JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 212)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 212):

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


RUTH PAINE, LEE OSWALD, AND MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8652.msg251901.html#msg251901
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8652.msg252042.html#msg252042
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8652.msg252066.html#msg252066


JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8664.msg252149.html#msg252149
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8664.msg252152.html#msg252152
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8664.msg252178.html#msg252178
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8664.msg252282.html#msg252282
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8664.msg252283.html#msg252283


MARRION L. BAKER:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292#entry275791
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292#entry275806


BAD LUCK FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292#entry275824
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292#entry275826


JACK DOUGHERTY:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292&page=2#entry275865
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292&page=3#entry275903
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20292&page=4#entry275913


JUDYTH VARY BAKER:
http://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/DovRdEmHa_c/QRl3d_YnqCMJ
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/judyth-vary-baker-part-2.html


SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE "AUTHORITIES"?:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8669.msg252409.html#msg252409


JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD MOVEMENT AT Z313:
http://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/MxxrTaZ6V38/XZGiKSQroQcJ


J.D. TIPPIT:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20291#entry275838


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

[aeffects]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 10:49:26 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
...

damn fool Von Pein has someone else posting for him these day's... What a troll!

[David Von Pein]

VIA E-MAIL, SCOTT KAISER SAID:

The bullet shells found at the [Tippit murder] scene came from a .38 special, Oswald's gun was a .38. Two very different bullets, two very different guns, although, looking at the two guns one could confuse the other very easily.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Get up to speed, Scott. Oswald's .38 had been re-chambered to handle .38 Special bullets. And all 4 shells found at the Tippit scene were proven to have been fired in OSWALD'S gun. No other gun in the world could have extracted those shells.

In short -- Oswald killed Tippit as surely as the sun rising in the east and as surely as Robert Groden peddling his wares on the Knoll every weekend.

But there is one thing I haven't figured out -- Why on Earth am I getting dozens of e-mails a month from you (Scott Kaiser)? I certainly never "signed up" for any of your crackpot e-mail messages about alleged "conspiracy" in the JFK case. It's okay to remove my e-mail from your list, because I never read any of them anyway (except today's--since my name is in the Subject line).


SCOTT KAISER SAID:

Aw David, I bet you say that to all the truth seekers, and of course Oswald went out after purchasing his gun just to have the barrel of his gun boarded out [sic] to fire .38 special bullets. How stupid of me to forget.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about. You don't even know the basic evidence in this case. That's quite obvious. Oswald didn't have his revolver rechambered after he purchased it. The company that sold the gun to Oswald (Seaport Traders in Los Angeles) did the rechambering (and they shortened the barrel too) before it was ever shipped to Oswald/"Hidell" in March of 1963:

"Seaport had arranged for the gunsmith, L.M. Johnson, to shorten the barrel from five inches to two and a quarter inches, considerably reducing its accuracy—the company had a demand for the shorter weapons, presumably from those who wanted to conceal them on their persons. The muzzle had been recrowned, the front sight reset, and the cylinder rechambered to take the more popular .38 Special cartridges (as opposed to .38 Smith & Wesson cartridges), although the barrel had not been changed. Since the .38 Special cartridge was of slightly smaller diameter, the bullet wobbled slightly in the barrel, which further reduced the weapon's accuracy." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 669 of "Reclaiming History"

But the "rechambering" aspect of Lee Oswald's .38 Smith & Wesson revolver is a completely irrelevant and moot point anyway. Because regardless of WHEN the gun was rechambered (and regardless of WHO did the rechambering), the four bullet shells that were recovered on Tenth Street on 11/22/63 positively and irrevocably came out of Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver.

No conspiracy theorist on Earth can win this debate regarding those bullet shells. They came out of Oswald's gun--and Oswald was the person who manually extracted them onto the ground at Tenth & Patton on November 22nd. Try as you might, but you can never change those stubborn facts. Your precious "patsy" was the man who murdered J.D. Tippit.


SCOTT KAISER SAID:

And, David...I of course want you to have the correct information on your website so you can help educate students whenever they are seeking the truth about Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is why I always make sure to steer clear of anything written by some conspiracy kook named Scott Kaiser. Since none of your crap is on my websites, the information on my sites is bound to be much more accurate right from the get-go.

[aeffects]

On Monday, July 22, 2013 7:35:44 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> VIA E-MAIL, SCOTT KAISER SAID:
>
> The bullet shells found at the [Tippit murder] scene came from a .38 special, Oswald's gun was a .38. Two very different bullets, two very different guns, although, looking at the two guns one could confuse the other very easily.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Von Pein said a bunch of lone nut nonsense, of course.... so here friends and neighbors is what has Von Pein's undies all tied up in a bunch (a new book, by an actual writer-historian:

Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit
Joseph McBride (Author)
Release date: June 15, 2013

"AMERICA'S NEED TO WALK INTO THE NIGHTMARE . . ."

. . . was how Norman Mailer predicted the tumultuous period that led to President John F. Kennedy's 1963 murder on a public street and the fifty years of controversy that have followed that turning point in our nation's history. Journalist and historian Joseph McBride, a volunteer in JFK's 1960 Wisconsin presidential primary campaign, began studying the assassination minutes after it happened. In 1982, McBride launched his own investigation. Both epic and intimately personal, Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit incorporates rare interviews with key people in Dallas, archival discoveries, and what novelist Thomas Flanagan, in The New York Review of Books, called McBride's "wide knowledge of American social history." McBride chronicles his evolving skepticism about the official story and shines a fresh, often surprising spotlight on Kennedy's murder and on one of the murkiest, most crucial aspects of the case, its "Rosetta Stone," the Tippit killing.

Joseph McBride has been a journalist since 1960, writing for such publications as Life, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times Book Review, The Los Angeles Times Magazine, and, on this subject, The Nation. An internationally renowned film biographer and historian, he has written acclaimed biographies of John Ford, Frank Capra, and Steven Spielberg. McBride lives in Berkeley and is a professor at San Francisco State University.

Into the Nightmare can be purchased at AMAZON.COM (see below)

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Nightmare-Killers-President-Kennedy/dp/1939795257/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374552630&sr=1-1&keywords=into+the+nightmare

[David Von Pein]

My undies aren't tied in a bunch at all. McBride is just another in a long line of conspiracy authors who simply refuse to believe the evidence that's been staring him in the face regarding Oswald's guilt in the JFK & Tippit murders.

I talked with McBride at the Education Forum this month, and I could immediately see that he's a member of the silly "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity when he said this:

"I believe another policeman or perhaps two policemen and probably a civilian as well were involved in the shooting of Tippit. I go into great detail on all this in the book and offer a wealth of evidence. I identify possible suspects in both shootings and exonerate others, including Oswald." -- Joseph McBride; 7/18/13

My response is here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20291#entry275838

[aeffects]

On Monday, July 22, 2013 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> My undies aren't tied in a bunch at all. McBride is just another in a long line of conspiracy authors who simply refuse to believe the evidence that's been staring him in the face regarding Oswald's guilt in the JFK & Tippit murders.

of course your undies are not only in a bunch, but have lost their elasticity, you're a mess son. Not to mention, you're way out of you league when it comes to Hollywood and thee greats, period.

>
>
> I talked with McBride at the Education Forum this month, and I could immediately see that he's a member of the silly "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity when he said this:
>
>
>
> "I believe another policeman or perhaps two policemen and probably a civilian as well were involved in the shooting of Tippit. I go into great detail on all this in the book and offer a wealth of evidence. I identify possible suspects in both shootings and exonerate others, including Oswald." -- Joseph McBride; 7/18/13
>

and....? "...he's a member of the silly "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity..." THAT, is the best you can do? 'tis no wonder your media commentary extends no further than the I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver level....

Perhaps you should resurrect your Dale *squeaky* wanna see my Emmy Myers
personna when it comes to the Tippit murder. Your foolishness has insured LHO gets a pass GO card...

Are you sure you're not a flaming CT in disguise? Working for the Oswald family, perhaps? You've set up the Warren Commission Report supporting cast of moron's perfectly. For that, those of us demanding justice in the murder of JFK thank you.

>
> My response is here:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20291#entry275838

lmao.... dude, don't be silly, you're responses to experts are worthless, you've absolutely no credibility, simple as that. And, you're overwhelmed when confronted with those that work media, television and/or film... but, you're sniffing around the edges, finally! That's a good sign for WCR pawns.

[David Von Pein]

I don't need to do anything more than "sniff around the edges" when it comes to Hollywood, television, and the film industry as they relate to the JFK assassination -- because none of those things have anything whatsoever to do with Lee Harvey Oswald or the way John F. Kennedy met his demise in Dallas fifty years ago.

Or would the Crackpipe named Healy like to start up a brand-new theory about how "Hollywood, TV, and Film Moguls Murdered President Kennedy"?

If not, then your last point above is a silly and moot one (which is the norm for D.G. Healy, of course).

[aeffects]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:23:56 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> I don't need to do anything more than "sniff around the edges" when it comes to Hollywood, television, and the film industry as they relate to the JFK assassination -- because none of those things have anything whatsoever to do with Lee Harvey Oswald or the way John F. Kennedy met his demise in Dallas fifty years ago.

prove it, chicken-little...

>
>
> Or would the Crackpipe named Healy like to start up a brand-new theory about how "Hollywood, TV, and Film Moguls Murdered President Kennedy"?

I do believe the Indiana's finest cholesterol king is running for the hills, ya look wonderful in yellow.

>
>
> If not, then your last point above is a silly and moot one (which is the norm for D.G. Healy, of course).

dude, you forget your internet/usenet/forum entree here? Selling DVD's of old-time television, fawning over anyone that would give you an autograph. Vin I'm from Hollyweird Bugliosi your matinee idol who rubs shoulders with all those folks in Hollywood?

Or was DVD-CD sales a cover story? You can tell us, we won't tell anyone.... you need some credibility son, get honest that's a good start!

[David Von Pein]

http://Amazon.com/Kennedy-erratic-drifter-Harvey-Oswald-/forum/Fx1PW7HP0SZ0SAA/Tx3BQKN094W8XC2/84/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0805096663&cdMsgID=Mx1IPSYW66I654V&cdMsgNo=2096&cdSort=oldest#Mx1IPSYW66I654V


MARK ULRIK SAID:

Unfortunately for Ben, Couch also makes it clear that the person who saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza was Wes Wise.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excellent post, Mark U., on the Wise/Couch/Ruby matter. I'm coming in late on this topic about Couch & Wise, and I'm not entirely sure what Mark Lane wrote in his book about this matter, but from the posts in this thread, it would seem as if Lane was trying to utilize Mal Couch's WC testimony to leave the readers of his pro-conspiracy book with the distinct impression that Jack Ruby had, indeed, been seen by someone in Dealey Plaza just "moments" after JFK was murdered.

But Mark Lane is most certainly not telling his readers the whole (truthful) story, because as Mark Ulrik quoted from Couch's WC session, Mr. Couch positively says who it was who supposedly saw Ruby coming out of the Depository on 11/22 -- it was Wes Wise.

And since we know for a fact that Wes Wise was NOT in Dealey Plaza when the President was shot (Wise was reporting from the Trade Mart for KRLD), and since we also know that Wise only saw Ruby in Dealey Plaza ONE TIME that weekend in Nov. '63 -- and it was on SATURDAY, not FRIDAY -- then it becomes fairly obvious that Mark Lane is doing what he has done many other times in his book and during his college lectures and interviews --- he is deliberately NOT telling people the WHOLE STORY in a desperate and determined effort to get people to believe that something "fishy" occurred, when, in fact, the only thing "fishy" and underhanded is the way Mark Lane tries to deceive the public on many matters concerning the assassination of JFK.

BTW, there is audio proof that Wes Wise was located at the Dallas Trade Mart just after the assassination on Friday. You can hear Wise reporting live from the Trade Mart for KRLD-Radio here:

http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com/2012/03/krld-radio.html

Would some CTer like to suggest that I have "faked" the above audio recordings of Wise's voice? Mark Lane might like to think so.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Couch also makes it clear what day this was.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure. But the person from whom Couch got that information was obviously WRONG about the day. Wise didn't talk to Ruby in Dealey Plaza "moments" after the assassination. Wise talked to Ruby on Saturday. And Mark Lane surely HAD to have known that fact.

So it's a complete non-issue that Lane evidently wants to pretend isn't solved. He wants his book readers to think that Ruby was, in fact, in DP on 11/22 talking to Wes Wise. But Wes Wise was at the Trade Mart speaking into a microphone for radio station KRLD.

So, as stated previously, Lane is deliberately misleading his readers. (Par for the Lane course, of course.)

Now, if I have misrepresented what Mark Lane said in his book, "Rush To Judgment", I'll gladly retract my last two posts and say I was wrong. But, generally speaking, I have no qualms at all in placing more faith (and truth-telling) in any post written by an "LNer" than I do in anything uttered by a "CTer" any day of the week. Because it goes pretty much without saying that most conspiracists are dead wrong way way more often than any LNer regarding the JFK case. Just think "Jim DiEugenio, Ralph Cinque, Bob Groden, Ben Holmes". That pack of CTers rarely gets anything right.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Game, Set, and Match. Sorry you lost...try again later.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Come now, Benji. Be a nice little conspiracy kook and respond to my WHOLE argument. Here's the part you conveniently chopped off:

"But the person from whom Couch got that information was obviously WRONG about the day. Wise didn't talk to Ruby in Dealey Plaza "moments" after the assassination. Wise talked to Ruby on Saturday. And Mark Lane surely HAD to have known that fact. So it's a complete non-issue that Lane evidently wants to pretend isn't solved. He wants his book readers to think that Ruby was, in fact, in DP on 11/22 talking to Wes Wise. But Wes Wise was at the Trade Mart speaking into a microphone for radio station KRLD. So, as stated previously, Lane is deliberately misleading his readers. (Par for the Lane course, of course.)" -- DVP; 7/23/13


BEN HOLMES SAID:

And, by the way, you *ARE* lying about Mark Lane "deliberately misleading his readers".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~sigh~

Once more we're treated to Holmes springing to his keyboard to call someone a liar.

I didn't lie at all in this matter, Ben. I just now looked up the relevant portion of text in Lane's book "Rush To Judgment" (it's on page 263; see it for yourself right here---> http://box.com/shared/xcma8pezma) and, just as I expected, Mr. Lane is NOT telling his readers the ENTIRE STORY regarding the key question relating to Wes Wise, Jack Ruby, and Mal Couch -- with that key question being:

Did Wes Wise see Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza shortly after JFK was shot on 11/22/63?

If Mark Lane had any real interest in telling his RTJ readers the COMPLETE story regarding Wes Wise and Jack Ruby, Lane would have certainly offered up the information supplied by Mr. Wise in CE3039 (at 26 H 582-585), which is a Commission Exhibit mentioned by Mark Ulrik previously in this Amazon thread (thanks, Mark, for citing it too).

In that December 1, 1963, FBI interview that we find in CE3039 (and Mark Lane could certainly have found it too, because it's not hidden; it's right there in Volume 26 of the WC set of published volumes), we find some very important information, with the FBI report going into considerable detail concerning Wes Wise's encounter with Ruby near the Depository on Saturday, November 23rd. The report even says how Wise saw Ruby approaching his car "from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository along Houston Street on the east side of the building", which perfectly matches the testimony of Mal Couch. Couch said he had heard that Wise had seen Ruby "coming around the side of the building, coming around the east side going south".

CE3039:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0309b.htm

Therefore, in the WC volumes themselves, Mark Lane has the key to answering the question of whether or not Wes Wise actually observed Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza right after the assassination on Friday. And the undeniable answer to that question is: No, he did not. And can any sensible person really believe that CE3039 is talking about a SECOND Wise/Ruby encounter, with one encounter taking place "moments after the shooting" on Friday and the second one occurring on Saturday--with Wise (both times) seeing Ruby approaching him along Houston Street on the east side of the TSBD? Come now.

Plus, Lane could have also utilized Wes Wise's testimony at Jack Ruby's trial (also mentioned by Mark Ulrik in his earlier post concerning this matter; another tip of the hat to Mark for finding all kinds of references to the Wise/Ruby meeting on 11/23/63, any one of which could also have been used by Mark Lane in his 1966 book, but evidently they weren't). Wise's Ruby Trial testimony was published by the Warren Commission in Volume 25 (as CE2413), beginning on page 498 (linked below):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0264b.htm

Now, you can argue that Mr. Lane was just not very thorough when it came to this Wise/Couch/Ruby matter, and perhaps Lane never looked at CE3039 or CE2413. But I doubt that type argument will garner very much support, knowing (as most of us do) the way Mr. Lane scoured all 26 WC volumes between 1964 and the time when his book was published in 1966.

So, we're left with this text to mislead the RTJ readers:

"Malcolm Couch, a cameraman for WFAA-TV in Dallas, told Commission counsel that 'Wes Wise, who works for KRLD', saw Ruby near the Book Depository soon after the assassination.

Couch: Yes-saw him moments after the shooting-how many moments, I don't know-5 minutes, 10 minutes-coming around the side of the building, coming around the east side going south, I presume.

Q. Did you ever talk to Wes Wise as to whether or not he actually saw this, or is this just hearsay?

Couch; No; I didn't. This is just hearsay.

Q. Let me ask you this: Is there any observation, other than hearsay, that you have about this entire sequence of events that you have not related here?

Much of the testimony taken by the Commission consisted of hearsay, of course, as did all of the interview reports upon which it relied; much of it was irrelevant as well. In this instance, however, counsel precipitately invoked the hearsay rule and prevented further discussion of a relevant subject--Ruby's presence in Dealey Plaza. The rule regarding hearsay testimony was designed not to stifle evidence but to assure its reliable presentation. In a trial situation, where the rules of evidence are strictly adhered to, with certain exceptions, Couch would not be permitted to testily regarding the observations of another person, since the original source could be called as a witness. The Commission did not call Wes Wise." -- Mark Lane; Page 263 of "Rush To Judgment" (c.1966)

[END LANE BOOK QUOTE.]

And in addition to the above batch of crap concerning Mal Couch and "hearsay testimony", Lane also says the following on that same page of RTJ:

"Possible corroboration for Miss [Vickie] Adams is provided by a photograph taken minutes after the assassination. It shows a man who looks just like Ruby standing at the place where Miss Adams recalled seeing him. As we shall see, this photograph was published by the Commission only after it had been cropped in such a fashion that the man's face was partially removed."

[END LANE BOOK QUOTE.]

Now, as we all know, Mr. Lane was undoubtedly referring to this picture linked below:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vnPZc0woc6U/TZOWoLCYkCI/AAAAAAAATnQ/Jj1JwjKRxRQ/s1600/ZZZ.%2BTSBD%2BFront%2BEntrance%2BAfter%2BShooting.jpg

And as we all also know, the man on the far right-hand side of the above picture (wearing the dark glasses) is not Mr. Jack L. Ruby. And the photo below, which shows the same man in dark glasses from a different angle, proves that it is not Ruby:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zr6PSzw9a18/TZOVsqGxNvI/AAAAAAAATlo/BXYHavriq-0/s1600-h/TSBD--11-22-63.jpg

Now, I have no idea exactly when that second picture first surfaced. It might have only become available after Lane published his book in '66. So, if that's the case, Lane wouldn't have seen the verifiable proof that the man in the first picture was not Jack Ruby. But Mr. Lane can use no such "It Wasn't Available At The Time I Wrote My Book" excuse when it comes to Commission Exhibit No. 3039 and that December 1963 FBI interview with Wes Wise....because CE3039 has been available to the public in Volume #26 since late 1964. And the same can be said of CE2413 too. It's been available since 1964 too, in Volume 25.

Plus, Lane could have also easily called up Wes Wise on the telephone to confirm the fact that Wise could not possibly have seen Ruby in Dealey Plaza around 12:30 on November 22, seeing as how Wise was a few miles away at the Trade Mart at that time. I doubt that Wes would have hung up on Mr. Lane.

In short -- Mark Lane doesn't WANT his readers to read the WHOLE story about many of these purported "unknowns" revolving around the murder of JFK. Lane would much rather have his readers finish reading his book with the idea swirling in their heads that maybe Wes Wise REALLY DID see Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza within "moments" of the President being shot....even though the truth of the matter rests elsewhere....specifically on pages 582 to 584 of WC Volume No. 26. Too bad Mark Lane didn't share that information with his readers. Don't you agree, Ben?

David Von Pein
July 2013

http://Amazon.com/Kennedy-erratic-drifter-Harvey-Oswald-/forum/Fx1PW7HP0SZ0SAA/Tx3BQKN094W8XC2/84/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0805096663&cdMsgID=MxYHUVRXV7UESF&cdMsgNo=2100&cdSort=oldest#MxYHUVRXV7UESF

[aeffects]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:08:28 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
...

>
> In short -- Mark Lane doesn't WANT his readers to read the WHOLE story about many of these purported "unknowns" revolving around the murder of JFK.

...

here's your reality David *moonbeam* Von Pein. Mark Lane did NOT write the Warren Commission Report findings. Paid WCR shills like yourself, have to defend the WCR! And have so since 1964.

note: when Lane did debate Warren Commission staff members on their findings those staff wished they were elsewhere, anywhere other than on stage being made fools out of...

You have found out lies no longer work. Soon you'll be begging ignorance, or, claim that age old excuse for stupidity: the devil made me do it.

Perhaps you've concluded 'due process' was served post JFK's assassination, by the fact LHO was murdered too? Such is lone nut rational...

>
>
> David Von Pein
>
> July 2013
>
>

...

[David Von Pein]

SCOTT KAISER SAID:

David,

Here's the problem I'm having -- Vincent [Bugliosi] says that Oswald had his .38 cylinder rechambered, and the muzzle cut shorter so it will shoot a much larger .38 Special bullet from Oswald's .38. But what happens if you do NOT change out the barrel as Vincent points out? Forget about accuracy, how can a larger bullet wobble around in the barrel?

.38 Special bullets WILL NOT FIT THE .38 BARREL TO FIRE AT ALL. BECAUSE THE BULLETS ARE TOO BIG FOR THE BARREL. It's not that they are smaller, they are larger. So, in light of this evidence, there is no way Oswald fired his .38 with .38 Special casings found on the ground.

The barrel of Oswald's gun would have needed to be "replaced" so the larger .38 Special bullets would have fit.

[...]

Oswald would have been better off buying a .357 rather than having all that work done to his .38, doesn't make sense. I don't buy it, Oswald simply did not fire his gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_S%26W

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once again, Scott Kaiser doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. The bullets that went into Oswald's .38 S&W revolver were UNDERSIZED when compared to the barrel of the gun. Or would you like to now call FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham a liar? Let's see what Cunningham had to say about Oswald's gun and bullets....


Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.

Representative FORD. When you say this weapon, will you identify what you mean by "this weapon"?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.

Mr. EISENBERG. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that the gun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled for the .38 Special?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know if wobble is the correct word. But as the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably getting an erratic passage, so the marks won't reproduce.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham2.htm

BTW, you totally misrepresented the following passage you got from Wikipedia. You got it backwards (like all CTers always do). This blurb doesn't say the .38 Special bullets are LARGER. It specifically says that the .38 S&W bullets are larger than the .38 Specials. Here's the Wiki entry you screwed up:

"The .38 S&W is a revolver cartridge developed by Smith & Wesson in 1877. Though similar in name, it is not interchangeable with the later .38 Smith and Wesson Special due to a different case shape and slightly larger bullet diameter."

Plus, just by glancing at the two different cartridges on those two Wiki pages, anybody can easily see that the .38 Special bullet is smaller than the bulkier-looking .38 S&W.

Try again, kook. Maybe Pujols and that team of CIA assassins can help you out the next time you decide to stick your foot squarely in your mouth.


SOME KOOK NAMED LARRY SAID:

So where is the evidence for the .38 alteration? Is that in the WC documents? Where was the work done? Surely if it had been, the FBI would have traced it. The pistol was a stock weapon, out of a catalog. And redoing a barrel for larger ammo...so what size does the cylinder hold, you have to have a magazine, chamber and barrel that all match. All sounds nuts to me unless there is a bunch of proof and a paper trail.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hysterical. The CT kooks, as usual, want to ignore the fact that Lee Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his hands when he was arrested, and instead the kooks demand to know the backstory and history of the gun's modifications. Hilarious!

And what difference would it make to the conspiracy nuts if a "paper trail" documenting the revolver's exact modifications did exist anyway? If such a paper trail did (or does) exist, the kooks would probably just claim the documents were fake -- which is precisely what the outer-fringe CTers have said with respect to the paper trail that DOES definitely exist that proves Oswald's ownership of BOTH the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that killed JFK and the Smith & Wesson revolver that killed J.D. Tippit.

And if such a paper trail were produced to document the specific modifications that were done to Oswald's revolver, the conspiracy clowns would also likely find some other reason to pretend that Oswald didn't use that gun to murder Officer Tippit. The kooks would demand to know what color underwear the person who performed the modifications was wearing when he rechambered that revolver. And if I couldn't come up with the color of the underwear, the kook would be satisfied to gloat: "See there! I told you it wasn't Oswald's gun!"

In short, there is no pleasing or satisfying a conspiracy theorist who is determined to exonerate a double-killer named Lee Harvey Oswald.

[aeffects]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:56:47 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
...

> In short, there is no pleasing or satisfying a conspiracy theorist who is determined to exonerate a double-killer named Lee Harvey Oswald.
>

didn't work for Dale *look at my EMMY* Myers, didn't work for Vin *I need ghost writers* Bugliosi, and it certainly hasn't worked for the WCR... so come on nutter-moonbeam Von Pein, grow up and show a little class... the case against Oswald has turned to lone nut shit, and you of all people know it.

Tell our favorite secretary hello, willya?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <2a218239-0d5b-4b53...@googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...

Interesting title for the thread...

I forced one kook to admit that Mark Lane was 100% correct and accurate in his
statements about Couch's testimony - yet still the LNT'ers keep yelling about
Mark
Lane's "dishonesty".

Ironically, some of the same people who desperately REFUSE to label Bugliosi
dishonest ... even though it's *EASY* to quote Bugliosi, then cite the evidence
that he's contradicting... something the LNT'ers have never been able to do with
Mark Lane.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20291&page=4#entry276037


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Is the evidence and new witness statements in the book [Joseph McBride's "Into The Nightmare"] strong enough to reopen the Tippit case?


JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID:

That might be worth doing. As you know, Dallas County now has an excellent DA, Craig Watkins, who is rectifying many of Henry Wade's injustices. It would be up to Mr. Watkins whether to reopen the case if he feels there is sufficient reason to do so. A grand jury could be convened. It is hard getting convictions on cold cases going so far back, but perhaps not impossible.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth would any sensible and rational District Attorney (or other court/law official) in Dallas County have any desire--or reason--to reopen the Tippit murder case when such overwhelming evidence exists that Lee Harvey Oswald--and only Oswald--was responsible for the death of Officer J.D. Tippit?

A D.A. would have to be totally off his rocker to just totally toss aside all the evidence brought forth by the DPD, the Warren Commission, and the HSCA that indicates beyond all possible doubt that the murder of Tippit was solved by 7:10 PM CST on the very day that murder occurred.

Just the suggestion of reopening the Tippit murder case (of all cases) is beyond laughable. It's farcical.


PAT SPEER SAID:

Oswald was never convicted in a court of law.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the evidence against him is still there on the table for any District Attorney to thoroughly examine prior to deciding to reopen the case -- regardless of whether or not Oswald ever went to trial.

And the evidence against ONLY Oswald is multi-faceted too -- the best combination possible -- hard physical evidence (LHO's gun on him in the theater linked to the bullet shells at the scene of the crime, plus the many eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald as the killer or running from the scene with a gun in his hand). That combination of corroborative types of evidence is a prosecutor's dream.


PAT SPEER SAID:

Should new evidence emerge, or surface with the publication of [Joseph McBride's] book, a re-examination should follow.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hooey. Conspiracy theorists have been saying they've got "new evidence" to prove a conspiracy in the JFK and Tippit cases all the time. How many times have you read a blurb attached to a new conspiracy book claiming that "This is the book to read! The conspiracy is proven between these covers!"?

But nothing is going to make the solid evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (along with Oswald's own incriminating actions) disappear into a pile of dust, regardless of the number of conspiracists who have claimed they have unearthed "new groundbreaking evidence".

Oswald practically confessed to J.D. Tippit's murder, as discussed here:

"They Say It Just Takes A Second To Die"


PAT SPEER SAID:

Even if Walker quoted Oswald correctly, David, there is nothing in the statement to suggest Oswald killed Tippit.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Oswald didn't come right out and admit to Officer C.T. Walker that he had just gunned down a policeman, that's true enough.

But at the same time, I'm trying to imagine an INNOCENT person, who didn't shoot anybody, making the following statement to a police officer right after being arrested in a violent struggle, during which he is waving a gun around trying to shoot some cops and screaming "It's all over now" and/or "This is it"....

"Well, they say it just takes a second to die."


PAT SPEER SAID:

The officer gave Oswald some attitude ("you might find out") and Oswald gave it right back. That's what men (particularly Marines) do. Guilty or not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe some people would be so cocky and sure of themselves. But since we all know that Oswald positively murdered Officer Tippit (that's not even a debatable point after evaluating all the evidence), we can therefore KNOW that Oswald's cockiness was most certainly not born out of INNOCENCE. He killed Tippit and he started playing around with the cops almost immediately--even on the way to City Hall in the police car.


PAT SPEER SAID:

When one looks at the sum total of Oswald's behavior after the shooting, in fact, one finds that Oswald was way cooler and calmer than everyone around him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is, IMO, something that leads toward his guilt much more so than his innocence. Either that, or Lee Harvey Oswald was one heck of an actor and should have probably won the Oscar instead of Gregory Peck.

And, btw, that "sum total of Oswald's behavior after the shooting" needs to include more than just Oswald's actions and statements AFTER being arrested. We need to look at his bahavior and actions BETWEEN the time JFK & Tippit were shot and the time of his arrest in the theater.

And during that "in between" time, Oswald did things that reek with a guilty state of mind:

1.) He leaves the TSBD within approx. three minutes of JFK getting shot. (And JFK just happened to get shot with OSWALD'S own gun. But maybe that was just some more of Lee Oswald's severe "bad luck" that he was experiencing on 11/22/63.)

2.) He takes a taxi to his room....which is extremely out of character for the miserly Mr. Oswald. (What was his hurry anyway, if he was only intending to go to the movies after work?)

3.) He grabs a gun.

4.) He's seen acting "funny" and "scared" outside Johnny Brewer's store.

5.) He pulls a gun on policemen inside the Texas Theater.

6.) He shouts one or two things in the theater that can only be looked upon as being quite incriminating in nature. (I mean, how do CTers reconcile a statement like "It's all over now" within a theory that has Oswald INNOCENT of any wrong-doing on Nov. 22? WHAT is "all over now"? Do conspiracy theorists ever say?)

In summary -- Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 are practically a blueprint or a road map to his guilt (and conviction).

How can anyone examine Oswald's post-assassination actions, movements, and statements and still think he was an "innocent patsy"? How is that even possible to do?


PAT SPEER SAID:

It seems just as likely, however, that he KNEW he was innocent of killing Kennedy, and knew either 1) how to prove it, or 2) who was responsible, and was waiting for the right time and right person with whom to share this info.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a cop-out, Pat. Oswald never uttered a word about anyone else being involved. But CTers like to use the excuse of "Oh, he was just waiting until the right time to spill his guts."

The CTers are, of course, free to believe that if they want to. But it doesn't have the ring of truth, in my view. What was he "waiting" for? If he's innocent of shooting anybody, why not spill the beans BEFORE he's actually officially charged with the President's murder? Or Tippit's murder?

Oswald was guilty of both of those murders, Pat. And I think you're way too smart to believe otherwise.

[aeffects]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:24:20 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
...

snip Von Pein's garbage

So Studley, why are you deleting posts in threads posted to alt.conspiracy.jfk ? You getting your wrists slapped elsewhere and fallout is reaching here?

Speak to us you overblown troll...

[tom...@cox.net]

david von pain in the ass needs to read the 26 volumes
see>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm


David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D20291&page=3D4#en
> tr= y276037

>
> WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
>
> Is the evidence and new witness statements in the book [Joseph McBride's

> "I= nto The Nightmare"] strong enough to reopen the Tippit case?

>
> JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID:
>
> That might be worth doing. As you know, Dallas County now has an

> excellent = DA, Craig Watkins, who is rectifying many of Henry Wade's
> injustices. It wo= uld be up to Mr. Watkins whether to reopen the case if
> he feels there is su= fficient reason to do so. A grand jury could be
> convened. It is hard gettin= g convictions on cold cases going so far

> back, but perhaps not impossible.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Why on Earth would any sensible and rational District Attorney (or other

> co= urt/law official) in Dallas County have any desire--or reason--to
> reopen th= e Tippit murder case when such overwhelming evidence exists
> that Lee Harvey=

> Oswald--and only Oswald--was responsible for the death of Officer J.D.

> Tip= pit?

>
> A D.A. would have to be totally off his rocker to just totally toss aside

> a= ll the evidence brought forth by the DPD, the Warren Commission, and
> the HS= CA that indicates beyond all possible doubt that the murder of
> Tippit was s= olved by 7:10 PM CST on the very day that murder occurred.

>
> Just the suggestion of reopening the Tippit murder case (of all cases) is

> b= eyond laughable. It's farcical.

>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Oswald was never convicted in a court of law.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But the evidence against him is still there on the table for any District

> A= ttorney to thoroughly examine prior to deciding to reopen the case --
> regar= dless of whether or not Oswald ever went to trial.

>
> And the evidence against ONLY Oswald is multi-faceted too -- the best

> combi= nation possible -- hard physical evidence (LHO's gun on him in the
> theater = linked to the bullet shells at the scene of the crime, plus the
> many eyewit= nesses who fingered Oswald as the killer or running from the
> scene with a g= un in his hand). That combination of corroborative types
> of evidence is a p= rosecutor's dream.

>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Should new evidence emerge, or surface with the publication of [Joseph

> McBr= ide's] book, a re-examination should follow.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Hooey. Conspiracy theorists have been saying they've got "new evidence"

> to = prove a conspiracy in the JFK and Tippit cases all the time. How
> many times=

> have you read a blurb attached to a new conspiracy book claiming that

> "Thi= s is the book to read! The conspiracy is proven between these

> covers!"?
>
> But nothing is going to make the solid evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald

> (= along with Oswald's own incriminating actions) disappear into a pile
> of dus= t, regardless of the number of conspiracists who have claimed
> they have une= arthed "new groundbreaking evidence".

>
> Oswald practically confessed to J.D. Tippit's murder, as discussed here:
>
> "They Say It Just Takes A Second To Die"
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Even if Walker quoted Oswald correctly, David, there is nothing in the

> stat= ement to suggest Oswald killed Tippit.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, Oswald didn't come right out and admit to Officer C.T. Walker that

> he=

> had just gunned down a policeman, that's true enough.
>
> But at the same time, I'm trying to imagine an INNOCENT person, who

> didn't = shoot anybody, making the following statement to a police
> officer right aft= er being arrested in a violent struggle, during which
> he is waving a gun ar= ound trying to shoot some cops and screaming "It's
> all over now" and/or "Th= is is it"....

>
> "Well, they say it just takes a second to die."
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> The officer gave Oswald some attitude ("you might find out") and Oswald

> gav= e it right back. That's what men (particularly Marines) do. Guilty

> or not.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Maybe some people would be so cocky and sure of themselves. But since we

> al= l know that Oswald positively murdered Officer Tippit (that's not
> even a de= batable point after evaluating all the evidence), we can
> therefore KNOW tha= t Oswald's cockiness was most certainly not born out
> of INNOCENCE. He kille= d Tippit and he started playing around with the
> cops almost immediately--ev= en on the way to City Hall in the police

> car.
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> When one looks at the sum total of Oswald's behavior after the shooting,

> in=

> fact, one finds that Oswald was way cooler and calmer than everyone

> around= him.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Which is, IMO, something that leads toward his guilt much more so than

> his = innocence. Either that, or Lee Harvey Oswald was one heck of an
> actor and s= hould have probably won the Oscar instead of Gregory Peck.

>
> And, btw, that "sum total of Oswald's behavior after the shooting" needs

> to=

> include more than just Oswald's actions and statements AFTER being

> arreste= d. We need to look at his bahavior and actions BETWEEN the time
> JFK & Tippi= t were shot and the time of his arrest in the theater.

>
> And during that "in between" time, Oswald did things that reek with a

> guilt= y state of mind:

>
> 1.) He leaves the TSBD within approx. three minutes of JFK getting shot.

> (A= nd JFK just happened to get shot with OSWALD'S own gun. But maybe
> that was = just some more of Lee Oswald's severe "bad luck" that he was
> experiencing o= n 11/22/63.)

>
> 2.) He takes a taxi to his room....which is extremely out of character

> for = the miserly Mr. Oswald. (What was his hurry anyway, if he was only
> intendin= g to go to the movies after work?)

>
> 3.) He grabs a gun.
>
> 4.) He's seen acting "funny" and "scared" outside Johnny Brewer's store.
>
> 5.) He pulls a gun on policemen inside the Texas Theater.
>
> 6.) He shouts one or two things in the theater that can only be looked

> upon=

> as being quite incriminating in nature. (I mean, how do CTers reconcile

> a = statement like "It's all over now" within a theory that has Oswald
> INNOCENT=

> of any wrong-doing on Nov. 22? WHAT is "all over now"? Do conspiracy

> theor= ists ever say?)

>
> In summary -- Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 are

> practicall= y a blueprint or a road map to his guilt (and conviction).

>
> How can anyone examine Oswald's post-assassination actions, movements,

> and = statements and still think he was an "innocent patsy"? How is that
> even pos= sible to do?

>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> It seems just as likely, however, that he KNEW he was innocent of killing

> K= ennedy, and knew either 1) how to prove it, or 2) who was responsible,
> and = was waiting for the right time and right person with whom to share
> this inf= o.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's a cop-out, Pat. Oswald never uttered a word about anyone else

> being = involved. But CTers like to use the excuse of "Oh, he was just
> waiting unti= l the right time to spill his guts."

>
> The CTers are, of course, free to believe that if they want to. But it

> does= n't have the ring of truth, in my view. What was he "waiting" for?
> If he's = innocent of shooting anybody, why not spill the beans BEFORE
> he's actually = officially charged with the President's murder? Or

> Tippit's murder?
>
> Oswald was guilty of both of those murders, Pat. And I think you're way

> too=
> smart to believe otherwise.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[David Von Pein]

JFK'S VISIT TO SAN DIEGO IN JUNE 1963 (INCLUDES MOTORCADE FOOTAGE):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/jfk-in-san-diego-june-6-1963.html

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

YouTube discussion regarding above video:

http://YouTube.com/all_comments?v=UOrkX3GBLyM


DAVID VON PEIN SAID (DESCRIBING VIDEO):

[The video above contains] rare videotape footage of President Kennedy's trip to San Diego, California, on Thursday, June 6, 1963, including Air Force One's arrival at Lindbergh Field and the President's motorcade through the streets of San Diego.

Also included are portions of JFK's speech at San Diego State College and video footage from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, where the President speaks again and is given a 21-gun salute.

A personal note --- This San Diego video is rapidly becoming one of my all-time favorite JFK videos. It emits the same "live" and "as it is happening" qualities that can also be found in my videos of President Kennedy's appearances in Texas on the day he was assassinated (November 22, 1963).

This San Diego video features the same airplane (SAM 26000) that flew JFK to his death in Dallas, plus the same limousine and the same pomp and circumstance that surrounded Kennedy's visit to Texas in November of '63.

And how can anyone not jump a little bit when hearing gunfire (the Marines Corps' 21-gun salute) just as the President steps off of a helicopter in this San Diego video? It's almost impossible not to think of Dallas and November 22nd at that moment.

And take note of the similarity between the San Diego and Dallas motorcades. The same basic configuration of the cars and police motorcycles is readily apparent in the clips presented in this San Diego parade, with no Secret Service agents riding the bumper of Kennedy's car and no military aide sitting in the front seat between the Secret Service men--exactly the same as in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

This is, in my opinion, truly a classic video. My thanks go out to the people who rescued this videotape footage from the dustbins of history (source listed below). It is a program I am certain to revisit many times in the coming years.

VIDEO SOURCE: San Diego State University Library
http://library.sdsu.edu/scua/raising-our-voices/sdsu-history/university-archives-multimedia


"DAVALVIDEO" SAID:

Thanks so much for posting this. People today don't realize that fifty years ago, when the president came to town, the local stations pulled out all the stops to provide comprehensive coverage. One major difference between the San Diego coverage and Dallas' was that in San Diego, even portions of the motorcade itself were broadcast live, as well as the use of a portable camera at the airport. Thanks again for posting this.


ERIC COOPER SAID:

Another winner! You keep finding great material. Keep up the awesome work David!


BOB CRESTWOOD SAID:

I was one of the people lining the streets in San Diego that day to see the motorcade. The police motorcycle formation was different--in San Diego there was a "flying wedge" of motorcycles in front and to the side of the presidential limousine, but in Dealy Plaza, the motorcycles stayed behind, with no front or side protection. Also, in San Diego, there were military vehicles preceding the limousine, but in Dealy Plaza, just one lead car, way out in front, with no frontal protection.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There was also a "flying wedge" of motorcycles in Dallas, just like in San Diego. In another one of my videos here at YouTube [below], you can even hear Joe Long of KLIF Radio, as he reported live from Love Field on 11/22/63, talk about the "flying wedge" (he even uses those exact words [which can be heard at the 22:08 mark in the video linked below]).

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=P9S6uHesZ0A&feature=player_detailpage&t=1326

I still maintain that the Dallas protection and security was virtually identical in all key respects when compared to this San Diego parade. No substantial differences whatsoever when it comes to "security measures".


BRUCE ROBERTSON SAID:

Thanks David for another great video. As always, your analysis of JFK's standard motorcade formation is spot on. Only wish more viewers would open their eyes to the pattern.


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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

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

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Also notice [in the video of JFK's motorcade in San Diego on 6/6/63] the truck full of photographers in front of the limo, which didn't happen in Dallas. Also, in Dallas they kicked the official WH photographer out of the Queen Mary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Regardless of where the photographers were located, the "security" was identical in both of those motorcades (San Diego on June 6 and Dallas on November 22), unless some conspiracy theorists would like to suggest that the photographers and cameramen were supposed to perform double duty in Dallas--taking pictures and serving as human shields to protect JFK at the same time.

Do conspiracists really believe the photogs and cameramen were deliberately placed further back in the Dallas motorcade in order to avoid filming the "conspiracy in action" in Dealey Plaza? Utter nonsense.

Plus, we know that there WERE multiple professional cameramen who filmed the action in the Plaza within seconds of the assassination--e.g., Mal Couch of WFAA and Dave Wiegman of NBC. Plus Tom Dillard of the DMN, plus Jim Altgens of AP, plus the many amateur photographers who took pictures DURING the assassination itself.

And I want to once again rub the CTers' noses in this comment I made on YouTube:

"The same basic configuration of the cars and police motorcycles is readily apparent in the clips presented in this San Diego parade, with no Secret Service agents riding the bumper of Kennedy's car and no military aide sitting in the front seat between the Secret Service men--exactly the same as in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22nd." -- DVP

I wonder what CTers like Vince Palamara think about the above-mentioned Dallas/San Diego similarities? I'm sure Vince will just ignore the fact that there was no military general riding in the front seat of JFK's car in either San Diego or Dallas. Nor do we see any SS agents riding JFK's bumper.

The June 6th San Diego video, all by itself, pretty much destroys several different conspiracy myths concerning the Dallas motorcade and the B.S. about a Secret Service "standdown" and "security stripping" in Dallas.

But, then too, perhaps some conspiracy clown can now start a new theory about how the San Diego video has been altered in order to digitally remove the SS agents who were continuously riding the bumper of Kennedy's car in San Diego.

With people like Ralph "All Photos Are Fake" Cinque examining the case, nothing would surprise me anymore.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/jfk-in-san-diego-june-6-1963.html

[SecretServiceguy]

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 10:39:25 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID: Also notice [in the video of JFK's motorcade in San Diego on 6/6/63] the truck full of photographers in front of the limo, which didn't happen in Dallas. Also, in Dallas they kicked the official WH photographer out of the Queen Mary. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Regardless of where the photographers were located, the "security" was identical in both of those motorcades (San Diego on June 6 and Dallas on November 22), unless some conspiracy theorists would like to suggest that the photographers and cameramen were supposed to perform double duty in Dallas--taking pictures and serving as human shields to protect JFK at the same time. Do conspiracists really believe the photogs and cameramen were deliberately placed further back in the Dallas motorcade in order to avoid filming the "conspiracy in action" in Dealey Plaza? Utter nonsense. Plus, we know that there WERE multiple professional cameramen who filmed the action in the Plaza within seconds of the assassination--e.g., Mal Couch of WFAA and Dave Wiegman of NBC. Plus Tom Dillard of the DMN, plus Jim Altgens of AP, plus the many amateur photographers who took pictures DURING the assassination itself. And I want to once again rub the CTers' noses in this comment I made on YouTube: "The same basic configuration of the cars and police motorcycles is readily apparent in the clips presented in this San Diego parade, with no Secret Service agents riding the bumper of Kennedy's car and no military aide sitting in the front seat between the Secret Service men--exactly the same as in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22nd." -- DVP I wonder what CTers like Vince Palamara think about the above-mentioned Dallas/San Diego similarities? I'm sure Vince will just ignore the fact that there was no military general riding in the front seat of JFK's car in either San Diego or Dallas. Nor do we see any SS agents riding JFK's bumper. The June 6th San Diego video, all by itself, pretty much destroys several different conspiracy myths concerning the Dallas motorcade and the B.S. about a Secret Service "standdown" and "security stripping" in Dallas. But, then too, perhaps some conspiracy clown can now start a new theory about how the San Diego video has been altered in order to digitally remove the SS agents who were continuously riding the bumper of Kennedy's car in San Diego. With people like Ralph "All Photos Are Fake" Cinque examining the case, nothing would surprise me anymore. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/jfk-in-san-diego-june-6-1963.html

-------------
I proudly posted the San Diego video on my blog recently.

San Diego- Hundreds of Marines lined the streets, along with police, facing the crowd; the building roofs were manned as the procession passed; SAIC BEHN was on the trip, etc....of course, agents were not always on/ near the rear of the limo- the police and/or military lining the streets, facing the crowd, as well as the building rooftops being guarded as the motorcade passed, more than compensated for this (manpower) situation 9that is the key)...and, yes- these were normal occurences ***BEFORE*** Dallas. Chief Inspector Michael Torina, whom i spoke to and who wrote the Secret Service manual, confirmed these facts- I would say he was slightly an authority on the matter (just slightly...). People like Blaine, a buck private who served briefly, have little authority on the matter, especially in comparison to Torina, a giant in the Secret Service, to put it mildly. See? The gotcha game Marsh has been playing with photos on these newsgroups is laughable on its face- security was not always "in your face" and overt...out of necessity, it was covert, as well (a good example being D.C. motorcades).


Vince Palamara
P.S. David, go Buccos!

[aeffects]

Dudley (aka David Von Pein)-- YOU are losing it... gotta be the approaching November 22nd festivities, do you have your ticket yet, hon? Or is your alter ego going, which of the 10? LMAO!

[David Von Pein]

VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

The gotcha game Marsh has been playing with photos on these newsgroups is laughable on its face...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Unless I've missed some sparring between Vincent M. Palamara and Anthony Marsh in some other newsgroup threads (which is certainly possible), it looks like Vince is complaining to the wrong person. Marsh was taking YOUR side, Vince, when he said this:

"Also notice the truck full of photographers in front of the limo, which didn't happen in Dallas. Also, in Dallas they kicked the official WH photographer out of the Queen Mary." -- T. Marsh

But my main point on this security issue is still a perfectly valid one -- and that is: the security we see in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63 is substantially the same security that we see in San Diego on June 6th -- e.g., no military aide in the front seat of JFK's limo; no Secret Service men riding the bumper of Kennedy's car; two SS agents on each of the running boards of the SS follow-up car; motorcycles flanking the President's car to the left-rear and the right-rear.

All of that stuff is identical in both of those motorcades. And even if there weren't some extra Marines (or policemen) lining the streets in Dallas PRIOR to Dealey Plaza -- so what? JFK wasn't killed on Main Street or on Cedar Springs or on Lemmon Avenue. He was killed on Elm Street.

Now, we can argue all day long about how the Secret Service and the Dallas Police Department blew it by not stationing more men to guard Elm and Houston Streets in Dealey Plaza. But that's merely Monday-morning quarterbacking, to be sure.

Since Dealey Plaza was at the very end of the parade route, and since the crowds were, indeed, much thinner in Dealey Plaza than they were on Main Street (and probably on Harwood and other streets as well), a large police presence right in Dealey Plaza itself was probably not deemed necessary by the Dallas Police or Sheriff's Department. (Even though, ironically, the Dallas County Jail is located right there on Houston Street.)

But hindsight is always 20/20 and is never wrong. If, however, we let our hindsight guide our thinking (and our theories) regarding JFK's security measures in Dallas on November 22, 1963, we are playing right into the hands of the looniest of the conspiracy theorists who seem to want to believe that the security measures taken in Dallas were so lax and so inept (on purpose!) that JFK had no hope of making it to the Trade Mart alive.

But such conspiratorial thinking is just not reasonable or rational. The bottom line is that the security surrounding John F. Kennedy's limousine as it drove through Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 was absolutely identical in nature to the security that JFK received while riding in that very same open-top car dozens of times prior to visiting Dallas.

And, in my opinion, even if a considerable number of extra policemen had been lining the streets in Dallas, it still would not have prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from poking that rifle out of that sixth-floor window at exactly 12:30 PM CST and murdering President Kennedy.

[aeffects]

On Friday, August 9, 2013 2:09:21 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
...

>
> And, in my opinion, even if a considerable number of extra policemen had been lining the >streets in Dallas, it still would not have prevented Lee Harvey Oswald from poking that rifle out >of that sixth-floor window at exactly 12:30 PM CST and murdering President Kennedy.

your lone nut, SBT, LHO did it all by his lonesome bullshit-comfort zone is deteriorating as you post... and your anxiety concerning WCR credibility is well placed... carry on troll!

[David Von Pein]

ADDENDUM RE: DALLAS SECURITY.....

I'll also add this:

We know that the Dallas Police went to great lengths to protect JFK in Dallas. It's not like Jesse Curry's police department was just sitting around on its hands when Kennedy came to Dallas. In fact, NBC reporter Robert MacNeil said this on the NBC Radio Network shortly after 10:00 AM (EST) on 11/22/63, three-and-a-half hours before JFK was assassinated in Dallas:

"Police in Dallas have mounted the biggest security operation in their history to prevent any repitition of the demonstrations which marked the visit of U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson last month."

[Listen to MacNeil's 11/22/63 report below.]

http://box.com/s/v6uudpir23kevoc5w5zo

And there's also this 11/20/63 message to the people of Dallas from the Dallas Police Chief himself (Jesse E. Curry):

http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XThQz78UbOY&t=763

[aeffects]

On Friday, August 9, 2013 5:40:29 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> ADDENDUM RE: DALLAS SECURITY.....
>
>
>
> I'll also add this:

...

<SNIP THE LONE NUT LUNACY>

Moron, if Chief Curry can't get Oswald in that 6th floor window, you sure as fuck can't!

Carry on Slat's!

[David Von Pein]

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

Walthers indicated Tague said there was no blood.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What difference does it make if there was "blood" on Tague's face or not? The most important point is: Tague positively told the police WITHIN MINUTES OF THE ASSASSINATION that he was stung by something as the shooting was taking place.

Does anyone really think James Tague started making up stories within minutes of the shooting? I suppose it's possible that Tague's whole story is nothing but a pack of lies (including the "blood"), but if it is a pack of lies, then that Mr. Tague was sure fast on his feet.

Or maybe he was "planted" in the Plaza by the conspirators to act as the "third victim". But if that were the case, we'd never have Tague later writing a series of silly conspiracy books and we also probably wouldn't have Tague saying he was definitely NOT hit by the first shot.

Which reminds me.....

I've always wondered why the plotters in all of the various conspiracy scenarios didn't think to plant a witness or two in Dealey Plaza to say that they had seen Oswald in the 6th-floor window with a rifle. Seems like that would have been an automatic thing for the evil plotters to do (and a very simple thing to accomplish, to boot).

Any idea why Clay Shaw, Dave Ferrie, Jimmy Files, E. Howard Hunt, and company didn't think to do that?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/james-tague-part-1.html