JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 44)

>>> "Oh, by the way David, he {John J. Howlett of the Secret Service during his LHO 're-creations' in March 1964} also didn't stay at the window, like Howard Brennan said he {Lee Harvey Oswald} did {on November 22, 1963}." <<<

Once again, the exact timing of Oswald's post-assassination movements
will never be known for sure. We can only guess. But if you want to
tack on an extra 8 or 10 seconds to Howlett's time, feel free.

But while doing that, keep in mind that Oswald almost certainly was
moving FASTER than Agent Howlett was moving during those re-
constructions that were done several months later.

BTW, here's a freeze-frame image from the Mal Couch film, showing
Officer Marrion Baker heading toward the Book Depository front
entrance:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3641.jpg

>>> "What about the Dillard photo of the east window that shows a figure in the window, shot 30 SECONDS after the head shot." <<<

Tom Dillard's photo shows no such "figure". That's your over-active
CTer imagination at work there. I've seen the "enhanced" blow-ups. I
see no human figure.

It's funny you didn't mention the WEST-end window, too. Because many
CTers, including Robert Groden (the photo "expert" who was ripped to
shreds at the O.J. Simpson civil trial), think there's a guy (with a
HUGE head evidently) visible at the WEST-end window on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository about 30 seconds after the shooting.

But, yes, I've also seen the colored-in enhancements done of the EAST-
end (Oswald's) window too, with some CTers believing there's a person
visible at the east end as well.

Here's the supposed "West-End Conspirator" (after just the right
amount of photographic "enhancement" has been applied to the photo):

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5559.gif

Below is the "Powell photo", which is in color. It was taken at almost
the exact same moment as Dillard's. I don't think anyone has been able
to find the "west-end killer" in this picture:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8542.jpg

Anyway, when a person starts coloring in all sorts of stuff in B&W
photographs, sure, you can probably see a "man" in almost any photo
you want to see one in.

Take this ridiculously-overdrawn "Badge Man" photo for instance
(below). I see Elvis wearing big glasses and holding a microphone in
this picture too. But nobody else does. I wonder why?.....

http://members.optushome.com.au/tnorth/badgeman1.jpg

>>> "What about Lillian Mooneyham's testimony that she saw a person in the east window 3 minutes after the head shot?" <<<

That's a perfect example of how human beings fail to estimate TIME
very well. Let's take witness J.C. Price as another example. He
thought the gunshots were--get this--possibly as much as FIVE MINUTES
apart! (See what I mean?)

Plus: What kind of idiot/boob plotters and assassins were in Dealey
Plaza on November 22 anyhow? They shoot JFK from different guns and
different directions in the Plaza (per most CT accounts of the event),
even though their single "patsy" is supposed to be in the Depository
ONLY (obviously).

And now, per Mooneyham, a gunman (or surely somebody who was part of
the "plot") decides he'll hang around the "window of death", in full
view of witnesses, for THREE minutes after the shooting???

How can a reasonable person think that Mooneyham actually saw an
ASSASSIN (or even an assassin's helper) in any window three full
minutes after the assassination (assuming her time estimate is spot-on
accurate, that is)?

In a few words -- No reasonable person could possibly believe such a
crazy thing.

>>> "Sorry, David. Oswald WAS coming from the first floor, and that's the only way Baker could have seen him coming through the vestibule." <<<

Bull. You've utilized your own selective pro-conspiracy interpretation
of these things to arrive at your ONE & ONLY way it could have
happened....while completely ignoring the best evidence and ignoring
common sense.

In short, you cannot micro-analyze the movements of two men whose
EXACT, TO-THE-SECOND timelines can never be known. Period. And yet you
still insist that you can do this with ultra precision. I can only
scratch my cabeza and wonder....why?

>>> "You have a timing issue, David. And it favors Oswald's innocence and you offer no counter." <<<

I only have a "timing issue" if I choose to totally ignore the VERY
BEST EVIDENCE (the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence, that is) which tells
any reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the lone
assassin of President Kennedy.

Allow me to quote from Mr. Bugliosi's book (yet again). He said it in
fine fashion when he wrote these words on page #953 of "Reclaiming
History":

"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's
guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 3:22:38 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/7/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=171&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1UAKFDRK6H6WJ#Mx1UAKFDRK6H6WJ

>>> "What I haven't seen, and would like to see (maybe you can point me to this information), is has the question ever been answered - Does the print more closely match Studebaker or Wallace?" <<<

All I can go by is Commission Exhibit #3131 (linked below)...where, on
page 18 of CE3131, J. Edgar Hoover (in unambiguous language that
couldn't be any clearer) says this in his memo to J. Lee Rankin, dated
09/18/1964:

"...It should be noted that there is one latent palm print remaining
unidentified, and investigation is continuing in an effort to identify
same."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm

As for Mac Wallace possibly sneaking in and out of the TSBD totally
unnoticed on November 22, 1963 -- I still have doubts about the
likelihood of a stranger going totally undetected on the SIXTH floor
of the building....which, remember, was a warehouse floor where any
stranger would certainly stick out like a sore thumb, because business
(office) transactions weren't done on that 6th Floor. It was a floor
full of boxes, where only the warehouse crew normally went.

And while it's certainly true that a stranger on the sixth floor,
while sticking out as someone who probably didn't belong up there,
would be noticed by fewer total people, since the office workers from
the lower floors I don't think went up to the warehouse floors very
often....I still am dubious about a total stranger not being seen by
any of the several workers on the 6th Floor that day.

Also -- Remember that there were EXTRA people up there on the sixth
floor for most of Nov. 22--e.g., Givens, Williams, Arce, et al--as
they laid the new plywood flooring on that floor. So MORE people were
actually up there than on a "normal" work day at the Depository. And
still nobody saw Wallace, or any strangers lurking around.

Possible? Yes. I cannot deny that.

Likely? I'll leave that up to others to answer at this point.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 3:40:46 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/11/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=254&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx21ULJ0HJI5UVK#Mx21ULJ0HJI5UVK

>>> It certainly could have been {a silenced south-side shot}, David. And even if the shot was not silenced, there was no person viewing the motorcade from that side of the street." <<<

LOL. That means that the SOUND from a high-powered rifle blast would
be totally SILENT to the many witnesses lining Elm Street, huh?

Think up another one. Because this argument of yours is laughable.

And back to the windshield.........

>>> "Are you calling all nine witnesses liars and putting all your faith in Mr. Frazier?" <<<

Did ANY of those nine (so-called) witnesses perform as detailed an
examination of the windshield as did Mr. Frazier? Answer: No.

Frazier examined the windshield in detail on November 23rd. No hole
was there. He documented (in ultra-detail) the "wagon-wheel spoke
type" cracks in the windshield. But no hole. None.

And that windshield was PHOTOGRAPHED at the White House on Nov. 23rd.
(Is the picture of the limo a fake?)

And if the car's windshield had been examined and photographed on Nov.
23rd, why in the world would there even be a need to whisk the car to
Michigan for a windshield switch-out two days later?

You must think the picture was taken on Nov. 25th and Frazier
pretended it was taken (by Frazier himself, per his WC testimony) on
Nov. 23, is that it?

Otherwise, what is the whole purpose of switching the windshields AT
ALL? For what reason? If Frazier's gonna lie through his teeth anyway,
WHY THE NEED TO SWITCH THE WINDSHIELDS AND INVOLVE MORE PEOPLE IN THE
COVER-UP?

The SS and FBI knew the car would be totally rebuilt and repaired
shortly following the assassination....so I cannot understand the
mindset of these "windshield" plotters at all? It's just dumb....and
ultra-reckless, even from a CT POV.

The windshield switch-out NEVER HAPPENED. No way. No how.

Only a truly-rabid conspiracy theorist believes in that kind of
underhanded (and completely NEEDLESS) hocus-pocus. For, WHO is going
to even see that car except THE PLOTTERS (per most CTers) before the
whole car was rebuilt and dismantled anyway?

This much is clear (except to CTers who wish to call the man who
examined and photographed the limo on Nov. 23--Robert A. Frazier--a
liar as he gave his under-oath testimony to the WC) --- Whatever car
the people at Dearborn saw with a hole in the windshield on 11/25 was
certainly NOT SS-100-X.

As for Officer Ellis -- I haven't a clue as to his motive for saying
what he said. But there was no hole in that windshield. Because even
if there HAD been, there would have been no good enough reason for
anyone in the FBI to lie about such a trivial point (because they
could STILL HAVE LIED LIKE A DOG AND SAID THE HOLE WAS THE RESULT OF A
REAR SHOT FROM OSWALD'S LOCATION).

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 3:44:20 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/11/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=267&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1K2M512LBXCS5#Mx1K2M512LBXCS5

For Pete sake, Dick...YOU told us Weldon's story a couple of thread
pages back. He interviewed the Ford exec about the limo...blah, blah.

He's debunked by the LEAD FBI INVESTIGATOR in the Kennedy case --
Robert A. Frazier. That's who.

And he's debunked by some ordinary common sense as well.

There was no reason on the planet to switch out that windshield and
allow MORE people to see the "hole" (even if the FBI/SS were in on a
cover-up mission). Just place the freakin' car under wraps until it's
rebuilt, for cryin' out loud! But, instead, they take the car to
Michigan and switch the windshields??!!

That's one of THE goofiest things I've ever heard. Just stupid beyond
all belief. Sorry, but it is.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 4:01:54 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/14/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=334&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx20M6L6SS8TQXT#Mx20M6L6SS8TQXT

>>> "I'm not the one who has to believe bullets can stop in mid air, then continue." <<<

Nor am I. But please keep thinking I am. You seem to like that theory.

Deeper into dementia Richard travels....

>>> "David, even an ardent WC defender, Dr. John Lattimer, said JFK was hit at Z220." <<<

Ooooh, boy. Four whole frames difference there. I guess I'd better
sever all ties with ALL of Lattimer's excellent work now, huh?

Several people have proposed different SBT frames. Vince B. thinks it
happened between Z210 and Z222. (Of course, he DOES say, in other
parts of "RH", that it could have also happened when I think it
did...Z224. So, there is some inconsistency there.)

But, the MAIN thing (by far) is: Lattimer, Bugliosi, Posner, et al,
KNOW THAT THE SBT IS CORRECT (regardless of the exact Z-Film frame).
And so do I.

Any other theory pales by comparison.

The WC and HSCA both supported the SBT. Different timelines, yes. But
the main principle is in place...i.e., one bullet hit both men, and
that bullet was CE399.

Are BOTH Govt. bodies to be totally dismissed in this regard, Richard?
Do YOU know more than all of those Commissioners and HSCA
investigators? Why on Earth should I believe YOU over BOTH Official
U.S. investigative bodies? (You must really think you're good, huh?)

BTW, where did those bullets go, Richard?

Will you answer this simple question? Or would you prefer to remain
wishy-washy, like all other CTers on this topic?

>>> "The SBT is a farce. It is junk on its face." <<<

But, of course, I'm MUCH, MUCH more likely to accept (on its face)
YOUR stupid anti-SBT theory, right? I.E., a theory that includes THREE
disappearing missiles, disappearing WOUNDS in Kennedy's body, and an
assortment of SBT-like similarities that SHOULD make even YOU blush
beet-red for even suggesting such impossible, wholly-unsupportable,
anti-SBT, 3-shot nonsense.

>>> "And you choose to ignore the fact that Connally himself said he was hit by a separate bullet." <<<

It's totally meaningless what JBC himself thought in this SBT
regard...and you have to know why. HE NEVER SAW JFK HIT. So how can he
POSSIBLY be relied on as a good "Anti-SBT" EYEwitness.

You're sinking...ever deeper.

Try digging up Jean Hill again. Or maybe Jimbo Garrison. They're
always good as a diversion when you're stuck with NO BULLETS TO
SUPPORT YOUR NONSENSE.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 4:05:51 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/14/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=338&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=MxFV8FTWPSWECX#MxFV8FTWPSWECX

>>> "As soon as you tell me where the head shot bullet went." <<<

Into Kennedy's head and out again. (Duh.)

CE567/569 are the bulk of the head-shot bullet of course. JFK's head
was THE ONLY THING that can be responsible for those fragments in the
front seat.

They can't have come from CE399, of course....which was the ONLY OTHER
BULLET to strike a limo victim.

And the preponderance of evidence (backed up by many people who signed
off on it for the WC & HSCA) says that ONLY TWO BULLETS struck victims
in the limo.

Which means: That ONLY Oswald bullets from C2766 hit victims. Period.

Now, let's here Richard tell the world what it was that caused
CE567/569 to fragment like it did, without JFK's head being the source
of that fragmentation.

Can't be Connally's body, remember. No way. He was hit just ONE
time...and positively by CE399. (No need to argue this FACT. It's
ironclad, despite your silly protests.)

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 4:33:18 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/17/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=412&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3G8HCCJK9QUMH#Mx3G8HCCJK9QUMH

>>> "Murders, David? According to the Prinicpal of Abatement, Oswald can NEVER be guilty of the crime." <<<

I don't have to subscribe to the "Principal of Abatement" (whatever
the hell that is; nice name though). The evidence is right there for
everyone to look at and evaluate. And it says Oswald not only murdered
ONCE, he murdered TWICE. (It's hard to look the other way re. Tippit's
murder too, you know.)

Plus, we know (from the weight of the evidence) that Saint Oz also
tried to murder another human being--Gen. Walker.

I don't give a damn what "Principal" you throw up at me. Oswald's, in
effect, a TRIPLE-killer (successful twice in three attempts), and I'm
gonna say so. Period.

Let's use this "Principal" in another hypothetical example -- If
Jeffrey Dahmer (Evil Inc., if there ever was one) had been killed by
the last poor guy who got away from Dahmer's murderous grasp, instead
of being caught and convicted for killing 17 (I think) people and
eating them for lunch.....

.....Would you consider Mr. Dahmer INNOCENT of the many murders we
know he committed (and the skulls in his 'frig don't do his case for
"innocence" any favors)?

Should we have given Jeffrey a "pass" on 17 murders if he had been
killed himself before standing trial?

>>> "Oswald NEVER renounced his U.S. Citizenship." <<<

So? He sure as hell tried in every way possible. In my mind, he's just
as much a "defector" as someone who DID officially "renounce".

>>> ""Hates his own country"- Served in the Marine Corps and Civil Air defense." <<<

So?

Let's listen to Oswald's own words:

"I've lived under both Communism and Capitalism....and I despise the
representatives of both systems." -- Lee Harvey Oswald

--Plus:--

"In the event of war, I would kill any American who put a uniform on
in defense of the American Government. Any American." -- Lee Harvey
Oswald

>>> "As for beating his wife, I believe there are records to indicate he did do that." <<<

LOL. But Richard evidently thinks there are NO "records" to show he
killed John F. Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.

But, at least, Richard will concede to this less-critical issue of
wife-beating.

Classic.

>>> "So, just for the record, David. To be accurate." <<<

Oh, sure. Just "to be accurate".

LOL.

Classic.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 4:41:22 AM3/9/08

to

www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/19/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=452&asin=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1J7TL3PISX4K0#Mx1J7TL3PISX4K0

>>> "David: did Frazier directly vet Weldon's work? No. So, now you're accusing nine people of lying. The research is not without corroboration. It has not been proven false." <<<

Frazier (plus common sense) proves that the nuttiness re. the
windshield is "false".

Wouldn't the mindset of the FBI (or whoever) have HAD to be something
along the following hypothetical lines if the "Windshield Hole /
Dearborn, MI." stuff were actually true?......

Frazier & his fellow FBI cover-up agents receive the limo in evidence
at the White House on Nov. 22.

They find a hole in the windshield glass. And I guess they have
determined it was positively from a FRONTAL gunshot, which will never
fit the proverbial "EVERYBODY HAS TO FRAME ONLY OSWALD" cover-up game
that all organizations GOT TOGETHER TO PLAY ON 11/22! (LOL time.)

So, knowing he's going to have to lie anyway to any official Govt.
Commission about the hole in the windscreen (or he'll have to lie
through his teeth at Oswald's trial, which was still probable as of
11/23/63 when this "hole" would have first been discovered), Bob
Frazier -- who doesn't need to do this at all, because the car will be
under wraps until it's rebuilt anyway -- decides it would be best to
whisk the limo off to Michigan to have the windshield replaced.

And then, I guess, after they got the car back to the White House,
Frazier, et al, fired a low-powered bullet at the windshield, to crack
it and create the spider-webbing and to place the bullet lead on the
inside surface of the glass??? Is that what they did??? Or did they
just whack it with a hammer or something and smear some lead on it??

They MUST have proceeded in the above manner to a goodly degree,
right?

Big question, of course, is WHY would they feel the need to jump
through these hoops, when they could have avoided having anybody at
Dearborn see the limo, fix the limo, and potentially blow the dreaded
plot?

That's the big question....why?

Phil Ossofee

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 5:17:09 AM3/9/08

to

The crazed posts you are making sound like brainwashed crap Von Pein,
don't you understand anything?You were not there, like Tony Marsh you
confuse an opinion with total facts in every facet . 9 witnesses to a
hole in the windshield, including a SS Agent, a couple policeman, and a
high level employee of the ford motor co. with an outstanding record.
These are good courtroom witnesses.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 5:51:36 AM3/9/08

to

>>> "9 witnesses to a hole in the windshield..." <<<

The simple, logical answer to this (given the under-oath testimony
from Robert A. Frazier of the FBI that followed in 1964, which
verifies beyond every speck of reasonable doubt that there was no hole
in the windscreen at all), of course is this:

Those 9 persons (or however many there actually were) saw the place
where either CE567 or CE569 struck the windshield and thought there
was a "hole" in the center of the "spider-webbed" crack in the glass.

That seems (to me) to be a logical explanation, given the type of
damage we can see in the limo's windshield right here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485b.htm

By looking at that picture above, I can see how somebody could think
there was a "hole" in that glass. There wasn't a thru-&-thru "hole" in
it, of course. But from just looking at that photo, I can see how some
people might THINK there was.

(Or do you want to believe that Officer Ellis actually DID push a
"pencil" through the window glass? Which, btw, he never said he
actually did do.)

>>> "The crazed posts you are making sound like brainwashed crap Von Pein." <<<

Yep. I guess the WC and VB and the CIA taught me well, huh?

Now, to repeat, the only thing you and the other CT-Kooks need to do
is to logically answer the following commonsense question (which is
one that no CTer has ever bothered to ask evidently):

"[The] big question, of course, is WHY would they [Frazier & the
FBI, et al] feel the need to jump through these hoops [regarding the
limousine's windshield], when they could have avoided having anybody

at Dearborn see the limo, fix the limo, and potentially blow the

dreaded plot? That's the big question....why?" -- DVP (CIA Disinfo
Agent since 2002); 09/12/2007

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 8:39:48 AM3/9/08

to

>>> "What's funny is, conspiracy advocates, totally and irrevocably believing Oswald when he said he was "just a patsy" are the same people who believe him when he told Frazier the bag held curtain rods, even though none were found. Another CT example of having it both ways." <<<

But, of course, most CTers want to believe that a set of "rods" WAS
found in the TSBD after 11/22, with those CTers totally ignoring
CE2640, wherein Roy Truly verifies that "no curtain rods were found in
the TSBD building":

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm

>>> "DVP, as you know, in VB's book there's a great picture (labeled National Archives) of the broken-down Carcano next to the bag." <<<

Yes, it's a photo showing the Paine blanket, the dismantled Carcano,
and CE142 (the paper bag).

>>> "Do you happen to know if this pic is posted anywhere on the web? I've tried finding it, but no go." <<<

I, too, have searched for that photo online and can't find it. Not
even at the Mary Ferrell site, which has lots of NARA pics:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_Photos

These close-up shots of Oswald's rifle are very interesting:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b5/Photo_naraevid_CE139-5.jpg

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/47/Photo_naraevid_CE139-3.jpg

aeffects

unread,

Mar 9, 2008, 5:38:18 PM3/9/08

to

I recall once being told by a well known member of the Dallas, Tx.,
JFK Assassination circle, of whom one and all would recognize as
someone whose been on the tube frequently concerning the subject
matter,,, "the Zapruder Film will never, EVER see the inside of a
courtroom..." I ask how does he know that? Perhpas Mr. Von Pein knows
something none of us know (along the same lines, perhaps). A insde
track to daBugliosi tradecraft, perhaps.....

Reminds me of Todd Vaughan's *mythical* files...

MYTHICAL.....