David Von Pein

A little bit of [Off Topic] baseball chatter (if the forum would be so kind as to indulge me, and Lance).... That would have been this game, played on July 31, 1954, at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. And Eddie Mathews added two homers of his own in that same game. Well, I'll be darned! That's an interesting "brush with history". Small correction, though, Lance --- Carlton Fisk's famous game-winning foul-pole homer was in the 1975 World Series (not '76). My Reds won the Series in both of those years, though. I remember those two seasons well. Same here. But my one minute of baseball video from 1973 hasn't yet attracted a single scout. I'm beginning to wonder if it's part of a widespread conspiracy plot to keep me out of the big leagues forever. (Maybe I should ask John Armstrong about that.)

Of course not. Why are you suggesting such a silly thing? When did I ever even hint at such a ridiculous belief? Please show me.

No, the bullet entered the UPPER part of JFK's head, just exactly as this autopsy photo proves.... Wanna look at a picture?.... http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg

Just to watch you squeal "It's a conspiracy!", I imagine. What else could be the reason?

Yes, of course that's what the WC was suggesting. I've suggested it in the past as well --- although I still favor the first [missed] shot striking the Main Street curb and Tague. The Commission, however, wasn't suggesting that the WHOLE head-shot bullet went on to possibly strike Tague. Merely a fragment of that bullet. (And remember that more than half of that bullet was never recovered.)

Francois, Jim DiEugenio doesn't think that just three shots were fired. There's no way he believes that. He, like all CTers, thinks that at least 4 shots were fired (probably even five or six, or maybe more). He was merely attempting (lamely) to explain what he thinks the Warren Commission was boxed into accepting in 1964, based on James Tague's testimony --- as if Tague's testimony was the BE-ALL & END-ALL of the whole case, which it is not, of course, because many witnesses were wrong on some things regarding the "timeline" of the shooting. But Jim likes Tague's statements about the timeline, therefore (per Jimmy) Tague CANNOT BE MISTAKEN about ANYTHING. But, as usual, Jim has once again totally ignored Page 117 of the Warren Report, in which the WC specifically says this about James T. Tague.... "Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague's testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities. The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed." I wonder how many more things Mr. DiEugenio can ignore (or mangle) when it comes to page number 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report? Let's just wait and see.

Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

And YOU cannot possibly be serious when you try to defend Oswald for still another crime he committed in 1963---the Walker shooting. Can you, Jim? Yes, amazingly, you are indeed serious, despite Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1---in Oswald's own [Russian] handwriting---staring you in the face (below). Tell me, Jimmy, who was it who faked all that Russian writing that we find in CE1? Any idea?.... https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm Or, alternatively, if you actually think that CE1 HASN'T been "faked" (gasp! that'd be incredible, wouldn't it?!), then what do you think Oswald was referring to when he said all those things he said in that note to Marina---such as "If I am alive and taken prisoner", etc.? Are those the kind of things that an INNOCENT person would write to his wife?

Interjections are needed in many cases. Such as when the quoted word is "he". After many pages have gone by, how is anyone supposed to know who "he" is. Hence, it's necessary to add the person's name [in brackets, of course] for clarification. An interjection [within brackets] does not equate at all to "altering" somebody's quote. You just like to gripe is all.

I did no "altering" at all. I added my own comments and clarifications within brackets --- [ ] --- which is the proper way to do it within a verbatim quote. (Jim likes to stomp his feet and whine, doesn't he? Geesh.)

Dammit, Lance! You're a golfer. I was hoping you were a baseball player (like I used to be as a youth). If you and I had that "baseball connection" too, then more people could start claiming that "Lance is really DVP in disguise". That's a fun "alias" game that the conspiracy theorists like to play quite often. (Did you ever play first base, Lance?)

Maybe the word "Arizona" here looks like "Colorado" to Mr. Jim....

That's funny. I've always said that it was the CTers, not LNers, who do that very thing---isolate. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

And Jim never gives himself (or another CTer) "the last word" in the articles on his K&K website, right Jim? Pot meets Kettle ....... yet again.

In a (lone) nutshell, my answer would be.... I do it mainly in order to add various discussions to my "JFK Archives" and "Assorted JFK Assassination Arguments" websites (blogs).

Dead wrong (as per usual).

Bonus Quote (one of my favorites).... "If there is a suspicious fire, the [conspiracy-happy] kooks would investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of gasoline." -- Bud [an LNer who posts on the Usenet newsgroups]; November 22, 2007

Incredible! A WC investigation that was probably the most thorough and detailed in the history of murder investigations is considered to be "Not much" by the Jim DiEugenios of the world. Un-freaking-believable! --------------------------------------- "In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi

The assassination was on Nov. 22nd, Lance. Better edit your post before a CTer pounces all over you. How could they? They had nothing but a single bullet in (physical) evidence. They had nothing else solid to go on when the crime originally occurred in April '63. So, tell us Jim, HOW on Earth COULD the DPD have possibly figured out that Mr. Lee H. Oswald was the person who shot at Edwin A. Walker? Tea leaves perhaps? Get real, Jimmy.

Re: Givens and the elevators.... IN SEPT. 2010, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: She [Sylvia Meagher] then notes that according to two witnesses, Oswald had tried to board the elevator going down and requested the elevator be sent back up. [Quoting Meagher:] "Why, then, should he [Oswald] decline to accompany Givens down at 11:55, and ask him again to send the elevator up as if he had not already asked the same thing ten minutes before? The first request is corroborated by a number of witnesses, but we have only Givens' unsupported account of the second request." (ibid) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That quote from Sylvia Meagher's book is totally ludicrous, Jim. Meagher has put on her "OSWALD WAS DEFINITELY NOT GUILTY OF SHOOTING JFK AND WAS NOT PLANNING TO SHOOT JFK AT ALL AROUND NOONTIME ON 11/22/63, AND THEREFORE HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON UNDER THE SUN FOR DECLINING TO RIDE DOWN WITH CHARLIE GIVENS IN THE ELEVATOR AT 11:55 AM ON NOVEMBER 22" hat. You can surely see how utterly dumb that quote is from Ms. Meagher...can't you Jim? For, if Oswald was planning on shooting the President from that sixth floor in just a few minutes (which he definitely was planning to do at the time he talked with Charlie Givens at around noon on Nov. 22), then why on Earth does Meagher think it would be unusual for Oswald to act the way he did regarding the elevator? Does Meagher really believe that a person who is planning to murder the President from the sixth floor would actually want to descend to the first floor to eat his lunch at just about the same time the President would be passing the building? Meagher is looking at this "elevator" episode in the wrong context entirely. She's looking at it through the one-sided "Oswald Must Be Innocent" prism. But she should have been looking at it from the POV of the assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald. Let me repeat this comment I made the other day--it fits in perfectly here, in light of the unbelievably silly quote that Jim D. just supplied from Sylvia Meagher's "classic" book: "Oswald's persistence in wanting an elevator sent back up to him makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I.E., It makes perfect sense from the POV of a person who would want an elevator to be sent back up to him on the Floor Of Death. As I mentioned previously, Oswald wanted to use that very same elevator as an escape route to get off of that sixth floor very quickly after shooting JFK. What is so hard to believe about that type of mindset? But, actually Jim, you've fallen on your own sword with the quote I just cited above -- because, you're right about it not making any sense from the standpoint and mindset of an INNOCENT OSWALD who wanted to do nothing more than take that elevator downstairs to eat his lunch with the other boys on the first floor. Which is why we can know that Oswald had SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND with respect to the elevators on November 22, 1963. He wanted to use the elevator at a LATER time--like, say, just after he had fired some Carcano rifle bullets into the body of the President. But, as always, since conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio are part of the "Everybody Was A xxxx" fraternity, those CTers fail to evaluate things from the POV of the assassin himself. Obviously, Oswald had more on his mind at 11:55 AM on November 22nd than merely riding the elevator downstairs to eat a cheese sandwich. Which makes Oswald's DOUBLE PLEA for the elevator to be sent back up to him on the sixth floor an action that is in perfect sync and harmony with all of Lee Oswald's other actions and movements on 11/22/63." -- DVP; September 4, 2010 David Von Pein September 6, 2010

Cory, But what possible purpose do you think Dark Complected Man served in the overall conspiracy plot? You certainly don't think he was an actual shooter, right? So why was his presence on Elm Street even needed at all? I've never quite understood where CTers think they can go with their speculation about DCM or Umbrella Man. They're not doing anything but standing there on the street watching the motorcade. So, WHY do they need to even be in Dealey Plaza if they're not the shooters? Signal men? What for? Why would that be necessary at all?

How do you know what kind of radio he might have had? Maybe it was just a transistor radio. Is that possible in your view?

I don't know. I guess it's possible he had a radio. Maybe he was listening to The Rex Jones Show on KLIF—AM 1190.

Yes, that's probably true. Marina said that Lee told her he shot at Walker because Lee thought of Walker as a "Hitler"-like individual, and killing him would ultimately save many lives in the future.

But please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree? The Tippit shooting was obviously something Oswald could not have foreseen in advance. And I'm sure he did want to make certain Tippit was dead before he fled that crime scene. He didn't want to start running toward Patton Avenue and then find that Tippit was still alive and able to shoot back at him as he ran. So, Oswald finished him off. (And yet this is the type of cold-blooded killer that many conspiracy theorists feel compelled to try and defend. That's very sad, IMO.) But, again, the Tippit killing was not PLANNED in advance by Oswald. It occurred due to the circumstances that Oswald found himself in---i.e., out on the street 45 minutes after he had just killed the President, and then being confronted by a police officer. In my opinion, Oswald's actions on Tenth Street when he encountered J.D. Tippit perfectly fit the "pattern" of events in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963. I couldn't disagree more strongly. If there was ever a murder case that was solved (without a doubt) on the day it occurred, it's the Tippit murder case. The various witnesses, plus the ballistics (bullet shell) evidence forever will prove the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit. The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following totally bizarre (and impossible) situation occurred: Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier. Yes. I think that theory is pretty much garbage.