JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 170)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 170):

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

"JFK: THE LOST BULLET":
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-lost-bullet.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f06ad9ccb3a8733
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d19ed0d22731e1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0eddf43779386a9e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0bc12d4274317199
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/519cc6d7d61e9784
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b8dde05e2157bdaa/9e980986264b03c2?#9e980986264b03c2


"APPROXIMATELY 4.8 TO IN EXCESS OF 7 SECONDS":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/88a56bac7dd9c482


JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2011/11/johnny-calvin-brewer-man-who-helped.html
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html


MARRION BAKER:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18374&st=30&p=238403&#entry238403
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18374&st=30&p=238411&#entry238411


IS THERE A NON-OSWALD SHOOTER ON THE SIXTH FLOOR?:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18374&st=15&p=238394&#entry238394
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18374&st=45&p=238470&#entry238470


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


OSWALD'S REVOLVER PAYMENT:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=0&p=238795&#entry238795



MORE FUN STUFF:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30acf482e7b92ace
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b4178c8f82d4fbe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bfb9a51253b0c4aa
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=0&p=238813&#entry238813







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

[David Von Pein]

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-debate.html

Regarding the 11/23/2011 debate between John Corbett & Tom Rossley:

John Corbett (bigdog) made a pile of mincemeat (appropriate for the
Thanksgiving holiday) out of Thomas Rossley. It was just a beautiful
job of hacking a conspiracy nut to pieces, John. I loved it.

I especially enjoyed it when several of John's points were followed by
dead silence from Rossley (which, in itself, is a miracle, since Tom
never seems to want to shut up). Those pregnant pauses spoke volumes.
For even Tom R. was speechless and lacking an answer to many of John's
valid and cogent points.

Well done, bigdog.

BTW, regarding the point Rossley brought up during the debate about
the two bullet shells that were photographed on a table:

Rossley knows full well what the answer to that "mystery" is -- and
the answer is:

Captain Will Fritz retained one of the three TSBD shells in his
office. Therefore, only two of the three shells were sent to the FBI,
with the third one remaining in Dallas. This is fully explained in an
affidavit filled out by Captain Fritz himself on June 9, 1964 (linked
below):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz2.htm

Here's what Fritz said:

"I kept the hulls in an envelope in my possession and later
turned them over to C. N. Dhority of the Homicide Bureau and
instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the Identification Bureau. I
told Detective Dhority that after these hulls were checked for prints
to leave two of them to be delivered to the FBI and to bring one of
them to my office to be used for comparison tests here in the office,
as we were trying to find where the cartridges had been bought. When
Detective Dhority returned from the Identification Bureau, he returned
the one empty hull which I kept in my possession. Several days later,
I believe on the night of November 27, Vince Drain of the FBI called
me at home about one o'clock in the morning and said that the
Commission wanted the other empty hull and a notebook that belonged to
Oswald. I came to the office and delivered these things to the FBI. We
have Mr. James P. Hosty's receipt for these items in our report." --
J.W. Fritz; 6/9/64

Footnote -- Fritz has to be incorrect about the "Commission" (and I
assume he was talking about the Warren Commission there) wanting the
shell on Nov. 27. The WC wasn't even formed until Nov. 29, of course.
So Fritz probably merely meant that the FBI investigators in
Washington wanted to examine the third shell (which they ultimately
did, of course, and concluded that all three shells had been fired in
Oswald's C2766 MC rifle).

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Corbett was out of his depth. Rossley knows the material too well and he knows the lies of the WCR cheerleaders even better." <<<

Yeah, right. Rossley's the guy who wants listeners to entertain the
possibility that John Connally wasn't shot through the wrist until
AFTER the Z313 head shot. (That's how honest Tom Rossley is. I doubt
even HE truly believes such total nonsense, but that won't stop him
from saying it was a possibility on a radio show.)

And Rossley is also the stellar researcher who wants to mislead people
into thinking that Connally was shot by possibly up to THREE different
bullets.

And he uses Dr. Shaw to make his case of more than one bullet hitting
JBC, even though the BEST version of Dr. Shaw's beliefs came in his
live TV press conference just hours after the assassination, when he
says that "the Governor was struck by just one bullet" and (later) "we
feel this is all one bullet".

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-debate.html

[aeffects]

On Nov 25, 2:53 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<sniperoo>

DVP what YOU think YOU know is irrelevant except concerning YOUR own
warped opinion .... if the facts concerning this case were ALL known
they'd be no ragging debate or controversy and of course no need for
imbeciles such as yourself thinking YOU'RE endorsing history....

and, NO advertising toots-e-roll!... YOU know the drill.

[David Von Pein]

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"Focusing on the most reliable evidence violates the collector's
instinct of conspiracy theorists. They collect evidence assiduously,
and whoever has the biggest collection is the best researcher—just as
the best stamp collector is one who has the largest number and the
rarest stamps."

-- John McAdams; Page 157 of "JFK Assassination Logic: How To Think
About Claims Of Conspiracy"

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

[aeffects]

sheeeet I hope .john isn't expecting you to handle his internet sales,
after all, you thoroughly destroyed Bugliosi's chance for sales via
the WEB...

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

[David Von Pein]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=210&p=239930&#entry239930


DVP SAID:

You guys can't possibly really be serious in questioning Oswald's
ownership of Revolver V510210, can you? The evidence is a mile deep
that Oswald, in his OWN WRITING (which you also dispute is his,
naturally) ordered both the revolver and the rifle. This is a FACT
beyond dispute (to reasonable people, that is).

In fact, if you were to poll conspiracy theorists off the street who
know at least a LITTLE something about the details of the JFK & Tippit
murder cases, I'd bet that a vast majority would concede that the
revolver and the rifle were Oswald's. (And as I mentioned twice
previously, the "Patsy" plot even makes much more sense from the POV
that the two guns WERE really Oswald's. The evil patsy framers would
then have framed Oswald with HIS OWN WEAPONS.)

And the assertion by some conspiracy theorists that the gun that was
wrested from Oswald's hands during the scuffle in the Texas Theater
was really not Revolver V510210 is an assertion that's almost too
ridiculous to even talk about.

Because if the gun taken from Oswald in the theater wasn't V510210,
then we'd have to believe that the Dallas cops (and/or the FBI) had a
desire to frame Oswald for a cop-killing he never committed (which is
REALLY absurd when thinking about the DPD doing this, since a lot of
those guys knew the slain officer personally, and certainly wouldn't
want to see Tippit's murderer go free).

And if the gun taken from LHO wasn't the V510210 gun, we'd also have
to assume that the cops and Federal agents then engaged in a very
swift and efficient sinister plot of faking all of the various records
pertaining to Oswald's mail-order purchase for the revolver. The cops
must have then somehow convinced at least SOME employees of Seaport
Traders to join in their frame-up of Oswald, because the paperwork
concerning Oswald's revolver purchase was found in the SEAPORT FILES
on November 30th, 1963.

JOSEPH BALL -- "That [Michaelis Exhibit No. 2; linked below] was in
your records, was it, as of November 30, 1963?"

HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "Yes, it was."

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/MichaelisEx2.jpg


Did the FBI send an agent to Seaport to "pose" as a Seaport employee
so that this covert agent could then "plant" the "Hidell" invoice in
the Seaport files?

It's only when you get to Internet forums like this one do you find
the incredibly silly theories being tossed around -- such as Oswald
NOT shooting Tippit, Oswald NOT shooting JFK, Oswald NOT purchasing
the revolver, Oswald NOT purchasing the rifle, and Tan Jacket Man
"handing off" some suspicious item to somebody in a two-second film
clip taken shortly after the assassination.

As an additional example of what I mean, this 2003 ABC poll shows that
83 percent of the 1,031 people being polled believed that Lee Oswald
was a gunman in the JFK murder:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy
assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to
Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the
assassination at all?".....

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

How big do you suppose the percentage would be in those first two
categories ("Only Oswald" and "Another Gunman [Plus Oswald too]") if
the respondents consisted only of people who posted regularly at
Internet forums?

David Von Pein
December 2011

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

[aeffects]

On Dec 2, 10:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<sniperoo>

uh-uh!

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3092a15b052a748c/d38062f586102943?#d38062f586102943


TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "So, you've never in your life figured out how to find an FD-302. Is that because you can't find them in the WC volumes, so you figure they don't exist?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Go tell that to CTers like DiEugenio and Harris. Because that's
exactly one of the excuses they are using to bolster their claim that
CE2011 is a fraud.

Maybe FD-302s DO exist for all of the interviews found in CE2011. I
don't know for sure, because I haven't been able to find a single one.
And apparently nobody else has either--even CTers. And that was one of
the points I was making in my previous posts regarding this matter
(which you evidently refuse to let sink into your head, W. Anthony).

I.E.,

Unless the CTers can come up with FD-302s for EVERY interview in
CE2011 (and surely most CTers think at least SOME of those many
interviews are legit), then they have no right to argue that Odum's
interviews with Tomlinson & Wright are "frauds" based on the fact that
(to date) no FD-302 forms have been found for those two interviews.

And, as an addendum:

If it COULD somehow be proven that no FD-302 reports were written for
any of the interviews seen in CE2011, then the CTers who continue to
argue that CE2011 is a phony document based on the "No FD-302s"
argument are defeated as well.

Because if no 302s were written (for whatever reason) for ANY of the
CE2011 interviews, then why would any CTer expect to find a 302 report
for Odum's interviews with Tomlinson and Wright?

Get my point now, Tony? Or do you still think that my very valid and
logical point is nothing but a "strawman"?

[aeffects]

On Dec 15, 6:04 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

no advertising moron....

[David Von Pein]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=270&p=241111&#entry241111


JIM DiEUGENIO UTTERED:

>>> "As I have often said, the sale of the handgun and the rifle were things that were pretty much accepted by the first generation of critics. They should not have been. They are simply too full of holes for any rational person to accept at face value." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you, Jimbo, as a "Patsy" believer, really should be accepting the
undeniable fact that Oswald ordered and took possession of both the
rifle and the revolver (and it is a conclusive fact that those two
items were ordered and possessed by LHO, despite the weird
protestations of the conspiracists like Jimbo D.).

Why should you believe that?

Because, as I mentioned to you previously (and this is only garden-
variety common sense of the first order) -- It makes much more logical
sense in a frame-up (or "Patsy") theory to have your make-believe
conspirators running around attempting to frame Oswald with HIS OWN
GUNS, versus the incredibly complicated and laughable cloak-and-dagger
version of events surrounding the gun purchases that you want to
believe is true.

Don't you agree, James?

So why don't you stop pretending Oswald never even had C2766 or
V510210 in his hands at all in the year 1963....because there's ample
proof you are dead wrong, including photos showing him holding the
Carcano (yes, I know you want to pretend those pics are frauds too),
and the little fact that Oswald was caught with the revolver in his
hands in the theater.

Seems to me you'd be wise to go back to siding with those first-
generation critics and just admit what is obviously the truth --
Oswald owned the two guns.

And then your make-believe Patsy plot is easier to swallow too.

Of course, there are still many bumps in the Patsy road even if you
accept the guns as being
Oswald's -- e.g.: You'd still have to totally ignore all the lies told
by your patsy on Nov. 21 and 22. And you'd still have to totally
ignore Oswald's own incriminating actions on Nov. 22.

But I'm sure you're up to that easy task of ignoring (or mangling) all
of that unimportant stuff, right Jimmy?

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8a862a89267e3401/34e27c14bc8bff7f?#34e27c14bc8bff7f


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Yeah, very, very early. January 27, 1964 and you pretend that the WC did not know ANYTHING about the autopsy. Nice try. Got any other excuses?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Tony, the FBI was seemingly still totally clueless about a lot
of the details of the autopsy even as late as Jan. 13th, 1964 (in the
FBI Supplemental Report; CD107).

Just look at the ridiculous (and clueless) statement made by Hoover's
FBI as late as January 13, 1964:

"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that
the bullet which entered his
back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length." --
CD107; p.2

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10507&relPageId=8

So it's not surprising that the Warren Commission and its staff
members might have still been just as clueless about the facts of the
autopsy as late as January 27, 1964, since most of the early
information the WC was getting was coming from the FBI and Hoover's
12/9/63 and 1/13/64 initial reports.

Try again, Tony.


>>> "The WC...had [to] LATER lie in the report and move the wound up from the UPPER BACK to the base of the neck." <<<

Total bullshit.

Why are you continuing to tell this outrageous lie about the WC? The
Commission did no such thing. They did not at any time "move" the back
wound of President Kennedy up into his "neck".

And we KNOW they never "moved" that wound up into the neck.

How can we know?

Because there's photographic PROOF that they never "moved" the wound.
Just take one good look at CE903....or the "opposite angle" picture
similar to CE903. When looking at those pictures, it's obvious that
the WC's SBT trajectory does NOT require a wound to be placed up into
the "neck" of JFK.

In fact, if the wound were to be placed that high (in the "neck"), it
would have ruined the SBT trajectory entirely, because it would have
meant the bullet would have exited JFK's chin instead of his throat
(as the additional "opposite angle" photo shown below [the bottom
link] demonstrates):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0055b.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5JK51k/s1600/Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RoucRB2pM-c/TvWYueE8I2I/AAAAAAAABUg/s1jtdpPrX-E/s1600/Specter-02.png

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ad73e4334e9721bb/04cd7007ef3de8fd?#04cd7007ef3de8fd

JOHN A. CANAL SAID:

>>> "I've been trying to get him [DVP] to offer reasonable answers to my questions re. the entry location (for the bullet that hit JFK in the BOH) for a few years now and his silence has been deafening...and telling." <<<


DAVID R. VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't been silent at all. In fact, I've got a 16-part series on
"JFK's Head Wounds" at one of my websites, right here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

And one of the biggest reasons I have archived most of my Internet
posts over the last 5 to 8 years is for just this very reason--so that
I can then link directly to a previous post (or a series of articles)
where I have addressed the topic in question--instead of having to
write the whole response out again in a brand-new post.

And such previous links come in very handy whenever I hear someone
like Bob Harris claiming that I have never seriously discussed his
"Z285" theory in the past....or when someone like Mr. Canal wants to
pretend that I have not offered any "reasonable answers" to his "BOH"
questions in the past. Because I know I have provided such answers. At
least they are "reasonable" to me.

My answers, of course, are not reasonable to John Canal. And that's
the rub right there. But I certainly have addressed the BOH topics
brought up by John C. and I have addressed the "Z285" theory of Robert
Harris'. And my long-winded 12/1/09 response to Bob (linked recently
on these forums) proves that I have taken a great deal of time to
address his theory.

And my (thus far) 16-part "BOH" series certainly indicates that there
is no "deafening silence" emanating from DVP's computer when it comes
to debating Mr. Canal about his theories either.

Some people sure have short memories, don't they?

[aeffects]

On Dec 27, 10:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

man you lone nut dipshits like to see yourselves posting, they paying
you by the pound moron?

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/250b17ba71ccbe23/f61291ca59ac485e?#f61291ca59ac485e

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:


>>> "Penn and Teller are con artists, not scientists." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't need to be a scientist to prove the jet effect. Any old
comedian or urologist with a rifle can easily prove it -- just like
Lattimer did in the 1970s, and just like Penn & Teller did here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html


What caused that melon to move toward the gunman, Tony, if it wasn't a
jet effect?


>>> "Lattimer did not prove the Jet Effect." <<<

Then why did EVERY single one of Dr. Lattimer's test skulls fly toward
the gunman after they were shot? It certainly can't be because of a
neuromuscular reaction in a dead skull.

So, Tony, tell us what caused all of Lattimer's skulls to be propelled
toward the shooter? (And the "tipping ladder" excuse isn't gonna fly,
btw, because those skulls went flying toward the gunman before that
ladder started tipping backward.)

Quoting Lattimer:

"Our experiments verified that the backward movement of the
President's head was compatible with his being struck from the rear,
and that it was certainly not necessary to hit the head from the front
in order to make the head move toward the gun." -- John K. Lattimer;
Page 255 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"


"I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these
experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand
AWAY from the shooter." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "Kennedy And
Lincoln"

[aeffects]

On Jan 2, 3:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

no advertising moron.....