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 Historical content remains viewable.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

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 148)

147 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 2:19:45 PM8/17/10
to
ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 148):

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

LEE OSWALD'S SMITH & WESSON REVOLVER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/05d95ff5a49e98ba
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3051654a1454099d


RIFLE TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bafe823023c777a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/92bba5b6544824bb


FORUM TALK ABOUT FORUMS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6998af9376c1bdcb
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa7b9c7eb8435382


ASSORTED POSTS BY CONSPIRACY KOOKS AT THE EDUCATION FORUM:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9ecabb3e800f67e


OSWALD LEAVING THE BUILDING:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3006.msg56029.html#msg56029


MARRION BAKER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b87172959e8a180
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d615707a6305b92c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a5efcf221c24ee7f


J. EDGAR HOOVER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aebdc3ff96a32ccc


MORE POSTS/ARTICLES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8f09c49bc3204b0e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/229a2c923f8f9919
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4164ce8b278c4a3
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=180&p=201612&#entry201612
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/56125df595d52ed0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a6b2ac2e37e663f3
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.msg56532.html#msg56532
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.msg56651.html#msg56651


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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 4:01:27 PM8/17/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=150&p=202229&#entry202229

LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "I've never quoted Bugliosi, numb-nuts. I never will." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I never said you did, lizard lips.

>>> "BTW: I'm sure the million bucks Bugliosi got as an advance kinda makes up for the lack of public acclaim for his piece of trash book." <<<


More conspiracy myths coming from the CT brigade, I see. There's no
proof that Bugliosi got a "million bucks" for writing his book. That's
Lifton talking. And, naturally, you lap up every anti-VB word uttered
by Lifton, despite the proof that he was a fool when he said what he
said about RH on 5/24/07 on Anybody-But-Oswald Radio.


http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html


>>> "BTW 2: I'm not surprised by the stringent copyright attached to his book, could he and W.W. Norton foresee the deluge of criticism that was on its way and tried every trick in the book to minimize it?" <<<


Yeah, prob'ly so. Bugliosi and editor/publisher Lawrence certainly
realized that they'd have to put up with a bunch of conspiracy kooks
when they published the book for the ages on the JFK case. You're
living proof of that.


>>> "BTW 3: I guess the fact that I asked your permission to cross-post shows how different we are as human beings eh?" <<<


Yeah, prob'ly so. But I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over
re-posting the incoherent ramblings of Robert "LHO Shot No One" Caprio
at another forum. Exposing that kook's nuttiness is practically a year-
round task.

BTW #4: If you want to play "insult tag" some more, I'm game.

See ya, numb-nuts!

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 17, 2010, 4:50:27 PM8/17/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=165&p=202240&#entry202240


Subject: Link To My Review Of "Reclaiming History"
Date: 8/16/2007
From: David Von Pein
To: Starling Lawrence (W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.)

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

Hello Mr. Lawrence,

Vincent Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) wrote to me today and
said that you wanted me to e-mail you regarding my extensive review
that I've placed on the Internet for Mr. Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming
History".

I've revised and updated the lengthy review a few times since
originally posting it on June 20, 2007, adding more photos, which help
to explain some of the text passages that I have used from the book.

I think the photos (and links to other articles) in the review add an
extra layer of important information for people to evaluate, because
they can see a particular picture or an animated Zapruder Film clip
right next to a quote from the book itself that I have provided.

Here's the link to my book review [newer 2009 blog link provided
below]:

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

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

Subject: Re: Link To My Review Of "Reclaiming History"
Date: 8/16/2007 12:01:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Starling Lawrence
To: David Von Pein

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

Dear Mr. Von Pein:

Well, I don’t think I have ever seen anything like this in my 38 years
sitting in this chair, most of those years, of course, before such a
“review” would be technically possible.

I’m certainly glad that you agree with Vince, for the most part,
otherwise we’d be facing the situation of an huge excerpt (in effect)
being used to beat up on the book. Still, this “review” in three parts
could be construed as a serialization of the book, however informal,
and I’ll have to take my colleagues’ temperature on it.

Can you tell me how many words you quote? In the meantime, let’s
please hold off on any further use of quoted material from the book.
I’ll get back to you soon.

Yours,
Starling Lawrence

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

Subject: RE.: "Reclaiming History" Book Review
Date: 8/16/2007
From: David Von Pein
To: Starling Lawrence

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

Hi Mr. Lawrence,

Thanks for the quick reply.

As I told Rosemary Newton by e-mail the other day, I have no intention
of adding any MORE quotes from the book to my review. Absolutely not.
If I edit anything else, it won't be to add any more quoted passages.

I'm not sure as to the exact number of words I've quoted from the
book. But if you need a word count, I can start counting them.

[Quoting Mr. Lawrence from a previous e-mail:]

P.S...by the way, I am not at all sure what the rights situation on
all those photos is. I know that we paid pretty good money to get
volume rights, but we certainly did not clear any electronic
permissions, and I simply wouldn’t know if posting them on the
internet constitutes some sort of infringement of the copyright on
those photos.

[End Quote.]

The photographs were taken off of the Internet, from various sites
which offer photos on their webpages.

But none of the photos in my review were scanned directly from the
pages of "Reclaiming History". Zero. (I wouldn't know how to do that
anyway.)

A few of the photos in the review do match some of the photos used in
the book's two photo sections. But I didn't scan them from the book
itself. The photos came directly from JFK websites, and they are
pictures that can be viewed by anyone around the globe with Internet
access.

I worked for quite a while on the review for Mr. Bugliosi's "Book for
the Ages", and I'd like to think of the review as an appropriately-
large review for such a grandiose "book for the ages".

Also, I will add, it's a book I have been anxiously awaiting for many
years now....and Vince doesn't disappoint, in my opinion.

And to hear Vince tell it on his radio interviews, I guess I should
thank YOU, Star, personally for some of the large "scope" of
"Reclaiming History"; because Vince relayed the story about you
telling him to "not cut out anything" from the manuscript. In effect,
leave it alone, regardless of its massive size. A good decision, too,
in my opinion.

And, quite obviously, given the huge scope of Vince's tome (1.5-
million words), the quotes from the book used in my review still only
amount to a drop in the bucket when compared to the whole book's text
(percentage-wise).

But, yes, I was a little concerned about getting some type of written
permission for this particular review, due to its size...and due to
the unusual situation that exists with "Reclaiming History", wherein
that book does not provide the normal type of disclaimer at the front
of the book, a disclaimer which usually says (in effect): "You Can
Quote Excerpts For A Review".

I'm very proud of the review, and as I told Rosemary Newton (and Mr.
Bugliosi, through Rosemary), it's my hope that such an in-depth review
would make a few more people want to read the WHOLE book from start to
finish. I certainly hope that would be the case for many readers
anyway.

[...]

Thank you very much for your time. And thanks, most of all, for
publishing "Reclaiming History". I've enjoyed it immensely (as you can
probably already tell).

Best Regards,
David R. Von Pein
davev...@aol.com

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

Subject: FW: Link To My Review Of "Reclaiming History"
Date: 10/16/2007 11:04:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Jessie Hughes
To: David Von Pein

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

Mr. Von Pein,

Further to your correspondence with Starling Lawrence, while we would
normally consider such use of the text to be permissive, in this case
we are willing to waive any rights we have in the text for such use
and can confirm that we have no objection to your continued use [of]
the text on your website within your review.

That said, we do not control the rights in any of the photos and
therefore cannot speak to their use. You may wish to contact the
rights holders of the photos to verify they have no objection to their
use or seek licenses from said rights holders.

Regards -
Jessie Hughes

Jessie Hughes
Contracts Manager
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10110

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 18, 2010, 5:03:15 PM8/18/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=330&p=202441&#entry202441


Great post, Lee [Farley]. Thanks for identifying yourself as an
"EVERYBODY WAS A LIAR" schmuck, in addition to being a charter member
in the popular "ANYBODY BUT OSWALD" club of oddballs, super-kooks, and
schmucks too.

So, per Lee "Schmuck" Farley:

Brewer was a liar.
McDonald was a liar.
CT Walker was a liar.
Bentley was a liar.
G. Hill was a liar.
Ruth Paine was a liar.
Will Fritz was a liar.
Barbara Davis was a liar.
V. Davis was a liar.
Scoggins was a liar.
Markham was a liar.
Tatum was a liar.
Callaway was a liar.
All members of the WC were liars.
All members of the HSCA were liars.
All 4 Clark Panel members were liars.

My fingers are cramping. I can't type in the other 3,974 liars here in
this post. Maybe Farley can finish the list of liars for me....you
know, the ones who were desperate to frame that dear innocent LHO as
their patsy for TWO murders. And that's not even counting the number
of PRE-assassination plotters who were attempting to frame the same
patsy that the WC/HSCA and all of the above post-11/22 liars were also
trying to frame. Amazing like-mindedness there, eh Farley?

BTW, I thought you were done with me, Farley.

Please keep your promises next time.

>>> "Oswald's acting "funny" and "scared" after shooting a no-mark [?] cop, but when Marion [sic] Baker sees him after shooting the President of the United States, he's as calm as a cucumber? Make sense to you?" <<<


Yes. It makes perfect sense. And if you think about it for a few
minutes, you'll see why it makes perfect sense too.

>>> "Is there something wrong with you? Would you like tell everyone on the board, just for future reference, how you would like us all to incorrectly spell Officer Marion [sic] Baker's name please? Marian Baker? Martian Baker? Ming-a-ling Baker? Butcher Baker Candlestick Maker? Your perception and decision making capabilities are that of a five year old aren't they Dave? All reasonable people know that." <<<


Why are you yelling at me for pointing out your obvious mistake?
Officer Marrion L. Baker's first name is spelled with two Rs, not one.
(As illustrated by a look at 3 H 242 linked below.) That was the
reason for my previous "[sic]".

Too many green apples today, Lee?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0125b.htm

>>> "BTW, I'm in a better mood today..." <<<


Could have fooled me. You sound like an old crank to me. I liked you
better yesterday, Mr. ABO.


>>> "...and have a higher threshold for PAIN whilst reading your BS. Better stock up on those vomit bags." <<<


Yeah, you got that right. Between the ABO crap dished out here in
copious quantities by you and Jim DiEugenio (alone), my vomit bags are
getting plenty of use, let me tell you.

>>> "You're as see through as a piece of Reynold's Wrap." <<<


LOL. Lee is having a very bad (and cranky) day. Because you can't "see
through" Reynold's Wrap. It's a solid packaging material. Not clear.

Continue, though, Mr. Crank. I'm enjoying the laughs.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 18, 2010, 10:31:00 PM8/18/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=345&p=202495&#entry202495


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:


>>> "So here you go saying Oswald killed Tippit and yet, you cannot even: 1. Prove he had the revolver in his possession. .... 2. Prove the bullets came from that revolver. .... 3. Prove the shells were fired at Tippit that day. .... 4. Prove the automatic shells were not switched. .... 5. Prove Oswald ever purchased ammo--remember the fast frisk that came up with nothing? And to top it off, someone dropped a mock-up of Oswald's wallet at the scene. And Oswald's prints are not on the car." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim is delusional (as usual). He props up the most ridiculous things
in his lame attempts to exonerate a double-killer....such as ALL of
the above.

And I love #4 -- Jimbo seems to thinks it's incumbent upon ME to prove
that the shells "WERE NOT SWITCHED", instead of Jim having to prove
that they WERE "switched".

Sorry, James, that's not how it works. And you, of course, know it.

And Jim's fifth item above seems to suggest that Jim now believes the
5 bullets were PLANTED on the person of Lee Oswald. LOL. Please tell
me, Jim, that you truly believe that those bullets were "planted" in
Oswald's pocket by the police. I want to see you type that out for
everybody to see.

And while you're at it, why not tell us how you think the paper bus
transfer was "planted" in LHO's pocket too. You surely believe that
item was planted too, don't you Jim? Remember, there are no creases or
folds in it. That PROVES it was planted, right?!


>>> "You like to argue in circles. And after every round you lose, you just start over somewhere else. Never acknowledging you cannot prove anything even though you are the prosecution and bear the burden of proof." <<<

LOL. I love that last hunk of crap, coming as it does right on the
heels of Jimbo's #4 item of insanity above. Allow me to place these
two gems from Jimbo The Delusional back-to-back, so that the LOL and
Pot/Kettle effects from these remarks can sink in even more:

"Prove the automatic shells were not switched."

"You are the prosecution and bear the burden of proof."


Let's take Jim's riduculous and insane list of things, one-by-one:

1.) "Prove he had the revolver in his possession" --- Jim wants me to
prove that Lee Harvey Oswald had Smith & Wesson Revolver No. V510210
"in his possession".

This first item on Jim's list doesn't even warrant a reply, because
it's so utterly stupid and idiotic, but I'll play along anyway--just
for the laughs.

Oswald was caught RED-HANDED with that EXACT revolver (Serial Number
#V510210) in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater on
11/22/63, just thirty-five minutes after a policeman had been murdered
with that EXACT SAME GUN.

Jim D., as we all can see by now, is totally delusional, and will
continue to ignore the BEST EVIDENCE in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
cases until he draws his last breath of polluted Los Angeles air.


2.) "Prove the bullets came from that revolver" --- Given the sum
total of all the evidence in the Tippit case (including the ballistics
evidence and eyewitness testimony), the bullets that killed J.D.
Tippit had NO CHOICE but to have come out of Smith & Wesson Revolver
#V510210.

And part of that "sum total" of evidence is the testimony of Illinois
firearms identification expert Joseph D. Nicol, who testified that it
was his opinion that one of the four bullets that was removed from
J.D. Tippit's body had positively been fired from S&W revolver
#V510210 to the exclusion of all other weapons [see 3 H 512].

It is true, however, that none of the FBI firearms experts who also
examined the same Tippit bullets would say that any of the bullets
could be matched to the S&W revolver "to the exclusion". But Nicol is
on record as saying it was his opinion that ONE of the bullets (but
only one) could be linked conclusively to that revolver.

And that's kind of funny in and of itself. I mean, here we have
various firearms guys from the FBI looking at the same bullets that
Nicol was examining, but the FBI men (led by, according to Jim
DiEugenio, one of the chief "Let's Pin Everything On Oswald" cover-up
operatives connected to the case, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover) are
the ones who DIDN'T say that any of the Tippit bullets could be
conclusively matched to Oswald's pistol. But the INDEPENDENT firearms
guy who was brought in by the Warren Commission, Joe Nicol, DID say
that one bullet could be linked to LHO's gun.

I just think that's kind of ironic, considering the great lengths that
conspiracy theorists like Mr. DiEugenio have gone to in order to smear
Hoover and his Federal Bureau of Investigation when it comes to the
JFK case.

If we're to believe DiEugenio when it comes to how bad the FBI
conducted itself in this double-murder case, you would think that
those final determinations regarding the Tippit bullets would have
been reversed--with the rotten, evil FBI boys saying that one or more
bullets could be tied irrevocably to the gun that was owned by their
all-time favorite patsy.

BTW, Jim, why didn't the FBI lie and just go along with Nicol's "to
the exclusion" conclusion?

Food for thought anyway.

When it comes down to the brass tacks and the meat-and-potatoes of the
situation, Jim DiEugenio HAS to know that Oswald's V510210 revolver
killed Tippit. But, as he always does, Jimbo will grab for the chaff
instead of harvesting the wheat that is consuming him.

The "wheat", of course, in this instance (apart from the one bullet
that Nicol said was definitely fired from Oswald's gun) would include
the four bullet shells that littered Tenth Street just after Officer
Tippit was killed.

And even WITHOUT the two "Poe" shells, Oswald's guilt can be
conclusively established--via the OTHER TWO SHELLS that were picked up
by two more civialian witnesses at the scene of the crime (Barbara
Davis and Virginia Davis), which are two bullet shells/hulls that did
not pass through the hands of Dallas Patrolman J.M. Poe.


3.) "Prove the shells were fired at Tippit that day" --- Here again
we're treated to another example of a conspiracy theorist looking
sideways at some of the evidence and declaring, in effect, "This
evidence is not what it seems to be".

CTers are experts at dredging up the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be"
dodge when it comes to virtually all of the evidence connected with
BOTH President Kennedy's and J.D. Tippit's murders.

The conspiracy-happy clowns like DiEugenio, of course, are FORCED to
dredge up that silly argument. Because if they don't, then their #1
patsy named Lee Harvey is as guilty as Hitler.

So, as part of this dodge, DiEugenio wants me to prove that the four
bullet shells that were found and recovered at the Tippit murder scene
itself on the day of the murder were, in fact, fired at Tippit from
Oswald's revolver that very same day.

Anyone on the planet, of course, could utilize this same type of silly
dodge. In fact, I think I'll turn the tables on Delusional Jim and ask
the very same thing of him right now:

Hey Jim -- Prove to me that that "pointy-nosed" bullet that you say
was the real stretcher bullet found by Darrell Tomlinson at Parkland
Hospital was really fired at somebody on November 22, 1963?

And also prove to me that the bullet you say was found and handled by
Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox was really fired on 11/22/63. Maybe that
bullet had been in Dealey Plaza since 1955. Who can tell, right?

And the same question applies to the other non-Oswald bullets and
shells that you think were found in and around the Dealey Plaza crime
scene. Prove that any of those bullets/shells were fired from guns
being aimed at John F. Kennedy on November 22nd.


4.) "Prove the automatic shells were not switched" --- Well, since no
"automatic" shells were ever left at the murder scene by the ONE AND
ONLY gunman who killed Tippit (with that gunman being Lee Oswald, of
course), then this #4 item on Jim's list is really pretty much moot in
the first place.

Once again, we've got Jim D. doing a really, really rotten job of
evaluating the TOTALITY of the evidence in this case.

Jim knows full well that there was ONLY ONE PERSON firing ONLY ONE GUN
at Officer J.D. Tippit on 10th Street. And since automatic weapons
will AUTOMATICALLY eject their spent shells after bullets are fired
from those guns, this would mean that if Jim is correct, then the
killer with the AUTOMATIC gun was firing at Tippit from the CORNER of
10th Street and Patton Avenue (which, of course, is the area where all
four of Oswald's spent bullet cartridges were found after the
shooting).

Or, as an alternative (and the only alternative Jim The Delusional has
here), I guess the gunman who fired the automatic weapon at Tippit
picked up his automatic shell casings near Tippit's patrol car (which
is, of course, the location where the one and only gunman [Oswald] was
seen firing bullets at Tippit) and then carried those automatic shells
to the corner of Tenth & Patton and then threw them on the ground.

DiEugenio, of course, knows that neither of the above two alternatives
really took place, and Jim also knows that's it's highly unlikely that
ALL THREE of the civialian witnesses (Domingo Benavides, Virginia
Davis, and Barbara Davis) who said that they saw the killer physically
dumping bullet shells onto the ground near the Davis residence on the
corner were ALL telling a big fat lie about the murderer physically
dumping shells out of his gun (which means, of course, that that gun
was not an AUTOMATIC weapon--it was a REVOLVER--because an automatic
would not need to have its spent cartridges physically removed from
the chamber of the gun; but this little fact means zilch to James
DiEugenio).

But even though Jim knows about all of the above rock-solid facts, he
will continue to insist that an "automatic" gun killed J.D. Tippit.

BTW, Dale Myers fully explains Gerald Hill's erroneous remark about
"automatic shells" being found at the Tippit murder scene. See Myers'
1998 book "With Malice" for the complete (and logical) story on that
topic.


5.) "Prove Oswald ever purchased ammo--remember the fast frisk that
came up with nothing?" --- As mentioned earlier, this item here makes
it sound like Jim believes the pistol bullets were planted in Oswald's
pocket by evil conspirators. But that idea is just plain weird.

The police already had Oswald's gun, plus the SIX LIVE ROUNDS that
were loaded into the chamber of that gun. But they still had a desire
to frame him SOME MORE by placing another five bullets in his pocket??
That's silly beyond belief.

And this idea that conspiracy theorists routinely raise about Oswald
never having bought any bullets to put into his Mannlicher-Carcano
C2766 rifle is just another in a never-ending series of stupid topics
raised by the rabid CTers of the world.

Despite Delusional DiEugenio's paper-thin arguments to the contrary,
Lee Harvey Oswald unquestionably purchased Carcano Rifle #C2766 from
Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963.

And since we know that Oswald/"Hidell" definitely purchased that rifle
from Klein's, then it stands to reason that Oswald would have seen to
it that he had a supply of bullets to put into that Carcano rifle
after purchasing it (even though he didn't buy the bullets from
Klein's).

And all reasonable and sensible people also know that Oswald DID,
indeed, obviously obtain some bullets to put into his Carcano carbine
rifle in the year 1963, because Oswald himself fired bullets from that
very gun at President Kennedy on November 22nd of that year.

Plus, we also know (based on the sum total of evidence that says it's
true) that Oswald also fired one bullet from that same rifle at
retired General Edwin A. Walker on the 10th of April of that same
year, 1963.

As for Jim's two unnumbered items: the wallet issue and the lack of
any Oswald prints on Tippit's police car:

As discussed at length previously, the wallet that may have been found
on the ground on Tenth Street on 11/22/63 almost certainly did NOT
belong to Lee Harvey Oswald and it also almost certainly did NOT
contain any reference to Oswald either.

Because if it had been connected in ANY way to the person who was
charged with committing Tippit's murder, there would be some mention
of that wallet SOMEWHERE in the official police record of the case.
But there isn't. Hence, it couldn't possibly be a wallet that was
"connected" in some way to Oswald. That's only common sense.

Plus, I don't think it's been proven that ANY wallet was "found" on
the ground at that murder scene; the wallet could be ANYBODY'S for all
we know.

And I have no idea why Jim DiEugenio thinks that Oswald's prints would
have necessarily had to be anywhere on Tippit's car. His fingerprints
weren't on the car because it's very likely he never touched Tippit's
car with his fingers or hands. Simple as that.

And as for some unidentified prints being lifted from Tippit's car
door or right front fender (or possibly both) -- So what? What does
that prove?

Don't tell me that you think it would have been impossible for the
patrol car of a Dallas city policeman to have been touched by someone
prior to the time Tippit arrived at Tenth and Patton on November 22nd?

In other words -- What makes you think any unidentified prints on
Tippit's car HAD to have been left there by Tippit's murderer?
Couldn't some NON-MURDERER have touched that car earlier that day?

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 2:25:33 AM8/19/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=360&p=202507&#entry202507

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=360&p=202508&#entry202508


TOM SCULLY ASKED:

>>> "Where does your faith in the official version come from?" <<<


DVP ANSWERED:


The evidence. Where else?


>>> "The truth, David, is that you work at telling us that, in spite of all the anamolies [sic] I've just posted about, and plenty more that could be added....that everything is just the way the WC report and Mr. Hoover said it was. Gary Mack gets paid to do that..." <<<


No, he doesn't. He gets paid to be curator of the Sixth Floor Museum
at Dealey Plaza. And he's not an "LNer" either. You just want to
believe in the silly myth about him.


>>> "...why would anybody work at doing that, for nothing?" <<<


How do you know I do my "LN" work for nothing? Maybe I rake in
millions from Langley for doing it.


>>> "The men behind the WC report were too flawed to take seriously, especially when it comes to their determination that Jack Ruby, too, was an LN. What are the odds that such flawed men would conduct a near flawless investigation and produce a reliable report about the two murders?" <<<


Simple. They followed the evidence where it led them....and (just as
important!) they didn't treat unfounded rumors and speculation as
FACT.

All conspiracy theorists could learn some good habits from the Warren
Commission.

Plus, I noticed you didn't mention the fact that the HSCA came to the
same exact conclusions about OSWALD'S GUILT. (Yes, they said there was
a conspiracy, but I think we all know that that 11th-hour conclusion
was rushed and ultimately totally flawed.)

Now, since we know that the HSCA's last-hour "conspiracy" conclusion
was pure bunk (being based, as it was, on the flawed Dictabelt
analysis), what are the odds that BOTH the Warren boys AND the HSCA
would (or could) arrive at the exact same basic conclusion re: JFK's
death? With that conclusion being: Lee Harvey Oswald did it and no
other gunmen hit any victims with any bullets.

I'm continually amazed by the enormous amount of willful and stubborn
ignorance of the Anybody But Oswald crowd -- they not only sweep the
Warren Commission's perfectly accurate conclusion about Oswald's guilt
under the rug....but they ALSO sweep the same conclusion of the HSCA
under the carpet too.

It's just not logical to do that, Mr. Scully. It's just not.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 2:38:49 AM8/19/10
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ddaa97ac0bace829/4c9fa0abf4d6939c?#4c9fa0abf4d6939c


>>> "I wouldn't want to see you get booted again [from The Education Forum]." <<<

Doesn't really matter to me. Almost all of the CTers there are a bunch
of kooks anyway. But that's not really surprising.

I'm sure I'll say something one day that will irk Simkin, and he'll
show me the door. It's bound to happen. I have to sit on my hands to
keep from typing the K word at that place. But, I've been good so far--
I haven't called any of those kooks kooks yet.

aeffects

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 4:31:35 AM8/19/10
to
On Aug 18, 11:38 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>
> >>> "I wouldn't want to see you get booted again [from The Education Forum]." <<<
>
> Doesn't really matter to me. Almost all of the CTers there are a bunch
> of kooks anyway. But that's not really surprising.
>
> I'm sure I'll say something one day that will irk Simkin, and he'll
> show me the door. It's bound to happen. I have to sit on my hands to
> keep from typing the K word at that place. But, I've been good so far--
> I haven't called any of those kooks kooks yet.

Not bother you? LMFAO! You pissy ass weeny, of course it bothers
you.... you *need* to get thrown out of there. So shithead, most there
have forgot more than you a pathetic lone nut K-O-O-K-S-T-E-R you'll
EVER know re the JFK assassination....
Does your constant whining have an end, hon? Still waiting for
Bugliosi's autograph, you know the one he said 24 months ago was in
the mail? You're a hoot!

Gary Buell

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 2:43:28 PM8/19/10
to
On Aug 17, 11:19 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 148):
>
> ======================================================
>
> LEE OSWALD'S SMITH & WESSON REVOLVER:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/05d95ff5a49e98bahttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3051654a1454099d
>
> RIFLE TALK:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bafe823023c777ahttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/92bba5b6544824bb
>
> FORUM TALK ABOUT FORUMS:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6998af9376c1bdcbhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa7b9c7eb8435382

>
> ASSORTED POSTS BY CONSPIRACY KOOKS AT THE EDUCATION FORUM:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9ecabb3e800f67e
>
> OSWALD LEAVING THE BUILDING:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3006.msg56029.ht...
>
> MARRION BAKER:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b87172959e8a180http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d615707a6305b92chttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a5efcf221c24ee7f> MORE POSTS/ARTICLES:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8f09c49bc3204b0ehttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/229a2c923f8f9919http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d4164ce8b278c4a3http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=180&p=...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/56125df595d52ed0http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a6b2ac2e37e663f3http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.msg56532.ht...http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.msg56651.ht...
>
> ======================================================

Actually Dave they weren't of interest the first time and are of less
interest the second.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 5:59:07 PM8/19/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=375&p=202596&#entry202596


>>> "So, you like to take bits of [Earlene Roberts'] testimony because it meets your requirements; but you don't believe her on others. I've heard some LN's point blank call her a liar, Dave. You don't subscribe to the view that she's a liar?" <<<

She might very well have been lying about the horn-honking episode on
Nov. 22. Because the odds are that such an incident probably didn't
occur at the precise time she said it did that day (when Oswald WAS
INSIDE HIS ROOM -- which narrows the timeline considerably, esp. when
we consider the fact that it's highly unlikely that LHO was inside
that room for more than 30 to 60 seconds that day; so the cop car
would have had to pick that EXACT MINUTE to honk the horn; highly
unlikely occurrence).

And Roberts is almost certainly wrong about the "3 to 4 minutes"
timing. Even she herself contradicted her "3-4 minute" timeline when
she said to the WC that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I
guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on" [6 H 440].

Now, how many people think it takes "3 to 4 minutes" to go into a
crackerbox-sized room and put on a coat and come out again? 3 minutes?
Pffft. Ridic.


http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/earlene-roberts.html

>>> "Do you believe that Helen Markham saw Oswald shoot J.D. Tippit?" <<<

Yes. Of course she saw Oswald kill Tippit. (Obligatory "Duh!" required
here.)

And, of course, the same "Was She Lying?" standard should be applied
by CTers to Helen Markham -- i.e., the CTers love her for her "1:06"
timeline for the Tippit shooting; but they think she's dead wrong (or
lying) when she positively IDed the CTers' favorite patsy as the
murderer of Officer Tippit.

Not all witnesses are 100% right about EVERYTHING. Everybody knows
this. People are human. And humans make lots of mistakes. And one
thing people are usually very bad at doing is reconstructing perfect
timelines....which is why the witness statements are all over the map
for several "timing" aspects of the JFK/Tippit case. Like Markham, for
example, who told the FBI that the shooting had occurred "around
1:30", but she then tells the WC it was likely at 1:06 or 1:07. So,
grain of salt required.


http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/helen-markham.html

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 19, 2010, 11:20:03 PM8/19/10
to


http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=390&p=202669&#entry202669


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Uh Davey Boy...what time did the ambulance arrive [at the scene of the Tippit shooting]? What time was it when Bowley looked at his watch? What did Benavides say, that he was crouched low in his car for a few minutes before he called in at 1:16 over the police radio. (Summers, Conspiracy, pgs. 91-92). Keep it up with the deliberate John McAdams outliers Davey and don't provide the proper context. Maybe someone like FC [Francois Carlier] will buy it. Or maybe Larry Dunkel [Jimbo the kook is referring to Gary Mack here]." <<<


DVP SAID:

If Officer Tippit had really been shot at 1:06 (per Helen Markham) or
1:10 (per T.F. Bowley), this would mean that Domingo Benavides and
Bowley stood around and waited SIX to TEN minutes before using
Tippit's car radio to report the shooting.

Per the DPD radio records, at 1:16 PM, somebody began "pumping" a
police radio microphone for about 90 seconds. (This was obviously
Benavides' botched attempt to call in on Tippit's radio.)

Bowley then got through and told the dispatcher that a policeman had
been shot. Bowley's call came through at 1:18, after Benavides had
apparently been unsuccessful at working the radio for about 1.5
minutes.

The 1:16-1:18 timing of the Benavides/Bowley radio calls indicates
that the shooting very likely occurred just a very short time prior to
1:16. [See "With Malice" by Dale K. Myers; pp. 86-87.]

But people like J. DiEugenio evidently want to believe that Benavides
& Bowley just stood around picking lint out of their belly buttons for
up to ten full minutes before getting into Tippit's car to use the
radio. (And even a SIX-minute delay in reporting the murder is
ludicrous too.)

In short --- DiEugenio, as usual, is dead wrong.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit at approximately 1:14 to 1:15 PM
CST on 11/22/63, and the Dallas Police Department radio dispatch
records (coupled with ordinary common sense and logic) fully support
that timeline.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 1:09:57 AM8/20/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=390&p=202688&#entry202688


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

No Davey, as usual you are distorting the record as you just did with
Earlene Roberts.

I quoted you right out of Summers' book didn't I? You ignored that and
walked right over it. Here is the direct citation from Summers:

"T. F. Bewley came upon Tippit's body in the street while on his
way to pick up his wife. As he got out to help, Bewley looked at his
watch, which read 1:10 PM.....Domingo Benavides, who was credited with
reporting the shooting over the poice radio at 1:16, said he had by
then already crunched terrified in his truck for "a few minutes" after
the murder.....On all this evidence, even allowing for Bewley's watch
being a little slow, it is reasonable to conclude that Tippit was shot
by 1:12 at the latest." (Summers, p. 92, emphasis added)

The late Larry Harris, who did more and better work on Tippit than
anyone, told me that his best estimate of the time of the murder was
1:08 or, at the latest, 1:09.

Now I know why you won't debate me Davey. Well, in that rather
cowardly regard, you are in the right food business.

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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just as I said, you've got a 6 to 10-minute delay in reporting the
shooting if you want to go with the 1:06 or 1:10 timelines. That is
not a reasonable delay, IMO. And "a few minutes", by any reasonable
definition, would be fewer than ten. Ten would be "several". But
you'll just call that nitpicking, so I won't go any further.

And, as discussed earlier, I think we know how good people are at
judging "minutes" -- they are generally lousy. And that fact is proven
over and over again in just this JFK/Tippit case.

Jim Altgens, when estimating the length of time for the shooting of
JFK said that "all the shots were fired within the space of less than
30 seconds." (Well, I certainly hope so. Or else, Oliver Stone had
better add a couple dozen more shots to his shooting scenario.)

J.C. Price said there was a FIVE-MINUTE gap between shots in Dealey
Plaza. (And I'm sure you love Price, because he was utilized by Mark
Lane in RTJ.)

And then there's the previously-discussed all-over-the-map timelines
of Helen Markham -- from 1:06 to 1:30.

And then there's the timing of the Tippit shooting by Virginia Davis
-- she said it occurred "about 1:30" in her affidavit.

BTW, Jim, it's T.F. Bowley, not "Bewley".

Did Tony Summers really call him "Bewley" in his 1980 book?

BTW #2 -- Care to explain away those two Davis bullet shells yet? I'm
sure you can find a way to pretend those were planted by Doughty and
Dhority, can't you?

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 2:53:50 AM8/20/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=390&p=202688&#entry202688

It's fairly obvious that Jim DiEugenio couldn't care less about the
truth in the JFK assassination. His job is to find as many excuses as
he can possibly find to avoid having to ever say "Oswald did it".
Those three words are like poison to a CTer like Jimbo. Pure arsenic.

Jim will now turn the tables and say my last sentence reeks of pot/
kettle-ism, and that the words "conspiracy" and "Oswald is innocent"
are poison to my lips.

But he'll be wrong if he says that. And that's because my "Oswald did
it" conclusion is a much more reasonable one than Jim's "Everything is
fake" conclusion when it comes to examining the evidence in the
murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit. I don't require EVERY last piece of
evidence to be fake in this case in order to arrive at my conclusion.
Jim, however, needs literally every piece of evidence to be tainted in
order for his "ABO" views to be accurate.

And, I ask sincerely -- is that a reasonable requirement?

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


http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=390&p=202702&#entry202702

The Warren Commission was probably slightly off on their "1:03 PM"
timeline, yes. But keep in mind that the WC said that all times were
"approximate". Nobody can know exactly when Oswald left the
roominghouse. It could have been earlier than 1:00, and I think it
probably was earlier than 1:00.

And nobody can know exactly when he ENTERED the roominghouse either.
All we can do is guess. Nobody was following LHO with a stopwatch
affixed to his tail.

But even if he did leave his room at 1:03, he still had enough time to
get to Tenth St. by 1:14 or so. And 1:14 is positively the best guess
for when the shooting happened (see Myers' "With Malice"; p.86).
Various people have done re-enactments of the trip to Tenth St., and
it's been done is as little as 11 minutes.

And as I've said, there's no way that Oswald would have had any reason
to be in that small room of his for any 3-4 minutes that day. There
wasn't a bathroom in that room. It was a large closet. You could
barely swing a cat in it.

And Earlene Roberts herself said that he was only in his room long
enough to get a coat and put it on. That's all. And she extrapolated
that to "3 or 4 minutes". No way.

And in the TV movie "Ruby & Oswald", it was proven via a re-creation
that Oswald's actions of grabbing a gun and putting on a jacket and
then exiting the room can be done in 22 seconds. So, what else was LHO
doing in there for the remaining 3.5 minutes, if Roberts' timeline is
correct? He wasn't taking a dump, because as I said there's certainly
no toilet in that small room.

The CTers make a giant issue out of the narrow timeline. But in
actuality, it SHOULD be pretty narrow, because Oswald very likely
wasn't loitering on Tenth Street or on Beckley before he reached
Tenth. So a narrow timeline, with little wiggle room, is what I would
expect.

But to discount A DOZEN eyewitnesses and the ballistics evidence,
which are things that conclusively prove Oswald's guilt in Tippit's
slaying, in favor of a few minutes' discrepancy in a witness'
timeline....is just plain silly.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 6:07:53 AM8/20/10
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e84fd192eed68356


For a lot more laughs (in addition to the many factual errors on his
website), tune in to ex-FBI agent Don Adams' 5-part radio interview on
this webpage:

http://adamsjfk.com/Home.html

In Part 2 of the program, Adams tells all kinds of falsehoods, such as
the howler about how Oswald would have had to criss-cross the Book
Depository building a total of THREE different times in order to get
from the sixth-floor "loft" (as Adams calls it) to the second-floor
"break room" (as Adams calls the lunchroom)!

Adams actually seems to think that Oswald had to cross the entire
length of the building THREE times--once to hide the rifle; then
another criss-cross to get to the stairs (totally untrue); and then a
third crossing of the building in order to reach the lunchroom (also a
lie).

This guy doesn't know the most basic facts about the assassination or
Oswald's movements.

More stuff that Adams has wrong (the list is almost endless if you
listen to the full 5-part Cleveland radio interview):

He thinks it was Rufus Youngblood who climbed aboard JFK's car right
after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

He seemed to imply that the original motorcade route would have taken
the car down Elm St. through Dallas, instead of Main (at least that's
what he said).

He implies that the back of JFK's head is missing in the existing
autopsy pictures. Goofy.

He claims that NONE of the Secret Service agents gave any statements
to anyone in officialdom. He evidently isn't aware that every SS agent
in Kennedy's detail wrote up an official report for the SS files, plus
several agents appeared before the WC--e.g., Clint Hill, Roy
Kellerman, and Bill Greer.

Adams claims that nobody bothered to even check the bullets that came
out of J.D. Tippit's body to see if they could be matched to Oswald's
revolver. He thinks it wasn't done at all, despite the testimony of
Joe Nicol and Bob Frazier...with Nicol even stating that one of the
bullets could be matched to LHO's gun.

He claims that somebody had to approach Jackie Kennedy and ask her to
relinquish the piece of JFK's head that she carried to
Parkland...instead of Jackie herself voluntarily giving the head piece
to Dr. Pepper Jenkins (which, of course, is what happened).

And, of course, we're treated to the usual CT excrement about how
Oswald's shooting feat was absolutely impossible, and how it's never
been duplicated by anybody on the mortal coil. And then we a goof who
calls in the radio show to say that he and his Marine sniper team
couldn't come anywhere near Oswald's feat, with the caller saying that
he couldn't do it in less than SIXTEEN seconds. And the best his
commanding officer could accomplish was TWELVE seconds. (Great sniper
team there. Irene Ryan of The Beverly Hillbillies could have done it
in under ten seconds--easy.)

And there's the usual stuff about how Oswald's rifle was a piece of
junk. And the lie about how Oswald didn't kill Tippit either. Etc.,
etc.

Don Adams, in effect, is clueless.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 20, 2010, 7:32:56 PM8/20/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=405&p=202770&#entry202770

>>> "William Whaley claims his reenactment took him 9 minutes to get from where he picked Oswald up to the rooming house and that was when the lights went his way." <<<

Yes, cab driver William W. Whaley did say it took "nine minutes" to
perform one of the re-enactments from Greyhound to Beckley and Neely
[at 2 H 259]. But you're leaving out the other re-enactment, which was
performed on the same day Whaley gave additional testimony in front of
the Warren Commission (April 8, 1964).

In that second re-enactment with Whaley and Warren Commission counsel
member David W. Belin present, the cab ride was reconstructed from the
Greyhound bus terminal to the intersection of Beckley Avenue and Neely
Street in Oak Cliff (which is where Whaley said Oswald got out of the
taxicab).

That 4/8/64 re-creation was timed by stopwatch at 5 minutes and 30
seconds [see 6 H 434 and WCR Page 163]:


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0222b.htm


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0094a.htm


DAVID BELIN -- "When we went out there today, when we started the
stopwatch from the Greyhound bus station to the 700 block of North
Beckley, do you know about how many minutes that was on the stop
watch?"

WILLIAM WHALEY -- "A little more than 5 minutes, between 5 and 6
minutes."

MR. BELIN -- "Would your trip that day, on November 22, have been
longer or shorter, or about the same time as the trip we took today?"

MR. WHALEY -- "It would be approximately the same time, sir, give or
take a few seconds, not minutes. Because the man drove just about as
near to my driving as possible. We made every light that I made, and
we stopped on the lights that I stopped on."

MR. BELIN -- "Let the record show that the stopwatch was 5 minutes and
30 seconds from the commencement of the ride to the end of the ride."

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


RELATED LINK:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-whaley.html


WILLIAM WHALEY VIDEOS:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/william-whaley.html

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 7:13:07 AM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=420&p=202846&#entry202846


Lee Farley,

Your argument about the cab re-enactments is nonsense (of course).
WHALEY HIMSELF said the second re-enactment took between 5 and 6
minutes. Those words came out of WHALEY'S own mouth.

I have no idea why one re-enactment supposedly took 9 minutes
(according to Whaley), while another one took only 5.5 minutes. But
the fact is: the 4/8/64 re-enactment took 5.5 minutes--and WHALEY
HIMSELF VERIFIED IT via his WC testimony.

Therefore, the trip from the Greyhound bus station to Beckley & Neely
could definitely be driven in less than 9 minutes (and even less than
6). Or are we supposed to believe that Whaley is a liar now too?

Is there any end to the number of people the conspiracy theorists are
willing to call liars? Any end at all? (Just curious.)

>>> "Oswald wasn't on the bus." <<<


Yeah, I've been expecting to hear that stupid theory from one of you
Anybody-But-Oswald nuts pretty soon. Thanks for not disappointing me,
Lee boy.

As usual, per the ABO kooks and retards, everything is fake, including
the item pictured below, which was found in LHO's pocket. (Prob'ly
planted there, right Lee?)

And Farley has to paint his precious patsy as a liar in the "bus"
regard too, because Oswald himself admitted to getting on a bus after
leaving the Depository on November 22nd. The cops probably lied about
the patsy saying that, right Lee? Yeah, that must be it.

That's a nice all-encompassing pack of worthless liars you've got
there -- from virtually all the witnesses (e.g., Whaley, V. Davis, B.
Davis, Scoggins, Callaway, Markham, Brennan, and a multitude of
others), to the DPD, to the FBI, to the WC, to the HSCA. All liars
right down the line. Right, Lee boy?

[Lee Farley, btw, is as retarded as they come with respect to his
analysis of the evidence in the JFK assassination.]

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 7:51:10 AM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=420&p=202852&#entry202852


>>> "So Dave, why do you think Oswald had [cab driver William] Whaley drive him FIVE blocks past his rooming house, so then he had to walk back?" <<<


Simple, Bill [Kelly]. The reason was very likely two-fold on Oswald's
part:

LHO didn't want the cab driver to know exactly where he lived. And #2
(which is even a better reason IMO), he wanted to see if any police or
strangers were lurking near 1026 Beckley. After all, he had just
killed the President, and he had to know that the cops would be hot on
his trail very soon.

Yes, he could, of course, have checked the immediate area around his
roominghouse for cop cars and "strangers", etc., and then have Whaley
let him out just a few yards beyond the roominghouse, which would have
made the walk back to his room much shorter. But he didn't do that.
And since nobody can read his mind on this issue, we'll never know for
sure exactly why Oswald did all of the things he did on November 22.
But we know he DID do them.

And: Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address,
so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver
(and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson
revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely
because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the
Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car
TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he
thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier
possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody
about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).

I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his
revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to
murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it
certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-
speaking).

But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his
primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway
plan.

Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22,
1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald
achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the
person he was attempting to assassinate.

BTW, Oswald was driven only THREE blocks past his roominghouse, Bill.
Not five. LHO had Whaley drop him off in the 700 block of N. Beckley,
instead of travelling all the way to the 500 block, which LHO
originally told Whaley was his destination.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 8:45:24 AM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=420&p=202857&#entry202857


>>> "Now you are saying that you want to use the official Whaley reenactment time of 5 minutes 30 seconds. That's fine. Use the official WC timing. Will you also be using the official Warren Commission timing of Oswald's walk from Beckley to Patton? 17 minutes and 45 seconds. Are you going to use this in your timeline, Dave?" <<<

You obviously cannot read. Because David Belin fully explains at 6 H
434 (below) that the 17:45 timing was the "LONG WAY AROUND ROUTE".
Taking a more direct route (plus moving a little faster than the
"AVERAGE WALKING PACE" that was utilized during the Commission's 17:45
trip) would have shaved considerable time off of that 17-minute
journey.

Who's cherry-picking now, Lee? You seem to leave out quite a few
important addendums when talking about the evidence (like Belin's
"Long Way Around Route" verbiage).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pages/WC_Vol6_0222b.gif


>>> "Why are you showing me a picture of a brand spanking new bus ticket? Oh, wait. That's "THE" bus ticket isn't it? The one that had a fight with 10 police officers? I forgot about the third tactic that you and your ilk use didn't I. I defined two. The "Who shot JFK then?" fall back position. The "How many people were involved in the massive conspiracy?" fall back position. And now we add the "So how many people were liars then?" fall back position. If it wasn't so predictable, it would be somewhat amusing." <<<


All three of those "fall back" positions are perfectly reasonable. You
only mock them because you HAVE NO REASONABLE ANSWERS TO COMBAT THEM.

Your silly Anybody-But-Oswald theory requires the coordination of
dozens upon dozens (maybe hundreds) of people, cutting across all
walks of life (both civilians and otherwise), working in concert to
frame your innocent, snow-white patsy named Lee Harvey.

You're retarded.

So, now the bus ticket is a plant too. Great. What's next? Oswald's
brown shirt which was consistent with the fibers found in the rifle's
butt plate? Was that shirt planted right on his back on November 22?

BTW, please prove to the world that a paper bus transfer that was in a
person's shirt pocket MUST be mutilated beyond recognition after a
brief scuffle with police officers in a theater. I'd like to see that
proof.

If you ABO nutjobs weren't so predictable....you'd still be
predictable (and really, really silly, to boot).


>>> "How long does Oswald have to walk the distance to kill Tippit at 1:09 PM? I've walked the distance myself. It took me just under 20 minutes. But granted, I didn't know the area very well and it wasn't the best of neighborhoods, so I didn't want to draw attention to myself by walking too quickly. Hey, a bit like Oswald." <<<


The trip from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit murder scene has been done in
about 11 minutes, Lee. You know that.

And the most important re-creations are the ones that can determine
(if possible) the MINIMUM amount of time that these things can be done
in -- like the cab re-enactments. We've got two conflicting times,
yes. No doubt about that. We've got a nine-minute trip and a 5.5-
minute trip.

But since we know beyond all doubt that the trip CAN be made in 5.5
minutes, why on Earth would the Warren Commission assume that the NINE-
minute trip is more reasonable, even though they also knew darn well
that maybe Oswald and Whaley made the cab trip in just 5.5 minutes?

Another LNer at another forum pointed out a similar line of thought
regarding the re-creations of Oswald's alleged movements when he went
from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunch room.

The other LNer made a good point in asking (in essence): Why in the
world didn't the WC and FBI do a reconstruction of Oswald's movements
AT THE FASTEST SPEED POSSIBLE by Secret Service agent John Joe Howlett
(who is the SS man who performed two such re-creations in the TSBD in
1964 for the Warren Commission)?

But the WC and Howlett didn't perform a "FASTEST TIME POSSIBLE" re-
creation. If they had, Howlett would certainly have been able to shave
quite a few seconds off of his two "walking" times.

Howlett did one reconstruction at a "normal walk", which was 78
seconds; and he performed another re-creation at a "fast walk", which
only shaved four seconds off his time, with the "fast walk" re-
creation clocking in at 74 seconds.

But an out-and-out RUNNING re-creation would have resulted, quite
obviously, in a much quicker time on the stopwatch -- probably well
under 60 seconds.

But, even though the WC did not perform such a "fastest time possible"
test, Howlett (even while WALKING) was able to get to the second floor
in only 78 seconds, which was a few seconds ahead of Marrion Baker's
average of 82.5 seconds for his two re-creations of his November 22
movements.

I wonder why more conspiracy theorists never bother to take note of
the raw FACTS that I just mentioned in my last paragraph? (Maybe it's
because such raw FACTS would shoot to hell their silly notion that
they've embraced for decades, and that is the notion/myth that Oswald
could not possibly have made it from the Sniper's Nest to the
lunchroom in under two minutes.)

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 8:54:20 AM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=420&p=202862&#entry202862

Lee Oswald wasn't wearing any jacket while on Cecil McWatters' bus on
11/22, Lee [Farley]. You know that. And he wasn't wearing any jacket
in Bill Whaley's cab either.

Whaley was mistaken (times three, incredibly). He said at one point
that Oswald had TWO or THREE jackets on. That's silly.

We know Oswald entered the roominghouse sans any jacket. Housekeeper
Earlene Roberts said he was in shirt sleeves when entering, and
zipping a jacket when leaving.

Bottom Line -- William Wayne Whaley positively identified Lee Harvey
Oswald as his 11/22/63 taxicab passenger. And he wasn't just looking
at CLOTHING. He identified the man from his face. To think that a
jacket (or two--or three; LOL) trumps a positive identification of
facial features is just not logical. Sorry, CTers, but it isn't.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 9:56:26 AM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=420&p=202866&#entry202866


http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=435&p=202873&#entry202873


C'mon, Michael [Hogan], you should be able to figure out Markham's "I
didn't recognize anyone" testimony there.

Mrs. Markham was obviously not the sharpest crayon in the Crayola Big
Box of 64 with the built-in sharpener (or the newer "Big Box" of 96).
I think we all know that. (And that isn't meant to be a shot at Helen
Markham. It's just the way it seems to be.)

Markham's testimony that Michael Hogan has cited above is, indeed, one
great-big mess. It's actually quite hilarious now. But I don't imagine
Joe Ball had a smile on his face when questioning Mrs. M.

Yes, Markham says she had never "seen" any of the men in the line-up
before. But we also know she picked Oswald out of the lineup and
positively said that LHO was Tippit's killer. She even started to
shake and cry the minute Oswald entered the lineup room. She knew who
the killer was right away.

But when Markham said she didn't "know" or "recognize" anybody in the
police lineup, what I think she meant is that she had not been
ACQUAINTED with anyone in the lineup at any time in her life. She was
confused by Ball's questions. But, as mentioned, Helen wasn't an
Einstein as far as intelligence goes either. Which, of course, is no
doubt part of the reason that CTers feel so comfortable in dismissing
her positive identification of Oswald. Ergo, CTers feel she was a dumb
box of rocks who wouldn't know one murderer from another.

But even if we toss Markham's IDing of LHO in the ash can, what are
CTers going to do with the other TWELVE or so witnesses who IDed the
same man (Oswald) as either Tippit's killer or the ONE & ONLY PERSON
fleeing the scene with a gun in his hands?

And Ted Callaway wasn't any Helen Markham either (referring to basic
intelligence). I think even CTers will agree that Mr. Callaway was a
pretty smart cookie.

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

MARKHAM & CALLAWAY VIDEOS:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/helen-markham.html

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/ted-callaway.html

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 10:18:48 AM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16443&st=0&p=202877&#entry202877


RE: GARY MACK:

Most conspiracy theorists on the Internet (and on Anybody-But-Oswald
Radio, hosted by pathetic Mack-basher Len Osanic) love to perpetuate
myths about Mr. Mack. They call him every name in the book, and for
some silly reason they seem to think he has totally ABANDONED all
thoughts of possible/potential conspiracy in the JFK assassination.
It's just not true.

Just because Mr. Mack can easily see what is so obviously true -- Lee
Oswald took his rifle to work on November 22 and shot some people with
it from the sixth floor -- many CTers seem to feel this automatically
makes Gary a person who deserves nothing but scorn and verbal abuse.

It's sickening to hear Mr. Mack being called the derogatory names he
has been called on the Internet over the last several years.

Gary Mack is a treasure, IMO. He is a walking encyclopedia on the JFK
assassination (particularly when it comes to things dealing with the
TSBD, Dealey Plaza, and other Dallas sites connected to the events of
11/22/63). He is always very cordial and forthcoming with ANY evidence
and information he has come across--whether it be "LN"-leaning
information or "CT"-leaning.

Many people owe Gary Mack YEARS' worth of apologies. (IMHO.)

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 10:44:53 PM8/21/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=450&p=202958&#entry202958


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Shall we ignore the fact that the reenactment [from 1026 North Beckley
Avenue to the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder on 10th Street] that
resulted in 11 minutes wasn't done in one go. That it was stop and
start.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh?

Sounds like you're implying that the people who did it in 11 minutes
were STOPPING along the way to Tenth. (Am I missing something here?)

They STOPPED, then started again...and still made it in 11 minutes?
How does that HURT the bottom-line "11 minute" clocking of the
journey, Lee?

Please enlighten me. (And I just took a Helen Markham pill...so please
go slowly.)

The fact is the trip could be made to 10th St. in about 11 minutes.
You, however, like the longer timelines, as all CTers in the ABO
clique do. But what you want to be true couldn't possibly matter less.
If it can be done in 11 minutes, it can be done in 11 minutes.

-Mark VII-

You can always still pretend Oswald was being impersonated on Tenth
Street. The "impersonation" crappola is always a good "fall back"
position for Oswald defenders anyway. Right, Lee F.?

LEE FARLEY SAID:

Is this a rhetorical question that you're asking?

So what you're saying is that the overall time won't be affected by
stopping, giving the guy a break, and then starting the clock again?
How long were his breaks? Do Mack and Perry tell us in the
reenactment?

What Mack and Perry presented is NOT a reenactment. For it to be a
reenactment you would film it continuously and see what condition the
guy was in at the end. Jesus Dave, if they timed marathons like this I
may consider entering one. Anyone could do it if you keep stopping the
clock for a "breather."

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I didn't fully understand what you were saying about "stopping &
starting" previously.

So, you are now implying that the CLOCK was stopped in the middle of a
journey that encompassed a mere 0.85 of a mile?? That's ridiculous.

Why on Earth would anyone who wasn't in an iron lung need to stop and
take a break on such a short trip? Where on Earth did you get such a
silly idea? Who told you the 11-minute trip included BREAKS
(plural?!); he needed more than ONE break on his across-the-desert
trip of a whopping 0.85 of a mile, is that what you're saying? That's
stupid. It's utter nonsense. It never happened.

LEE FARLEY SAID:

I'll admit its a short journey but you're the one who has to have him
walking it as quick as is humanly possible. Once again, why (as in the
GM/DP [Gary Mack/Dave Perry] "reenactment") would Oswald be walking so
fast? Because you need him to?

And I wouldn't trust Gary Mack or Dave Perry as far as I could throw
my own head. So their so-called "reenactment" is certainly not
something I'd use to prove or disprove anything. Was Jackie's head in
the way of Oswald as he walked down Beckley?

DAVID VON PEIN THEN POSTED THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Date: 8/21/2010 3:16:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein

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

FYI.....

Lee [Farley],

You've been misinformed (or you weren't paying attention if you
actually watched the show). The re-creation of Oswald's route to the
Tippit scene Dave and I did WAS done continuously but not filmed that
way. Dave and I rode in front of "Oswald" in a golf cart and the
cameraman raced from point to point.

The entire walk was timed without any stops or slowdowns, and the
total time was the same as what several other conspiracy researchers
have found over the years. The shortest route gave Oswald plenty of
time, whereas the longest route was too long. The other one or two
routes would have resulted in intermediate times.

If you doubt me, walk it yourself or ask someone else to do it! :)

Gary Mack

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 12:05:17 AM8/22/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465&p=202969&#entry202969

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=465&p=202976&#entry202976


Jim "Anybody But Oz" DiEugenio will, as usual, ignore the tests that
have been done that PROVE that the "timelines" for various things that
Lee Oswald is alleged to have done are DOABLE. They CAN be done....and
the Beckley-to-Tenth trip is one of those DOABLE treks.

I'll bet Jim DiEugenio still believes that it was impossible for
Oswald to have gone from the sixth floor's Sniper's Nest to the second-
floor lunchroom in less than 90 seconds too. Right, Jim?

That journey from the 6th to the 2nd floor, of course, was re-created
in 74 seconds by the SS for the WC. But that FACT never stops the
conspiracy nuts from bellowing "It can't be done!"

Pathetic.

And Jim's attempt to discredit Gary Mack's test to Tenth St. is
pathetic as well. But, as usual, it's always open season on Mack at a
JFK forum. Just par for the course for the conspiracy kooks.

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 27, 2010, 12:29:57 AM8/27/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=150&p=203627&#entry203627

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=150&p=203629&#entry203629


Tom [Scully],

Your analysis of Z224 is wrong. JFK's hands aren't "drawn up" at Z224.
Why are you even suggesting such a thing? Both of his hands are still
pretty "low" at Z224. In fact, his left hand is very low in Z224;
practically in his lap.

And Kennedy's right hand actually is going DOWNWARD between Z224 and
Z225. The upward movement of JFK's hands to his mouth/neck area
doesn't start until Z226, perfectly consistent with him being hit at
Z224:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/110aZ224-Z225TogglingClip.gif

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif

Another thing that makes no sense at all (via your theory of JFK's
hands "going for his throat" at Z198) is this:

If he's going for his throat as early as Z198, then why are JFK's
hands where they are (very low and way BELOW his throat) as late as
Z225? Makes zero sense.

Also -- Of course, John Connally appears to be "unruffled" at exactly
Z224 (except for the lapel flip/"bulge" and his right shoulder
dropping down and pitching forward slightly from the impact of
Oswald's CE399 missile). That's because Z224 is the "impact" frame,
IMO. He hasn't had any time to start reacting yet (either voluntarily
or involuntarily).

We don't start to see an "ruffling" of Connally until one frame later,
at Z225, when his face suddenly distorts, he opens his mouth (it was
closed at Z224), and both shoulders start to "hunch" up. He's
beginning to involuntarily react at that precise moment--at Z225. And
then, one frame later at Z226, we see Connally's right arm start to
rise. He had just been hit in the RIGHT wrist by a bullet.

Check the two clips above to observe every one of those involuntary
reactions I just mentioned.


>>> "JFK reached for his throat before he went behind the sign." <<<


Then why aren't his hands AT HIS THROAT at Z225? This makes NO SENSE
at all.

You're saying he reaches for his throat prior to going behind the
Stemmons sign....then he lowers his hands considerably between the
Z190s and Z225....then he jerks his hands very very quickly upward
again to his throat and mouth starting at Z226???

Is that what you actually think occurred, Cliff?

That's crazy stuff.

But at least you've got one supporter for your incredible "UP, THEN
DOWN, THEN UP AGAIN" theory -- Duncan MacRae endorses it.

>>> "Just because they are reacting at the same time doesn't mean they were shot at the same time." <<<


The lengths that you conspiracists will go to in order to avoid the
obvious.

Yeah, er, uh, well...uh...sure, it kinda looks like they're reacting
at the same time, Dave. But other than that, Dave, what makes you
think they were actually HIT at the same time?

Hi-lar-ious!


>>> "JBC does not react until around frame 237." <<<

Yeah, sure, Jim [DiEugenio]. All of this shoulder-flinching and
hunching and mouth-opening and grimacing and arm-raising by John B.
Connally is all just a great-big mirage. It's not really happening.
I'm merely dreaming it. Right, Jimbo? ....

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/110aZ224-Z225TogglingClip.gif

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif


>>> "His [JFK's] right hand was right under his throat at Z225, after which he attempted to cough up the projectile." <<<


Oh, good Lord. How silly.

You got that "coughing" theory from Gil Jesus, didn't you? Or was it
from Bill Miller?


>>> "David, for your assertions to be accurate, it follows that what we are viewing in the Zapruder film are the limbs, heads, and torsos of JFK, JBC, and yes, even of Jackie must be exhibiting reactive movement at sound barrier breaking speeds." <<<


Let's have a look at HSCA Volume 7:

"At issue is the time delay between bullet impact and the
observable reactions of each man to his injury, which in turn is
determined by many factors, including whether or not their reactions
were voluntary or involuntary. If involuntary, they would have
occurred almost simultaneously with the injuries. If voluntary, there
is often a slight delay in reacting." -- 7 HSCA 179

REPLAY:

"If involuntary, they would have occurred almost simultaneously
with the injuries."

7 HSCA 179:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39189

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 27, 2010, 3:23:04 PM8/27/10
to
21 posts in a row from this asshole..you and Bugliosi haven't made a
dent in popular opinion.as still 70-80% believe in a JFK conspiracy
according to a Wash Post article on films that take liberties with
history( which is every one isn't it?)..and don't ever forget it!...Laz

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 27, 2010, 10:49:48 PM8/27/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=180&p=203753&#entry203753


http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=195&p=203781&#entry203781

>>> "Since I posted Gil's breakthrough research [about JFK attempting to "cough up" a bullet]..." <<<

~LOL time~

For those who might not be aware of it [at The Education Forum] -- Gil
J. Jesus is the same conspiracist who has proposed a theory in the
past about Governor Connally possibly shooting President Kennedy dead
by whipping out a pistol from an ankle holster.

That's the kind of "breakthrough research" that Mr. Jesus has brought
to the table.

Here's the theory straight from Jesus' mouth:


"Let's not forget that all of the previous three successful
Presidential assassinations were made from a distance of three feet or
less. In addition, the position of Kennedy's head at Z312, together
with the description by the witnesses of an entry wound in the right
front of the head and an exit wound in the right rear, would indicate
a trajectory of a shot coming out of the floorboard of the car. Let's
also not forget that Johnson's man, Connally, was less than 3 feet
from the President when he was murdered and was reportedly known to
have carried a gun strapped to his ankle. Think about it." -- Gil
Jesus; July 15, 2007 [original 2007 post linked below]


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd783b571f900c24

>>> "I hate to say that I agree with David, but I agree with David. Gil is the worst CT ever and makes real CTs like myself [Dean Hagerman] look bad when he is lumped together with us. I am very shocked that you [Cliff Varnell] back his Bullet Coughing theory. Gil is way out there." <<<

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

>>> "A concealed weapon on someone other than a protection detail within 3 feet of an assassinated president merits a question or two." <<<

The theory about Governor John Connally pulling a gun out and killing
JFK doesn't deserve a single solitary bit of consideration. It's
embarrassing to even have to REFUTE such mindless nonsense.

For one thing--we know Connally was shot through the back & chest &
wrist BEFORE the fatal head shot to JFK, which means that if JBC was
the killer, he must have shot Kennedy while he himself (Connally) was
writhing in pain from his injuries AND with a busted RIGHT wrist. Not
to mention the fact he would have been committing murder in front of
hundreds of witnesses and dozens of cameras while exposed in an OPEN
LIMOUSINE.

BTW, does anyone know if Connally was RIGHT-handed or left-handed? If
he was a right-handed "gunman", then he would have had considerable
difficulty shooting the President with a shattered RIGHT wrist.

The conspiracy community is so desperate for fresh new theories (and
assassins), that it seems no one is off-limits when it comes to
suspects (except, of course, for the real killer, Lee Harvey Oswald;
no one had better ever say that guy fired a shot, lest they want to be
labelled "CIA disinfo agent").

And a big "thanks!" goes out to Mr. Healy for telling us all what a
"cough" is [via a post at The Education Forum].

For those here who might not know it -- David G. Healy is the
"researcher" who has stated in the past that he believes it's quite
possible that Abe Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman weren't on the pedestal
in Dealey Plaza AT ALL when JFK drove down Elm Street.

Of course, James H. Fetzer has postulated the same thing too, with the
Professor actually alleging that Zapruder might have been made out of
"rubber". [LOL.]

The conspiracy nuts and kooks continue to swim in a sea of silliness.
I keep wondering when John-John will have the finger of guilt pointed
at him. And Caroline's pony, Macaroni, shouldn't be ruled out either.
I hear that horse hated JFK.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 28, 2010, 5:57:57 AM8/28/10
to

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/four-days-in-november-book-review.html

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

While looking through the pages of Vincent Bugliosi's "Four Days In
November" paperback book (the truncated version of "Reclaiming
History" which was published in late May of 2008), I noticed that a
few small errors that popped up in "RH" have been corrected in the
softcover "Four Days" edition.

The most notable of these corrections (as far as I could tell from an
initial glance) occurs on page #61 of the 688-page "Four Days" volume,
when Bugliosi changes the amount of time that occurs between Lee
Harvey Oswald's first and second gunshots from "3.5 seconds" (in
"Reclaiming History") to "2.7 seconds" (in "Four Days In November").

This revised "2.7 seconds" time between the shots is more in line with
Mr. Bugliosi's general feelings about when the "SBT" shot actually
occurred, with Vince saying several times throughout the book "RH"
that it's his belief that the SBT shot occurred at approximately
Zapruder Film frame 210 (which is a timeline I definitely disagree
with very strongly...and for a variety of reasons).

No lengthy book is going to be 100% error-free. But Mr. Bugliosi
evidently did want to correct a few mistakes that popped up in
"Reclaiming History", and has done so in his "Four Days In November"
paperback version.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Aug 28, 2010, 3:25:33 PM8/28/10
to
Error free? Who are ya gonna believe..those who were there-Jean
Hill-Clint Hill-Landis-Kinney-O'Conner, Jenkins,
Custer-Robinson-Karnei-A.J. Millican-Sandy
Speaker-McClelland-Perry-Crenshaw-Kemp-Carrico-Bell-Wright-Arnold-Summers-Mackinnon-Moorman-Newmans-Willis's-Toni
Foster-and so forth, or a lawyer with a huge financial interest in
supporting the official story at all costs? Hard decision huh?...Laz

Ben Holmes

unread,
Aug 28, 2010, 7:30:07 PM8/28/10
to
In article <20771-4C7...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...

Indeed, I've asked several times for a LNT'er to give up the name of an
eyewitness of whom they believe *EVERYTHING* that eyewitness stated in 1963/64.
(and not merely a few cherry-picked statements)

No-one is willing to give up the name of even a SINGLE eyewitness that they
believe.

That's frighteningly different from any other event in history.


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

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 30, 2010, 12:16:26 AM8/30/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=285&p=204038&#entry204038


Anyone who could possibly take seriously the illustration linked
below, is a person who apparently doesn't have a clue as to where the
entry wound was located in JFK's upper back. The wound is way, way too
low in this diagram. And to rely SOLELY on the hole in JFK's shirt is
just silly beyond all belief. The authenticated-as-unaltered [7 HSCA
41] autopsy photo linked below is obviously the BEST evidence to rely
on with respect to the true location of JFK's upper-back wound.

Not to mention the other deliberate distortions and gross errors that
are contained within the joke of a diagram below -- e.g., the downward
angle to Kennedy's back wound is too steep; the diagram shows Kennedy
and Connally sitting at the exact same height in the car; and it looks
to me like the exit wound in JFK's neck is a tad bit too high too.

This is just one of many pictorial examples of how the conspiracy
theorists have just flat-out lied about the evidence in the JFK
assassination:

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

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_3.jpg

And the illustration linked below is yet another example of how
certain conspiracists will play fast and loose with the facts in the
JFK case:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/HSCAJFKExhibitF-320.gif


Dr. Cyril Wecht, for one, is particularly fond of the above incredibly
deceptive and flat-out-wrong diagram. Wecht even utilized that hunk-
of-
junk chart during his testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Oswald
in London.

What Dr. Wecht decided to do was to invent a make-believe gunman in
another window of the Texas School Book Depository Building on Elm
Street.

Wecht said in 1986 that his "own analysis" of the shooting and the
trajectories indicated that the shot that passed through President
Kennedy's upper back and neck had originated from a floor in the
Depository that was much lower than Lee Oswald's sixth-floor sniper's
perch, with Wecht choosing (apparently out of thin air) the SECOND
floor on the WEST side of the TSBD Building.

That type of pure speculation about the location of a phantom gunman
in the TSBD, of course, meant that Dr. Wecht was now free to utilize
the chart linked above, which shows an absurdly askew lateral (right-
to-left) angle for the bullet that went through JFK's back/neck.

And, of course, via this magical feat of pretending there was a gunman
on the WEST end of the SECOND floor of the TSBD, Wecht can then also
pretend that the bullet (which EVEN HE AGREES went clean through
Kennedy's body without stopping and without changing directions) could
avoid striking Governor Connally or anything else in the limousine.

"The inescapable fact that unless a bullet--especially one fired
from a high-speed weapon, reasonably high-speed, approximately 2,000
feet per second muzzle velocity--unless it strikes something of firm
substance, such as bone or something else, that that bullet will
travel in a straight line." -- Dr. Cyril H. Wecht [1 HSCA 342]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0173b.htm

Dr. Wecht didn't repeat his theory about a second-floor TSBD assassin
during his June 2007 radio debate with Vincent Bugliosi, but the
Pittsburgh pathologist was still advocating (as of 2007) the notion
that the bullet that passed through JFK could have easily missed
Connally and "gone on out over the left side of the car".

I like Dr. Wecht. I think he's fun to listen to, especially when he
gets fired up in his anti-SBT rhetoric and starts talking about how
the Warren Commission's test bullets should have mimicked the
appearance of CE399, even though none of those tests bullets in
question attempted to duplicate the complete multi-victim flight path
of the SBT bullet. But, Dr. Wecht acts as though CE399 should have
ended up as badly mangled as test bullet CE856. ~shrug~

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/HSCAExhibitF-294.jpg

But the kind of sleight-of-hand that Dr. Wecht has done with the
evidence and the angles and the SBT bullet, via his utilization of the
crazy diagram linked above, is just plain old misinformation and
distortion, and in my opinion deserves nothing but ridicule.

Plus, that diagram also misrepresents the location of JFK's upper-back
wound too. The wound as depicted in this chart is way too far to the
RIGHT on JFK's back. And the reason for placing the wound too far to
the right on Kennedy's back is fairly obvious too -- it's because if
the wound was placed in the proper location (i.e., more toward the
center of JFK's back), it would then mean that the bullet exiting
Kennedy's throat would have probably hit Nellie Connally, given the
wildly exaggerated right-to-left lateral angle that Dr. Wecht endorses
in the diagram.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/cyril-wecht.html

http://Bugliosi-Vs-Wecht.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Aug 30, 2010, 5:20:02 AM8/30/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=330&p=204099&#entry204099

>>> "Common sense, otherwise known as opinion, is not evidence. The conclusion that the bullet which entered the back also exited the throat was based on inference and expediency, not on evidence." <<<


1.) ENTRY wound in JFK's back.

2.) Bullet hole of unknown "entry" or "exit" persuasion in JFK's
throat.

3.) No bony structures struck in-between #1 and #2.

4.) No bullet found in JFK's whole body.

Now, Martin, if you were in Dr. James Joseph Humes' place on Nov. 23
and 24, 1963, what would you have concluded in your autopsy report?

Would you have opted for a conclusion of one bullet going through JFK
from back to front?

Or would you have put on your "Conspiracy Kook" hat and opted for TWO
bullets entering JFK's body from opposite directions, with neither
bullet exiting the body, and neither bullet being found in the body of
the President?

Boy, that's a really tough call, huh Martin?

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 1, 2010, 4:56:22 AM9/1/10
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/140c35e6b2dae98e

PAT SPEER SAID:


>>> "Come on, Dave, you can do better. That last post [linked above] was a total embarrassment." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:


That's odd. I just now re-read it and thought it was quite good,
lucid, and reasonable. (Especially considering the fact I am up
against an ABO CTer; and those people can be knocked down without even
trying.)


>>> "I think Martin is right, and that the heat here is too hot for you." <<<


LOL. What "heat", Pat? All I'm hearing is Jim DiEugenio's usual
Anybody-But-Oswald take on everything from Hoover, to Warren, to
Specter, to the SBT, to the HSCA. And he relies almost exclusively on
other conspiracy authors for his sources. (And no conspiracy-promoting
authors would ever have an agenda, would they Pat?)

And, btw, yes, Vince Bugliosi DID have an agenda from Day 1 of writing
"Reclaiming History". He knew by the time he started writing his book
in 1986 that Oswald killed two people and very very likely had acted
alone. So, yes, that IS an "agenda". I don't deny that fact.

So, if you want toss Vince and his huge tome of rock-solid evidence
and facts under the bus because of his Oswald-was-guilty "agenda",
well, then, I guess you can do that if you want. But I'll hang on to
my copy of "Reclaiming History", because in my opinion it contains the
truth about the way John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963.


>>> "It certainly appears that you're trying to get yourself booted so you can crawl back to aaj complaining about how all those kooks over on the ED Forum teamed up on you....waaa!" <<<


You're wrong about that, Pat. I'm just passionate about my position.
And I get a little testy and irritable when confronted with someone
like Jim DiEugenio, who believes in two things that are just not
supported by ANY of the evidence in this case -- 1.) Oswald was
innocent of shooting Jack Kennedy; and 2.) Oswald was also innocent of
shooting J.D. Tippit.

>>> "Dr. Lattimer said that the bullet entering Kennedy's back entered at the level of his chin. He also said that he thought the autopsy measurements were correct, and that the back wound was roughly 14 cm below the bottom tip of the right mastoid process. Do you agree?" <<<


I agree with the autopsy measurements, of course. After all, that's
one of the few precise measurements regarding the wounds that we've
actually got to rely on. The back wound was certainly 14 cm. below the
mastoid (although the HSCA said it was 13.5 cm.). But I can live with
either of those measurements, to be honest. And either measurement
most certainly places the back wound anatomically higher than the
throat wound.

As for Lattimer's "chin" reference -- The diagram Dr. Lattimer uses on
page 180 of his book appears to me to have an angle through JFK's body
that is too steeply downward. It looks steeper than 17.72 degrees [17
degrees, 43 minutes] to me anyway.

If the angle were to be lessened to the correct 17.72-degree figure,
then the back wound would be LOWER than where Lattimer shows it to be
on page 180.

Of course, via Lattimer's diagram, if the back wound were to be
lowered, it would likely mean that a bone in Kennedy's back would be
hit. But since we know no bones were hit in JFK's upper back, then I
have no choice but to conclude that Lattimer's illustration is flawed
in a "bone structure of the human body" regard as well.

http://Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 4, 2010, 2:47:36 AM9/4/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=420&p=204597&#entry204597


http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=435&p=204671&#entry204671


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "BTW, I am not wrong about that sentence not being referenced. DVP is. Unless I have the only copy of RH printed that way, it's not referenced." <<<


DVP SAID:

No. You're wrong, Jim. That sentence on Page 957 of "Reclaiming
History" is definitely "referenced" (i.e., sourced), via Source Note
#36 (as I said before).

It's baffling as to why in the world you think author Vince Bugliosi
needs to put a source note after every sentence.


DEAN HAGERMAN SAID:


>>> "LNers like DVP have to just hate the fact that Oswald tried to ride down with most of the other employees." <<<

DVP SAID:

Oswald did no such thing. If he had really wanted to go downstairs for
lunch, he would have hopped aboard the elevator with Charles Givens
after Givens came back up to the sixth floor to fetch his cigarettes.

Oh, I forgot -- Givens was a liar, wasn't he? He just made up that
extra trip to the sixth floor, didn't he?

But this supposed "lie" that Givens was evidently pressured into
telling for the rest of his life by the authorities (was it the DPD
who strong-armed him? The FBI? Or the WC?) is actually totally
NEEDLESS.

Why?

Because via the OTHER Book Depository employees' testimony (Lovelady,
Arce, and Williams), we know for a fact that Lee Oswald was positively
located on an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository about a half-an-hour
before the assassination. Whether it was the FIFTH or SIXTH floor
remains open for debate, but the sixth floor was certainly mentioned
as one of the two floors Oswald could have been on when the TSBD
employees heard him shouting down the elevator shaft.

So, the only thing Givens' extra trip up to the sixth floor really
accomplishes is to make the floor number definitive (it was the Floor
Of Death--Floor #6). But it doesn't do much EXTRA for the timing,
because Givens said he went right back up to the 6th Floor after
coming down with the other boys. So we're only talking about a couple
of minutes later.

So, even without Givens' extra trip to the sixth floor, we're left
with multiple witnesses saying they heard Lee Harvey Oswald on an
UPPER floor shortly before noon.

Are those witnesses ALL liars?

Did ANYBODY tell the truth in this case (per CTers)? Or was everybody
under the evil "spell" of the FBI and the Warren Commission?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 13, 2010, 11:17:57 PM9/13/10
to

FOLLOW-UP POST REGARDING FBI AGENT DON ADAMS:

On August 20, 2010, I made the following comments about Don Adams:

"Adams tells all kinds of falsehoods [during a July 28, 2010,
interview on WTAM-Radio in Cleveland, Ohio], such as the howler about
how Oswald would have had to criss-cross the Book Depository building
a total of THREE different times in order to get from the sixth-floor
"loft" (as Adams calls it) to the second-floor "break room" (as Adams
calls the lunchroom)! Adams actually seems to think that Oswald had to
cross the entire length of the building THREE times--once to hide the
rifle; then another criss-cross to get to the stairs (totally untrue);
and then a third crossing of the building in order to reach the
lunchroom (also a lie). This guy doesn't know the most basic facts
about the assassination or Oswald's movements." -- DVP; 08/20/10
[original post linked below]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0536023a54b7a374


Ten days later, on August 30, 2010, Adams was a guest on
James Fetzer's "Real Deal" Internet radio program
[http://RadioFetzer.blogspot.com]. The lengthy segment with Adams is
linked below:

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-don%20adams.mp3

On the Fetzer broadcast, Mr. Adams talked briefly about a person who
was criticizing him for saying that Oswald would have needed to cross
the TSBD building three separate times prior to LHO's encounter with
Officer Marrion L. Baker. And although Adams didn't mention me by
name, I know he was referring to me and my Internet comments quoted
above.

Adams, on the Fetzer program, claims he never said any such thing
about Oswald's criss-crossing movements during the WTAM show in July.

Well, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Or, in this instance,
the proof is in the podcast, which I've linked below. Unfortunately,
since I wrote my original post about this matter on August 20th, Mr.
Adams has removed from his website the audio links to his 5-part July
interview on WTAM-Radio, so you can't find them on Adams' homepage any
longer [http://adamsjfk.com/Home.html] -- at least not as of today's
date of September 13, 2010.

But Adams' WTAM interview is not lost entirely. I found that it is
still available (as of today anyway) at the WTAM website, which
enabled me to prove that I was correct and Don Adams was wrong
regarding this topic about Oswald criss-crossing the Book Depository.

This issue isn't important at all in the grand scheme of things, of
course, but I just wanted to clarify the record (mainly for my own
archived collection of Internet articles and posts). And the record
can, indeed, be clarified by going to approximately the halfway mark
in the MP3 audio file linked below, which is where conspiracy theorist
Don Adams can be heard saying this:

"When we talk about Oswald doing the shooting, at the loft [the
Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD], he would have ran from
the loft after he did the shooting, he ran to the front of the
building [it was actually the back of the building, further
illustrating that Adams doesn't know what he's talking about] and he
hid the weapon in a bunch of cardboard boxes. He then ran across the
building and went down four flights of stairs, and then ran across the
building to the break room." -- Donald A. Adams; July 28, 2010


Adams also says in the podcast below that he thinks there were "11
shots fired in Dallas" at President Kennedy. Now, if that statement
isn't enough to make all reasonable and rational people roll their
eyes, then I don't know what would be.

DON ADAMS' INTERVIEW FROM JULY 28, 2010:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/CLEVELAND-OH/WTAM-AM/072810hr2.mp3


David Von Pein
September 13, 2010

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 1:59:34 AM9/17/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=780&p=206181&#entry206181


KOOK DiEUGENIO SAID:


>>> "If Kostikov was the head of KGB assassinations, and Oswald met with him or talked to him in Mexico, then the idea that the assassination was a KGB plot becomes viable. Do you get that? If not, exactly where are you in all this? Somewhere outside the ball park? Maybe in a canoe in San Francisco Bay? In fact, that is why it was kept secret until 11/22. It was the topping on the sundae being built around Oswald." <<<


DVP SAID:

Watching a person with paranoid delusions about the JFK assassination
unravel on the Internet is an interesting experience. I'm glad Jimbo
is giving us all a chance to watch that unravelling--live, as it's
happening--right here on The Conspiracy Network, hosted by Mr. John
Simkin.

Much obliged, Jim (and John).


>>> "You're [sic] use of that ridiculous cross examination of Hosty by Bugliosi shows how inpenetrable your brain is. Of course Kostikov had no connection to the murder." <<<

Well, there you go. As I said, then, Mexico City has no "connection"
to Oswald shooting Kennedy by himself on November 22nd.

Next?....


>>> "But it was used in the immediate confused and panic-stricken aftermath to drive LBJ into a fear mode that would suppress any real investigation of the crime. And that false fear was then transmuted to Warren with effectiveness. That fear is proven by transcripts of phone calls and summaries of meetings with LBJ and Hoover, LBJ and McCone and LBJ and Russell. And the reaction by Warren has been recorded by many writers, including Mark Lane in Plausible Denial, p. 42. The basis for the two differing memos and the false phone calls etc is all in either the Lopez Report or Oswald and the CIA. And these authors had access to the raw data and interviews with the principals like Goodpasture, Phillips, Scaleti etc. Speaking of Phillips, how about this for what really happened in Mexico City: "I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all there was no proof of that. Second, there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy." (ibid, p. 82) That's from the horses' mouth Davey, Phillips himself. Now, what he predicted back in the seventies turned out to be true. We know that from the ARRB. But how did he know it back then? Because the person who ran all the daily Mexico CIty tape reviews and picture reviews was his GIrl Friday, Anne Goodpasture. That's in the Lopez Report, which apparently you never read. She must have told him. So this is how we know the whole Kostikov thing was BS, faked afterwards to scare the shit out of LBJ. Which it did. And also to throw the intelligence community into a CYA panic--which it did. [...] My "delusions" are all supplied by things like Phillips' exposure of himself above, John Newman's Oswald and the CIA, Newman's essay on Mexico City in Probe, the Lopez Report, and John Armstrong's excellent chapter on Mexico CIty in Harvey and Lee. And these are all largely based in turn on CIA cables, and interviews. The delusions are all yours Davey. You are the one who ignores this munificent factual record." <<<

The unravelling continues. Please note that Jimbo has now switched to
"full rant" mode. It makes the unravelling easier to define...and much
more fun to watch too.


>>> "And by the way, I am not an ABO guy. I am very clear on what I think happened. I have printed it twice for you to read. It makes much more sense than the fantasy in the WR." <<<

I like how Jimbo has even inherited the acronyms that I invented for
conspiracy theorists like him -- e.g., ABO (Anybody But Oswald). Cool,
Jim.

And, btw, Jim, you most definitely are an "ABO" member (i.e., Jimbo
thinks that Lee Harvey Oswald is innocent of shooting BOTH John F.
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit). You've admitted as much yourself, on several
occasions. Such as the two examples shown below:

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly
on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; Part 5b of
Jimbo's "Reclaiming History" review

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio;
January 14, 2010; "Black Op Radio"

That last unbelievably ridiculous quote from the lips of Jimbo
DiEugenio regarding the Tippit murder can be heard, in all its
unbelievably silly glory, in the video on the webpage below:

http://drop.io/DVP_Versus_DiEugenio/asset/battling-a-jfk-conspiracy-kook-part-7

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Sep 17, 2010, 2:59:01 PM9/17/10
to
Hey, Don Adams was there investigating Milteer, he is a former mayor,
and has an impeccable FBI Record..I would certainly believe him over
you...the picture of Milteer with receding hairline used on the recent
tv report, check out Youtube- matches the man in Dealey Plaza. People
have been confused because the main photo circulating of Milteer, he has
a big wave of hair, but those pictures were taken several years earlier.

Milteer like Abe Bolden is very important because of all the 1984
tactics employed to deny both cases.Adams says that basically all his
reports are gone, or altered, at the time he was conducting an in depth
investigation of Milteer. In Bolden's case the foiled Assassinaton Plot
on nov.1st 1963, he said the 2 cuban gunman brought in for questioning
of the 4 men wanted, had ultra common hispanic names like Rodriguez and
Gonzalez, which could have been obvious alias's..war names...though most
likely a separate incident,we'll never know for sure if these guys
didn't end up along the parade route in Dallas as they had 3 more weeks
to get there and may have been tracking JFK in Miami and Tampa as well.

Milteer seemed certain the assassination was coming, a patsy would be
used to throw the public off, and would be accompished with a high
powered rifle from an office Bldg...he must have heard it from someone
like Banister, or other right wing cohorts in NO..or somehere down
south...Laz

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 24, 2010, 10:20:53 PM9/24/10
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8cf4e76e675cb75a


An observation concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's "cash on hand" on
November 22nd, 1963:

Oswald actually started out the day on November 22 with more than
$13.87 in his pocket, because we know he paid out $1.23 for bus and
taxi fares just after the assassination, and it's also very likely
that he purchased a Coca-Cola from the second-floor vending machine at
approximately 12:32 PM. (And a Coke cost a nickel back then, right? Or
was it ten cents?)

Anyway, that means when Oswald left the Paine house on 11/22/63, he
had at least $15.15 in his pocket.

I've always wondered why he had to pay such an odd amount for his bus
fare (23 cents) on Cecil McWatters' bus on November 22nd?

We know that Oswald gave cab driver Bill Whaley exactly $1.00 for his
95-cent taxi drive to Oak Cliff. So that accounts for $1.00 of the
$1.23 that is listed in the Warren Report (on Page 745):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0385a.htm

So that means LHO spent 23 cents on his short bus trip.

A few years ago, this topic came up at the acj newsgroup, and Bud had
suggested that perhaps the bus transfer that Oswald got from McWatters
cost a certain amount of money to obtain. I think Bud said that in his
home city of Philadelphia, a bus transfer did, indeed, cost some cash--
about 8 cents I think Bud said.

Does anyone know if the Dallas city bus lines charged 3 cents per
transfer in 1963? Maybe Oswald's fare was 20 cents and the transfer
was 3 cents???

~shrug~

Anyhow, this isn't really important at all, but we can know that
Oswald certainly had at least $15.15 with him when he left for work on
November 22, 1963. And if he purchased more than one beverage from
either one of the two soft-drink machines inside the Texas School Book
Depository on that day, then he would have started out the day with
even more than $15.15.

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

EDIT/ADDENDUM:

I now see that Cecil McWatters, in his Warren Commission testimony
(shown below), said that Oswald's 11/22/63 bus fare cost 23 cents
(which still seems to me like a very strange amount to charge for any
bus fare; but apparently it wasn't). McWatters doesn't say anything in
his testimony about the transfer costing any additional amount of
money:

JOE BALL -- "You let him [Oswald] on the bus, and he paid his fare,
how much is that fare?"

CECIL J. McWATTERS -- "It is 23 cents."

MR. BALL -- "23 cents, and you went about down almost to Poydras."

MR. McWATTERS -- "Almost, between Poydras and Lamar."

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 1, 2010, 8:52:53 AM10/1/10
to

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16704&st=0&p=207600&#entry207600


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

>>> "So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:


Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be
boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick,
and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which
Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General
Walker to live free of charge)?

>>> "And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit." <<<


What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was,
indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one
such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the
backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with
the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he
said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--
it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald

>>> "And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together." <<<


Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together.
But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?

>>> "And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace." <<<


There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of
Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the
Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it
Bill?

>>> "And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that." <<<


Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on
impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing
on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation
in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too --
e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can
never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered
by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book
Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside
his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk
of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the
paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy
theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that
a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on
an object even when a person handles that object extensively--
especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not
have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)

>>> "But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?" <<<


It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?


http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com

0 new messages