A LEE HARVEY OSWALD "TIMELINE" DISCUSSION
David Von Pein
In early August 2007, I had an interesting discussion via e-mail with
JFK researcher Dale K. Myers concerning my proposed "LEE HARVEY OSWALD
11/22/63 TIMELINE" (linked below via an April 2007 forum article):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
When I received Dale Myers' reply to my mail, I was a bit surprised at
how much he disagreed with me regarding several of the specific points
that are included in my "Oswald Timeline", but I also appreciate and
respect Mr. Myers' opinions on the matter as well. And, as usual,
Dale's thoughts are always very well-thought-out and well-stated.
So, I thought I'd share the e-mail exchange here, to illustrate the
fact that "LNers" don't always agree with each other 100% of the time
on some of the issues connected with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt and the
assassination of President Kennedy. .....
==============================================
SUBJECT: LHO Timeline Talk
DATE: 8/3/2007
SENT FROM: David R. Von Pein
SENT TO: Dale K. Myers
------------------------------
DALE MYERS SAID: David, Regarding your timeline. I noted several
errors: 11:50-11:54 AM: Oswald must have gone to the fifth floor after
arriving at the sixth floor since he was seen there (and heard) by a
number of witnesses descending in the freight elevators.
DVP SAID: You could very well be correct....but AFAIK there's no
concrete proof that has Oswald on the FIFTH floor around lunchtime on
11/22/63. But we know he was seen on the 6th Floor that day by several
employees. And B.R. Williams said he wasn't sure whether Oswald called
down with his elevator request from the 5th or 6th floor. The matter
of what floor Oz was on during this time is in dispute.
DALE MYERS: 11:55 AM: The conversation with Givens was a reiteration
of what had already been said during the elevator race. Oswald's
request for an elevator occurred twice (if Givens is to be believed),
not once as you suggest.
DVP: Yes, you're right here (and I've mentioned the probability of
TWO such Givens/Oswald conversations in other posts on the forum). But
in my "Timeline" post specifically, I was saying it from the
standpoint of "Givens' testimony" only. But [linked] HERE [in the
article linked below] I mention the possibility of two such elevator
requests made by Oswald.*
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8823834c81dea1be
* = Note -- There's a probable error in that "Elevator" essay, when I
mention that Bill Shelley was one of the 5 TSBD employees racing the
elevators downstairs. That is probably incorrect.
At one point I thought Shelley had been "racing" with the boys (mainly
via B.R. Williams' testimony when he names all 5 employees who were
working on the sixth floor that day, not counting Oswald, who was also
up there).
But upon further examination, I'm not sure whether Shelley was on the
elevators then or not; probably not, since he saw Oswald on the 1st
Floor earlier.
DALE MYERS: You write: "..And, in my view, there's just too much
evidence (overall) that concretely puts Oswald on the 6th Floor
during the approximate timeframe when Arnold claimed he was in the
lunchroom..." As far as I know, there is no evidence (concrete or
otherwise) that places Oswald on the sixth floor between the Givens
sighting and just before 12:30 p.m. If you mean the physical evidence
in the sniper's nest demonstrates that he is the murderer, while that
is true, it does not place him on the sixth floor except at the time
of the shooting, not necessarily at 12:15 p.m. or 12:20 p.m. per
Arnold. (This is a matter of language.)
DVP: Yes.....that was merely a semantics/language mistake there. I
was referring to the AFTER-THE-SHOOTING and DURING-the-shooting
evidence that concretely places Oswald on the 6th Floor at 12:30 and
just before.
And I think it's only common sense to believe that Oswald WAS, in
fact, on that sixth floor when C. Arnold said he was on lower floors.
DALE MYERS: There is far too much speculation about Oswald's
movements on the sixth floor during the 12-12:30 p.m. time period in
your timeline for my tastes (i.e., the paper gun sack, etc.) -- some
of which you yourself later question and admit the argument is weak.
DVP: True....but what else do we have re. these forever-unknown
"Timeline" matters (should we choose to dissect and discuss them) BUT
speculation and guesswork? The CT-Kooks can only guess in these
regards as well.
I happen to believe my timeline for Oswald is fairly solid in most
respects. But I did admit it's not 100% perfect and cannot be proven
to be 100% true. How could it be when we're talking about subjective
speculation?
It's impossible to know exactly what was going through Oswald's mind
as he planned to kill the U.S. President. Several times that morning
he probably had "Should I Do It, Or Shouldn't I?" thoughts swimming in
his head.
And the whole thing was totally contingent, IMO, on whether that sixth
floor was COMPLETELY VOID OF OTHER HUMANS at the exact time JFK passed
the building.
I firmly believe that if Williams (or others) had been on the 6th
Floor at 12:30, the President would not have been shot. For, how could
Oswald have figured on eliminating multiple witnesses (with his ONE
leftover bullet) if he chose to pull the trigger while on a crowded
sixth floor? That'd be crazy for him to do. (Then, too, killing a
President is kinda crazy too...so who can know?) ;)
DALE MYERS: I don't think there is any doubt Oswald always intended
to shoot from the SE corner window.
DVP: I don't think that's necessarily true. I say that mainly because
of Arnold Rowland, who we know saw Oswald WITH HIS ASSEMBLED GUN on
the WEST side of the building.
And while we can be fully confident that Rowland's later
embellishments about the "elderly Negro" are pure hogwash (since he
never said a word about this Negro to anyone, including his wife,
until much later)....we can also be just as confident that Mr. Rowland
DID positively see a man with an assembled rifle in his hands on the
west end of the TSBD before the shooting.
Barbara Rowland is the key to knowing this part of her husband's story
is certainly accurate...because she herself corroborates it. She never
saw Oswald with the gun, true. But the key here, for me, is the fact
that she was told by her husband about the west-end man with a gun AT
THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING, i.e., approx. 12:15 PM on November 22.
So, my "Timeline" which has Oswald possibly mulling over shooting
locations seems plausible....based on the fact that he (Oswald) was
almost certainly holding his assembled rifle at the WEST side of the
building shortly before 12:30.
Granted, it was stupid of Oswald to make himself visible WHILE HOLDING
THE RIFLE in the west-end window. But he obviously DID do just that.
And since that's not the window he ended up shooting from, I speculate
that possibly he had considered a west-end shooting location when
Rowland saw LHO there.
Other possibilities are, of course, open for people to speculate about
as well. But I'm not quite sure what those possibilities might be that
totally knock my speculation off the map. (Did Oswald just feel in a
mood to flaunt his weapon for all to see near a window he wouldn't be
firing from?)
DALE MYERS: There is no evidence that Oswald attempted to wipe his
prints from the rifle (in fact, his fingerprints were all over the
trigger housing).
DVP: You could be correct here (again). And, again, it's just my
speculation, as I try to reconcile in my mind the different "shirt
colors" that witnesses saw Oswald wearing. It's my opinion that it's
quite possible that he shot JFK in only his T-shirt, while his brown
"arrest" shirt was lying at his feet (or on a box) in the Sniper's
Nest.
Following the shooting, he then grabbed the brown shirt and wiped off
as many prints as he could with it as he fled the Nest. Hence, "fresh"
shirt fibers matching Oswald's brown arrest shirt are later found
jammed into a portion of the gun.
Yes, he missed wiping off the trigger guard, which was a stupid
mistake on his part, since he knew that that part of the gun surely
had his prints on it.
But given the fact that other than that trigger guard and the ONE solo
palmprint on the barrel of the gun (which was certainly left there
BEFORE the shooting, not during or afterward, since it was partially
covered by the stock when the rifle was assembled), we don't have a
single discernible LHO print on that gun barrel or stock after we KNOW
he handled it extensively on November 22nd.
That's telling me he probably used something to wipe off most of his
prints from the barrel and stock that almost surely WERE on that gun
at some point on 11/22. And, in his haste, he missed (or forgot) about
the trigger guard.
DALE MYERS: I don't believe Oswald had any pre-arranged plan to stash
the rifle. I believe he simply dumped it at the top of the stairs so
as not to get caught carrying it down the stairwell. The boxes at the
top of the stairs were simply a convenient place to dump it.
DVP: Could be. But the clipboard placement, IMO, is a key to my
thinking that you are wrong here. That clipboard was found in the very
same general area of the rifle-stashing location. And that clipboard
was obviously not dropped there at the same time as the rifle. (I
kinda doubt Oswald was carrying a clipboard AND his rifle to the
northwest corner of the building after he plugged the President.)
Oswald probably pre-planned and pre-arranged that rifle-stashing nook
when he left that clipboard where it was later found, near the
staircase.
DALE MYERS: 12:31-12:32 PM: It is more likely that Oswald heard Truly
yelling up the elevator shaft and ducked into the lunchroom. If Oswald
had waited until Truly and Baker were coming up the stairs, he would
have never gotten through the vestibule door (and it closed behind
him) before Truly and Baker reached the second floor landing.
DVP: Well, again, your version could very well be right. But so could
mine, quite easily too. There's no way to know, of course.
And we also don't know how FAR Oswald pulled open that door in order
to slip inside of it to try to avoid Baker/Truly.
Perhaps the following scenario occurred (more speculation, yes, but
what are ya gonna do? ~wink~).....Oswald, VERY LIKELY HAVING PRIOR
KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT DOOR HAS AN AUTOMATIC "CLOSING" DEVICE ON IT
(which makes the door shut rather slowly), opened that door just far
enough to allow his slim frame to slide through the opening.
Via that scenario, the door would have only been open a tiny fraction
of its FULL opening capacity, and would therefore not have had very
far to shut before it was completely closed. 2 or 3 seconds, maximum,
to get it fully closed. Maybe less.
Oswald might also have aided the door-closing process himself by
pulling on the doorknob from the other side. (Unless I'm mistaken, via
the WC/FBI photos I have seen, all of the TSBD doors had KNOBS, and
were not merely 'push/pull' type of doors...so Oswald would have had a
knob to pull on if he'd wanted to.)
Plus: I doubt we can be 100% sure of Marrion Baker's exactness re. the
open/closed status of that door. In fact, he never said it was fully
closed. He said this.....
"I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not.
All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door
might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time." --
Marrion Baker
So Marrion isn't 100% sure of the door's status at all.
BTW, Dale, you might want to change your spelling of Marrion Baker's
first name in your [Don] Thomas essay on your site. You've got it
misspelled as "Marion" multiple times. And you probably don't want
some crackpot conspiracy-loving kook to come along and berate you for
making "Marrion" (with a double-R) sound like a female cop. ~grin~
DALE MYERS: I don't think Oswald's demeanor in the lunch room points
either way -- toward guilt or innocence. Way too much has been made of
this by far too many people.
DVP: Maybe so. But Oswald not saying a darn thing when a gun is
placed inches from his gut, IMO, is telling me more about his guilt
than his innocence (in a proverbial "I KNOW WHY YOU'RE HERE, SO I
DON'T NEED TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THIS GUN IS POINTED AT ME"
type of mindset).
DALE MYERS: 12:40 PM: I don't think Oswald had Whaley drive him
passed [sic] his room for the purpose of seeing if the cops were
waiting for him. More likely Oswald didn't want Whaley connecting his
passenger with the house at 1026 N. Beckley.
DVP: Yes. And I, too, have speculated on that very same thing myself
in the past [e.g., in the post linked below]. I just didn't mention
that particular angle in my Timeline posting.
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/445ba8b9aea9c1fe
DALE MYERS: 1:00 PM: You didn't argue the point in the timeline, but
somewhere on a newsgroup posting you argued that Earlene Roberts was
probably mistaken about the 3-4 minutes Oswald stayed in his room.
While that may be true, I think the key point in the timeline is the
assumption that Earlene's arrival time of Oswald at "about 1:00 pm" is
spot on. I showed in "With Malice" that a time range is far more
accurate and shows he could have arrived as early as a few minutes
before one, which means he could have been out the door by 1:01 pm
even if you assume Earlene's guesstimate of 3-4 minutes in his room is
accurate.
DVP: Very good points indeed. And I firmly concur with your thoughts
on this matter. I've always stressed to the "Anybody But Oswald"
conspiracy kooks on the various forums that ALL times given by the
witnesses are merely ESTIMATES. That's all. But the CTers seem to
think all of these various times given by witnesses are embedded in
cement and are undeniable facts. And that's nonsense, of course.
While it's true that the WC says in its own Report that Oswald
probably arrived back home at "1:00" (via CE1119-A), their times, too,
are said to be "approximate" (which is only common sense).
And I'll maintain until the cows come home that it's very unlikely
that Oz stayed in that shoebox of a room for any 3-4 minutes that day.
No way. No how.
DALE MYERS: There are many other points of disagreement I have with
your timeline....
DVP: Which, IMO, is an absolutely incredible statement coming from a
fellow LNer who knows with 100% certainty (as I do) that Oswald was in
that SN at 12:30 firing 3 shots at JFK on November 22nd.
But, to each his own I guess.
DALE MYERS: I enjoyed reading your timeline. I've certainly
considered the same things you did (many of which I subsequently
rejected based on other facts) and as such am always curious to see
how someone else comes to terms with the same evidence.
DVP: Thank you, Dale. As always, I respect the opinion of a
knowledgable and forthright researcher like yourself. Your
contribution to the vast landscape of JFK assassination-related
research is wide-sweeping, unique, and above all, filled with common
sense, logic, and FACTS.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response to my
"Timeline" post today. I appreciate it.
Best Regards,
David Von Pein
[August 3, 2007]
==============================================
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
www.blogger.com/profile/17079679710654429737
==============================================
aeffects
Walt
> In early August 2007, I had an interesting discussion via e-mail with
> JFK researcher Dale K. Myers concerning my proposed "LEE HARVEY OSWALD
> 11/22/63 TIMELINE" (linked below via an April 2007 forum article):
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
>
> When I received Dale Myers' reply to my mail, I was a bit surprised at
> how much he disagreed with me
I'll bet you were!!...... Since you think you've got the tale
memorized to the inth degree.
Ya know Pea Brain if ya applied just a little reasoning to the overall
picture you may realize how absolutely silly your speculations are.
"Should I Do It, Or Shouldn't I?" thoughts swimming in his head.
That's just silly speculation......
If you were to apply SOLID logic to the picture you "MAY" come to
realize that Oswald was not one of the assassins. You are just like
the Warren Commmission in that respect... You START with the
CONCLUSION that Oswald was guilty and then proceed to build a case to
verify that THEORY.....
Let's take just one single FACT as an example. It is a irrefutable
FACT that the rifle found on the sixth floor would not fire accurately
when fired using the telescopic sight. THAT IS A FACT!....... So,
no man could have killed JFK with that rifle if he had used the
telescopic sight. ( Would you not agree?)
I know your silly explanation will be that Oswald didn't use the
scope.....he used the Iron sights.
OK let's examine that idea..... Your argument is that Oswald knew the
scope was mounted crooked and couldn't be used to fire the rifle
accurately. HOW?--- HOW? ---HOW? would he have known that?????
According to the LNer's THEORY he removed the rifle from the blanket
in the Paine's garage that morning, disaasembled it and dumped all
eleven parts into a brown paper bag. Allegedly that rifle had been in
that blanket in the garage since September, when did Oswald fire it to
realize that the scope was mounted crooked???
Let's just speculate that he assumed that the scope would be useless
for firing the rifle. ( A logical assumption because he had no way of
knowing if the rifle had been dropped or handled roughly, or had
anothe heavy object placed on top of it ,in the back of Ruth Paines
Station wagon, during the move from New Orleans to Irving.
Ok ...He logically could have surmised that the scope was useless,
then the logical thing to do would have been ....Remove the scope from
the rifle.... Which would have been a piece-o-cake ( remove the
screws holding it to the rifle) since according to you LNer's he was
disassembling the rifle anyway. The scope being worthless should have
been removed because it only made it much harder to conceal the rifle
in that paper bag.
There is no way he could have determined that the scope was useless,
once he started firing, and then switch to iron sights, because that
would have required at least three shots at a clean practice target to
determine that the scope was crooked and the shot was not just an
errant round.
Your whole THEORY about Oswald being the shooter is based on EXTREMELY
POOR logic.
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
All together now -- on three.....
1...
2...
3...
OH, BROTHER!!
Walt
If yer brother doesn't have any more brains than you do, yer wasting
yer time calling on him for help.....
David Von Pein
>>> "If yer brother doesn't have any more brains than you do, yer wasting yer time calling on him for help." <<<
I love it when a kook with no evidence to back up his "ABO" claims
thinks he possesses MORE answers than the WC and HSCA (which are
organizations that BOTH concluded that Walt's hero was guilty of not
just one murder on 11/22/63--but TWO).
But Walt thinks the WC and HSCA went "0-for-4" at the plate in 1964
and 1978 (with the WC getting it wrong about Oswald being BOTH JFK's
and Tippit's murderer AND the HSCA also getting it wrong when they too
said LHO was the killer of BOTH Kennedy AND Tippit).
It apparently doesn't bother a kook like Walt that the HSCA's
"Oswald's Guilty" conclusion (based on an independent study of the
ballistics evidence in the case and independent examination of
witnesses, etc.) strengthens and corroborates the WC's very same
conclusion from fifteen years earlier.
Per Walt, we're to actually believe that somebody, somewhere, (or a
group of "somebodies") was able to get all of the various HSCA
investigators to LIE THEIR ASSES OFF TOO (just like the WC did,
according to kooks like Walt, that is).
We're supposed to actually believe that it was a wide-sweeping, MULTI-
ORGANIZATIONAL "cover-up" from start to "LHO Did It" finish....with
ONLY Dr. Wecht representing "the truth!" amongst the investigators and
the doctors who re-investigated the case for the HSCA (when it comes
to the shots that HIT the President, that is; I'm not including the
since-thoroughly-debunked acoustics garbage that the HSCA relied on to
conclude that there was a conspiracy in the case).
Right, Mr. Kook?
And even Wecht admits, forthrightly, that "based on the available
medical evidence, JFK was shot only from behind" (paraphrased Wecht
quote).
Wecht, however, decided he wanted to play the popular "Let's Pretend A
Shot Hit Kennedy From The Front" game....which is the very same game
that Walt The Kook likes to play too (along with a bunch of other
CTers who think the fatal shot to JFK came from the Knoll, despite
having zero pieces of hard evidence to support such a theory--not even
the Zapruder Film, which conclusively shows the President's head
moving forward AT IMPACT).....
www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Tell us, Walt -- Who got the HSCA to continue the "OSWALD KILLED
KENNEDY & TIPPIT" charade, 15 years after the Warren boys started it?
And just exactly HOW did the unknown "they" manage to persuade so many
people who were a part of the HSCA (i.e., totally DIFFERENT people
from those who were part of the WC) to go along with the cover-up and
continued 15-year-long "frame-up" of a certain "patsy" named Lee
Harvey Oswald?
I anxiously await Walt's illuminating reply. (And maybe he can manage
to write that reply without prefacing the post with the proverbial and
moronic "Hey, Pea Brain". Ya think?)
I confess, though, I don't expect much in the way of a sane reply from
Walter on this subject of "UNIFIED GOVERNMENTAL DESIRE OVER A 15-YEAR
PERIOD TO FRAME A GUY NAMED LEE OSWALD"....because this is an
individual (Walt) who actually said this to me on April 24, 2008, at
11:05 AM EDT:
"Your whole THEORY about Oswald being the shooter is based on
EXTREMELY POOR logic."
After reading a quote like the one I just cited above, I can't hope
for much in the way of a "reasonable" response from a man called Walt.
Walt
> >>> "If yer brother doesn't have any more brains than you do, yer wasting yer time calling on him for help." <<<
>
> I love it when a kook with no evidence to back up his "ABO" claims
> thinks he possesses MORE answers than the WC and HSCA (which are
> organizations that BOTH concluded that Walt's hero was guilty of not
> just one murder on 11/22/63--but TWO).
Yer a idiot, Von Pea Brain..... Do you really think an ad hominem
attack is an effective tactic?? If this is the best you can do in
the way of a rebuttal to my post you'd better head for the showers,
and then pack yer gear, cause yer not even remotely qualified to play
in this game. Go back to the little leagues.
> But Walt thinks the WC and HSCA went "0-for-4" at the plate in 1964
> and 1978 (with the WC getting it wrong about Oswald being BOTH JFK's
> and Tippit's murderer AND the HSCA also getting it wrong when they too
> said LHO was the killer of BOTH Kennedy AND Tippit).
If you weren't so damned dumb you'd be able to understand that I've
never
said the Warren Commission "got it wrong".... ( which implies an
honest effort, but failed) Those snakes were sucessful in their
mission. They were ordered to put the stamp of approval on Hoover's
tale and that's exactly what they did. To be fair....Some of them
didn't want to rubber stamp the lie, but they also didn't want to see
rioting in the streets and anarchy.
> It apparently doesn't bother a kook like Walt that the HSCA's
> "Oswald's Guilty" conclusion (based on an independent study of the
> ballistics evidence in the case and independent examination of
> witnesses, etc.) strengthens and corroborates the WC's very same
> conclusion from fifteen years earlier.
The HSCA was nothing but an extension of the Warren
Commission.....Some very troubling information (a third Back yard
photo had popped up, evidence that Oswald was working for the FBI
etc.) and evidence had bobbed to the surface in the years following
the issuance of the Warren Report and that information needed to be
discredited in the same manner the Warren Commission had operated.
> Right, Mr. Kook?
> www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Different people.....same agenda. ie; Prevent the American people
from
learning the truth. If the people learn that the murder of President
Kennedy was a domestic plot, sanctioned by the head of the FBI,
there
will be rioting in the streets. National security is at stake.
> I anxiously await Walt's illuminating reply. (And maybe he can manage
> to write that reply without prefacing the post with the proverbial and
> moronic "Hey, Pea Brain". Ya think?)
Hold yer breath........
> I confess, though, I don't expect much in the way of a sane reply from
> Walter on this subject of "UNIFIED GOVERNMENTAL DESIRE OVER A 15-YEAR
> PERIOD TO FRAME A GUY NAMED LEE OSWALD"....because this is an
> individual (Walt) who actually said this to me on April 24, 2008, at
> 11:05 AM EDT:
> "Your whole THEORY about Oswald being the shooter is based on
> EXTREMELY POOR logic."
> After reading a quote like the one I just cited above, I can't hope
> for much in the way of a "reasonable" response from a man called Walt.
If you weren't such a despicable vermin, I'd feel pity for you.....
David Von Pein
TODAY'S DOSE OF HILARITY FROM THE "KOOK FACTION" -- ENJOY........
==================================
Walt The Idjit Wrote:
>>> "Those {WC} snakes were sucessful [sic] in their mission. They were ordered to put the stamp of approval on Hoover's tale and that's exactly what they did. .... They also didn't want to see rioting in the streets and anarchy. .... If the people learn that the murder of President Kennedy was a domestic plot, sanctioned by the head of the FBI, there will be rioting in the streets. .... If you weren't such a despicable vermin, I'd feel pity for you." <<<
Why can't a SINGLE one of you conspiracy-happy morons have the
slightest bit of concern for a guy with a very weak urinary bladder --
me?
I've begged you for months now to please have some pity on my bladder
deficiency. If you won't heed this advice, I'll be forced to stop
reading your idiotic tripe, Walt-Kook. And that'd be a pity as well--
because I love comic relief each day....and you provide plenty. In
fact, TOO much of it. (My bladder, you see, cannot handle your
incessant fantasies. It just simply can't.)
Walt
Yes, I can see that you can't control your bladder........
But why does having wet pants effect your ability to post an
intelligent rebuttal to my post??
Go change your clothes and try again..... Here's what your replying
to:
David Von Pein
ABO Kook.