Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
  • Content count

    5,027
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-940.html DAVE REITZES SAID: Has Pamela [brown] refuted the lapel flip? Actually, I think it's quite possible she has. I paid little attention to her article on [the] SBT when it appeared [see the link below], as it's a pretty typical CT rant on that subject: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372 But, lo and behold, there is a little nugget of research buried within it that casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the "lapel flip," advanced by Robert Piziali and publicized by Gerald Posner (and endorsed by me for the past decade or so). Pamela posted an animated GIF of Z223-226 [the one below] that appears to show that the lapel flip was no such thing, but rather a shadow. It looks awfully compelling to me. Comments, anyone? JOHN FIORENTINO SAID: Dave: Yes, I can comment explicitly. Firstly, Posner has nothing to do with this other than in supporting his own importance. He was very adept at taking credit for things which were observed/investigated/postulated by others without proper attribution. I had numerous discussions with John Lattimer about this, and in fact have done some photo work on this myself which is on another computer, but which I have posted to this newsgroup [alt.assassination.jfk]. Rather than a "lapel flip", the correct term might be "suit jacket bulge." It's unclear as to whether the lapel actually "flipped." In discussions with Lattimer, he himself was undecided on this issue. My personal opinion is, and always was, that indeed it didn't. I have used the term lapel flip to describe this action however. In fact, Piziali is a Johnny come lately. As our moderator Prof. McAdams can attest, the most unlikely of candidates, Cyril Wecht, was the first "official" proponent of this idea. But "somebody" actually beat him to it. I can assure you, it is no "shadow" and I go into this in great detail in my book. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think Governor Connally's lapel is moving. It's not just a shadow (as some people have theorized). Although, due to the apparent movement of that same part of Connally's jacket at a point which I believe was PRIOR to the bullet passing through Connally's body, I've revised my thinking on the "lapel flip" over the years. I now feel it's quite possible that a combination of the wind (which was gusty that day) and Oswald's CE399 bullet are causing the movement of Connally's lapel that we see in the Zapruder Film. Something appears to be happening with the right side of Connally's suit coat in this Z222-Z223 toggling clip: And then we get the bigger "bulging out" (for lack of a better term) of that same area of Connally's jacket at the precise instant when I think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this is only a shadow, IMO: In the final analysis, the "lapel flip" or "jacket bulge" is probably the LEAST compelling evidence on the Z-Film that proves the SBT is occurring at precisely Z224. There are multiple other indicators that show JBC is "reacting" to an external stimulus just after Z224, e.g.: JBC opens his mouth at Z225 (his mouth is closed at Z224), and a startled (or pained) look comes over his face; his shoulders "hunch" up, or flinch, starting at exactly Z225. This "hunching" is extremely important, IMO, because it's showing us an involuntary reaction on the part of the Governor. So we don't need to depend only on the CLOTHING (the lapel) of Connally to prove the Single-Bullet Theory. Connally's OWN BODY is telling us that the bullet has just pierced him. Just look: Here's another clip showing the very noticeable (but often overlooked) "hunching" of Connally's shoulders and the distressed look that crosses his face at Z225: And then there's also the very important "hat flip" of JBC's, which begins just an instant later, at Z226: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2tK_GSE7HOg/UolSwJ5-AEI/AAAAAAAAw1s/9I0RZMn_3yY/s1600/109.+Z225-Z226+Toggling+Clip.gif And I challenge anyone to look at the Zapruder Film clip presented below a few times in a row and arrive at the following conclusion ---- There's NO WAY that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by the same bullet! No way! http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AXW-bE6isPQ/UolNvHneNSI/AAAAAAAAw1I/wwG51z8e7zY/s1600/Z-Film+Clip+(SBT+In+Motion)(2).gif Anyone who could utter the above words after watching that Z-Film clip must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone. PAMELA BROWN SAID: That is just silly. There is no 'bulging' of the jacket. Has it occurred to you that there may have been a shadow from more than one source? Probably not. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The bulging jacket is obvious. PAMELA BROWN SAID: No it is not. It is a speculation imposed on us by Posner. It does not take into account the fact that there are much more reasonable explanations. The idea falls prey to the fallacy of false alternatives. JOHN FIORENTINO SAID: The fact that you believe ANY of this was "Posner's" idea shows me that you really haven't done your homework. MORE: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-940.html Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
  2. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    Yeah, tell me about it, Joseph. I'm always asking them for a raise. But those damn cheapskates at Langley just won't give me one. Would you believe I'm still making the same measly six-figure salary that I was making in 2006?! And they cut back on my health insurance too! No dental now! (Damn penny-pinchers!)
  3. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    Addendum #2.... MICHAEL WELCH SAID: Hi David, Here is a still frame [of] z-224. Is this the same film version that you like to use? If it is, what are you seeing that shows a hit on both men simultaneously? I can see President Kennedy's hands up or going up towards his throat. Is there any blood on Governor Connally's shirt? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Michael, You need to watch the film in a LOOPED and MOTION sequence. Just isolating Z224 isn't going to prove anything. And that's a big reason Governor Connally, when he looked at merely STILLS from the Z-Film, said he was hit in the Z230s. But when viewed in MOTION, and on a loop to see it over and over again, it becomes quite clear that both JFK and Connally are reacting starting at Z225. And Kennedy's hands are NOT moving UP to his throat by Z224. The upward arm motion of JFK doesn't start until Z226, which is the exact same frame when Governor Connally's right arm (the arm/wrist that WAS injured during the shooting) starts to rise also. Just like their arms are being controlled by the same string.... But, Michael, as we can see in the isolated clip below, Kennedy's right hand is still coming DOWN from his last wave between Z224 and Z225....
  4. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    Addendum.... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: >>> "The idea that JBC and JFK were hit at z 224 is nothing but a fiction. The purpose of which is to salvage the SBT. Why? Because at around this time, in the Z film, you have JFK just barely emerging from behind the sign and he has clearly been hit. There is a grimace on his face, and his hands begin to go upwards to grab his neck. There is no noticeable reaction in JBC. As Mili Cranor once wrote, this single frame destroys the SBT. (Which, BTW, is why Dale Myers had to lie about it and distort it in his fake simulation.)" <<< DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Talk about "making stuff up". Jim DiEugenio has just done quite a bit of that in the above paragraph. For starters, in Zapruder Film frame #224 (which is a frame of the Z-Film that DiEugenio actually is silly enough to say "destroys the SBT"), President Kennedy is just barely visible as he starts to emerge from behind the Stemmons road sign, as we can see here: Yes, folks, it's the above frame (#224) that Jim DiEugenio thinks "destroys the SBT", even though we can't even see John F. Kennedy's face in Frame 224! I think a good question for Jim D. to answer is this one: If JFK had been hit as early as Z190 to Z195 (as you have said on Black Op Radio, and probably in your online articles as well), then why are JFK's hands as low as they are in Z224 and Z225? DiEugenio thinks the same way the HSCA did in 1978 apparently....i.e., Kennedy was hit at about Z190, but then LOWERED his arms to where we can see them in Z224 and Z225, before very rapidly moving those same arms upward toward his neck and mouth, which is an UPWARD movement that does not even begin until Z226, as we can see here: A delayed reaction perhaps, Jim? But I doubt very much that you would like to endorse any kind of a "delayed reaction" explanation, in light of the fact that you seem to think that any similar delayed reaction on the part of Governor Connally around frames Z224-Z226 is out of the question. Right, Jim? Of course, in reality, there is no delayed reaction on the part of EITHER of the victims, with everything we see happening to John B. Connally just a split second AFTER Z224 being perfectly consistent with a bullet striking him in the upper back at precisely Z224 -- e.g., Connally's right shoulder pitches slightly downward and forward at exactly Z224 (the moment-of-impact frame, IMO); Connally's mouth opens at Z225 (it was closed at Z224; just a coincidence?); Connally's shoulders "hunch up" at Z225, in what is an obvious involuntary reaction to having been hit by the bullet; and, of course, there's the key "hat flip", which begins at Z226, which is a very quick and rapid movement of Connally's right arm (the same one that was hit by a bullet; coincidence?). (And I didn't even mention the "lapel flip" above. But the lapel/coat movement is really just a "bonus". Because even without that coat movement, there is ample evidence via the Zapruder Film that Connally is INVOLUNTARILY reacting to a bullet hitting him at Z224.)
  5. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    [In reality, of course,] JFK and Governor Connally are reacting to their bullet wounds at the exact same time in the Zapruder Film clip below: And take note of Jackie Kennedy's reactions in the above Z-Film clip too. She kind of "springs" up in her seat and then puts both of her hands on JFK's left arm. But Jackie only STARTS TO REACT (as she moves her arms and her body toward JFK) AFTER Z226 or so. But if we're to believe the HSCA's timing for the SBT, JFK was struck by a bullet back at about Z190. But Jackie doesn't react and try to aid her husband until after approximately Z226. Just a coincidence? Did Jackie have a "delayed reaction" too? In reality, Jackie Kennedy's reactions (and her reaching out with both of her hands to aid her husband shortly after Z225) are reactions that are perfectly consistent with a bullet striking President Kennedy at around Z224. She is "reacting" at almost the exact same time as the two victims. Here's a slow motion version: IMO, Jackie's movements are somewhat difficult to explain and reconcile if JFK had been struck as early as Z190 or so. She doesn't move toward her injured husband until AFTER the men reappear from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. I suppose that could conceivably just be a coincidence (because we ARE only talking about 1.86 seconds in real time--between Z190 and Z224), but there's no question in my mind that Jackie Kennedy's movements and reactions as she MOVES TOWARD JFK after Z225-Z226 are certainly not INCONSISTENT with the SBT occurring at Z224. In fact, the more I focus on JUST JACKIE in the above Zapruder Film clips, the more I think her reactions and movements fully buttress the "Z224 SBT Hit" even more solidly than ever. David Von Pein August 2010 Revised September 2015
  6. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    Maybe you should give that information to the veteran conspiracy theorist I quoted above---W. Anthony Marsh of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Because he seems to think Connally is reacting only to SOUND, not a bullet piercing his body.
  7. David Von Pein

    John Connally's Lapel

    The Ultimate In "SBT" Denial.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/lSEF4cGZhFg/50l4LFKTAgAJ ANTHONY MARSH SAID: Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And you think ALL of the stuff we see John B. Connally doing between Zapruder Film frames 224 and 230 are the results of him merely HEARING a gunshot (e.g., flinching, mouth opening, lapel bulging, and THE ARM/HAT FLIP), right Tony? (And remember that that arm flip is the SAME arm (wrist) that WAS wounded during the shooting. Just a coincidence, right?) Thanks, Tony, for again proving my point about CTers exhibiting "The Ultimate In SBT Denial" whenever they view these clips from Abraham Zapruder's home movie....
  8. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    No, but it does utilize multiple Magic Gunmen, who are able to fire two separate bullets into President Kennedy from the front and the back, and somehow have those two missiles vanish off the planet before anyone can see them ---- even though neither of those bullets struck anything solid enough in JFK's body to allow both of those missiles to suddenly stop all of their forward movement inside the upper back and neck of John F. Kennedy. Pretty cool game, huh? (But it's only a board game. Therefore, Magic Gunmen like that are things you can believe in.)
  9. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Yes, Micah, I've seen that video before (from 1977's Kentucky Fried Movie). It is, indeed, hilarious. "And a stroke of luck----22 material witnesses die of unnatural causes!" But I'd like to see an "LNer Version" of that "Scot Free" board game commercial. The narration could then go like this.... "Your opponent spins the spinner and lands on The Carcano Rifle and then The Curtain Rod Lie and then The Tippit Murder --- all of which point straight toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But, no worries! The other side's got Mark Lane and Jim Garrison and David Lifton to twist the known evidence into an unrecognizable pretzel----and, suddenly, the guilty assassin is easily able to get off-----Scot Free! (Available now from Shoot At Your Target From The Front, Even Though Your Patsy Is In The Rear, Inc., a division of Idiotic Assassination Plots That Couldn't Possibly Succeed, LLC.)"
  10. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  11. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is.... [...envelope please...] Michael Clark
  12. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    How do you know David Ferrie was "murdered", Michael Clark?
  13. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided that Ferrie was "murdered", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion. Is that about the size of it? Do you understand what sheer speculation is, Michael Clark?
  14. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael? Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.
  15. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting. Well, Jim, with a trail of purely laughable quotes like the ones I cited in a previous post --- like "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction" and "Baker never saw Oswald" and "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" --- do you REALLY think that YOU are the one who should be talking about someone ELSE "falling on [their] face"? And, I say again, with such unbelievably wrong beliefs in your hip pocket (beliefs that are NOT supported by the actual EVIDENCE at all!), why should anyone take seriously ANYTHING you have ever said regarding the JFK case? If you can't even figure out the really easy ones---like Oswald ordering the C2766 rifle and Oswald shooting J.D. Tippit four times---then how can anyone expect you to get ANYTHING right at all? (Seems like a sensible question to me.)
  16. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael? Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.) With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is: Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part.....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)
  17. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    Bugliosi's book has not been "discredited" in any major way whatsoever. Certainly not with respect to his main bottom-line conclusions, i.e.: ....Oswald killed Kennedy. ....Oswald killed Tippit. ....Oswald shot at General Walker. ....The Warren Commission conducted a very good investigation and reached a proper conclusion based on the available evidence. ....There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all. And just because James DiEugenio wrote a book that claims to have "discredited" virtually every last thing uttered by Vince Bugliosi in his 2007 tome, that most certainly does NOT mean that VB's book HAS been "discredited". "Discredited" obviously has a completely different definition to a CTer like DiEugenio than it does to many other people. I mean, let's face the music here.... The guy who just said Bugliosi's tome has been "discredited" is the very same guy who, incredibly, actually believes that Oswald didn't fire a shot at EITHER Kennedy OR Tippit (OR Walker either)! And there's also this list of fantastic things that Jim believes (or says he does).... "[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015 "Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015 "It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015 "I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008 "I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010 "Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009 "I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015 "I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010 "At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 "I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 "You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013 "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 "JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010 "I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a xxxx, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015 -------------------------- [End Fantasy Quotes.] ------------------------- And yet, with beliefs like that laundry list above hanging out there for all to see, I'm supposed to believe that Vincent T. Bugliosi is really the one who has been "discredited", plus every official committee who has ever looked into the JFK murder case. Those committees, via Jim's definition, have also ALL been "discredited" too. Please, James! Give a reasonable man with a weak bladder a freakin' break for once!
  18. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    Oh really? Then why do you suppose this occurred?.... "Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw once in his entire summation [to the jury], and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. Not once did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)
  19. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    Oh, get real, Dawn! There are a whopping TWO (maybe three) LNers posting here. And one of those LNers (Francois Carlier) hadn't posted here in 8 years prior to this month. That's hardly "so many lone nut voices". It's not even close to a level playing field. CTers outnumber LNers 20 to 1 (at least). And, anyway, why is it "sad" to have a few LNers posting, Dawn? Are you against free speech? We all know you've totally banned all LNers at the all-CTer forum you control at DPF, but that doesn't mean that Kathy Becket, James Gordon, et al, have to exhibit that same kind of censorship here at EF. "We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; Feb. 20, 2014
  20. David Von Pein

    Backyard Photos, invitation for Jack White.

    Chris, It's just a general comparison of the so-called "impossible" Oswald stance. I'm not saying the angles are identical. They obviously aren't EXACTLY the same angle. But just look at his general "stance" in both pictures. They're the same basic posture. It's just how Oswald stood. Leaning back somewhat on his right foot, with his left foot in front of his right. It's a very similar stance in both photos. (Do some CTers claim the photo on the left is an "Imposter Oswald" too?)
  21. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    More head-in-sand weasel words of your own. What's your opinion of Garrison's "case" against Shaw?
  22. David Von Pein

    Backyard Photos, invitation for Jack White.

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html#The-Leaning-Tower-Of-Oswald
  23. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    You actually want to pretend that Garrison DIDN'T "knowingly" prosecute a man he had to know was innocent? Come now. Let's be realistic. There was as much evidence against Elvis Presley in March 1967 as there was against Clay Shaw.
  24. David Von Pein

    A question to David Lifton

    Hint.... Was Shaw convicted or acquitted?
×