Jump to content
The Education Forum

Martin Hay's review of David Von Pein's book


Recommended Posts

The problem I have with Mr. Von Pein's arguments is that his fall-back response is "because nothing else makes sense."

Unfortunately, when you start with the conclusion, and then work backwards, it's easy to make the case. But that also goes for the case of Oswald's innocence as well. Humans are flawed; we have biases. Some are biased towards authority; some are biased against authority.

But what if we started with a blank sheet of paper and looked at the JFK assassination. Would any of us reach the same conclusions we have today? Many folks have made their "decision" about what they without the benefit of many of the technological advances that are available today. I'm referring to things such as James Gordon's anatomical models of what would or would not have occurred if bullets had taken the assumed paths through the body.

And the Prayer Man situation is another bit of information the original investigations either didn't have, or didn't notice [and yes, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't attempt to hide it, they just failed to see it]. The significance of the Prayer Man detail is that it might exonerate Lee Oswald. Or it might not. Without better analysis, we can't say for sure.

In America, under our system of jurisprudence, a man is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a shame that some folks can't grasp the concept. DPD chief Jesse Curry said that, based upon the information available, police simply could not place Oswald in the southeast window on the south side of the 6th floor of the TSBD with a rifle in his hand at the time the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally were fired. From where I stand, that constitutes "reasonable doubt" that Oswald did what he is accused [and convicted, in Mr. Von Pein's mind] of doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But let's say that Oswald did take his rifle to work that day, in a package or inside his pants, and used it to shoot at the president. If he did that, he wasn't the only one shooting. How do we know that? Because for one thing, the Mannlicher Carcano, or any other rifle you can name, does not fire magic bullets. Which brings us back to Von Pein's fairy-tale land.

Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it.

If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there).

The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to know how CE399, the "magic bullet", came through all those wounds and lost just a small amount of lead from the base.

Jfk's back,

Jfk's throat,

Connally's back

Connally's rib

Connally's chest,

Connally's Wrist

Connally's thigh.

A truly "Magic" bullet.

magicbullet_zpsuxlwm2f1.jpg

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory?

No, I'm not aware of any such thing.

If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it.

There was more than one shooter.

If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from?

From somewhere in front.

The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple.

I believe that the shot that left a gaping hole in the back of his head came from the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Roy,

There should not be any debate over the central facts of JFK's assassination. There should not be any uncertainty as to the central facts. There should be no room for doubt as to the central facts.

The President of the United States was murdered in broad daylight in view of hundreds. To him and to his body attended two teams of physicians. And yet a coherent, clear description of his wounds is absent from the testimonial, written, and photographic record. This should not be. The only reasonable explanation why it's the case is that certain U.S. officials did not want there to be a coherent, clear description. These officials blurred the facts.

It is reasonable to assume that if U.S. officials would blur some of the facts, they would blur any pertinent facts they could.

Facts do exist. Although one might not know precisely the high temperature today in my community, it doesn't matter to me or anyone else here whether it's 67.012 degrees or 67.013 degrees. Who cares? It does matter to everyone here here where JFK's back wound precisely was located. The mere fact this fact is not known with acceptable precision tells me U.S. officials didn't want the precise location to be known.

The argument here isn't academic. It goes to what purported facts one can trust when one observes some facts have been blurred. It's not that one can debate anything. It's that some things simply should not be debatable; and that they are, all alone, is highly suspicious.

By the way, as I've pointed out before and elsewhere, there is no "evidence" in the JFK case from a legal standpoint. The use of the word "evidence" by DVP is an appeal to authority, an authority that doesn't exist.

When I first noticed your posts out here some time ago, I thought that you might have some unusual insights or abilities to elicit and analyze information. As you have written more and more and committed your opinions to print, I've lost some of my enthusiasm.

It is pointless to analyze an event like this in terms of how it "should have" been. It was how it was: Unexpected, extremely stressful and disorganized. The two groups of medical people who saw the body did so in a rushed and emotional way. The wounds were complex and not 100% clear to either group. One group didn't know about the back wound, the other group only learned belatedly about the throat wound. There was no coherent and clear description of the wounds because no doctor had the body in an atmosphere to conduct such an examination.

Your opinion that the "only reasonable explanation" is that officials deliberately blurred the facts is illogical and ignores other alternatives which have been discussed at great length in the responsible literature of the case over the years, such as the extreme atmosphere in which the medical encounters occurred. And then you step further into illogic by saying that if the medical evidence was blurred, other facts could be blurred.

I guess we just disagree. I think your response to my comment makes no sense. Let's solve this thing and not hypothesize it far beyond reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas, I rely on the weight of evidence. If you're suggesting that Lee wasn't carrying a package that morning, how do you account for those people that saw him carrying one?

How do you account for the fact that Frazier said the package was not long enough to have contained the broken-down rifle?

If you've seen The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you'll recognize that Buell isn't the sharpest tool in the box. That's why he worked in the TSBD. Though at heart he is clearly an honest person, he's one that could probably be easily cajoled into saying anything. A smart attorney will twist him around his little finger. Gerry Spence plays with heartstrings. Bugliosi works with facts.

The question stands. What was in that paper bag?

It is plausible that Frazier and his sister were coerced into saying that Oswald took a package to work that morning. After all, Frazier was a suspect himself. He worked in the TSBD and he owned a .303 caliber rifle. He was a neighbor of Oswald's wife and occasionally gave Oswald a ride to and from work, making Frazier the perfect person to force into lying about Oswald's journey to work that morning. Frazier was himself arrested that evening and "questioned" about the assassination. IMHO, Wesley Buell Frazier and his sister would have been easy to put pressure on and forced into lying. The fact that Frazier told the authorities that the package was short enough for Oswald to tuck one end of it under his armpit and the other end in his cupped hand supports the theory that there was no package because it suggests that Frazier guessed at how long the package would have been, but guessed wrong -- the broken down rifle was significantly longer than he thought and could not have been carried like that.

Either that, or this was Frazier's way of accommodating the authorities (saying Oswald took a package to work) and exonerating Oswald at the same time. If that was the case, then Frazier was more clever than we think.

--Tommy :sun

Here's an idea: Maybe Frazier could carry his Lee-Enfield .303 like that when it was broken-down, and that's why he thought Oswald could do it with a broken-down MC.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sh*t, Sherlock. You are right, as I have been telling you all along. Nobody else saw the package. therefore they could both be lying.

Brilliant logic, Ray. ~eyeroll~

No wonder you're lost. Even the easy things are beyond your grasp.

Tell me, what's the official number of people who you think are required to witness an event in order for you to consider those people "truth tellers" instead of "liars"? Is the number 3, 4, 5? 55? (We know, of course, it's not as low as "2".)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas, I rely on the weight of evidence. If you're suggesting that Lee wasn't carrying a package that morning, how do you account for those people that saw him carrying one?

How do you account for the fact that Frazier said the package was not long enough to have contained the broken-down rifle?

If you've seen The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you'll recognise that Buell isn't the sharpest tool in the box. That's why he worked in the TSBD. Though at heart he is clearly an honest person, he's one that could probably be easily cajoled into saying anything. A smart attorney will twist him around his little finger. Gerry Spence plays with heartstrings. Bugliosi works with facts.

The question stands. What was in that paper bag?

My God, what nonsense!

The only people who saw something said it wasn't what the Warren Commission claimed it was. That's the whole point. Can we say they might have been wrong? Yes. But should we ASSUME they were wrong, a la the Warren Commission? NO.

No one knows what was in the bag, but Buelll Frazier has said from day one it was far too small to have held the rifle. He was a country boy, scared of the police. They pushed him around and tried to get him to sign a confession. And yet, he stood his ground. All these years later, he is still standing his ground. I've met him twice and have talked with him for over an hour. I've also met his son. They're as patriotic and straightforward as can be.

Assuming Frazier was wrong is no better than assuming he was lying... I suspect--no, scratch that, know-- those assuming he was wrong or lying do so for their own selfish reasons... "Hmmm...I think I've got everything figured out, but this guy won't tell me what I want to hear...SO, he must be a bumpkin, an idiot. Yeah, that's it. Frazier was too stupid to be able to tell the difference in a relatively small bag made of thin paper and a bag at least twice its size made of thicker paper. And let's not mention the drive out to Irving--y'know, the one where Frazier failed to notice a 38 by 17 inch piece of crisp shipping paper folded in eigths and stuffed in Oswald's clothes. That happens everyday, right?

Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you have never worked in a warehouse and never handled shipping paper of any kind. Am I right? Because if you had, you'd know the Warren Commission's assumption Oswald made the bag at work on the 21st and smuggled it out to Irving in his clothes without Frazier or anyone else noticing is one of the lamest most unrealistic conclusions in the whole report. As Frazier told me. "That did not happen."

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's say that Oswald did take his rifle to work that day, in a package or inside his pants, and used it to shoot at the president. If he did that, he wasn't the only one shooting. How do we know that? Because for one thing, the Mannlicher Carcano, or any other rifle you can name, does not fire magic bullets. Which brings us back to Von Pein's fairy-tale land.

Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it.

If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there).

The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple.

What are you talking about? Sound science has thoroughly debunked the SBT from the beginning. I went through this step by step in Bethesda last year. Olivier's tests showed that the damage to Connally's chest would slow a bullet's velocity by about 400 fps. This left the bullet with far too much velocity to account for the minor damage to the wrist and thigh, which strongly suggested a spent bullet.

So how did Specter get around this? He told the WC and the public that a bullet striking Connally sideways would lose "substantially more" than the 400 fps offered up by Olivier, when the testimony was "somewhat more." This allowed him to pretend the bullet would lose the 1500 fps or so necessary to account for the minor damage to the wrist and thigh.

The SBT was nonsense, from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sh*t, Sherlock. You are right, as I have been telling you all along. Nobody else saw the package. therefore they could both be lying.

Brilliant logic, Ray. ~eyeroll~

No wonder you're lost. Even the easy things are beyond your grasp.

Tell me, what's the official number of people who you think are required to witness an event in order for you to consider those people "truth tellers" instead of "liars"? Is the number 3, 4, 5? 55? (We know, of course, it's not as low as "2".)

It would seem you are the one who is lost, David. Lost in the midden of the Warren Report.

You either believe Frazier was telling the truth about the bag or you think he was lying. Either way, his story doesn't allow for the rifle to be carried into the TSBD in that bag.

Two uncorroborated reports from siblings is hardly evidence.

Now do you think it is possible that Frazier's sister could have been backing him up in his story? Yes or no will suffice.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Roy,

I want to understand your view of the case. You write:

"One group didn't know about the back wound, the other group only learned belatedly about the throat wound. There was no coherent and clear description of the wounds because no doctor had the body in an atmosphere to conduct such an examination."

Do you believe Humes when he said he only learned about the throat wound in a Saturday morning telephone call with Malcolm Perry?

Do you believe the extant version (the third version, as I understand) of the autopsy report in the National Archives is a complete and accurate account of what Humes et al observed at the autopsy.

Do you believe the extant alleged autopsy photos represent accurately JFK's remains at autopsy?

If your answer to any question is yes, I understand why you say we disagree. If your answer to each question is no, I tend to doubt we disagree fundamentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Roy,

I want to understand your view of the case. You write:

"One group didn't know about the back wound, the other group only learned belatedly about the throat wound. There was no coherent and clear description of the wounds because no doctor had the body in an atmosphere to conduct such an examination."

Do you believe Humes when he said he only learned about the throat wound in a Saturday morning telephone call with Malcolm Perry?

Do you believe the extant version (the third version, as I understand) of the autopsy report in the National Archives is a complete and accurate account of what Humes et al observed at the autopsy.

Do you believe the extant alleged autopsy photos represent accurately JFK's remains at autopsy?

If your answer to any question is yes, I understand why you say we disagree. If your answer to each question is no, I tend to doubt we disagree fundamentally.

1) Humes: Yes

2) Report: Not necessarily

3) Photos: Yes

OK, yes. Now I see why you and I will always disagree. I surprised that a man of you background has the beliefs you have. I see myself as a realist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only people who saw something said it wasn't what the Warren Commission claimed it was. That's the whole point. Can we say they might have been wrong? Yes. But should we ASSUME they were wrong, a la the Warren Commission? NO.

No one knows what was in the bag, but Buell Frazier has said from day one it was far too small to have held the rifle.

Which eliminates the silly idea right there of there being NO BAG AT ALL, as some CTers allege. Because if it was merely a bag made up from whole cloth by Buell Frazier, then Buell would have certainly said his make-believe bag was big enough to hold the rifle. Otherwise, what would be the point of creating an imaginary bag in the first place?

So, once we get past the absurd notion that there was no bag at all, we're left with these core facts:

1.) Oswald carries a "long-ish" brown paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

2.) Oswald lies to Buell Frazier about the contents of that bag. (There were no "curtain rods". I think even most conspiracy believers will stipulate to that fact.)

3.) An empty "long-ish" brown paper bag---with Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it---is later found by the police near the place from where shots were fired at President Kennedy. (And at least four different Dallas police officers said they saw the long-ish brown bag on the sixth floor.)

4.) Oswald's rifle is also found on the sixth floor after the assassination.

I don't even need to break a sweat to figure this one out.

MORE "BAG" TALK:

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

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

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You either believe Frazier was telling the truth about the bag or you think he was lying.

So you don't even allow for the possibility of Frazier being "mistaken" about the length of the paper bag? Is that correct?

As I said, it's no wonder you're lost.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to know how CE399, the "magic bullet", came through all those wounds and lost just a small amount of lead from the base.

Jfk's back,

Jfk's throat,

Connally's back

Connally's rib

Connally's chest,

Connally's Wrist

Connally's thigh.

A truly "Magic" bullet.

It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...