Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
  • Content count

    4,649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    34.8 inches. And allow me to repeat this.... VINCE BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?" BUELL FRAZIER -- "That is true." BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?" FRAZIER -- "That is true."
  2. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    He was holding a dismantled Carcano rifle wrapped in brown paper (just like Oswald did on 11/22/63). And Dan Rather was able to walk away from the CBS camera without having the bag fall out of his hand.
  3. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Yes, Ray, I know what Frazier said about the length of the bag. He usually said it was "two feet, give or take". But my "27 inch" comment was referring to LINNIE RANDLE'S estimate. It wasn't referring to anything Buell Frazier said. And I'm fully willing to eat some crow and say "I was wrong" when it comes to my earlier remark (from 2007), when I said a 24-inch object could not be wedged in the armpit by a 5-foot-9 man. That was, indeed, an incorrect statement (based on Ray Mitcham's test that he performed today). However, on a "27 inch" object, I stand firm. That couldn't have been done by the 5-foot-9 Oswald.
  4. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Dan Rather was able to do it, here (at 12:35).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zZ3pLeHJNc243TFE/view Plus, what was keeping Oswald from using his LEFT hand to steady the package as he walked along? (He did have another hand, you know.)
  5. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Seems to me the object (whether it be a rifle or whatever) would just naturally be resting on your shoulder via such a posture. I don't see what's so difficult about it. ~shrug~
  6. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    "For the record"..... Allow me to correct what I said earlier about a 5-foot-9 man not being able to wedge a 2-foot object under his armpit while cupping it in his hand at the same time. I'm just under 5-9, and I can ALMOST do it. It comes out to 23 inches on me. Ray Mitcham above said he's 5-9 and it came out to 24 inches on him (which I can, indeed, accept). But a 27-inch object? No way. So even staunch CTers should admit that BOTH the famous "27-inch" measurement given by Linnie Randle AND the famous "armpit & cupped in the hand" scenario painted by Buell Frazier cannot BOTH be exactly accurate.
  7. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Not if the cupped hand was held out away from the body a little bit, forcing the weighty object in the bag to lean against Oswald's shoulder for the walk into the building. (An arm and a cupped hand CAN be moved and maneuvered, you know.)
  8. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Longer? You mean SHORTER. Because there's no way that Oswald could have wedged even a two-foot object under his armpit while at the same time cupping it in his right hand. Try it yourself and measure the distance between your armpit and your cupped hand. That distance on me is about 23 inches. (I talked about that fact in my 2007 Frazier/Randle article, below.) IN OCTOBER 2007, DVP SAID.... BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a 27-inch object (or a 24-inch object) under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly wrong--even from a "conspiracy" POV. In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony). Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate. And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said Oz carried the bag "cupped in his right hand". The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a mistake....and he said so, under oath: VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you recall how he [LHO] was carrying the bag?" BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body." BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right side?" FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side." BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said that in the past." FRAZIER -- "Yes sir." BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?" FRAZIER -- "That is true." BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?" FRAZIER -- "That is true." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
  9. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.] But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?
  10. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim. That point being: If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR. But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this.... Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long. ....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd. Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend? In addition.... There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit: "The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier
  11. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Reprise (for CTers to ignore again).......
  12. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Linnie Mae, of course, never said the bag was exactly 38 inches long. But she did come mighty close to it on one occasion [see later discussion regarding the Bookhout report]. In the two filmed interviews I've heard with Mrs. Randle, she once said (in the 1964 David Wolper film) that Oswald's bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [see the "Linnie Mae" clip linked below].... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/four-days-in-november-re-created-scenes.html In the other filmed interview (in 1967 for CBS-TV; at the 11:14 mark in this video), Randle said the bag was "about 27 inches long". Now, both of those estimates are still quite a bit shorter than 38 inches, of course. But the 12/1/63 FBI interview I spoke of earlier is quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when Mrs. Randle was shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), she did tell Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one she saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would she have said something like that to the FBI if the bag she saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag she was shown by the FBI? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I know you wouldn't trust the FBI any further than you could hurl them, but just "for the record", there's another FBI report from the day of the assassination itself, in which Mrs. Randle told the FBI's James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that's her very first approximation of the bag's size, which, of course, is by far the best estimate she ever gave as to the length of the package (IMO). And if you want to think Jim Bookhout was just making up tall tales in his 11/22/63 interview with Linnie Mae, then go right ahead and think that. It's a free country. But please don't ask me to follow you down that rabbit hole.
  13. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    There is an FBI report in which Linnie Mae Randle talks about what she heard when she looked out her kitchen door on the morning of 11/22/63. That statement is in Randle's interview of December 1, 1963 [Warren Commission Document No. 7].... "...she [Mrs. Randle] turned back to the sink after hearing the car door shut." Also.... It's worth noting something else that appears in FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum's 12/1/63 interview of Buell Wesley Frazier. Quoting from Odum's FBI report [also in Commission Document No. 7]: "Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7). The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long. So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.
  14. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Absolute nonsense, Jim. You're just LOOKING for an excuse--any excuse--to dismiss portions of Buell Frazier's testimony. Frazier always maintained that he walked behind Oswald because OSWALD decided to walk ahead of him by about 50 feet. It wasn't FRAZIER'S decision to walk behind him---it was Oswald's. And in every interview I've ever seen with Frazier, he's always said that TWO things occurred after he parked his car that morning.... 1. He charged his battery. and 2. He leisurely strolled into work (behind Oswald) and as he was walking he said (in his WC testimony).... "I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he [LHO] kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there. .... I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all." Now, it's true that Frazier didn't mention anything about watching any "welders" by the railroad tracks in the above testimony, but each version of his story does contain some "watching" on the part of Frazier. And if you ask me, those two "versions" of Buell Frazier's account of his actions are mighty similar in general content --- i.e., he is slowly walking toward the TSBD and is "watching" some activity by some men in the railroad yards. Now, Jim, you don't REALLY think those two accounts of Frazier's story are a million miles apart, do you? If so, you are hereby awarded this week's "Nitpickers" trophy.
  15. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    JIM DiEUGENIO SAID [IN OCT. 2012]: Davey, why did Shields say that Frazier told him he dropped off Oswald at the front of the TSBD that day? If so, then Frazier is lying about following him and seeing the sack under his arm. DAVID VON PEIN SAID [IN OCT. 2012]: Mr. Shields is obviously wrong, Jimmy. But you want to believe Shields, vs. believing the person (Buell Frazier) who has always stuck to his story from Day 1 about all of the stuff he did on November 22nd, including the manner in which Oswald exited the car and picked up his package out of the back seat while Frazier was charging his battery in the distant employee parking lot. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Frazier's story about following LHO into the TSBD was contradicted by Shields, who said he parked the car by himself that morning and then walked to the building alone. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That's a mighty weak argument, Jim. That scenario of Buell Frazier parking the car "by himself" and walking to the building "alone" is, essentially, correct (when factoring in the fact that Oswald got out of the car first and started to walk ahead of Wesley Frazier toward the TSBD, with Frazier remaining in his car to charge the battery). Given those circumstances, a person (like Shields) might very well have thought Frazier was "alone" when he walked toward the building, with Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Because, as mentioned, essentially Frazier WAS "alone" when he walked to the building on that particular day. And Shields could have thought Frazier parked the car "alone", because Frazier did get out of the car ALONE--i.e., not at the same time as Oswald. Is this the best you've got, Jimbo? If so, it's awfully lousy, because you've also got to get around the testimony of Linnie Randle too. After all, she DID definitely see LHO [with a package!] on the morning of November 22, right? (I assume you don't think she was lying about merely SEEING Oswald that day, do you?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-111.html
  16. FYI.... Here's a new Master Index listing/catalog of all the programs in my video/audio collection, which is an extensive resource that might prove useful to some people out there. This catalog includes more than 2,500 video files in total (JFK-related and otherwise), all available for streaming, downloading, and embedding through the handy Google Drive file hosting service. If anybody finds a broken link or a misspelled word (or some other mistake), please let me know. Thanks. Click the logo below....
  17. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Anyone who can say that Linnie Mae Randle and Wesley Frazier are just ordinary witnesses, I mean what can you say? I don't know anyone in this case who was snapped up to a polygraph at midnight on the 22nd at the DPD. I don't know anyone who was so panic stricken that the operator could not get a reading on him. I don't know anyone who had an Enfield rifle in their house, the first rifle reported used in the assassination. I don't know any witness who the DPD tried to deliberately cover up what they did to him as they did with Frazier. I don't know any witness with who the DPD deliberately deep sixed the evidence of what happened to him to the point that it completely disappeared from the archives. I don't know any testimony in which both witnesses to one event have been impeached. And for Davey to say that... 1.) You can see anything distinguishable through those slats, 2.) You can see to the other side of the car, This is just BS, so what does DVP do, he invents testimony about "hearing the door". Utterly shameless. But par for the course with him. DAVID VON PEIN SAID [DEC. 3, 2012]: Yes, you are shameless, Jimbo. You're shamelessly trying to smear the names of two totally innocent people with your outrageous and wholly unfounded BS about Frazier and Randle being "forced" by the DPD to make up the paper bag story from whole cloth. That's a despicable theory and anyone with any common sense knows it. But, of course, it's par for the DiEugenio course, because Jimmy D. couldn't live with the thought that Lee Oswald took that rifle into work with him on 11/22/63 (as the ludicrous 2010 quote shown below amply demonstrates). "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 Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- J. DiEugenio; Jan. 14, 2010 Yeah, right. As if all the bullets, shells, fragments, guns, fingerprints, fibers, paper bag, the Tippit murder, and Oswald's own actions weren't going to be nearly enough to hang Oswald. Jimbo's out to lunch. And all of DiEugenio's other concerns melt away like butter on just-popped popcorn when evaluated in anything close to a reasonable way. E.G.: Frazier was scared stiff. So what? Wouldn't you be too, given the circumstances? Frazier had an Enfield rifle. And since Frazier drove the assassin to work in his own car on the day of the assassination, OF COURSE Frazier (along with his rifle) is going to be considered a potential suspect and a possible accomplice. Why WOULDN'T he be considered in such a light right after an assassination had just been committed by a person who was driven to work by Frazier on the day it happened? The same goes for Joe R. Molina, another Depository employee with an apparent "subversive" history (per the DPD files). Molina was questioned within 24 hours of the assassination and released when it was discovered he had nothing to do with the assassination. The same with Frazier. William Randle's rifle (scope) is investigated. Again, so what? That's to be EXPECTED, in my opinion, since Mr. Randle had a "connection" to Buell Wesley Frazier, who was also investigated. I can just hear you conspiracy clowns balking and complaining if Frazier and Mr. Randle HADN'T been investigated. You'd be crying: "Why were they and their rifles totally ignored?" But when they (and their rifles) ARE investigated by the authorities, you still want to complain that THAT action is sinister and suspicious too. There's no pleasing a conspiracy hound. Is there, Jimmy? More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html
  18. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Why was the bag not photographed in situ? And why does the bag in evidence not match the one the Fraziers said they saw? DAVID VON PEIN SAID [OCT. 2012]: Even though no picture of the bag was taken by the DPD that shows the bag in the Sniper's Nest, there were multiple police officers who testified that they DID see a paper bag lying on the floor in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor before the bag was picked up. Four of those officers are: L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97] Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144] J.C. Day [4 H 267] Marvin Johnson [7 H 103] It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy [theorists] like DiEugenio feel the need to distance themselves from the reality concerning that brown paper bag. Because if those conspiracists were to actually face the stubborn truth about the bag (with that truth being: it was Lee Harvey Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald carried his rifle, inside that bag, into the Book Depository Building), then those conspiracists would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day President Kennedy came to town. What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth -- that Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?
  19. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    BUD SAID: Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen this [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car], David? DAVID VON PEIN SAID [OCT. 21, 2009]: I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of space between the slats in the carport (as seen in the photo below): I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all. She possibly HEARD more than she SAW. I.E., She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw walk toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the person at Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle just saw cross the street (Oswald). Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats of the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the bag in the car. So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify in the following manner: "He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door."
  20. David Von Pein

    Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Those pictures were taken as part of an FBI booklet of photos called "Paine And Randle Homes", which became Warren Commission Document No. 497. Here are some of my arguments regarding the topics of "Linnie Mae Randle & The Paper Bag".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-746.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-79.html#Linnie-Randle http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-80.html#Linnie-Mae-Randle-And-The-Package http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html
  21. David Von Pein

    DVP has a book coming out

    Untrue. (In the USA anyway.)
  22. David Von Pein

    DVP has a book coming out

    Book Website....
  23. And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-) If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever. Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?
  24. Thanks for the additional information, David L. As I said, the apparent inconsistent statements from Dr. Stewart that I talked about above don't necessarily mean anything at all when it comes to the things Dr. Perry supposedly said to Stewart about the throat wound. But I think those contradictory accounts are kind of interesting nevertheless. Since you say you have Dr. Stewart on film saying he was never in Trauma Room 1 with JFK, then it's got to make you scratch your head a little bit (right?) when you see alleged statements being attributed to the same man (David Stewart) which say exactly the opposite (e.g., the Dolan radio interview of 4/10/67 and the quotes that evidently appear in one of Harold Weisberg's books). Also.... I find this comment you made quite interesting (and humorous): "Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. .... Groden agreed." -- DSL And even with such a rigid agreement in place, what does Groden decide to do in 1989 in front of two people (David Lifton and Pat Valentino)? Groden decides that 12 years of living up to that verbal agreement with Dr. Perry was more than enough---so he decides to violate the agreement and spill his guts about what Malcolm Perry told him in 1977. (Nice guy, that Bob Groden, huh?) ~smirk~
×