I had with Mark {Lane}, he told me he had a conversation with Cyril {Wecht}. Cyril told Mark that, yes, Bugliosi and he had a conversation. But what was printed did not resemble in any way the conversation that took place. Take from that what you want." <<<

Which won't be very much, I can tell you that (considering the
extremely-lousy source you have provided).

>>> "When does your fantasy end? When?" <<<

When you (or any CTer) proves a conspiracy in John Kennedy's murder.
That's when. Thus far...zilch.

(An extra non-C2766 bullet or two certainly wouldn't harm a
conspiracist. So far, though...zilch.)

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 12:18:54 AM8/23/07
to
How did that "Residue" get on the bullets in Oswald's pocket?

Did Oswald have a gunbelt in his pocket?


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187835258.9...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 12:19:45 AM8/23/07
to
Please name the lies Oswald told that we can Verify?

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187836889.0...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md_plReviewDetail/?ie=UTF8&cdForum=&ASIN=0393045250&cdPage=12&cdItems=10&asin=&store=yourstore&cdSort=ByDateCreated&cdThread=TxQIH1BIQ3NHWQ&reviewID=R2WGEQ6VP0PJD8&displayType=ReviewDetail&cdSortDir=Ascending#Mx1TO9S3RL2YFO4


>
>>>> "I am open to ALL the evidence." <<<
>
> But you'll gloss over the BEST stuff (e.g., all of that Oswald-Did-It
> stuff...bullets, shells, prints, guns, his actions, his lies, etc.).
>

> That's what's CTers do best -- Latch on to as much chaff as humanly

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 12:50:05 AM8/23/07
to
David Von Pain (in the ass) Quotes David Von Pain (in the ass)

Official records scare the shit outta him.>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187842535.1...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 1:15:24 AM8/23/07
to
>>> "How did that "Residue" get on the bullets in Oswald's pocket?" <<<

What the fuck....?

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 1:22:27 AM8/23/07
to
>>> "Please name the lies Oswald told that we can verify?" <<<

1.) "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."

2.) "I don't know what this situation is about."

3.) "They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
Union."

4.) "I was denied legal counsel during that very short-and-sweet
hearing."

5.) "I'm just a patsy."

All said on live television....and all are 100% lies. Without a doubt.

Many more below.......

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 1:28:04 AM8/23/07
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187846547....@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

>>>> "Please name the lies Oswald told that we can verify?" <<<
>
> 1.) "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
TRUE

> 2.) "I don't know what this situation is about."

TRUE

> 3.) "They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
> Union."

POSSIBLY TRUE

> 4.) "I was denied legal counsel during that very short-and-sweet
> hearing."

TRUE

> 5.) "I'm just a patsy."

TRUE

> All said on live television....and all are 100% lies. Without a doubt.
>
> Many more below.......
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098

Why did you Dodge the Provable Lies of the Authorities???

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm


>

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 1:29:57 AM8/23/07
to
I asked a Simple question in English.

You answered with Profanity.
Are you pleading Ignorance?

I'll type it S-L-O-W-E-R- this time

"How did that "Residue" get on the bullets in Oswald's pocket?"

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187846124.4...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 1:40:58 AM8/23/07
to
>>> "How did that "Residue" get on the bullets in Oswald's pocket?" <<<

I, too, will speak slower for the 217-year-old one....

W.......T......F????

(If somebody can tell me what in the hell any "residue" on Oswald's
unfired bullets has to do with the price of Twinkies in Idaho, I'd be
obliged. Until then, this remains a matter for the "WTF?" team.)

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:00:07 AM8/23/07
to
Looks like you're NOT as well read as you would have people to believe.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm

Then, you can Dazzle us with your knowledge of these official records>>>

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187847658.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:06:57 AM8/23/07
to
>>> "Looks like you're NOT as well read as you would have people to believe." <<<

Looks like I was, indeed, wrong about one thing -- Tom-Sack is a
bigger idiot than I could have ever imagined.

Care to answer my last question about the bullets, btw?

"Residue" = LHO's Innocent??

Is that about the size of it, Mr. Methuselah-Kook?

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:11:59 AM8/23/07
to
The 1912 model Toothless Trucker is PO'd again!

Use "FIXED TYPE" option to view Rossley in extra shitty
mood re David Von Pein saying the Sack's break-thru
blockbuster discovery of (har-har) residue on the
bullets in Oz's pockets had "nothing to do with the
price of Twinkies in Idaho."

` ____
` / \ "The Walker, Kennedy
` | \ / | and Tippit shooters all 3
` | / \ | got away! The fkg Z film
` |_______| was also altered! I'll
` | | killfile the lot of em!"
`=====================
` | \ / | "I'll kill-file DVP for his
` | @ @ | Twinkies wisecrack. I was
` ( (_) ) scheduled to be on "DATELINE"
` \ v v / re the bullet residue, but Ed
` \_____/ got it switched to "America's
` Funniest Home Videos!! Ed and
` DVP are both banned from my
` chat-room! I'll kill-file Gil,
` Harv, and justme too!"
`
` Sak.O.Nutz winner:
~~ Golden Sombrero Award ~~
` MR ;^D


On Aug 23, 12:28 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1187846547....@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...>>>> "Please name the lies Oswald told that we can verify?" <<<

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:26:00 AM8/23/07
to
WHY mince words Criminal?

You a Felon Supporter
You're another CUNT
You're Chickenshit Liar
You're a Child-Molester

WHY do you attack me when we have Soooo much in common?

We're Both doin Your wife.

Dont blame her.
I was the one who answered her add in the N Y Times.

NOW!@
Do you wanna explain the residue on the bullets found in Oswald's pocket?
OR, are you gonna RUN from that one like you RAN from THESE>>>


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187849217.0...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:28:44 AM8/23/07
to
From a guy(?) who thinks Oswald lived at 2610 N Beckley
From a guy(?) who thinks Oswald walked a 2-minute mile.
From a guy(>) who RUNS from his own evidence/testimony

<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1187849519.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Message has been deleted

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 6:14:40 AM8/23/07
to
On Aug 23, 2:28 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> From a guy(?) who thinks Oswald lived at 2610 N Beckley
> From a guy(?) who thinks Oswald walked a 2-minute mile.
> From a guy(>) who RUNS from his own evidence/testimony
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
>
> <ecag...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ROFLMAO (Healy moment) these last posts by him are too funny to even
respond too...The 3rd stooge can't keep his head above water without
the other 2 stooges to hold him up.

aeffects

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 1:43:18 PM8/23/07
to
On Aug 23, 3:14 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Aug 23, 2:28 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From a guy(?) who thinks Oswald lived at 2610 N Beckley
> > From a guy(?) who thinks Oswald walked a 2-minute mile.
> > From a guy(>) who RUNS from his own evidence/testimony
>
> >http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/Wa...

so, you served in Vietnam, eh?

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:41:23 PM8/23/07
to
Are you Stupid! ! ! !

That's "WOMAN-JUICE"

And, I got it from your Wife.

ps; She's also a CUNT.

pps;
You're ALSO outta scotch.

You Criminals wanna engage in name-calling to avoid addressing
evidence/testimony?
THESE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm

I LOVE beating the shiut outta you nwith your mown evidence/testimony
I ALSO LOVE beating the shit outta you with trading insults.

btw;
I Shaved your wife's Mustache.

Keep Bringin it Pansy Criminal;
I Love Both.


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187851267.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


>>>> "Do you wanna explain the residue on the bullets found in Oswald's
>>>> pocket?" <<<
>

> OK, OK.
>
> I was only stalling so I wouldn't embarrass you. But, since you're
> crying like a baby.....
>
> The "residue" was your own man-juice. You must've got too excited when
> you rubbed up against Sweet Saint Lee on 11/22/63 when you drove him
> to 10th & Patton in your 1921 Maxwell convertible (seeing as how he
> could have never reached that location in the time you allow for the
> trip; so you drove him there...obviously).
>
> Satisfied now? (In more ways than one possibly?)
>

tomnln

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 2:44:22 PM8/23/07
to
BOTTOM POST;

<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187864080....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

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


> ROFLMAO (Healy moment) these last posts by him are too funny to even
> respond too...The 3rd stooge can't keep his head above water without
> the other 2 stooges to hold him up.

Even "Funny Ones" are TOO much for CUNTS to address.
NOW, you're a Criminal CUNT.

SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm

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

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 23, 2007, 6:41:55 PM8/23/07
to
>>> "What's the matter, Dave? Did your dog eat your evidence? Is that why you can't post it?" <<<


Who needs evidence to battle your {Clark's} insanity posted here?
Ordinary, garden-variety common sense will suffice very nicely...and
does.

And your next stupid theory re. Oswald is going to be.....??

(BTW, if that chip on Clark's shoulder gets any larger, we'll have to
dig him out of the rubble. Because the sheer weight of it is bound to
bury him soon.)

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 12:12:38 AM8/24/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/3/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=72&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2PV7YN37O1AHK#Mx2PV7YN37O1AHK

>>> "With all due respect, please don't post your own blog as "proof" {Mark} Lane is incompetent, kooky, whatever." <<<

With all due respect, Richard, I'll post whatever I want to. At any
time. So keep your CT ruler in the drawer and quit attempting to slap
my wrists with it.


>>> "He {Mark Lane} claimed attorney-client privilege, which is done all the time. He was hired by Marguerite Oswald to represent LHO before the Warren Commission." <<<

Which, of course, is THE major reason he wanted to bend over backwards
so much to clear a double-murderer named Lee Harvey. (I would have
thought that much would be quite obvious to everyone...even a
conspiracy-loving individual.)

Plus: My previously-linked article really had very little to do with
Lane's lame attempt to try and keep the WC from hearing his appalling
phone call to Helen Markham. The essay was written to focus on the arm-
twisting tactics Lane utilized with Mrs. Markham in 1964.

But it's nice to see where you fully stand on Mr. Lane. You'll defend
him even though you surely must know about his underhanded tactics
regarding Mrs. Markham.

You'd be better advised to stick with Jim Marrs or Oliver Stone. At
least they're not on tape attempting to shove some "Bushy" words down
a scared witness' throat.


>>> "And the WC report is exactly why I am a CTer. It is an indictment against LHO, a prosecutor's brief, plain and simple." <<<


And it's 100% accurate in its bottom-line "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion too. So, what's really your point here? In essence, you
have no point. Because the WC got it right. Plain and simple.

And I'd advise you to read (or re-read) David Belin's excellent 1973
book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury". Either Mr. Belin was an
top-notch liar, or he WANTED TO FIND A CONSPIRACY in the Kennedy
murder case when he entered into it.

Was he talking through his hat throughout that 500-plus-page book,
Richard, when he said he desperately WANTED to uncover some type of
conspiracy but came up with just Oswald?


>>> "LHO was tried and convicted without representation." <<<

Gerry Spence got around to "representing" him in 1986 in London. And
Vince Bugliosi tore Spence's flimsy and poorly-presented "case" to
shreds.

Spence's heart wasn't in that "mock" trial at all, I'll grant you that
much; because even Spence told the TV audience following the trial,
"There was no conspiracy". So Spence knew from the get-go that he was
defending a guilty killer.

Would Mark Lane have done any better? Answer -- Not a chance. Because
all Vince Bugliosi (or any prosecutor) would have needed to do was to
present to the jury details of Mr. Lane's unscrupulous actions
regarding Markham and the WC, just like I laid out in my mock
questioning of Markham here.....

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f

Once the jury heard any of that stuff re. Lane, his reputation in the
jury's eyes would be completely shot. And rightly so.


>>> "Mark Lane has debunked numerous pieces of "evidence" produced by the Warren Commission." <<<

Maybe he thinks he has "debunked" things. But he hasn't. That's a
common tactic employed by CTers, too -- i.e., let's pretend we've
"debunked" some piece of evidence and present it to the masses as
"debunked" or worthless or suspicious or what-have-you -- even though,
in reality, no such discrediting of the evidence has really been
accomplished at all.

CE399 being a prime example of this tactic. CTers love to claim that
that bullet couldn't have done this and couldn't have done that....but
nothing about that missile has been "debunked" by the conspiracy
community. Nothing. It's still THE ONLY WHOLE BULLET in the official
record of the JFK murder case and always will be. And it's positively
a bullet that was fired from the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Conspiracists think they've destroyed the authenticity of CE399 and
the logicality of the SBT. But they haven't come close. Not even
close. Common sense ALONE tells a reasonable person that the SBT is
the correct solution. And when all the OTHER evidence and parameters
are added to that common sense...it's Katie, bar the door. The SBT is
fact.

(Sorry, my mind wandered to the SBT.)

And it wandered some more here.....

IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7

>>> "And I will pose this question to you again: why do you believe those who do not believe the WC report HAVE to prove something?" <<<

Perhaps it's because the WC is (still as we speak) the OFFICIAL
CONCLUSION of how John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. And unless
CTers can come up with something better than what the Warren
Commission has placed on the table, then the WC's conclusions are
still the best and most-reasonable scenario re. the JFK murder case.

A CTer's mileage will, of course, vary wildly when it comes to that
last paragraph. But, what's new about that?

The WC wasn't a court proceeding, that's quite true enough. It was a
fact-finding committee, to try and determine who killed the President
and (if possible) why that person or persons did so. And, IMO, the WC
did those things quite well, and in a fairly-short period of time (all
things considered; they had to investigate a lot of things, multiplied
by THREE separate murders, too).

You hate the WC. Okay, fine. I, however, do not. And neither does
Vincent T. Bugliosi.....

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history.
Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges
that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Via the 36-page Introduction to "Reclaiming
History"

>>> "What I am looking for is the release of all the evidence, all the sealed files." <<<

And you expect to find the proverbial "smoldering gun" within the
approx. 0.05% of the still-classified and unreleased documents
connected to the JFK case, is that it?

Virtually all documents HAVE been released. And, as Bugliosi points
out in his book, even the small % of stuff not available to the public
HAS BEEN EXAMINED by the ARRB in the 1990s. And, guess what? No
smoking gun. Nothing even close to it.

>>> "But we still don't know LHO's motive, and the only one posited by the wacky Bugliosi is LHO had dilusions of grandeur and LHO was a wacko of limited intelligence." <<<


Sounds like you're misrepresenting Vince's assessment of Oswald's
intellect. VB says in his book that he definitely thinks that Lee
Oswald was "intellectually inclined" (i.e., not the dope that some
people make him out to be).

In any event, Bugliosi doesn't really need to show motive. Nobody
does. Oswald signed his name to 2 murders in Dallas in 1963. All of
the evidence says that's true....regardless of the "Why Did He Do It?"
question having an ironclad answer.

Potential lack of a motive can't trump bullets, prints, guns, and
OSWALD'S OWN INCRIMINATING ACTIONS following the assassination.


>>> "What about the 7.65 shell found in the plaza that was marked into evidence, then destroyed?" <<<


"Marked into evidence, then destroyed", you say??? That's quite a
charge there. Care to substantiate any of that?

Of course, you cannot substantiate that bullet-shell allegation,
because no such 7.65mm. shell ever existed that was in any way
connected to the murder of JFK.

Also: Within the type of Oliver Stone-like "Patsy" plot that many,
many CTers believe in....why on Earth would anyone be firing "7.65
mm." ammunition at JFK that day, when the "patsy" owned a 6.5mm.
weapon? It's just so silly as to be utterly cartoonish in nature (via
such a "patsy" plot mindset).


>>> "What about the new NAA done that shows different bullets?" <<<

The "new" NAA stuff isn't really "new" at all and everybody knows it.
The NAA analysis was never 100% certain, and even Vincent Guinn wasn't
ready to say it was in front of the HSCA in 1978.

And these new NAA tests most certainly do NOT, in any fashion, debunk
the notion that ONLY Oswald's bullets from rifle C2766 did all the
damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally on 11/22/63.

In no way do the newer test results indicate that "different
bullets" (other than Oswald's Carcano bullets) were positively
involved in the shooting. These newer tests only indicate that the
previous NAA tests might not be as reliable at separating the various
batches of bullet lead as Guinn (et al) had originally thought.

But even after all of these newer NAA tests, Oswald's bullets are
definitely STILL IN THE BULLET MIX. There's no question about that
fact.

And a whole lot of other evidence proves Oswald's guilt and proves his
gun shot JFK & JBC, apart from NAA. NAA is merely corroborative.
Always was.


>>> "I, along with two others, have shown that Marrion Baker was in the doorway of the TSBD 22 seconds after the head shot. Is that conclusive proof? No. However, it supports his 75-second recreation, not his 90. And if 75 is substantiated, then LHO is innocent." <<<


Oh, for Pete sake! Get a grip! What you just said is total nonsense!

ALL of the reconstructed times for the Baker & Oswald run-throughs
were ESTIMATES/APPROXIMATIONS. That's all.

I happen to think the WC re-creations were pretty close to what
actually happened, and here's why (in detail).....

RE-CONSTRUCTING THE STEPS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938

.....But to claim that a 75-second timeline by Baker positively means
"LHO is innocent" is just utter nonsense of the first order.

Firstly, we don't have the slightest idea how fast or slow Oswald was
moving down those stairs (or across that sixth floor of the TSBD) just
after he shot JFK. If he was moving substantially faster than John
Howlett of the Secret Service was moving during Howlett's re-creations
of the event months later, then THERE'S your answer right
there....i.e., Oswald could easily have made it to the 2nd-Floor
lunchroom prior to Officer Marrion Baker.

Secondly, by Baker's own admission, the WC re-creations he performed
did not include every last thing that Baker did on 11/22/63. The
reconstructions didn't take into account his having to wade through
the crowd in front of the Depository before he entered; and it also
wasn't known during the re-creations exactly how long Baker and Roy
Truly were standing on the first floor waiting for one of the two
freight elevators to come down to them prior to the pair rushing up
the back staircase.

Baker specifically stated......

"We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did
everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because
I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer." -- Marrion L.
Baker

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

In other words, it probably took Baker LONGER on November 22nd to do
what he did during his March 1964 re-creations of the events.


>>> "LHO told Fritz he was on the first floor having lunch and went to the second floor and purchased a Coke, Which Baker corroborated THEN CHANGED MONTHS LATER, only when they found that if LHO had the Coke in his hands, it really threw off their timing." <<<

Baker changed nothing, and you can't prove he did. You, of course, are
referring to this document, dated September 23, 1964.....

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen9.jpg

.....Which is a document that was NOT written by Marrion L. Baker. It
was quite obviously (via the handwriting seen in the document) written
by someone other than Baker, probably FBI Agent Richard Burnett.

Baker merely CORRECTED and initialed Burnett's errors within that
written document. That's obvious from just one look at the document in
question.

Also: BOTH Marrion Baker and Roy Truly told the WC that they each
thought Oswald had "nothing" in either one of his hands during the
brief lunchroom encounter. Are they both rotten liars in this regard?
Or were Baker and Truly both "coerced" by the evil WC and its shady
lawyers? Which is it?

>>> "Even Dale Myers knows there is a problem here. Read his article written with Todd Vaughan. They posit that LHO wandered down the hall, then turned around and went into the lunchroom." <<<


Yes, I saw that Myers' article. And it's a good theory too. And it
makes sense. Oswald could have possibly turned toward the office area,
saw someone in there (probably Mrs. Reid), and then did an about-face
and went back into the lunchroom.

Nobody can prove that scenario to be correct, that's true. But it's a
reasonable interpretation of Oswald's movements given THE SUM TOTAL OF
ALL OTHER EVIDENCE THAT TELLS A REASONABLE PERSON THAT LEE HARVEY
OSWALD SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

>>> "And, to answer your question about CE 3131, I believe this answers your question -- If this print is unidentified, then CE 3131 is in error." <<<


And if one or more of the prints that are in the National Archives
(which were initially labeled "unidentified") have, in fact, since
been identified as belonging to DPD officials (as CE3131 fully
indicates), then you are in error.

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

tomnln

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 1:56:42 AM8/24/07
to
NO reply in 24 hrs.

David must be eating at Lowery's.


"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PX8zi.118737$g86....@newsfe14.lga...

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 2:50:24 AM8/24/07
to
What's there to reply to?

If Oswald's bullets had some kind of goo on them.....who the hell
cares, except a kook?

tomnln

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 12:18:16 PM8/24/07
to
KOOK-SUCKERS never did look at evidence/testimony.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1187938224....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 4:41:10 PM8/24/07
to

aeffects

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 4:53:05 PM8/24/07
to
On Aug 24, 1:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVH...

>
> >>> "With all due respect, please don't post your own blog as "proof" {Mark} Lane is incompetent, kooky, whatever." <<<
>
> With all due respect, Richard, I'll post whatever I want to. At any
> time. So keep your CT ruler in the drawer and quit attempting to slap
> my wrists with it.
>
> >>> "He {Mark Lane} claimed attorney-client privilege, which is done all the time. He was hired by Marguerite Oswald to represent LHO before the Warren Commission." <<<
>
> Which, of course, is THE major reason he wanted to bend over backwards
> so much to clear a double-murderer named Lee Harvey. (I would have
> thought that much would be quite obvious to everyone...even a
> conspiracy-loving individual.)

are you that fucking stupid to assume an attorney (any attorney) can
clear a client (sic) one that he never represented in court (nor got
to trial) and that same client (sic) he never represented was in fact,
murdered before he could find an attorney (sic) to represent him.....?
Tell me it ain't so, Gloria..... You failed DVP, never got close to
ending the controversy...

<snip David Von Pein quoting himself>


David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 5:03:39 PM8/24/07
to

Lookie kids! Something brand-new! Healy talking in riddles, with
absolutely NOTHING to say at all!

Surprise!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 5:12:51 PM8/24/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/4/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=82&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxOTQ1ZTF9P3FD#MxOTQ1ZTF9P3FD

>>> "Quote Bugliosi all you want." <<<

I shall. And have.

>>> "He {Bugliosi} has no credibility." <<<

Only to a rabid CTer, of course. Otherwise, Mr. Bugliosi's credibility
is impeccable. Always has been.

>>> "He {Bugliosi} is a man who, time and again since the book was written, has avoided debate after debate. The only time I have seen him appear with a differing opinion is on "Hardball"." <<<

You must've missed this one then:

www.pluggd.com/audio/channels/the_doug_hoerth_show/episodes/2wmdf

>>> "And Bugliosi acted like the raving lunatic he is when someone disagrees with him." <<<

Oh brother.

>>> "As far as a trial, Lane would destroy Bugliosi." <<<

A reprise is definitely in order here -- OH BROTHER!

>>> "And, David, you really need to consider another tact." <<<

Maybe I should I ask Bob Groden if he's got any openings at his Dealey
Plaza thrift shop. Then Bob can teach me all about his "tact" (it's
actually "tack") on the case -- 10 shots and ZERO of them coming from
Oswald's window.

And Bob is supposedly a top-notch researcher too. Go figure.

>>> "It simply doesn't work, David. Give it up." <<<

Third time's usually a charm -- Oh Brother!

Thanks for your wonderful insight.

(Who's got my "eyeroll" icon? I need it here....bad.)

"RECLAIMING HISTORY" -- A PERSONAL (DVP) REVIEW:
http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 8:46:39 PM8/24/07
to

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ab0343833e4e2f49


>>> "And in an earlier posting you lied when you said that Lane was not aware that Lovelady identified himself in the photo. Maybe you've never actually read Rush to Judgment or you don't have your copy handy to quote. I do. Here is what Mark Lane actually wrote:

In the background of this picture were several employees watching the
parade from the steps of the Depository Building. One of these
employees was alleged to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald. The Commission
has determined that the employee was in fact Billy Nolan Lovelady, who
identified himself in the picture.

You lied to manufacture a fake controversy." <<<

<huge laugh>

The RTJ (book) quote that Marsh-Kook provided is only FURTHER proving
my point re. Lane's lying tactics!

Via that quote we KNOW for a FACT that Lane knew for a FACT that Billy
Lovelady himself IDed himself as Doorway Man...hence, there was
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR EVEN BRINGING UP THE WHOLE TOPIC OF "DOORWAY
MAN" IN EITHER LANE'S BOOK OR HIS FILM. Period.

IOW--It was a total NON-ISSUE that was being brought up by Mark Lane
in both his book and film. And in the film version of the book, Lane
is positively hinting that the WC got it wrong re. Doorway Man's
identity. There is no question that that was Lane's whole reason for
bringing up the topic in the first place.

What OTHER reason would Lane (a rabid CTer) have for bringing up
Doorway Man at all? To point out something that HARMS his pro-CT
cause? Nonsense. He obviously brought it up to mislead his film
audience into thinking that the "DM" matter maybe wasn't resolved
after all.

Does anybody really think that Lane was merely trying to clear up the
record re. Doorway Man? Or was he trying to plant a seed of doubt
where not the SLIGHTEST bit of doubt ever existed after Lovelady's
April 1964 testimony?

You decide.

But if you decide on anything other than that latter option I just
mentioned above, you're just plain nuts.


>>> "It took the HSCA and Robert Groden to nail down Lovelady and the correct shirt." <<<

<even bigger laugh this time>

I guess LOVELADY'S OWN WORDS weren't good enough, huh? The horse's
"Doorway Man" mouth wasn't good enough, was it?

It took Groden's photographic expertise re. the shirt colors to nail
down Doorway Man's identity, huh?

God, what a kook.

Lovelady cleared up DM's identity on April the 7th of 1964, 14 years
before the HSCA and "Grodenscoping", and yet some kook has just said
it wasn't until 1978 that the mystery surrounding Doorway Man was
finally resolved.

It's a wonder you kooks can find your way home each day. Jesus H.
Christ.


>>> "Lane was calling for a new investigation to shore up loose ends like this. And with my help and others, that's what he got in the HSCA, which did close up loose ends including this." <<<


Make Marsh stop! It hurts to laugh this much within one single post
full of Marsh-crap!!

If you think the Doorway Man issue was a "loose end" as of 1978, you
are ready for the funniest of funny farms. It was a fully-resolved
issue the moment Lovelady drew the arrow on this picture....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm


>>> "Garrison was gullible enough to believe every conspiracy allegation which came down the pike. Stick to Mark Lane. That was your allegation." <<<

And Lane was/is only about 1% less of a deceiver, evidence-
manipulator, and CT-Kook than was Mr. Garrison. (Maybe only half-a-
percent less.)


>>> "Of course Bugliosi is a liar. Such as on page 732 when he repeats the WC defender lie that modern firearms never emit any smoke." <<<

You haven't read page 732 of "Reclaiming History", you lying sack (or
page 1 even). Why are you giving us the impression you have read page
732? A liar, aren't you?


>>> "But I do not think that he can pack his book with 100% lies. That is too great a task for any man." <<<

The above quote proves you haven't set eyes on VB's book (page 732 or
any other page). Kook.

BTW, filling a book with 100% lies isn't so difficult -- just go ask
Groden. He's pert-near done just that.

>>> "You may not be able to fill all your postings with 100% lies, but you surely will give it a good try." <<<

You're one arrogant sumbitch, aren't you Mr. Kook? ;)


>>> "Rush to Judgment on VHS tape. Yes. Not sure it is out on DVD. I can transfer it to DVD for you." <<<

Don't do me any favors, Mr. Kook. I wouldn't want anything you've
touched anyway. Any DVD I got from you would likely make my DVD player
explode upon immediate disc insertion. So, no thanks, Mr. Kook.


>>> "Not exactly testified, but yes Mark Lane wrote that in his book, which obviously you've never bothered to read, but which I quoted for you. Yet you continue to lie about what Mark Lane said." <<<

I never once lied. In fact, I specifically stated earlier that Lane
HAD TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT LOVELADY'S 1964 WC TESTIMONY. And IF he hadn't
known, he was an even bigger fool for not researching the facts before
making an ass of himself on film.

Okay, so Lane knew that Lovelady WAS, in fact, Doorway Man, circa
1966-1967. So why is the topic even brought up AT ALL in a conspiracy-
tinged book like RTJ, or in his film, which is ALL pro-CT??

I'd like to see the verbiage in RTJ that immediately follows the
quoted passage you produced earlier re. Lovelady. Let me guess...Lane
casts some "doubt" about whether Lovelady could really identify
himself in the Altgens picture. Right?

I've gotta be right! Or else why would he even bring the subject up AT
ALL?

And you're right...I haven't read the book version of RTJ. I wouldn't
touch a hideous CT tome like that with a 60-foot pole. But Lane's film
I do definitely enjoy for its mid-60s "feel" and the great views of DP
circa 1967. The conspiracy tripe throughout is bogus
(naturally)...esp. the Lovelady stuff.


>>> "Quote? Citation?" <<<

Why is a quote or citation even NEEDED? Lane is ALL CONSPIRACY, ALL
THE TIME. Anything in his film is going to be put there to further the
notion of possible conspiracy. Therefore, the mere fact that Doorway
Man is even brought up in his film (or book) means that Lane wants to
cast doubt on the veracity of DM's (Lovelady's) identity.

Do you need a road map to see this, for Christ sake?


>>> "Evidence-skewer? Mighty strong words coming from a proven liar." <<<

Would you prefer "rotten lowlife, conspiracy-loving scumbag"??

Yeah, that DOES sound better, come to think of it.

Those words fit a kook named Marsh too.

Now, back to bed you go, Mr. Marsh. Lane and Fetzer and Groden are
getting cold without you there in bed to warm them.

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

Sam Brown

unread,
Aug 24, 2007, 9:29:08 PM8/24/07
to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187989419.5...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>
> Lookie kids! Something brand-new! Healy talking in riddles, with
> absolutely NOTHING to say at all!
>
> Surprise!

Its becoming par for the course David. I dont think he's posted anything
coherent in weeks. But we should be compassionate, ever since VB's book was
released he has had his entire belief system turned on its ear. I think
we've been witness to a nervous breakdown. The poor old man is unravelling
before our eyes.


>

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 25, 2007, 3:58:18 PM8/25/07
to

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4797cf65d5c5b98d

Charles Wallace said (on 11/16/2002; has he changed his tune since, ya
think?):

>>> "I'm still unconvinced that {Doorway Man} is Lovelady instead of Oswald." <<<


So Oswald was out on the front stoop during the shooting, and yet
decided to lie to police and tell them he was inside the building.

Per this CT logic, Oswald has a PERFECT alibi that would have cleared
him of the murder charge, and obviously some of the dozens of OTHER
Depository front-door lurkers would have noticed Lee being there too
--
but instead of telling the truth re. his being out front, he decides
to
clam up for two days, even when he's given multiple GOLDEN
OPPORTUNITIES TO SCREAM HIS 12:30 WHEREABOUTS TO THE WORLD ON LIVE
TELEVISION, "Live" comments out of Oswald's mouth that the cops
couldn't have done anything about, even if the police and FBI WERE
"in"
on a "hush up the truth" cover-up operation.

Which, of course, begs the secondary inquiry of -- WHY IN GOD'S NAME
WOULD THE COPS LET OSWALD SPEAK FREELY TO LIVE T.V. CAMERAS NUMEROUS
TIMES IF THEY (THE DPD) ARE TRYING TO "COVER UP" OSWALD'S REAL
STATEMENTS?

Plus -- Re. the OSWALD-IN-DOORWAY theory -----

Charles needs to overcome an even BIGGER "Doorway" stumbling block --
that being:

Why on Earth would Oswald go back INSIDE the Depository immediately
after witnessing the shooting that he had nothing to do with, to get a
soft drink on the 2nd Floor, and then, seconds later, decide to leave
the scene entirely after going back inside the building?

Was he THAT thirsty? He had to have that Coke so badly, he dashes
inside at the exact time the biggest murder of the 20th Century is
taking place practically on his front stoop. And yet he's not the
slightest bit interested in even STAYING OUTSIDE FOR EVEN SO MUCH AS
20
SECONDS FOLLOWING THE TURMOIL!

Amazingly logical, these CTers --- huh? Amazing.

tomnln

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 12:04:59 AM8/26/07
to
WHICH video/audio tape has Oswald telling his Interrogators that he was
inside the building?

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1188071898.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 12:19:24 AM8/26/07
to
We've got Oswald on LIVE TV telling the world he was inside the
building when JFK was killed, you idiot.

tomnln

unread,
Aug 26, 2007, 12:45:11 AM8/26/07
to
NEVER said "when the President was killed" CUNT.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1188101964.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 27, 2007, 7:53:48 PM8/27/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/5/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=113&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3E5Q8WTED4F#Mx3E5Q8WTED4F

CTer Richard Van Noord said:

>>> "The timing is crucial to the case, and has never been thoroughly vetted. Your belief is it cannot be resolved. My position is, we may never solve it exactly, but we can certainly prove the point that Oswald was where he said he was, on the first floor having lunch and coming from the first floor to get a Coke." <<<

Of course you cannot "prove" any such looney thing re. Oswald being on
the first floor at all. Not even CLOSE in fact. Because the BEST
EVIDENCE in this matter is that he was on the SIXTH FLOOR at 12:30
shooting the President.

Also: OF COURSE the Baker & Oswald "timelines" after the shooting can
never be known with 100% certainty. And I'm amazed that you, an
obviously-intelligent person, can utter this incredible statement:

"We can certainly prove the point that Oswald was where he said he
was, on the first floor having lunch and coming from the first floor
to get a Coke." -- R. Van Noord

That's a remarkable statement. As if it were FACT, even with all of
that Oswald-implicating stuff up there on that sixth floor (plus LHO's
own actions in the post-12:30 hours).

Also let me add the following tidbits of info regarding Lee Oswald's
seemingly ever-changing alibi (via Bugliosi's book).....

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

"During Sunday's {11/24/63} interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed
himself on the sixth floor {of the TSBD} at the time of the
assassination. .... In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that
at lunchtime, one of the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch
with him and he declined. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO
EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-
FLOOR LUNCHROOM? {Answer:} The sixth floor." -- VB; "Reclaiming
History"; Page 957

~~~~~

"There is another very powerful reason why we can know that Oswald, at
the time of his confrontation with {Officer Marrion} Baker in the
second-floor lunchroom, had just come down from the sixth floor, not
up from the first floor {to get a Coke}, as he claimed. .... Indeed
there was a Coca-Cola machine in the {second-floor lunch} room. But to
my knowledge, there is no direct reference in the assassination
literature to a SECOND soft drink machine in the Book Depository
Building. .... Neither {Bonnie Ray} Williams nor {Wesley} Frazier
expressly said what floor this machine was on. ....

"Through a few phone calls I was able to reach Wesley Frazier, whom I
hadn't talked to since 1986, when he testified for me at the London
trial. Still living in Dallas, he told me that "there was a Dr. Pepper
machine on the first floor." Where, specifically, was it? "It was
located by the double freight elevator near the back of the
building." .... And indeed, I subsequently found proof of the
existence of the machine, with the words "Dr. Pepper" near the top
front of it, in an FBI photo taken for the Warren Commission of the
northwest corner of the first floor, and it is located right next to
the refrigerator. ....

"So we see that apart from all the conclusive evidence that Oswald
shot Kennedy from the sniper's nest, and therefore HAD to have
descended from there to the second floor, his story about going UP to
the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense. Why go up to
the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a soft
drink machine on the first floor, the floor you say you are already
on, particularly when the apparent drink of your choice {Dr. Pepper by
all accounts} is on this first floor, not the second floor?" -- VB in
"RH"; Pages 957-958

Here's a WC photo of the forgotten-about Dr. Pepper machine in
question:

www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12

BTW, we KNOW that the Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor was
definitely in working order on November 22, 1963. How can we know this
for certain? Because another Book Depository employee, Bonnie Ray
Williams, positively purchased a Dr. Pepper from that very machine no
more than 35 minutes prior to JFK's assassination.

I suppose a conspiracist can now speculate that Williams bought the
last Dr. Pepper in that machine on November 22nd. Or the CTers can
take a guess and claim that Oswald, who drank Dr. Pepper very often
(per several people who knew him), had a thirst for only a Coca-Cola
on that particular Friday in 1963.

Of course, either one of those arguments that can be used to counter
Mr. Bugliosi's logical theory surrounding the soda machines can never
be said to be conclusively false or incorrect. All we can do is guess
when it comes to assessing such matters. But Bugliosi's guess is the
best one, IMO.

More "Dr. Pepper Talk" can be located at the links below:

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1c48b1ff9fc98381

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/820c12165848cef1

~~~~~

"There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the
first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at
all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all
the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood
that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second
floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a
story like that?" -- VB in "RH"; Page 958

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

>>> "Again, I've read your blog. And your timeline for Oswald is plausible, but requires many "ifs." Oswald's explanation is easy, and it works. And if Baker saw him at the angle he did, then it exonerates him." <<<

Sure there are "ifs". How can there NOT be? We do not know how fast or
slow Oswald was moving. Period. That's the biggest "if" of all. And
one that, apparently, you simply refuse to embrace. You seem to think
we can place a stopwatch on Lee Harvey Oswald. But how? We can't.

All we have is guesswork in this regard. And my guess is positively
the best guess -- i.e., he wasn't walking down those stairs like
Grandma Moses on crutches. He was high-tailing it as fast as he could
to the lower floors to try and get out of that building. THAT'S the
best, most-logical guess.

Plus: Baker seeing him at a certain angle through the door does NOT
"exonerate" Oswald. You're crazy if you think it does. Other scenarios
are indeed possible. And even probable, given the OTHER stuff that
says he did descend those stairs after killing the President.


>>> "Point here is, if you're looking for an alibi, why do you AVOID seeing a policeman." <<<


Oh, come now! You cannot be serious here! You actually think for one
second that Lee Oswald would have tried NOT to avoid a man in blue?

Maybe he should he have gone LOOKING for a cop at that time, within
minutes of shooting the President with the gun he left upstairs, huh?

Your arguments are getting weaker by the minute.


>>> "As for the timing I am doing, I am trying to point out that Baker's re-enactment was much SLOWER than his actions that day {11/22/63}." <<<

Again you are ignoring the BEST evidence. And that evidence would be
Baker's own words to the WC re. the re-enactments. Baker swore under
oath that on March 20, 1964, during the re-creations, he took LESS
time to do what he did when compared to his movements on 11/22/63.

In other words, his '64 run-throughs were FASTER than his actual
movements on assassination day....not "SLOWER" as you seem to want to
believe.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 28, 2007, 6:53:03 PM8/28/07
to

www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/6/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=135&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1PWZ3E9BOD8WR#Mx1PWZ3E9BOD8WR

Richard V.N. uttered:

>>> "Oh, by the way David, he {John J. Howlett of the Secret Service during his LHO 're-creations' in March 1964} also didn't stay at the window, like Howard Brennan said he {Lee Harvey Oswald} did {on November 22, 1963}." <<<


Once again, the exact timing of Oswald's post-assassination movements
will never be known for sure. We can only guess. But if you want to
tack on an extra 8 or 10 seconds to Howlett's time, feel free.

But while doing that, keep in mind that Oswald almost certainly was
moving FASTER than Agent Howlett was moving during those re-
constructions that were done several months later.

BTW, here's a freeze-frame image from the Mal Couch film, showing
Officer Marrion Baker heading toward the Book Depository front
entrance:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3641.jpg


>>> "What about the Dillard photo of the east window that shows a figure in the window, shot 30 SECONDS after the head shot." <<<


Tom Dillard's photo shows no such "figure". That's your over-active
CTer imagination at work there. I've seen the "enhanced" blow-ups. I
see no human figure.

It's funny you didn't mention the WEST-end window, too. Because many
CTers, including Robert Groden (the photo "expert" who was ripped to
shreds at the O.J. Simpson civil trial), think there's a guy (with a
HUGE head evidently) visible at the WEST-end window on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository about 30 seconds after the shooting.

But, yes, I've also seen the colored-in enhancements done of the EAST-
end (Oswald's) window too, with some CTers believing there's a person
visible at the east end as well.

Here's the supposed "West-End Conspirator" (after just the right
amount of photographic "enhancement" has been applied to the photo):

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5559.gif

Below is the "Powell photo", which is in color. It was taken at almost
the exact same moment as Dillard's. I don't think anyone has been able
to find the "west-end killer" in this picture:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8542.jpg

Anyway, when a person starts coloring in all sorts of stuff in B&W
photographs, sure, you can probably see a "man" in almost any photo
you want to see one in.

Take this ridiculously-overdrawn "Badge Man" photo for instance
(below). I see Elvis wearing big glasses and holding a microphone in
this picture too. But nobody else does. I wonder why?.....

http://members.optushome.com.au/tnorth/badgeman1.jpg


>>> "What about Lillian Mooneyham's testimony that she saw a person in the east window 3 minutes after the head shot?" <<<


That's a perfect example of how human beings fail to estimate TIME
very well. Let's take witness J.C. Price as another example. He
thought the gunshots were--get this--possibly as much as FIVE MINUTES
apart! (See what I mean?)

Plus: What kind of idiot/boob plotters and assassins were in Dealey
Plaza on November 22 anyhow? They shoot JFK from different guns and
different directions in the Plaza (per most CT accounts of the event),
even though their single "patsy" is supposed to be in the Depository
ONLY (obviously).

And now, per Mooneyham, a gunman (or surely somebody who was part of
the "plot") decides he'll hang around the "window of death", in full
view of witnesses, for THREE minutes after the shooting???

How can a reasonable person think that Mooneyham actually saw an
ASSASSIN (or even an assassin's helper) in any window three full
minutes after the assassination (assuming her time estimate is spot-on
accurate, that is)?

In a few words -- No reasonable person could possibly believe such a
crazy thing.


>>> "Sorry, David. Oswald WAS coming from the first floor, and that's the only way Baker could have seen him coming through the vestibule." <<<


Bull. You've utilized your own selective pro-conspiracy interpretation
of these things to arrive at your ONE & ONLY way it could have
happened....while completely ignoring the best evidence and ignoring
common sense.

In short, you cannot micro-analyze the movements of two men whose
EXACT, TO-THE-SECOND timelines can never be known. Period. And yet you
still insist that you can do this with ultra precision. I can only
scratch my cabeza and wonder....why?


>>> "You have a timing issue, David. And it favors Oswald's innocence and you offer no counter." <<<


I only have a "timing issue" if I choose to totally ignore the VERY
BEST EVIDENCE (the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence, that is) which tells
any reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the lone
assassin of President Kennedy.

Allow me to quote from Mr. Bugliosi's book (yet again). He said it in
fine fashion when he wrote these words on page #953 of "Reclaiming
History":

"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's
guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 30, 2007, 5:00:31 PM8/30/07
to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/7/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=171&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1UAKFDRK6H6WJ#Mx1UAKFDRK6H6WJ


>>> "What I haven't seen, and would like to see (maybe you can point me to this information), is has the question ever been answered - Does the print more closely match Studebaker or Wallace?" <<<

All I can go by is Commission Exhibit #3131 (linked below)...where, on
page 18 of CE3131, J. Edgar Hoover (in unambiguous language that
couldn't be any clearer) says this in his memo to J. Lee Rankin, dated
09/18/1964:

"...It should be noted that there is one latent palm print remaining
unidentified, and investigation is continuing in an effort to identify
same."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm


As for Mac Wallace possibly sneaking in and out of the TSBD totally
unnoticed on November 22, 1963 -- I still have doubts about the
likelihood of a stranger going totally undetected on the SIXTH floor
of the building....which, remember, was a warehouse floor where any
stranger would certainly stick out like a sore thumb, because business
(office) transactions weren't done on that 6th Floor. It was a floor
full of boxes, where only the warehouse crew normally went.

And while it's certainly true that a stranger on the sixth floor,
while sticking out as someone who probably didn't belong up there,
would be noticed by fewer total people, since the office workers from
the lower floors I don't think went up to the warehouse floors very
often....I still am dubious about a total stranger not being seen by
any of the several workers on the 6th Floor that day.

Also -- Remember that there were EXTRA people up there on the sixth
floor for most of Nov. 22--e.g., Givens, Williams, Arce, et al--as
they laid the new plywood flooring on that floor. So MORE people were
actually up there than on a "normal" work day at the Depository. And
still nobody saw Wallace, or any strangers lurking around.

Possible? Yes. I cannot deny that.

Likely? I'll leave that up to others to answer at this point.

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 9:33:11 PM8/31/07
to
>>> "Maybe he {Oswald} was told by the Cubans to hide it {the Carcano rifle} in a certain place and someone else would get it out of the building and dispose of it. There were initial reports that a Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD. ... So maybe Oswald brought a different rifle to the TSBD that day, or no rifle, and someone else planted the rifle linked to Hidell (Oswald)." <<<


It's easy to simply make up allegations of "planting" or "tampering"
or what-have-you in order to dismiss the hard evidence that is now
(and always has been) in the official record of this murder case.

But that evidence isn't going away. And there's not a shred of proof
to indicate that somebody planted or switched CE399, which positively
came out of Oswald's rifle.

And there's a sliver of proof to indicate that somebody switched the
rifles in the Book Depository.

Concerning the initial "Mauser" rifle identification made by the
Dallas police, Dallas Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman offered up the
following verbatim comments for the CBS-TV cameras in June of 1967:

WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on my knees
looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there it was.
And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser,
which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a
glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out
as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type
gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw,
was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement
was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 9:34:01 PM8/31/07
to
>>> "With the primer dented but no shot fired because of a defective gun, we would have to 99% rule out Oswald as shooting Tippit." <<<


So Oswald was walking around with a gun that he knew wasn't going to
be of any use to him whatsoever on November 22? Is that about the size
of it?

Or is it your contention that LHO didn't know he had a "defective
gun"? Don't you think he EVER fired it previously?

Bottom line --- Oswald killed J.D. Tippit, and no amount of CTer
double-talk and obfuscation will change that basic fact. So, just live
with it. You can still claim he's innocent of JFK's murder (and you no
doubt will).

Also: If the gun was "defective", how did four SPENT shells (i.e., as
a result of the gun being FIRED) end up in the official record in the
case? (Even "planted" SPENT shells would need to have to been fired
from the gun.)

Pretty predicament there, huh?


>>> "It {Oswald's revolver} was inoperable from the day Oswald got it to when he was arrested, then the defect to the hammer was fixed so rounds could be test fired, and these rounds were supplied to the WC. This would explain why Officer Poe marked the shells at the scene, but could not find his mark on the shells given to the WC. (Most likely theory - matches all known facts)." <<<


My, how convenient. A conspiracy wrapped up in a pretty red bow and
ribbon. And one that must have had a goodly-sized number of after-the-
fact cover-up operatives. Geesh.

Ask yourself -- Why? What for? To implicate an innocent Oswald in a
SECOND murder on 11/22 too? Why would the DPD or FBI want to do this?

And why on this Earth would the Dallas cops want to allow the "real"
killer or killers of their fellow officer to get away? That's the
nuttiest part of all (if you think the DPD was involved in trying to
"frame" an INNOCENT Lee Oswald for the murder of Officer Tippit).

Those policemen would have wanted to capture the REAL KILLER(S) of
their friend and fellow officer at all costs. They wouldn't have
simply ignored clues that led to the true murderer, just to hang the
whole rap on Oswald. Again, that's just....nuts.

And with respect to the FBI -- J. Edgar Hoover and his boys should
have been dying to CLEAR Oswald of any charges....instead of trying to
frame him (as many CTers seem to believe). Because they KNEW he was in
Dallas. If they could clear the guy it'd make the Bureau look better
for NOT HAVING KEPT BETTER TABS ON OSWALD.

Are you actually willing to just ignore the 10 or so witnesses (even
if you wish to scrap Markham entirely, go ahead) who positively said
Oswald killed Tippit or was fleeing with a gun just afterward?

And are you actually willing to implicate the DPD and/or FBI in the
plot to frame Oswald by switching the bullet shells, despite no hard
evidence to support this?

You've got nothing but guesswork on your side.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 9:34:49 PM8/31/07
to
>>> "The gun {Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766} was linked to an Alek Hidell. So maybe Oswald brought it to the TSBD thinking it would not ultimately be linked to him." <<<


Oswald had to know it would be linked to him. He filled out the mail-
order coupon in his own handwriting. A.J. Hidell never existed. It was
Oswald's own alias/invention.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm

Plus -- A fake Selective Service I.D. card in Oswald's possession
(which said "Alek James Hidell" on it) had LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S OWN
PICTURE on it! Was "Alek Hidell" supposed to look exactly like Lee
Oswald? (Laugh Break.) .....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0354a.htm

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 9:38:05 PM8/31/07
to
>>> "Do you find the similarities between Vallee and Oswald interesting, and do you think it was basically the same four-man mob-connected Cuban hit team with high-powered rifles in the Chicago attempt and the Dallas success?" <<<


Whenever you prove that a purported plot to kill JFK in Chicago
translates into a plot involving a loner/malcontent using HIS OWN $12
mail-order rifle to kill JFK in Dallas....please let us know. Because
I want to see the evidence that ties together these two so-called
"plots" (Chicago & Dallas).

Couldn't the four Cuban exiles afford to supply Oswald with a better
gun? Or at least one that WOULDN'T BE LINKED STRAIGHT BACK TO THE
KILLER? You'd think that with FIVE total conspirators in the mix, they
could have pooled their resources and picked up a rifle someplace.
Wouldn't you think?

Or were all of these Cubans dirt-poor and skinflints like Lee Harvey
was?

Also -- Unless I'm severely mistaken, the Secret Service gets wind of
many, many threats against the President each and every year. Every
President has had threats made against him. Most of the details of
those threats are probably never made public by the SS, however. But
some stuff does get through to the media.

So, a threat to kill JFK during his term in office is probably not the
slightest bit unusual.

Question -- Why do you think Lee Oswald would volunteer to use his own
gun if four other plotters were involved in the plan too?

Also -- Once captured, why didn't Oswald spill his guts to either the
cops or to the live TV cameras when he had ample opportunity to do so?
Was he really just willing to take the rap all by his lonesome, with
his four fellow plotters getting off scot-free AND (evidently) also
having set Oswald up as a LONE PATSY (because there's no question that
the only shots that struck any victims came from Oswald's rifle)?

Oswald said he was a "patsy", yes. But you must realize the context
when he said it -- he was aiming that remark at the DPD...not at any
team of 4 Cuban exiles who double-crossed him. That's obvious from the
timing of Oswald's statement that all CTers love to embrace as the
truth.....

"They've {the DPD} taken me in because I lived in the Soviet Union.
I'm just a patsy!" -- LHO

>>> "You make some valid points, but neglect to mention the refusal of all 4 people in the chain of custody for the magic bullet to ID the bullet they found or handled as CE 399. But these are mostly old speculative side issues. The significant new evidence is about the Cuban assassination team, confirmed by the ARRB-released documents and the statements of Bolden, SS Chicago Chief Martineau and others, the strange similarities between the Dallas and Chicago plots, between Oswald and Vallee, and the common players to both plots. This I have not seen you effectively address as of yet." <<<


AFAIK, Tomlinson at one point said that bullet CE399 (when it was
shown to him again) generally looked like the same bullet he picked up
off the stretcher.

Bottom line is still this -- CE399 from Lee Oswald's gun is still the
only whole bullet in the official record connected to the JFK murder.
You can choose to ignore its significance, or accept it as the Real
McCoy.

Since I have no reason to suspect foul play by the authorities here,
I'll choose the latter. Which means one thing for certain -- Lee
Harvey Oswald's rifle was used to shoot one or more of the victims in
Dallas on 11/22/63.

And let me ask this question --- Since Oswald's gun was used to shoot
at the limo victims on November 22, who is MORE likely (at any point
in time) to have been using it to fire that bullet than the OWNER OF
SAID CARCANO RIFLE, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald?

Regarding the "Chicago Assassination Plot", I'll offer up the
following passages from Vince Bugliosi's JFK book.....

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

"November 2, 1963, trip to Chicago: The HSCA never established why
Kennedy canceled his trip to Chicago, but most probably the reason was
the need for him to remain in Washington with his closest advisers to
deal with the extremely dramatic and very consequential assassination
of the South Vietnamese president, Ngo Dinh Diem, and his brother
earlier in the day.

"A former Chicago Secret Service agent, Abraham Bolden, told HSCA
staff investigators that shortly before November 2, the FBI sent a
Teletype message to the Chicago Secret Service office stating that
there would be an attempt on Kennedy's life in Chicago on November 2
by a four-man hit team using high-powered rifles (HSCA Record
180-10070-10273, January 19, 1978, pp.2-6).

"The HSCA said it "was unable to document the existence of the alleged
assassination team. Specifically, no agent who had been assigned to
Chicago confirmed any aspect of Bolden's version." The HSCA said that
"one agent did state there had been a threat in Chicago during that
period [not uncommon, of course], but he was unable to recall
details." The HSCA concluded that Bolden's story was of "questionable
authenticity." In 1964, Bolden was prosecuted and convicted of
conspiring to sell official information in a counterfeiting case and
was sentenced to six years in prison.

"Although Bolden's charges were probably fictitious, what was more
real and could possibly have been a factor inducing the cancellation
of the Chicago trip was the potential threat of assassination posed by
one Thomas Arthur Vallee, a 62-year-old Marine Corps veteran and John
Birch Society member with a history of mental illness who lived in
Chicago and was outspokenly opposed to JFK's foreign policy.

"The Secret Service learned of Vallee's existence on October 30, just
a few days before Kennedy's scheduled visit. When agents discovered
that he was in possession of several weapons and had requested time
off from his job on November 2, the date of the president's visit,
they had the Chicago police surveil Vallee.

"At around 9:00 a.m., just two hours before JFK was scheduled to land
at O'Hare airport, they pulled Vallee over for making an improper left
turn and arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon (hunting knife).
In the trunk of his car they found 750 rounds of ammunition.

"After a brief interrogation at the station during which he told the
police the country was in "serious trouble" if Goldwater didn't defeat
Kennedy, he accompanied them back to his apartment. There they found
an M-1 rifle and 2,500 rounds of ammunition. Vallee was released from
custody on the evening of November 2, 1963. Although author Lamar
Waldron points out that "Vallee was either in custody, or under
surveillance and about to be arrested before the [Chicago] trip
cancellation" at 9:15 a.m. Chicago time, the possible thought of
unknown associates of Vallee's still at large could have contributed
to the White House decision to cancel the trip."

--- Via Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination
Of President John F. Kennedy"; Pages 711-712 of Endnotes (on CD-ROM
disc); c.2007

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 31, 2007, 9:40:08 PM8/31/07
to
>>> So, he {LHO} has the presence of mind to obtain a weapon in an elaborate fashion that makes it hard to link the weapon to him...he then uses it in a highly accomplished manner...but somehow forgets to unburden himself of fake ID, sitting in his wallet, that directly links him to the rifle. Please forgive the tepid masses for retaining a dash of cynicism." <<<


Lee Harvey Oswald was both smart and incredibly stupid at the same
time. No doubt about that whatsoever. He was smart enough to sneak his
rifle up to the sixth floor without anyone getting suspicious or
noticing him unwrapping and assembling it.

He was both stupid....and smart. Two traits that most humans do
possess...in tandem. Ask anybody.

Plus: There's no way in the world Oswald pulls that trigger from the
sixth floor of the Depository if ANYONE else was on that same floor
with him at 12:30. No way. And we came within an eyelash of that very
thing happening, but B.R. Williams vacated the floor just minutes
before the shooting.

IMO, there's no way that Lee Oswald ever thought he would REALLY be
able to pull off the assassination. No way he could have thought that
with 100% certainty. Hence, laziness and unpreparedness sneaks into
the scenario.

Everything about JFK's murder by Lee Harvey Oswald points to a last-
moment attempt on the President's life (or almost "last-moment"
anyway, no more than a couple of days "preparation" in any fashion by
LHO).

In fact, it's Vince Bugliosi's opinion (and I agree with this pretty
much) that if Marina (on Thursday night) had agreed to return with Lee
to Dallas the next day, then the assassination would never have
happened.

If Marina had said 'Yes' to Lee instead of 'No', LHO would probably
never have taken his rifle to work with him on November 22...and
nobody would have ever even heard of Lee Harvey Oswald (until, that
is, Oswald got it into his sick head that another President or high-
ranking General, or whoever it was that LHO wanted dead, needed to be
killed....then he might have pointed his Carcano at that other person
sometime after November 22, 1963).

It was, in short, a spur-of-the-moment, half-assed one-man plot by Lee
Oswald. "Half-assed", of course, because Lee had no getaway plan at
all, having to rely on public transportation (proving pretty much
right there the lack of ANY kind of multi-person conspiracy plot), and
Lee was also pretty much forced to leave the murder weapon in the
TSBD. (I doubt he thought it would be a good idea to waltz out the
front door with a rifle in his hands right after the President had
been shot.)

But these things were practically AFTER-thoughts to Lee Oswald on
11/22/63, IMO. Why? Because he really didn't think he'd have a chance
under the moon of actually getting to shoot that gun at JFK that day.
The odds were VERY low that he would have that chance.

Unfortunately, however, Bonnie Ray Williams left the sixth floor at
about 12:15 or 12:20 that Friday, leaving Oswald alone on the sixth
floor. And Oswald took it from there.

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com


David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 1, 2007, 4:19:47 AM9/1/07
to

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hallmar.htm

The above testimony of Garnett Hallmark (an acquaintance of Jack Ruby)
is interesting stuff, I must admit. And I'll readily admit that before
a few hours ago I had never heard of Ruby's "You know I'll be there"
comment. It's fully available for me (or anyone) to read on the
Internet, however. I had just never seen it before.


There's still no provable "Mob plot" to rub out Oswald as a result of
those words of Ruby's that were overheard by Hallmark.

The bottom line is still the bottom line in the Ruby matter -- And
that bottom line is that Ruby was waiting in line at a Western Union
office just a mere minutes before Lee Oswald's ONE-HOUR-LATE transfer
occurred.

And in order for Oswald's murder to be anything other than what it
appeared to be (i.e., a spur-of-the-moment decision by a nightclub
owner with a gun in his pocket, which he routinely carried around with
him, remember), a conspiracy theorist is forced to implicate members
of the Dallas Police Department....like 32-year veteran homicide
Captain Will Fritz and God knows who else that the CTers might suspect
of foul play.

And why in the heck would Fritz, et al, have any desire to have their
reputations trashed by deliberately allowing the accused murderer of
the President to be killed right inside their very own DPD basement,
surrounded by officers?

That's just plain crazy.

And a plot involving the perfect split-second timing of Ruby being at
Western Union at 11:17 and shooting Oswald at 11:21 must certainly
have involved any number of DPD officials.

And, again....that's just nutty talk.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 1, 2007, 4:54:19 AM9/1/07
to
>>> "If that wallet found at the Tippit scene did not belong to Oswald, then who's was it?" <<<


Probably Tippit's.

Here's the wallet (via WFAA):

http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/November/WFAA.jpg


>>> "Thank you for posting the photo. Tippit's? The wallet is Tippit's? I highly doubt that." <<<


Vincent Bugliosi thinks it was Tippit's wallet too. It's the only
answer that makes a lick of sense in fact. Tippit's wallet simply fell
out of his pocket after he struck the pavement (pretty hard, probably)
following being shot 4 times by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Quoting Bugliosi on this matter (Vince does call it a "mystery"
however).......

"One...problem that rises to the dignity of a true mystery .... a
man's leather wallet {was supposedly found} near the puddle of blood
where Tippit's body had lain. The wallet, per {FBI agent James} Hosty,
was Oswald's. ....

"If I had to wager, I'd conclude it was Tippit's wallet, and the
reason {WFAA-TV cameraman Ron} Reiland stated...that it was Tippit's
wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it
was. ....

"It makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives,
several of whom were Tippit's friends, would keep from the world that
his killer's wallet was found near his body." -- VB; Pages 453 and 456
of the CD Endnotes of "Reclaiming History"

>>> "Why would the detectives be looking at Tippit's wallet? They know who he is, he is a brother officer. It makes no sense." <<<

It also makes no sense for the wallet to be Oswald's and yet, somehow,
nobody looking at it from the DPD ever says a word about it being
Oswald's. Of course, nobody ever said it was Tippit's either. So, who
can know for sure?

But Oswald had a wallet ON HIM when he was arrested. Do you think he
had a spare on 10th Street?

Or do you want to think that an "Oswald wallet" was planted on Tenth
Street? And if so, wasn't it pretty silly of the wallet-planters to
want to plant an Oswald wallet when they should have known (or
suspected) that Oswald's real wallet was ON HIS PERSON at the time?


David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 1, 2007, 6:53:31 AM9/1/07
to
>>> "All the material I cite is evidence, facts: The similarities between Oswald and Vallee - facts, if you can dispute them, do." <<<

Yes, there are similarities between Vallee and Oswald. But two words
come to mind right off the bat (in light of a lack of any connection
between "Chicago" and "Dallas") --- So what?

Plus: It's my understanding (from the literature I've read on the
Chicago/Bolden matter) that the "4-man Cuban plot" and the "Vallee"
matter were totally SEPARATE threats against JFK in 1963. What makes
you think Vallee was connected to any "4-man Cuban" assassination plot
(other than the timing of the threats)?


>>> "The use of two two-man sniper teams: Fact in Chicago, much evidence points to it in Dallas." <<<

Oh, come now. Speculation at best...in both of these scenarios.

There is certainly no proof whatsoever (or "much evidence", as you
said) that there were "2 two-man sniper teams" in place in Dallas'
Dealey Plaza on November 22.

If there were two rifle teams in Dallas, where are the bullets from
the non-Oswald gun? Did all of that gunman's shots miss? Most CTers
think otherwise, with most CTers thinking JFK was hit in the head from
the front, despite the proof on the Z-Film itself that shows JFK's
head moving forward at the critical moment of impact, as seen here in
dramatic fashion.....

www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif


>>> "The importance of anti-Castro Cubans and mafia figures in both plots: Chicago plot was mob financed Cuban exiles and frame-up of Bolden was mob directed." <<<

Pure speculation, 100%.


>>> "Do you deny that Ruby had extensive mob ties for thirty years? ... The phone calls Ruby made to and from mob figures..." <<<


Ruby dealt with some low-level gangsters in his time, yes. I can't
deny that. But "extensive mob ties"? I'm dubious about that one.

And his phone calls made on the weekend of November 22-23 were all
related to his labor troubles with his nightclubs, and his concern
over a fellow nightclub owner whom Ruby felt was breaking the law, and
he wanted it stopped. CTers choose to believe the calls were to set up
the "hit" on Oswald. There's no proof of that in the slightest. None.


>>> "The $7000 payoff to Ruby from a Chicago mob ally of Jimmy Hoffa." <<<

First I've heard of that one actually (except for the other four or
five times you've mentioned it on this forum).

Jack got 7-grand from a Hoffa ally in late October of '63, huh? And
yet he was still so dirt-poor (or very stupid, one or the other) that
he owed the IRS $44,413.86 in back taxes as of late 1963. (Was that
tax debt possibly $51,000+ before he got the money from Hoffa's boys?)

And what the hell did Mr. Snitch, Jack Ruby, do to earn himself 7 big
ones from Hoffa's outfit? Good Lord.


>>> "There is a ton of evidence I have already cited showing common tactics, figures and groups in the two plots. If you say they are not linked, despite all the evidence, that is your privilege." <<<

Some similarities, yes. Linked? Far from it. And that's because the
best evidence on the table shows that Oswald was a lone assassin in
Dallas. He uses a bus and a cab to escape from a FIVE-man plot? (Or
did the four Cubans pull the rug out from under Patsy Oswald, leaving
him to fend for himself after 12:30 on 11/22? If so, where's the proof
that such a thing happened? Oswald clams up about ANYONE who might
have been involved with him after his arrest. Why? What was he waiting
for....New Year's Eve?)


>>> "But it certainly would be odd that the mob and the Cuban exiles spent all this money and energy to try to get JFK in Chicago (and maybe in Florida), and they can't pull it off, but then Oswald - who has had strange and ambiguous relationships and contacts with some of the same people and groups in the Chicago plot - up and decides on his own to kill JFK and does the job with a junked surplus rifle despite being a poor marksman and fumbling every other encounter he had with live ammunition in tense situations. And then Jack Ruby - who has even stronger and direct ties with many of the same people and groups in the Chicago plot, all of whom hate JFK - decides to kill Oswald for his own reasons. You CAN'T really believe that do you?" <<<

You'd better sit down, my friend......because here's my answer:

Yes....I can.

And that's because the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence (including the
LACK of evidence that SHOULD BE THERE if JFK had been assassinated by
multiple shooters, but isn't there) is telling a reasonable person
that Lee Harvey Oswald took that junked surplus rifle with him to work
on Friday, November the 22nd, and he utilized his "poor" marksmanship
abilities (which you underrate, btw; he was a "Sharpshooter" in the
Marine Corps, circa 1956...so he could handle a rifle with efficiency
when he wanted to) to fire three bullets at JFK's car on Elm Street,
hitting him twice and ending the President's life.

And Oswald's OWN ACTIONS after that murder are telling the world that
the killing of John Kennedy was almost certainly the SOLO ACT of one
deranged individual named Oswald.

Feel free to disagree if you desire to do so. And, of course, you do
feel that desire. So be it.

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

"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in
the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was
set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he
was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vince
Bugliosi; "Reclaiming History"; Page 952

~~~~~~

"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's

guilt." -- V. Bugliosi; "RH"; Page 953

~~~~~~

"Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case against Oswald as being
weak because it was "only circumstantial," the implication being that
any case based on circumstantial evidence is not solid. .... But
nothing could be further from the truth. ....

"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against Oswald
{e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the defendant}, but
there was an enormous amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence,
including the very most powerful in this category: his flight from the
murder scene, his resisting arrest, and his telling one provable lie
after another upon his apprehension, all showing an unmistakable
consciousness of guilt." -- V. Bugliosi; "RH"; Page 528 of the
Endnotes

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

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d654c1e6ad40ca56

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 6:21:54 AM9/2/07
to

RE. THE WALLET FOUND ON TENTH STREET AFTER J.D. TIPPIT'S MURDER......

>>> Do you agree this is almost certainly a wallet with Oswald/Hidell ID? If yes, how did it get there?" <<<

The wallet's a mystery. I don't know whose wallet it was. Nobody seems
to know for sure. I think it was probably Tippit's, as I said
previously.

Dale Myers, who wrote the ultimate book on the Tippit crime (the only
book on it, in fact) wrestles with the wallet mystery too.

But there's one thing Myers knows for certain (and so do I) -- Lee
Harvey Oswald killed a policeman on 10th Street on November 22, 1963.

A "mystery wallet" being found afterward isn't going to turn Oswald
into an innocent man.

And, as I said yesterday, unless Oswald was carrying around TWO
wallets on 11/22/63, then the 10th-St. wallet was probably not
Oswald's. A wallet, filled with ID cards, was taken from Oswald's
pants pocket in the police car just after he was taken into custody.

(Who carries two wallets on them? Anybody?)

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 6:33:36 AM9/2/07
to
>>> "Yes, some of the {Tippit} witnesses describe a man who basically fits the description of Oswald. But others describe a man as "short" "heavy" "chunky" "black hair" "bushy hair"." <<<


ONE man with a gun (positively identified as Lee Oswald by both
Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis, who were just a few feet from the
gunman as he cut across their yard) was seen dumping bullet cartridge
casings from a revolver just seconds after J.D. Tippit was slain.

Even if you wish to toss out ALL the other evidence (including every
eyewitness), the shells hang Oswald as Tippit's killer beyond all
doubt. And this is so even if you wish to toss out the two "Poe"
shells that were recovered by Benavides. Because the OTHER 2 shells
don't even have the slightest hint of murkiness around their chain of
custody. None.

The two shells found later on Nov. 22 by the Davis girls (each Davis
girl found one shell) did not go through J.M. Poe's hands at any point
and are positively shells that were fired in Lee Oswald's .38 S&W
revolver.

And since nobody claims that TWO guns were used to kill Tippit (not
even Clemons claimed that)....how on Earth can Oswald be innocent
under these "shell" circumstances?

He cannot be innocent under these circumstances, considering that
Oswald had in his own possession the very same gun that ejected those
two "Davis shells" when he was arrested just 35 minutes after Tippit
was killed.

Planted shells? Or "switched" shells? If anyone believes that, please
tell the world WHY the DPD wanted to help the "real" killer(s) of
their fellow officer to get away sans any punishment at all, and why
they insisted on pinning the murder on somebody they must not have
thought shot Tippit?

Cop killers are especially vile persons to OTHER COPS...wouldn't you
agree?

The DPD would simply not be party to any frame-up in this case? No
way. No how.

Try shooting down the above logic. Can any CTer do so?

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 7:07:48 AM9/2/07
to
>>> "Bugliosi is only interested in searching for the truth if it meshes with his preconceived notions of the assassination. He's a professional debunker." <<<


You haven't even read Page 1 of Bugliosi's book, have you? (Seems
likely you haven't, via your comments about Vince.)

"RECLAIMING HISTORY" took 20+ years to write. It's 2,800+ pages long,
including CD-ROM endnotes. The index, alone, takes up 71 pages of the
book.

Every possible fact, angle, and conspiracy theory you could think of
is included in VB's book. Some people think he has totally ignored
certain things, or skewed what CTers call "facts" in other places in
his book.

But, in reality, what Vince has done is put the conspiracy theorists
in their proper place when it comes to the JFK murder case, as he
reveals (over and over again, in chapter after chapter) the inherent
idiocy and massive incoherent nature of almost every "plot" that's
been tossed against the kitchen wall since 1963.

Go ahead and blindly call Mr. Bugliosi a WC shill, or a "professional
debunker", or whatever, if that floats your boat.

But, IMO, a reasonable person who takes the time to read and assess
ALL of "Reclaiming History" will come to the same conclusion Vince has
come to (and me too) --

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded
in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most
complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history. Refusing to accept the
plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to
convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the
critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations.
Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the
split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from
known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of
rumor and speculation." -- Vince Bugliosi; From "Reclaiming History"

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 7:57:10 AM9/2/07
to
>>> "Poe was told by his Sgt. to mark the shells, and he says he did so with "JMP". Poe told the FBI he was certain he did this. ... Later, under the pressure of the WC, Poe hesitated somewhat, but still indicated he marked them. In 1984 he told writer Henry Hurt that he was certain he had marked them and stated there was not a single instance in his 28 years as a policeman when he had failed to properly mark evidence. You are calling Poe a liar with no basis to do so. I believe him." <<<

Jim Leavelle said:

"I talked to Poe. He said he didn't remember marking them. But, that
is something we didn't do back then."

You are, in essence, calling Detective James R. Leavelle a liar with
no basis to do so.

Based on the fact that no visible "JMP" markings are on the two
Benavides/Poe cartridge casings (which are positively shells that came
from Lee Oswald's revolver, matching TWO ADDITIONAL SHELLS found on
10th St.), I believe him (Leavelle).

Stalemate.

What's next in your "Anybody But Oswald" bag of conspiracy-flavored
tricks? (I can hardly wait.)

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 9:38:42 AM9/2/07
to
>>> "Two of the {Tippit} shells...were marked "JMP". ... The shells the FBI were given six days later were NOT marked. Conclusion of any nonbiased person: They are not the same shells. ... Someone in {the} DPD changed them. Period." <<<


You don't have any complaints about the two shells found by the Davis
ladies, though, do you?

If you don't have any problem with those two shells (and why should
you?)....then you will have to readily admit that Lee Harvey Oswald's
gun was at the scene of the Tippit murder. Correct?

Now, let's use some garden-variety common sense (not usually employed
by CTers who enjoy looking under every rock for a reason to exonerate
Oswald, but I'll give it a try nonetheless).....

If TWO of Oswald's bullet shells (i.e., the two shells found on Nov.
22 by Davis & Davis) came out of Oswald's revolver just after J.D.
Tippit was shot four times by ONE GUN and ONE GUNMAN....and two
additional bullet shells were also found, but these two "Poe/
Benavides" shells don't have quite as clear-cut a chain of possession/
custody as the two Davis shells:

What logical conclusion should a reasonable researcher come to with
respect to this evidence? .....

1.) Should we assume that the DPD was playing fast & loose with the
shells...planting/switching evidence in a murder case involving a
fellow officer?*

* = If so, why? For what possible logical reason? They knew that ONLY
ONE GUN was involved in the murder. And TWO shells have an undeniable
chain of custody. So how could the other two shells, dropped by hand
from the SAME GUN, possibly be from a different gun or gunman?
Impossible on its face, given the weight of the evidence in the case.

2.) Or should we (just maybe) assume that Officer J.M. Poe was a
confused police officer, who couldn't really recall if he marked the
shells as Gerald Hill asked or not? But, not wanting to bear the wrath
of scorn that would surely befall him, he said that he had indeed
marked the shells as ordered. But, in reality, he probably did not
mark the shells at all.

Which scenario is most likely to be accurate? --- One scared DPD
officer who possibly made a mistake with some bullet shells and didn't
want to come right out and admit his mistake? Or some really rotten,
scheming cops who tampered with evidence which was connected (in part)
to the murder of a U.S. President?

Guess which option I'll choose?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 9:58:01 AM9/2/07
to
>>> "Acquilla Clemons...said she ran out after the shots and saw a man with a gun. But she described him as "kind of chunky... kind of heavy," a description which does not fit Oswald at all." <<<

I'm pretty much convinced that Clemons saw Ted Callaway and (probably)
William Scoggins (or another witness). Callaway took Tippit's revolver
and ran back toward Scoggins' cab shortly after the shooting.

CTers will probably say that the timing isn't quite right for this
Clemons' scenario to fit....because Callaway & Scoggins didn't start
their chase for the killer until after Tippit was already in the
ambulance.

But, the sum total of evidence tells me that Clemons certainly
couldn't have seen TWO people "involved" in the shooting of J.D.
Tippit. That just simply did not happen. (Unless all the other
witnesses are dead-wrong about only ONE person--Oswald--being
involved.)

And your crap about the jacket is utterly laughable.

These facts exist and aren't going anyplace:

1.) Oswald is seen by Earlene Roberts zipping up a "short
coat" (jacket) as Oswald rushes out of his roominghouse at about 1:00
PM on November 22.*

* = Mrs. Roberts' "short coat" remark, btw, comes from her filmed
interview in David L. Wolper's 1964 United Artists movie "Four Days In
November".

(And, another btw, there's no chance in hell that Oswald spent "3 to 4
minutes" in that closet/room. No way. I'll never buy that part of
Roberts' account; and this gives Oz more time to reach 10th St., via
my version, which is much more sensible than Roberts'.)

2.) Oswald is seen with a jacket ON as he shoots J.D. Tippit at about
1:14 PM.

3.) Oswald is next seen by Johnny C. Brewer WITHOUT any jacket on at
approx. 1:35 PM.

4.) A jacket, generally matching the one seen by Roberts and most of
the Tippit witnesses, is found under a car behind a Texaco station, a
location which was smack-dab between the Tippit murder site and
Brewer's shoe store.

What does all this suggest to a non-kook (i.e., a reasonable JFK
researcher)?

It suggests that Oswald, in flight from murder #2 on 11/22, wanted to
change his appearance yet again (even though it meant shedding the one
thing that was making hiding his pistol an easier task)....so he
dumped his jacket between 10th St. and the Hardy's Shoe Shoppe on
Jefferson Boulevard.

To a conspiracy-seeking kook, the above points (1 thru 4), incredibly,
indicate that SOMEBODY ELSE (other than Oswald) must have ditched a
similar-style jacket to the one Oswald was also wearing that same day
in that same neighborhood.

AND -- It must also mean (to a kook) that Oswald must have also shed
the jacket he was wearing when he departed 1026 N. Beckley Avenue, but
that jacket was never found by anybody.

Next kooky theory please?

(BTW, why in the world couldn't Oswald have purchased that jacket
second-hand....a jacket which wasn't a perfect fit and that had an old
dry-cleaning tag in it? Or did the tag supposedly have "Oswald"
written on it?)

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 2, 2007, 10:23:05 AM9/2/07
to
>>> "Why are you accusing {DPD Officer} Poe of being confused and scared?" <<<


Because he probably was. That's much more believable than a CT version
of events, involving planting evidence and scheming to frame poor
Oswald, etc.

You don't have a (reasonable) leg to stand on here, and everybody
knows it. Because ONE GUN killed Tippit and TWO shells from the murder
weapon are (even by CT accounts) perfectly preserved in the "chain of
custody" department....and those two shells came out of Oswald's gun.

So, do the math with respect to the OTHER TWO SHELLS. It's not that
difficult.


>>> "In 28 years, no person can point to a time when he {J.M. Poe, the magnificent} failed to mark evidence." <<<


What's the saying?...."There's a first time for everything".

Lee Harvey Oswald had never, ever shot a U.S. President in all his 24
years on Earth either (before 11/22/63). But he did it just the same.
First time for everything, I guess.

And Lee Oswald had never, ever gone out to the Paine house in Irving
on a Thursday prior to November 21, 1963 (or without asking permission
first). First time for everything.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 11:03:08 AM9/3/07
to
>>> "...Oswald probably didn't use the scope -- at that distance, with a clear shot at a virtually motionless target, the open metal sights would have been more than enough for a good shot." <<<


Indeed.

My theory is this (and I think other LNers here concur with the
majority of this scenario)....

Oswald probably used the scope for shot #1. The scope was slightly mis-
aligned, which resulted in shots hitting "high and to the right" of
the intended target. Although, granted, it's possible that the only
reason the scope was mis-aligned was due to the possible harsh
treatment of the gun after the assassination; i.e., Oswald might have
tossed the gun to the floor between boxes as he fled the 6th Floor
after he shot JFK, resulting in the slight scope damage; we can never
know for sure.

If the scope was slightly off for Shot #1, it could be the reason
Oswald missed the whole car. I feel that shot hit the oak tree at Z-
Film frame 160 (that oak tree, by the way, would have been located to
the RIGHT of Oswald's line of sight at approx. Z-frame 160, as
illustrated in the top "Rifle Scope" photo below, which is a picture
that was taken from Oswald's "sniper's nest" at a point that equates
to Z-frame 166, pretty close to Z160). .....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0051a.htm

No one can know for certain why Oswald missed with his first shot, of
course. It should, theoretically, have been LHO's BEST shot, but it
turned out to be his only total miss.

Per my theory, Oswald, after missing with his "scope" shot, changes to
the iron sights (at the end of the Carcano's barrel)....with shot #2
(at Z224) being the SBT shot, striking both JFK and Governor Connally.

Shot #3 (using the iron sights again) hits JFK in the head at Zapruder
Frame #313.

Another potential reason for the third shot being the only "perfect"
shot could very well have been due to LHO having a little more time to
re-aim and fire after shot 2. He had 3.5 seconds between shots 1 and 2
(per my scenario here; other people's mileage will vary on exact
timing); while he had 4.86 seconds between shots 2 and 3.

So, he had almost 5 full seconds to recycle the bolt and aim again at
the President after the second shot. Certainly not the impossible task
that many conspiracists make the shooting out to be.


>>> "And Oswald, of course, was a good shot. He was arguably merely "average" by Marine Corps standards, but that translates to "damned good" in the civilian world." <<<

Exactly. But many conspiracy lovers (for some reason) think the word
"Sharpshooter" translates to "piss-poor shot". Strange skewed logic
there indeed.

Neil Coburn

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 11:21:42 AM9/3/07
to
Von Pein,you need to get a life. N.C.

Walt

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 11:59:43 AM9/3/07
to
On 3 Sep, 10:03, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "...Oswald probably didn't use the scope -- at that distance, with a clear shot at a virtually motionless target, the open metal sights would have been more than enough for a good shot." <<<
>
> Indeed.
>
> My theory is this (and I think other LNers here concur with the
> majority of this scenario)....
>
> Oswald probably used the scope for shot #1.

OK ....that would've been the first..... BOOM!

Witnesses reported that the next two shots were nearly one on top of
the other.

In other words the sound of the shots were:...
BOOM..........pause......Bang Bang

Can you explain how Oswald made that bolt action Carcano fire one shot
right after the other with no pause in between shots two and three??

Can you find ANYBODY who can fire any bolt action rifle so fast that
the shots sound like one continous bang??

Walt

The scope was slightly mis-
> aligned, which resulted in shots hitting "high and to the right" of
> the intended target. Although, granted, it's possible that the only
> reason the scope was mis-aligned was due to the possible harsh
> treatment of the gun after the assassination;

Your THEORY isn't very sound.... the FACT is;.... the rifle was
CAREFULLY placed in the cavern of boxes where it was found. It was
found lying on the floor with the scope up. It was loaded with a live
round in the chamber, cocked and ready to fire. Only a damned fool
would carelessly toss around a cocked, and ready to fire rifle.
(Oswald with his Marine Corps training would never have tossed a
loaded rifle around. ) When Carcano is tossed down it invaribly
lands with the heaviest side down...ie the barrel and scope would have
been down touching the floor, if the rifle had been carelessly tossed
down.


i.e., Oswald might have
> tossed the gun to the floor between boxes as he fled the 6th Floor
> after he shot JFK, resulting in the slight scope damage; we can never
> know for sure.
>
> If the scope was slightly off for Shot #1, it could be the reason
> Oswald missed the whole car. I feel that shot hit the oak tree at Z-
> Film frame 160 (that oak tree, by the way, would have been located to
> the RIGHT of Oswald's line of sight at approx. Z-frame 160, as
> illustrated in the top "Rifle Scope" photo below, which is a picture
> that was taken from Oswald's "sniper's nest" at a point that equates
> to Z-frame 166, pretty close to Z160). .....
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 1:19:56 PM9/3/07
to
In article <1188835183.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...

A very solid argument indeed! Only Marines can appreciate the strength of this
point!

>When Carcano is tossed down it invaribly
>lands with the heaviest side down...ie the barrel and scope would have
>been down touching the floor, if the rifle had been carelessly tossed
>down.
>
>
>i.e., Oswald might have
>> tossed the gun to the floor between boxes as he fled the 6th Floor
>> after he shot JFK, resulting in the slight scope damage; we can never
>> know for sure.
>>
>> If the scope was slightly off for Shot #1, it could be the reason
>> Oswald missed the whole car. I feel that shot hit the oak tree at Z-
>> Film frame 160 (that oak tree, by the way, would have been located to
>> the RIGHT of Oswald's line of sight at approx. Z-frame 160, as
>> illustrated in the top "Rifle Scope" photo below, which is a picture
>> that was taken from Oswald's "sniper's nest" at a point that equates
>> to Z-frame 166, pretty close to Z160). .....
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>>
>> No one can know for certain why Oswald missed with his first shot, of
>> course. It should, theoretically, have been LHO's BEST shot, but it
>> turned out to be his only total miss.
>>
>> Per my theory, Oswald, after missing with his "scope" shot, changes to
>> the iron sights (at the end of the Carcano's barrel)....with shot #2
>> (at Z224) being the SBT shot, striking both JFK and Governor Connally.


Sadly, the facts don't support this theory.


>> Shot #3 (using the iron sights again) hits JFK in the head at Zapruder
>> Frame #313.
>>
>> Another potential reason for the third shot being the only "perfect"
>> shot could very well have been due to LHO having a little more time to
>> re-aim and fire after shot 2. He had 3.5 seconds between shots 1 and 2
>> (per my scenario here; other people's mileage will vary on exact
>> timing); while he had 4.86 seconds between shots 2 and 3.


Sadly, all eyewitness testimony must be disregarded in order to try asserting
this. It's simply contrary to *ALL* known evidence.

But LNT'ers have been lying all along... it's difficult to be familiar with the
evidence, *AND* be an honest LNT'er.


>> So, he had almost 5 full seconds to recycle the bolt and aim again at
>> the President after the second shot.

No, he didn't.

>> Certainly not the impossible task
>> that many conspiracists make the shooting out to be.


Sadly, experts far more knowledgeable than you about sniping have stated
otherwise.


>>>>> "And Oswald, of course, was a good shot. He was arguably merely "average" by
>>Marine Corps standards, but that translates to "damned good" in the civilian
>>world." <<<
>>
>> Exactly.

He was *below* average. And no, that doesn't translate to "damned good".
Virtually anyone who's owns a rifle, and been hunting, would show LHO a few
tricks.

It's amazing to see how many LNT'ers who've NEVER SERVED IN THE MARINE CORPS are
willing to go on the record with these sort of pronouncements.

>> But many conspiracy lovers (for some reason) think the word
>> "Sharpshooter" translates to "piss-poor shot".

No, Low sharpshooter is somewhat below average, high sharpshooter would be
average. Sadly, the only time LHO shot sharpshooter was 1956, 7 years prior.
His more recent score in 1959 was only one point above absolute minimum required
for Marines. Anyone firing a 191 is a poor shot indeed.

Of course, no-one bothers to mention that these scores are NOT WITH A BOLT
ACTION RIFLE, which would complicate matters quite a bit.


>> Strange skewed logic
>> there indeed.

Only when you fight strawmen...

aeffects

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 8:59:32 PM9/3/07
to
top post

bump..... any Nutter's out there?


On Sep 3, 10:19 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1188835183.592530.162...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 9:44:39 PM9/3/07
to
Von pein has gone off the deep end quoting Penn & Teller? Why don't you
quote Seinfeld on the 2nd spitter?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 3, 2007, 10:43:56 PM9/3/07
to
>>> "Von Pein has gone off the deep end, quoting Penn & Teller?" <<<

Why not? They did two on-camera tests that both destroy theories that
many of the conspiracy kooks still embrace to this day.

Or were the P&T test films "faked" too? Maybe the film with the melon
was shown backwards or was tampered with or something, huh?

Maybe the melon really was falling off the FRONT of the stool, instead
of moving toward the shooter, huh? Why not purport that. Otherwise,
the P&T tests look pretty good to me.

The P&T melon test also confirms EVERY test done in the 1970s by John
Lattimer too. Because every one of Lattimer's test skulls and melons
fell back TOWARD THE GUNMAN. That tested fact ALONE shows that the
CTers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to their persistent
argument of JFK's head being forced backward by a frontal gunshot.

It just doesn't work like that....despite the persistence of CTers who
want it to work that way.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 12:43:29 AM9/4/07
to
>>> "Good stuff. ... These pieces of evidence can't be debunked, and are very damaging to the CT, so the best tactic for an average CT is to ignore it. Then we spend hours arguing over the minute details and ridiculous questions, such as 'well you can't exactly prove that the bullet went in that exact path in that exact time, can you?', the subject changes, and somebody again tries to come in with the old line that the SBT is impossible." <<<

Exactly.

But the hardline, entrenched CTers pretty much HAVE to reject anything
that leads down the "Lone Nut" path. For example, can you just imagine
Bob Groden, after 40 years in the conspiracy camp and after several
pro-conspiracy books of his own being published, suddenly coming out
and publicly admitting that he was wrong, and that Oswald was the lone
shooter, and that the SBT is correct?

No way he's going to do that after all the shoe leather (and book
pages) he has invested in a "JFK conspiracy".

I'm sure that over the last several years Mr. Groden must have had
some second thoughts about his ludicrous shot-by-shot shooting
scenario he laid out for all to see and read in his 1993 book "The
Killing Of A President" (wherein Groden purports as many as ten
gunshots being fired at JFK in Dealey Plaza, with--get this--ZERO of
these ten bullets likely having come from the Oswald window in the
TSBD!).

How could he NOT have some second thoughts about a nutsville shooting
scenario like the one he has placed in his '93 book? Anybody who could
possibly believe that it was likely that ZERO of TEN shots had come
from the Sniper's Nest needs a psychiatrist, IMO. It's too bizarre for
words.

And, given the wealth of evidence to know that Groden is nuts re. his
10-shot theory, it's too stupid to consider for even two seconds. But,
there it is--in print--in "TKOAP" for everyone to read--from now till
doomsday. So Groden is stuck with his kookiness for all time.*

* = And even if, miraculously, Bob should ever want to retract the
idiocy that appears on pages 20 through 40 of "TKOAP", his original
10-
shot theory would still be in print on those pages of his 1993
publication for people to read forever--and for some gullible people
to still believe--year after year.

It makes me wonder out loud -- "What on Earth was this guy thinking
when he actually committed that nonsense to the PRINTED PAGES OF A
BOOK?"

That very same thought comes to my mind every time I think about a
certain nutty theory proposed by a certain Mr. Lifton as well.

And what was Oliver Stone thinking when he COMMITTED TO FILM a theory
purporting a SINGLE PATSY, but with the "real assassins" firing away
from THREE different Dealey Plaza locations?

And what was John Armstrong thinking when he wrote 983 pages of total
lunacy in 2003 called "Harvey and Lee"?

As Vincent Bugliosi said about Armstrong's foolishness:

"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination." -- VB

Armstrong's book, like so many other pro-conspiracy publications, is
nothing more than a "long tribute to absurdity" (Bugliosi's words).

The long and short of the continuing pro-CT mess is -- With so much
obvious junk being churned out by many, many people who are buried
waist-high in make-believe, totally-fabricated JFK "conspiracies",
it's really quite difficult to take ANY conspiracy writer seriously
when it comes to the John Kennedy murder case. It's the "crying wolf"
syndrome -- i.e., those other 99 conspiracy theories are wrong, so why
should I believe yours?

It's especially difficult to accept the theories purported by
conspiracy writers when considering the sum total of hard evidence in
the JFK and Tippit cases....and the sum total of hard, physical
evidence that supports ANY pro-conspiracy theory -- with that latter
sum total tallying up to a great-big ZERO pieces of verifiable pro-CT
evidence.

It's hard to build a case to support Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence
when you start out with ZERO items of supporting evidence to back up
such a claim.

But that won't stop the CT-Kooks of the world from trying. Will it?

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 8:14:01 PM9/4/07
to

RE.: THE SCOPE VS. THE IRON SIGHTS.........

The 4x telescope on top of Oswald's rifle was situated in such a way
so that a person firing the weapon could most certainly look down the
barrel of the gun and STILL USE THE IRON SIGHTS if they so desired.

The scope wasn't sitting FLAT on top of the barrel. It's mounted on a
bracket ABOVE the barrel, leaving room to sight with the iron sights
by looking between the scope and the top of the barrel of the gun.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0268b.jpg

In the first few seconds of the following video, a cameraman films
Carl Day of the DPD holding the rifle above his head as Day moves past
the camera. You can pause the video and get a generally decent look at
the barrel in relation to where the scope is located on the
weapon. .....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4


There's also this WC testimony from Army weapons expert Ronald
Simmons:

"Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight.
Then one of the {test} firers repeated the exercise using the iron
sight -- because we had no indication whether the telescope had been
used."

Obviously, via the above testimony, Ronald Simmons (a weapons analyst
& expert) is telling us that EITHER the scope or the iron sights could
have been used during the assassination of JFK on 11/22/63.

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3226723


Walt

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 9:57:07 PM9/4/07
to
On 4 Sep, 19:14, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> RE.: THE SCOPE VS. THE IRON SIGHTS.........
>
> The 4x telescope on top of Oswald's rifle was situated in such a way
> so that a person firing the weapon could most certainly look down the
> barrel of the gun and STILL USE THE IRON SIGHTS if they so desired.
>
> The scope wasn't sitting FLAT on top of the barrel. It's mounted on a
> bracket ABOVE the barrel, leaving room to sight with the iron sights
> by looking between the scope and the top of the barrel of the gun.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...

>
> In the first few seconds of the following video, a cameraman films
> Carl Day of the DPD holding the rifle above his head as Day moves past
> the camera. You can pause the video and get a generally decent look at
> the barrel in relation to where the scope is located on the
> weapon. .....
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
>
> There's also this WC testimony from Army weapons expert Ronald
> Simmons:
>
> "Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight.
> Then one of the {test} firers repeated the exercise using the iron
> sight -- because we had no indication whether the telescope had been
> used."
>
> Obviously, via the above testimony, Ronald Simmons (a weapons analyst
> & expert) is telling us that EITHER the scope or the iron sights could
> have been used during the assassination of JFK on 11/22/63.
>
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3226723

Don't be stupid..... Oswald was a Marine. He would not have set out
on a mission without firdt making sure his rifle was firing
accurately. According to thw W.C. The rifle that had been stored in
Paines garage had not beeen fired for months, and it had could have
been handled roughly in that time, so there was no way to know it it
would fire accurately, using either the scope or the iron sights.

Yer such an unthinking jerk, you make me puke.

Walt

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 10:11:03 PM9/4/07
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/df792d4e765122f9

>>> "You make a career out of misrepresenting what Groden said." <<<

I've never once done this, of course. You have no idea what you're
talking about (as per usual).

Mr. Groden's theory is IN PRINT for all time, for all to see and read,
on pages 20-40 of "The Killing Of A President". (THAT, btw, was the
bulk of my previous point, in case you missed it.)

BTW, I thought I've made a career out of sucking up to VB. But you say
it's something different ("career"-wise) for me.

Hmmmm. Curious. I must have missed that career switch.


>>> "Get this through your head. No one, no one has ever said there were 10 shots from the sniper's nest." <<<

LOL. Of course, nobody has ever said that. Duh.

Groden, in fact, has NONE coming from there. And you can only get
approx. one CTer out of 1,000 to admit to the three shots that were
obviously fired from the Sniper's Nest.

And when did I ever (EVER) indicate that *I* thought Groden (or
anybody) had ever theorized that TEN shots came from the SN?

Answer: Never (of course). Learn to read.

But Groden does purport up to TEN shots being fired during the
assassination...with ZERO of those ten likely to have come from the
SN.

Groden, like the fair and unbiased researcher he must be, does say
that (at most) ONE shot COULD have come from the SN, but even that one
shot he thinks "most probably" came from the Dal-Tex Building instead.

(Anybody but Oswald, Anybody but Oswald, Anybody but Osw....)


>>> "Yeah, that's what you WC defenders used to say about a shot from the grassy knoll and then we proved it. We won, you lost. Get over it." <<<

It's a parlor game now, eh Tony? Nice.

Newsflash for Mr. Marsh! --- The "proof" of a "grassy knoll" shot has
been totally DISPROVED in subsequent years.

Do you, Tony, still endorse the HSCA's Dictabelt "4th Shot" results?
Even after this?.......

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

If you (or anyone) still endorses the HSCA's "4th Shot" acoustics
evidence after evaluating Dale Myers' extensive work which thoroughly
debunks that nonsense....then I must admit -- you've got a lot of
guts.

>>> "Name for me even one person besides Groden that accepts his scenario 100%. Well, I'm waiting. You got nothing." <<<

Try reading my comment again -- the one that you have skewed (as
usual) and pounced on with a vengeance.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2007, 10:30:51 PM9/4/07
to
>>> "Oswald was a Marine. He would not have set out on a mission without first making sure his rifle was firing accurately." <<<

And tell us (again) just exactly HOW Mr. Oswald was going to guarantee
the dead-on accuracy of that 4x telescope after he had dismantled the
weapon to place it in his brown paper bag prior to re-assembling it on
the 6th Floor shortly before using it on JFK at 12:30?

I must've missed how Oswald could positively guarantee that the scope
would remain perfectly "aligned" after that kind of dismantling/re-
assembling activity.

And, anyway, isn't it the contention of the conspiracy kooks that
Oswald's rifle needed to be fired AT LEAST THREE TIMES (or
thereabouts) before the scope could be perfectly aligned and sighted
in properly? And this, per many CTers, needed to be done before EACH &
EVERY SHOOTING "SESSION" with respect to Rifle C2766.

Forget about that little detail, did you, Walt-Kook?

>>> "Yer such an unthinking jerk, you make me puke." <<<

Laugh break!

Being told I'm an "unthinking jerk" by the likes of Walt The Mega-Kook
(aka: the same nutcase who thinks Brennan DESCRIBED A West-End
Shooter!; aka: the same idiot who thinks JFK was shot from front
through back at Z161) is akin to being told by Charles Manson that I
am responsible for Sharon Tate's death. A pot/kettle thing, you see.

Every time Walt shows up, I get goose-pimply all over.....because when
I see his name on a thread at the forums, I know a really good belly-
laugh is sure to be coming up.

And, as always, Walt didn't disappoint my funny bone this time either.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2007, 7:45:17 PM9/6/07
to
>>> "If we don't get to the bottom of this assassination, even after all these years, our nation will not survive." <<<


We've already gotten to the "bottom" of it (the bottom of the TRUTH,
that is). Just because many people disagree with that truth doesn't
make it any less substantial....or correct.

But, as Vince Bugliosi has said (and rightly so)....there is no bottom
to the pile in the JFK case when it comes to battling the endless
conspiracy nonsense that keeps coming up for air after having the life
beaten out of it time and time again.

But, like each new sunrise, many theories continue to spring eternal,
year after year.

And the silly "Our nation will not survive" line of thought is just
foolish visceral nonsense. It's been 44 years. Has the nation folded
in upon itself?

Another raw truth that no CTers want to face head-on is this one ---
Many people in the world simply WANT a conspiracy of some kind to be
behind JFK's murder (despite a total lack of credible evidence, and NO
physical evidence in the record, to support such a belief).

That fact is almost as sad as President Kennedy's funeral. Because
that fact about the CTers of the Earth is likely to never be healed.

Anyway, the JFK murder has been solved (along with Tippit's too). The
DPD solved those crimes very shortly after they occurred. And the
Warren Commission spent 10 months probing every nook and cranny of the
case (including filling 18.47% of its 888-page Final Report with an
"Investigation Into Possible Conspiracy").

Naturally, that 18% of the WR isn't nearly enough for staunch CTers.
So be it. But whether the CTers like it or not, the WC looked for
conspiracy, and found none. And so did the HSCA, and they found a
Dictabelt with a "4th shot".

And that 4th-shot evidence has been totally discredited since 1979. So
that means the HSCA is pretty much back to endorsing a 1-killer
assassination.

Oswald did it. Stamp it with Dragnet's MARK VII hammer. It's done.

And Vincent T. Bugliosi has put an additional "MARK VII" stamp on the
case, at last.....

www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2007, 7:50:55 PM9/6/07
to
>>> "I had to laugh at the mention of the re-creation of the alleged single bullet theory, which you claim was not exact, but not far away...and then back this up by talking about an animation. An animation?" <<<


Yes, an animation. But did you take note of the fact that that
animation has been KEYED TO THE ZAPRUDER FILM ITSELF, which is an
actual visual record of the assassination and the location of the men
in the limousine.

THAT'S the key aspect to Myers' work. He hasn't just merely GUESSED
about certain things. He's used exacting blueprints and measurements
and (most importantly) he's used the Z-Film itself to overlay his
computer model on top of.

And via this exactitude and research, guess where a bullet trajectory
leads when you start with the wound on Connally's back and then
extrapolate it backwards through the two known non-head wounds of JFK?

Yes, indeedy....that trajectory line goes right straight to the center
of Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.

Is that just pure "coincidence"? If you think so...how on Earth did
the MULTIPLE shooters who CTers think plugged both victims possibly
get THAT lucky -- i.e., they shoot JFK & JBC with more than one gun
and then (40 years later) an animator shows that this MULTI-gun
shooting perfectly mimics a single-shot scenario (just exactly as
proposed by the WC in '64), perfectly implicating the "Patsy" that
those so-called "plotters" desperately were attempting to frame?

Could ANYONE believe a band of plotters could get THAT lucky? It's not
possible. And not logical either.

And the Discovery Channel "live-action" test (using dummy torsos)
replicated most of the SBT, right down to the tumbling bullet going
into Connally, the general wound path through TWO victims, and the
bullet emerging from JBC in pretty decent condition.

Here's that test bullet, linked below (it's not fragmented in the
slightest after breaking TWO ribs in the dummy Connally torso and
after breaking a wrist bone too).....

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg

Naturally, all CTers scoff at all of these various "SBT"-like
similarities that have been provided by that 2004 live-action shooting
test and by Dale Myers' detailed animation project.

I guess the fact that people 40 years later were able to pretty much
replicate the SBT (even though CTers think that probably THREE bullets
must replace the SBT bullet) is to be considered a "So what?" type of
situation in the odd mind of a conspiracy theorist.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 6, 2007, 7:58:37 PM9/6/07
to
>>> "Just because YOU can't see it, or these "official" investigators can't admit it, you think the American people are uninformed and unaware that some of our own gov't officials were behind this thing." <<<


And you (naturally) can prove that gobs and gobs of people in high
places conspired to murder the President in 1963 and/or conspired with
one another to cover up the murder of their Chief Executive. Right?
Why of course you can PROVE that allegation. Or else you'd never have
been so stupid as to put that diatribe in print. Right?

So...go ahead. Prove it. (This oughta be good. And Dick Van Dyke
doesn't start for another hour, so I have time.)


>>> "I have news for you...you need to grow up." <<<


Would it help any if I started to whine about how rotten my evil
Government has been since 1963? Would that stance aid me in "growing
up" a little bit? It seems to do wonders for your ego and well-being,
I must say.


>>> "You need to see how dangerous the gap is between the 80 percent of the public who know damn well they're being lied to, and the 20 percent of those within the gov't and press who are continuing to do the lying." <<<


A few violins might help here. If you get any more melodramatic, I'm
calling in Kevin Costner for another tearful courtroom scene.


>>> "It's a prescription for political disaster down the road - the failure of this country to hold some of its elected and unelected officials for either being behind this thing or protecting those who were. Take your insincere official investigations and believe in their veracity with all your heart. Because when the bubble finally bursts - even if it takes another 10 or 20 years - Americans are going to come after the ones behind this thing, and it's not going to be a pretty sight or as fun as watching an old rerun of The Dick Van Dyke show. Count on it." <<<


Kevin? Are you here? You're up!

A great show, btw. (Van Dyke's, I mean. Not yours.)

And it's a show with a terrific "Kennedy" angle too, I might add. The
first episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" was filmed on JFK's
Inauguration Day (Friday, January 20, 1961). No kidding. It really
was.

(Sorry to break up your sorrowful monologue about the woes of the
U.S., but I felt a spirit-lifter was in order after listening to your
anti-Government tripe. Thank you.)

www.google.com/group/alt.video.dvd/msg/e2635b184527bdd7

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 4:13:25 AM9/9/07
to
>>> "Bottom line is: {General Edwin} Walker was a sitting duck, Oswald missed badly, panics and does not do a follow-up shot, and is seen leaving the scene with two other men in two cars. ... Performance against Walker: D-; Performance against JFK: A. ... Strange." <<<

The only reason (probably) that Oswald missed Gen. Walker is due to
the lighting in Walker's den. Oswald could not see the windowsill from
his POV, thereby causing Oz's shot to hit the sill, deflecting and
missing Walker by a fraction. (Walker was wounded in the arm by a
fragment.)

Anyway...CTers don't have a leg to stand on when they claim Oswald was
innocent of shooting at Walker. Why? Because Oswald TOLD his wife he
"shot at Walker" the very night it happened.

The Walker shooting also coincides perfectly with LHO gaining
possession of his MC rifle. It was mailed by Klein's on March 20th and
was no doubt in Oswald's hands just a few days later. He was then
photographed with the rifle by Marina on March 31st in the Neely St.
backyard, and then (ten days after that) he takes a potshot at Walker.

The timeline fits perfectly.

There's also this observation by Vince Bugliosi.....

"It is worth being reminded that on the same day, October 7 {1962},
that General {Edwin} Walker returned to Dallas...Oswald announced to
the small group of Russian emigres at his Fort Worth apartment that he
had decided, without giving them any explanation, to move to
Dallas. .... What Lee had in mind very likely was his plan to murder
General Walker." -- VB; "RH"; Pages 673-674

I will mention here, however, that while I tend to agree with Vince
re. his above observation....Oswald did wait 5 months from that
October 1962 date to order his rifle from the Klein's mail-order
magazine ad (the rifle he would eventually use to try and kill Walker
on April 10th).

Oswald ordered the rifle in mid-March 1963, while he ordered his S&W
revolver earlier (in January). Ironically, both weapons were mailed on
the very same day (March 20th).

I'm actually surprised that more CTers don't make a bigger
"conspiratorial" deal out of that coincidence re. the mailing date of
March 20 for both the rifle and the revolver that were used by Oswald
on November 22nd. Because coincidences like that are prime material
for CT-Kooks to jump on (usually).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 5:03:48 AM9/9/07
to
The only witness to the Walker shooting Kirk Coleman saw a person get
into a car right afterward and take off-2 people...

Message has been deleted

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 5:32:32 AM9/9/07
to
Von Pein is just like Bugliosi- he put up 20 posts in row that say
nothing. Bugliosi has 1600 pages of nothing that can be relied on.Most
of These lone nutters are like 12 year old brats that have to get their
way all the time, they can't see anybody else's point of view unless it
coincides with their own...

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 6:14:24 AM9/9/07
to
>>> "Von Pein is just like Bugliosi." <<<

Thank you. No finer compliment can be paid to a person.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 6:15:42 AM9/9/07
to
>>> "Like almost every other aspect of this case, there is much weirdness about {General Edwin} Walker and the shooting. Walker was a bitter enemy of JFK. How you go from shooting at Walker to killing his arch enemy JFK has never been explained." <<<

General Walker, like JFK, hated Castro (and Communism). That's a very
good reason right there for Oswald wanting both JFK and Walker dead. A
damn good motive in fact. Because Lee Oswald loved his adored Fidel.

LHO told Marina (via Marina's own WC testimony) that Lee feared Walker
was going to become the next Hitler.

Some of Marina Oswald's WC testimony is provided below. Now, either
Marina was a whale of a good teller of tall tales regarding a certain
incident involving Retired Major General Edwin A. Walker in April of
1963 (as she gives some very, very DETAILED information about her
husband and his planned attempt on the life of the general)....or Lee
Harvey Oswald DID, indeed, take a gun and shoot at Walker on 04/10/63.
Let's listen in:

Mr. RANKIN. How did you first learn that your husband had shot at
General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out, I thought that he had gone to
his classes or perhaps that he just walked out or went out on his own
business. It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I
began to be worried. Perhaps even later. Then I went into his room.
Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was pacing around. Then I
saw a note there.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you look for the gun at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, I didn't understand anything. On the note it said,
"If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for
example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that
he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't
understand at all what can he be arrested for. When he came back I
asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the
exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any
questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker. Of
course I didn't sleep all night. I thought that any minute now, the
police will come. Of course I wanted to ask him a great deal. But in
his state I decided I had best leave him alone it would be purposeless
to question him.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried,
and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the
rifle? What did you do with it?" He said, that he had left it
somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from
that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't
know---I am not a criminologist.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that he had no right to kill people in
peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody
has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that
this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader
of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of
that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he
said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many
lives. I told him that this is no method to prove your ideas, by means
of a rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him how long he had been planning to do this?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--
perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his
conduct I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for
two months or perhaps a little even earlier.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he show you a picture of the Walker house then?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That was after the shooting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He had a book---he had a notebook in which he noted
down quite a few details.

[Later....]

Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you about his being able to use a bus
just as well as other people could use a car---something of that kind?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. Simply as a passenger. He told me that even before
that time he had gone also to shoot, but he had returned. I don't know
why. Because on the day that he did fire, there was a church across
the street and there were many people there, and it was easier to
merge in the crowd and not be noticed.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

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

After reading the above detailed Warren Commission testimony of Marina
Oswald, how anybody can still think Lee Oswald didn't plan and carry
out an assassination attempt against General Walker in April 1963 is
beyond me.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 9, 2007, 7:02:54 AM9/9/07
to

www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_md_plReviewDetail/?ie=UTF8&cdForum=&ASIN=0393045250&cdPage=1&cdItems=10&asin=&store=yourstore&cdSort=ByDateCreated&cdThread=Tx2UYZR5SESQRS9&reviewID=R2ADAU8APF67R0&displayType=ReviewDetail&cdSortDir=Ascending#Mx2X09Z9C8ZDZ78

>>> "Bugliosi has spent 1600 pages telling us what we already know is false, all the doctors at Parkland originally said the neck wound was a wound of entrance and the fatal head shot obviously came from the grassy knoll - all you need to do is look at the Zapruder film... <snip> ..." <<<


I don't need to read this person's review any further to know that the
reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about.

CTers just love to endlessly drag out long-discredited conspiracy-
tinged nonsense, just as Mr. Shane has done above.

Anybody who has studied the assassination knows that the above 2 CT
myths are not true at all -- but try telling that to a rabid
conspiracist. You can't. They will not absorb the truth. As Vince
Bugliosi says in his JFK book -- Conspiracy theorists are "allergic to
the truth". Simple as that.

Regarding the throat wound specifically and what the Parkland doctors
would have likely thought after seeing that wound WITHOUT HAVING ALSO
SEEN THE ENTRY WOUND IN JOHN KENNEDY'S BACK, Mr. Bugliosi offers up
this common-sense-filled observation in his book:

"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front of the
president's neck {and not seeing the corresponding entry wound in
Kennedy's back at any time}, the Parkland doctors would instinctively
have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost
anyone would be so predisposed." -- VB; Page 414 of "Reclaiming
History"

www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 12:34:02 AM9/10/07
to

www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/72d4680a6f315239

>>> "$1.23?" <<<

Yep. Says so right here......

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0385a.htm

http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200862

I've always thought that was a very strange figure. We know exactly
$1.00 of that $1.23 went to Whaley for the cab ride ($0.95 fare plus
that huge $0.05 tip, which Whaley retired on, I think; he bought a
yacht too and named it "The Patsy"). So that means Oz spent the odd
amount of 23 cents on the bus ride.

We know he got a bus transfer from Cecil McWatters too, which (via
past forum discussions) Bud says would probably need to be
"purchased". I didn't realize a transfer required a "purchase", but
Bud said that a transfer in Philly (I think it was) cost 8 cents years
ago. So, maybe Oz's transfer cost him 3 pennies after a 20-cent
initial fare. Beats me. But that's the data the WR has arrived at.


>>> "You said cab and taxi. Those are the same thing. I think you meant bus and taxi." <<<

Yes, I did mean bus and taxi. So now you know that even *I* (VB's
proofreader) am not perfect. Damn. ;)


>>> "Must have been a dime. Remember he had to use his magic dime to get rid of the evidence." <<<

Assuming he used a dime to assemble the rifle. It's also possible that
Oswald purchased multiple beverages on November 22. Perhaps he bought
a Dr. Pepper from the 1st-Floor Dr.P. machine for a 10:00 AM break;
plus the Coke at 12:31.

Remember this (and don't ever forget it): Preparing for a Presidential
murder DOES tend to make an assassin a tad parched. So, next time,
prepare wisely and stock up on plenty of icy-cold beverages before
your own country's Central Intelligence Agency employs you to take a
gun and assassinate your very own President from your very own
workplace.

Ten-Four?
Wilco.

>>> "Only conspiracy believers would nitpick over every detail." <<<


Yeah, no kidding. Glad you agree. ....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue,
misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of
solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a
provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on
the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of
proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of
conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything
perfectly negates all that is explained. .... Along the way, they
{CTers} have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs,
drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts,
and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and
speculation. .... Conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a
new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their
suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the
official version is wrong." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.


>>> "To a WC defender anything is "close enough."" <<<

And to certain CTers nothing is ever close enough....especially if the
person involved has the initials "LHO".

>>> "Did Clay Shaw receive thousands of dollars from his CIA handler? Yes or no?" <<<

No. Of course not. And that's because he never worked for the CIA.
(Except for reporting back after he travelled abroad, like many other
people did. That doesn't count as a "covert agent", btw.)

>>> "A lot of people did {work for absolutely zero wages for the covert assassination department of the Central Intelligence Agency}."


Oh, of course. How silly of me.

>>> "There is a special IRS agent and form to report such payments. One does not report them normally." <<<

Oh, of course. How silly of me.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 10, 2007, 1:50:21 AM9/10/07
to
DEALEY PLAZA WITNESSES, JIM GARRISON, OLLIE STONE, AND AN INNOCENT
CLAY SHAW.........

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

A mere FIVE total witnesses (per John McAdams' "Definitive" poll)
claimed to hear shots from more than one location in DP. Five out of
104.

And yet Oliver Stone, in his idiotic 1991 motion picture, thinks that
3 shooters were firing away at JFK (Grassy Knoll, Dal-Tex, & TSBD;
i.e., FRONT and REAR), and without ANY of those gunmen utilizing
silencers either (at least silencers aren't once mentioned in the
film).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg

Then, too, per Stone's lie-filled film, we have NO idea what "role"
Clay Shaw played in the assassination either. He was just window
dressing evidently. He did NOTHING even in the film that would advance
the assassination plot.

BTW, Jim Garrison never ONCE argued Shaw's guilt to the New Orleans
jury in 1969. He mentioned Shaw's name ONE time during his entire
final summation, and only to remind the jury that Shaw was on trial
(which they already knew...duh).

Never once did Garrison say: "We know that Clay Shaw is guilty of
planning JFK's murder!" -- which, of course, he should have been
screaming from the rafters if he had had any evidence to back it up;
which he didn't, of course.

Even Garrison wasn't brazen enough to accuse Shaw of anything SPECIFIC
at his very own trial. Pathetic man, Mr. Garrison was.

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 14, 2007, 8:32:18 PM9/14/07
to

>>> "The bottom line is we know CE 399 was a plant." <<<

Oh, we do, huh? That's news to me. LOL.

Are there any eyewitnesses to anyone monkeying around with these
bullets? Planting? Switching? Firing a bullet from Oswald's gun at the
FBI lab to get 399? Anything like that?

Didn't think so.

Also.....Haven't CTers ever stopped to think about how another theory
goes down the tubes if they want to buy into the "bullet switching"
nonsense?

That is to say: The "pointy" bullet which hit Connally (or whatever
bullet was really found at Parkland, per CTers) was not said by anyone
who saw it to be very damaged at all...i.e., it, like 399, is a WHOLE,
INTACT, UNFRAGMENTED MISSILE.

How is THAT possible, per CTers who ALSO think that the bullet that
did all that damage to Connally couldn't possibly have ended up in
real good (unfragmented, unmushroomed) condition?

And yet, apparently SOME bullet did end up just that way on a
stretcher after hitting John Connally's rib, wrist, and leg.

Or would CTers now like to have TWO "planted" bullets? The stretcher
bullet (pointy) was planted...but then later the plotters realize they
PLANTED THE WRONG MISSILE, and then switch it out for 399?

But even in that ludicrous scenario -- WHERE DID THE REAL BULLET GO
THAT **DID** HIT CONNALLY? It'd still be missing.

See how nothing fits together as nicely as does the LN/SBT/LHO
scenario?

Face it....the Oliver Stone-like plot is just....dumb. From virtually
every POV.

>>> "The only logical reason to {plant and/or switch the bullets} is to have it replace a bullet that did NOT come from Oswald's rifle." <<<

And that would be better than merely saying that the "real" (pointy)
stretcher bullet just simply WASN'T CONNECTED TO THE CASE AT ALL?

They'd really rather sub out the bullets...putting in 399, which has
very little mass missing from it? Did they KNOW at the time that so
little metal would be found inside Connally? Or that no other bullets
would be plucked from the victims?

Prescient plotters/switchers indeed.

Either that...or damn lucky.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 22, 2007, 9:18:43 PM9/22/07
to
>>> "Malcolm Kirduff [sic; it's 'Kilduff'] announced the President's death at Parkland Hospital. Nowhere in the book {"Reclaiming History"} at all will you find the fact that when he announced the death, he said that it was simply a matter of a bullet through the brain, pointing to his right temple. When asked by a reporter Seth Kantor where the bullet entered the head, the answer was "the right temple." Nowhere does he {Vincent T. Bugliosi} state those facts." <<<

And I'm not quite sure if Vince talks about Jean Hill's initial, knee-
jerk (untrue) belief that there was a "little dog in the middle of the
seat" in JFK's limousine during the assassination either. (VB might
have mentioned this, but I cannot remember off the top of my head; I
haven't memorized all 2,800+ pages....yet; but I'm working on it).

Point being: WHO CARES?

Mac Kilduff's pointing to his right temple means absolutely NOTHING.
He was merely demonstrating (in general) that President Kennedy was
struck IN THE HEAD.

And if Kilduff said anything about the "temple" to Seth Kantor (which
he might have, but I can't recall that exact quote offhand either), he
was either speculating OR he was merely referring to the location on
JFK's head where he saw the most blood (i.e., the right temple area of
the head).

In short -- Kilduff was not in a position TO KNOW FOR SURE where the
entry wounds on JFK were when he made his "He's Dead" announcement at
1:33 PM on Friday, November 22nd.

If you think Kilduff WAS privy to such detailed data at 1:33 (which
even the Parkland DOCTORS didn't know, since they never saw the small
wound of entry on the back of JFK's head and never made any attempt at
all to fully determine the inshoot/outshoot wounds on the body; nor
should they have)....please provide some verifiable PROOF that Kilduff
KNEW exactly where the entry and exit holes were on the body of the
President at the time of the press conference.

This picture below has spawned Conspiracy-Flavored Myth #488 (which is
yet another myth that deserves no attention or credence whatsoever,
which is a good reason why Vincent Bugliosi could easily ignore such a
speculative and meaningless event in his book):

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/kilduff.gif

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages