JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 167)

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 4:58:52 PM10/7/11

to

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 167):

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

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE PURCHASE:
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=1419.msg19970#msg19970

MORE RIFLE TALK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfd87ad020dcc489

CE567 AND CE569:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/64c0806494554a61

ROGER CRAIG:
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=1419.msg19954#msg19954

JAMES ALTGENS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18081&st=0&p=233554&#entry233554

JOHNNY BREWER:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16554&st=30&p=234062&#entry234062

MALCOLM SUMMERS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d3327e460fbf15f5

OSWALD'S TARGET -- KENNEDY OR CONNALLY?:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4960.msg109730.html#msg109730

OSWALD IN THE THEATER:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5215.msg118506.html#msg118506
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5215.msg118536.html#msg118536

ADDITIONAL STUFF:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ec54ed919ae3fbfa
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=1419.msg19976#msg19976
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/93535a591fbb54cc
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5063.msg114414.html#msg114414
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c483ddf33fdfc4c2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b3202ee23709a1e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/70f1054d0c6d8ef4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b574f914098f2e88
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1227bfe5a8bf415a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c97e1e06756b7d96

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 8, 2011, 4:23:56 PM10/8/11

to

A CONSPIRACY-HAPPY RETARD AT A.A.J. SAID:

>>> "You're an LNer and, therefore, you have no evidence." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Yet another wholly idiotic statement from the CT crowd. Gee, what a
surprise.

Fact is, of course, that the ONLY evidence in the whole case indicates
Oswald was a lone assassin (of both Kennedy and Tippit).

But, as usual, the CT crowd will twist and mangle every last piece of
evidence in order to exonerate their favorite patsy, no matter how
silly they look in performing that awkward, pretzel-like task.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 11:31:52 AM10/9/11

to

On Oct 8, 1:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising--dipshit

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 7:10:24 PM10/9/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc5f7d47ce1bb3ac/e1c11da43e78661e?#e1c11da43e78661e

Via Tony Marsh's "Only Brennan" comment above, Marsh apparently thinks
it makes a lot of sense to consider the idea that somebody was
sticking a useless rifle out of the sixth-floor window and didn't fire
any shots at all with that rifle.

It's another (of hundreds) of instances where a CTer will isolate
something separately and then fail to piece it together to make the
"whole".

So, Marsh (and other conspiracy theorists) will isolate the
information about ONLY Howard Brennan being a witness to a rifle
actually being FIRED from the southeast corner of the Depository's
sixth floor.

But Marsh also knows, of course, that three spent bullet casings were
found directly under that SAME window where other witnesses (besides
Brennan) saw a gun. And Oswald's rifle was found on that same sixth
floor.

Therefore, could a defense lawyer actually expect a reasonable jury to
buy this argument:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just because Mr. Euins and
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Couch and Mr. Worrell saw a rifle sticking out of
an upper-story window of the Book Depository, and just because
physical evidence of a gunman was found on the sixth floor, this
doesn't mean that you, the jury in this case, have to buy into the
notion that ANYONE AT ALL was firing a rifle from that sixth-floor
window. All the prosecution has got is Howard Brennan! And we all know
what a liar that guy is, right? In other words, you must ALWAYS be
willing to ISOLATE every witness, and you must never, NEVER, be
willing to put these isolated pieces of evidence back together to form
a cohesive whole. Never do that! For, if you do, you'll be playing
right into the hands of the prosecution...and into the hands of your
own common sense. And I know none of you jurors would want that. I
rest my case."

[/Perry Mason off.]

CTers love to do this same silly "isolation" trick with the Tippit
witnesses too, as they place each of those witnesses into their own
separate isolation booth, while failing to see the illogic of their
arguments.

Since we know beyond ANY doubt that Lee Oswald was, indeed, travelling
on foot near Tenth & Patton (with a gun in his hands) on 11/22/63.....

And since we also know beyond all doubt that the gun that Lee Oswald
had on him when he was arrested was, in fact, the gun that murdered
J.D. Tippit.....

Then it becomes quite silly for conspiracy theorists to "isolate" a
witness like, say, Ted Callaway -- with the CTers always saying that
Callaway cannot really be used as a "Tippit Murder Witness", because
Callaway didn't actually see anyone firing any bullets at Tippit.

But this is just incredibly silly thinking, due to the OTHER evidence
that does exist (in conjunction with Callaway's observations) which
prove beyond all possible doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was Tippit's
murderer.

And I'm still scratching my head and wondering how in this wide world
a person with obviously above-average intelligence the likes of the
late Mr. Harold Weisberg could possibly be silly enough to make a
statement like this one (which is a direct, verbatim quote from
Weisberg's mouth):

"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from
the sixth floor." -- Harold Weisberg

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

aeffects

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 7:25:17 PM10/9/11

to

On Oct 9, 4:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

and, no advertising moron!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 6:11:47 PM10/10/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3249cd22800d90bf

PAT SPEER ASKED:

Question for DVP on his YouTube channel ---

From where did you get the 11-22-63 radio interview of Charles Brehm?
Do you know the time of the interview? I've been trying to figure out
which came first, his TV interview--which occurred about 3:15 CST---or
his radio interview. Your help appreciated.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

I wish I knew the answer to that question myself. But I do not know.

It's interesting that you should bring this up, because when I put
together that Brehm video (which has a total of four interviews on it,
from 1963 to 1967), I wasn't sure whether I should "officially" label
the radio interview with an "11/22/63" date or not, because I was
somewhat unsure whether the interview was from the 22nd or not.

I ultimately did label it with a Nov. 22 date, which means I might
have confirmed the date before I did that (because I hate incorrect
info of that sort on my videos). But right now I cannot recall if (or
where) I did confirm the date.

And I certainly have no idea whether Brehm recorded his TV interview
first, or his radio interview. I put the radio interview after the TV
one on my video, though. But it might not be chronologically accurate.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/12/charles-brehm.html

PAT SPEER SAID:

On page 544 of Pictures of the Pain, [author Richard] Trask quotes
from the [Charles Brehm] radio interview, and describes it as "one of
several emotional interviews recorded on audiotape that day." His
source for this interview is footnoted on page 560, and is an LP by
Colpix Records entitled "The Actual Voices and Events of Four Days
That Shocked the World."

This leads me to believe Trask is as clueless as we are as to what
time this was actually recorded. Some EBAY listings for this record
claim it was put together by WNEW, if that's any help. I don't have
the record, but if you do, maybe it would be worth a look.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I have that recording of "Four Days That Shocked The World". It
was released on Audio-CD in 1993. You can hear the whole 49-minute
program below:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/four-days-that-shocked-world.html

Now that you mentioned it, the "Four Days" CD is most likely where I
got the Brehm radio interview. I just checked the extensive liner
notes that come with the Audio-CD, but there's no specific breakdown
of times in the notes that would give us any clue as to exactly when
on November 22nd Brehm did his radio interview.

There's an interesting "FBI" angle associated with that "Four Days"
record album too. See above link for some of the details on that.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 3:35:08 AM10/11/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc5f7d47ce1bb3ac/60f09f7afe3c5c94?#60f09f7afe3c5c94

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "The HSCA acoustical tests proved that exactly three shots came from the sniper's nest. If they had not accidentally discovered the grassy knoll shot, each and every one of you WC defenders would be bashing us conspiracy believers over the head with it every day, every hour that now we have the scientific proof that Oswald killed JFK." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. Not at all. No reasonable-thinking LNer would be doing any such
silly thing. And that's because the acoustical evidence -- ALL of it,
and not just the "4th Shot" -- is pure junk and has been destroyed by
the NAS study in 1982.

Obviously, if the limo was long gone from the scene of the crime when
the acoustical "impulse patterns" were being recorded on the Dictabelt
at DPD (and the limousine was, indeed, long gone from Dealey Plaza at
that time), then NONE of those impulse patterns can possibly be
gunshots -- not the "4th shot" or the three impulse patterns that you
claim prove that 3 shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest.

All of that acoustics stuff is garbage. I.E., all of those "impulse
patterns" had to have caused by something other than gunshots--because
all of the gunshots that were fired that day had already been fired by
the time those impulse sounds were being recorded. (Or do you want to
theorize that even sixty seconds AFTER the assassination there were
still some gunmen firing away at JFK, even though his car was on
Stemmons Freeway by that time?)

Why in the world are you still propping up ANY portion of the HSCA's
acoustical nightmare, Tony? Just for the fun of hanging on to a
discredited theory? It's bizarre that someone would do that. (Oops,
check that--you're a conspiracy theorist. And that's what they do
every day--hang on to valueless and worthless information and
theories. My mistake.)

And I just love Robert Groden's recent claims (via a Black Op Radio
appearance a month or two ago) about how he now thinks that up to
FIFTEEN shots were fired in Dealey Plaza.

Now, just put that "15-shot" theory right next to the "Dictabelt"
theory -- and what we'd have to believe is that there must have been
15 separate acoustical fingerprints of gunshots on that Dictabelt.

And, to put Groden's 15-shot theory into another context, we'd have to
believe that EVERY witness in Dealey got the number of shots wrong.
Even A.J. Millican, who heard "only" eight. (Do "silenced" shots leave
the same "acoustical fingerprint" as audible ones?)

Groden must actually think that the approx. 75% of the earwitnesses
who heard exactly THREE shots must have somehow (inexplicably) missed
hearing the other TWELVE gunshots. TWELVE shots missed being heard!

Yeah, sure Bob.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 4:03:10 AM10/19/11

to

http://www.jfkhistoryforum.com/index.php?topic=154.msg1243#msg1243

Speaking of conspiracy kooks who believe in an enormously high number
of shots being fired in Dealey Plaza, I recently downloaded a radio
interview with Robert Groden (which Groden did in April of 2011), and
I had a huge laugh listening to this kook rattle off all the various
shots that he claims were positively fired at JFK.

Hold on to your hats, folks, but Groden (as of April 24, 2011)
actually believes that there were up to FIFTEEN (15) shots fired in
Dealey Plaza. Yes--15!

That's almost DOUBLE the number that Internet conspiracy theorist
David Josephs believes were fired. So Mr. Josephs had better get up to
speed--because he needs 8 more to beat out Groden.

Amazingly, though, there wasn't even ONE witness at the assassination
scene who heard anywhere near the number of shots that Groden claims
were fired. Not even A.J. Millican heard anywhere near 15 shots. He
said he only heard a "mere" eight shots. So even Millican missed
hearing SEVEN of Groden's fifteen blasts. (Maybe Groden thinks that 12
of the shots were "silenced" or something.)

But according to Groden's tripe, over 75% of the witnesses must have
missed hearing TWELVE of the gunshots, because those witnesses heard
exactly three.

And get this -- Groden is also nutty enough to believe that JFK was
struck by FOUR separate bullets--and that Connally was struck by THREE
separate bullets. And, incredibly, virtually all of these bullets
magically vanished after the shooting, and what we are left with are
only bullets and fragments from Oswald's rifle.

You can hear all of Groden's craziness about the 15 shots at about the
6:00 mark of this radio program below:

http://www.box.net/shared/ez0fblgpnzg4y89xeduc

For sensible people who realize (without even thinking about it for
more than two seconds) that there couldn't possibly have been up to 15
shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, there's a great way
illustrate the truth with respect to the maximum number of gunshots
that were really fired at JFK, and that is by watching the "live"
video from WFAA-TV that aired right after the shooting, in which
multiple witnesses (including Jay Watson, Jerry Haynes, Bill Newman,
Gayle Newman, and Abraham Zapruder) tell their story on live TV -- and
every one of those people said they heard either TWO or THREE shots
fired. (So, per Groden, Bill Newman missed hearing THIRTEEN of the 15
shots, because Newman only heard two.)

Here's the WFAA-TV video series:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/jfk-assassination-as-it-happened-abc-tv.html

The WFAA video is a great way to debunk some of the nutty conspiracy
theories that are out there, such as Groden's pile of steaming crap,
plus the equally-crazy theory about "NO SHOTS" at all being fired from
the sixth floor (which Harold Weisberg claimed) -- because contained
within these WFAA videos is first-day evidence provided by WFAA-TV
cameraman Mal Couch, in which Couch goes on live TV and radio within
hours of the assassination and tells the world that he saw, with his
own eyes, a rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window on the
southeast side of the Book Depository Building.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

Walt

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 10:46:05 AM10/19/11

to

On Oct 19, 3:03 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.jfkhistoryforum.com/index.php?topic=154.msg1243#msg1243
>
> Speaking of conspiracy kooks who believe in an enormously high number
> of shots being fired in Dealey Plaza, I recently downloaded a radio
> interview with Robert Groden (which Groden did in April of 2011), and
> I had a huge laugh listening to this kook rattle off all the various
> shots that he claims were positively fired at JFK.
>
> Hold on to your hats, folks, but Groden (as of April 24, 2011)
> actually believes that there were up to FIFTEEN (15) shots fired in
> Dealey Plaza. Yes--15!
>
> That's almost DOUBLE the number that Internet conspiracy theorist
> David Josephs believes were fired. So Mr. Josephs had better get up to
> speed--because he needs 8 more to beat out Groden.
>
> Amazingly, though, there wasn't even ONE witness at the assassination
> scene who heard anywhere near the number of shots that Groden claims
> were fired. Not even A.J. Millican heard anywhere near 15 shots. He
> said he only heard a "mere" eight shots. So even Millican missed
> hearing SEVEN of Groden's fifteen blasts. (Maybe Groden thinks that 12
> of the shots were "silenced" or something.)
>
> But according to Groden's tripe, over 75% of the witnesses must have
> missed hearing TWELVE of the gunshots, because those witnesses heard
> exactly three.

The PHYSICAL evidence trumps what witnesses reported hearing. There
is PHYSICAL evidence for MORE than three shots.

1) .... Bullet strike on curb of main street near James Tague
2).....Bullet strike near storm sewer on south side of Elm street
3) .....Bullet strike on rear view mirror of Lincoln
4) ....Bullet strike on JFK's throat
5) .....Bullet strike on Jfk's head
6) .....Bullet strike on John Connally's chest
7) ......Bullet strike on John Connally's left thigh

>
> And get this -- Groden is also nutty enough to believe that JFK was
> struck by FOUR separate bullets--and that Connally was struck by THREE
> separate bullets. And, incredibly, virtually all of these bullets
> magically vanished after the shooting, and what we are left with are
> only bullets and fragments from Oswald's rifle.
>
> You can hear all of Groden's craziness about the 15 shots at about the
> 6:00 mark of this radio program below:
>
> http://www.box.net/shared/ez0fblgpnzg4y89xeduc
>
> For sensible people who realize (without even thinking about it for
> more than two seconds) that there couldn't possibly have been up to 15
> shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, there's a great way
> illustrate the truth with respect to the maximum number of gunshots
> that were really fired at JFK, and that is by watching the "live"
> video from WFAA-TV that aired right after the shooting, in which
> multiple witnesses (including Jay Watson, Jerry Haynes, Bill Newman,
> Gayle Newman, and Abraham Zapruder) tell their story on live TV -- and
> every one of those people said they heard either TWO or THREE shots
> fired. (So, per Groden, Bill Newman missed hearing THIRTEEN of the 15
> shots, because Newman only heard two.)
>
> Here's the WFAA-TV video series:
>

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/jfk-assassination-as-it-happ...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 9:16:37 PM10/19/11

to

In article <bf2c8726-a634-42a8...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Oct 19, 3:03=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://www.jfkhistoryforum.com/index.php?topic=3D154.msg1243#msg1243

Did you list the one they found in the grass?

I seem to remember one that struck the road behind the limo too...

And, of course, we have the reported FBI intimidation trying to get people to go
along with just three shots. And *many* eyewitnesses who were never even asked
the question.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if we could put the eyewitness statements in a
timeline order, we'd discover that there was a marked decline in asking the
question of how many shots they heard as time went by. They were starting to
firm up the "official story", and didn't need conflicts with it.

>> And get this -- Groden is also nutty enough to believe that JFK was
>> struck by FOUR separate bullets--and that Connally was struck by THREE
>> separate bullets.

And even *MORE* incredible (at least for the kooks) is that *ALL* the medical
opinion was that Connally was quite likely struck by multiple bullets.

>> And, incredibly, virtually all of these bullets
>> magically vanished after the shooting, and what we are left with are
>> only bullets and fragments from Oswald's rifle.

And amusingly, we have eyewitness testimony and even a photo showing some of
these bullets vanishing...

>> You can hear all of Groden's craziness about the 15 shots at about the
>> 6:00 mark of this radio program below:
>>
>> http://www.box.net/shared/ez0fblgpnzg4y89xeduc
>>
>> For sensible people who realize (without even thinking about it for
>> more than two seconds) that there couldn't possibly have been up to 15
>> shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, there's a great way
>> illustrate the truth with respect to the maximum number of gunshots
>> that were really fired at JFK, and that is by watching the "live"
>> video from WFAA-TV that aired right after the shooting, in which
>> multiple witnesses (including Jay Watson, Jerry Haynes, Bill Newman,
>> Gayle Newman, and Abraham Zapruder) tell their story on live TV -- and
>> every one of those people said they heard either TWO or THREE shots
>> fired. (So, per Groden, Bill Newman missed hearing THIRTEEN of the 15
>> shots, because Newman only heard two.)

Of course, "sensible" people can also listen to Chaney, and there's literally
*nothing* you can believe that he asserted.

>> Here's the WFAA-TV video series:
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/jfk-assassination-as-it-happ...
>>
>> The WFAA video is a great way to debunk some of the nutty conspiracy
>> theories that are out there, such as Groden's pile of steaming crap,
>> plus the equally-crazy theory about "NO SHOTS" at all being fired from
>> the sixth floor (which Harold Weisberg claimed) -- because contained
>> within these WFAA videos is first-day evidence provided by WFAA-TV
>> cameraman Mal Couch, in which Couch goes on live TV and radio within
>> hours of the assassination and tells the world that he saw, with his
>> own eyes, a rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window on the
>> southeast side of the Book Depository Building.
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

Anyone notice that this troll is out attacking CT'ers, and not debating the
*EVIDENCE*, or providing credible non-conspiratorial explanations for that
evidence?

As the old lawyer's saw goes: "When the law is on your side, argue the law. When
the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when neither the facts nor the
law are on your side, pound the table a lot."

And to update it for this forum: "When the evidence is on your side, argue the
evidence. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when neither the
evidence nor the facts are on your side, ad hominem attacks work best."

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

Stan Moffett

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 9:32:05 PM10/19/11

to

On Oct 19, 8:16 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <bf2c8726-a634-42a8-a76e-49a032761...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

Hey Ben check it out. We've got Bud, Jason Burke, and bigdog posting
all at the same time AGAIN. Multiple personality disorder. HAHA.

Walt

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 10:35:41 PM10/19/11

to

On Oct 19, 8:16 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:

> In article <bf2c8726-a634-42a8-a76e-49a032761...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

I only listed the strikes that left PHYSICAL evidence of where they
hit.

An eyewitness reported one hit the street behind the Lincoln but as
far as I know, nobody investigated her report for physical
evidence. I did forget the strike in the grass near the storm sewer
cover on the south side of Elm street. So that's eight bullets that
left PHYSICAL evidence.

> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 11:26:32 PM10/19/11

to

Ben seems to think that I'm not justified in attacking and ridiculing
Bob Groden's "15 shots" theory. I guess, therefore, via extrapolation,
that means that Ben must support and endorse Groden's 15-shot fantasy
tale. Right, Benji?

(Healy, get your drugged-up ass in here and reply so Benjamin will see
my killfiled post.)

Ben Holmes

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 11:48:31 PM10/19/11

to

In article <9f73b868-4e4a-4d63...@m1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Oct 19, 8:16=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <bf2c8726-a634-42a8-a76e-49a032761...@f11g2000vbm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On Oct 19, 3:03=3DA0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.jfkhistoryforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3D154.msg1243#msg1243

>>
>> >> Speaking of conspiracy kooks who believe in an enormously high number
>> >> of shots being fired in Dealey Plaza, I recently downloaded a radio
>> >> interview with Robert Groden (which Groden did in April of 2011), and
>> >> I had a huge laugh listening to this kook rattle off all the various
>> >> shots that he claims were positively fired at JFK.
>>
>> >> Hold on to your hats, folks, but Groden (as of April 24, 2011)
>> >> actually believes that there were up to FIFTEEN (15) shots fired in
>> >> Dealey Plaza. Yes--15!
>>
>> >> That's almost DOUBLE the number that Internet conspiracy theorist
>> >> David Josephs believes were fired. So Mr. Josephs had better get up to
>> >> speed--because he needs 8 more to beat out Groden.
>>
>> >> Amazingly, though, there wasn't even ONE witness at the assassination
>> >> scene who heard anywhere near the number of shots that Groden claims
>> >> were fired. Not even A.J. Millican heard anywhere near 15 shots. He
>> >> said he only heard a "mere" eight shots. So even Millican missed
>> >> hearing SEVEN of Groden's fifteen blasts. (Maybe Groden thinks that 12
>> >> of the shots were "silenced" or something.)
>>
>> >> But according to Groden's tripe, over 75% of the witnesses must have
>> >> missed hearing TWELVE of the gunshots, because those witnesses heard
>> >> exactly three.
>>

>> >The PHYSICAL evidence trumps what witnesses reported hearing. =A0There

>> >is PHYSICAL evidence for MORE than three shots.
>>
>> >1) .... Bullet strike on curb of main street near James Tague
>> >2).....Bullet strike near storm sewer on south side of Elm street
>> >3) .....Bullet strike on rear view mirror of Lincoln
>> >4) ....Bullet strike on JFK's throat
>> >5) .....Bullet strike on Jfk's head
>> >6) .....Bullet strike on John Connally's chest
>> >7) ......Bullet strike on John Connally's left thigh
>>
>> Did you list the one they found in the grass?
>>
>> I seem to remember one that struck the road behind the limo too...
>
>I only listed the strikes that left PHYSICAL evidence of where they
>hit.

Okay, now I understand your list...

>An eyewitness reported one hit the street behind the Lincoln but as
>far as I know, nobody investigated her report for physical
>evidence. I did forget the strike in the grass near the storm sewer
>cover on the south side of Elm street. So that's eight bullets that
>left PHYSICAL evidence.
>
>

>> And, of course, we have the reported FBI intimidation trying to get peopl=
>e to go
>> along with just three shots. And *many* eyewitnesses who were never even =
>asked
>> the question.
>>
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that if we could put the eyewitness statement=
>s in a
>> timeline order, we'd discover that there was a marked decline in asking t=
>he
>> question of how many shots they heard as time went by. They were starting=

> to
>> firm up the "official story", and didn't need conflicts with it.
>>
>> >> And get this -- Groden is also nutty enough to believe that JFK was
>> >> struck by FOUR separate bullets--and that Connally was struck by THREE
>> >> separate bullets.
>>

>> And even *MORE* incredible (at least for the kooks) is that *ALL* the med=

>ical
>> opinion was that Connally was quite likely struck by multiple bullets.
>>
>> >> And, incredibly, virtually all of these bullets
>> >> magically vanished after the shooting, and what we are left with are
>> >> only bullets and fragments from Oswald's rifle.
>>

>> And amusingly, we have eyewitness testimony and even a photo showing some=

> of
>> these bullets vanishing...
>>
>> >> You can hear all of Groden's craziness about the 15 shots at about the
>> >> 6:00 mark of this radio program below:
>>
>> >>http://www.box.net/shared/ez0fblgpnzg4y89xeduc
>>
>> >> For sensible people who realize (without even thinking about it for
>> >> more than two seconds) that there couldn't possibly have been up to 15
>> >> shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, there's a great way
>> >> illustrate the truth with respect to the maximum number of gunshots
>> >> that were really fired at JFK, and that is by watching the "live"
>> >> video from WFAA-TV that aired right after the shooting, in which
>> >> multiple witnesses (including Jay Watson, Jerry Haynes, Bill Newman,
>> >> Gayle Newman, and Abraham Zapruder) tell their story on live TV -- and
>> >> every one of those people said they heard either TWO or THREE shots
>> >> fired. (So, per Groden, Bill Newman missed hearing THIRTEEN of the 15
>> >> shots, because Newman only heard two.)
>>

>> Of course, "sensible" people can also listen to Chaney, and there's liter=

>ally
>> *nothing* you can believe that he asserted.
>>
>> >> Here's the WFAA-TV video series:
>>

>> >>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/jfk-assassination-as-it-happ..=

>.
>>
>> >> The WFAA video is a great way to debunk some of the nutty conspiracy
>> >> theories that are out there, such as Groden's pile of steaming crap,
>> >> plus the equally-crazy theory about "NO SHOTS" at all being fired from
>> >> the sixth floor (which Harold Weisberg claimed) -- because contained
>> >> within these WFAA videos is first-day evidence provided by WFAA-TV
>> >> cameraman Mal Couch, in which Couch goes on live TV and radio within
>> >> hours of the assassination and tells the world that he saw, with his
>> >> own eyes, a rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window on the
>> >> southeast side of the Book Depository Building.
>>
>> >>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
>>

>> Anyone notice that this troll is out attacking CT'ers, and not debating t=
>he
>> *EVIDENCE*, or providing credible non-conspiratorial explanations for tha=
>t
>> evidence?
>>
>> As the old lawyer's saw goes: "When the law is on your side, argue the la=
>w. When
>> the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when neither the facts n=

>or the
>> law are on your side, pound the table a lot."
>>

>> And to update it for this forum: "When the evidence is on your side, argu=
>e the
>> evidence. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when neit=

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 3:37:14 PM10/21/11

to

Groden must have misspoke-I can't believe he believes that...Laz

Message has been deleted

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 2:14:00 AM10/25/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/560c838ba8c86f77/9c1586719f28d30b?#9c1586719f28d30b

>>> "You yourself admit that we can't verify for ourselves that Todd's initials are on CE 399. Even if the [FBI] document [seen in CE2011] is genuine, even if the testimony is true in his mind, that does not prove that it is exactly what he did. Look at the problem with Poe marking the Tippit shooting bullet cases." <<<

Tony,

The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.
Therefore, Todd's initials ARE on the bullet. And CE2011 verifies that
fact. Naturally, you think CE2011 is a fraudulent document. Great. But
I don't.

Poe was unsure whether he marked the two Benavides shells or not. But,
of course, the "Poe Didn't Mark The Shells" argument goes nowhere
anyway -- because there are two other shells that didn't go through
Poe's hands--and those shells have no problem at all with any "chain
of custody" issues (even per most CT fanatics). And those two OTHER
shells are also from Oswald's revolver.

And since we know there was ONLY ONE PERSON dumping shells out of a
gun at 10th & Patton on 11/22/63, then it's fairly simple to determine
that ALL of the shells found on the ground that day came from Oswald's
gun.

Or would you like to theorize the crazy scenario of there having
already been some shells lying around in the Davises' yard BEFORE
11/22? That'd be a new one for CTers.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 27, 2011, 1:05:14 PM10/27/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/560c838ba8c86f77/146e83e3b7d57efd?#146e83e3b7d57efd

CE399 ADDENDUM:

It should also be pointed out (over and over again) to the conspiracy
theorists that BOTH Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright told the FBI in
June of 1964 that Bullet CE399 looked like the bullet they each saw on
11/22/63.

CTers, however, will always ignore that very important fact that both
Tomlinson AND Wright said that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet
they each saw on Nov. 22....but they could not make a POSITIVE
identification of the bullet because neither man put any mark on the
missile. So, obviously, they could not POSITIVELY say that 399 was THE
exact bullet they saw....particularly due to the fairly undamaged
state that CE399 was in.

If the bullet had been badly deformed or had some other distinguishing
mark or jagged edge on it that would make it look greatly different
from any other Carcano bullet, then perhaps Tomlinson or Wright would
have been able to confidently say something akin to: "Yes, that is
definitely the bullet I handled on November 22nd--I can tell by this
jagged edge over here."

But since 399 was, indeed, in such good shape (looking basically like
any other UNFIRED Carcano FMJ bullet they could have been shown), then
how could anybody expect either Tomlinson or Wright to come out and
say (with certainty) that CE399 is definitely THE bullet they each saw
on Nov. 22?

Actually, when you think about this topic for more than a few moments,
it seems perfectly reasonable (and CORRECT) for both Tomlinson and
Wright to have said they couldn't be positively sure that CE399 was
the stretcher bullet. Because if they had said anything else, it would
have seemed very phony and disingenuous on their part...because ALL
OTHER CARCANO BULLETS WITHOUT THE INITIALS OF TOMLINSON AND WRIGHT
would have looked pretty much exactly the same to those two men.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 28, 2011, 7:34:13 PM10/28/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7b8da0f55f8be9f1/16745bd306b3a190?#16745bd306b3a190

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "David, please stop sending everyone off on wild goose chases to your website, where there is absolutely nothing that disproves my analysis." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll do no such thing--ever. If you don't like it--all the better. But
the more anti-conspiracy stuff that can be spread out here in
cyberspace--the more I like it. Because common sense never gets stale.
But Robert Harris' NONsense sure does.

Harris' "analysis" of the JFK case is riddled with silliness and pure
speculation (as all CT theories are, of course). My analysis of the
JFK case, however, is riddled with hard facts and Oswald-Did-It
evidence. Therein lies the difference. And always shall.

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

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

>>> "Your unsupported assertion that this FBI agent just forgot that he handled the most important piece of evidence in American history just insults everyone's intelligence. If you have a legitimate rebuttal, just post it here." <<<

Already have. CE2011 proves--for all time--that Tomlinson and Wright
were shown CE399 in June of '64...and CE2011 proves for all time that
BOTH men said that 399 looked like the stretcher bullet. Period.

You want to rely on a 37-year-old memory. Fine. I'll instead rely on
the OFFICIAL FBI REPORT dated July 7, 1964.

I also find in rather interesting (in a "double standard" kind of way)
that the CTers are quick to run away from any official document that
disproves their claims (like CE2011 does), but when they get ahold of
an "official" document that they think tends to buttress their
conspiratorial silliness, they're eager and very willing to prop up
that official piece of paper for all to see. (The Katzenbach memo
comes to mind, among other things.)

But, then too, that's why it must be so frustrating to be a JFK
conspiracy theorist -- just when you think you've put together a good
theory that has Oswald off the hook, then something called common
sense (or a pesky official document that MUST be fake, per the CT
mindset) comes along and clogs the works.*

* = The theory of Oswald being set up as a lone patsy many weeks/
months
before Nov. 22 comes to mind here -- which is a theory believed to be
true by many CTers, with those same CTers also wanting to believe that
multiple gunmen fired at JFK from both the front and rear.

But the built-in foolishness of believing that those two things could
possibly CO-EXIST in the JFK murder case never seems to bother the
staunch conspiracy-happy crowd one bit. They just ignore the illogic
of such a plot -- just like Oliver Stone did.

Amazing indeed.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 7:47:44 AM10/29/11

to

FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK:

"It is an article of faith among conspiracy theorists that
Commission Exhibit No. 399, the so-called magic bullet, was “planted”
by the conspirators to frame Oswald. But conspiracy theorist Dr. Gary
Aguilar, in an article he wrote, found a contradiction in two FBI
reports as to whether the two Parkland Hospital employees who first
saw the bullet (Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet, and O. P.
Wright, his boss to whom he gave it) could later identify it.

"A July 7, 1964, FBI report says that an FBI agent showed
Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 on June 12, 1964. The
report reads that “Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same” bullet
he found on the stretcher and that Wright said it “looks like the
slug”Tomlinson turned over to him. Neither could “positively identify”
the bullet. (CE 2011, 24 H 411–412) But an earlier, June 20, 1964, FBI
Airtel from the special agent-in-charge in Dallas to J. Edgar Hoover
reads that neither Tomlinson nor Wright “can identify bullet” (HSCA
Record 180-10034-10436).

"Since the Airtel was written before the July 7, 1964, report,
Aguilar concludes that the Airtel was the truthful report and that the
July 7, 1964, report was “bogus” in that it claimed that Tomlinson and
Wright thought the bullet they were shown was the same one they saw on
the afternoon of the assassination, when actually, per the June 20
Airtel, Tomlinson and Wright told the FBI the opposite. (Gary Aguilar,
“A Tale of Two Official Stories,” Probe, January–February 2000, pp.14–
15, 24)*

* [Footnote] -- "The same “bogus” July 7, 1964, FBI report (CE
2011) says that Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, to whom O. P.
Wright gave the slug, “could not identify this bullet,” and James
Rowley, chief of the U.S. Secret Service to whom Johnsen gave the
slug, also “could not identify this bullet.” (FBI special agent Elmer
Todd, to whom Rowley gave the bullet, was, per the report, able to
identify it “from initials” marked thereon by Todd at the FBI
laboratory.) In an effort to explain why, if the FBI were up to no
good, FBI agents would falsify what Tomlinson and Wright told them,
but not what Johnsen and Rowley told them, Aguilar amusingly writes
that the FBI authors of the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011) probably
thought that “Secret Service agents would have been more likely to
read the FBI reports” than Tomlinson and Wright would.

"But if that is Aguilar’s conclusion, that Commission Exhibit
No. 399 was never identified and authenticated as the magic bullet
that connected Oswald to the assassination, doesn’t that necessarily
knock out the hallowed belief of most of his fellow conspiracy
theorists* that Exhibit No. 399 was a bullet from Oswald’s rifle that
conspirators planted to frame Oswald? (I mean, certainly the
conspirators, trying to frame Oswald, would not have planted a bullet
on the stretcher that was fired from a rifle other than Oswald’s,
would they?) In any event, Aguilar found what he believes to be a
contradiction. That’s one of the most important things all conspiracy
theorists look for, and then they go merrily on in their search for
other apparent contradictions in the vast and inviting literature on
the assassination.

"Per the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011), the FBI agent who
showed Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 (FBI Exhibit
C-1) was Bardwell D. Odum. But interestingly, when assassination
researchers Aguilar and Josiah Thompson visited Odum at his home in
Dallas in late September of 2002, Odum told them he never had that
bullet in his possession and, hence, did not show it to anyone. Unless
the July report is in error as to the name of the agent who showed
Tomlinson the bullet, Odum, almost forty years after the fact, has
simply forgotten.

"Odum said that if he had shown anyone the bullet, he would have
prepared an FBI report (called a “302” after the number of the form,
FD-302) on it. (Letter from Gary Aguilar to author dated October 13,
2004)

"There is another related aspect to Aguilar’s handling of the
two apparently contradictory reports. (I say “apparently” because each
was written by different FBI agents, and the agent writing in the June
Airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet may
have meant no more than the other agent writing in the other report
that they could not “positively” identify the bullet.)

"And, like the previous one, it fits the modus operandi of
virtually all mainstream (as opposed to fringe) conspiracy theorists
like Aguilar, Anthony Summers, Henry Hurt, John Newman, and others.
The moment they spot something contradictory or, in their mind,
suspicious, they make “noises,” without making direct accusations,
that the party or group involved is complicit in the conspiracy.
(Those on the fringe simply flat-out accuse them of being complicit.)

"For instance, here, Aguilar does not expressly accuse the FBI
ofmurdering Kennedy or knowingly covering up for those who did. But
certainly, if FBI agents are falsifying their official reports,
Aguilar wants his readers to infer that they must be somehow involved.
I mean, if that’s not what he’s getting at when he says FBI agents
prepared a bogus report changing what Tomlinson and Wright told them,
then what’s the relevance of what he’s writing about?

"If he was not willing in his article to accuse the FBI of
murdering Kennedy or being an accessory after the fact to Kennedy’s
murder, then “where does his allegation go?” And if it doesn’t go
anywhere, then that means there is an innocent, not sinister,
explanation for the discrepancy.

"Instead, willy-nilly, most mainstream conspiracy theorists
continue only to imply that this person, and this group, and that
person, and that group (they never stop adding to their list as they
scour the assassination library of books, articles, and documents)
were involved somehow in the assassination, but not too frequently do
they flat-out identify those persons or groups."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 544-545 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

David Von Pein

unread,

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 27, 2011, 10:14:49 PM11/27/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1f5a9f323cbabce7/7aa4ef77bc5f3961?#7aa4ef77bc5f3961

>>> "Gee, you don't think Ruby and his handlers might have wanted you to think it was happenstance? You know, make it look like a spur of the moment thing to keep the heat off. Gullible people will fall for stuff like that." <<<

Which means, of course, that 20-year-old stripper Karen Carlin was one
of the KEY plotters, since it was her phone call that put Ruby in a
position to make it "look" like the shooting of Oswald was
happenstance.

And I imagine the Western Union employees were probably part of the
plot too. And maybe there were even some plotters who were controlling
the traffic signals that Ruby had to encounter between his apartment
and downtown Dallas. If the lights had stayed red for just a few
seconds longer, or if Ruby had driven downtown just a tad slower, or
if Ruby hadn't made that illegal turn that he said he made to park in
front of Western Union (which evidently trimmed a few seconds off the
time needed to get into the WU office) -- then Jack would have missed
Oswald altogether.

IOW -- Even when it's obvious that something was HAPPENSTANCE instead
of CONSPIRACY, the conspiracy kooks will still bitch and moan, and
come up with a "PRE-ARRANGED TO LOOK LIKE HAPPENSTANCE" plot
(involving 20-year-old strippers, and having Ruby take a shower before
he leaves to shoot Oswald, and making sure to place Sheba in the car,
etc.).

Beautiful.

Impossible. But beautiful.