JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 189)

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 20, 2012, 8:41:34 PM8/20/12

to

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 189):

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

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19330&st=30#entry257892

THOSE SILLY PLOTTERS:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6756.msg176739.html#msg176739

LEE OSWALD, KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, AND THE C2766 RIFLE:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&#entry257775
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&#entry257898
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&st=15#entry257914
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&st=15#entry257918
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&st=15#entry257920
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&st=15#entry257922
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357&st=15#entry257961

COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2808 (HILARIOUS):
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6818.msg178651.html#msg178651

ASSASSINATION FILMS AND PHOTOS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5e9b3347d395735c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/87a5a1eb577aab62
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/314a8920ac1aff8c

MARRION BAKER:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6851.msg179960.html#msg179960

DARRELL TOMLINSON:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3aae914d11064907

"PARKLAND":
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057932
http://popcultureblog.dallasnews.com/2012/08/tom-hanks-production-company-playtone-set-to-shoot-dallas-set-jfk-film-parkland-but-where.html/

MISCELLANEOUS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e7653925fe9292aa
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a657f185488af907

OLD GOOGLE GROUPS FORMAT LINKS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6bf5731c220a455b

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

mainframetech

unread,

Aug 21, 2012, 7:19:41 AM8/21/12

to

On Aug 20, 8:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 189):
>
> ======================================================
>

>
> ASSASSINATION FILMS AND PHOTOS:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5e9b3347d395735chttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/87a5a1eb577aab62http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/314a8920ac1aff8c
>

> MARRION BAKER:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6851.msg179960.h...
>
> DARRELL TOMLINSON:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3aae914d11064907
>
> "PARKLAND":http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057932http://popcultureblog.dallasnews.com/2012/08/tom-hanks-production-com...
>
> MISCELLANEOUS:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e7653925fe9292aahttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a657f185488af907

>
> OLD GOOGLE GROUPS FORMAT LINKS:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6bf5731c220a455b
>
> ======================================================

Naah! Too biased to use for anything but wrapping fish...

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 2:42:13 AM9/28/12

to

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

Excerpts:

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (10:08:14 P.M. EDT)
From: Gerald Blaine
To: David Von Pein

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

Dave,

Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed
away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like
he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the
bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will recheck
with Clint what he remembers.

It is very unusual for WHD [White House Detail] agents to get involved
in investigative work, but Dick went to Cal and studied Criminal
Justice so he should have known the rules of evidence.

James Rowley once worked for the FBI and he too should have understood
the rules. I have no doubt that it was the bullet that came from the
stretcher.

Jerry

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

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (11:26:29 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine

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

Hi again Jerry,

Thanks for your latest reply.

There was, indeed, an envelope involved with the transfer of Bullet
CE399 as it went from the possession of the Secret Service to the FBI
lab in Washington on 11/22/63. That "envelope" fact is confirmed in
Commission Document No. 7 (which I linked in an earlier mail I sent
you).

So, if Richard Johnsen marked the envelope, rather than the bullet
itself, it would certainly explain why he said he could not
"positively identify" the bullet that was later shown to him by Elmer
Todd of the FBI in June of 1964. Because in such a circumstance,
Johnsen wouldn't have placed his initials on the bullet itself, but
instead would have marked only the container (envelope) that Johnsen
put the bullet into.

However, if Dick Johnsen (and possibly James Rowley too) had marked
the evidence envelope containing the bullet, I'm wondering why the FBI
(in CE2011) didn't mention something about Johnsen and/or Rowley
marking that envelope in the text of the report we find in CE2011?

Do you think Johnsen and Rowley, in the intervening sevens months
between November 1963 and June 1964, had just forgotten about marking
the envelope? And therefore they never even mentioned it in June when
the FBI showed them the bullet? Or is it possible that they did
mention marking the envelope, but the FBI just failed to note that
important fact in CE2011?

From the way it stands in the official record of CE2011, we are
unquestionably left with the impression (to the delight of many
conspiracy theorists around the globe) that neither Johnsen nor Rowley
could complete any kind of chain of possession or chain of custody for
Bullet CE399 at all. Is that the way it appears to you by reading
CE2011, Jerry?

In addition, do you have any more information you can supply me
regarding your previous statement about Richard Johnsen himself being
the person who handed the bullet over to the FBI on 11/22/63 (instead
of it being James Rowley)?

The official documents clearly indicate that it was Rowley, and not
Johnsen, who gave the bullet (and envelope) to FBI agent Elmer Todd on
the night of the assassination.

If you acquire any additional information about this matter, please
drop me a line.

I thank you very much, Jerry, for the answers you have given me today.
I greatly appreciate it.

And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was
turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was
positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact
(for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts
on the Internet in the past several years.

Regards,
David Von Pein

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 8:17:45 AM9/28/12

to

On Sep 28, 2:42 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399...

=================
Fortunately we have the statement of Tomlinson that the bullet (CE399)
definitely came from the wrong stretcher. While at one point they got
him to say he wasn't sure, he came back to it later in a NOVA program,
and clearly stated that the bullet came from the wrong stretcher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Now has DVP got some kind of evidence that the bullet in the
supposed envelope came from Tomlinson and Wright? If so, he has
proven evidence of a conspiracy, since the bullet had to be placed on
the stretcher, and it had to come from somewhere. It was obvious that
it almost exactly duplicated a test bullet (see F-294 at Ferrell), so
it probably wasn't fired when JFK was hit. Of course, whatever bullet
went from Tomlinson to Wright to the FBI, neither Tomlinson or Wright
could ID it later, nor could a number of the FBI agents that
supposedly handled the evidence. Check the route of the bullet in its
travels:
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

What are we to make of this incompetence of the FBI in managing the
chain of custody of an extremely important piece of evidence in the
crime of the century? Among the possibilities, we have simply
complete incompetence of the FBI and the CE399 bullet is still all
that it has been cracked up to be, or some other bullet was exchanged
for the CE399 at some point in the FBI mistakes in handling the
bullet. Of course, there is the small possibility that the FBI
intentionally replaced the bullet with one they had made by test
firing the M-C rifle.

The FBI then showed the bullet to Rowley and Johnsen (Secret
Service) at the White House, and neither could identify the bullet as
the one they'd handled seven months prior. Next, FBI agent Elmer
Todd. At last, He purportedly recognized the initials he placed on
the bullet on the day of the assassination. Unfortunately, it would
seem Elmer Todd messed up or lied. His initials could not be found
anywhere on the CE399 bullet.

If there was a replacement, it would fit that Wright said ''that
bullet [the first original they found] had a pointed tip." And both he
and Tomlinson couldn't recognize the bullet they were shown (CE399).
As we know, the M-C bullets were round nosed. On top of this, only 3
sets of initials were found, and those were the 3 technicians at the
FBI that did the comparisons and analysis. [my comments in brackets]

So we have the FBI examining a bullet with no trail telling us
where it came from. The bullet that left Wright's hand was 'pointed'
not round, and so the actual stretcher bullet was lost to the world at
that point in the hands of the FBI.

Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 10:03:05 AM9/28/12

to

rogue members in the fbi (I.e. skull andbones members, scroll and key
mmbers, et al.) could have simply intnetionally used one of the magic
bullets that twombly ordered from holt's cia california shop, no need for
the fbi to make any magic frame bullets, in planting the stretcher bullet

besides, the carcano had to be worked over before it would even fire, it was
nonfiring when oswald left it with his contact on the 3rd floor gsbd
11-21-63, and still inoperable after one of the spooks assembled it

couldn't have a patsy running around with a working rifle or pistol...

Phil Ossofee

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 1:50:20 PM9/28/12

to

Here we have the most important bullet of the 20th century and no chain
of custody whatsoever. That old incompetence nonsense only takes you so
far, like in the autopsy. Phil D.

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 6:20:57 PM9/28/12

to

LOL! See Douglas Horne for a good debunking of the autopsy...:)

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/

The following video has witnesses speaking of seeing the entry hole
in JFK's right forehead before it was covered up. A perfect shot from
the Grassy Knoll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1DtJE

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 1:00:30 AM9/29/12

to

It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he
was talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House
stationary at 7:30 PM on Nov. 22, which states that Johnsen received
the "attached expended bullet" from O.P. Wright at Parkland:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HUEhMScterk/UGZMu7lf05I/AAAAAAAAJm8/yDjt1jhkjEA/s1600/Richard-Johnsen-Note-Regarding-Stretcher-Bullet.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FoxiImP_tig/UGUvr_sOf0I/AAAAAAAAJmI/hLmS9kXOt2o/s1600/CE399-Envelope.png

Logic and common sense would therefore indicate that the note written
by Agent Johnsen concerning the Parkland bullet was physically
attached to the envelope (linked above) which contained stretcher
bullet CE399. Hence the words "the attached expended bullet" at the
beginning of the note.

And take note of the staple hole at the top of Johnsen's original
note, which would indicate it was stapled to something when it left
the White House on 11/22/63, which fits in nicely with the staple
holes (or possibly the staples themselves) which are seen in the
envelope as photographed by John Hunt in 2004.

And since that very same envelope is telling us, via the handwritten
words of FBI agent Elmer Todd, that James Rowley was most certainly in
possession of that envelope (with or without Rowley's own initials
being present on the envelope), it would indicate that there is
documentation in the official records of this case that shows a
complete chain of custody of the stretcher bullet -- from Tomlinson/
Wright....to Johnsen....to Rowley....to Todd....to Frazier.

Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown
above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain"
of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is
not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still
physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about
receiving the bullet from Rowley.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 7:06:30 AM9/29/12

to

On Sep 29, 1:00 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
> Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he
> was talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House
> stationary at 7:30 PM on Nov. 22, which states that Johnsen received
> the "attached expended bullet" from O.P. Wright at Parkland:
>

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HUEhMScterk/UGZMu7lf05I/AAAAAAAAJm8/yDjt1jh...
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FoxiImP_tig/UGUvr_sOf0I/AAAAAAAAJmI/hLmS9kX...

>
> Logic and common sense would therefore indicate that the note written
> by Agent Johnsen concerning the Parkland bullet was physically
> attached to the envelope (linked above) which contained stretcher
> bullet CE399. Hence the words "the attached expended bullet" at the
> beginning of the note.
>
> And take note of the staple hole at the top of Johnsen's original
> note, which would indicate it was stapled to something when it left
> the White House on 11/22/63, which fits in nicely with the staple
> holes (or possibly the staples themselves) which are seen in the
> envelope as photographed by John Hunt in 2004.
>
> And since that very same envelope is telling us, via the handwritten
> words of FBI agent Elmer Todd, that James Rowley was most certainly in
> possession of that envelope (with or without Rowley's own initials
> being present on the envelope), it would indicate that there is
> documentation in the official records of this case that shows a
> complete chain of custody of the stretcher bullet -- from Tomlinson/
> Wright....to Johnsen....to Rowley....to Todd....to Frazier.
>

A chain of custody is maintained so that the people in the chain
may testify as to their involvement in the chain, and the history of a
piece of evidence may be followed. Sadly, Johnson is one of the
people that could not identify the CE399 bullet at a later time, even
though he had handled it and supposedly wrote the notes and envelopes
and so forth. Elmer Todd was supposedly in the chain and said he put
his initials on the bullet, but those initials could not be found.
Was the bullet swapped at some point in the chain, as is suggested by
Wright's clear statement that CE399 was NOT the bullet he passed on to
the Secret Service? (who could forget a bullet that might have killed
a president?) With the evidence (not theories) that we have about
this bullet, there is a strong suggestion (corroborated) that the
final CE399 bullet was NOT the one found on the completely uninvolved
stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson, but a replacement. Fortunately,
we have witnesses who can help straighted out this mess.

> Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown
> above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain"
> of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is
> not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still
> physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about
> receiving the bullet from Rowley.
>

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399...

Those that are interested in evidence and NOT theories will likely
ignore the theories presented here about the bullet that was
unidentified by 2 SS agents and also the 2 men that found the bullet
and passed it on to authorities. It is not wise to pay too much
attention to these theories, since as the writer says, part of it 'is
extremely weak'. Better to view evidence and it's logical and common
sense implications first. The inability to identify the bullet is
evidence from witnesses, and should be accorded higher priority than
foolish guesses.

Tomlinson at Parkland finally states clearly that he found the bullet
on the wrong stretcher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 9:28:38 AM9/29/12

to

real magic stretcher bullets can stretch or shrink at will

and go from pointed to rounded as the frame evidence changes

some claim this is due to mercury

Sam McClung

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 9:45:19 AM9/29/12

to

"e.t. had that stretcher shape shifting bullet before he phoned home and
flew off, even put his initials on it"

Bud

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 12:09:56 PM9/29/12

to

How do you make a positive ID on a bullet?

> even
> though he had handled it and supposedly wrote the notes and envelopes
> and so forth. Elmer Todd was supposedly in the chain and said he put
> his initials on the bullet, but those initials could not be found.
> Was the bullet swapped at some point in the chain, as is suggested by
> Wright's clear statement that CE399 was NOT the bullet he passed on to
> the Secret Service? (who could forget a bullet that might have killed
> a president?) With the evidence (not theories) that we have about
> this bullet, there is a strong suggestion (corroborated) that the
> final CE399 bullet was NOT the one found on the completely uninvolved
> stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson, but a replacement. Fortunately,
> we have witnesses who can help straighted out this mess.

The first person to handle the bullet, Tomlinson, said that CE399
looked like the bullet he found.

> > Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown
> > above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain"
> > of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is
> > not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still
> > physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about
> > receiving the bullet from Rowley.
>
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399...
>
> Those that are interested in evidence and NOT theories will likely
> ignore the theories presented here about the bullet that was
> unidentified by 2 SS agents and also the 2 men that found the bullet
> and passed it on to authorities.

How do you make a positive ID on a bullet?

> It is not wise to pay too much
> attention to these theories, since as the writer says, part of it 'is
> extremely weak'. Better to view evidence and it's logical and common
> sense implications first. The inability to identify the bullet is
> evidence from witnesses, and should be accorded higher priority than
> foolish guesses.
>
> Tomlinson at Parkland finally states clearly that he found the bullet
> on the wrong stretcher:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher he found the bullet
on.

> Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 6:02:43 PM9/29/12

to

The few that could make a positive ID on the CE399 did it by
putting their initials on the bullet. They were all FBI lab
technicians. Two Secret Service people along with the 2 men that
found and turned over the CE399, couldn't ID that bullet at a later
time.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

>
> > even
> > though he had handled it and supposedly wrote the notes and envelopes
> > and so forth. Elmer Todd was supposedly in the chain and said he put
> > his initials on the bullet, but those initials could not be found.
> > Was the bullet swapped at some point in the chain, as is suggested by
> > Wright's clear statement that CE399 was NOT the bullet he passed on to
> > the Secret Service? (who could forget a bullet that might have killed
> > a president?) With the evidence (not theories) that we have about
> > this bullet, there is a strong suggestion (corroborated) that the
> > final CE399 bullet was NOT the one found on the completely uninvolved
> > stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson, but a replacement. Fortunately,
> > we have witnesses who can help straighted out this mess.
>
> The first person to handle the bullet, Tomlinson, said that CE399
> looked like the bullet he found.
>

We'll never know what he found, since at a later time he was asked
to identify the CE399 bullet and he couldn't do it. The same was true
for Wright, who went further and said the new bullet he was shown
later was NOT the same bullet, as the original bullet has a 'pointed'
nose and not the rounded one of the M-C bullets. Since it seems
almost impossible to forget a bullet you saw that may have killed a
president, then the bullet had been replaced by that time. Perhaps
the original 'pointed' bullet came from a 'Mauser 7.65' rifle.

> > > Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown
> > > above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain"
> > > of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is
> > > not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still
> > > physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about
> > > receiving the bullet from Rowley.
>
> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399...
>
> > Those that are interested in evidence and NOT theories will likely
> > ignore the theories presented here about the bullet that was
> > unidentified by 2 SS agents and also the 2 men that found the bullet
> > and passed it on to authorities.
>
> How do you make a positive ID on a bullet?
>

Poor little buddy. These are such hard questions for you. Don't
bother about them if your head starts hurting from trying to think too
hard. The answer is provided above where the same silly question was
asked.

> > It is not wise to pay too much
> > attention to these theories, since as the writer says, part of it 'is
> > extremely weak'. Better to view evidence and it's logical and common
> > sense implications first. The inability to identify the bullet is
> > evidence from witnesses, and should be accorded higher priority than
> > foolish guesses.
>
> > Tomlinson at Parkland finally states clearly that he found the bullet
> > on the wrong stretcher:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
>
> Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher he found the bullet
> on.

At an earlier time he was buffaloed into making the statement that
he was unsure by the questioner, but it was obvious that he didn't
want to. In a much later NOVA interview he was very clear about which
stretcher had the bullet. See the video where he says so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

So little buddy, you're taking over for DVP now? You don't even
have a website to advertise. How will you ever get by? :)

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 10:32:58 PM9/29/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e503db5d7a32ca17/17e055558754cbfb?#17e055558754cbfb

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

David, I cannot believe the liberties you take with statements by
witnesses who are no longer alive and able to correct your endless
embellishments. This is what Blaine told you that Johnson [sic] said:
"The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Sigh.

Bob apparently didn't read (or comprehend) anything beyond just Mr.
Blaine's first e-mail to me.

It's quite obvious, however, that Gerald Blaine wasn't exactly sure
WHAT item was "marked" by SA Richard Johnsen (the bullet itself or a
container that the bullet was put into), because after I reminded
Blaine that CE2011 says that Johnsen couldn't positively I.D. the
bullet, Mr. Blaine said this to me:

"Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he
passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence.
Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing
it [the bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will
recheck with Clint what he remembers."

And if Secret Service agent Johnsen had "marked" an envelope in some
manner (or if, as I suggested in another post, in lieu of marking the
envelope itself, if he had attached a note to the Q1/CE399 evidence
envelope, which he almost certainly DID do, as I pretty much proved
previously via CE1024 [at 18 H 800]), that is tantamount to marking
the bullet itself, in my view. And I think any reasonable person, who
isn't prone to screaming "it was fake" at the drop of a hat, would
agree with me on that.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

Sam McClung

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 10:33:21 PM9/29/12

to

the magic bullet is effected by altitude

at 6th floor levels, the end looks pointed

at lower levels, it looks rounded

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 6:58:39 AM9/30/12

to

On Sep 29, 10:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399...

As usual DVP has proved nothing with his wasted little post. The
proof that CE399 was replaced with a Mannlicher-Carcano round nosed
bullet is clear (see above posts). Of course, to maintain his loving
belief in the WCR, he must try his best to ignore real evidence and
depend on the tired old theories that go along with it. This is all
necessary for him because he has a website that is biased to accept
the WCR completely.

Tomlinson at Parkland states for NOVA that he found the CE399 bullet
on a completely uninvolved stretcher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 6:59:59 AM9/30/12

to

Hmm. A pointed statement from a well rounded fellow...:)

Connally proves there were 3 separate hits in limo, not two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAZA4bJ_QXw

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 7:59:52 AM9/30/12

to

>>> "Tomlinson at Parkland states for NOVA that he found the CE399 bullet on a completely uninvolved stretcher." <<<

And the very same guy (Tomlinson) said the exact opposite on CBS in
1967. Go figure.

But, Chris likes Darrell's 1988 PBS version better, so--guess what?--
Chris is gonna go with the PBS version as if it were the Gospel truth
and totally ignore Tomlinson's MUCH EARLIER stories in 1964 (when he
said at least six times that he was "not sure" which stretcher was
which) and in 1967 (when Darrell insisted the bullet came off the
stretcher he had removed from the elevator).

And around the mulberry stretcher (er, bush) we go once more. What a
surprise.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 10:55:39 AM9/30/12

to

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/secret-service-confusion-at-love-field.html

aeffects

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 1:42:01 PM9/30/12

to

you been hitting that KFC stuff again Mr. .john jockstrap carrier?

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 7:57:41 PM9/30/12

to

It's easy to make up blather and attempt to sashay around evidence,
but we'll keep at it until DVP must go away or be proved a fool. In
1964 testifying before the WC, Tomlinson made a drawing. At this time
it's the first official testimony he has made and it's closest to the
actual event. See:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

In the drawing there is a hallway in Parkland hospital with 2
stretchers in it labelled A and B. Now let's hear Tomlinson's
testimony:
"Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you mark in ink with my pen the stretcher
which you pushed off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that it was this one right here (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER. Will you draw the outline of it in ink and mark an "A"
right in the center of that?
(Witness complied with request of Counsel Specter.)"
...
"Mr. SPECTER. Will you mark with a "B" the stretcher which was present
at the time you pushed stretcher "A" off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. (Witness complied with the request of Counsel Specter.)
I believe that's it."

Ok. Now we can put the testimony together with the drawing and we
see clearly the position of both stretcher 'A' and 'B'. They are both
marked on the drawing. Tomlinson has stated that 'A' came off the
elevator and 'B' was already there in the hall. Now Tomlinson goes
on:
"Mr. SPECTER. That's fine. What happened when that gentleman came to
use the men's room?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get
in, and then when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the
stretcher back up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way
where we would have clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. SPECTER. And where did you push it to?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON, I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet
rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that it was "B"."

The bathroom was labelled 'C' and the stretcher in front of the
door to it was 'B'. So the bullet came off stretcher 'B'. Tomlinson
is clear about where the bullet came from, stretcher 'B'. Which was
already in the hall before he came with the elevator and brought
stretcher 'A' from upstairs in the surgery suites.

Later in the discussion, the questioner gets Tomlinson to say he
wasn't sure about which stretcher was which. But years later when
doing a NOVA special, he was again clear that the stretcher he took
off the elevator was stretcher 'A' and the one that was already there
was 'B'. He had sample stretchers and moved them as he had years
before to show the viewer what he meant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

On two occasions Tomlinson has specified that stretcher 'A' was the
one the bullet fell from, including the first, and the last. Now DVP
seems all tied up with this, but it matters very little when you
realize that the bullet that was called CE399 and said to have come
from a Parkland stretcher was actually replaced by the one that we now
know as CE399!

When Tomlinson found the bullet, he passed it to a fellow named
Wright who worked at Parkland. Wright passed the bullet on to an SS
agent. It then found its way to the FBI. Unfortunately, when later
the CE399 bullet was brought back to be identified, neither the 2 SS
agents that handled the bullet nor Tomlinson and Wright would identify
it. Wright even said it wasn't the right bullet because it didn't
have the 'pointed' nose of the original bullet. No one is going to
forget handling a bullet that may have killed a president. If they
were showed a round nosed bullet when the original was 'pointed', it's
a legitimate statement and means that the bullet that now was labelled
CE399 was no longer the original 'pointed' bullet. The Secret Service
men supposedly put their names or initials on an envelope that the
bullet was put into. Whty would they say they couldn't identify the
bullet? Ws it the 'pointed' vs. the round nose?

All this says that the CE399 bullet is a sham and was replaced long
ago with a bullet from the M-C rifle. For an interesting experiment,
go to the following page:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6

Look down to item F-294 and click on it to see the 5 pictures of
bullets. If you look at the first 2 images (CE399 & CE572) you will
see that they are both almost undamaged, but they both are a bit
flattened and have slight bends in them, and they also are missing a
bit of material at the tail end. The second bullet is labelled as a
test bullet, and the first one that looks so alike to the second is
our CE399. Easy to see it was a test bullet too and was used to
replace the original bullet that came off the Parkland stretcher.

Poor old DVP is happy making stilted dtatements, but ignored real
evidence about the bullets, ans ids only too happy to use ad hominem
attacks to hope it will stop his detractors, and to keep his website
in use and not become a tird old biased site in favor or the old
WCR.

Sam McClung

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 8:20:41 PM9/30/12

to

when the frame rifle went from the mauser to the carcano,

the frame bullet went from pointed to rounded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U-TGahwvs&feature=related
when bob marley performed on the 6th floor

mainframetech

unread,

Sep 30, 2012, 8:22:10 PM9/30/12

to

On Sep 30, 10:55 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/secret-service-confusion-at-...

Oh my! A complete lie! I knew that DVP's website was biased, but
that's terrible! There is a video on his website that shows a Secret
Service agent trying to explain away the actions of an agent that was
non-plused when he was orderd away from the JFK limo upon leaving the
airport. The SS agent on the original video, along with another
agent, were both holding one hand on a rear fender of the limo and
trotting along with it, as they often did. It was obvious they were
intending to continue that way for some time. However, they were both
called off by a supervisor, and the fellow on the right fender was
using his arms and hands in a gesture that said "what's up, I don't
understand?". The 2 agents that had been on the fenders went back and
got into the following SS car.

In the video on DVP's website, there is an agent that says that the
agent that was called off the limo, was really just saying to everyone
that so long folks, I'm going to lunch, and that he had the duty to
stay at the airport to prepare for the return of the limo. The video
is cut off a bit earlier than the original that shows the 2 agents
going for the rear following car to get in.

Once you see the original video, this secondary effort to try and
cover up the meaning of the original is obvious. The original video
is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

Don't be fooled by biased attempts to enforce the WCR wacko
theories.

Rose Cheramie - predicted the assassination days ahead and also said
Oswald and Ruby
were friends:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami

Chris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 12:40:07 AM10/1/12

to

Chris,

I'm not the one who said that Lawton said "I'm going to
lunch"....Clint Hill said it. I merely posted it on my site.

So, would you like to call Clint Hill a liar now? Or perhaps Don
Lawton lied to Hill? Or maybe both? Which will it be?

I can't wait to find out who will be next on the CT clowns' "Liars"
list.

Anyway, by far the most important and significant part of the Clint
Hill C-Span video clip from Nov. 2010 (below) isn't the "I'm going to
lunch" statement that Lawton allegedly made to Mr. Hill. The most
important thing is the IDENTITY OF THE SHRUGGING AGENT. It's NOT
Henry Rybka. It's Donald Lawton. And Lawton was never assigned to be
in the motorcade.

Therefore, the CT clowns can't continue to argue "Standdown" with
respect to the actions of the shrugging agent.

Surely that obvious fact is even clear to a retarded person--like
mainframe/Chris. (Isn't it?)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/secret-service-confusion-at-love-field.html

Jason Burke

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 1:03:46 AM10/1/12

to

On 9/30/2012 9:36 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I'm not the one who said that Lawton said "I'm going to
> lunch"....Clint Hill said it. I merely posted it on my site.
>
> So, would you like to call Clint Hill a liar now? Or perhaps Don
> Lawton lied to Hill? Or maybe both? Which will it be?
>
> I can't wait to find out who will be next on the CT clowns' "Liars"
> list.
>
> Anyway, by far the most important and significant part of the Clint
> Hill C-Span video clip from Nov. 2010 (below) isn't the "I'm going to
> lunch" statement that Lawton allegedly made to Mr. Hill. The most
> important thing is the IDENTITY OF THE SHRUGGING AGENT. It's NOT
> Henry Rybka. It's Donald Lawton. And Lawton was never assigned to be
> in the motorcade.
>
> Therefore, the CT clowns can't continue to argue "Standdown" with

> respect to the actions of the shrugging agent,

>
> Surely that obvious fact is even clear to a retarded person--like
> mainframe/Chris. (Isn't it?)

Sadly, no, it isn't.

>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/secret-service-confusion-at-love-field.html
>

mainframetech

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 8:37:33 AM10/1/12

to

On Oct 1, 12:40 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I'm not the one who said that Lawton said "I'm going to
> lunch"....Clint Hill said it. I merely posted it on my site.

Sorry DVP, if you thought I was calling YOU a liar, I wasn't. If I
do, I'll be clear about it. I was referring to the agent on the video
(Clint Hill?). As well, the "Kennedy Detail" book by Blaine and
McCubbin raised quite an argument when Vince Palamara saw it.
http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2011/05/vince-palamara-kennedy-detail-secret.html

>
> So, would you like to call Clint Hill a liar now? Or perhaps Don
> Lawton lied to Hill? Or maybe both? Which will it be?
>

Whoever on the video tried to pretend that the original video of the
Secret Service stand down was simply a guy saying 'see ya later' to
his buddies, as he went on to his lunch and his duties at the airport,
was full of it. Seeing the original video puts the lie to that. The
original video is evidence and the viewer can decide for themselves
who is lying, not the SS. Here's the original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

> I can't wait to find out who will be next on the CT clowns' "Liars"
> list.
>

Ol' Davey, oddly enough you've suggested that many people were
liars yourself. Should you be added to your own list?

> Anyway, by far the most important and significant part of the Clint
> Hill C-Span video clip from Nov. 2010 (below) isn't the "I'm going to
> lunch" statement that Lawton allegedly made to Mr. Hill. The most
> important thing is the IDENTITY OF THE SHRUGGING AGENT. It's NOT
> Henry Rybka. It's Donald Lawton. And Lawton was never assigned to be
> in the motorcade.
>

Is this a sudden new development to back up the story of the 'lunch'
by a guy getting into the SS car that was in the motorcade? This is
an issue that has been around for many, many years, and here we have
all this brand new info on it, brushing it all away. I'm not
convinced. Watch the original video (above) and decide.

> Therefore, the CT clowns can't continue to argue "Standdown" with
> respect to the actions of the shrugging agent.
>

Ah, but they can. The thinly veiled attempt to 'clean up' the long
standing problem of the SS agent that gave away that they were being
ordered to stand down from the president's back, and then go sit in
the following SS car, is there to be viewed by new and old viewers to
decide on their own what happened. Interesting that you call him the
"shrugging agent". Does someone saying 'See ya later, I'm going to
lunch' shrug 3 times? Not normally in my experience. If he weren't
going along on the motorcade, he would wave a brief goodbye to his
buddies and say see ya later', but that isn't what happened. So I
believe the speaker in the video is lying and trying to cover up for a
terrible mistake made by the SS of yesteryear.

> Surely that obvious fact is even clear to a retarded person--like
> mainframe/Chris. (Isn't it?)
>

What is obvious is these desperate attempts to cover up yet another
event standing out that is EVIDENCE of either terrible error or
conspiracy to murder.

mainframetech

unread,

Oct 1, 2012, 8:38:46 AM10/1/12

to

> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/secret-service-confusion-at-...

Right on!

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 3, 2012, 7:48:26 PM10/3/12

to

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=45#entry260762

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "It wouldn't matter whether he [FBI agent Elmer Todd] etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399, which was obviously not the same bullet. Come on, David. Take a course in critical thinking." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A much better idea would be for Bob Harris to take a lengthy course
in: "Not Everybody Was Lying In The JFK Case."

>>> "You don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling the truth." <<<

Hilarious.

Does the above "Bob Harris rule" therefore mean that I and my fellow
LNers are "off the hook" (so to speak) when it comes to police
officials saying things in their OWN REPORTS that I don't think are
correct? Such as Seymour Weitzman's original affidavit where he calls
the rifle a 7.65 Mauser? (After all, how can I possibly know for
certain if Weitzman was, indeed, telling the truth when he said
"Mauser" there? Maybe he was lying. How can I know? And how can Bob
Harris know either, especially when looking at his quote above?)

And does this also mean that the conspiracy kooks of the world will
shut up about the lack of an FD-302 report for Odum's 6/12/64
interviews with Tomlinson and Wright?

Or do you have a different set of rules for any reports written by
Bardwell Odum vs. the reports written by Elmer Todd?

IOW--even if an FD-302 for Odum's 6/12 interview WAS unearthed, why
would any CTer accept that report as the TRUTH, in light of these
words spoken by Robert Harris?:

"You don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling
the truth."

>>> "That's like saying OJ was innocent because he wrote a report saying he didn't kill anybody. .... And...it wouldn't matter whether he [Todd] etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399." <<<

Yes, they are. You just can't see them in the NARA photos.

Plus:

Haven't you ever wondered WHY the evil FBI (including Elmer Todd, who
you pretty much compared to a murderer named O.J. Simpson in your
despicable comparison above) didn't just scratch the initials "ELT"
into the nose of CE399 after they planted that bullet into the
official evidence pile connected to the JFK case?

Why DIDN'T those evil bastards--who would stop at nothing, it seems,
to frame Oswald--perform that easy task of scrawling Todd's initials
into that bullet (and Rowley's and Johnsen's too, for that matter)?

Per the conspiracy clowns, Hoover's boys would go so far as to create
a totally false document seen in CE2011, wherein they just MADE UP an
interview conducted by Bardwell Odum (which could blow up in their
lying faces at any time thereafter), but they wouldn't merely scratch
some initials into a bullet that is a complete and total fraud to
begin with?

They were dastardly enough to fake the bullet itself by placing it
into the official record of the case, but they evidently weren't
dastardly enough to scribble some initials into that SAME FAKE BULLET?

What was that you said a minute ago about "critical thinking", Mr.
Harris?

mainframetech

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 7:14:16 AM10/4/12

to

On Oct 3, 7:48 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "It wouldn't matter whether he [FBI agent Elmer Todd] etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399, which was obviously not the same bullet. Come on, David. Take a course in critical thinking." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> A much better idea would be for Bob Harris to take a lengthy course
> in: "Not Everybody Was Lying In The JFK Case."
>
> >>> "You don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling the truth." <<<
>
> Hilarious.
>

As usual ol' DVP tries to ridicule his opponents, but supplies
little in the way of backup, and he certainly runs away from answering
the more serious problem of so many involved people refusing to
identify the CE399 bullet when it was attempted to verify it by
authorities. But not only was the ID refused, in one case (Wright)
the witness was very clear that the shape of the bullet originally was
'pointed' and NOT round as the M-C bullets were. Since a bullet that
may have possibly killed a president would not be very forgettable, we
need to take Wright's statement at face value. He had no reason to
lie. The implication will upset poor ol' DVP though. It says the
bullet being shown around wasn't the original bullet found on the
completely uninvolved stretcher. From the point of view of a
conspiracy, this evidence and corroborated witnesses point to a
replaced bullet, which would make sense if Oswald was to be set up.
Sadly, some dummy put the bullet on the uninvolved stretcher and
messed up part of the game.

> Does the above "Bob Harris rule" therefore mean that I and my fellow
> LNers are "off the hook" (so to speak) when it comes to police
> officials saying things in their OWN REPORTS that I don't think are
> correct? Such as Seymour Weitzman's original affidavit where he calls
> the rifle a 7.65 Mauser? (After all, how can I possibly know for
> certain if Weitzman was, indeed, telling the truth when he said
> "Mauser" there? Maybe he was lying. How can I know? And how can Bob
> Harris know either, especially when looking at his quote above?)
>
> And does this also mean that the conspiracy kooks of the world will
> shut up about the lack of an FD-302 report for Odum's 6/12/64
> interviews with Tomlinson and Wright?
>

Who cares if the bullet wasn't even the original?

> Or do you have a different set of rules for any reports written by
> Bardwell Odum vs. the reports written by Elmer Todd?
>

Why did Todd say he was in the chain of custody, but it was found
that he hadn't initialed anything?

> IOW--even if an FD-302 for Odum's 6/12 interview WAS unearthed, why
> would any CTer accept that report as the TRUTH, in light of these
> words spoken by Robert Harris?:
>
> "You don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling
> the truth."
>
> >>> "That's like saying OJ was innocent because he wrote a report saying he didn't kill anybody. .... And...it wouldn't matter whether he [Todd] etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399." <<<
>
> Yes, they are. You just can't see them in the NARA photos.

Neither can you, but it doesn't matter because it's been shown that
CE399 didn't go through anyone, though it matched a test bullet
perfectly.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6
go to item F-294 and match the first 2 bullets. The second is a
test bullet.

>
> Plus:
>
> Haven't you ever wondered WHY the evil FBI (including Elmer Todd, who
> you pretty much compared to a murderer named O.J. Simpson in your
> despicable comparison above) didn't just scratch the initials "ELT"
> into the nose of CE399 after they planted that bullet into the
> official evidence pile connected to the JFK case?
>
> Why DIDN'T those evil bastards--who would stop at nothing, it seems,
> to frame Oswald--perform that easy task of scrawling Todd's initials
> into that bullet (and Rowley's and Johnsen's too, for that matter)?
>

Because they thought thay had a patsy dead to rights and didn't need
all the evidence. And within 2 days, they knew they wouldn't even
have a trial at which to show evidence. So it all got slipshod, not
knowing about the determination of the seekers for truth in the case,
that would continue on to the end of the century looking for the
facts. The usual WCR wacko theories just don't cut it like originally
thought.

> Per the conspiracy clowns, Hoover's boys would go so far as to create
> a totally false document seen in CE2011, wherein they just MADE UP an
> interview conducted by Bardwell Odum (which could blow up in their
> lying faces at any time thereafter), but they wouldn't merely scratch
> some initials into a bullet that is a complete and total fraud to
> begin with?
>
> They were dastardly enough to fake the bullet itself by placing it
> into the official record of the case, but they evidently weren't
> dastardly enough to scribble some initials into that SAME FAKE BULLET?
>
> What was that you said a minute ago about "critical thinking", Mr.
> Harris?

With all the other errors in judgement and errors handling evidence,
the FBI and the other authorities completely ruined their chances of
having a trial for the perpetrator of the murder. Their lives were
saved by Ruby when he did the deed on Oswald. Oswald knew enough to
make a real mess out of the whole farce.

FBI agent Adams - Saying FBI did bad investigation and covered up
evidence:
http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc

Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Oct 4, 2012, 10:47:30 AM10/4/12

to

so after ruby cleansed roscoe white's smoking sniping rilfe from dealey
plaza, as seen by hill and tilsons, and as captured in the weigman film, and
after going back to the gsbd to give oswald the pistol with nonworking
firing pin, ruby then took the pointed/7.65 mauser bullet into parkland and
planted it?

then the same day the "in evidence at that time" planted pointed 7.65 mauser
bullet was substituted with the now existing planted rounded 6.5 carcano
magic evidence bullet?

and that the bullet swap occurred after the frame rifle swap, 7.65 mauser to
6.5 carcano? noting the frame rifle swap occurred after 1:30 p.m. according
to ellsworth who indicated the carcano was found on a different floor than
the carcano, first indicating 4th floor then later possibly indicating it
was the 5th floor

planting evidence doesn't apparently have to be too precise when the
planters know they will be conducting the investigation into the evidence,
in which case the evidence is not a physical thing but rather a process
involving physical things plural

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 6, 2012, 7:57:09 PM10/6/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8e827cf035f413ef/e493a89ffa4fdaac?#e493a89ffa4fdaac

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Why did Givens say that he had to go back up to the sixth floor to get
his jacket and cigarettes if it was only used for dead storage?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? What kind of off-the-wall conspiracy plot are you trying to imply
here?

Givens had been working on the sixth floor that morning, and he left
his jacket/cigs on that floor after he descended for lunch. Hence, the
reason he needed to go back up to the 6th floor was because THAT'S
WHERE THOSE THINGS WERE.

(Duh.)

"Dead storage"???

(Time for another "Huh??", it would appear.)

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Still clueless, eh DVP?

Jack C. Cason, president of the depository, said the sixth floor was
used solely as a "dead storage" area. Cason, who left the scene about
30 minutes before the president's caravan rode down Main Street a
block away, said the firm often had difficulty finding employees who
had fallen asleep amidst the stacks of books.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, either Jack Cason didn't know what the hell he was talking about
or (more likely) his use of the term "dead storage" could more aptly
be changed to "bulk stock", as Depository Superintendent Roy Truly
explained in detail in his Warren Commission testimony:

ROY TRULY -- "On the first floor we have bin stock, shelf stock, we
fill a lot of small orders from. And then in the basement the same.
The fifth and the sixth floor, and part of the seventh floor is
overflow stock. It is reserve stock. But the boys have to go to those
floors all during the day to pick up stock and bring it to the first
floor in order to process and complete the orders for the checker."

ALLEN DULLES -- "What would reserve stock mean?"

MR. TRULY -- "Actually it is not reserve stock--it is not surplus
either. It is part of our stock. But we can carry a limited amount
only on the first floor where we do our shipping. So they may get an
order for a hundred copies of a certain book and there may only be 10
or 15 or 20 on the shelf on the first floor. They will have to go
upstairs and get a carton or two. And they replenish the first floor
stock from that. And many of our freight orders are filled entirely
from our reserve stock. And they bring them to the first floor. All
orders reach the first floor, where they are checked and processed and
packed and shipped from that floor."

DAVID BELIN -- "Where, generally, are Scott, Foresman books kept?"

MR. TRULY -- "On the first floor and the sixth floor. We have a large
quantity of their books on the sixth floor."

MR. BELIN -- "And this is the area where Lee Harvey Oswald worked?"

MR. TRULY -- "That is right. .... He had occasion to go to the sixth
floor quite a number of times every day, each day, after books."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

Therefore, the stock on the sixth floor wasn't "dead" at all, Tony. It
was being accessed every day (per Roy S. Truly's testimony).

But your bringing up the "dead storage" topic is totally irrelevant
anyway, because even if the sixth floor was for only "dead
storage" (which it obviously was not, according to Mr. Truly) -- so
what? We still would have Givens leaving his jacket and cancer sticks
on the sixth floor on the morning of Nov. 22, even if Givens WAS up
there just sleeping or goofing off or smoking--which would have made
it perfectly logical for him to have left his cigarettes up on that
floor, wouldn't it?

Plus, we also know that Givens was part of the floor-repairing crew on
the 6th floor on Nov. 22, which makes your previous "dead storage"
argument all the more irrelevant, since even if that floor was only a
"dead" one, we know that activity was certainly going on on that
particular floor on Nov. 22 -- a new plywood floor was being put down.
And Givens was helping to do that work that day.

Question---

Why are so many conspiracy theorists seemingly so anxious to paint
Charles D. Givens as some kind of liar, plotter, or conspirator?

Just....why?

(I already know the answer, of course. But it's a rhetorical kind of
thing that needed to be asked anyway. I'm sure you understand.)

aeffects

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 12:03:28 AM10/7/12

to

On Oct 6, 4:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lone nut loony-bins nonsense>

Is DVP hooked on saturated fat? That's a question of grave concern...

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 12:49:38 AM10/7/12

to

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-79.html

Sam McClung

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 9:07:35 AM10/7/12

to

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:934c556d-f58d-42e8...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 6, 4:57 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <snip the lone nut loony-bins nonsense>
>
> Is DVP hooked on saturated fat? That's a question of grave concern...

he served with the colonel, check his kfc214 and kfc221

aeffects

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 11:29:00 AM10/7/12

to

On Oct 7, 6:08 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message

perhaps Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup comic) would care to
comment on the kfc221? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 7, 2012, 2:47:31 PM10/7/12

to

http://dvp-jfk-blogs.blogspot.com/

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 12:32:50 AM10/8/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8e827cf035f413ef/d55bfaa354a73dcc?#d55bfaa354a73dcc

TONY MARSH SAID:

Are you in the book trade? No. Then how would you know anything about
it?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't. But Roy Truly does. (Are you in the book trade, Anthony?)

And I guess the following comment by Truly ONLY applies to Lee H.
Oswald, eh Tony? It doesn't apply to Charles Givens at all (even
though Charlie was one of these "boys" too), right Tony?.....

ROY TRULY -- "The fifth and the sixth floor, and part of the seventh

floor is overflow stock. It is reserve stock. But the boys have to go
to those floors all during the day to pick up stock and bring it to
the first floor in order to process and complete the orders for the
checker."

TONY MARSH, UNBELIEVABLY, ASKED:

Why would ANY assassin choose such a high traffic area for his
sniper's nest when hundreds of workers were coming and going every
minute and floor laying crews were busy laying down plywood exactly
where he wanted to set up his sniper's nest?

DVP SAID:

Hundreds of workers? Note Marsh's severe overstatement there. He's
acting as if the 6th floor was Grand Central or Yankee Stadium during
the World Series.

Now to spring the trap for Tony (since he stepped into it so nicely):

Why would ANY "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters choose the busy sixth
floor on 11/22/63 for their "patsy" ruse, which meant that SOMEBODY
FROM THE PATSY TEAM must have been up on that busy floor, with the
floor-laying crew, in order to plant all of the LHO-incriminating
evidence all over the sixth floor.

How did every member of the patsy crew manage to cloak themselves and
turn invisible on the morning of November 22, Tony? Any ideas? Or
would you prefer to remain wishy-washy...as always?

aeffects

unread,

Oct 8, 2012, 1:46:19 AM10/8/12

to

On Oct 7, 9:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip VonPein's idiocy>

you lost hon? Need directions to the local nuthouse?

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 12, 2012, 7:12:23 PM10/12/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f8d3136f24a70139/ae4b2d62c3d4a830?#ae4b2d62c3d4a830

TONY MARSH SAID:

Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original
author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. .... Or
maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the "von" in that
derivative of the name.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I added the "sic", because it kind of irks me when I see my name
misspelled (even though the person misspelling it knows full well how
to spell it correctly, because my name appears at the top of every
post I make).

It's funny, actually (and irritating at the same time) -- as if
somebody ELSE knows better than I do how to spell my own name.
Therefore, they just arbitrarily decide to lower case the "V". After
all, why should I know how to spell my own name better than some
stranger? (Hilarious.)

<snipping the rest of Tony's goofy post>

(Man, that guy named Marsh has a lot of time on his hands, doesn't he?
Every single post in every single thread must be commented on, even if
ludicrously, by W. Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts. Geesh.)

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 13, 2012, 2:11:25 PM10/13/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f8d3136f24a70139/0ee1da8b507fd083?#0ee1da8b507fd083

TONY MARSH SAID:

Did you add the "[sic]" or did the original author? If the original
author did then maybe he is trying to make fun of your name. .... Or
maybe he knows that it is correct to not capitalize the "von" in that
derivative of the name.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I added the "sic", because it kind of irks me when I see my name
misspelled (even though the person misspelling it knows full well how
to spell it correctly, because my name appears at the top of every
post I make).

TONY MARSH SAID:

Of course you did. I would expect nothing less from you. So you did
not quote his message accurately. You added your own editorial
comment. Which is why you can not [sic] be trusted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[Note the ironic "[sic]" up there, which I added for Tony's benefit
and amusement, as Anthony misspelled the word "cannot". Tony, for some
strange reason, will now say I can't be trusted because I did not
quote his above statement accurately.]

Can it get any sillier than this? Of course I quoted his message
accurately, hence the reason I added the "[sic]" after he misspelled
my name. Meaning: The quote is exactly as written by the author even
though it's wrong.

TONY MARSH SAID:

I can't take sides in your dispute without doing a lot more
genealogical research, but did you ever consider that you are the one
who has been spelling it wrong all these years? Maybe you capitalize
it only as a poncy affectation to make everyone think you are high
society.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Tony.

But if I have been falsely capitalizing the V in my last name for many
years, how does that particular action turn me into a person of "high
society", Tony? Please explain that comment to me, because I'll have
to admit, I'm so "low society" and out to lunch that the inference
associated with that strange remark went zooming right over my
cranium.

TONY MARSH SAID:

You may not even know your own family history name. How far can you
trace your family tree? A trailer park in the Great Depression?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't matter. My birth certificate verifies the true spelling of
my name, regardless of whether an ancestor of mine spelled it the same
way or not.

(Can anyone believe this discussion is actually taking place? I can't
believe it--and I'm right in the middle of this silliness. Oh well,
it's just another day at the office for Anthony "I'll Argue With
Everybody About Everything" Marsh.) :-)

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 14, 2012, 8:27:53 PM10/14/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f8d3136f24a70139/3c00bc37592bf7c3?#3c00bc37592bf7c3

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't give a damn what Wikipedia says. The V in my particular name
is supposed to be capitalized. Period.

My prediction has come true though (as I knew it would) -- I figured
Marsh would attempt to give me a lesson on how to spell my own name.
And I sure was right, with Wiki quotes coming out of the woodwork.
Hilarious.

Maybe Marsh will next tell me that the "Pein" portion of my name
[pronounced "Pine", btw, not "Peen" or "Pain" as most people think]
isn't spelled right either. I can't wait for the 14 Wiki pages that
will be introduced to set me straight on that one.

>>> "You were the one who started it by claiming that someone intentionally misspelled your name to insult you." <<<

Another inaccurate statement by Marsh. I never said anybody misspelled
my name to "insult" me. I merely said it "irks" me when I see it
spelled wrong.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 15, 2012, 10:29:16 PM10/15/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f8d3136f24a70139/1b6f1b898742245e?#1b6f1b898742245e

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "As if you actually know how to spell your own name correctly." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If we are to abide by the literal definition of "von" (lower case) as
it was originally intended many many years ago, with "von" meaning
"of" or "from", I guess Tony must think that my name really means
David of Pein (or David from Pein).

Since it's quite obvious that through the years the particle "von" has
been attached to names that do not double as locations (such as my
own), this would also logically indicate that the literal meaning of
the particle ("of" or "from") does not apply to any such names, and
therefore the "von" need not always be presented in lower-case form
(as if it were substituting for merely the word "of" or "from").

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

Addendum/Correction:

I was incorrect in saying that "Pein" is not a location. In fact,
there is a town in Germany with that name (although it's spelled
"Peine"; so, incredibly, my earlier thought about Tony Marsh possibly
giving me a lecture on how the last part of my last name is also
misspelled can, indeed, now come true).

What I should have said in my last post is:

Since it's obvious that over a period of time, the particle "von" has
become attached to the names of people who are not "from" the last
portion of their last names (e.g., neither I or any of my relatives
that I am aware of come from "Pein" or "Peine", Germany), the
standardization of always using lower case when writing the "von" can
reasonably and logically be eliminated in many instances. And,
obviously, it has been discarded in the case of my particular name.

I think that should about end this senseless and off-topic discussion
(much to the delight of moderators John C. McAdams and Peter Fokes [at
the aaj newsgroup, where this silliness is also wasting additional
bandwidth]. Unless, of course, Mr. Marsh would like to treat us to the
aforementioned potential lecture on why my ancestors eventually
dropped the "e" off the end of my last name. That lecture promises to
be just as boring and irrelevant as the rest of this discussion, but
if my crystal ball is accurate, I'm sure Tony M. will want the last
word on this matter.

Thanks, and Godspeed.

:-)