JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 175)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 175):

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



CE399 AND ELMER LEE TODD:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=135&p=241188&#entry241188
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=135&p=241198&#entry241198


C2766 AND ROBERT FRAZIER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/94d5652046577497


THE BULLET SHELLS ON TENTH STREET:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/07a9eba9a76ed9fd


CE2011:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=135&p=241160&#entry241160
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=150&p=241211&#entry241211


NELLIE CONNALLY IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f84054cef44d1edf


JOHN CONNALLY'S FRAGMENTS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4b2414086e777c3


CARCANOS, MAUSERS, AND JACKETS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=195&p=241423&#entry241423


BILL NEWMAN:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18528&st=15&p=241213&#entry241213
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18528&st=15&p=241245&#entry241245


NICK McDONALD:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=195&p=241343&#entry241343


J.D. TIPPIT'S MURDER:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=195&p=241419&#entry241419


MORE POSTS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18528&st=15&p=241163&#entry241163
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18528&st=15&p=241166&#entry241166
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=150&p=241247&#entry241247
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=165&p=241270&#entry241270
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=165&p=241274&#entry241274
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=180&p=241279&#entry241279
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=195&p=241420&#entry241420



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

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8a862a89267e3401/beed35147d23d888?#beed35147d23d888



ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame 285, you evaporate?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, not every time, Bob. ....

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-mIRMAAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+posts


>>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them." <<<

Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult"
theory for the LNers to handle.

But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob. It's merely a case of a
conspiracy theorist (you) seeing things in a silent film that you
think mean something that nobody else on the planet thinks they mean.

But have you, Bob, eliminated OTHER possible explanations for the so-
called "gunshot reactions" you see in the limo victims just after
Z285?

For example, have you completely eliminated "Pure Coincidence" from
your list of possible explanations?


>>> "Are you up for that, David?" <<<

Bob has a short memory....

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-mIRMAAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+posts

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "You know very well that you argued that the reason for the reactions following 285 was Greer slowing the limo. Are you really going to deny that?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I am going to deny it (until you can provide a source link that
shows me saying it), because I honestly don't ever recall saying any
such thing.

And I definitely DO recall arguing AGAINST such reactions when
discussing why JFK's head moves forward between Zapruder frames 312
and 313. Tony Marsh and others are silly enough to think that JFK's
forward head snap at the exact instant he's hit in the head was merely
an in-unison movement forward that is the same as all of the other
limo occupants. And here's a 2008 post of mine arguing against such
nonsense:

"The limo isn't slowing down "suddenly". It's "slowing" a little
more, yes...but the car's only moving at 11.2 MPH (approx.) even
BEFORE the slowdown begins. You think everyone is going to be JERKED
forward by going from 11 MPH to 6 or 7 or 8 MPH?? Get real. The car
was crawling at a snail's pace the whole time, right from the Houston/
Elm turn. And the other occupants are NOT moving forward with a sudden
JERK like JFK's head does between 312 and 313. If you believe they
are, you're dreaming. (Or "inventing".)" -- DVP; June 7, 2008

Source Link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4de54c4b368e9837

--------

And here's another post from 2009 on the same subject:

"Oh, sure.....that massive and violent "slow down" from 11.2 MPH
(approx.) to 8 MPH (approx.) was enough to practically throw every
limo occupant through the windshield, I'm sure! It's a wonder
everybody in the car wasn't killed as a result of Bill Greer's sudden
11 MPH to 8 MPH braking action! I ask -- Can CTers GET much sillier
than this with respect to their incredibly-inane attempts to avoid the
obvious?" -- DVP; April 3, 2009

Source Link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5ec6d6a29c785361

-------

I also vividly recall ridiculing your Z285 theory on the basis of my
opinion about Jackie and Nellie (in unison) moving in toward their
shot-up husbands (see the 2009 quote below). They just happened to
move in the same manner at the same time--to focus attention (quite
naturally) on their respective husbands.

But I do not think I ever said that the Greer slowdown was causing
ANYONE in the limo to pitch forward (or to "react" to the slowing of
the car at all).

But you, Bob Harris, are now saying that I have supported such a
theory in my past Internet posts?

Please cite me saying any such thing. Maybe you've got your "LNers"
mixed up.

2009 post re: Nellie & Jackie "leaning in":

"For one (very big!) thing, the limo occupants' "reactions" that
you attribute to a gunshot are not SHARP or SUDDEN or JERKY in any way
whatsoever. The "reactions" (i.e., movements) are perfectly SMOOTH and
NON-JERKY (unlike John Connally's head snap to his right after he
heard the first shot at circa Z160). When watching Nellie and Jackie
"leaning in" toward their husbands, they are SMOOTHLY leaning in
toward each man. There's nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about
Nellie's and Jackie's movements at all. In short -- There's nothing at
all on the Z-Film that could possibly prove that a shot was fired at
circa Z285. But that won't stop Robert Harris from imagining that he
has discovered proof-positive of just such a gunshot." -- DVP;
February 6, 2009

Source Link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fc867c9f4672772b

-------

And here's a post I wrote from a few years earlier, in 2006:

"The reactions you (Robert) equate to a gunshot are MUCH more in
line with the two women tending to their shot-up husbands and leaning
in toward them out of concern. Surely you must realize this too. Don't
you think that is even REMOTELY more probable, Bob? Or do you think
there was no "concern" for JFK & JBC being displayed at all by Jackie
and Nellie during the Z-frames you equate to "ducking" from a Z285
gunshot? Are you really saying the ONLY thing making the ladies "lean
in" is hearing a 285 shot? They might not have been leaning in ANYWAY
while in the process of trying to help their husbands? That's not even
possible in your "Z285" mind?" -- DVP; June 29, 2006

Source Link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fe4db73e8e333cc3

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8a862a89267e3401/38da66306387aff2?#38da66306387aff2


AN IDIOTIC RETARD NAMED ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "...you are a God Damned [censored]." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a small man you are, Marsh. You know I haven't "lied" about a
Goddamn thing in this case. So why not can the crap about people
constantly "lying" when they say something you don't agree with (or
when they say something that you don't have a reasonable conspiracy-
flavored answer for).

BTW, I can think of no really good reason as to why Arlen Specter had
a desire to have a picture taken of this silly trajectory through
JFK's neck and chin (see photo below), which is obviously not even
close to the entry or exit wounds in President Kennedy's upper back
and throat:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RoucRB2pM-c/TvWYueE8I2I/AAAAAAAABUg/s1jtdpPrX-E/s1600/Specter-02.png

....Other than (perhaps?) the WC was playing around with the idea that
(somehow) the bullet that hit JFK in the HEAD had somehow struck
Connally in the back. Because the "entry" as depicted in that silly
photo above is very close to the (equally silly and dead wrong) entry
wound location at JFK's hairline that was endorsed by all of the
autopsy doctors (except for Humes' temporary restoration to sanity in
1978 in front of the HSCA, when Humes admitted that the cowlick entry
was accurate, which is obviously true).


>>> "How can he have an entrance wound in the neck without any corresponding hole in the jacket?" <<<

JFK never had any entrance wound in the neck. The wound is in the
upper back--and always was. And the WC never "moved" the wound at all,
and CE903 proves that fact. Because to move the wound UP into the neck
would totally destroy ANY SBT trajectory (at Z217.5, Z224, Z220, or
whenever)....as CE903 also demonstrates very nicely.

How many times do those basic facts need to be repeated before they
sink in, Marsh?


http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/731d500f2d2ef69e/b00907672d963ce7?#b00907672d963ce7



PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "Here's an explanation. Givens DID see Oswald on the sixth floor before going down for lunch, and was later convinced to say this happened after going down for lunch." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's ridiculous, since we're only talking about a very few minutes
in real time here (probably less than 3 minutes in actual time).

Plus, as noted previously by other posters, Givens' account of seeing
Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55 doesn't put LHO on the sixth
floor (or inside the Sniper's Nest) when the shooting occurred at
12:30. It only puts him on an upper floor of the building at about
11:55.

And here's a very important point that I think conspiracy theorists
overlook:

Charlie Givens is not even needed when it comes to putting Oswald on
an upper floor of the TSBD at about lunchtime on 11/22/63. And that's
because there were multiple OTHER employees who testified that Oswald
yelled down the elevator shaft (from either the fifth or sixth floor)
when the other employees raced the elevators downstairs.

So Givens making up a lie about seeing Oswald is not even needed to
put Oswald on an upper floor of the Book Depository about 45 minutes
before the assassination.

And surely there aren't too many conspiracists who want to call all
three of the following TSBD employees liars when it comes to their
testimony about hearing Lee Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from
an upper floor shortly before noon on November 22 --- Bonnie Ray
Williams, Billy Lovelady, and Danny Arce.

All three of the above employees testified they heard Oswald's voice
coming from an upper (fifth or sixth) floor. Therefore, why would
Charles Givens lie about anything relating to Lee Harvey Oswald's
whereabouts around noontime on November 22, 1963?

I suppose the conspiracy theorists will insist that the police and FBI
desperately HAD to have a witness say that he physically saw Lee
Oswald on the SIXTH floor shortly before the assassination (vs. the
inconclusive testimony of Arce, Williams, and Lovelady concerning the
exact floor that Oswald was on when he yelled down the elevator
shaft).

But that type of speculation regarding the authorities in this case
(although it's speculation that has become commonplace and routine
among CTers, of course) is something I do not buy at all --
particularly when there are so many other people who could (and did)
testify to the fact that Oswald was, indeed, on an upper TSBD floor
around lunchtime. (Plus there's Howard Brennan as well, who saw Oswald
actually murder JFK.)

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html

[aeffects]

On Feb 10, 11:27 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lone nut lunacy>

NO advertising --AND-- your Amazon dance looks horrible.... here's a
suggestion: if you plan a new generation of lone nut trolls, tell them
to get over here and show us what level of awareness they (lone nut
trolls, aka Warren Commission supports, aka disinfo agents) indeed do
have.....

[mainframetech]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"JFK never had any entrance wound in the neck. The wound is in the
upper back--and always was.

CHRIS says:
The Parkland hospital had a press conference and Dr. Perry was
there and it went like this:
"DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the
head, I cannot say. "

Now the Parkland doctors were experienced ER doctors and had seen
their share of bullet wounds, and they knew the difference between
entry and exit and the ramifications of saying which it was. While
others carefully said it could be either entry or exit, doctor Perry
said it right out.

The doctors said the wound in the neck was very small for a bullet,
and that can happen when the flesh partially closes over the hole that
was made going in. As we know now, there was a bullet hole in the
upper back that matched the throat wound. As long as the bullet
didn't hit any solid object such as bone, it would stay pretty much in
its original shape and 'drill' through the body making no large wound
and exit the back straight and make a small hole leaving the body.
The exit hole in the back though small, was still larger than the
descriptions of the throat wound and strongly support the concept that
the bullet went in through the throat and out the back. This would
also fit with common sense evidence that there was a shooter in front
of JFK, whether thetre was one in the back or not.

David Von P. is off again trying to sell a refrigerator to
eskimos...:)

Chris