JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 128)

Two ABC-Radio news segments with the great Paul Harvey, one from
11/22/63 and the other from the day after JFK's funeral. Paul died on
February 28, 2009. He was 90. He will be missed forever. His style was
unique, succinct, and always entertaining.

Paul Harvey always found some of the smaller stories to insert into
his newscasts each day too, like one of the stories he talks about
below (in the Nov. 26th broadcast), in which he notes that people all
over the country have been naming their new-born babies after the
slain President--with 20 such "John/Jack" births occurring in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul area alone since JFK's death.

And then there's the human interest story that reveals the fact that
there hasn't been one single pedestrian killed on the streets of
Paxton, Massachusetts, since that town was incorporated in the year
1765.

Paul Harvey.............................................good day.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/03/paul-harvey.html

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 8, 2010, 4:17:55 AM3/8/10

to

http://Amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=70&cdPage=7&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1BX4TWD8V5S9Q#Mx1BX4TWD8V5S9Q

B. LECLOUC SAID (AT AMAZON.COM):

>>> "Although I disagree with your theory, Mr. VonPein [sic], you raise some significant points about [Vincent] Palamara." <<<

V. DAVIS SAID:

>>> "A man cannot believe one thing, be convinced by the best evidence to that point (in 2007 maybe that was Bugliosi's work, I don't know, I haven't read it all yet). Then, in 2009 when he sees the type of proof on offer in Mr. Horne's book (which is now, the best evidence) he changes his mind, and some rambling person [DVP, that is] who has read none of Mr. Horne's book except the parts available in the "look inside" feature on Amazon, and you think the rambling person (I want to say idiot so bad, but I'm trying to be civil) has a right to berate him for being compelled by evidence to change his mind? Where would humanity be, I ask you, if we were not capable of changing our position if the factual evidence in a case warrants it?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

V. Davis, incredibly, seems to think that it's humanly possible for
BOTH Vincent T. Bugliosi and Douglas P. Horne to be CORRECT about
their respective positions regarding the JFK case.

At least that's the feeling one gets from reading Vince Palamara's
comments and reviews. He loves BOTH of those books. I.E., he is, in
essence, endorsing the CONTENTS of both of those books, which were
written by authors with totally OPPOSITE viewpoints on the
assassination of JFK.

If V. Davis thinks that is an acceptable thing to do--fine. But, IMO,
it's just....strange.

But, of course, I have a pretty good idea WHY Mr. Palamara endorses
the entire field when it comes to books dealing with JFK's murder. He
did the very same thing in May 2008, when he wrote a glowing 5-Star
review for Jim Douglass' book, which is a review Palamara wrote almost
a full YEAR after he had fully endorsed Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History":

http://Amazon.com/review/R1SCRUKKJ2YSKQ

As can be seen quite clearly, Mr. Palamara can't seem to sit still on
EITHER side of the JFK fence for very long. If a major author comes
out with a book about John F. Kennedy, and if Vince Palamara's name is
somewhere in the book, you can bet that Mr. Palamara is going to
endorse that publication. It's happened time and time again.

V. DAVIS SAID:

>>> "You don't say why we should disbelieve it [Doug Horne's theory about Dr. Humes altering JFK's head wounds before the autopsy]. So...Why?" <<<

DVP SAID:

If you, all by YOURSELF, can't figure out WHY the whole world should
dismiss every last impossible theory uttered by Doug Horne, then I
feel sorry for you.

Here's a "Starter Kit" highlighting just a few examples of Douglas
Horne's never-could-have-happened fantasies:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0e2e36113ce98e6b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/155a3a578f5005f5

V. DAVIS SAID:

>>> "I believe that, if Douglas P. Horne is wrong, and I don't think he is, but if he is...he is honestly just wrong and not trying to pull the wool over our eyes like the Warren Commision [sic]." <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL. Oh, brother.

Thanks for the gut-buster there, V. Davis. I enjoyed the laugh.

V. DAVIS SAID:

>>> "How could, in all honesty, the Warren Commision [sic] be considered to be credible when the Warren Report was leaked to select press before which time the committee had even met for the first time?" <<<

DVP SAID:

Huh? How could "the Warren Report", which had not yet been written,
have been "leaked" to the press in December 1963?

I suppose you are yet another conspiracy theorist who thinks the
Warren Commission never even intended to find the truth regarding
JFK's death. IOW, the Commission was merely put together by LBJ to
stamp the predestined "Guilty, Alone" label on Lee Harvey Oswald. Is
that correct?

Well, if that were the case back in November and December of 1963,
then WHY DIDN'T THE WARREN COMMISSION DO THAT VERY THING?

But they didn't. Instead, the Commission REJECTED J. Edgar Hoover's
12/9/63 FBI report (which is a report that concluded that Oswald was
the lone gunman), with the Commission deciding to work for another 9
to 10 months and perform its OWN investigation (with the FBI's help,
of course).

And that brings up another thing (re: the WC and the FBI) -- Many
conspiracy theorists, James DiEugenio being one such prominent
example, want to believe that J. Edgar Hoover had the Warren
Commission boys wrapped around his little finger, and that Hoover was
deciding what the final results of the WC investigation were going to
be (since the FBI was, indeed, the chief investigating arm utilized by
the Commission).

But such a belief doesn't seem to make much sense when we get back to
discussing what Earl Warren and his Commission did at the very
beginning of their work -- i.e., they REJECTED the five-volume 12/9/63
report put out by Hoover's FBI!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/50683305cea7c51f

Do conspiracists believe that Hoover only had a firm hold on the
Commission AFTER the Warren boys denounced the initial FBI report as
"inconclusive" and incomplete? That's just crazy talk.

That's just one example, among dozens, of how the many theories that
have been invented from whole cloth by JFK conspiracy theorists over
the years are internally inconsistent with each other. And most
conspiracy theorists don't even seem to notice such inconsistencies.

Another excellent example being the "One Patsy" theory (promoted by
Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and thousands of other conspiracy
advocates), which is a theory that has a group of plotters planning
JFK's assassination MONTHS IN ADVANCE of November 22, 1963. And these
same plotters are also attempting to frame poor ol' Lee Oswald as the
SOLE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY, MONTHS IN ADVANCE of the murder.

So, what do these brilliant and brazen plotters do on Game Day? They
decide to use THREE gunmen to kill the President (according to Oliver
Stone's fairy tale version of events)!

And on top of that bound-to-fail "One Patsy" plan, the plotters don't
even keep Oswald on the floor of death (the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building) when the assassination is taking place at 12:30
PM!

Brilliant plot, isn't it? (Well, maybe if you WANT to have your
conspiracy plot exposed right away, yes. Otherwise, it's just flat-out
stupid.)

But the thousands (or millions) of conspiracy theorists who have
fallen in love with those two things (in tandem, no less!)--the
"OSWALD WAS FRAMED AS THE LONE PATSY" theory and the "MULTIPLE GUNMEN
WERE FIRING AT JFK" theory--don't seem to bat an eyelash when
confronted with the internal incompatibility that exists between those
two beliefs.

Common sense CAN go a long way toward solving the JFK assassination.
(Just don't expect to see much of it from conspiracy theorists.)

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 8, 2010, 11:28:20 AM3/8/10

to

SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTARY BY DVP:

The fact that the Tippit murder weapon was taken out of Lee Harvey
Oswald's hands in the Texas Theater as he tried to plug more officers
with it doesn't faze the conspiracy kooks in the least.

The kooks will just pretend that somebody else killed Tippit, with one
kook in particular (John Judge) actually suggesting--get this--that
the DPD framed Oswald for Tippit's murder by taking LHO's revolver
into the theater THEMSELVES and (evidently) shoving it into Oswald's
hands (or they all lied and just SAID that Oswald had a pistol in the
theater).

That latter option means that J. Judge has to bring Johnny Brewer and
Oswald HIMSELF into the plot to frame LHO, since Brewer said he saw
Oswald with the revolver, and Oswald admitted to taking the gun into
the theater.

I find that I have less and less patience with conspiracy nuts. And
that applies particularly to the idiots who want to pretend that
Oswald was innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder too.

Another thought occurred to me very recently regarding JFK's murder,
and that thought is:

The fact that we know beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald's old,
1940, manual, semi-crappy, bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was
being used in an assassination attempt against the 35th President of
the United States is, IMO, very good circumstantial evidence that
there was NO CONSPIRACY involved in President Kennedy's assassination
in Dallas.

Why is that?

Because if there had been anyone else involved in the murder attempt
against the President, does anybody REALLY believe that this group of
conspirators (which would have consisted of, presumably and logically,
expert marksmen) would have utilized Lee Oswald's MANUAL BOLT-ACTION
RIFLE to try and kill John Kennedy?

A "professional" hit on the President (circa 1963) would certainly
have involved weaponry far better than Oswald's admittedly less-than-
outstanding bolt-action rifle. If there's any room for logic here,
then automatic weapons would probably have been used by the assassins
to kill the President.

But there is absolutely no indication that JFK was being shot at in
Dealey Plaza with any weapon OTHER THAN LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SEMI-
CRAPPY MANNLICHER-CARCANO BOLT-ACTION RIFLE!

That last paragraph--all by itself--is a fairly decent indication that
NOBODY EXCEPT THE OWNER OF THAT MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE was involved
in President Kennedy's murder.

And if some conspiracy theorists want to argue with the above garden-
variety logic regarding this matter and speculate that Oswald's rifle
was "planted" in the TSBD to frame him, they're going to have to
distort a whole bunch of ballistics evidence in the case in order to
accomplish that "planted rifle" task.

What it boils down to is that when ordinary logic and common sense are
applied to virtually every aspect of the JFK murder case, the end
result is invariably a conclusion of: OSWALD DID IT ALONE.

In order to defeat those last four words, a conspiracy theorist has no
choice but to pretend that every piece of physical evidence in both
the JFK and Tippit murders is tainted in some way, which is a belief
that no conspiracist can possibly prove in a million lifetimes.

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

aeffects

unread,

Mar 8, 2010, 12:11:53 PM3/8/10

to

On Mar 8, 8:28 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTARY BY DVP:

(...)

WOW, a man of few words.....splendid!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 10, 2010, 5:08:03 PM3/10/10

to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1906.msg29608.html#msg29608

>>> "Seems A. Hidell could not receive mail at Lee [Oswald's] post box according to [the] FBI: http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg Wonder how he received [the] rifle at that P.O. box?" <<<

The "entitled to receive mail" issue is always over-emphasized and
mushroomed out of all realistic proportion by conspiracy theorists. In
point of fact, it doesn't really make a bit of difference if the name
"A. Hidell" was on Oswald's PO Box application or not. And that's
because the post office delivers mail to ADDRESSES, not PEOPLE.

Since Oswald had the key to PO Box 2915, he could take the paper slip
for the oversized item (the Carcano rifle) to the desk inside the post
office. The clerk would then assume that the person who has the slip
of paper in his hands (in this case, Oswald) got it from the PO Box it
was placed in (naturally), and therefore the clerk assumes that the
person who handed him the slip is entitled to the package.

Postal Inspector Harry Holmes said that exact thing, in fact:

Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way
around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people
that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody
knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The
man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is
no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says,
"I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so
and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and
whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the
package, and that is all there is to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification
because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was
entitled to it?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened
in case?

Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes2.htm

I know from my own personal experience with oversized packages that
nobody at the post office is going to ask for any I.D. in such a
situation. I've picked up many packages from my post office with those
yellow "We Have A Package For You" slips, and never once have I been
questioned about my identification.

Do conspiracy theorists really believe that every single package or
letter that is delivered to every PO Box in America has the NAME OF
THE BOX HOLDER on it? That's silly. Lots of mail with other names
besides the box holder gets delivered--every day of the week, and
that's because, as mentioned, mail is delivered to ADDRESSES, not
PEOPLE. It's quite likely that the mailmen who place letters into PO
boxes don't have the slightest idea who has been "entitled" to receive
mail in those boxes. They couldn't possibly have the time to double-
check all the names on the box applications to make sure they match.

For example, if a letter had your home address on it (or your PO Box
number), but the name right above the address was "Quincy P.
Scumbag" (a non-existent person), it's still going to be put in your
mailbox by the mailman. The letter carrier doesn't give a damn who the
addressee is, because he delivers to ADDRESSES.

I think this whole "entitled to receive" topic has been skewed in
another way too -- because it's quite likely that the people who are
listed as "entitled to receive mail" from PO boxes are simply the
people who are entitled to physically take the mail out of the boxes
(i.e., the people who have the keys to the box, like Oswald).

I do realize that the delivery of firearms is supposed to include an
additional piece of paperwork that apparently was not included with
Oswald's gun package in March of 1963. But that's certainly not
Oswald's fault. Nor is it the fault of the Dallas post office. If such
a form was not included on Oswald's rifle package, it's the fault of
Klein's in Chicago.

And even if that extra paper was included with LHO's rifle, so what?
Oswald would have simply signed the form with his phony "A. Hidell"
signature, and he then would have been handed the rifle and Oswald
would have been on his way.

Why do conspiracy theorists continue to make huge mountains out of the
tiniest of anthills?

>>> "Wow, thats amazing to me in America that you can pick up packages without ID from the post office. .... I always value your opinion David, Thanks for the American postal info. Knowing you guys and dolls (Americans) are usually so careful with security, I had just assumed the postal system was the same." <<<

What's so amazing about it? The only thing different is the SIZE of
the package. Since many boxes are too big to fit INSIDE a person's PO
Box or regular mailbox at their home, the addressee has to go pick it
up.

But if the package HAD been small enough to fit in the mailbox or PO
Box, you can bet the mail carrier would have put it in the box,
thereby making any such "pick-up" at the post office window altogether
unnecessary (except in special circumstances when a signature is
mandatory, which probably should have been the case with Oswald's
rifle parcel in 1963, but apparently Klein's didn't include the proper
form).

To repeat, I have never ONCE been asked for I.D. when taking one of
those yellow slips to the post office.

Now it's true that I never had a gun come through the mail. But I did
have a large Sherman tank delivered to me one time. And the darn thing
just wouldn't fit in the mailbox. But they still didn't want my
signature. :)

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Mar 10, 2010, 5:24:12 PM3/10/10

to

On Mar 10, 2:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
<foolishness of course sniperoo>

WOW, a man of few words.....splendid!

getting ahead of the game, carry on troll....

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 10, 2010, 6:07:23 PM3/10/10

to

AT IMDB.COM, "SEAVER41" SAID:

>>> "With all the false stuff in the movie [Oliver Stone's "JFK"], I was surprised to learn that: [1.] Ruby really did interrupt the press conference with the correction "that was the Fair Play for Cuba committee", which totally seems like a fabrication to imply Ruby knew Oswald, but he really did do that. .... [2.] Oswald really did deny it was him in the backyard photos and claimed they were altered photos. .... I thought for sure those two things didn't happen, but they did (still reading the Bugliosi book)." <<<

DVP SAID:

Good observations, Seaver41.

I can easily see how somehow like yourself could think that those two
things you mentioned were fabricated by Oliver Stone in his movie.

And I hope you also realize that the notion of "faked" backyard photos
(which is a claim made by conspiracy theorists that is partly based on
what the accused murderer HIMSELF claimed while he was in custody) is
a notion that falls completely to pieces when based on COMMON SENSE
alone (not to mention the fact that the HSCA's photo panel said the
pictures were genuine, plus the fact the Warren Commission had already
conclusively linked one of the photos to Oswald's very own camera via
the photographic negative to the picture, plus the fact that Marina
Oswald has always steadfastly maintained that she took pictures of LHO
in the Neely St. backyard in the spring of 1963).

The "common sense" portion of the equation comes into play when a
reasonable person asks himself this question:

Why on Earth would ANYONE want to fake MULTIPLE PICTURES SHOWING THE
EXACT SAME THING (i.e., showing Oswald with guns in his Neely St.
backyard)?

The idea that a group of patsy-framers would WANT to fake more than
just ONE such backyard photo is just too ludicrous to consider for
more than three seconds. Because the MORE "fake" stuff that the
plotters manufacture, the greater the chances are of those fakes being
exposed.

RE: Jack Ruby correcting Henry Wade about the "FPCC":

Some conspiracy theorists have asked the question: If Jack Ruby was
not personally acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald, then how did Ruby
know what the name of Oswald's pro-Cuba organization was at the time
of Wade's press conference on Friday night?

The answer to that is simple (although the CTers want to ignore this
fact too):

By the time of that midnight press gathering, the name "Fair Play For
Cuba Committee" had been announced on TV and radio numerous times. To
give just one example, the name of the organization was first uttered
by Frank McGee of NBC-TV at approx. 4:00 PM on Friday, which was about
eight hours prior to Ruby correcting Wade at the press conference.

So the fact that Ruby knew the exact name of Oswald's pro-Cuba outfit
is not too surprising at all.

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com