David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
Why not take out another person, perhaps Jackie or the Governor? Would that not have further given him the historical glory some suggest he wanted?
I think that Oswald likely would have thought that killing the POTUS was enough. Additional killings would have been superfluous.
-
16 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Aren't you "skeptical" of the autopsy diagram that shows literal arrow pointing upwards next to the dot representing the entry wound in the back of the head?
I've often wondered what that "arrow"-like mark is on the Boswell Face Sheet. Did Boswell draw that in? I have no idea. (Perhaps it has something to do with the word "slanting", which is written next to the dot as well.) ~shrug~
Anyway, since we can easily see (in the "red spot" autopsy photo) that JFK's head entry wound was, indeed, higher than Boswell's "dot" on the face sheet, then the "arrow" pointing upward is--actually--quite accurate.
QuoteIf all the evidence points directly at Oswald, then where the heck was Oswald?
On the sixth floor of the Depository, of course, taking aim at President Kennedy with Carcano rifle #C2766.
Where do you think Oswald was located at 12:30 PM CST on Nov. 22nd, Micah?
-
22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
BTW, I will never ever click through to any of these links to his [DVP's] site.
I'm crushed beyond repair, Jim. I'm not sure I can go on another day. 😥
QuoteBecause I learned the last time that he is still using the completely discredited CBLA test to prop up the Single Bullet Fantasy. Yessiree, after he said you did not need it.
The fact that he did shows you darn well do need it even thought its [sic] been exposed as a hoax. But that is how desperate they are.
NAA (or CBLA) is not needed to arrive at the probable truth regarding the number of bullets that hit the limo victims. And you should know why. Basic common sense will lead a reasonable person to the facts re: the bullets. No NAA required at all.
(Make sure to keep your promise of not clicking any of my links ever again, Jim. You wouldn't recognize the common sense that resides in here anyway....)
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html
-
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:
What sort of conspiracy trusts its success to (1) whether Frazier agrees to give the patsy a ride home on Thursday or perhaps has other plans; (2) whether Ruth or Marina refuses him admittance when he shows up unannounced; (3) whether Ruth or Marina sees him getting the rifle from the garage or leaving with it on Friday morning; (4) how many bullets he has on hand; (5) whether Frazier's car starts in the morning or has an accident or breakdown on the way; (6) whether Frazier decides to pick up the package himself and inspect it; (7) whether the patsy makes it in and through the TSBD with no one stopping him and inspecting the package; (8) whether the patsy is able to assemble the weapon without being seen and to occupy a plausible sniper's nest without being seen? What sort of conspiracy equips the patsy with such an implausible weapon? Is that how Presidential assassination conspiracies work?
It's all part of that ever-present "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" mindset exhibited by conspiracy theorists since 1963.
None of the evidence is really what it appears to be on the surface, according to most CTers.
Per CTers, even though all of the physical evidence (and most of the circumstantial evidence too) SEEMS to point only to Oswald, it's really just a massive ruse (cover-up), so that a "patsy" could be framed for two murders.
Offhand, I cannot think of a single piece of evidence in the JFK/Tippit case that CTers accept as a genuine, valid piece of evidence. And the reason for such wholesale CTer skepticism is, of course, because all of that evidence points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no other reason, and everybody here knows it.
A murder case is usually solved by an examination and evaluation of the EVIDENCE associated with that murder case. But in the JFK case, if you're a conspiracist, it's that very EVIDENCE associated with the Kennedy and Tippit murders that is ALL considered to be worthless and unreliable. (Kind of funny, isn't it?)
So, the CTers are left to try and "solve" a double-murder case which has ZERO pieces of credible or usable evidence associated with it.
A question I've asked many times over the years is....
What are the odds that ALL of the evidence against Oswald was really and truly "fake/manufactured/planted" by a band of patsy-framing conspirators/plotters?
What an incredible (and virtually impossible) feat that would have been, indeed, for the Patsy-Framing Team in November of 1963 (and for their cohorts in crime, the Post-Assassination Cover-Up Team, helmed by Mr. Hoover of the FBI, which was a Cover-Up Team that, incredibly, per CTers, possessed the exact same desire to frame a supposedly innocent man named Lee Oswald for two murders he never committed). That was sure one lucky Patsy-Framing Team, wasn't it?
-
15 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:
David,
Your post brings to mind two questions I have:
1. Did LHO use the same type of ammo in those 4 rounds? (Type being full metal jacket, jacketed hollow point (JHP), or frangible, etc.)
Yes, the 4 rounds were all of one type --- FMJ / Western Cartridge Company / Mannlicher-Carcano / 6.5 mm. bullets.
Quote2. Why didn't LHO load the MC clip full? It holds 6 rounds and there was evidence of only 4 in the TSBD.
Nobody can answer that question, Rick. Oswald took that info with him to his grave.
My guess is --- LHO was down to his last 4 bullets on 11/22/63. So he loaded his clip with as many bullets as he had available---four rounds.
Also....
It's quite possible that when Oswald went to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday night (11/21), he might have thought he had more than 4 bullets stored somewhere in Ruth Paine's garage (with the rifle). It could be that he only realized after he got to Ruth's house on Thursday night that he had only four bullets left. And by that time, it was too late to go out on his own and purchase some more. Unless he were to leave Ruth's house on foot or via a cab or bus in order to go out to a store to try and purchase a few more bullets.
-
James DiEugenio said:
You and the WC can make up all kinds of conditionals and improbabilities, but that is what is on the film. If you say the film is genuine, and you do, you are stuck with it. Are you really going to say that JFK was hit at 167 and he did not register a reaction until he is behind the sign?
No, I'm simply going to say that James Tague was probably not 100% accurate when it comes to his timeline for the shooting event in Dealey Plaza. Tague was, IMO, very likely struck by a fragment from the first (missed) shot. But he could possibly have been hit by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) instead. I'm not so stubborn to insist that it HAD to be the first shot that struck Tague on the cheek. Maybe it was a fragment from the third shot. The angle from Oswald's window to Tague's position near the Underpass is certainly a better angle for the third shot than it was for the first.
But you, Jim, seem to think that I (and the Warren Commission) are forced to believe that Tague was struck by the second shot and the first shot definitely hit JFK in the back. But I'm not going to box myself into those restrictions. A lot of people were wrong (IMO) when they said they thought Kennedy was struck by the first bullet. But after examining the totality of the evidence (and the statements made by the other victim in the limousine, John B. Connally), it's quite clear to me that JFK was not hit by the first shot. He and Connally were hit by the second bullet.
James DiEugenio said:A major problem for the other side has always been that 6 second time frame. The WC itself used it for both sets of tests they ran. Which means they knew that was the time frame. Realizing what a problem it would pose when other people read the report, they stuck that page in it that DVP uses. Knowing that the Z film would wreck that qualification, but gambling that no one would go to DC to watch it. Because when you watch it, and when you understand what Tague said, the time frame is six seconds. And it gets even worse when you use the actual rifle--which as we know, is the wrong one.
And you've been presented a perfectly logical and rational explanation for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy in the rifle, haven't you Jim? Yes, you have, because I presented it to you (at the link below). You just refuse to budge an inch in your pathetic year-round efforts to take that Carcano rifle out of the hands of the person who so obviously ordered it---Lee H. Oswald.
-
34 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
So nothing was blocking him, no one was shooting back, the car was not speeding up to get away or zig zagging, so, David, why did he not take the fourth shot to make sure he hit his target[?]
The explosive force of the Z313 head shot was probably a pretty good sign to Oswald that he had hit (and killed) his target. There was no need to fire a 4th shot at all. So he didn't. (He chambered the fourth bullet, but decided he didn't need to kill the dead man again.) [IMHO]
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
That guy [Francois] is so out of it he is up to over eight seconds.
So am I. 8.36 to be precise. And almost all "LNers" are in the same "approx. 8 seconds" boat. But Jim D., for some reason, doesn't seem to even realize that millions of people (i.e., the "LNers" of the universe) believe that LHO had more than 8 seconds to shoot at JFK in Dealey Plaza. I wonder why such a thing comes as such a shock to him?? It's been a common belief among LNers for decades now.
Along similar lines....
In the past, Jim has also suggested to me the ludicrous idea that "The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks" [DiEugenio; 4/15/2010].
So, according to Jim, I guess Tom Hanks alone makes up the 30% of the people who said that JFK was killed by "one man" in this 2013 Gallup poll....
http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy
After all, per DiEugenio, the "only person" who was convinced by Bugliosi's book "was Tom Hanks".
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
BTW, [in] that WC excerpt that Davey posts, is it not incredible that those cover up artists do not refer to the Z film at all? In fact, if I recall correctly, they do not mention the film in the 888 page report.
[...]
But when you time this out with the Z film, that is you figure in their idea of the oak tree obstruction, then you divide the elapsed frames until the head shot, you come out with 5.6 seconds.
Jimmy,
Yes, the Warren Commission mentions the oak tree obstruction. But even with the oak tree in Oswald's way for a brief period of time, the Commission still allowed for the possibility that Oswald squeezed off his first shot before the President's car disappeared behind the oak tree, thereby increasing the amount of time he would have had to get off his three shots (again see WCR, Page 117).
And you must be joking when you say "they do not mention the film in the 888 page report."
Good gosh, Jim, nothing could be further from the truth! The Zapruder Film is, in fact, referred to dozens of times within the 888-page Warren Report....many times on Page 98 alone (also pictured below). Plus, there are all those still photos from the Zapruder Film printed in the WCR too (beginning on Page 100).
So when you say, "if I recall correctly, they do not mention the film in the 888 page report", it makes me wonder what kind of oddball version of the Warren Commission Report you possess. (Maybe you've got an "altered" version of the Report that was planted in your house by an evil Government cover-up agent in order to make you look silly. Ya think?)
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Btw, I should also deal with DVP here and his 'well, it may not be six seconds' mantra.
The WC specified this because they said it may be the case in case the first shot missed.
Or if the THIRD shot missed. You failed to acknowledge that the WC (again on that pesky Page #117 that CTers like James D. love to ignore so much) refused to be pinned down on WHICH of the 3 shots missed.
But, Jim, keep pretending the Warren Commission was a worthless and crappy "cover-up" investigation....even though it wasn't anything of the kind.
-
15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
How does one spend 16 hours a day wearing a shirt without knowing how the shirt moves?
Oh, stop this silliness.
-
39 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Again, your True Belief in the LN renders you incapable of making simple observations of physical reality.
Keep pretending you know the answers to impossible-to-answer questions, Cliff. After all, it's the thing that CTers do best.
-
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
You can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch with casual movement, David.
And just HOW do you KNOW the exact position that JFK's shirt was in at the moment he was shot?
I'll answer that one ---- You don't know.
So maybe you should stop pretending that you do know things that you cannot possibly know for certain.
-
4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Do you really rhink the flurry of shots Kellerman described took that long?
Roy Kellerman's "flurry" testimony is easily (and reasonably) explained within the context of Oswald being the lone gunman....
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Roy+Kellerman's+Flurry
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
He [Michael Yardley] also raised the time limit from the WC six seconds.
The conspiracy theorists never get tired of repeating this worn-out myth, do they James?
The fact is, however, that the Warren Commission never said that Oswald had only "six seconds" to get off his three rifle shots (or 5.6 seconds, which is the common fallacy uttered constantly by CTers). Read Page 117 of the Warren Report. The WC allows for the possibility of Oswald having up to 7.9 seconds for the three shots that he fired. But CTers will always ignore Page 117. I wonder why....
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
-
9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
You acknowledge the jacket was elevated "a little bit"!
It's over, David.
The arrogance of certain Internet conspiracy theorists simply staggers the senses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, how true that is, Vince.
-
6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
The evidence is literally under your nose.
~sigh~ (It's always about "the clothes". Nothing else matters to Cliff Varnell.)
Reprise #2....
JFK's "bunched up" clothing....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html
-
15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
I remember picking it up in the book store and randomly opened it to that passage.
As an expert on the book I just wondered if you were familiar with it.
Since you and I have nothing more to debate I thought I'd just ask a friendly question.
Oh, okay, Cliff. I thought perhaps you were creating a new "shirt & jacket" theory----one where JFK's perspiring habits somehow would have made it impossible for the Single-Bullet Theory to be true.
Reprise.....
The Ultimate In SBT Denial....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
-
22 hours ago, Lance Payette said:
Conspiracy theorists specialize in finding "flaws" in the undeniable evidence and "gaps" that they fill in with conspiracy-oriented speculation, but they never manage to produce any hard, compelling, no-question-about-it evidence of their own. Isn't that rather telling?
Indeed it is, Lance, particularly since almost all Internet conspiracy theorists possess the very same like-mindedness of having gunmen firing shots at JFK from BOTH the front and the rear.
And yet, after all that blasting away at the President from both the front and the rear, what are we left with (ballistically-speaking) after the dust had settled in Dealey Plaza?
Answer --- We're left with bullets and bullet fragments that most certainly do not prove the multi-gun conspiracy that CTers insist upon believing. Instead, we're left with tiny little fragments that can't be tied to any one particular gun and we're left with three large pieces of bullet (including one whole bullet) that we know for a fact came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. (And we're also left with those three spent cartridge cases---from Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle---littering the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD.)
Boy, did those frontal shooters on the Knoll get lucky or what?!
I say: the "frontal" shooters didn't get lucky at all. They were simply never there in the first place. And the physical (bullet) evidence clearly backs me up in that belief.
-
3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Somewhere in Reclaiming Bugliosi acknowledged that JFK had a sweating problem.
David, do you remember that passage?
No. But what's your point?
-
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." The Godfather
"The prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy." Casablanca
"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
-
7 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:
The involvement of other gunmen is NOT speculation.
Yes, it most certainly is "speculation". No CTer has, to date, unearthed a single piece of physical evidence to suggest that more than one Carcano-wielding gunman was firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And that's a fact. Like it or not.
-
More "LIFE" issues with the Kennedys....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/life-with-john-f-kennedy.html
-
I understand why people hate conspiracies
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
Oswald was on the 6th floor asking for an elevator to be sent back up at about 11:55. Naturally, CTers will dismiss this evidence and call Givens a l-i-a-r. Oswald, the alleged shooter to whom all the evidence points, is naturally given a free pass by CTers, while many other people---like Charles Givens, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, and scads of others---are considered to be lying if they said something that soils the glowing reputation of Patsy Oswald.
That elevator request by Oswald is very interesting too....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/The-TSBD-Workers-And-The-Elevators
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-57--The-Elevators-Part-2
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/The-Depository-Elevators--Part-3