Jump to content
The Education Forum
Pat Speer

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

Recommended Posts

The curtain rods story did not originate with Oswald.

That is pure hearsay through Frazier.

And as I just posted Joseph's long article, Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The curtain rods story did not originate with Oswald.

That is pure hearsay through Frazier.

Great tactic, Jim. Make Buell Wesley Frazier the villain, instead of accepting the truth about Oswald's curtain rod lie.

That's exactly the type of argument that only a truly desperate conspiracy theorist would even consider making. A conspiracy theorist like, say, James DiEugenio, who admitted on July 26, 2015, that he considers himself to be "part of the defense team".

Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle.

More pure fantasy on DiEugenio's behalf. Or--to be more accurate--pure wishful thinking.

No reasonable person thinks Oswald never ordered the rifle. And, once again, the preposterous "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" myth is precisely the kind of claptrap that you'd expect to come from a person who said --- "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team."

Who's leading with their chin now, Jimmy?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The curtain rods story did not originate with Oswald.

That is pure hearsay through Frazier.

Great tactic, Jim. Make Buell Wesley Frazier the villain, instead of accepting the truth about Oswald's curtain rod lie.

That's exactly the type of argument that only a truly desperate conspiracy theorist would even consider making. A conspiracy theorist like, say, James DiEugenio, who admitted on July 26, 2015, that he considers himself to be "part of the defense team".

Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle.

More pure fantasy on DiEugenio's behalf. Or--to be more accurate--pure wishful thinking.

No reasonable person thinks Oswald never ordered the rifle. And, once again, the preposterous "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" theory is precisely the kind of claptrap that you'd expect to come from a person who said --- "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team."

Who's leading with their chin now, Jimmy?

Jim...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantasy?

Doesn't Von Pein know that Oswald himself denied anything about curtain rods? (RP. p. 176)

Ask Davey how many people saw Oswald carry a long, bulky package inside the TSBD?

Ask him why Ruth Paine never saw any rods.. (ibid p. 176)

Ask him why neither Ruth nor Marina saw any packing material left at the Paine household? (ibid)

Ask Davey about Troy West and his testimony on this point. (ibid p. 177)

Ask Davey how many people saw Oswald carry home a roll of long brown paper from the TSBD.

Ask Davey about Cadigan's testimony about the lack of any oil or grease on the sack. Yet the rifle had been soaked in Cosmoline. (ibid)

Ask Davey to show you the picture of the sack lying in situ at the TSBD.

But most of all, ask him about Hoover's two differing memos on the paper used to construct the gun sack.

Who's leading with their chin Davey?

You always do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you guys waste your time on this clown? If we all ignored him, he would be ranting in an empty room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing 2nd base if you pick me! (ok, i'll play left field, but only if i HAVE to...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.

I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.

And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.

Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.

But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.

It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there.

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:

The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd.

DVP

November 2007

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

Related articles of interest:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, That doesn't work. If you have 99 pieces of evidence that points to someone's guilt, but you have one piece of exculpatory evidence that Proves that he did not do it, then the other 99 are meaningless. For example, you know someone died at 10PM sharp and you have a video that shows the defendent was somewhere else at that time, then all the circumstancial evidence is no good. For example, we know that when the shots were fired at JFK, LHO was on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom. So far, no one has attempted to show that he could successfully shoot at JFK from that lunchroom. Therefore, it wasn't LHO. No other evidence is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The removal involves a covert operation that you have no need to know about.

Yeah, I've been told by other CIA disinfo agents in my neighboring cubicles that it was part of a Castro operation.

Are the guys in the neighboring cubicles anyone that we know?

Are the guys in the neighboring cubicles anyone that we know? I'm in the larger cubicle near the other end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.

I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.

And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.

Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.

But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.

It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there.

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:

The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd.

DVP

November 2007

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

Related articles of interest:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, That doesn't work. If you have 99 pieces of evidence that points to someone's guilt, but you have one piece of exculpatory evidence that Proves that he did not do it, then the other 99 are meaningless. For example, you know someone died at 10PM sharp and you have a video that shows the defendent was somewhere else at that time, then all the circumstancial evidence is no good. For example, we know that when the shots were fired at JFK, LHO was on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom. So far, no one has attempted to show that he could successfully shoot at JFK from that lunchroom. Therefore, it wasn't LHO. No other evidence is necessary.

in fairness to the artist formerly known as prince, "If you have 99 pieces of evidence that points to someone's guilt, but you have one piece of exculpatory evidence that Proves that he did not do it, then the other 99 are meaningless" is the hurdle he's had the most difficult time crossing. or the most difficult time finding the willingness to cross...

if he were to grasp this simple concept, then he would either 1) get it, or 2) have to admit where he's wrong.

it's too bad. he'd make quite a formidable proponent if he were actually correct in the things he's so passionate about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Fantasy? Doesn't Von Pein know that Oswald himself denied anything about curtain rods?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.gif

I love it! Jimmy is relying on the statements made by the accused assassin himself when it comes to the critically important topic of the alleged curtain rods.

Yeah, Jim, the assassin himself would certainly have no reason to lie about the contents of that brown paper bag, would he?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey how many people saw Oswald carry a long, bulky package inside the TSBD?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Buell Frazier saw it. He was the only one. But, so what?

My question would be: Why isn't Buell Frazier's testimony on this point good enough for many of the conspiracy theorists? But since Jim D. has decided to paint Frazier as a big fat [L-word], without a stitch of proof to back up such a vile allegation, it means Jim now thinks it's okay to totally dismiss Frazier's unwavering testimony about seeing Oswald walk into the back door of the Depository carrying a long brown paper bag, which is testimony that Frazier has maintained since Day 1 on November 22, 1963, via his first-day affidavit.

And Buell never backtracked on the "curtain rods" part of his testimony and statements either, as we can also tell by looking at that same 11/22/63 affidavit, in which he mentions the "curtain rods" three separate times. (Buell was sure fast at making up a bunch of lies, wasn't he Jim?)

Earlier this year, I posted the following comments about this subject:

"Jack Dougherty said he only saw Oswald enter the back door "out of the corner of my eye" [6 H 377].

Therefore, why would Dougherty have been expected to notice anything in Oswald's hands? He could have easily missed seeing the package because he wasn't really LOOKING at Oswald at all.

And yet, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Dougherty is a rock-solid witness whose testimony positively PROVES Oswald never had any package with him on 11/22/63.

Once again, in my opinion, CTers fail to properly evaluate the sum total of JFK evidence. (Do they ever?)

[...]

Given the circumstances, why would you expect anybody else [other than Frazier and Randle] to necessarily have seen Oswald with the package?

It's early in the morning on Nov. 22. Lee walks toward the Frazier house. Linnie Mae happens to be looking out the window and sees LHO with the package. Then the only other person that I would have completely EXPECTED to see the package---Buell Wesley Frazier---sees the paper bag on the back seat (and sees LHO carry it into the TSBD Building).

And...it's quite possible that Oswald might have stashed the bag/rifle in the Loading Dock area BEFORE he ever entered the inner door that led to the TSBD's first floor (where Jack Dougherty was). But we also know that Dougherty said he only saw LHO that morning out of the "corner" of his eye. So why would you expect him to have necessarily seen any package even if Lee had it with him at that time?

So, IMO, the argument about "Only Two People Saw Him With The Package" is a very weak argument given the time of day and the conditions of Oswald putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car (where nobody BUT Frazier and Oswald himself could possibly see it on the way to work). Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to see that brown bag. And, quite obviously (given the overall evidence and testimony), I'm right---nobody else did see it."

-- DVP; March/April 2015

Now let's ask Jim how many people saw somebody with a gun behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll?

The answer to that question, as Jim knows full well, is ZERO. And yet Jim still thinks there was a gunman on that Knoll.

Go figure.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask him why Ruth Paine never saw any rods.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? You're kidding, right?

You think Ruth should have seen the curtain rods that Lee Oswald just made up out of thin air?!

Earth to Jimmy D. --- Lee Harvey Oswald's curtain rods never existed. Therefore, nobody (including Ruth Paine) could have seen Oswald's make-believe rods.

Duh!


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask him why neither Ruth nor Marina saw any packing material left at the Paine household?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I only wish the police had searched through all of Ruth Paine's trash cans right after the assassination. If they had, I think they just might have found some scraps of TSBD paper and tape that might have been discarded by Oswald after he constructed his homemade 38-inch brown paper bag. But, as far as I am aware, no such "trash can search" occurred at Ruth's house. (Did it, Jim?) So, that could be the answer to your question right there.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey about Troy West and his testimony on this point.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I tackled the Troy West "problem" in 2007 with these remarks:

"If I had a gun to my head and was being forced to explain just exactly WHEN Oswald created his makeshift rifle-carrying bag, I'd say this:

Oswald, IMO, most likely took some wrapping paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository's first-floor shipping/mailing area on Thursday, November 21st (which is the same day he asked Wesley Frazier for the unusual weeknight ride to Ruth Paine's home in Irving).

Yes, it's true that TSBD "mail wrapper" Troy West testified that he had never seen Oswald hanging around the wrapping-paper area on the first floor, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption to say that Oswald, in his quest to gain access to the paper and tape, was probably wise enough to wait until Mr. West had left his work station for a few minutes.

Perhaps Oswald waited until West went to use the bathroom, which everybody has to do a few times every single day of their lives. And while West was temporarily away from his mailing station, Oswald swiped some wrapping paper and some tape.

And, undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal the paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening.

Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket that he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before November 22nd (LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor "Domino Room" in early December 1963).

It's also worth mentioning that the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD after the assassination had symmetrical, evenly-spaced folds in it....just as if someone had folded it up to make its size much smaller before using it for stashing a 30-plus-inch object (like, say, a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle)....

CE142.jpg

I'll also add this concerning Troy West and his Warren Commission testimony:

West didn't say that a Depository employee positively COULDN'T have taken some paper and tape from the workbench/mailing area. In fact, with respect to the tape, Mr. West specifically told the Warren Commission that employees "could come get it if they wanted to use it" [6 H 361]."
-- DVP; October 2007


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey how many people saw Oswald carry home a roll of long brown paper from the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll repeat something I said above, which seems to fit in nicely here:

"Undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal the paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening. Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket that he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before November 22nd (LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor Domino Room in early December 1963)."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey about Cadigan's testimony about the lack of any oil or grease on the sack. Yet the rifle had been soaked in Cosmoline.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Soaked"? (Hilarious.)

Anyway, common sense should tell us that the OUTSIDE portions of a rifle (any rifle) probably won't be dripping (or "soaked") with oil or grease at any point in time. It's the INTERIOR portions of a rifle that get oiled. So why should we expect to see any oil or grease on the outer parts of the weapon? And if no grease or oil gets on the outer portions of the gun, then why would anybody expect to see any greasy substances on a paper bag that that gun was transported in?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey to show you the picture of the sack lying in situ at the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In hindsight, that was, indeed, a mistake made by the DPD photographers (J.C. Day and Robert Studebaker). The bag should have been photographed before it was picked up by the police. But....

"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:

J.C. Day [4 H 267]
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103]

It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy clowns 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?"
-- DVP; October 3, 2012


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But most of all, ask him about Hoover's two differing memos on the paper used to construct the gun sack.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've covered "Hoover's two differing memos" in great detail in this October 21, 2014, Internet discussion.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my question - to anyone who adheres to the Buell Frazier Story Of What Lee Carried, and not to any one person in particular, (as it is that i'm on 2nd) - is, why is Buell Frazier's testimony any better or more valuable than any others who witnessed LHO the same morning? it has been asked "why is his story not good enough" to which my response is, "why is his any better than the multiple others?"

i'm just asking in general. i probably won't care too much about the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn: I thought you were on second base.

Bob is the coach, I am playing shortstop.

Ken is at first.

Like E. Howard Hunt, I'm just a benchwarmer.

Share this post


Link to post
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...