>>> "You can't say that he [JFK] positively with complete certainty, continues to lower his hand all the way through from frame 207 to frame 226, for the simple reason that frames 207 to 223 do not show Kennedy's arm, it's hidden by the Stemmons sign. This is almost a full second of time, enough time for another hidden by the Stemmons sign hand/arm raising reaction to have taken place before we can see it starting to rise at Z225/226." <<<

DVP SAID:

Huh?!

You're going to have to walk me through your "arm-raising" theory,
Duncan. Because you've lost me on this one.

It seems to me that what you're implying is something like this:

1.) JFK has his right hand in a fairly "high" position at Z194.

2.) He's then shot at about Z194.

3.) He then lowers his hands/arms a little bit following Z194. (Do you
think he moved his hands to the "pain point" near his neck/throat
around Z194-Z201?)

4.) JFK then lowers his hands some more--to the place where we find
them at Z224-Z225 when he reappears from behind the Stemmons sign (and
his left hand is very low, btw; certainly nowhere near his throat/neck
region).

5.) And then he raises his hands/arms to the "pain point" near his
throat, starting at Z226.

I'm pretty sure you're not actually advocating such a ludicrous theory
as I've just laid out above, but in lieu of the above 5-point "arm-
raising" scenario, I'm totally lost when it comes to how anyone can
think JFK's right hand/arm can be THAT HIGH at Z194 and THAT LOW at
Z225 if he was hit back at circa Z194.

~large-sized shrug~

>>> "Re: The throat shot coming from the front. Yes, of course it came from the front, from Umbrella man firing an ice dart to paralyse JFK in to perfect positioning for the head shot from the storm drain. Everyone knows this, David." <<<

Oh, yes! I forgot! (Silly me.)

But you forgot one important detail here, Duncan -- the gunman who was
concealing himself in the fake tree on the Knoll.

Then, too, perhaps "Tree Man" was shooting at the same time as "Sewer
Man".

DUNCAN MacRAE THEN SAID:

>>> "What i'm speculating, not implying, is simple to understand. That between Z207 and Z223, where he is hidden by the sign, Kennedy could have completed the exact same reaction that we see in Z225/226, ie, he might have experienced a double involuntary neurological reaction, two reactions, the first reaction taking place when he is hidden behind the sign, and the second reaction which we can see, starting at Z225. It's not outside the realms of possibility. Pretty simple theory, Eh?!" <<<

DVP THEN SAID:

Oh, for Pete sake. How silly.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 6, 2010, 1:01:45 AM8/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&view=findpost&p=200505

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&view=findpost&p=200512

PETER McGUIRE EJACULATED THIS VENOM AT "THE EDUCATION FORUM":

>>> "...your sorry ass. .... you are an accessory after the fact ... a traitor to the United States." <<<

DVP SAID:

So much for the forum rules of decorum.

(I guess the rules only apply to the lowly "traitors", like us
scumbags known as "LNers", right McGuire?)

PS -- Does this mean the gloves are off, and I can utilize my favorite
"K" word in my posts here from now on? I sure hope so, because being
forced to keep the "K" word off the table is getting to be unbearable
when conversing with the ridiculous batch of Anybody-But-Oswald
theorists that inhabits this place at "The Education Forum".

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 6, 2010, 2:57:01 AM8/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=findpost&p=200494

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=findpost&p=200507

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "DVP's reluctance to accept the photographic evidence for JFK being shot before he went behind the sign is to me a bit strange." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why in the world is it strange to you, Pat?

For one (very big!) thing: A shot from Oswald's window in the Z190s
means that Oswald was SHOOTING THROUGH THE OAK TREE! And that, IMO, is
just silly (even though LNer Mark Fuhrman promotes such nonsense in
his 2006 book, and the HSCA, incredibly, thought Oswald was shooting
through the tree too).

>>> "Bugliosi, after all, successfully pushed this evidence on the jury in the televised mock trial of Oswald. Is he now trying to claim Bugliosi deceived all those jurors?" <<<

That's easily explainable, Pat. And you surely know the answer to
this:

At the mock trial in England in 1986, Bugliosi was in kind of a tough
spot regarding the photographic expert he put on the stand--Cecil Kirk
of the HSCA.

It's possible that Vince, HIMSELF, as of the time of the London trial
in July 1986, might very well have accepted as fact Kirk's explanation
about an early (circa Z190) SBT shot that Kirk presented to the jury
in London.

But as Vince studied the Zapruder Film later on (after the trial), my
guess would be that he "wised up" in a sense (at least partially), and
grew to believe that the SBT shot had occurred quite a bit later than
the Z190s. (Although Vince still gets it wrong in his book, saying
that the SBT occurs at around Z210, but he never mentions an exact
frame. So, after the 1986 London trial, at least VB got closer to the
actual SBT frame of Z224 than he was in '86.)

But even if Bugliosi had truly believed, in July 1986, that the SBT
occurred at a time other than the Z190s, Vince was still on a spot as
prosecutor of Oswald at the London trial -- because he could not
subpoena witnesses, and he could not force anyone to testify at the
docu-trial against their will.

So, in effect, VB was pretty much stuck with accepting the witness he
was able to get regarding the photographic (Zapruder Film) evidence--
Cecil Kirk of the HSCA, who endorsed the early (and silly) SBT
timeline of around Z190 (although no specific Zapruder frame numbers
were ever mentioned for the SBT shot when Kirk was on the stand; never
once does Kirk say that he was talking about Z190 or Z200, or
whatever, during his mock trial testimony; but we all know he was
talking about a circa Z190 SBT hit).

If Bugliosi had been able to get any witness he wanted for this "SBT
timing" aspect of the case at the London trial, I'm guessing he would
have selected Robert Frazier, who performed extensive tests with
Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest during the Warren Commission's
reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964.

Whether or not Bob Frazier was ever asked to participate in the London
court proceeding, I have no idea. But he certainly would have been my
first choice, instead of Cecil Kirk.

Footnote---

I do think Vince Bugliosi should have explained to his readers in
"Reclaiming History" why he was no longer supporting Kirk's earlier
timeline regarding the Single-Bullet Theory. I don't think, however,
that Vince says a word in his book about this discrepancy. And I think
he should have. And if he had done so, I'm pretty confident that the
explanation I just laid out above would have been Vincent's
explanation as well.

Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 television mock trial can be seen
at the link below:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/cecil-kirk.html

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 6, 2010, 3:25:28 AM8/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=findpost&p=200525

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=findpost&p=200530

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "This is a perfect example of McAdams' Disease. If evidence says Oswald didn't do something, then ipso facto, it must be wrong. No matter what it is." <<<

DVP SAID:

Funny.

Jim DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald did ANYTHING wrong in the calendar
year of 1963. Per Jim:

Oswald DIDN'T order the C2766 Carcano rifle via mail order.
Oswald DIDN'T order the S&W revolver via mail order.
Oswald DIDN'T pose for the backyard photos.
Oswald DIDN'T take a shot at General Walker.
Oswald DIDN'T go to Mexico City.
Oswald DIDN'T take a big package into the TSBD on Nov. 22.
Oswald DIDN'T shoot John Kennedy.
Oswald DIDN'T shoot J.D. Tippit.
Oswald DIDN'T take a gun into the Texas Theater.

Despite the rock-solid evidence that Jim D. is dead wrong about ALL of
the above things, that won't stop Jim from pushing his fantasies about
a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Pathetic.

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 6, 2010, 3:52:38 AM8/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=findpost&p=200537

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=findpost&p=200541

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Oswald may have posed for photos, but not those particular [backyard] photos. ...... Oswald may have gone to Mexico, but he did not do the things the WC says he did. ...... Oswald may have taken a package into the TSBD, but it's not the one that the DPD brought down from upstairs. And the evidentiary record on the others is so confusing, and Hoover's memos so compromising that the packages would have been a real vulnerability at trial. So, maybe a package, but not from the TSBD paper--since there is no evidence for this, and Hoover knew it. ...... Oswald may have taken a revolver into the theater. The weight of the evidence says it's not the one used in the Tippit shooting. ...... This is called making distinctions and thinking critically in order to be fair. Glad to introduce you to the subject." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's just too bad that the subject (and the crap) you've just
introduced doesn't have the slightest resemblance to the truth and the
facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

You don't seem to have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate
evidence in the JFK case. And you certainly haven't got a clue as to
how to separate the wheat from the chaff. (You ALWAYS prefer the
chaff, it seems. Typical of rabid conspiracy kooks, of course.)

You CONSTRUCT crap from virtual nothingness and then you prop up your
mush as a rock-solid foundation of Anybody-But-Oswald truth.

For example---

Let's take your recently invented theory about how Buell Wesley
Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle were coerced by the evil DPD into
creating their paper bag stories out of thin air.

That theory is pure bunk--and every reasonable person who has studied
this case knows it.

Wesley Frazier never EVER has recanted his story about Oswald having a
bag, or about Oswald saying that there were curtain rods in that paper
bag. (Wesley never had a pang of conscience strike him in all these
years about that whopper of a lie he told? Is that it, Jim?)

It is YOU--Jim D--who invents crap out of thin air. And more people
should really slap you down when you do it. Of course, no CTer will
ever dare slap down the great and all-knowing James DiEugenio, who has
evidently memorized every book ever written about every assassination
that has ever occurred since the beginning of time.

Therefore, unless someone like myself or John McAdams or Francois
Carlier comes along to expose your nonsense (such as your ridiculous
Frazier/Randle fairy tale), then you've got a clear field to run with
your BS to the CT Endzone.

In short -- You're a CT caricature, Jim DiEugenio.

And the funniest part of all is -- you don't even realize it.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 7, 2010, 1:35:34 AM8/7/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=90&p=200599&#entry200599

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=90&p=200661&#entry200661

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "What [Dale] Myers is saying is the reverse of what you said! And you didn't even notice that? C'mon. Come clean. Your argument was this: REA shipped the revolver to the box. The post office then collected payment from LHO. The post office then served as fiduciary for the transaction. Even though this is illogical and not really precedented--look at how Fed Ex operates--I granted you the right to make the argument. I then pointed out the (many) problems with it. Now, Myers' does something completely different. He says in essence that DiEugenio was right. That normal procedure was to have REA mail a notification card to the post office. Then the customer would go to the REA office to pick up the merchandise. And you don' t bat an eyelash." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim, you're a goof.

Of course I was fully aware that Dale Myers' article [linked below]
said the opposite of what I said to you in our exchanges about this
REA matter in this thread. That was the whole purpose for my posting
it in the first place--to get it straightened out.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the quoted passages I used
from Myers' article were saying the exact same thing I had said about
the revolver earlier this week in this forum thread. (Duh.)

http://JFKFiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html

BTW, here's an "Edit" that I wrote this morning, which I have added to
my archived blog version of this "revolver" discussion:

Quoting from my blog post:

"EDIT --- Since writing the above remarks, I've come into
possession of additional information concerning the method by which
Lee Harvey Oswald likely came into physical possession of the .38
Smith & Wesson mail-order revolver he ordered from Seaport Traders,
Inc.

"This information comes from the person who probably knows more
about the J.D. Tippit murder (and, hence, more about the gun that was
used to kill Officer Tippit) than anyone else on the planet, Dale K.
Myers, the author of the excellent 1998 book "With Malice: Lee Harvey
Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit"." -- DVP

[End quote.]

I then added excerpts from Dale Myers' article directly underneath the
words quoted above.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

BTW #2 (and just "for the record"):

I'll remind Jim DiEugenio that I also made the following remarks in a
forum post dated August 3, 2010:

"I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of
"COD" transactions worked when companies shipped merchandise to P.O.
Boxes, but if the PHYSICAL ITEM itself was actually shipped to P.O.
Box 2915 (and Heinz Michaelis said it was in his WC testimony), then
it means that the post office employees would be initially handling
the money from Oswald (since, quite obviously, Oswald didn't set up
camp and live right there inside his post office box as he waited for
the delivery truck to show up with his pistol)." -- DVP; 8/3/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=45&p=200095&#entry200095

Therefore, via the above remarks, I was essentially admitting several
days ago that I wasn't absolutely certain as to the exact location
where Oswald picked up his Smith & Wesson revolver in 1963.

>>> "The problem with this is the following, and I quote your Bible, the WR: "...the revolver was actually shipped on March 20 BY RAILWAY EXPRESS. (p. 174, emphasis added) There can be no ambiguity here. If REA shipped it, it had to go to the P. O. box. Why? Because that is the address on the order form." <<<

Right. And thanks for posting that passage from page 174 of the Warren
Report, because it further clouds and confuses the very same issue
about WHERE the physical gun was sent. I.E., was the revolver sent to
the post office or was it retained at the REA offices?

But you should also take note of the source note (#588) that appears
on page 174 of the WCR concerning that quoted passage -- it leads to
the various Michaelis exhibits and to Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony at
7 H 376-378, which is the exact testimony that I found confusing
regarding this precise "Where Was The Revolver Shipped?" topic.

I think it's quite obvious that even the Warren Commission itself was
confused about it. But that confusion is pretty well ironed out in
Dale Myers' article. But I certainly agree that it seems a bit
confusing.

In fact, that very thing about Heinz Michaelis saying to the Warren
Commission that the GUN ITSELF was shipped to P.O. Box 2915 is the
main thing that made me say this to you (Jim D.) the other day:

[DVP Quote On:]

"There was very likely no need for Oswald to go to the Railway
Express office to pick up the revolver. The gun itself was physically
shipped by REA to Oswald's Dallas P.O. Box. We know that via Michaelis
Exhibit No. 4 and the testimony of Heinz W. Michaelis [at 7 H 378]:

JOSEPH BALL -- "I will show you another document here which is a
slip of red paper marked "Railway Express Agency" which has been
heretofore identified with an FBI Exhibit No. DL-29 [which was marked
by the Warren Commission as "Michaelis Exhibit No. 4"]. What is that
document?" ....

HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "That is a copy of the receipt which we got
from the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one
carton with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas,
Texas.""

[/Quote off.]

But in Myers' article, we can see that it's very likely that only a
NOTIFICATION CARD was actually put into Oswald's P.O. Box -- and the
physical gun itself was probably never inside the Dallas post office
at all. Which does make sense too, because it eliminates the post
office employees from having to handle any money from the person who
is claiming the package.

Which, of course, is something you yourself were saying the other day
too--i.e., it would be odd for the post office to have to handle the
money that is really supposed to go to Railway Express (and then to
Seaport Traders).

And you're right--it does make more sense for the C.O.D. cash
transaction to be handled by the REA people themselves.

But when looking at Heinz Michaelis' testimony shown above about the
GUN PACKAGE ITSELF being physically sent to P.O. Box 2915, I deferred
to that explanation. And, quite obviously, so did the Warren
Commission on page 174 of the WCR.

But it's probably not entirely accurate. What Michaelis should have
said is that a card of notification of delivery gets sent to the P.O.
Box, but not the merchandise itself.

It would have been nice if Joe Ball had asked Michaelis this question
(but he never did):

"Now, Mr. Michaelis, what would Lee Oswald have had to do in
order to physically take possession of the revolver he ordered through
Seaport Traders after that gun was shipped by you via Railway Express?
Would he have picked up the package at his post office box, or is
there some other method by which he would get his package in a C.O.D.
transaction like this one?"

Unfortunately, no question similar to the one simulated above was
asked of witness Heinz Michaelis.

>>> "Here is the other problem. Myers pictures the exhibits in the WR from page 173. Please show me where the address of REA in Dallas is noted on any of these documents. Or the phone number. This leaves the obvious question: How did Oswald know where to go to pick up the revolver?" <<<

Oh, come now James! You can't be serious here!

The Railway Express notification card that would have been put into
Oswald's post office box isn't among the documents pictured on page
173 of the Warren Report (below).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0099a.htm

That notification card no longer exists. And that's very likely
because it was thrown away by the Railway Express people shortly after
Oswald picked up his revolver at REA. That card had served its
purpose, and there was really no reason for anybody to keep it.

It's also reasonable to assume that the notification card that was put
into Oswald's P.O. Box had the address of the REA Express office on
it. Hence, Oswald knew where to go to get his revolver.

For Pete sake, Jim, isn't this obvious?!

Plus, Heinz Michaelis testified that there was proof that REA remitted
the $19.95 to Seaport Traders. Which, quite obviously, would indicate
that SOMEBODY PAID RAILWAY EXPRESS the amount of the C.O.D., and that
"somebody" was undoubtedly the same person who ordered the gun in the
first place--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Quoting from Michaelis' WC testimony:

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

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

In addition, as I mentioned the other day, the word "Paid" is written
in on Michaelis Exhibit No. 2 (below). And why would this order be
marked as "Paid" if it wasn't really "paid" by the person who ordered
it?:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/MichaelisEx2.jpg?t=1280887140

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 7, 2010, 3:58:37 AM8/7/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=90&p=200672&#entry200672

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=90&p=200674&#entry200674

JIM DiEUGENIO BELLOWED:

>>> "You like [Dale] Myers because he says Oswald killed Tippit. Period. The fact that he reverses your thesis is immaterial to your objective." <<<

DVP'S SNAPPY RETORT WAS:

Well....

Firstly: I certainly would take the word of Dale Myers (who is a
person I respect greatly) over the word of an Anybody-But-Oswald
conspiracy kook any day of the week. That goes without saying, of
course. (Duh.)

Secondly: There's some additional information provided by Myers in his
1998 article re this matter that you didn't provide, which pretty much
seals the deal about Oswald's REA pick-up:

Quoting Myers:

"REA Express VP, Robert Hendon, testified that in a similar
case, "a card was sent to the name and address" on the package.
Presumably, a card was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box, notifying him that a
package was to be picked up at the REA Express Office."

Myers' source for the above quote:

"Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, S1448-11, op. cit.,
p.3465"

http://JFKFiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html

NOTE --- The remainder of DiEugenio's latest post [first link at the
top of this post] has all been addressed in earlier posts. No need to
beat Jim's dead horse for a fourth time. Jim knows Oswald ordered,
paid for, and picked up the Tippit murder weapon. He just wants to
concentrate on the chaff...as per usual.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio.html

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 7, 2010, 9:45:56 AM8/7/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=105&p=200701&#entry200701

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "This is "other information"? All it says is what I said all along: REA sent a card to the post office. Which is what you resisted, until Myers said the same thing." <<<

DVP SAID:

Just like I said before, Dale Myers provided additional information
[seen in the post below] from the Vice President of Railway Express.
Can't you read?

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

>>> "Why not tell anyone that Michaelis, your prime witness, did not really work for Seaport. He was actually working for another mail order company called Merchants." <<<

Nope. It was called Merchanteers.

>>> "And he did not take a supervisory position with Seaport until two months before the assassination! I've been waiting for you to reveal that. You didn't. Why?" <<<

Didn't know it. And I really don't care. It's a meaningless fact--
SINCE OSWALD HAD THE TIPPIT MURDER WEAPON ON HIM 35 MINUTES AFTER
TIPPIT WAS SHOT.

Maybe I should make that last sentence 70 feet tall and in blinking
neon letters so that Mr. DiEugenio will get the message. So far, that
little tidbit of a fact has apparently gone sailing right past his
chaff-seeking nose.

>>> "The obvious question is: Why didn't the FBI find the person who was supervising mail transactions for Seaport prior to that and who was much more familiar with how the company kept books and records. This guy had to read stuff out of a notebook the FBI had prepared for him." <<<

Mr. Michaelis did just fine. It's the conspiracy theorists who are the
major problem in this case. They couldn't find oil in their own
backyard if it was gushing through their windows. A certain idiotic
kook by the name of DiEugenio can't even figure out that Oswald shot
Tippit, even though Oswald HAD THE MURDER WEAPON IN HIS HANDS 35
MINUTES AFTER TIPPIT WAS SHOT.

Walt

unread,

Aug 7, 2010, 10:04:36 AM8/7/10

On Aug 6, 2:25 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=find...
>
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16351&view=find...

>
> JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
> >>> "This is a perfect example of McAdams' Disease. If evidence says Oswald didn't do something, then ipso facto, it must be wrong. No matter what it is." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Funny.
>
> Jim DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald did ANYTHING wrong in the calendar
> year of 1963. Per Jim:
>
> Oswald DIDN'T order the C2766 Carcano rifle via mail order.

The evidence supports the conclusion that Lee did order the rifle.
But WHO?? purchased the money order which he sent to Kleins???

> Oswald DIDN'T order the S&W revolver via mail order.

The same question applies to the pistol??

> Oswald DIDN'T pose for the backyard photos.

PHOTOS?? Plural??? Marina initially said she took ONE BY photo...
Then in her efforts to be "cooperative" with the authorities she said
that she might hav inadvertantly tripped the shutter twice to create
TWO separate BY photos... There's little doubt that she took ONE Back
Yard photo.... But there are now THREE photos one of which (133c) came
from the Dallas PD photo lab.

> Oswald DIDN'T take a shot at General Walker.

There's little doubt that Oswald was involved in the Walker HOAX....
But was he the man who fired the shot through Walker's window??? A
shot that was never intended to hit Walker.

> Oswald DIDN'T go to Mexico City.

The evidence supports the contention that Oswald did in fact go to
Mexico City.... And while he was there another man was using the name
Lee Oswald, while LHO was traveling under the name Oswald H Lee.

> Oswald DIDN'T take a big package into the TSBD on Nov. 22.

The sack that Lee carried was NOT big enough to conceal the
rifle.......

> Oswald DIDN'T shoot John Kennedy.

That's correct.... Lee was on the second floor and in the lunchroom
just seconds before the shooting..... He stepped out the front door of
the TSBD just as the shots were being fired.

> Oswald DIDN'T shoot J.D. Tippit.

That's correct... The killer left his finger prints on the right front
fender of Tippit's patrol car... Those finger prints were NOT
Oswald's

> Oswald DIDN'T take a gun into the Texas Theater.

The gun was passed to Oswald INSIDE the theater.

>
> Despite the rock-solid evidence that Jim D. is dead wrong about ALL of
> the above things, that won't stop Jim from pushing his fantasies about
> a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Pathetic.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/threa...

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 7, 2010, 11:03:02 AM8/7/10

Hi, retard (Walt)! Good to know you're still as retarded as ever.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 8, 2010, 12:14:14 AM8/8/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&#entry200716

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&st=15&p=200720&#entry200720

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

>>> "Yo! Dave, if you're such a true believer in Free Speech, then how come you supported John McAdams when he refused to post my response to the hijacking of the thread from this forum to his, when I came to his defense and said that he wasn't a Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot? You only support freedom of speech here, but not over at McAdam's forum?" <<<

DVP SAID:

Hi Bill,

Well, actually I think you've misrepresented my position a little bit
on that particular matter. I never said I "supported John McAdams" and
his decision to reject any posts over at his aaj newsgroup.

In that discussion with you, I was merely pointing out the basic rules
that McAdams lives by at that forum--i.e., you can't get by with
calling a current forum member an "idiot" or a "kook" or a "liar",
etc. He just won't allow it. But I don't recall ever saying that I,
myself, endorse such restrictions on posts.

In fact, I'll tell you right now that I, for one, think Mr. McAdams is
a fool for wanting to take on the task of "moderating" a JFK forum
like he does every single day. IMO, such a moderation job is just
silly and needless.

I would absolutely dread the task of turning on my computer and
finding 76 new posts in the queue for moderation (or even 6). And then
being forced to read all of them to make sure that no "liars" or
"kooks" or "you're a WC shill" slip through the cracks. Yuck. What a
horrible job.

I can, however, kind of admire McAdams for taking on such a shitty
job. But, IMO, he's nuts for even WANTING to do it every day.

BTW: I got a kick out of this part of your above comments, Bill:

"I came to his [McAdams] defense and said that he wasn't a
Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot..."

If coming to someone's "defense" is achieved by calling them an
"idiot", then remind me to never hire you as my defense lawyer the
next time some conspiracy-loving "cracker" takes me to court on the
charge of my being a dirty rotten CIA Disinfo Agent.

~wink~

BTW #2: Just "for the official record", here's exactly what I said to
William Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John
McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk Internet newsgroup:

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

Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"
Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Bill Kelly

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

BTW, Bill,

After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only
ask you:

Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours
was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup?

You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course
it was going to get rejected. What did you expect?

[A portion of Bill's post that was rejected by McAdams is quoted
below:]

"Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and
publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a
disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William
Kelly

DVP

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

Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots"
Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Bill Kelly

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

Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd
almost bet on it.

John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot")
at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT
MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is.

I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj (which
they deserve to be called all day long too), and the posts won't get
rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j.
forum.

But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because
you're a currently-active member.

That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people
"kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves
from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of
descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who
CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at
McAdams' aaj.

DVP

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

aeffects

unread,

Aug 8, 2010, 12:20:19 AM8/8/10

On Aug 7, 9:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&#entry200716
>
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&st=15&p=2...

David... thanks for being McAdams wee-little lone nut-ite. You've
given lone nut wannabe disinfo specialists something to aim for....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 8, 2010, 12:29:56 AM8/8/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&st=15&p=200782&#entry200782

MARTIN HAY SAID:

>>> "David, Do you really find a forum like alt.conspiracy.jfk--where members spend all day long calling each other child molesters, homosexuals and retards--preferable to this one [at The Education Forum]?" <<<

DVP SAID:

No, Martin, not at all. Although I will admit that I get a great kick
out of calling a spade a spade in that asylum known as acj. Some of
the CTers in there are a real trip. There's even one guy who thinks
18-
year-old TSBD worker Danny Arce killed the President. When reading
stuff like that, it's very difficult not to have a little fun with
them. :)

But the #1 reason I post at acj is because of the "Individual Message"
option that is offered at the Usenet newsgroups. I like that feature
very much, because it places each post on its own unique webpage, or
"deep link", as Usenet calls it. I then take those "deep links" and
save them elsewhere in my JFK files.

I will say, though, that acj is quickly becoming obsolete for my own
"archiving" purposes (although I still use that newsgroup for
archiving a lot of messages anyway; it's become a habit I
guess)....because I've now gone to the blog format for storing most of
my JFK ramblings, which I really could have been doing for many years
now, but I was a bit late in discovering the excellent things you can
do with a simple free "blog".

It's still remarkable to me how these blog sites can host all of the
content they do for free, with virtually no restrictions on user
bandwidth or site usage. I, for one, deeply appreciate sites like
Blogger.com.

http://Blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520

And, to that end, I appreciate sites like this one [The Education
Forum] too -- because an unlimited number of views can be expressed
and an endless number of topics discussed for free on the Internet
[even though the majority of the people who populate The Edu. Forum
are total kooks when it comes to the specific topic of the JFK
assassination].

And I appreciate the remarks made by John Simkin the other day too,
which are remarks that came after forum member James DiEugenio said
this to John:

"Why did you let certain people back on [this JFK forum] who do
[muddy the waters]? I won't name names but his initials are DVP." --
Jim DiEugenio; August 5, 2010

"I am an old-fashioned liberal who believes in free speech. It
is something that has got me into trouble with a lot of JFK
researchers who do not share my ideals." -- John Simkin; August 5,
2010

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16339&st=45&p=200343&#entry200343

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 12, 2010, 3:03:27 AM8/12/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=165&p=201321&#entry201321

JIM "OSWALD DIDN'T SHOOT ANYBODY" DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Why not show the actual mail-in coupon, Dave?" <<<

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=150&p=201304&#entry201304

I did, Jim. Maybe you missed this post [above], where I not only
linked to CE790, but I also show the composite picture below. I'll ask
you, Jim: Notice any similarities in the words "Dallas, Texas" here?:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TGN10i67trI/AAAAAAAAFFM/kQ4zmwpC6xA/s1600/Oswald+Handwriting+Comparison.jpg

>>> "Because you just got taken to the cleaners on this issue and you want everyone to forget about it. You made up every excuse in the book for there not being any signed receipt, initialed paper, or bank transaction. You even postulated one of the dumbest scenarios I ever saw, ie. the post office was a fiduciary for REA! Ridiculous. And you still couldn't make it work. You then completely reversed yourself on it, and you can' t make that work either." <<<

I was only going by what Heinz Michaelis testified to--and that was
that THE GUN ITSELF was mailed to THE POST OFFICE BOX. That's what his
testimony says. And even the Warren Commission seemed to be confused
by Michaelis' testimony in this regard, as even you pointed out by
bringing up WCR Page 174.

And Jimmy D. will conveniently forget (or ignore) these words that I
wrote in a previous post, which I wrote 2 to 3 days before getting
what I deem to be the final word on this matter, via Dale Myers'
8/5/10 blog post:

the delivery truck to show up with his pistol)." -- DVP; August 3,
2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

>>> "If you believe Gerald Hill. Many of us, due to the man's record, plus his famous fast frisk confession, plus his magic in making both the Tippit automatic shells and the shells signed by Poe disappear, do not. Easily one of the most corrupt cops on a corrupt force." <<<

Of course, Jim. Of course. All the cops were out to frame your
favorite patsy named Lee. (Or was it "Harvey" they were framing that
day? With you CTers, it's hard to tell which hunk of silliness you're
going to go chasing after next.)

As a point of FACT: There were no "automatic" shells to make
"disappear" on November 22. Jim's making up evidence out of whole
cloth (again).

And Poe's initials were probably never on the two shells that he was
given by Domingo Benavides at all:

JOE BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."

Plus: There is also this information from Dale Myers' 1998 book, "With
Malice" (pages 263 and 265):

"Poe did not mark them," Detective James Leavelle said. "There
was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence bag that is marked
with the offense number along with your initials. The evidence goes to
the crime lab where it is checked and returned to the bag and kept
there until trial. I have run hundreds through that way with no
trouble and have never been contested on it," says Leavelle. Leavelle
continues: "I talked to Poe. He said he didn't remember marking them.
But, that is something we didn't do back then." "

>>> "Where did Oswald ever admit that that particular revolver was his?" <<<

LOL. Does this stupid question REALLY need to be answered?

1.) Oswald fills out an order form from Seaport Traders for one
revolver.

2.) Seaport Traders mails a gun with the serial number V510210 to the
name and address on the order form FILLED OUT BY OSWALD.

3.) A revolver with the serial number V510210 is IN OSWALD'S HANDS
when LHO was arrested on 11/22/63.

Now, tell me how any reasonable person can add up #1 through #3 above
and come to the conclusion that Revolver V510210 did not belong to
Oswald? No reasonable person could perform such cockeyed math.

Jim DiEugenio, as usual, wants to pretend that his favorite patsy was
totally innocent of shooting anyone on November 22nd. Unfortunately
for Jim, however, the actual evidence in the case is making him look
like a fool in this "innocent patsy" regard.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 14, 2010, 8:42:11 AM8/14/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=180&p=201622&#entry201622

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "Hidell's name only enters the pubic consciousness once the rifle order has been traced. .... The arresting officers don't mention it because they didn't know about it." <<<

DVP SAID:

Bullshit.

There were two pieces of "Hidell" identification taken out of Oswald's
wallet by the police after LHO's arrest. And the signature of "Alek J.
Hidell" that appears on the Selective Service System card (CE795 and
CE796) is in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, without a shred of
a doubt.

So, unless Oswald was framing himself, then it's quite obvious that
the name "Hidell" wasn't just made up from whole cloth by the police
after the assassination. Certain conspiracy mongers, as usual, will
try desperately to mold the evidence into something it is not....just
as Lee Farley is attempting to do in this forum thread when he uttered
this outlandish and ridiculous statement (for which there is ZERO
credible evidence to offer up as support for it):

"The whole "Hidell" situation is beyond bizarre and I don't buy
for a second that Oswald had this ID on him in the patrol car."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0354b.htm

Of course, all reasonable people who aren't lifetime members of the
"Anybody But Oswald" fan club also know that the name "Hidell" was
written BY OSWALD HIMSELF on the two order forms that Oswald filled
out for the revolver and the rifle. There is no question about that
irrevocable fact (despite the constant protests coming from the ABO
members).

There's also this testimony from Gerald Hill:

GERALD L. HILL. I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any
identification." Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and
with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip
pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out. I never
did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was
called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this
identification, I believe, was on the library card. And he also made
the statement that there was some more identification in this other
name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came
in the paper that he bought the gun under.

DAVID W. BELIN. Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?

Mr. HILL. That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is
what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it
written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard.

Mr. BELIN. Was this the first time you learned of the name?

Mr. HILL. Yes; it was.

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

There is also Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony regarding
the name Hidell. Marina, however, must have been confused about when
she first heard the fictitious name "Hidell", because she couldn't
possibly have heard the name "Hidell" on either one of Lee Oswald's
WDSU radio appearances, because the name "Hidell" is never mentioned
once during either of those two New Orleans radio programs in August
1963.

http://Oswald-On-The-Radio.blogspot.com

http://drop.io/Lee_Harvey_Oswald_Radio_Interviews/asset/lee-harvey-oswald-on-the-radio-august-1963

I suppose conspiracy theorists think that the name "Hidell" was placed
into Marina Oswald's mouth during the Warren Commission testimony
excerpted below (due to the fact we know she's wrong about when she
first heard the name).

But regardless of Marina's confusion about the radio programs, it's
fairly obvious that Marina herself knew that her husband was using the
name Hidell as an alias at some point well prior to the assassination
of JFK:

J. LEE RANKIN. Have you ever heard that he used the fictitious name
Hidell?

MARINA OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first learn that he used such a name?

Mrs. OSWALD. In New Orleans.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn that?

Mrs. OSWALD. When he was interviewed by some anti-Cubans, he used this
name and spoke of an organization. I knew there was no such
organization. And I know that Hidell is merely an altered Fidel, and I
laughed at such foolishness. My imagination didn't work that way.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to him about it at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I said that it wasn't a nice thing to do and some day it
would be discovered anyhow.

[...]

Mr. RANKIN. Except for the time in New Orleans that you described, and
the time you called to Dallas to ask for your husband, do you know of
any other time your husband was using an assumed name?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, no more.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you think he was using that assumed name in connection
with this Fair Play for Cuba activity or something else?

Mrs. OSWALD. The name Hidell...was in connection with his activity
with the non-existing organization.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you and your husband live under the name Hidell in New
Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You were never identified as the Hidells, as far as you
knew, while you were there?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. No one knew that Lee was Hidell.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you discover it, then?

Mrs. OSWALD. I already said that when I listened to the radio, they
spoke of that name, and I asked him who, and he said that it was he.

Mr. RANKIN. Was that after the arrest?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember when the interview took place, before
the arrest or after.

Mr. RANKIN. But it was in regard to some interview for radio
transmission, and he had identified himself as Hidell, rather than
Oswald, is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. No--he represented himself as Oswald, but he said that
the organization which he supposedly represents is headed by Hidell.

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 14, 2010, 1:03:10 PM8/14/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=180&p=201632&#entry201632

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

>>> "These are pretty sophisticated forgeries, wouldn't you say Dave? When do you think he made them? While at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval [sic]? I don't know of any other time when he had access to a darkroom or the equipment to do this type of graphic. And did Bentley really say that among the items in Oswald's wallet was a driver's license? That's hard to believe." <<<

DVP SAID:

Yes, DPD Detective Paul Bentley did tell WFAA-TV on Nov. 23rd that
Oswald had a driver's license, which was obviously an error, since we
know that Oswald had no driver's license at all.

But you can tell that Bentley wasn't exactly sure what cards and ID
were pulled from LHO's wallet. Bentley didn't closely examine every
one of the documents in Oswald's wallet.

Bentley also said that there were "credit cards" pulled from Oswald's
wallet, too -- which is another obvious mistake, because we know that
Oswald had no credit cards either.

So, Bentley's examination of all the cards found in Oswald's
possession after his arrest at the Texas Theater was obviously not a
very detailed one.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/06/nick-mcdonald-and-paul-bentley.html

As for the fake "Hidell" Selective Service card that Oswald created,
the forgery I suppose could be looked upon as being sophisticated to
some degree, but the Warren Commission's experts certainly weren't
fooled by the forgery attempt.

The WC goes into quite a bit of detail about how the fake Selective
Service System card was made [see Warren Report, p. 571-576].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0298a.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 14, 2010, 1:05:01 PM8/14/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=195&p=201640&#entry201640

>>> "Isn't it funny how his dyslexia sorted itself out when writing and signing these?" <<<

Yeah. Jack Ruby (the guy who obviously faked Oswald's handwriting on
every document connected to the JFK murder case) should have
deliberately misspelled some words, just to make the forgeries look
more "dyslexic friendly". That silly Mr. Rubenstein. What the hell was
he thinking when framing Patsy Oswald?

You've solved the case, Lee Farley! Congrats!

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 15, 2010, 3:53:42 AM8/15/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=195&p=201653&#entry201653

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "You think dyslexia only affect spelling, Dave? What kind of cretin are you? Learn about dyslexia and come back for a grown-up discussion." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL. This is a screamer. Farley posts something about dyslexia as it
relates ONLY to something Oswald wrote down on a piece of paper (i.e.,
his writing/spelling)....but I guess I'm supposed to attach the OTHER
meanings of dyslexia to Oswald's WRITTEN WORDS.

Was I supposed to be able to magically HEAR Oswald talking to himself
in a dyslexic fashion by way of studying his WRITTEN WORDS on a piece
of paper, Lee?

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "Oswald had problems mixing lower case and capital letters." <<<

DVP SAID:

Farley thinks mixing lower and upper case letters is a form of
dyslexia (even when Oswald spells the word correctly--like "DALLAS,
TeXAS").

But I don't think that's really any form of dyslexia--because, as
mentioned, Oswald spelled it correctly, without transposing letters
around. I'd call it an Oswald quirk. Not dyslexia. Heck, I do the very
same thing lots of times when I print something.

DYSLEXIA -- (Merriam-Webster): "A variable often familial learning
disability involving difficulties in acquiring and processing language
that is typically manifested by a lack of proficiency in reading,
spelling, and writing."

http://Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/dyslexia

BTW,

Oswald's quirk of mixing lower-case and upper-case letters only
occurred when LHO was PRINTING something. It didn't happen when he was
writing in cursive style, such as the example [below] that Lee Farley
was using previously when he was talking about Oswald's dyslexic
tendencies.

On the money order for the rifle (CE788), for example, except for the
word "box" and the "A" in "A. Hidell", everything Oswald wrote on the
money order to Klein's was written in cursive. So, naturally, we're
not likely to see the combination of lower-case and upper-case letters
here, and we don't:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "I would agree with you on that. I jumped the gun. See how easy it is?" <<<

DVP SAID:

Dyslexia Footnote----

I'll admit--I'm no "dyslexia" expert. And maybe I "jumped the gun"
too, Lee. My apologies. Perhaps the mixing of lower-case and upper-
case letters is, indeed, a form of dyslexia (even when the person is
spelling the words totally correctly, as in Oswald's many "DALLAS,
TeXAS" writings).

Another thought on this point though:

I really think that this particular "shortcut" of a lower-case "e"
instead of an upper-case "E" is actually more akin to laziness than
anything else. I said in a previous post that I, myself, tend to take
such shortcuts with lower-case letters when I'm printing out words.

And, come to think about it a little more, I think it's invariably the
letter E that I most often take that shortcut with. It's much easier
(and faster) to print a lower-case E than it is to take the time to
print an upper-case E, with the upper-case version requiring four
separate strokes of the pen/pencil, vs. just one single curly stroke
with a lower-case "e".

Perhaps Oswald felt the need to take this oft-used "E" shortcut too.
Could be just plain laziness. Or wanting to write stuff out as fast as
possible.

My $0.02.

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "Oswald had problems mixing lower case and capital letters. It is common in many people who suffer from dyslexia. Oswald suffered from this. It's not something you can turn on and off." <<<

DVP SAID:

Well, in the case of the letter "e", I think you're wrong. Lee Harvey
Oswald did, in effect, turn it "on and off", because he didn't always
use a lower-case "e" when he was PRINTING.

Below are two examples of what I mean -- when printing his own first
name, Oswald would many times capitalize the two Es in "Lee". But at
the same time, he would use lower-case letters for the L and D in
"Oswald".

But as far as the specific letter "E", Oswald would sometimes use
upper-case and sometimes lower-case when PRINTING out his words.

For example, in CE793/794, we see that Oswald used a mixture of lower-
case and upper-case Es multiple times -- he used upper-case Es for
"Lee", "New", and "Orleans". But he used lower-case Es for "Texas" and
"Magazine".

This indicates that he certainly had some control over the letters he
was printing. In other words, his lower-case Es don't appear to be
"involuntary" on his part.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0353b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0353a.htm

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "What I meant by "turning it on and off" was that all of this is done unconsciously, Dave. There's a learning process that he has gone through on these examples you provide. He didn't sit and make a conscious decision to use an upper case E on his name and a lower case e on the word TeXAS, each time he wrote it. He "learned" to do it that way. He saw it in his head that way and that's what got transfered onto paper." <<<

DVP SAID:

You could be right, Lee. But I'd also say it's possible that Oswald
CHOSE to print certain letters the way he did, vs. it be done
"unconsciously" on LHO's part.

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "The final point I'll raise on his handwriting is this. It's very easy to forge don't you think? Especially the way he seems to go over his own writing several times with the pen. Give me 20 minutes and I could provide you with handwriting very similar from my own hand. You did suggest sarcastically that Jack Ruby was forging Lee's handwriting. If you think I think this then think again. I believe it was one of your family members. RVP. But, I'd sooner you reply to my post regarding the name "Hidell" and the anomalies involved." <<<

DVP SAID:

No, it would not be easy to forge (according to the handwriting
analysts who have studied Oswald's writing and printing). If a
person's unique writing were easy to forge and fake, then no
handwriting analyst in the world could say this:

"Commission Exhibit No. 793 was written by Lee Harvey
Oswald...based upon finding the same combination of individual
handwriting and hand printing characteristics in both the questioned
writing and the known standards." -- James C. Cadigan; Questioned
Documents Expert for the FBI [7 H 426]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0353b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0217b.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 15, 2010, 6:39:09 AM8/15/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=240&p=201764&#entry201764

>>> "I disagree with the handwriting "experts" who were anything but "experts." His [LHO's] handwriting is a piece of piss to copy." <<<

So Cadigan and Cole are liars then, huh Lee [Farley]?

"A piece of piss"??? :)

>>> "Cuba and his "visit" to Mexico City. Plus, what you have written answers none of the questions or irregularities I posed and posted, Dave. It's no good just saying, we know he ordered the guns when there are massive problems with the order. It's no good just saying Oswald invented the name when the name was never used as an alias by him other than on the gun orders. When I wrote my post defining a lone-nut's inability to look at the evidence within a wider context, this is exactly the sort of thing I meant. Bottom line: You believe that a presidential assassin made up a fake name, ordered some firearms from two different states using that fake name in the hope that he could distance himself from the sale, then had them delivered to a P.O. Box that he had set-up in his real name, against all the odds and postal regulations he managed to receive and collect them, he then shot the president with the rifle, but was then lifted just over an hour later with an ID bearing the fake name that led the FBI directly to the rifle sale in less than 12 hours?" <<<

Oswald was both smart and stupid at the same time. (Not an uncommon
blend of human traits, actually.)

Oswald, of course, didn't purchase his mail-order rifle so that he
could kill JFK. He bought the rifle to kill General Walker. (But, yes,
it's a similar situation--i.e., buying a gun through the mail using an
alias, and then using that gun to commit the illegal act of an
assassination attempt. But he did it all the same.)

I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't get rid of Rifle
C2766 after his unsuccessful attempt at murdering Edwin Walker. LHO
surely had to be following the Walker story closely, and probably knew
the bullet had been recovered from Walker's house. Keeping the rifle
after that point in time was stupid on Oswald's part. But he kept it
all the same. Maybe his cheapskate nature played a part in it. Perhaps
he said to himself: "I'm not spending $21.45 on a rifle just to fire
one bullet from it." :)

Oswald, however, was smart on 11/22/63, in that he was able to keep
his rifle hidden all the way up to 12:30 PM. And the "curtain rod" lie
was pretty smart too, because it gave LHO a double excuse for the
"package" -- 1.) the excuse for riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier
on Thursday night; and 2.) the curtain rod lie explained the physical
package on Nov. 22.

We can second-guess Oswald's motives and gun-purchasing actions all
day long, but the best evidence tells us that Lee Harvey Oswald DID,
indeed, order two guns via mail-order in early 1963. Stupid or not--he
did it.

>>> "This is your core belief, that he did it, but it doesn't answer the questions about the extra wallet found in Oak Cliff, why Will Fritz kept withheld that wallet from the FBI for five days..." <<<

Huh? What wallet? Are you suggesting there really WAS a "mystery
wallet" that was turned over to the FBI by Captain J.W. Fritz "five
days" after the assassination? I'd sure like to see that wallet. (Of
course, it doesn't exist.)

The wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film could have belonged to anyone at
the scene of the crime--including J.D. Tippit. And I don't think there
is any document that expressly says that Tippit's wallet was taken out
of one of his pockets after Tippit was taken to Methodist Hospital
(and then, later, to Parkland Hospital). If such a document exists,
please post a link to it.

>>> "...how Fritz knew about the Beckley address before he was supposed to..." <<<

This is more "conspiracy myth". If Fritz was made aware of Oswald's
1026 N. Beckley Avenue address at an "early" time on November 22nd, it
very likely came about in a regular and ordinary manner. Are you
suggesting that Fritz was "in" on a plot to frame Oswald on the
afternoon of November 22nd? Why on Earth would Fritz and the DPD want
to FRAME an INNOCENT Oswald for either JFK's murder or Tippit's
murder? That's just plain silly talk. I know a lot of people believe
that Fritz was part of some kind of "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. But, in
my opinion, it's just nutty to believe such a thing in the first
place.

>>> "...and why the name Hidell didn't surface through the media until the firearm sales had been established resulting in the embellishment of the Warren Commission testimony of the arresting officers." <<<

So the name "Hidell" wasn't mentioned by anybody prior to Jesse
Curry's hallway interview at City Hall on Saturday, November 23rd. Big
freakin' deal! So what? What does it prove? Answer: It proves nothing.

And we're only talking 24 hours or so after the assassination. Curry
mentioned the name "A. Hidell" to the press and the world on live
television on the afternoon (or early evening) of November 23.

And I suppose you think Marina Oswald was a liar too, right? She
testified that she first heard about her husband using the alias
"Hidell" while she and LHO were still living in New Orleans in the
summer of 1963, many months before the assassination.

Footnote---

Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA concluded that Lee Oswald used
the alias "Hidell" to order the C2766 rifle that killed JFK and the
revolver that killed Officer Tippit.

Can you, Lee Farley, provide a good, solid, and reasonable explanation
for why BOTH of those U.S. Government investigative committees totally
blew it when it comes to Oswald using the Hidell alias (if, in fact,
strong evidence actually points in the other direction--i.e., toward
the direction of the name "Hidell" being invented by someone other
than Lee Harvey Oswald)?

And how is it possible for BOTH of those committees (the WC and the
HSCA) to have gotten things so totally wrong (from the CTers' POV)
with respect to their identical conclusion of Oswald being the person
who killed JFK and Tippit? (Particularly the HSCA, which was an
organization that desperately wanted to find a conspiracy in the
case.)

BOTH the WC and the HSCA were filled with liars, Lee? Do you really
believe that? Really??

>>> "I'm taking my daughters out for the day. I'll respond on my return. If I refer to something as being a "piece of piss" it is Liverpool vernacular that means "easy." Everyone can produce it. There is so much wrong with your reply, it looks like it's going to be a late night. Maybe some other members can start while I'm away." <<<

You can save yourself the trouble, Lee. I know what your responses
will be: Total conjecture and nothing of substance. As per usual.
You're a JFK Conspiracy Theorist, so how could I expect ACTUAL
EVIDENCE to back up a CTer's claims, when no such actual evidence
exists in the first place? After all, you're not Houdini.

And in the final analysis, a bunch of speculation and suspicions
coming from a covey of Anybody-But-Oswald hobbyists couldn't possibly
matter less when stacked up against the huge pile of evidence that
proves Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

http://DVP-JFK-Blogs.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 16, 2010, 4:47:02 AM8/16/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=255&p=201807&#entry201807

Jim [DiEugenio], in what document can I find the info about Tippit's
wallet being taken off of his corpse at Methodist Hospital?

[Later....]

Never mind, Jim. I found it myself, via the files of the Dallas
Municipal Archives (Box 9; Folder 2; Item 3), linked below:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/25/2586-001.gif

And (just as I suspected) the document showing Tippit's personal
property most definitely does NOT prove that Tippit's wallet was taken
off of his body at Methodist Hospital (or at Parkland, where he was
taken for his autopsy).

How can I know?

Because Tippit's service revolver is ALSO listed on this inventory of
Tippit's personal property ("1 SW Rev Ser # 138278"). And we know that
Tippit's revolver was LEFT AT THE MURDER SCENE after Tippit was shot,
being picked up by witness Ted Callaway.

Therefore, the "Black Billfold" listed in this document didn't
necessarily have to be taken off of Tippit's body at Methodist or
Parkland.

MORE WALLET TALK:

Even though I [DVP] have stated in the past that I think the "mystery
wallet on 10th Street" was J.D. Tippit's wallet (and I do still think
that is the best guess), I'm not even sure there was any wallet found
on the ground next to Tippit's body at all on 11/22/63.

There's not a single witness at the scene of the crime who said they
saw a wallet lying by Tippit's body (or even UNDERNEATH his body after
Tippit was taken from the scene by ambulance).

And I think Vince Bugliosi makes a small error in his endnotes of "RH"
when he says that Dale Myers proves that a wallet was "found at the
murder scene" (via the unearthing of the WFAA/Ron Reiland film).

Yes, a wallet might have been "found" next to Tippit's body, but the
witness testimony from those people who were there would indicate that
no wallet was on the ground at all.

And just because Reiland filmed Sergeant Bud Owens of the DPD holding
a wallet, that fact doesn't have to mean the wallet in the film was
"found" on the ground at the scene of the murder. That's leaping to a
conclusion that hasn't really been proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
IMO.

Bottom Line (and Vince Bugliosi admits this in his book too, with
Vince calling the wallet incident a "true mystery" [RH; p.453 of
endnotes] -- Nobody knows for sure who owned the wallet that is seen
in Ron Reiland's WFAA-TV film.

>>> "You tried to construct a totally silly and unfounded argument that the post office served as fiduciary for REA. Then when Dale Myers says, no, he picked it up at REA, you then drop that whole line of argument like a hot potato and say that oh yes, how stupid of me, of course REA would not do such a thing. Even though Myers was using the exact same database you already had!" <<<

~sigh~

How many times do I have to repeat this, Jim?:

Dale Myers provided additional information from the REA Vice President
on this matter.

Will I have to repeat this a fourth time for you tomorrow, Jim?

>>> "DVP wants to keep the absurdities coming in even new and more bizarre shapes. The above reminds me of his order for the rifle that miraculously made it through the mail without a zip code over 700 miles, was checked in and then deposited within 24 hours, before the advent of computers." <<<

It's been pointed out to Jim DiEugenio before (by me, just yesterday)
that Oswald mailed his rifle order form and money order via air mail,
which is why it travelled from Dallas to Chicago in just one day.
Simple.

Oswald also most likely mailed the Klein's order very early in the
morning on March 12th, which would have made it even easier for an AIR
MAIL letter to start out in Texas on March 12 (AM) and arrive in
Illinois sometime on March 13.

Naturally, Jim D. ignores the "Air Mail" notation in CE785.

Will I have to repeat this for a ninth time tomorrow, Jim?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0351a.jpg

>>> "Please show me the testimony, evidence or affidavit about the name plate, pens etc being stripped off Tippit at the scene. Yeah sure. Happens all the time, right[?]" <<<

When did I ever suggest such a foolish and stupid thing, Jim?

Answer: Never.

But you have no proof that a DPD officer didn't take Tippit's wallet
from 10th Street to either Methodist or Parkland between the time
Tippit was shot and the time Captain Doughty signed-off on the
document which catalogues all of Tippit's personal belongings at 3:25
PM.

Allow me to quote Jim DiEugenio's favorite author of all-time, Vincent
T. Bugliosi:

"But whose wallet was it? Dallas WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland,
narrating the silent footage for his viewers, said it was Tippit’s
wallet. Apart from [Dale] Myers saying that Reiland’s reportage over
the assassination weekend contained numerous factual errors, the main
reason why Myers rejects the possibility that the wallet was Tippit’s
is that “1 Black Billfold” was listed among Tippit’s personal effects,
and Myers says, “The only item known to have been brought to the
hospital [Methodist, and later Parkland] and added to Tippit’s
personal effects was Tippit’s revolver, which by all accounts was left
behind at the murder scene” (Myers, With Malice, pp.299–300).

"But we know that several officers went to Methodist Hospital,
where Tippit’s body was brought into the emergency ward, and they
could have brought Tippit’s wallet from the murder scene to either
there or Parkland. There certainly was plenty of time to do so before
Tippit’s personal property was inventoried, at 3:25 p.m. (Document
titled “Identification Bureau Crime Scene Search Section, Police
Department, Dallas, Texas,” box 9, folder 2, item 3, DMA; Myers, With
Malice, p.301).

"Certainly, the mere absence of any statement or documentary
evidence that an item of personal property (the wallet) was added to
Tippit’s personal effects would not be strong evidence that such an
event never took place.

"But if, indeed, it was Tippit’s wallet, why didn’t civilian
witnesses like Jack Tatum, Ted Callaway, and the two ambulance
attendants, Eddie Kinsley and J. C. Butler, see the wallet lying next
to Tippit’s body? Nor did Joe Poe and Leonard Jez, two of the first
officers to arrive at the scene. (Myers, With Malice, p.300)

"One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was
not Oswald’s. Myers closely compared a close-up photo of Oswald’s
arrest wallet (FBI Exhibit B-1) with the wallet found at the murder
scene and found definite physical differences, causing him to conclude
that “the Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold seen in the
WFAA newsfilm” (Myers, With Malice, pp.298–299).

"Furthermore, a Dallas police officer had just been slain. It is
inconceivable that members of the Dallas Police Department like
Captains Westbrook and Doughty and Sergeant Hill would suppress and
keep secret the fact that Tippit’s killer had left his calling card at
the murder scene. That simply would not, could not, have happened. If
Oswald’s wallet had been found at the murder scene, it is
inconceivable that nowhere in the testimony or the reports of
Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, Poe, and so on, would they bother to mention
this extremely important fact." -- Page 454 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)

>>> "There is a film of this wallet being handled at the Tippit scene. Pretty good stuff, huh Davey?" <<<

Yeah, and the person who shot that film (Ron Reiland) told everybody
on live TV within hours of filming the scene that the wallet was
Tippit's.

Reiland's exact quote:

"This is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the
ground right alongside of the car."

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html

So, where did Reiland get the idea that the wallet was Tippit's, do
you think Jim? Did he just pull that out of his ass?

Your favorite author of all-time, Vincent T. Bugliosi, has the likely
answer (which makes all kinds of common sense):

"If I had to wager, I’d conclude it was Tippit’s wallet, and the
reason Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit’s wallet is
that the police had informed him at the scene that it was. Quite apart
from Barrett, 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; Page
456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

>>> "Did he [DVP] miss that HSCA testimony? Did he miss the 29 page essay they wrote on her [Marina Oswald's] credibility?" <<<

I guess perhaps Jim and everyone else missed this quote from Marina's
HSCA testimony (even though Michael Hogan quoted it earlier):

"But when I gave testimony to the Warren Commission, it was all
the truth."

Is the above quote another lie from the lips of Marina?

>>> "Dale Myers did not add anything to your argument." <<<

Yes, he did. And you know he did. But that won't stop you from
repeating your nonsense for a 14th time tomorrow, will it Jim?

>>> "You go ahead and buy something from a vendor 700 miles away. Mail it in. Call the company every day and see how long until your money order is in their bank. I will wager that if you did that five times, it would not clear in 24 hours once. Not once. You know how I know? Because even though I send in my mortgage priority mail, it takes a week to get into the company's bank." <<<

And yet BOTH the WC and the HSCA didn't have a problem with that money
order going through the system in 24 hours, did they Jim? BOTH Govt.
committees were filled with nothing but rotten liars and cover-uppers,
right Jim? BOTH of them--14 YEARS APART FROM ONE ANOTHER!

You're living in a dream world of conspiracy/cover-up fantasy, Jim.
And you surely must realize that fact.

Plus: If what you're saying is true (which it obviously isn't)--i.e.,
that there's no way Oswald's money order could have done what it did
in about 24 hours in 1963--then it only shows that the people who were
trying to make it look like it DID do those things in 24 hours WERE
TOTAL IDIOTS AND DIDN'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT THEY WERE DOING
WHEN THEY ATTEMPTED TO FAKE THE MONEY ORDER AND SEND IT TO CHICAGO IN
JUST 24 HOURS!

Boy, what a bunch of goofball plotters you've got there, Jimbo!
Including the dunceheads at DPD who made Buell Frazier & Linnie Mae
create from thin air a paper bag--and then the Goober Pyle-like cops
apparently told them TO SAY THAT THE BAG WAS ONLY 27 INCHES LONG!

Even Ernest T. Bass wasn't this stupid, Jim! But evidently the DPD
was, right?

And then there's the goofiest part of DiEugenio's theory of all:

The plotters are setting up ONLY OSWALD from the TSBD....but these
plotters (with a combined I.Q. of dirt) decide it would be a great
"single patsy" plan to go ahead and shoot President Kennedy FROM
SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOCATIONS in Dealey Plaza.

Luckily, though, the plotters with IQs of really dumb dirt didn't need
to worry about their multiple NON-OSWALD bullets striking any limo
victims--because, thank the Maker, the US Government AND the Dallas
Police were right on the scene to buttress the one-patsy, multi-gun
plot....with the DPD and the Warren boys, luckily, WANTING TO FRAME
THE EXACT SAME PATSY NAMED OSWALD THAT THE PLOTTERS (with IQs of dirt)
WERE TRYING TO FRAME PRIOR TO NOV. 22!

Those goofball plotters must have cleaned up in Vegas, because they
were the luckiest plotters ever to conspire to kill a President. Bar
none.

>>> "What evidence is there that the wallet was Tippit's?" <<<

Lee [Farley],

We can know that the wallet on Tenth Street was not Oswald's.

How?

Because if it had been Oswald's, then that fact would have been
provided by SOMEBODY on the DPD in their reports AFTER THE SAME GUY
(OSWALD) WAS CHARGED WITH TIPPIT'S MURDER.

Don't you think a piece of evidence like THE KILLER'S WALLET BEING
FOUND RIGHT NEXT TO THE MURDER VICTIM would be a pretty valuable and
solid piece of evidence for the cops to mention?

But they didn't--even though (per many CTers) those SAME COPS were
actually trying to FRAME Oswald for Tippit's murder! In a situation
like that one, the crooked cops would have certainly been propping up
the fake Oswald wallet for everybody to see. And yet they STILL said
not a word about it.

And the reason they didn't say a word about it is because the wallet
being examined by the police in Reiland's film was COMPLETELY
IMMATERIAL to the Tippit murder investigation. It might not have been
"found" on the ground at all. But if it was, it certainly was not Lee
Oswald's wallet (or a fake variation thereof).

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 16, 2010, 7:02:06 AM8/16/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=270&p=201990&#entry201990

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "Nothing I say will make any difference. I'm not wasting my time on you any longer. You ask for a CITATION and then pre-empt it with a excuse." <<<

Just as I thought. There is no proof for your claims re: an "Oswald"
wallet being found next to J.D. Tippit's body on Tenth Street.

I already knew there was no such "proof" for your ridiculous claims
re: an "Oswald" wallet from 10th St. being handed over by Fritz to the
FBI, because it couldn't be more obvious that no "Oswald" wallet was
found on 10th Street at all.

>>> "What the damn point? I'm done with you." <<<

You pretty much said that same thing yesterday, Lee. I guess you
changed your mind:

"I've had my fill of Dave [Von Pein] to be honest. Nothing I
pose gets addressed by him. He just takes you in circles." -- L.
Farley; 08/15/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=255&p=201829&#entry201829

Footnote---

I'm still waiting for the day when a conspiracy theorist (ANY
conspiracy theorist) can explain all of their theories and suspicions
and speculations about all the so-called "fake" evidence in the JFK
case in a logical, coherent, believable, and reasonable fashion.

Am I expecting too much when I ask for some conspiracy believer to
attempt such an explanation?

I was kind of hoping I could find at least a few CTers at The
Education Forum who were willing to place on the table some semblance
of such "CT coherence". But, thus far, my hopes are just
that....hopes.

And I truly think the reason that no CTer can provide such "coherence"
to their conspiracy plots and theories is due to the fact that their
theories are TOTALLY WORTHLESS when anyone tries to fit them into the
BIG PICTURE of the assassination of President Kennedy.

With a perfect example of such worthlessness being something I've been
talking about for years -- which is the built-in INCOHERENCE and
ABSURDITY that exists when trying to piece together two of the biggest
pro-conspiracy points that CTers try to pass off as the truth (in
tandem with one another!):

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was being set up and framed as a LONE PATSY for
JFK's murder months in advance of November 22, 1963.

and:

2.) There were 2, 3, or maybe 4 gunmen firing at JFK from various
directions in Dealey Plaza.

Attempting to reconcile the inherent absurdity, complexity, insanity,
and sheer impossibility of the above two things (which are things that
many conspiracists actually think DID occur in conjunction with one
another) is just about an impossible (and futile) task.

Maybe that's why I rarely get an answer whenever I dare ask conspiracy
theorists why they believe in both #1 and #2 above.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 16, 2010, 10:26:54 AM8/16/10

QUOTE FROM "RECLAIMING HISTORY":

"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, 'Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president.'

"Instead, Oswald told one lie after another about his own rifle
because he knew, of course, that it was the murder weapon." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 815 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.)(c.2007)

0 new messages