Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 171)

97 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 8:54:08 AM11/28/11
to

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 171):

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

JOHN CORBETT VS. TOM ROSSLEY (NOVEMBER 2011 RADIO DEBATE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3d300ca204062cfe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ceeed7b177346f7f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/23f800b7c64a8ece/d3e6f3f3b03515e7?#d3e6f3f3b03515e7


HELEN LOUISE MARKHAM:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=30&p=238960&#entry238960
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=30&p=238968&#entry238968


TED CALLAWAY:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=30&p=238978&#entry238978
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=30&p=238990&#entry238990
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51ebb2e3ef1c5691
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=90&p=239266&#entry239266
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=90&p=239268&#entry239268


THE BULLET SHELLS AT TENTH & PATTON:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=30&p=238989&#entry238989


OSWALD'S GUN PURCHASES:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=60&p=239126&#entry239126


JACK RUBY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2df005b59daf5b15
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e923818dcd1932c7


SHERLOCK HOLMES STUFF:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/67dfb52e496628ee


ADDITIONAL THINGS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18419&st=0&p=238830&#entry238830
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=45&p=239013&#entry239013
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=60&p=239083&#entry239083
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=60&p=239087&#entry239087
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=60&p=239139&#entry239139



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


aeffects

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 2:30:49 PM11/28/11
to
On Nov 28, 5:54 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

uh-uh-huhhh douche.... no advertising
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 1, 2011, 8:34:12 AM12/1/11
to

aeffects

unread,
Dec 1, 2011, 3:22:30 PM12/1/11
to
On Dec 1, 5:34 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

uh-uh-huuuuuh!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 3, 2011, 3:16:08 AM12/3/11
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a70844fbc0b85b78


ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers "liars"." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).


>>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<


For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the
top of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum,
when I said this:

"And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In
fact, I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the
absolute truth regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK
murder case than I am to accept any other researcher's information."
-- DVP; 11/30/2011

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=239689&#entry239689

Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor
Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:

"Have you seen the Marcus HSCA document that I've been
discussing at the Edu. Forum? [In a return e-mail, Gary told me that
he does not remember ever seeing the document in question.] I have not
seen it myself, but as I said in my Edu. post, I trust Jean Davison
immensely, and I am absolutely 100% confident that Jean would never
have said the things she said on the Internet about the contents of
that 1966 Marcus/Tomlinson interview if she had not confirmed them
beforehand. And that's why I was confident enough to start that Edu.
Forum discussion in the first place. I'm sure there are some people
who would say that I'm not being forthright regarding this matter--
i.e., I should have viewed the Marcus transcript MYSELF before
shooting off my mouth on the Internet. And normally, yes, I would
agree with such an opinion. But since I have a source to fall back on
whom I deem to be first-rate and honest and one of the best
researchers in the history of JFK research (Jean Davison), I almost
feel as if I have, indeed, read that transcript myself. That's how
much I respect Jean. Plus, of course, I wanted to drive Jim DiEugenio
a little nuts too. That's always worth doing (as you probably know)."
-- DVP; 12/1/2011


>>> "I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the earliest statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's only true when you like the early statements better, eh David?" <<<

But, Robert, in the 1966 Marcus interview, it would certainly appear
as if Tomlinson WAS talking about his earliest statement concerning
CE399 looking the same as the stretcher bullet. Jean Davison made that
fairly clear in her post of November 22nd, 2011, here:

"Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him
the bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'. Do you think he
just made that up?" -- Jean Davison


Jean also said this in her post of July 16, 2011:

"[Darrell] Tomlinson told WC critic Raymond Marcus that he and
[O.P.] Wright were shown the bullet by [Gordon] Shanklin and that it
looked like the same one to him. Whether it was really Shanklin or
not, I don't know, but you might want to order a transcript of his
7/25/66 interview from the Archives, because Tomlinson also told
Marcus that he believed the bullet came off the elevator stretcher.
(IMO, Tomlinson never was sure which stretcher it was, and he wavered
back and forth.) The transcript is HSCA document 180-10088-10206. I
don't know the RIF but it can be found with the NA's JFK search
engine. It's not online anywhere that I know of." -- Jean Davison

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cv7VrNkX7KQ/TtnaKeI_BcI/AAAAAAAAki8/vltdVdt-Fk4/s1600/National-Archives-Search-Page-For-Marcus-Tomlinson-Interview-Of-7-25-66.png



http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/search.html



Bob, do you think that Tomlinson was talking about some OTHER time
that we was shown CE399 by an "FBI agent" (other than June 12, 1964,
that is, which is the date we find for the FBI's visit to Parkland in
CE2011)?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm


And even though Jean doesn't mention the specific date of the FBI
agent's visit to see Tomlinson, it's pretty clear that Tomlinson
certainly DID make a statement to Raymond Marcus on July 25th, 1966,
that CE399 looked the same as the bullet he found on a stretcher. And
Tomlinson was talking about what he had ALREADY TOLD the FBI at some
earlier time (i.e., earlier than the July 1966 interview with Marcus).

And the whole point of my bringing this issue up at the Education
Forum was to re-emphasize Jean Davison's earlier points about
Tomlinson's remarks. Because many CTers don't think ANY agent from the
FBI visited Tomlinson to show him CE399 in 1964 at all. And the 1966
Marcus interview verifies that that just is not correct.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Tomlinson didn't change his story over
the years. He most certainly did change his story about the
stretchers. And I have talked about his flip-flopping in my forum
posts, such as in this post from July of this year:

"Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his
story--from 1964 to 1988:

1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six
separate times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he
had taken off of the elevator.


1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that
the stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had
come off of the elevator.


1988 --- Tomlinson now completely contradicts his 1967
statement by telling PBS-TV that he is certain that the bullet he
found came off of a stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by
him off of the
elevator.


IMO, Tomlinson's first (1964) statements are the best and carry
the most weight. In other words, he simply was "not sure" at all which
of those two stretchers had come off of that elevator on Nov. 22." --
DVP; July 19, 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fe48e9e5812ead12

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

But the main point, again, isn't Tomlinson's flip-flopping (and nobody
can possibly deny that Tomlinson changed his story about the
stretchers more than once; we have his 1967 and 1988 television
appearances to verify his flip-flopping), but the main point is that
Tomlinson DID tell the FBI prior to 1966 that he took the bullet off
of the ELEVATOR stretcher. And most CTers around these parts just
don't want to believe that Tomlinson told the FBI anything concerning
the bullet. But the Marcus interview shatters that belief, and also
destroys the theory that the FBI lied through their teeth in CE2011.


>>> "David's tactic is to look at an article with a large quantity of solid evidence and testimony and seek out something which he thinks gives the appearance of uncertainty or doubt, and then dwell on only that issue." <<<

No, but you've just described the tactics of conspiracy theorists to a
tee.

The CTers of the world never concentrate on the "whole" or the "sum
total". Take Robert Harris' "Z285" theory for example. The "sum total"
of the evidence (when taking into account the varied witness
statements AND the ballistics evidence in the case and WHERE that
evidence was located) indicates that only THREE shots were fired at
JFK's limousine, with those three shots all coming from the SE corner
of the TSBD's 6th floor.

But if a person (like Robert Harris) wanted to isolate only certain
"bunched shots" witnesses, then he, of course, can build himself a
pretty nice-looking theory around those witnesses. Who couldn't?

But I will then counter with a few witnesses who disagree with Bob
Harris' theory about "bunched up" shots. Am I then engaging in
"witness selectivity"? Well, yes, of course I am. But it's to
illustrate that there ARE other witnesses who don't think that some of
the shots were "bunched" together. Here's that list (and there are
probably a few more I could add to this list of witnesses who thought
that the gunshots were evenly spaced):


James Romack:

Mr. BELIN. How many did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4
seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was
closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They
rang out pretty fast.

-------------------

Officer Marrion L. Baker:

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I heard--now before I revved up this motorcycle,
I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.
Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of
these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they
were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.

-------------------

Tom Dillard:

Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.

-------------------

Mal Couch:

Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of
time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but
it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second
shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there
have
been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were
relatively the same.

-------------------

Pierce Allman (via WFAA-Radio interview, linked below):

"I heard three well-spaced reverberating shots."

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/pierce-allman.html

------------------

Nellie Connally:

Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
recollection?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.

-------------------

Emmett Hudson:

Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them
closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

-------------------

Harold Norman:

"Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom."

Norman always re-created his "booms" and "clicks" in a perfectly even
distribution of the gunshots.


http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,
Dec 3, 2011, 3:53:01 AM12/3/11
to
On Dec 3, 12:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

uh-uh-uhhhh, bad boy!
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 4, 2011, 10:39:44 PM12/4/11
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a70844fbc0b85b78/0cfacb0cbfddc17e?#0cfacb0cbfddc17e

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your claims..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the
three posts made by Jean Davison below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdc82db29eafccdf

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7ca7ad3df4d03a08/4fbf7aa95fa160c2?#4fbf7aa95fa160c2

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e7dcb0edb275c573/f87e719204dc4fa0?#f87e719204dc4fa0

Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which
is something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the
transcript from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information
(to my satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following
three things (which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on
the Internet think never happened at all):

1.) Darrell Tomlinson did talk to an FBI agent who showed Tomlinson
CE399. (And the FBI's visit to see Tomlinson AND O.P. Wright was
almost certainly the same one mentioned in CE2011, which occurred on
6/12/64. Only the agent's name is different. Everything else fits
perfectly.)

2.) Tomlinson told the FBI agent that CE399 looked the same as the
bullet he had found on a Parkland stretcher on Nov. 22.

3.) Tomlinson told Raymond Marcus that the stretcher that had the
bullet on it was a stretcher that he had taken off of an elevator.

And my source for all of the above three items is Jean Davison -- the
best damn source anyone could ever hope to have when it comes to JFK
assassination research.

So, as I said, my claims HAVE been supported -- via Jean's research.

Footnote ---

I have a suspicion that this "Marcus/Tomlinson" thing is just eating
up Robert Harris and James DiEugenio (et al). Because they certainly
don't relish the idea that a document (written by one of their fellow
conspiracy advocates, no less) exists in the Archives that destroys a
whole series of their conspiracy-tinged arguments concerning the
stretchers and Bullet 399.

Or , at the very least, the Marcus transcript certainly puts a
substantial dent in the CTers' crackpot idea that the FBI was lying
through its teeth about showing Tomlinson and Wright the bullet in
June of '64.

But I'm loving it. And I thank Jean Davison for writing those three
posts I linked above. I'm glad I decided to dig them up again, since
the ones from July 2011 were virtually ignored by everyone.

And I hope to post some verbatim quotes from Ray Marcus' transcript
shortly. Stay tuned.

David Von Pein
December 4, 2011

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 12:12:17 AM12/6/11
to

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=15&p=240185&#entry240185

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

>>> "You also claim to enjoy humoring yourself by proving [Robert] Harris and [James] DiEugenio wrong, and as Harris has said, and I'm sure Jimmy D will acknowledge, they are open to persuasion and will correct the record where necessary, but that still doesn't change the fact that the provenance of CE399 is tarnished, there is evidence that it isn't what caused all of the non-fatal damage in the limo, and that its origin has never been established." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

CE399 is a bullet from Oswald's gun, Bill.

That fact ALONE is powerful evidence that it IS a legit bullet in this
case. And that's because, as I've mentioned before, it dovetails and
fits perfectly with all of the other ballistics evidence connected
with JFK's murder. Which is ballistics evidence recovered from THREE
different locations by multiple law enforcement agencies.

That's some fantastic across-the-board coordination for the bullet
fakery in this case, wouldn't you agree Bill? The SS and the FBI and
the DPD all got together and decided to make it look UNIFIED so that
everything would come back to this conclusion in the end:

Lee Oswald's Carcano was the murder weapon.

Amazing that anyone could even begin to believe that ANY of the bullet/
rifle evidence in this case is faked or planted when considering the
fact that this stuff was recovered by DIFFERENT law agencies and was
found in THREE separate places--Parkland, the Depository, and in the
President's limousine itself.


>>> "As I quoted what Bill Turner said about the assassin's bullets - the important question is who paid for them? A question you can't answer, don't bother to ask or try to find the answer to - because you already know they were somehow obtained by LHO, the accused assassin, and he's a nut case anyway, so we don't really need to know where the bullets came from or who paid for them, do we? I don't know why Harris and Jimmy D even bother trying to amuse you, but I guess it's good they keep you busy with this nonsense." <<<


It is all nonsense, Bill. Nonsense from the CTer side of the fence,
that is.

The Warren Commission and the HSCA had no problem declaring that
Oswald killed Kennedy.

And the WC and HSCA had no problem declaring that CE399 was THE BULLET
that struck both JFK and Connally.

But apparently you think the HSCA was too stupid (or was too corrupt)
to seek out the truth about the stretcher bullet. So they merely
rubber-stamped the Warren Commission's conclusion of CE399 being the
SBT bullet.

Two different fact-finding committees (the WC & HSCA), some 14 years
apart, reached the conclusion that Oswald was JFK's murderer and that
CE399 was the SBT bullet.

But that EXTRA hunk of confirmation by the House Select Committee
means NOTHING to conspiracy theorists, does it Bill? The HSCA was
filled with nothing but liars too, right?

And to think we need to know WHERE Oswald purchased the bullets he
used to kill President Kennedy is just another one of the many chaff-
like things that CTers love to prop up to cloud the true facts of
Oswald's guilt.

Heck, CTers now even demand to know where Oswald got his revolver
bullets too -- even though Oswald was caught red-handed with that gun
in his hands just 35 minutes after he shot J.D. Tippit with it!

Can you name one other murder case in history where the prosecution,
in order to secure a conviction, was required to track down where the
accused killer bought his bullets? (And it's a particularly needless
thing to know in a case where the accused murderer was caught by the
police with the murder weapon in his hands when he was arrested.)

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 12:08:34 AM12/6/11
to

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=15&p=240184&#entry240184

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "Wright, OTOH, was a supervisor and an ex-cop - a much better witness than Tomlinson, who has never been corroborated, saying that the bullets were similar, and he was adamant in his interview by Thompson, that they weren't." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then why did O.P. Wright tell the FBI in June 1964 that CE399 looked
like the slug found at Parkland on 11/22 (per CE2011)?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

You, Robert, have already acknowledged that the FBI did not lie about
the things we see in CE2011 (linked above) concerning Tomlinson. I
quote you -- "The FBI did not lie about what he said."

But are you now going to say that the FBI lied about ONLY O.P.
Wright's contention that the stretcher bullet looked like CE399? If
you don't want to do that, then you surely must be ready to also
concede that Wright told the FBI on 6/12/64 that the bullets looked
the same.


>>> "So, you still have not even come close to verifying CE399." <<<

The bullet's origin (i.e., the verified fact that is was fired from
Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion") practically verifies the chain of
custody all by itself (when ordinary common sense is factored in to
the equation, that is; plus when we get past the silly notion that the
FBI and Secret Service and everybody else under the sun had a
passionate desire to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the President's
murder).

And the reason my above comment is true is because there is so much
OTHER ballistics evidence in this murder case which also is tied to
Oswald's Carcano rifle "to the exclusion" -- such as the bullet
fragments found right in the limousine (you surely don't think THOSE
are "planted" too, do you Robert Harris?), plus the three shells in
the sniper's nest, plus the rifle itself being found on the same floor
where the three shells were located.

And there are people who have examined Tom Alyea's film and have
confirmed that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor WAS a
Mannlicher-Carcano, and not a Mauser. Here's a still frame from
Alyea's film:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

So the Alyea film debunks the "Mauser" theory for all time. (Unless
you'd like to now claim that Tom Alyea's film is a fake and a fraud.)

Therefore, with all of that OTHER "C2766" stuff in evidence (which was
found in THREE different locations, keep in mind--Parkland, the TSBD,
and the limousine) that all leads back to the VERY SAME GUN that fired
Commission Exhibit No. 399, I'd like to know what the odds are of ANY
of that evidence being fake or illegitimate?

Given the fact that there is THAT much other bullet evidence (plus the
rifle) in this case that leads straight to Oswald's Carcano, the odds
of there being fakery connected with ONLY CE399 are very small indeed.

Naturally, you will disagree with my above common-sense analysis re
CE399. But if I can get you agree that at least SOME of the bullet
evidence in this case is, in fact, legitimate and was NOT faked or
planted by the authorities (can you admit that much?), then I think
that even you, Bob Harris, would have to acknowledge the very high
likelihood of CE399 also being a legitimate piece of evidence
connected to this murder investigation. And that's simply because ALL
of this stuff fits together perfectly:

1.) CE399.
2.) The three shells in the TSBD.
3.) CE567 & CE569 in the limo.
4.) Oswald's rifle being found in the TSBD, which is a rifle that is
linked inexorably to numbers 1-3 above.


>>> "And you continue to evade the statements by Connally, Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell, which prove that the real Connally bullet was recovered on the second floor and given to Nolan." <<<

Then where is that bullet that was picked up by the unknown nurse,
Bob?

No such bullet exists, and it never did exist. And one of the biggest
reasons to know it never existed is the following testimony by one of
Connally's doctors:

DR. CHARLES GREGORY -- "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile
at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no
missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we
suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas
where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

Given the fact that the above testimony from one of John Connally's
own doctors exists in the Warren Commission record, it's inconceivable
to think that a bullet could have fallen from Connally's body and BEEN
RECOVERED by a nurse, with this nurse then saying NOTHING to Dr.
Gregory or anyone else about it.

Another very interesting part of John Connally's book is the following
excerpt taken from the very same page which also contains the part
about a nurse picking up a bullet and putting it in her pocket:

"A nurse spotted Nellie and handed her one of my gold cuff
links. We never found the other one."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TAyNG-9yxfQ/Tt2RrwjKtyI/AAAAAAAAkkE/g8uaZvXJJ2o/s1600/John-Connally-Book-Excerpt.jpg

Do you think that maybe a cuff link falling to the floor might make
about the same kind of "clinking" sound as a spent bullet would make?

And Connally says right there in his book that a "nurse" gave Nellie a
cuff link. Couldn't that be the nurse who supposedly picked up a
"bullet"? Maybe the "bullet" was really a "cuff link".

In the final analysis, nobody can know for certain WHAT the "metal
object" was that John Connally heard falling to the floor on Nov. 22.
But the best evidence is: It certainly was NOT a bullet.


>>> "David, you have a tendency to attack irrefutable evidence..." <<<

Oh, you mean like the "Connally heard a bullet fall to the floor, even
though he never ever claimed to actually SEE that bullet that a nurse
supposedly put in her pocket" stuff, Bob?

Get real.


>>> "If you hope to refute this issue, you need to address the STRONGEST evidence and testimony - not the single witness who was obviously wishy washy and easily talked into changing his story." <<<

Oh, so you now apparently want to claim that Raymond Marcus, who is a
conspiracy theorist who thinks that CE399 is a "Bastard Bullet" (i.e.,
it's a fake and a fraud), had a desire to talk Darrell Tomlinson into
"changing his story" about the stretchers. Is that correct, Bob?

And Marcus also somehow was able to strong-arm Tomlinson into saying
that CE399 "appeared to be the same" bullet that he found on a
Parkland stretcher two-and-a-half years earlier. Is that it, Bob?

Because if you're not claiming that Marcus (a devoted conspiracy
theorist who thinks CE399 is a phony bullet) was putting words into
Tomlinson's mouth during their telephone conversation of 7/25/66, then
why would you leap to the conclusion that OTHER people could have
persuaded Tomlinson to "change his story" so easily?

Face it, Robert, you're stuck with Ray Marcus' transcript. And you are
certainly not in a million years going to suggest that Marcus was
trying to get Darrell Tomlinson to say that CE399 looked the same as
the stretcher bullet.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#B

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 2:01:23 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 5, 9:08 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

boy--you got a whole lot to say about nothing... you get paid by the
*re-posting* pound moron?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 4:41:46 AM12/7/11
to


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=15&p=240249&#entry240249


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=15&p=240289&#entry240289


ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "David, this is insane. I have never seen a more illogical and misinformed set of arguments." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's because you reside in Conspiracy Fantasy Land with respect to
everything connected with the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy.

Your eagerness to promote your various crackpot JFK conspiracy
theories has blinded you to even the possibility that the things you
deem "conspiratorial" could have a simple non-sinister answer.

And let's face facts, Bob, most things in life are NOT
"conspiratorial". And most people are NOT willing to engage in
deliberate frauds or cover-ups when it comes to the assassination of
United States Presidents.

In short, every single thing that you think leads down "Conspiracy
Avenue" can just as easily be explained in ordinary, non-
conspiratorial ways. And I think that even you know this is true. And
so do most other conspiracy theorists. They just can't admit it to
themselves, mainly because they've invested so much time and effort in
chasing down shadows and unprovable gunshots at "Z285" and non-
existent bullets that nurses supposedly picked up and put in their
pockets, etc.


>>> "David, there is not a speck of evidence supporting that assertion by the FBI [that O.P. Wright said CE399 looked like the bullet he saw on 11/22/63]. And Wright was very specific, that the two bullets were not similar." <<<

OK, Bob. Thanks for doing what I knew you would do regarding CE2011.
You now are convinced (via the Ray Marcus transcript of the 7/25/66
interview with Darrell Tomlinson) that the FBI did not lie in CE2011
with respect to Tomlinson. But you are more than willing to still
think that the FBI DID lie with respect to O.P. Wright, who told the
FBI agent on 6/12/64 (according to CE2011) that CE399 looked pretty
much like the bullet Wright had seen on November 22nd.

And it's also very likely that you still think the FBI lied through
its collective teeth about Elmer Todd having identified CE399 (also
via CE2011). Correct?

I'm wondering, though, why the FBI didn't simply lie about Rowley and
Johnsen of the Secret Service too? Why didn't the FBI utilize the
exact same verbiage in CE2011 with Rowley's and Johnsen's observations
of CE399? Why didn't they do the same thing that you think they did
with O.P. Wright -- i.e., why didn't they put a BALD-FACED LIE into
the mouths of both James Rowley and Richard Johnsen and say that those
two SS men said that CE399 "looks like the slug" or "appears to be the
same one" that each of those SS men handled on 11/22/63?

Why did they stop their lies with O.P. Wright and Elmer Todd, Bob? Why
not go whole hog with their evil deception in CE2011? What would a
couple more blatant falsehoods matter to the FBI anyway, right?

Bob Harris thinks he gets to tell everybody just exactly HOW and WHEN
and WITH WHICH WITNESSES the Federal Bureau of Investigation "lied"
when it comes to the words we see printed in Commission Exhibit 2011
(linked below).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

But as we have already seen in this forum thread, Robert Harris was
forced to say something about the FBI and CE2011 that he probably
thought he would never have to utter in his lifetime:

"The FBI did not lie about what he [Tomlinson] said." -- Robert
Harris; 12/5/11

So Bob has acknowledged that at least a portion of the words we see
printed in CE2011 are true and are not lies being told by the FBI.

But according to Bob, we are still supposed to believe that SOME of
the things we find in CE2011 are, indeed, blatant lies being forced on
the unsuspecting public by the rotten and corrupt FBI.

Bob thinks that because of what O.P. Wright told Josiah Thompson in
1966 (that the stretcher bullet had a pointier nose than does CE399),
this must therefore mean that Wright did NOT tell the FBI in June of
'64 that CE399 looked like the slug Wright saw on 11/22.

Robert Harris, however, is wrong. Those two things CAN co-exist. And,
in fact, they DO co-exist in this case, even though the two statements
are not totally compatible with each other.

But the record is clear, even if the CONTRADICTORY MEANING of O.P.
Wright's words are not -- he (Wright) definitely told the FBI in 1964
that CE399 looked generally the same as the bullet he handled at
Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination; and Wright also
told Josiah Thompson something that would seem to totally contradict
what he told the FBI two years earlier.

But as we all know, witness observations can be all over the place,
and memories of an event can, indeed, change. Jean Davison posted some
good stuff on the Internet recently about the subject of "changing
memory". If you go to the webpage below (and search more of Jean's
posts), you'll find some interesting things about it:

"There's nothing "delusional" about it. MEMORIES CHANGE. If you
doubt that, please do some basic research." -- Jean Davison; November
2, 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fa774199da545d15



>>> "Of course CE399 came from Oswald's rifle -- the same rifle they had at their labs. But its condition and the total absence of blood and tissue strongly suggests that it was fired into cotton wadding or water. And yes David, I know that in carefully contrived tests, nutters have produced bullets in similar condition. But try Googling a bit for photos of spent bullets, that wounded a person or animal. You won't find one in a hundred in that condition." <<<

Then maybe you can answer the following question for me (derived from
just ordinary common sense):

If a bullet couldn't possibly have caused the damage that CE399 is
claimed to have caused to JFK & Connally and come out in the condition
that 399 is currently in -- then why did the people who allegedly
faked the bullet want to place in the official record a bullet so
clean and so undamaged and so NICE-looking?

Were the cover-up agents bumbling idiots? Or maybe they just didn't
give a damn if their ruse would be discovered by crack CTers in the
future?

Related Article:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html


>>> "David, the bullets recovered from the limo may or may not have come from Oswald's rifle." <<<

Why on Earth are you pretending that there's some doubt about whether
CE567 and CE569 (the two largest limo fragments in the front seat)
came from Oswald's C2766 rifle? Those fragments definitely DID come
from that rifle. There is no ambiguity at all about that, as the
various firearms experts testified to. (They all lied too, Bob?)

Related Article:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html


>>> "Guinn's analysis has been totally discredited, even by an expert from the FBI." <<<

But Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis has got NOTHING to do with the conclusion
that the two largest bullet fragments (CE567 & 569) were fired in
Oswald's Carcano.

Guinn doesn't even need to come into a discussion about CE567 and 569,
because we don't need Dr. Guinn to verify that Oswald's gun fired
those two limo fragments (which was verified via ordinary ballistics/
striation firearms tests, and not Neutron Activation Analysis).

And it wasn't JUST Hoover's FBI boys who verified that the front-seat
limo fragments came from Oswald's rifle, there was also the
independent firearms expert, Joseph Nicol of Illinois, who said the
same thing as the FBI's firearms experts:

MR. NICOL -- "It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired
Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's
Exhibits 569, 567, and 399."

MR. EISENBERG -- "That would be to the exclusion of all other
weapons?"

MR. NICOL -- "Correct."


Also:

Dr. Guinn's NAA studies are not totally irrelevant and immaterial
(even in this "new era" of Randich, Grant, Tobin, and Spiegelman, et
al). Common sense alone makes Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis far from
obsolete or worthless. Here's why:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html


>>> "But if he [Lee Oswald] did fire that shot [which resulted in the limo fragments], he didn't have time to fire the other shots that were closely bunched with the one at 312. And he certainly didn't fire the shot at 223. If he had, the limo passengers would have been even more startled than they were at 285 and 312." <<<

~sigh~

Do we really need to go around the mulberry bush one more time with
your make-believe gunshot at Z285? I'm just about to eat. Have some
pity on my poor stomach.

And I don't know why you're claiming that the limo fragments (CE567
and CE569) had to necessarily be the result of a SEPARATE shot from
the three shots that Lee Harvey Oswald fired. Why are you even
suggesting such a thing, Bob? Just to be contrary?

You know darn well that the best and most reasonable scenario to
explain Oswald's bullet fragments being found in the front seat of the
limousine is that they were fragments from the Z313 head shot. The
slowed fragments coming from JFK's head--moving FORWARD toward the
front of the car--then struck the TWO objects that showed damage at
the front of the limousine -- the chrome topping and the windshield.

That scenario fits to a tee -- right down to the "Two & Two" match on
the number of fragments recovered from the front seat (2) and the
number of damaged areas in that same general area of the car (2).

As for your theory that some of the shots were "bunched" together:

Yes, several witnesses did say that the last two shots were bunched
close together. But I will also remind Mr. Harris of the several
witnesses who said that the THREE shots they heard were "evenly
spaced", and not "bunched" together.

The following text comes from a post I directed at Bob Harris just a
few days ago at another forum. I'll repeat it here:
"There were three well-spaced reverberating shots."
-- David Von Pein; December 3, 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0cb324e3da96e0e6


>>> "More bad reasoning David. The Alyea film proves that the MC was there, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was the only rifle that was found." <<<

And so it's your contention that a group of unknown conspirators who
wanted to frame Lee Oswald as a LONE PATSY (correct me if I'm wrong
about that "lone" part) would be stupid enough to leave behind
evidence in the same TSBD building that would expose the conspiracy
and, hence, totally ruin their "lone patsy" plot?

Were those bumbling conspirators just hoping and praying that the evil
DPD and the corrupt FBI would also have a desire to frame ONLY the
patsy named Oswald and, therefore, the cops would want to sweep all of
the "other" rifles that were found in the building under the carpet?

If so, then those pre-assassination henchmen sure got lucky when they
found out that the police wanted to become an active part of their
"Patsy" plot and frame only Oswald, huh? You don't get the authorities
to cooperate with murderers like that very often. November 22nd must
have been their lucky day.


>>> "David, you actually cannot prove that even one bullet was fired that day from Oswald's rifle. Your pretense that you have all this evidence is just silly." <<<

After reading Bob's comment above, I'm not sure if I should laugh or
vomit. It's a toss-up there.

So, via Bob's above remark, we can assume that Bob Harris must think
that CE567 and CE569 were "planted", or are phony in some manner.
Because if those two front-seat bullet fragments were, indeed, fired
from Oswald's rifle (which they were, as I just proved above via Joe
Nicol's testimony), then it has to mean one of these three things:

1.) A gunman using Rifle C2766 (i.e., Oswald's rifle) fired at least
one bullet from that gun into JFK's car during the time when the
President was being assassinated on Elm Street in Dallas on November
22, 1963.

Or:

2.) Someone at some later time, who wanted to make it look like Rifle
C2766 had fired a bullet or bullets into Kennedy's car, gained
possession of Oswald's rifle, fired a bullet from that gun and made
sure the bullet fragments were mutilated pretty badly (but not TOO
badly to prohibit a definitive "to the exclusion" match to Rifle
C2766), and then either planted those two bullet fragments in the
front seat of the limousine prior to the Secret Service's initial
examination of the car early on 11/23/63, or the bullet-manipulators
just PRETENDED that the Secret Service had recovered the two fragments
from the front seat of President Kennedy's SS-100-X limousine.

Or:

3.) Incredibly, a couple of bullet fragments from Rifle C2766 just
happened to already be in the front seat of the limo PRIOR to the
assassination.

Can you think of a fourth option, Robert?

And among the three choices listed above, which one is the most likely
to be true?

I'll answer that one for you:

It ain't #2 or #3.


>>> "The FBI had to get at least a few people at Parkland to support their deception and Gregory was one of them. He's the one who when asked about who Bell gave CE842 to, could only say that he "was advised" that it was Bell. But he worked with Bell in the emergency room daily. It is preposterous to think that she didn't tell him about it." <<<

Oh, brother. And so now Dr. Charles Gregory is part of the official
"cover-up", eh Bob? Geez Louise, what a bunch of hogwash.

And for people who might not know, CE842 clearly states on the
envelope that it contains "Bullet Fragments" from John Connally's
"Right Arm". It does not say anything whatsoever about the envelope
containing a whole bullet that dropped out of Connally's leg. And
Nurse Bell has HERSELF stated that the writing we see in CE842 (linked
below) is her own handwriting.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm

Yes, I know that Bob Harris still thinks there's something phony about
Commission Exhibit No. 842. He thinks that some of the writing has
been erased, and other things written in at a later time (to support
the never-ending "cover-up" in this case, of course).

But that's just one in a long list of Mr. Harris' off-the-wall
assumptions and theories about the JFK case. And in the final
analysis, the theories spouted by just one more conspiracy theorist
who thinks a bunch of stuff in the Kennedy case looks "fishy" or
"forged" or "doctored" or "erased" mean very little.

In fact, the continued protestations of conspiracy theorists couldn't
possibly matter less when they are stacked up against the expert
testimony and the overall "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusions that were
reached by TWO separate U.S. Government investigations -- the Warren
Commission and the HSCA. (Not to mention the smaller investigations,
like the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission.)

And speaking of CE842:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f5f97b3215f2f151


>>> "David, Nellie was given that cufflink on the FIRST FLOOR. Do your homework. The nurse recovered the bullet on the SECOND FLOOR, as he was being transferred from his gurney." <<<

I think you MIGHT have been able to get the drift of my "cuff link"
comment that I made earlier, Bob (even though you're pretending not to
get that drift now).

Main point being:

A cuff link hitting the floor COULD have possibly sounded very similar
to a "bullet" hitting the same floor. Right, Bob?

And since we know that Nellie Connally WAS, in fact, given one of her
husband's gold cuff links in the hospital, by a nurse, I'm suggesting
that the "metal object" that Governor Connally heard falling to the
floor could possibly have been one of his two gold cuff links -- one
of which he never saw again. Maybe it was the missing cuff link that
the nurse put in her pocket, and it just never found its way back into
the possession of the Connallys. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

And John Connally definitely did NOT see a "bullet" in the operating
room. There is no corroboration for that at all. Not even from John
Connally himself, including Page 18 of his book. He never said he
actually SAW a bullet. And some people have claimed that Connally's co-
writer on that book (Mickey Herskowitz) is responsible for some of the
narrative credited to Connally in the book. (I have no opinion on that
theory one way or the other, however.)

We do have John Connally's Warren Commission testimony to help clear
up this "bullet" matter, though. Connally told the WC this in 1964:


ARLEN SPECTER -- "Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?"

JOHN B. CONNALLY -- "No."


Now, Bob, if your theory is correct, and if Governor Connally had
REALLY seen a bullet that had fallen from his body onto the floor at
Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63, don't you think that Arlen Specter's
above question would have elicited a slightly different response from
Connally?

Now, yes, it's true that Specter's question related to the time when
Connally was first being placed ONTO THE STRETCHER at Parkland. But I
think it's a pretty big stretch to think that these words from Specter
wouldn't have prompted Connally to say something to Specter about a
bullet that had fallen from his body and onto the Operating Room floor
(if such a thing had actually occurred):

"Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that
remained in your body or in your clothing...?"

Wouldn't you agree, Robert?


>>> "It is ridiculous to say he [John Connally] never saw the bullet [that a nurse allegedly picked up off the floor at Parkland Hospital and allegedly put in her pocket on 11/22/63]. .... Of course Connally saw the bullet. That's how he knew what it was. David, do you think there is any remote possibility that after picking it up, the nurse might have held it up for a split second, to look at it???" <<<

See my previous comments above.


>>> "Your arguments are preposterous and beyond desperate." <<<

I'm torn between that "Laugh or Vomit?" choice again.

But, with the above quote coming as it does from someone who is
positive a gunshot occurred at precisely Z285 of the Zapruder Film,
and who thinks Dr. Gregory was a part of a cover-up, I think I'll opt
for the "LOL" option. It's a lot more fun that way. (And less messy
too.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2011

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 10:15:13 PM12/11/11
to

>>> "I could be wrong but I don't recall him publicly stating that the SBT was untrue, at least not during the WC days. Got a cite?" <<<

Better than that. I've got a video of Connally saying this about the
SBT on June 22, 1964:

"I don't believe it [the SBT]; and never will believe it."

It's the first video on this page (fast forward the video to 3:55):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/john-and-nellie-connally.html
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 1:24:28 AM1/10/12
to




http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7fd9a3be8a11fbb2/b87349a6ec2eda67?#b87349a6ec2eda67



>>> "The evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit is unconvincing." <<<

You're not likely to find a sillier statement than the one quoted
above. And that's because the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered
J.D. Tippit is rock-solid and conclusive. Any prosecutor could have
phoned in his case against Oswald.

And what makes Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder EXTRA convincing
(vs. "unconvincing") is the fact that there are multiple types of
evidence to convict him -- including direct (eyewitness) testimony
which corroborates and buttresses the physical evidence left behind by
Oswald at the scene of the crime (i.e., the eyewitnesses fingered
OSWALD -- and the bullet shells found at the crime scene were fired in
OSWALD'S revolver -- and OSWALD himself had the murder weapon in his
own hands just 35 minutes after Tippit was killed, with OSWALD himself
acting like a very guilty man in the theater).

The melding together of that much eyewitness testimony, circumstantial
evidence, and physical evidence (the bullet shells on Tenth Street)
doesn't occur in a great number of murder cases. But in the Tippit
case, it did occur. And Oswald was nice enough to KEEP THE MURDER
WEAPON IN HIS POSSESSION right after the crime too, which is a huge
asset when it comes to solving the murder of Officer Tippit.

The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of Tippit's murder is
if LHO's identical twin had actually shot Tippit with LEE HARVEY
OSWALD'S gun, and then the identical twin (or exact look-alike) was
somehow able to get Oswald himself to take possession of Revolver
V510210 prior to his arrest in the Texas Theater.

And even that ridiculous scenario wouldn't really explain why Oswald,
just thirty-five minutes after J.D. Tippit had been shot with LHO's
Smith & Wesson revolver, was behaving like a very guilty person when
the police approached him inside the Texas Theater on November 22,
1963.

Conspiracy theorists are experts at making up excuses to EXPLAIN AWAY
all the evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald in both the JFK
and Tippit murder cases. But unless the CTers really want to believe
that all of the eyewitnesses who identified Oswald were totally wrong
AND that all of the physical evidence in the Tippit case was
manufactured by the authorities to frame Oswald, then the conspiracy
theorists really have nowhere to go with their persistent arguments
that Oswald was innocent of killing J.D. Tippit.*

* = Unless the conspiracists actually want to accept the tongue-in-
cheek theory proposed above about LHO's look-alike shoving the murder
weapon into Oswald's hands immediately after the crime was committed.
And I doubt even the wackiest of conspiracy buffs would have a desire
to sink THAT deep into their bin of conspiracy nonsense. (Would they?)

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 17, 2012, 10:24:04 AM1/17/12
to


DONALD WILLIS SAID:

>>> "In the Leavelle 11/22/63 report, he says that Benavides "did not see the suspect"! And he also suggests that Benavides made out an affidavit! Gee, where'd it go...? And, goodness, if he didn't see the suspect, then uh, oh yes, he didn't see the suspect *throwing* anything." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why do CTers (like Donald C. Willis) constantly latch onto the worst
and least reliable information and throw away or disregard the most
reliable data?

It now seems as if Willis wants to believe that Benavides never even
saw Tippit's killer at all. Hence, he must have never even SEEN THE
SHOOTING, period.

Come on, Don, you don't really think that first-day report by Leavelle
is correct...do you?

And since you can't possibly think that report is accurate with
respect to Benavides' observations, then why did you even bring it up
in the first place? Just to stir the pot with some obviously
erroneously information?

Conspiracy theorists, of course, are experts at propping up (and never
being able to let go of) the innocent first-day mistakes made by the
authorities. Another excellent example being the "Mauser vs. Carcano"
topic. And another example being the "revolver vs. automatic"
controversy in the Tippit case.

0 new messages