Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
  • Content count

    4,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. And around and around in circles we go (again), with Mr. Lifton apparently (again) totally ignoring the following facts that were discussed about a month ago. Quoting from my previous posts.... ---Quote On:--- "In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound". And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was: "I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection." Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had really said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"? [...] Some additional thoughts.... Since you [David S. Lifton] are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry? If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?) Also.... Since you are convinced that Perry did NOT cut through JFK's throat wound at all, then that must mean that the following portion of Perry's interview is a portion that you think was "altered", right?.... "...cutting through the wound..." Or do you think that Dr. Perry was in a lying mood (or mode) when he uttered the above sentence, but then he turned off his "lying mode" a couple of seconds later when the word "inviolate" came out of his mouth?" -- DVP; February 28 & early March 2018; Hendricks County, Indiana; USA; North America; Earth; Milky Way
  2. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  3. What possible useful purpose does this tongue-in-cheek thread serve? All it does is provide a platform for the Fetzer and White haters. So why was this topic created in the first place? It certainly does nothing to improve the forum's "tone", which is something James R. Gordon wants to see improved, otherwise this forum might go down the drain completely due to a lack of funding in the near future. And this type of wholly unnecessary backhanded swipe at James Fetzer and Jack White (even though I don't agree with their theories either) is just the kind of intentionally antagonistic thread that we shouldn't be seeing at this forum at this particular time (given the posts that have been made in recent weeks by Mr. Gordon, who is deeply concerned about "the future of the forum"). Just my $0.02.
  4. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Trygve, I'm not aware of anyone ever asking Buell about the contradictions in his statements. It would be ideal if Buell would join this forum. Then everybody here could ask him about it. But in his 2014 interview, he said that "surfing the 'Net isn't my thing". So I kinda doubt that "JFK Forums" are his bag either. But, hey, Mary Moorman has an Internet presence now. She's on Facebook, and she even answered some of my questions last April. So maybe the possibility of talking to Buell Frazier online in the future isn't totally a crazy idea either.
  5. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    FWIW, here's my examination of Frazier's WC testimony.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html
  6. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Trygve, Here's my page dedicated to Buell Frazier.... http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html
  7. David Von Pein

    The Future of the Education Forum

    I agree. Thanks to James G.!
  8. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Trygve, See my "FYI" edit in my previous post above.
  9. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    He didn't confront him with it at all. And that's something that is very aggravating, particularly since Gary Mack was well-versed in almost every aspect of the JFK case, so he no doubt knew during the 2002 interview that Frazier was telling him something that didn't match his earlier statements. I kept wanting Gary to say to BWF --- But, Wesley, how do you explain the fact you said in your first-day affidavit that you didn't see Oswald at all on November 22nd after about 11:00 AM? Now you say you saw him just 5 or so minutes after JFK was shot? What gives? But Gary never asked Frazier anything like that. Nor have any of the several other interviewers who have interviewed Frazier since 2002. None of the interviewers seem to even care about (or they are just unaware of) Wesley's "I saw Lee / I didn't see Lee" contradiction. ~big shrug~ EDIT.... Trygve, FYI---- There's a video (C-Span) version of the 2002 Mack/Frazier interview available as well. It's in 2 parts, here.... https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1 https://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2
  10. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Trygve, It's quite reasonable to critique Buell Frazier's statements regarding his alleged sighting of Oswald on Houston St. within 5 to 10 minutes after the shooting. As far as I am aware, the first time Buell ever said those things was in his interview with Gary Mack in 2002 (see video/audio below). https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISUhXaldpNmN2QmM/view Here are my thoughts on this (via a 2010 post).... "A FEW NOTES: The most interesting parts of [the] 2002 interview with Wesley Frazier are when he totally contradicts some of the things he said in 1963 and 1964. For example: In the 2002 interview, Frazier actually tells Gary Mack that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald "5 to 10 minutes" AFTER the assassination, as Lee was walking south on Houston Street. Wesley said he then lost Lee in the crowd after Oswald had crossed Houston Street. Frazier said he thought Lee was "going to get him a sandwich or something, so I really didn't think anything about it". But when we look at Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit (which was written by Wesley within hours of the assassination), we find this: "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today [11/22/63], and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor." -- BWF Frazier also completely changed his mind in 2002 about the source of the three gunshots he heard on November 22nd. He told Mack in 2002 that the shots came from "above" him. But in 1964, he told the Warren Commission that the shots came from the railroad tracks on top of the Triple Underpass. Wesley even drew a circle on a Commission exhibit (CE347) to indicate the area where he said he heard the shots coming from: CE347: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0484b.htm "These railroad tracks there is a series of them that come up over this, up over this overpass there, and from where I was standing, I say, it is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like it came from over there, in the railroad tracks." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; WC Testimony; 1964 So much for 39-year-old recollections, huh? Maybe it would be better to simply not interview witnesses thirty-nine years after an event has taken place. You just never know what a witness is going to "remember" after so many intervening years. Such "newer" interviews are interesting to see and listen to, but many of the recollections being recounted by the witness become garbled, semi-incoherent, and inconsistent with things the same witness has said in previous interviews and depositions. And such inconsistency only tends to muddy the waters even more when it comes to investigating the JFK murder case. I'm guessing that Gary Mack was in a mild state of shock when Wesley Frazier told him on 6/21/02 that he had seen Lee Oswald walking along Houston Street "5 to 10 minutes" after the assassination. If that were true, of course, it would mean that Oswald did not leave the Texas School Book Depository Building by way of the front entrance, but instead he left via the back door of the building. I, however, place more faith in what Wes Frazier said on the day of the assassination itself, when he said he did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at all "after about 11:00 AM today"." -- DVP; January 25, 2010
  11. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

    Thanks for that heads-up, Trygve. That's one more for me to add to my Hugh Aynesworth page.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/hugh-aynesworth.html
  12. Balderdash, Sandy! There is nothing in Marrion Baker's 11/22 affidavit or in his WC testimony that PROVES HE LIED. When comparing a statement given by a person who was obviously confused as to the floor number (such as Officer Baker's "3rd or 4th floor" statement that we find in his first-day affidavit) to the later testimony given by Baker at a time when his confusion had been cleared up, does not equal a LIE. And in Baker's affidavit, it couldn't be more obvious that he was NOT SURE which floor he encountered Oswald on. Hence, he writes "third or fourth floor". How can you possibly turn that "3rd or 4th floor" confusion into an outright LIE being told later to the WC by Officer Baker? You can't---if you're a reasonable person looking for the truth.
  13. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

  14. That would include Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, and Jim Bookhout. (And if Fritz and Bookhout weren't lying, then Oswald himself lied about encountering the policeman on the SECOND floor.) Now, I wonder which one of these options is more likely to be correct: All of the above people were liars....or....Victoria Adams simply made an honest mistake about exactly how long it took her to get to the first floor? Is that really a tough choice for you, Sandy? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  15. Here's what I said 7 years ago (and I still feel this way today).... "With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase. And if she's off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then her whole story unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that Oswald used the back stairs just after shooting President Kennedy from the sixth floor. The key to pretty much knowing without a doubt that Adams and Styles were on the stairs only AFTER Lee Oswald used the same stairs is not really Oswald himself--but Roy Truly and Marrion Baker. Because if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker. Since Adams saw nobody and heard nobody, the very likely solution is that she was mistaken about her timing (which couldn't be a more common error with human beings), and she was on the stairs AFTER all three men (Oswald, Baker, and Truly) had already utilized the same stairs." -- DVP; February 14, 2011
  16. David Von Pein

    Kennedy Videos

  17. FWIW.... A discussion re: Adams & Styles (and some others).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
  18. David Von Pein

    Ruby's Route to a Murder and Bugliosi's Blunder

    But if you really are searching for some gifted storytellers, look no further than a JFK Assassination Internet forum.
  19. David Von Pein

    Ruby's Route to a Murder and Bugliosi's Blunder

    If Ruby had really come in through the side door, instead of the ramp, there would have been no good reason under the sun for him to LIE about it. And, of course, you have to bring Postal Inspector Harry Holmes into the "conspiracy" plot too. Because if it weren't for Holmes extending the interrogation of Oswald by several minutes on Sunday morning, then Ruby would have never had the chance to plug Oswald at 11:21. But I always like how CTers add in the extra element of "signalling" to Ruby across the street. This part of their conspiracy fantasy allows them to totally ignore all of the timing issues (e.g., the Carlin phone call, the 11:17 timestamp at Western Union, and the fact that the public was told on Saturday night that Oswald would be moved at 10 AM on Sunday), which are timing issues that indicate one thing to a reasonable person: Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald on the spur of the moment and could not have been part of some pre-planned conspiracy to rub out Mr. Oswald.
  20. David Von Pein

    Ruby's Route to a Murder and Bugliosi's Blunder

    Whatever Ruby's motive might have been (and it was never proven exactly what that motive might have been), there's no question (in my mind anyway) that Ruby's actions and movements on 11/24/63 were positively "spontaneous" and unplanned. The timing of Karen Carlin's 10:19 AM phone call and the sending of the Western Union telegram at 11:17 AM are two things that indicate the "unplanned" nature of Ruby's murder of Oswald that day....with both of those things occurring AFTER the scheduled (and announced) 10:00 AM transfer of Lee Oswald. As much as it might LOOK (on the surface) like a "Mob hit" on Oswald in the Dallas police basement, given the details of Jack Ruby's movements and actions and phone calls on the morning of November 24th, I cannot see any way to wedge a pre-planned conspiracy into Ruby's activities that day.
  21. David Von Pein

    Ruby's Route to a Murder and Bugliosi's Blunder

    I think you're overstating Jack's "disguise". Also -- Why didn't Ruby kill Oswald at the midnight press conference on Friday night? He said he had his gun on him at that time. Why wait till Sunday? Yes. Of course it is. Without question. Blakey, in fact, believes in a pretty massive conspiracy surrounding not only the murder of JFK (by the Mob), but the murder of Oswald (by the Mob, via Ruby). If that's not enough to classify Mr. Blakey as a "conspiracy theorist", then what would be enough?
  22. David Von Pein

    Ruby's Route to a Murder and Bugliosi's Blunder

    More of my thoughts regarding Jack Ruby.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-673.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/wade-interviews-arranged-by-jack-ruby.html
×