JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 112)
David Von Pein
======================================================
JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. JOHN McADAMS (RADIO DEBATE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c97b74db982331f9
JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI AND DAVID VON PEIN (THE COMPLETE
SERIES):
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1185.msg16160.html#msg16160
CARLOS MARCELLO:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9b6ee6d5c430c69
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5e50d59541227ad
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6c4a0a4688d2d69
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d89ea340e95845b9
QUOTING CIA DIRECTOR ROBERT GATES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f8dd4d6de8d8ca9d
"C2766":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fda0e97d958b5e3b
"SENSE" (OR "NONSENSE")?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/048585ba4cf112d4
ONE [ERA] ENDS, THE OTHER BEGINS:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?entry_id=48190
MISCELLANY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b074ca2a8a3b1b28
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d0fa19e201c4da8e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/674c214df48e5766
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4bc4755f4d3c400
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1b5d5fd85e89c30b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/04ca5fa6b142d612
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bc4b503e490b0ed
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9eb30142a777c848
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c3c50e57ce602416
======================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "David, if the bag was faked, it was most probably faked on the evening of the 22nd or the morning of the 23rd (after Frazier refused to ID the bag as the one Oswald had been carrying)." <<<
Huh??
So, you [Patrick Speer] think that this bag (linked below) being held
by Det. Montgomery of the DPD is, in fact, a "real" and legitimate bag
that WAS, indeed, discovered by police in the TSBD on the day of the
assassination?:
But you then think that the cops faked a DIFFERENT bag later on 11/22
(in the evening sometime)?
And the cops did this even though they ALREADY HAD A LEGITIMATE BAG
THAT WAS FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR IN THE SNIPER'S NEST?
Did the police then "plant" two of Oswald's prints on the fake bag?
In short -- Your [Pat Speer's] theory is utter silliness and nonsense.
The bag linked above is obviously the very same bag that was found in
the Sniper's Nest with two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it
(CE142). To believe anything else is to believe in some really
extraordinary crappola (aka: conspiracist-invented shit).
David Von Pein
BUD SAID:
>>> "How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay attention to the bag?" <<<
BARB J. SAID:
>>> "Have you [Bud] read anything on these two [Frazier & Linnie Mae Randle] besides Posner? Doesn't seem like it." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Bud doesn't need to read anything about Buell Wesley Frazier (other
than Frazier's WC testimony) in order to know that the question Bud
asked in his last post is a very good and valid inquiry:
"How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay
attention to the bag?" -- Bud
The fact is, when we read Wesley Frazier's 1964 Warren Commission
testimony, Frazier tells the Commission NINE SEPARATE TIMES that he
wasn't paying very close attention to Oswald's paper bag or the way
that LHO was carrying that bag on the morning of 11/22/63.
Let's take a look (these are all quotes from the mouth of Buell Wesley
Frazier, via his Warren Commission session on March 11, 1964):
"I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't
pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?""
"I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the
package because like I say before and after he told me that it was
curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had
lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."
"Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other
than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much
attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there
looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch
them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the
package at all."
"I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over
or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it."
"Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much,
paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands
on the package like that."
"Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much
attention--"
"I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this
part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his
hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big
arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0109b.htm
==========================================
And then there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-
trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), which includes this exchange
between witness Frazier and prosecutor Vince Bugliosi:
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
FRAZIER -- "That is true."
==========================================
RELEVANT EXCERPT FROM "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
"[Buell Wesley] Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked
under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim.
While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was
consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly
inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an
assumption on his part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's
conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and
over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much
attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we
don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front
of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial ["On
Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", in 1986] I asked Frazier, "So the bag could
have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have
been able to see it?" and he responded, "That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [in
1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether
Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not
paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow
end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
==========================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Here's another one ... why did you leave this one out?" <<<
Thanks (twice).
With the two additional WC cites you provided, we're now up to ELEVEN
total times that Wes Frazier admitted he wasn't paying much attention
to Oswald's bag (or the way he carried it).
11 times in one WC session. Pretty impressive...except to CTers who
want to deny the obvious...with that obvious being: Buell Wesley
Frazier saw the bag that contained the instrument that Oswald used to
murder President Kennedy.
Why continue to deny the obvious, Barbara? Just....why?
aeffects
uh-uh-huh shithead.... no advertising you know better.... shape up or
ship the hell out!
Moron!
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8d41bbab23c6a864
>>> "But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible for someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed?" <<<
Quite easy. Especially due to the fact that these words came out of
Jack Dougherty's mouth when he gave his Warren Commission testimony:
"I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he [Lee Oswald]
came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye."
Plus, Dougherty's testimony regarding the specific question of -- DID
OSWALD TAKE A LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE BACK DOOR OF THE DEPOSITORY ON
THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER 22? -- is actually completely unneeded and
immaterial.
Why?
Because we can be absolutely positive that Oswald definitely DID carry
a large-ish bag into the TSBD that day, based on the ironclad
observations of the person who saw Oswald carrying such a bag -- Buell
Wesley Frazier:
"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
-- Buell Frazier; Via 11/22/63 Affidavit [24 H 209; CE2003]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0114a.htm
Or do more conspiracy theorists want to jump on James DiEugenio's
bandwagon of silly accusations (with DiEugenio calling Wesley Frazier
"suspicious" and, in effect, calling Frazier a bald-faced liar
concerning the paper bag issue)?
It appears that DiEugenio is perfectly content and happy to hang a
"suspicious" label around the neck of an innocent 19-year-old kid
named Wes Frazier, instead of merely accepting what is quite obvious
-- i.e., Frazier saw Oswald take a bag in the back door of the Book
Depository and Jack Dougherty simply wasn't paying enough attention to
Oswald as he entered the building to notice whether LHO had anything
in his hands or not (mainly due to the fact that, as Dougherty said in
his very own words, Mr. Dougherty only saw Oswald "OUT OF THE CORNER
OF MY EYE").
>>> "Furthermore, nobody ever saw Oswald with the bag before the 22nd. And the guy in charge of the paper and tape dispenser at the TSBD said Oswald never got any paper or tape off him to make the bag. So the question is, how did Oswald get the material to make the bag, and when and where did he make it?" <<<
Do you think the person in charge of the paper and tape (Troy West)
never left his station near the workbench during the course of a
normal working day at the Book Depository?
Don't you think it's quite possible that Oswald waited until Mr. West
left his work area, and then LHO took that opportunity to grab some
paper and tape during West's absence (during a lunch break or a
bathroom break, for example, which is probably when such a thing did
occur)?
Troy West wasn't chained to his work station--was he? I doubt it.*
* = West did testify that he usually "just stayed there" by the
wrapping machine most of the time. Here's exactly what West said in
that regard:
"I never did hardly ever leave the first floor. That is, I just
stayed there where all my work was, and I just stayed there."
And it does appear from his testimony that Mr. West usually ate his
lunch right there at his wrapping table too (that seems to have been
the case on 11/22/63 anyway).
But there were certainly times when West would have to step away from
his work area, such as the situation he described in his WC testimony
when he said that at the start of his lunch break on November 22nd he
"went in and washed my hands and face and then got ready to put my
coffee on".
I can only assume that West went to a first-floor bathroom to wash his
hands and face. Therefore, his wrapping table would have been left
unattended for a short time while he was inside the bathroom. And this
very likely was Mr. West's normal routine each day at the Depository
(to go and wash up in the bathroom, and to use the toilet as well
[when required], prior to eating his lunch).
Lee Oswald, therefore, would have had an opportunity to take some
paper and tape from West's work area during these brief periods of
time when West was not present at the wrapping table.
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8d41bbab23c6a864
>
> >>> "But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible for someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed?" <<<
>
> Quite easy. Especially due to the fact that these words came out of
> Jack Dougherty's mouth when he gave his Warren Commission testimony:
>
> "I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he [Lee Oswald]
> came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye."
>
> Plus, Dougherty's testimony regarding the specific question of -- DID
> OSWALD TAKE A LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE BACK DOOR OF THE DEPOSITORY ON
> THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER 22? -- is actually completely unneeded and
> immaterial.
>
> Why?
>
> Because we can be absolutely positive that Oswald definitely DID carry
> a large-ish bag into the TSBD that day, based on the ironclad
> observations of the person who saw Oswald carrying such a bag -- Buell
> Wesley Frazier:
>
> "I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
> building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
> -- Buell Frazier; Via 11/22/63 Affidavit [24 H 209; CE2003]
>
why do you need an entire class to write your posts? Do you purchase
their services? Speak up boyo, we need the truth...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9c14fc79-b5e5-46f9...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8d41bbab23c6a864
>>> "But what about Jack Dougherty? He saw Oswald enter the TSBD that
>>> morning and didn't recall him carrying any bag. How is that possible for
>>> someone to carry such a huge bag and not be noticed?" <<<
Quite easy. Especially due to the fact that these words came out of
Jack Dougherty's mouth when he gave his Warren Commission testimony:
"I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he [Lee Oswald]
came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye."
Plus, Dougherty's testimony regarding the specific question of -- DID
OSWALD TAKE A LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE BACK DOOR OF THE DEPOSITORY ON
THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER 22? -- is actually completely unneeded and
immaterial.
Why?
Because we can be absolutely positive that Oswald definitely DID carry
a large-ish bag into the TSBD that day, based on the ironclad
observations of the person who saw Oswald carrying such a bag -- Buell
Wesley Frazier:
"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
-- Buell Frazier; Via 11/22/63 Affidavit [24 H 209; CE2003]
Or do more conspiracy theorists want to jump on James DiEugenio's
bandwagon of silly accusations (with DiEugenio calling Wesley Frazier
"suspicious" and, in effect, calling Frazier a bald-faced liar
concerning the paper bag issue)?
It appears that DiEugenio (and his ilk) are perfectly content and
happy to hang a "suspicious" label around the neck of an innocent 19-
year-old kid named Wes Frazier, instead of merely accepting what is
quite obvious -- i.e., Frazier saw Oswald take a bag in the back door
of the Book Depository and Jack Dougherty simply wasn't paying enough
attention to Oswald as he entered the building to notice whether LHO
had anything in his hands or not (mainly due to the fact that, as
Dougherty said in his very own words, Mr. Dougherty only saw Oswald
"OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY EYE").
>>> "Furthermore, nobody ever saw Oswald with the bag before the 22nd. And
>>> the guy in charge of the paper and tape dispenser at the TSBD said
>>> Oswald never got any paper or tape off him to make the bag. So the
>>> question is, how did Oswald get the material to make the bag, and when
>>> and where did he make it?" <<<
Do you think the person in charge of the paper and tape (Troy West)
never left his station near the workbench during the course of a
normal working day at the Book Depository?
Don't you think it's quite possible that Oswald waited until Mr. West
left his work area, and then LHO took that opportunity to grab some
paper and tape during West's absence (during a lunch break, for
example, which is probably when such a thing did occur)?
Troy West wasn't chained to his work station--was he? I doubt it.
David Von Pein
A "YOU TUBER" SAID:
>>> "Mr. Von Pein, I don't see how you can disagree with Mr. [S.M. "Skinny"] Holland's interview [with Mark Lane in Lane's 1967 film "Rush To Judgment"]. He is more than a credible witness. There is no doubt that Kennedy was shot in the head from behind that picket fence and the Warren Commission, The FBI, top military brass and the Dallas police covered it up." <<<
DVP SAID:
There is no possibility of JFK being hit in the head from the Grassy
Knoll. There was one and only one entry wound in JFK's head, and it
was in the BACK of his head without doubt....and it was a bevelled-in,
cratered entry hole for Oswald's bullet from the TSBD.
That entry wound is irrefutable physical evidence that Kennedy was hit
in the head from the rear...and no amount of arguing will change that
fact. Here's the wound:
The autopsy photograph linked above was declared by the HSCA to be
"unaltered" in any way.
So, conspiracy theorists who think President Kennedy was killed by a
shot from the front are forced to believe that all three autopsy
surgeons PLUS the Warren Commission PLUS the HSCA's Photographic Panel
PLUS the members of the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission
were ALL in on a cover-up to hide the truth about JFK's head wounds.
And that, frankly, is just silly.
Sorry, but Skinny Holland's observations don't come close to
discrediting the evidence I just mentioned above.
Regards,
DVP
David Von Pein
A "YOU TUBER" SAID:
>>> "Good try, but yes all those commissions and panels did continue to cover up a conspiracy. Your faith in the government is admirable, but you apparently have no grasp of what corruption the government is capable of. I find it hard to believe that people continue to support the Warren Report. Why? What difference does it make if Kennedy was shot at by more than one gunman, except that it is the truth and government and other authorities covered it up, which is a crime. Mr. [S.M.] Holland's, and all those other witnesses' testimonies which the commission refused to include in its report, are more than enough to disprove the Warren Commission Report. Along with the fact that the autopsy photo may not have been doctored, but Kennedy's corpse sure could have been. Why wasn't Kennedy's brain properly sectioned and why is it now missing? Why was the commission not even allowed access to Kennedy's autopsy photos and x-rays? You can't determine where wounds are without that evidence. If Kennedy's was shot directly in the middle of the back of the head, as that autopsy photo shows, and the bullet was fired 60 ft above him and to his right, it is impossible for the bullet to blow out the right side of his head (the "jet effect" is a bunch of crap) and leave his face completely intact. It is a complete lie. It is also impossible that Kennedy and Connally were hit with ce399 because of all the grains of metal in Connally's wrist and thigh are more than could be missing from that bullet. That is pure and simple logic; it is impossible for that bullet to have went through Kennedy and Connally, and that means there was at least one other gunman. Not to mention that Kennedy was shot in the upper right side of his back, 5 1/2 inches below the base of his neck. The whole case of a lone gunman from the sixth floor is absolutely absurd. The only way US history is going to be reclaimed is when the federal government acknowledges the deceit and apologizes for it. But anyway thanks for posting that Rush to Judgment video-very informative." <<<
DVP SAID:
You need to get out from under Mark Lane's horrid influence (and the
influence of the string of never-ending and unprovable conspiracy
myths).
The type of across-the-board "cover-up" you suggest is just plain
silly--and virtually impossible, to boot.
And while it's true that the Warren Commission didn't make full use of
the autopsy photographs and X-rays (although it is believed by some
people that Earl Warren himself did see the photos and that Arlen
Specter did see the back-wound photo), the HSCA and the Clark Panel
and the Rockefeller Commission DID make full use of those photos and X-
rays in later years during their subsequent investigations into JFK's
murder.
And ALL of those subsequent panels and committees came to the very
same conclusion after seeing those autopsy pictures and X-rays....and
that conclusion was IDENTICAL to the conclusion reached by the autopsy
physicians themselves in November 1963 and by the Warren Commission in
1964 -- to wit: President Kennedy was struck by just TWO bullets, both
of which entered his body from ABOVE AND BEHIND.
And the Single-Bullet Theory is positively true. Any alternate
scenario lacks all common sense and logic. Not to mention the fact
that all anti-SBT theories lack ALL bullets to support them as well:
www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
And your claim of "too many fragments" left in Connally is another
conspiracy-flavored myth that has no factual basis whatsoever (except
in the minds of conspiracy theorists).
Fact is, I can make an excellent case for there having been only TWO
tiny fragments being left inside John B. Connally's body when he died
in 1993. And the three small fragments removed from his body on
11/22/63 weighed less that one total grain. (CE399 is missing
approximately 2.2 to 2.4 grains of its total weight.)
In short, the conspiracy theorists who claim that there was too much
metal deposited in Governor Connally's body for CE399 to have been
inside him just do not know what they're talking about. Read Dr.
Charles Gregory's testimony (he was Connally's "wrist" doctor).
www.Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
Salutations,
David "Blogs For All JFK Occasions" Von Pein
David Von Pein
A PERSON NAMED MIKE SAID THIS TO ME AT "YOU TUBE":
Just wanted to thank you for your clearly selfless public service
effort
Hi there,
I really had to [instant message] you to say what a terrific thing you
have done by putting all the archived video footage into the puiblic
domain so that viewers can access information about JFK; both his
record in office and events surrounding his tragic death.
I mean, as a fan of JFK, and one who has read the Warren Commission
front to back, it angers me to still see the conspiracy theory whack
jobs trying to peddle the idea that Oswald did not act alone, or that
somehow the mob or government had a role. Your archive should be
mandatory viewing for all students taking history.
Indeed, for the longest time I refused to watch Stone's film JFK
becasue in my mind he wilfully misrepresented fact in order to make a
buck off of those too lazy to research the event for themselves, or
those deliberately ignorant off the facts. I eventually did watch it
with several friends in order to set them straight about the flaws in
Stone's so-called facts i.e., the positioning in the limo regarding
the seats, 2nd bullet trajectory, and of course the one about the
fatal shot comning from the grassy knoll in front of the limo.
My friends could not believe that the film had so blatantly
misrepresented the facts. One tried to say that perhaps it was the
Warren Commission that misrepresented fact, to which I replied the
limo is at the Smithsonian, go check the veracity of the seat
positioning and angles.
Still, I was pissed off that Stone had made a buck off me renting the
movie and have steadfastly refused to see anything he has done since.
I can only imagine what kind of crap he is peddling with "W".
I dont understand what motivates these people to outright lie and
misrepresent the facts surrounding JFK's death, or that people even
buy into such drivel. Then again, I remember hearing about a poll
conducted in the U.S. that found 15% still believe Elvis is alive, so
maybe there are some who can never accept reality, or simply look to
find something where nothing exists.
Anyway, keep up the good work, [because] this is one fan who
appreciates your effort and that of Posner (Case Closed).
Mike
aeffects
> A PERSON NAMED MIKE SAID THIS TO ME AT "YOU TUBE":
>
> Just wanted to thank you for your clearly selfless public service
> effort
>
<snip the rest of the nutter-troll lies. As we KNOW these notes of
endearment don't exist>
Man are you fucked up, can't follow the simplest of instructions, as
in: no false advertising shithead, fopr YOU NO advertising at all!
David Von Pein
AT IMDB.COM, NICK KENDRICK SAID:
Another Awesome Clip From David Von Pein. .... A Boston Symphony
Orchestra audience reacts to the news of President Kennedy's death.
Makes the hairs on your neck stand on end. Thanks again, David! ....
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=0kUc7Eg9PwA
=========================================
"ROARK-12" SAID:
That's the great Erich Leinsdorf giving his audience the tragic news.
He was a fascinating musical marvel. I wish I'd heard him conduct at
the Met or the City Opera here in NYC. Alas, he died some twenty five
years ago. Here is an interesting interview with him: www.bruceduffie.com/leinsdorf.html
And I've heard that sad clip before. Some years ago I came across a
book and CD called "The President Has Been Shot" [sic; the actual
title is "President Kennedy Has Been Shot", but why quibble?], and it
includes many fascinating and tragic fly-on-the-wall moments like this
one. I'm sure old DVP has them all on his web page.
The most difficult for me to listen to was the phone call from
Ladybird Johnson to Kennedy's mother on November 22, 1963. There is
also a recorded phone dispatch from a reporter on the scene who breaks
down in tears as he gives his on-the-scene report of the president's
death.
Once again, good work, Hoosier!
=========================================
DVP SAID:
That Book/CD combo is very good indeed. It doesn't delve into every
nook and cranny concerning "conspiracy" (which probably means that
it's worthless as far as some CTers are concerned), but it does
perform a good "minute-by-minute" type of chronicle of the events of
November '63.
Some people here might also be interested in hearing some of the radio
transmissions from Air Force One and the Boeing 707 jet that was
carrying JFK's cabinet members to Japan when they got word of the
shooting:
BOSTON SYMPHONY ADDENDUM....
Maybe somebody here can answer this nagging question that I have
concerning the Leinsdorf/Boston Symphony announcement from 11/22/63:
I have never been able to confirm just exactly WHERE the Boston
Symphony was located when Leinsdorf made his announcement to the
crowd.
I have always thought the Symphony was probably in England (London?)
when the dramatic announcement was made, but I'm not sure.
Surely, though, the Symphony wasn't in the USA at the time, were they?
If so, it seems to me to be a strange time for the Boston Symphony to
be giving a concert--on a Friday MORNING or early afternoon?? That
never happens...does it?
=========================================
"ROARK-12" SAID:
I've wondered about that as well. Let's see...the president was killed
at 6:30pm London time. Allowing for some time to pass for the story to
spread, and assuming the audience, musicians and conductor had been
readying for the concert for an hour or so and were therefore out of
the loop, it seems plausible that Leinsdorf's announcement could have
occurred shortly after an 8pm curtain.
The only odd thing about this is that it is unusual for a symphony
orchestra to be on tour shortly after the start of the season. An
overseas tour would be quite unusual to say the least. Then there is
the emotional response of the audience. Would an audience of Londoners
react that way?
However, in Boston it was 1:30 in the afternoon when JFK was shot.
Again, allowing for an hour or so, it must have been an afternoon
concert if it was in Boston. That's odd too, for a Friday.
But if you consult your 'Bug' [Vincent Bugliosi's book], (surely sir,
you have not failed to do this) you will see that he quotes a New York
Times reporter describing this as taking place in Boston. So it seems
that is the most likely answer despite the odd time.
=========================================
DVP SAID:
Thanks, roark.
Yes, Mr. Bugliosi does indeed say in his book that the Symphony was in
Boston on 11/22/63:
"In Boston...the Boston Symphony broke off a Handel concert to
play a funeral march by Beethoven." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 98 of
"Reclaiming History"
VB's Source Note -- "[Relman] Morin, 'Assassination', pp.78–79."
So, I guess it was an early-afternoon concert in Boston,
Massachusetts, on November 22, 1963. Seems mighty odd to me. But, oh
well.
I should have, indeed, checked my "RH" volume earlier concerning this
matter. Incredibly, I failed to do so on this "Symphony" occasion,
which was stupid on my part, since I almost always go straight to "RH"
first when I'm in doubt about something.
I should be shot in the upper back with CE139 for such a hideous and
egregious blunder!
:)
Footnote ---
If anyone would like to download the 11/22/63 Boston Symphony audio
clip, I have a place online where you can do that....right here:
www.Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg
=========================================
David Von Pein
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8291688.stm
Via the above-linked article, I find it quite funny to note that it's
now the "LNers" and NON-conspiracists of the world who are being
referred to as the "skeptics" (or "sceptics" in the UK).
It should be the other way around. But it just shows how topsy-turvy
the world can be. People who aren't silly enough to swallow a bunch of
ridiculous and unfounded conspiracy myths are now considered the
"skeptics" (per that U.K. article), instead of the conspiracy kooks
being the skeptics.
Kinda makes you wonder if day is now night. I'll look out the window
and check.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e4ef04f5440d707/74a335c80e2fee54?#74a335c80e2fee54
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/jfk_car.jpg
>>> "Notice a few interesting things in that [Jay Skaggs] photo [linked above]. It was taken as the limo was just going up Houston. You can see that the motorcycle escort is right next to the President. You can see that the President is leaning to his left, perhaps trying to hear Nellie say, "You can't say that Dallas doesn't love you." You can see that his jacket is not bunched up." <<<
But Kennedy's jacket certainly IS bunched-up a few seconds later on
Elm Street...via the Croft photo:
>>> "And so from that ONE photo [the Croft photo, which was taken at the equivalent of approx. Zapruder Film frame #161, or about three seconds before JFK was hit in the upper back with a bullet] you conclude that it [JFK's jacket] was ALWAYS bunched up?" <<<
Huh??? Are you for real, Anthony??!
Who the hell cares if the coat was bunched-up at any other time OTHER
than right around the time when Oswald's bullet (CE399) crashed into
his upper back? That's the only time that matters.
>>> "The only thing that matters is HOW bunched up it was at the exact moment he was hit." <<<
Yes, exactly. And what better photographic evidence is there to
demonstrate the "bunched-up" status of JFK's jacket AT THE APPROXIMATE
TIME HE WAS HIT BY A BULLET than the Robert Croft photo below?
Or does Tony Marsh now want to argue that the Croft photo isn't nearly
close enough to the actual time when JFK was struck by a bullet to
determine whether the jacket was still bunched-up when Kennedy was hit
by Oswald's SBT bullet (which was a mere 3.44 seconds after Croft took
the above picture? (Tony's continual balking about the accuracy of the
"SBT" notwithstanding, of course.)
Anthony "I'LL ARGUE WITH PEOPLE EVEN WHEN I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
THEM" Marsh is a real hoot. (And a howl, too.)
aeffects
troll -- for ALL to see: NO advertising shithead......
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Oct 7, 1:03=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>troll -- for ALL to see: NO advertising shithead......
Shame on me, for not allowing me to 'advertise', so the me that has me killfiled
would be forced to read it...
(Robsie will no doubt save this as proof that I'm more people...)
The truth is, life is really great when I can bypass the trolls. Just not
enough hours in the day, it seems...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
aeffects
> In article <a9c0c516-715d-4d64-b5ed-be10f7d84...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 7, 1:03=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >troll -- for ALL to see: NO advertising shithead......
>
> Shame on me, for not allowing me to 'advertise', so the me that has me killfiled
> would be forced to read it...
>
> (Robsie will no doubt save this as proof that I'm more people...)
>
> The truth is, life is really great when I can bypass the trolls. Just not
> enough hours in the day, it seems...
they've become a habit, but be forewarned, I'm you, when not you I'm
Dave Reitzes-pieces aka David Von Pein, adhoc leader of the *croaking
toad*, well okay, the *barking toads*
Oh, when I'm not one of the above I'm Gil 'Walter' Tomlin and
everyother day I'm Ben Holmes.... don't ya just love confusing
robcaprio aka Robert...?
aeffects
advertising shithead....... uh-uhhhh!
aeffects
bump
David Von Pein
Mr. Retard thought this thread needed a "bump" after a whopping one-
minute interval between posts.
Healy belongs in the Smithsonian. They don't have a "Retard" exhibit
as yet, do they? Healy should be their first.
aeffects
reel the nutter-troll in..... ROTFLMFAO! Ya know what your problem is
shithead? You try to sell the LHO/SBT gig too hard!
Frankly, I could care less if LHO was involved in the assassination
(and I don't think YOU give a shit either) Nutter-trolls need LHO much
more than CT's do. You're simply no selling the LHO gig, David. Here
you are, after an alltime, utter publishing disaster (Reclaiming
History), you in charge of the internet book selling side of things,
could barely sell a few hundred books.... you simply can't sell the
LHO assassination angle. Hell, you can't even get surfers to your
million$ streaming website, many blogs, twitter, etal..... What the
hell is going on with the lone nut-troll plan?
What you have to do troll, is this: reconcile, clearup, put to bed
rumors, etc., of high level cover-up concerning this assassination[s].
Come to grips with Single Bullet Theory (SBT) nonsense-fabrication.
Move on to, and understand, the free-fall the USofA has gone through
(economic, leadership and spiritual not necessarily in that order) and
continuing that downward spiral SINCE JFK's assassination....
You're so *plastic* David!
AND, this boards and your favorite faux word merchant thinks I'm you
son. He's running around this place thinking I'm Dave Reitzes-
pieces.... imagine that! What are you serving the troll minions these
day's? Wendy's? This shades of Todd Vaughans resurrection, again?
So long as YOU understand the two points included in this post -- feel
free to continue on your way...
btw, Obama is doing a masterful job keeping homespun racists at bay
(for the time being anyway) he's neutralized them, much the same way
JFK neutralized the Laos mess (you remember that? or were you still
suckling?)
David Von Pein
>>> "All it takes is a second for the jacket to bunch or unbunch. Not minutes. Not hours." <<<
JFK's jacket is significantly "bunched" in the George Jefferies film
(discovered in February 2007)....and JFK's jacket is certainly bunched-
up in the Croft picture (which was taken about 90 seconds after the
Jefferies Film, with the Croft pic being taken 3 seconds before JFK
was hit with Oswald's SBT bullet).
Tony Marsh wants to believe that even though the above 2 things are
true about the "bunching", Kennedy's coat suddenly became UN-bunched
in the 3 seconds between the time Robert Croft snapped his picture and
the time JFK was hit in the upper back with a bullet.
Amazing.
And amazingly silly.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18a9c84d24881529
Pat Speer's whole argument about how the FBI was lying and covering up
stuff and that Hoover was up to no good (which is obviously the BIGGER
point that Speer is trying to make via his 4/13/09 article at Mary
Ferrell's site, vs. the lesser point of attempting to prove that
author Vincent Bugliosi is a big fat liar too) is an argument that
explodes in Mr. Speer's face after taking one quick look at what J.
Edgar Hoover told Jesse Curry 11/23/63:
"The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10 [the bag found in the
Sniper's Nest], were found to have the same observable physical
characteristics as the known wrapping paper and tape, K2 [the sample
taken from the Depository on 11/22/63], from the Texas Public School
Book Depository." -- Via a 11/23/63 letter from J. Edgar Hoover to
Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry
Source:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-004.gif
And here's page #1 of that document (which shows the date: "November
23, 1963"):
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-001.gif
So, unless conspiracy theorists like Pat Speer now want to believe
that Mr. Hoover's 11/23/63 letter to Curry is a lie or a fake of some
kind, then we have the proof in writing--SIX DAYS PRIOR TO VINCENT
DRAIN'S NOVEMBER 29TH REPORT--that the 11/22/63 paper sample taken
from the Book Depository had the "same observable physical
characteristics" as the paper bag found on the sixth floor (CE142).
Therefore, Patrick J. Speer has absolutely nowhere to run when he
suggests that the FBI was changing stuff around on November 29 to make
Oswald look guiltier....because Hoover's letter to Curry was written
almost a week prior to EITHER of the Vincent Drain documents.
===================================================
DOWN THE "DRAIN" (ALL 4 PARTS):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fabc4a8e3183d717
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c481188f151a81f1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f7bd35dd260dd82
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51a876603ebf7462
===================================================
aeffects
no advertising shithead.....
David Von Pein
aeffects
<snip the nutter-troll lunacy>
no advertising shithead.....
silly guy....
David Von Pein
www.JusticeForKennedy.blogspot.com/2009/10/tip-of-hat.html
"Kudos to Jim DiEugenio for "debating" John McAdams on the JFK
assassination on Black Op Radio. I put debate in quotes as McAdams is
just way too silly. He arrogantly talks down to us, and with a lisp
yet! Jim's knowledge of the case was superb, and I salute how he
handled himself, he kept his cool, knew his facts, and didn't get
angry. Well done, Jim!" -- JFK Conspiracy Theorist Joseph Backes;
October 10, 2009
==================
Of course, as usual, a conspiracy theorist has everything backwards
and upside-down. Fact is, James DiEugenio lost his "cool" on a couple
of occasions during the 4-hour Black Op Radio debate, and on one
occasion in particular during Part 2 of the debate on October 8, 2009,
when DiEugenio claimed that Professor John McAdams didn't have his
facts straight. Jim was practically shouting during that particular
segment.
Mr. McAdams, on the other hand, kept his "cool" throughout the entire
four hours, never once even raising his voice in response to
DiEugenio's avalanche of conspiracy-flavored nonsense.
I doubt that I could have remained as cool and composed as Mr. McAdams
if it were I who had been confronted with DiEugenio's non-stop parade
of conjecture and speculation about how Jim believes that virtually
every piece of evidence in the whole JFK case had been faked or
mishandled or "covered up" to hide the truth, etc.
I salute Mr. McAdams and his iron composure while debating someone who
is actually silly enough to believe that all of the following things
are true:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot J.D. Tippit.
3.) The backyard photographs showing Oswald holding Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle #C2766 are not genuine photos (i.e., those pictures are
"fakes").
4.) FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was part of a massive cover-up after
JFK's assassination.*
* = DiEugenio, incredibly, doesn't seem to realize that Hoover would
probably be one of the VERY LAST PEOPLE on the planet in November 1963
who would want to be involved in a cover-up in order to frame Lee
Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President Kennedy.
Hoover knew his Federal Bureau of Investigation would take a severe
public beating when it was discovered that the FBI had been keeping
tabs on Oswald weeks prior to the assassination.
So why on this Earth would Hoover then want to engage in a cover-up to
try and make an INNOCENT Oswald look guilty?! If anything, Hoover
would have been doing just the opposite in 1963 -- he would have been
bending over backwards trying to prove that Oswald was completely
innocent.
Or does DiEugenio think that Hoover WANTED to give his precious Bureau
a permanent black eye by having people say what many people have been
saying since 1963? -- I.E., "Hoover's FBI is to blame for JFK's death
because they knew Oswald was in Dallas and they should have been
watching him more closely".
It's just crazy to think that J. Edgar Hoover--OF ALL PEOPLE!--would
be wanting to frame or railroad Oswald for JFK's assassination. That's
nutty talk.
And because what I just said about J. Edgar Hoover is so obviously
(and logically) true, it makes Part 7 of DiEugenio's review of Vincent
Bugliosi's book a total waste of time and effort:
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_7_review.html
I could add about 36 more items of silliness to my above list of
really stupid things that DiEugenio believes, but any reasonable
person undoubtedly gets my point after just revealing the above four
items of outright idiocy.
To repeat, my August 2009 prediction about the McAdams/DiEugenio
debate turned out to be 100% accurate. Maybe I'm related to Kreskin:
"Every CTer is going to declare DiEugenio the "winner" of the
debate by a mile, while all the LNers (including myself, guaranteed)
will declare McAdams the victor. No doubt about that. In fact, I've
already declared Prof. McAdams the winner (just as Jim DiEugenio
predicted I would do on the 8/20/09 Black Op show).
"And the reason I can be so sure of that foregone conclusion is
quite simple -- it's because I already know the stuff that McAdams
will be saying when countering all of DiEugenio's pro-CT bullshit.
It's all been said thousands of times by many LNers in the past.
"McAdams will talk in a common-sense manner, and he will cite
the actual, factual evidence of Lee Oswald's sole guilt in the JFK and
Tippit murders, [while] DiEugenio will claim that none of the factual
evidence against Lee Oswald can be trusted. It's all either "fake",
"fraudulent", "manufactured", "mysterious", "questionable", or
"tainted" in some manner. EVERY single rock-solid piece of evidence
against Oswald will be declared null & void by DiEugenio. Wait and
see. ....
"Final Results -- Since McAdams has ALL of the hard evidence
(and DiEugenio has absolutely none)....John McAdams will win the
debate. That is a foregone conclusion (unless the unthinkable happens,
and Prof. McAdams decides to switch over to the CT side before
debating Jimmy D.; and I doubt that's going to happen)." -- DVP;
August 21, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d89c3f37af584baf
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
=====================================
THE McADAMS/DiEUGENIO DEBATE (TOP 4 LINKS):
www.Box.net//static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
=====================================
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0d80dc6c175371ae
PAT SPEER WROTE:
>>> "In my essay on the Drain documents, I state quite clearly that ALL the other documents suggest the paper sample matched the bag. I also deliberately avoid any conjecture on which version of Drain's report was accurate." <<<
DVP THEN WROTE:
Then your whole 4/13/09 essay is pretty much worthless and useless and
meaningless.
In other words -- It's a great-big "SO WHAT?" situation.
But it's just like conspiracy theorists to want to elevate a "SO
WHAT?" situation to heights it obviously doesn't deserve to be
elevated to. It's a daily practice amongst CTers. Pat Speer included.
David Von Pein
LNer DAVID EMERLING SAID:
>>> "I'm wondering if doctors Humes, Boswell, and Finck [are] on DiEugenio's list of cover-up artists or, worse yet, co-conspirators." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Oh, there's no doubt that Jim DiEugenio thinks that all three of
President Kennedy's autopsy doctors were liars and "cover-up" artists.
How can we know that DiEugenio thinks this is true?
Well, for one (big) thing -- Mr. DiEugenio completely disagrees with
virtually EVERYTHING that Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck wrote in the
autopsy report that EACH one of those men signed on 11/24/63.
And DiEugenio, on earlier Black Op Radio shows, has also said that he
believes that Dr. Humes lied to the Warren Commission and to the HSCA
and to the ARRB with respect to the burning of Humes' original autopsy
notes and first draft of the autopsy report.
DiEugenio, incredibly, thinks that instead of Humes burning the
materials in his home fireplace (which is, of course, where it
occurred and where Humes always maintained the burning of those
autopsy materials occurred), Humes really didn't burn them at all (per
Jim D.)!
DiEugenio thinks that the notes were burned in Admiral Calvin
Galloway's office at Bethesda. And evidently Dr. Humes (apparently at
Galloway's request) then decided to tell the lie about burning the
autopsy papers in his own home. So, Admiral Galloway is also on
DiEugenio's list of "cover-up" agents and "liars" too, with Humes
continuing the lie and cover-up for decades on end (per the loony
theories of Mr. James DiEugenio).
And, of course, DiEugenio also must believe that Humes, Boswell, and
Finck were ALL a major part of a "cover-up", because each one of those
doctors (per DiEugenio) lied his ass off MULTIPLE TIMES to the various
Government entities questioning them about the autopsy and the
location of JFK's wounds.
Not to mention Dr. Finck's testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969,
which is additional testimony regarding Kennedy's wounds that
DiEugenio has no choice but to disregard entirely. Hence, DiEugenio
must think that Finck lied yet again at the Shaw trial when Finck said
this:
DR. FINCK -- "I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the
back of the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head
producing a very large wound."
QUESTION -- "Doctor, did you find any evidence which would indicate
that the President was hit by more than one shot in the head?"
DR. FINCK -- "No."
======================
In addition, in recent weeks and months, DiEugenio has added several
more people to his ever-growing list of "suspicious" characters
connected in some way with the events of November 22, 1963. Jim has
decided that all four of the following individuals are liars and/or
conspirators:
Buell Wesley Frazier
Linnie Mae Randle
Marrion L. Baker
Roy S. Truly
There seems to be no limit as to the number of people that DiEugenio
believes were involved in the "framing" of Lee Harvey Oswald and/or
the "covering up" of the true facts after the assassination.
And these people who are deemed "suspicious" in Jim's eyes are people
from all walks of life, with many of these "suspicious" characters
being ordinary citizens who have no ties to law enforcement or the
official investigations into JFK's murder whatsoever -- such as
ordinary housewives like Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle. (And, yes,
DiEugenio definitely thinks that Mrs. Paine is an evil, rotten liar
who wanted to falsely paint sweet Lee Harvey as a Communist and as the
murderer of the President.)
And 19-year-old TSBD stock boy Wesley Frazier is now apparently a big
part of DiEugenio's conspiracy-based fantasy too, because Jim D.
doesn't think that Lee Oswald carried ANY kind of a large paper bag
into the Book Depository on the morning of 11/22/63.
Can you believe it, folks?! According to DiEugenio, Oswald carried NO
LARGE BAG AT ALL into work on November 22nd!
The above nonsensical belief is enough (all by itself) to severely
reduce Mr. DiEugenio's credibility regarding his research into the JFK
assassination.
Lots more about James "Thread Dangler Extraordinaire" DiEugenio:
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com