David Von Pein

What evidence? There is none. And was none. There were some erroneous early witness reports about shots coming from the "Knoll", yes. But very early on in the TV and radio coverage, those "Knoll" reports were completely absorbed and overtaken by THE TRUTH of the situation---i.e., the shots had really come from "the building" (the TSBD). And, btw, when Hagerty made his "It must have been a conspiracy" comment on ABC, he also (at the same time) talked about the SINGLE SHOOTER firing shots which had a long "carry" from the Book Depository. He was acknowledging (at least in his own mind anyway) the fact that there HAD, in fact, been only one shooter, and that shooter had been in the TSBD, with the fatal shot having a pretty good "carry". Hagerty never says anything about there being a second gunman in Dealey Plaza firing at the President. Hence, Hagerty told America that the assassin must have been someone "who could handle a rifle". And that comment was one of the main things that led to Hagerty's goofy "it must have been a conspiracy" comment. Just because the assassin was a pretty good shot and could handle a rifle, that fact (per Hagerty) must mean it was a "carefully planned conspiracy". Say what??!! How silly can you get?

Hi Kathy, Since you liked Bill Ryan so much, you might enjoy this interview with Bill's son, Marc Ryan..... ItsAboutTV.com/2013/11/interview-with-marc-ryan

I wasn't counting Brennan in that quote, Kenneth (quite obviously). I was talking about the TSBD workers who knew LHO on sight. Such as Carolyn Arnold, Bill Shelley, Wesley Frazier, Billy Lovelady, etc. None of those TSBD workers said they saw Oswald at precisely 12:30. So Oswald does not have an "alibi witness" for the moment when JFK was shot.

The Hagerty clip is at the 1:45:50 mark in the WFAA video I posted in my thread-starter.

Bones and Bags.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html

Nice, Glenn. You refuse to piece together the huge pile of circumstantial evidence that all points to Oswald. Instead, you'll accept nothing but "direct evidence". That's an odd way to get to the truth....don't you think? But, of course, as I said in an earlier post, if a CTer were to ever appropriately evaluate that Sum Total of evidence in the JFK/Tippit cases, they'd have no choice but to label Mr. Oswald a double killer. So the CTers will forever isolate all the evidence and refuse to admit that the pattern of evidence throughout the whole case proves Oswald guilty of 2 murders.

BTW, Glenn, there is not one single witness who claimed to see Lee Harvey Oswald at exactly 12:30 PM CST on 11/22. Not one. And if you claim there is such a witness, you couldn't be more incorrect. And, no, Carolyn Arnold is not your saving grace in exonerating Oswald. Arnold does NOT give LHO an alibi for exactly 12:30. (And there are many other problems with her changing story anyway.) And you surely aren't going to bring up Robert Groden's "bombshell" witness, Mrs. Reid. Are you? That story is beyond hilarious.

Glenn, It's the SUM TOTAL of stuff that puts Oswald in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30. Including the Tippit murder and Oswald's non-stop lies that he told while in custody. But you apparently have no desire to piece together Oswald's obvious guilt via that tapestry known as the "Totality Of Evidence", do you? You'd rather keep everything separate. Good idea, though. Because if you start tying one piece of evidence to the next...and then the next...pretty soon you're going to have a very guilty man named Oswald. And no CTer on the Internet seems to like that idea at all. Also -- Do you think if LHO was being framed, the plotters would have allowed Oswald to wander around the lunchroom at 12:30, when they needed their "patsy" up on Floor #6 in order to properly frame him? From your POV of LHO being on a lower floor of the TSBD at 12:30, were the patsy-framers just unlucky....or total morons? Choose one.

Right.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html he has deferred to the preordained defense which he himself has bored of repeating. I have no idea what that means.

Brennan puts him on 6 at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22. I'm sure you hate Brennan. But his testimony is still there nonetheless. And it always will be. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Howard Brennan (Part 1)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

And you think no LNer has ever done that?

What an odd thing to say. Why are you saying Oswald was "never officially charged" with JFK's murder? That's not true at all. Oswald was charged with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM CST on 11/22, and LHO was arraigned on the JFK murder charge at 1:35 AM CST on 11/23. If you got the idea from Sylvia Meagher's book that Oswald was never arraigned, Meagher was definitely incorrect. More here -----> Lee Harvey Oswald's Arraignment

But don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on Nov. 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"? Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald? In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly --- Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

I've got some "Zones" too. Great show.... dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/twilight-zone.html

Oh, the arrogance of the poster!

You're wrong (of course). But you're free to believe that if you so desire. I'm accustomed to the slings and arrows by now. But just exactly HOW would you recommend an "LNer" like myself go about the task of presenting my "LN" side of things at an almost "All CT" forum without "arguing" or "stirring things up"? I'd like to know how that can be done. Or if it's even something that's DESIRABLE at a forum that's entitled "JFK Assassination Debate". Definition... DEBATE --- "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points." So the very definition of "debate" is "argument". So what's the problem with "arguing" at a debate forum? ~shrug~ And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd. Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963? Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?) By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like.... 1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving. 2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?) 3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd. 4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination). 5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22. 6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus. 7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.) 8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22. 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. 10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind. Things like that. Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree?

I'll save you the trouble, Ken.... [simulated Ken D. post:] "All of the evidence DVP talks about at that link is fake. End of story." [End CTer Fantasy Simulation.] Related discussion with another CT Fantasist who resides in the popular "All The Evidence Is Fake" club.... Amazon.com/forum/history/Who Killed JFK? --------------

From April 13, 2012..... BARRY KRUSCH SAID: I would invite you, David, after reading the three volumes, to accept the JFK challenge. You have an extensive knowledge of the background of the case, and I believe that you would be the perfect person to accept that challenge. What do you say? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Not unless your arbitrator is a robot (i.e., someone who has never been exposed to any of the various myths and distortions about the evidence in the JFK case). But since any arbitrator is going to be human, and since more than 75% of all humans with any opinion about the JFK case favor the idea of conspiracy, and since virtually all of that opinion has been based on nothing but silly myths and conjecture (such as the still-favored myth about Oswald being a terrible shot and the myth about how the Warren Commission insisted that the shooting took place in only 5.6 seconds and the myth about how the WC had no choice but to "move" JFK's back wound up into his neck in order to make the SBT viable)....then I don't think I'd be willing to risk any cash on such a venture.* And that's because, all too often, I've run into people who claim to be totally unbiased about this case, only to hear the very same tired, worn-out conspiracy myths coming from their lips--over and over again. * = Or does the person accepting your challenge actually risk any cash at all in this venture? Or are you the only one who pays out the dough if you lose? But if your arbitrator is made out of metal and microchips (with its "CT Myths" mode set to the "Off" position), then I'd be more than willing to argue the case in front of such an unbiased machine. Original EF Post: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006#entry250522

I wish I had your total freedom, Ken. You can just make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an "open mind". No need to stick with the physical evidence. Just pretend it was all faked to frame Oswald. Done deal. Ahhhh, what a life!

~sigh~ There's no sense even trying to discuss "evidence" with Ken Drew, since Ken obviously has no idea what the word means, but I'll futilely try again nonetheless.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com ~~Awaiting Ken's proverbial "None of that stuff is evidence, Von Pein" retort~~ (Hey, I saved Ken the trouble of typing his next useless, say-nothing post. No need to thank me, Kenny.)

Any examples, Mark? If by "flat earth thing", Mark, you mean "Oswald is guilty and he probably did it alone", then I've got some news for you.... My "flat earth thing" has a heck of a lot more evidentiary support going for it than your "conspiracy thing".

Well, you're right, it wouldn't automatically tell you that info if you've never visited any of my pages previously. But I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that perhaps you *had* visited at least one of my "JFK Archives" pages in the past since 2010. I must have been mistaken in assuming that. Sorry. just for the record " jfk-archives.blogspot..." will not link you to anything.. just click on that and see where you go. Oh, for Pete sake, Ken. I just used the first part of my site URL in that post. (Hence, the "..." at the end.) You need everything spelled out in neon, don't you?