David Von Pein

Related Link.... http://YouTube.com / playlist / The JFK Assassination---On The Radio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#Social_media_restrictions https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos

None of your business.

It's this picture.....

None of your business.

Nobody's forcing you to click on them, are they now Mike?

I disagree (strongly). (And so does the evidence.)

How about just coming to the long-overdue realization that....

In November 2016, James Reston Jr. said: It's probably a reference to Lee Harvey Oswald's address book, which is Commission Exhibit No. 18.... https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0031a.htm There are several pages not photographed in CE18, and page 17 is one of the missing pages (which is the page that Reston says had LHO's "I Will Kill" list on it). But you'll notice that pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 are not there in CE18 either. My guess would be that those various pages are missing from CE18 because they probably had nothing written on them at all. Therefore, the Warren Commission didn't bother putting those blank pages in the official Commission Exhibit. But I cannot see how anyone could claim that the omission of those address book pages was part of any kind of cover-up by the Commission (or by anyone trying to frame Oswald), because if such an "I Will Kill" list really had been in Oswald's own address book (with the names of both John Connally and General Edwin Walker on such a list), such a thing would certainly be pretty good circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt, and it would also go a long way toward debunking the CTers who claim Oswald never took a shot at either of those men in the year 1963. I have to agree with Jim DiEugenio on this one --- James Reston is "off the wall" here. But I do have to give Mr. Reston credit for recognizing one solid and evidence-based fact (regardless of motive): Lee Harvey Oswald did shoot JFK and Governor Connally. If anybody's interested, I've got a 1988 ABC-TV interview with James Reston (and John Connally) archived in my video collection. Here's the link.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOQW9VVVhLY0l4enM/view

This only goes to prove a very significant point.... I.E.: A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President. Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you.

Moreover, what do John's posts in this thread have to do with anything real (or even remotely possible) when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination? Even in the super-bizarre world of conspiracy theorists, John Butler's "JFK Was Shot On Main Street" theory would have to be considered "outer fringe" and worthless. Does a single other person believe in your theory, John? Just curious.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, John.... "Such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other)."

Heaven help us! John Butler is actually suggesting (in his last post above) that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back and head while the President's car was on Main Street! Any idea, John, why JFK kept on smiling and waving for several more minutes (on Main, Houston, and Elm) AFTER he was struck by multiple bullets? John, can you possibly be serious when you speak about such a preposterous theory? Or are you just a few months late with an April Fools gag? Either way, such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other).

Glad you agree with me, Joe, that 7 HSCA 41 pretty much destroys the silly conspiracy theorists who can't stop bellowing "It's so obvious the BY pics are fake!".

You mean like CTers constantly "rehashing" the long-settled issue of the Backyard Photos being genuine and unaltered items---just as the HSCA declared on Page 41 of HSCA Volume #7?

The photo wasn't trivial on 11/22. But in my full quote (which you truncated to remove the context), I was talking about what Marina must have been thinking on March 31st when she took the photos. I wasn't talking about what people were thinking about the BY photos on 11/22 or many years later. Here's my full quote (which B.A. Copeland butchered in order to make a different point).... "...But the details of how the camera worked and the exact number of pictures she took were things that obviously were not important enough to her [Marina Oswald] at the time for her to make a mental note of such trivial things. And so, almost a year later when she was asked to recall such things, she was not able to do so. That's certainly not an unheard-of situation at all, IMO." -- DVP

Explain what? I haven't the slightest idea what you think it is that needs to be "explained" in that film clip. Please enlighten me.

And just think---there were TWENTY such "corrupt" and/or "stupid" so-called "photographic experts" working for the HSCA in 1978. That's a lot of corruption on just one panel. (And, remember, they were all "stupid"/"corrupt" when it comes to the autopsy pictures too.) There was no end to the corruption (and/or stupidity) in the JFK case, was there Sandy? It extended all the way from the DPD, to the FBI, to the WC, to lying witnesses like Marina and Marguerite, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA as well. Right?

In addition to Marina Oswald's decades-long insistence that she, herself, took the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, here's another good reason for "people like Von Pein" to disagree with the conspiracy theorists who continue to believe that the backyard photos are fakes: "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 The full HSCA "Backyard Photographs" report begins here. But, since the HSCA's "No Fakery" conclusion was reached by an official U.S. Government committee, it means that that conclusion will automatically be ignored by many conspiracy theorists. After all, those expert CTers know way more about the ins and outs of photographic interpretation than any of those 20 or so experts who were part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel, right? Per the CTers, those 20 photo experts (as a unit) were all apparently either despicable liars or totally incompetent when it comes to their conclusions concerning not only the Backyard Photos, but they were also completely wrong when they said that President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner". (The same goes for the "Handwriting Experts" panel as well. According to many conspiracists, those handwriting guys got everything wrong too. Go figure.)

What on Earth are you babbling on about? What's all this "Bud" stuff? The only Bud I know is the LNer who goes by the name of Bud at the Usenet newsgroup forums. Is that the guy you're referring to?

So you DO think Marguerite Oswald was telling a big fat lie in her Warren Commission testimony at 1 H 152. That's the very same Marguerite Oswald who hired Mark Lane as her lawyer and the very same Marguerite who was always speaking out about how her son was an agent of the U.S. Government, like in this 1964 interview. (Should we now get bogged down into a silly conversation about "Imposter Marguerites"?)

Given the manner in which Lee Harvey was dressed (including the two guns he was outfitted with that day in their backyard), I would say that Marina remembering the CONTENT of the pictures more so than the number of pics, the date, and the exact details of how the camera worked, was perfectly reasonable and understandable. Naturally, though, the conspiracy theorists have to add in a dash of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" where none has ever existed. That's to be expected, of course. Also.... If Marina never took any backyard pictures at all in late March of 1963, then where do you suppose she got ahold of the photo that she and Marguerite Oswald destroyed in their hotel room on 11/23/63? Do you think Marguerite was lying in her testimony too [at 1 H 152]? .... MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely." J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?" MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet." ---------------------------------------------------- 2015 E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK: Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT) From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ------------------- Hey Dave, Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense? [...] What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures. I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard. What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. Gary Marina's memory has always been fuzzy when it comes to the precise number of backyard pictures she took of her husband. She just simply could not remember how many she took, and she couldn't remember the exact date she took them. Big freaking deal! Of course, had she stopped to think really hard about this subject just a little bit more, she would have realized that she had to have taken a minimum of two photos, because she and Marguerite destroyed one of the pictures on 11/23/63. So she could have easily figured out that she took at least two. Related discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#The-Backyard-Photographs

Okay, she might have tilted the camera 90 degrees. Again---no big deal. (It's only a "big deal" to conspiracy theorists who are bent on finding "conspiracy" around every corner and in every Neely Street backyard.) The long and short of it is ---- Seeing as how Marina didn't know the first thing about how to take a picture with Lee's Imperial Reflex camera, she did whatever Lee told her to do in order to get the pictures to come out correctly. And when she was asked to recall the specific details of how she held the camera and how many photos she took, she just flat-out forgot. Yes, she did remember some of the details about the Backyard Photos session---such as the detail about how silly and "crazy" she thought Lee looked that day in his all-black outfit with his guns.... "I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper." ....But the details of how the camera worked and the exact number of pictures she took were things that obviously were not important enough to her at the time for her to make a mental note of such trivial things. And so, almost a year later when she was asked to recall such things, she was not able to do so. That's certainly not an unheard-of situation at all, IMO.

I don't know. I've never looked into it that deeply.

Waist level (of course). She just didn't remember that detail about the camera when she was asked about it later on.