JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 194)

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 13, 2012, 2:04:50 PM12/13/12

to

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 194):

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

ASSASSINATION PHOTOS:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/assassination-photos-cbs-nbc-abc.html

THE RIFLE:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,7191.msg199955.html#msg199955
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,7191.msg200034.html#msg200034
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,7191.msg200086.html#msg200086

JACKIE'S PINK SUIT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1f54c62642c0e0dd
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6bd0c64ccea99bf4

FAKERY EVERYWHERE!:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&#entry263127
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&#entry263146
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&#entry263150
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&st=15#entry263255
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a2f7e5046f1f367
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&st=30#entry263575

TOO MANY THEORIES:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&st=15#entry263534

ROBERT GRODEN AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF GUNSHOTS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6eb0d4289e44feaa

REMEMBERING NOVEMBER 1963 (C-SPAN VIDEO):
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309244-1

THE "RIFLE" WITNESSES:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19758&#entry263689

DR. PEPPER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/748338377b4fc230

ODDS 'N ENDS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/01bc5f9d068e7926
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/72ca7b406a1331e8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ca12b842246df693

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

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Dec 15, 2012, 8:12:12 PM12/15/12

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/517ba68f7fa7fb13

JOHN CORBETT SAID:

As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in
Newton [sic; Newtown], CT gives us one more example of how unreliable
early reports and information are in the wake of these events.
Electronic media were crawling over each other in an effort to get any
scrap of information they could and as a result, normal journalistic
dilligence went out the window. The result was the reporting of
numerous "facts" that now seem to be in serious question.

The worst was the reporting that the shooting was done by the real
shooter's brother who was at his job in New Jersey at the time of the
shooting. It was initially reported that the mother of the shooter,
who apparently was his first victim, was a teacher at the school. Now
that seems to be in doubt.

Early reports indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle was used in
the attack but not it appears that weapon was left in the shooter's
car. There are still conflicting reports of how many handguns were
used in the attack. Initially it was believed that there were two but
now it seems there may have been as many as four.

What all this illustrates is how unreliable early information can be.
We saw the same thing happen in the JFK assassination and the Reagan
assassination attempt, even though 24 hour news channels weren't even
on the horizon back then. The media that did exist were just as
anxious to get information out as quickly as possible and as would be
expected, much of what was reported early on we later found out was
just plain wrong.

For some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many
choose to continue to cling to what those early reports said rather
than accept what we later learned to be true. Those who want to know
the truth will turn to the most reliable information available to them
while those that want the beliefs to be true will turn to whatever
they can to support those beliefs.

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

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good points, John.

It was also reported that the mass murderer of the 20 little children
in Connecticut on December 14, 2012, had killed his father in Hoboken
too, which turned out to be the worst mistake of that terrible day
yesterday, bringing back memories of James Brady in 1981.

To state as fact that a person has died when they haven't is a
horrendous journalistic blunder. And it also reminds us of 11/22/63
too, when the press was reporting that a Secret Service agent had
positively been killed, even though no such agent was even wounded in
Dealey Plaza.

Although in the 1963 instance with the SS agent, it wasn't quite as
bad, since the press didn't have a name to go with the report that a
SS man had died. But I can imagine the worry and anguish that that
early report caused for the relatives of JFK's Secret Service agents
who were watching the live coverage unfold on radio or television.

In fact, in kind of an ironic twist, Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV, whose
reporting was remarkably factual and accurate for the most part (even
during the very early hours after the assassination on November 22),
was reporting in the first hour that the one thing he COULD definitely
say for certain was a confirmed fact was the report that a Secret
Service agent had definitely been killed. But, of course, that was one
of the few things Barker got wrong that day.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 9, 2013, 4:41:14 AM1/9/13

to

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-82.html

aeffects

unread,

Jan 9, 2013, 6:22:51 PM1/9/13

to

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:41:14 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

no advertising you lone nut wanker you -- you know the rules!

You have to delete your own posts these days eh, shithead? Whom do you know to make that happen, dweeb?

Baron Wrangle

unread,

Jan 12, 2013, 6:16:32 PM1/12/13

to

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 7:12:12 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/517ba68f7fa7fb13
>
>
>
> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>
>
>
> As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in
>
> Newton [sic; Newtown], CT gives us one more example of how unreliable
>
> early reports and information are in the wake of these events.

Davey:

For once, I agree with you. It can take fifty years to get the story right.

BW

For rightly is truth called the daughter of time, not of authority.

Sir Francis Bacon

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 1:59:08 PM1/21/13

to

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

You seem to be talking about only his [RFK's] public statements. You
don't ever link to his private statements. Maybe you don't understand
that some politicians will say one thing in public and believe
something else in private.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I find it kind of funny (and ironic) that just three minutes after RFK
made his "I stand by the Warren Commission Report" remark to a college
crowd in California in March of 1968, Bobby also said this:

"You say tell it like it is and tell you the truth, and that's
what I intend to do in this campaign. You might not like it, you might
not agree with it, but that's what I'm gonna do." -- RFK; 3/25/68

http://Box.com/s/vub915ot78b6czzm35qe

I guess Anthony Marsh must think that Robert F. Kennedy was just lying
through his teeth when he said these things within three minutes of
each other:

"I stand by the Warren Commission Report. .... You say...tell
you the truth, and that's what I intend to do in this campaign. You
might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that's what I'm
gonna do." -- RFK

http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Z0vZPcRIhdM

Message has been deleted

Walt

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 2:33:49 PM1/21/13

to

On Dec 15 2012, 7:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

Von Pea Brain wrote:

"For some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many
choose to continue to cling to what those early reports said rather
than accept what we later learned to be true. Those who want to know
the truth will turn to the most reliable information available to
them
while those that want the beliefs to be true will turn to whatever
they can to support those beliefs."

While it's true that early reports of the news media may be erroneous
and screwed up, the same can't be said for the actual witnesses.
The news media are getting second hand or third hand information and
bits and pieces of the story, so naturally there will be errors in the
REPORTING of the story, but that doesn't change the facts as seen by
the actual witness. Case in point..... Howard Lesle Brennan SWORE
under oath that the affidavit he wrote was factual to the best of his
knowledge. Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle from behind a window on
the sixth floor of the TSBD. He gave a description of that man, and
that description DID NOT fit Lee Oswald. Brennan wrote that affidavit
only an hour or so after he saw the man with the rifle. His closing
sentence of that Affidavit says..." I believe I could identify this
man if I ever saw him again"

This isn't some erroneous news report...... this is a sworn affidavit
of an actuall witness.

Just a few hours after Brennan wrote those words he saw Lee Oswald in
a police line up and he told the police that the man he'd seen aiming
the rifle from the window was NOT in that lineup.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 3:47:33 PM1/21/13

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c5974439317ef6bb

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Conspiracists have been claiming that the statement at San Fernando
State College had RFK saying that "only the powers of the presidency"
would allow him to get to the bottom of the case. That was a lie.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is just one more reason (among hundreds) why I wouldn't believe a
thing uttered by a JFK conspiracy theorist if my life hung in the
balance.

Distortions, lies, misrepresentations, and irrational/unreasonable
evaluation of the evidence are the only things you're likely to get
from a JFK conspiracy theorist. I think it's pretty much always been
that way. And probably always will be. What a shame.

Take the "Secret Service Standdown" garbage that we've had to listen
to and endure for lo these many years now. Even after it has been
proven (beyond a reasonable doubt anyway) that the "shrugging" SS
agent at Love Field was NOT Henry Rybka (it was Donald Lawton
instead), there are still the very same "standdown" arguments being
put forth by many conspiracists. Even though those CTers know (via
Lawton's written SS report) that Lawton was NOT assigned to ride in
the motorcade through downtown Dallas on 11/22/63.

But the CTers will just ignore the 11/30/63 SS report written by Don
Lawton, wherein he states that his job on November 22 was "to remain
at the airport to effect security for the President's departure".
(Evidently that's yet another "fake" report, per the conspiracists.)

That's just one of the latest examples of a conspiracy theory being
totally destroyed and debunked. But many conspiracy theorists just
don't care. They'll pretend that the "standdown" at Love Field still
existed anyway.

And now we have the statement about RFK standing by the Warren
Commission Report and also saying, in no uncertain terms whatsoever,
that he would NOT re-open the investigation into President Kennedy's
death if he were to be elected President in the fall of 1968.

I'm sure there will be many conspiracy advocates, even AFTER listening
to that recording of RFK making those statements at San Fernando
Valley State College, who will still insist that Robert Kennedy's
remarks at San Fernando still support the notion that RFK believed in
a conspiracy in his brother's death.

A conspiracy myth is hard to kill. And I think the main reason for
that is because conspiracy theorists just simply don't want the myths
to die.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/robert-kennedy-march-1968.html

aeffects

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 4:15:56 PM1/21/13

to

On Jan 21, 12:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>

> JOHN McADAMS SAID:

<nonsense of course>

I do decla... DVP whining has reached fever pitch. The poor troll
can't find any WCR traction... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 10:00:54 PM1/21/13

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c5974439317ef6bb

TONY MARSH SAID:

Jeez, you think the reader is too stupid to realize that the pronoun
his refers back to RFK?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When reading my archived "individual message" that I save to my
website--yes. Duh.

I need to fill in the blanks when a word like "his" or "he" or "it" is
used. I know a person looking at my archived post in the year 2018
isn't going to have the slightest idea who Tony Marsh meant when he
said "his" in a January 2013 post. So, I fill in the blanks.

Makes sense, doesn't it, Anthony?

(Let's see how Tony manages to make an argument out of my last
statement about pronouns. Rest assured, he'll find a way to fight me
on it.)

:-)

TONY MARSH ASKED:

Do you always quote yourself in the third person proper?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure. Haven't you noticed the other 4,508 times I've done it?

TONY MARSH SAID:

Then for the first time the official WH photographer Cecil Stoughton
was kicked out of the SS car on the Dallas leg of the trip to make
room for Kennedy aides Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell. So one of the
SS agents would have to sit on the rear seat, George Hickey. But one
SS agent didn't understand that and he was standing on the running
board. When the fourth SS [agent] walking next to the limo went back
to the SS car there was no spot left for him to get on, so the agent
on the running board realized his mistake and climbed into the back
seat.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In addition to merely making up your own unsubstantiated version for
the apparent confusion surrounding the Secret Service car at Love
Field (which you just did above), none of that stuff makes a bit of
difference anyway (even if it were true).

Why?

Because we know what the Shrugging Man's (Don Lawton's) assignment was
on 11/22/63. He was ALWAYS supposed to remain at Love Field.
Therefore, WHATEVER the reason was for his "shrugging", we KNOW it
wasn't due to him being "left behind" at the airport (as many
conspiracy theorists seem to believe).

Plus -- During Lawton's shrugging episode at Love Field, he doesn't
make any move toward the SS car -- that is, he doesn't start to get in
(or on) the Queen Mary car at all. He just stands there, shrugging and
smiling.

If he had really been a part of the team to ride in the Queen Mary
vehicle, why didn't he move toward the car and try to hop aboard? But
he didn't do that at all. Why? Because he already knew what his
assignment was that day, as proven by his November 30th SS report
(seen in CE2554) -- he was going to stay at Love Field.

Why do conspiracy kooks want to totally ignore that fact?

TONY MARSH SAID:

Ok, maybe I missed it, but I did not see the video of his [Lyndon B.
Johnson's] PRIVATE remarks where he said the Warren Commission Report
was a piece of shit. But I have heard his private phone conversations
where he talks about it being a conspiracy and the need to cover that
up. Maybe you [John McAdams] haven't.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course John has never heard any such phone conversations which have
President Johnson saying that the JFK assassination was "a conspiracy"
with a "need to cover that up". And that's because no such telephone
conversations with LBJ exist and never did. Not even these phone calls
serve the "conspiracy" and "cover up" purposes you seem to think they
serve:

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/lyndon-johnson-phone-calls.html

You think Johnson would have RECORDED such talk about there being a
need to "cover up" stuff relating to the Kennedy murder case, Tony?
You must be dreaming.

aeffects

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 11:40:42 PM1/21/13

to

On Jan 21, 7:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>

> TONY MARSH SAID:

<snip>

do YOU have an oral fixation with Anthony, you fixated troll you? how
disgusting.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 22, 2013, 9:26:31 AM1/22/13

to

In article <062c18a0-bf34-42da...@sb6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

I wonder why Johnny McAdams *HIMSELF* can't come here and say whatever it is?

Is it because he doesn't like being pointed out as a liar?

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

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 23, 2013, 3:21:20 PM1/23/13

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c5974439317ef6bb/55d63b91ef4ec94c?#55d63b91ef4ec94c

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

I can think of a few reasons other than "truth" that RFK would
publicly state that he would not re-open the Warren Report if he were
elected President.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If RFK had really wanted to re-open the JFK investigation, don't you
think that would have been a great way to garner some additional votes
during his 1968 campaign for the Presidency, particularly among the
young skeptical voters, like some of those he spoke to at San Fernando
Valley State College (those who were at least 21 years of age anyway)?

During his San Fernando talk, it seems to me that RFK shot himself in
the foot (from a strategic and political point-of-view) when he said
multiple things that weren't too popular among a lot of people at that
time in March of '68 -- e.g., saying he would not re-open the
investigation into his brother's death and the very unpopular stuff he
said about the Vietnam war as it relates to young men who refused to
go to Vietnam when drafted.

In short -- Robert Kennedy, in my opinion, was very likely speaking
TRUTHFULLY at San Fernando State College. If he had truly wanted to re-
open the JFK case, it would have been an excellent political move to
say so during Campaign '68, especially given the "conspiracy" climate
that was blanketing the country at that time, which was shortly after
Mark Lane's "Rush To Judgment" book and film came out and also right
smack in the middle of Jim Garrison's New Orleans investigation.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/robert-kennedy-march-1968.html

Walt

unread,

Jan 23, 2013, 5:15:24 PM1/23/13

to

On Jan 22, 8:26 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <062c18a0-bf34-42da-981f-50b63e007...@sb6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Jan 21, 12:47=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> >> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> ><nonsense of course>
>
> >I do decla... DVP whining has reached fever pitch. The poor troll
> >can't find any WCR traction... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
> >...
>
> I wonder why Johnny McAdams *HIMSELF* can't come here and say whatever it is?
>
> Is it because he doesn't like being pointed out as a liar?

Ben, it's no secret that the perfesser has been known to use an
alias..... Hells bells he might be Rob Caprio...quien saber

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 28, 2013, 4:08:01 AM1/28/13

to

January 2013 additions:

http://YouTube.com/playlist?list=PLjjjemgRs8wCHHhax6lHBgNNKAKMlRTFa

http://YouTube.com/DVPOldTimeRadio

http://Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2013/01/green-mile.html

http://Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com/2013/01/kennedy-gallery-282.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 1, 2013, 11:53:06 PM2/1/13

to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19866&st=75#entry266056

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Arguing with the Lone Nutters and convincing them there was a
conspiracy is a noble goal but not one that I think will change
anything.

Rather, I think it more important to try to use the intense interest
in the 50th anniversary to call attention to the yet unanswered
questions and still withheld government records, without which we
should not even begin to debate the subject.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The notion that many conspiracy theorists seem to have about there
being thousands and thousands of secret assassination-related
documents still being withheld from the public is very likely just
another one of the many conspiracy "myths" that continue to surround
this case.

Let's listen and watch:

http://box.com/s/3if3887c39w7dg4d6iri

http://c-spanvideo.org/clip/4346873

So, who's the liar in the above two audio and video clips? Vincent
Bugliosi? John Tunheim? G. Robert Blakey? Anna K. Nelson? Or are all
four of those people liars with respect to what they said about the
release of the documents?