Sometimes Things Really Are As They Appear To Be

[David Von Pein]

If I could travel back to late 1963 and early 1964 in a time machine, one of the things I would be most anxious to do would be to sit in on a few of the executive sessions of the Warren Commission (in a "fly on the wall" manner), just to hear for myself what was being discussed (even "off the record") during those Commission meetings.

maryferrell.org / WC Executive Sessions

And if such "fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the Warren Commission could be accomplished in a handy time machine, I have a feeling that every single bogus cloud of suspicion that many conspiracy theorists have decided to hang over the heads of the entire Commission would evaporate very quickly.

And the reason that such suspicions would disappear in very quick order is because people like Burt Griffin and David Belin were telling the truth -- they really did want to find a conspiracy. But they couldn't do it....because Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and Jack Ruby really was a second "lone nut" in Dallas in November 1963.

Sometimes things really are as they appear to be.

David Von Pein

October 29, 2009

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

COLIN CROW SAID:

History shows that the Warren Commision [sic] ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was it's [sic] prime objective...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie, that old canard again.

Any chance you can prove that the "prime objective" of the Warren Commission was to whitewash things? Any chance of that at all?

A conspiracy theorist believing that somebody (or some group) was up to no good is meaningless. What the CTers need is some kind of proof that people were conspiring with each other to do the following:

1.) Kill JFK.

2.) Make Oswald the patsy.

3.) Whitewash ALL of the various post-assassination investigations so that everybody would think Oswald (and Ruby) did it alone -- including the Dallas Police Department's initial investigation on the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, plus the Warren Commission's investigation, plus the HSCA's probe into the murder.

And to believe that ALL THREE of those individual investigations into President Kennedy's murder were "whitewash" jobs is just too ridiculous a thought to consider for more than two seconds.

And yet, a goodly number of conspiracy theorists think that ALL THREE of those investigative agencies were, indeed, part of a "cover-up". Such thinking is silly beyond all tolerance.

To date, none of the above three things has been proven by the conspiracy believers of the world. And they never will be proven, because none of the extraordinary things that conspiracists think happened in this case really happened. Nor could they have happened in the real world in which we live.

David Von Pein

January 13, 2010

Edited April 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created merely to cover up the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.

And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and that he had acted alone.

To the conspiracy theorists who possess such a nonsensical mindset, I offer up at the link below several excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History". And after reading these book excerpts, a good question to then ask CTers would be this one----

Is this how the Warren Commission would have behaved if the MAIN OBJECTIVE of the members of that Commission was to rubber-stamp the "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion reached by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the FBI's 12/9/63 report on the assassination? .....

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/warren-commission-objectives.html

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

Edited April 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Who was the Secret Service agent on the knoll?

[David Von Pein]

Who was the Secret Service agent on the knoll?

Probably James W. Powell.

Also.....

"If Lee Harvey Oswald could easily misidentify a newsman as a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 (and he did, per his comments about this matter to the police after his arrest) -- then why is it out of the realm of possibility for other witnesses in the Plaza to have made the very same kind of mistake that Oswald made that day?" -- DVP; April 9, 2009

Or, to use the words of Vincent Bugliosi:

"From all the evidence it clearly appears that the Secret Service sightings on the grassy knoll and behind the Book Depository Building after the shooting are entitled to about the same weight as Oswald's statement in Captain Fritz's office about being confronted by a Secret Service agent in front of the Book Depository Building." -- Page 871 of "Reclaiming History"

Lots more on the "Fake Secret Service Agents" here....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/fake-secret-service-agents.html

And here....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Edited April 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

David,

I ask myself, why does DVP post here? I say to myself, he's not informative, and it's highly unlikely he'll change any minds here. So why does DVP post here.

Only you, David, can answer the question with certainty.

I guess you like sparring.

If I were a cynic, I'd say you like draining energy away from the core debates.

[Robert Prudhomme]

For that matter, Jon, why do any of the LN return, day after day, year after year, to debate with such intensity? For Pete's sake, the WC decided in their favour. Why not just laugh at us and simply walk away?

[David Von Pein]

For that matter, Jon, why do any of the LN return, day after day, year after year, to debate with such intensity?

Because there's always a very small chance that there are a few "lurkers" out there who haven't been totally sucked into the abyss created by the Internet conspiracy believers. (And based on the 2013 polls, the number of CTers is dropping fairly quickly---to 59% via one of the polls--which is always good to see.)

So if I can counteract a little bit of the silly "conspiracy" talk on the Web, it's a pleasure to do so. As Jon G. Tidd accurately said above, no CTer on the Internet is ever going to be swayed by one single thing ANY LNer says, or will ever say. (Has that EVER happened since the Internet was invented? If it has, I've yet to encounter it.) But since freedom of speech and expression and opinion hasn't been outlawed in the USA (to my knowledge), I can try to get the "Oswald was guilty" message out there....because I think Oswald was guilty (and was a lone assassin).

Edited April 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

For that matter, Jon, why do any of the LN return, day after day, year after year, to debate with such intensity?

Because there's always a very small chance that a few "lurkers" out there who haven't been totally sucked into the abyss created by the Internet conspiracy believers. (And based on the 2013 polls, the number of CTers is dropping fairly quickly---to 59% via one of the polls--which is always good to see.)

So if I can counteract a little bit of the silly "conspiracy" talk on the Web, it's a pleasure to do so. As Jon G. Tidd accurately said above, no CTer on the Internet is ever going to be swayed by one single thing ANY LNer says, or will ever say. (Has that EVER happened since the Internet was invented? If it has, I've yet to encounter it.) But since freedom of speech and expression and opinion hasn't been outlawed in the USA (to my knowledge), I can try to get the "Oswald was guilty" message out there....because I think Oswald was guilty (and was a lone assassin).

Dave

Don't you think that what you are doing is just a bit insane? Seriously, even if we convince some "innocent" on one of our arguments, so what? Why on earth would you even care?

[Jon G. Tidd]

David.

If I grant what you assume, I reach your conclusions.

If I grant what you assume, there is no need for this site.

I wish you well but wonder about your motives.

[David Von Pein]

Well, Bob, let me turn the tables ---

Why do YOU post so much, Bob?

Using your words, "Why on earth would you even care?"

[Stephen Roy]

David,

I ask myself, why does DVP post here? I say to myself, he's not informative, and it's highly unlikely he'll change any minds here. So why does DVP post here.

Only you, David, can answer the question with certainty.

I guess you like sparring.

If I were a cynic, I'd say you like draining energy away from the core debates.

Wow. What a strange question.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, Bob, let me turn the tables ---

Why do YOU post so much, Bob?

Using your words, "Why on earth would you even care?"

Quite simple, Dave. The WCR decided against the facts as I see them. I believe a travesty of justice has taken place, and that posters such as yourself are minions of the evil forces behind that travesty, and must be countered for the good of all humanity.

Now, seriously, why are you here?

[Robert Prudhomme]

David,

I ask myself, why does DVP post here? I say to myself, he's not informative, and it's highly unlikely he'll change any minds here. So why does DVP post here.

Only you, David, can answer the question with certainty.

I guess you like sparring.

If I were a cynic, I'd say you like draining energy away from the core debates.

Wow. What a strange question.

What do you find strange about it?

[David Josephs]

What DVP does not come and do is try to prove any of the WCR conclusions offered.. he'd rather we answer his tired old question, "if not Oswald, who?" as if that automatically makes the WCR okay...

So which of these 12 can even be considered an accusation against Oswald?

1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor

Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast

corner of the Texas School Book Depository.

(put Oswald in that window)

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots

fired.

(the HSCA proved that wrong plus there are numerous “marks” in DP from that day to prove well more than the 4 shots the HSCA found (they actually found 6, 2 were not fired from the only two locations they test- fired from… they were still gunshot sounds… just not from the GK or SE window)

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission

to determine just which shot. hit Governor Connally, there is

very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same

bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s

wounds.
(please present said evidence – show how an 11 degree UPWARD angle needed to connect back to front can be accomplished from 70 feet above the target - OR THAT THE WOUNDS ARE CONNECTED AT ALL)

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded

Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald
(any evidence that shows he fired a rifle or THAT rifle was fired would be appreciated)

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately

45 minutes after the assassination
(please connect this with the killing of JFK and the evidence presented by Markham and Bowley)

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the

Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to

shoot another Dallas police officer.
(and this has to do with JFK how?)

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning

Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police :

(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswaldwas not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement

officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled

to give any information and that any statements made by him

might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right

to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of

his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar

Association, which he rejected at that time.

(b.. Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed

uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass

when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and

other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment

and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to

orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the

prisoner.

© The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to

the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this

period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have

presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for

Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or

misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in

the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen.

(explain what this has to do with EVIDENCE against Oswald for the murder of JFK)

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning

the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963
(this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?)

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey

Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign,

to assassinate President Kennedy
(this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?)

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence

of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by

any Federal, State, or local official
(this has what to do with proving Oswald’s guilt or the killing of JFK?)

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes

that Oswald acted alone

What evidence shows that he did anything on the 6th floor at all?

Hoover on Dec 12, 1963:

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

The FBI report from Dec 9^th:

On the contrary, the data developed strongly

indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little

advance planning.

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

So here is a photo of Greer "reacting promptly" at the time of the shots to protect POTUS... You think this is indicative of the other conclusions these esteemed men found?

The DVPs of the world want us to believe we live in Utopia... Snowden, reflecting the activities of these men for the past 80 years, is not to be believed... he must have made it all up

the US GOV'T could not possibly be organized enough, competent enough or what ever other descriptive term DVP wants to throw out - to have pulled this and all the other covert activities off.

He would have us believe that a man who wasn't there, with a rifle that wasn't there, firing bullets that weren't there, missed once and yet hits twice causing all the damage to these men. That the witnesses were all mass hypnotized into saying the same things and signing the same statements... That Truly forgets he saw OSwald, supposedly, with Baker on the 2nd Floor... yet within 20 minutes is able to say he, and he alone is gone.

You see Jon, by making it an open discussion, he believes that his end of the argument is still valid. That there is still some mystery related to the conspiracy that took place and the OPTION that Oswald did it alone, did not know Ruby or Ferrie or Shaw or Bannister is still viable.

So every once in a while we need to post the simple stuff. The conclusions above which are so poor and have nothing to do with proving anything. Or the FBI's report which has chapters on BEFORE the Assassination.. and AFTER the Assassination... just not a whole lot ABOUT the assassination.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402

[Guest Mark Valenti]

No David, not LHO's identification of a Secret Service agent.

A policeman's.