David Von Pein

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The rationalists, that is the critics, do not buy the Single Bullet Fantasy.  Only you and your cohorts do that.

You must be living on another planet, Jim.

You actually seem to think that only David R. Von Pein and my "cohorts" believe in the Single-Bullet Theory.

And you can sit there and say that even though you KNOW that the SBT was endorsed by not only the Warren Commission (as a unit), but it was also fully endorsed by the HSCA as well. (Are the WC and HSCA members supposedly my "cohorts" too?)

You're hilarious!

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, from past experience when DVP goes ahead and steals this stuff for his own site, it will be adapted in such a way as to leave all this material by Pat and myself on this last page off.

That will be part one of the adaptation.

Part 2 will then consist of giving himself the last word.  But only to a consciously curtailed argument.

And I think I just might embark on a project to find out the number of times in which an article posted at Jim DiEugenio's site contains "a consciously curtailed argument".

In other words, how many times has Mr. DiEugenio approved an article (or written one himself) for inclusion at his K&K website in which rebuttals---which Jim D. has seen and is aware of---coming from Lone Assassin believers who post things on the Internet (such as Jean Davison, John McAdams, Mel Ayton, Steve Barber, Brock T. George, Ed Bauer, Bill Brown, John Corbett, Chuck Schuyler, Hank Sienzant, Hugh Aynesworth, David Emerling, Steve Roe, Joe Elliott, Jim Hess, Ed Cage, Richard Smith, myself, and others) are not included at all on his site?

And as Part 2 of this K&K project, let's find out how many times Mr. DiEugenio has allowed the conspiracy theorist who authored the piece that appears on his site to have "the last word".

(I already know the answer to that last inquiry --- it's all the time --- which is exactly what I would expect it to be, since we're talking about pro-conspiracy articles appearing at a pro-conspiracy website.)

Pot meets Kettle once again in Mr. DiEugenio's world.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Geez Louise, David. You completely forgot about a key point in my original post.

Shanklin's memo specifies that Givens never left the first floor before leaving the building.

But if Givens had truly forgotten about his brief trip back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes when he spoke to ALL law enforcement officials on November 22nd, then of course there's going to be nothing in the Shanklin 11/23/63 Teletype Memo about Givens leaving the first floor after he initially got down there after the elevator race. But that doesn't mean it never happened. Givens just forgot about it at that time on November 22nd.

At some point between Nov. 22 and his April 8th Warren Commission testimony, Givens remembered that he went back up to the sixth floor to retrieve his cigarettes. And then, on June 3, 1964, Givens was re-interviewed by the FBI and "...said he now recalls he returned to the sixth floor at about 11:45 a.m. to get his cigarettes which he had left there."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11640#relPageId=189

CTers can, of course, contend that Givens couldn't keep his "story" straight about the time he went back up to Floor #6, because on April 8 Givens said it was at about 11:55, but two months later, on June 3rd, he told two FBI agents it was "about 11:45". We can then argue about whether that ten-minute difference in time is meaningful or not.

One of the main reasons I don't think Charles D. Givens was making up tall tales about the things he saw and did on 11/22/63 is because any such alleged lies really did nothing to advance the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald, as I discussed at another forum four years ago [excerpted below; some of which I already posted in this thread in my earlier post on page 1]....

"But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless xxxx (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?

With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?

Many CTers think the FBI (and later the Warren Commission) desperately needed a witness on the inside of the TSBD building to place Oswald on the sixth floor to firm up the FBI's and WC's framing of poor innocent Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, per CTers, they got the easily-coerced Givens to add a lie to his story about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then seeing Oswald up there.

But if the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too.

But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor.

But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission)." -- DVP; July 2014

Re: Charles Givens and his "11:55 encounter" with Lee Oswald....

Givens merely didn't mention his brief encounter with Oswald when Givens wrote his affidavit. Such an omission certainly doesn't mean that Givens' sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald never happened. Only a conspiracy theorist would possibly believe such a thing.

Plus, we know that there's no good reason for the authorities to start putting words into Givens' mouth about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, because even WITHOUT Givens' account of seeing LHO on the sixth floor at approximately 11:55 AM, there is still ample witness testimony from other Depository employees who said they saw (and heard) Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR (either the fifth or sixth floor) shortly before noon. Those other employees are Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. And even Givens HIMSELF, in the 11/22/63 FBI FD-302 report, talks about hearing Oswald shout down the elevator shaft.

There is some confusion surrounding some of Charles Givens' statements with respect to Oswald asking to have the elevator sent back upstairs to him, which I talk about in this article.

But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless l-i-a-r (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?

With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?

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

Re: the "7:50 vs. 11:50" timing issue....

Givens' memory is obviously not too sharp when it comes to this particular topic. In his Warren Commission session, he seems very certain that he never saw Oswald reading a paper at all that morning, but on the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the FBI just made up (or totally misunderstood) what Givens was telling them in the 11/22/63 FBI interview either.

My own belief concerning this mix-up is ---

I think Givens probably did see Oswald reading a paper in the Domino Room on November 22 at 7:50 AM, and Givens told the FBI that very thing. (Otherwise, why would the FBI write it up the way they did in such detail--including a very specific time of day--"7:50 AM"?) But when it came time to testify in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, that particular detail about seeing Oswald reading the paper slipped Givens' mind entirely for some reason.

I think such testimony just goes to prove one thing (once again) --- Human beings are not machines with perfect memories. Mistakes get made by humans. And things get forgotten by humans. And such mistakes and lapses of memory don't always have to translate to lies either.

Now, as to why there's a conflict between the two different FBI reports regarding the time when the FBI said Charles Givens saw Oswald reading a newspaper on 11/22/63 (7:50 vs. 11:50), I can't say for sure what the answer to that discrepancy is, but I do have a possible explanation....

My explanation assumes that this 11/22/63 FD-302 report written by FBI agents Will Hayden Griffen and Bardwell D. Odum was prepared after this FBI document, which is a document that has the words "Seven Fifty AM" spelled out in longhand (instead of writing it out as 7:50).

I think it might be possible that Griffen and Odum were relying on that first report with respect to the information about Givens seeing Oswald in the Domino Room, and the "seven" in that report was misread as "eleven". If someone was quickly reading a report with all the times spelled out in the rather unorthodox fashion in which we find them all spelled out in words in this report, I think a mistake could easily occur. (After all, the numbers 7 and 11 do both contain the letters "even" at the end of them.)

Whether or not the strange way of writing out (in words) the time of "seven fifty" resulted in the time later being misinterpreted by the agents who wrote up the FD-302 report, I have no idea. But given the “E-V-E-N” similarity in both numbers (plus the “:50” similarity as well), it makes me think that such a mistake just might be possible.

One other thought on the “7:50/11:50” discrepancy....

If the FBI report which says "11:50 AM" is in error about the time of day (which I now think it is), it means that another one of the CTers' arguments can be dismissed---i.e., the argument that essentially goes like this:

Why would Lee Harvey Oswald be bouncing all over the place in the Book Depository Building around noontime on 11/22/63? He's on the 5th or 6th floor at about 11:45 AM or so (as verified by Charles Givens [and others] who heard Oswald yelling down the elevator shaft as four TSBD workers were going down to lunch in the two freight elevators). Oswald is then, per an FBI report, seen by Givens reading a newspaper on the first floor at about 11:50. And then, according to Givens, Oswald is then seen on the sixth floor just five minutes later, at 11:55. It just doesn't add up. Somebody--namely Charles Douglas Givens--must be lying his head off!

[End CTer Simulation.]

But if Charlie Givens had really seen Oswald reading the paper at 7:50 instead of 11:50 (as Page 6 of this FBI memo/report clearly states), then the 11:50 time for an Oswald "sighting" by Givens doesn't really exist at all, and thusly the above simulated conspiracy argument can be discarded entirely.

In short, the 11:50/11:55 "timing" problems associated with the observations of Charles Givens completely vanish if the 7:50 AM time is the correct time for Givens' sighting of Lee Oswald in the first-floor Domino Room, instead of the more widely-accepted time of 11:50 AM.

So that "Seven Fifty" FBI document is actually an excellent document for Lone Assassin believers to utilize in the future. About the only thing a conspiracy theorist could still reasonably use it for would be to say that Vincent Bugliosi made a mistake (or flat-out lied) on Page 956 of his book, "Reclaiming History", when Vince discusses the 9th item on his list of "53 Things" that point to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

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

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Givens

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

 

Many people have joined my JFK Video, Audio, Photos, & Discussion Facebook Group and have posted a lot of interesting Kennedy-related photos, including this one depicting JFK in Palm Beach, Florida, just a few days before 11/22....

One more "SN Boxes" thought....

"In the final analysis, this whole topic of the boxes is just another in a series of futile exercises engaged in by conspiracy theorists. It's an exercise that should be filed in the drawer marked "IT GOES NOWHERE". Because a slightly different stacking of the boxes will not (and cannot) eliminate the physical evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald in John F. Kennedy's murder. Even if the DPD had taken no pictures of the Nest at all and had thrown all the boxes away after the shooting, Oswald would still be guilty. .... Because it's not the box configuration in the Sniper's Nest that hangs Mr. Oswald --- it's all of that other stuff that [many conspiracy theorists] also think is fake. E.G., the bullets, the shells, the rifle, the prints, the fibers, and Oswald's pre- and post-assassination actions." -- DVP; February 23, 2012

DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were moved?"

J.C. DAY (DALLAS POLICE LIEUTENANT) -- "They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved."

[...]

BELIN -- "I notice boxes throughout the picture [referring to CE715], including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?"

DAY -- "No, sir; they had not."

58 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

One thing I can't stand about JFK assassination forums is all the wrangling that goes on. I try to not indulge that. It's counterproductive. Let people state their views and agree to disagree. Otherwise it just wastes time, which I guess is the point of it.

I just asked a simple question earlier, Joseph. It was this one....

"Where, Joseph, did you get the information that the floor was being "refurbished by outsiders that November"?"

If you don't want to answer me, fine. But I am curious.

Footnote regarding the topic of "The Sniper's Nest Boxes"....

We know, of course, that at some point on the afternoon of 11/22/63 the Dallas police did move some of the boxes around in Oswald's Sniper's Nest, in order to dust them for fingerprints. Detective Robert L. Studebaker of the DPD testified extensively about the boxes being moved in his Warren Commission testimony.

So it's certainly no secret that the DPD did move some boxes around before they took some of the pictures of those boxes (like Studebaker Exhibit J and Commission Exhibit No. 509). And the Dallas Police Department wasn't hiding that fact either (as the WC testimony of Studebaker certainly proves). Therefore, how can any sinister type of inference be derived from the fact that the DPD moved the boxes? I don't think it can.

Also See:
http://jfk-archives/Were The Sniper's Nest Boxes Moved?
 

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is no way in Hades that is a matter of perspective.

Despite this montage which pretty much proves that no boxes were moved in the minutes just after the assassination....

24 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

In addition to the TSBD workers involved in the refurbishing work, at least two strangers, if not more, were seen on the upper floors by witnesses. They might have taken advantage of the construction work to blend in.

It looks to me like you're now attempting to backtrack (or walk back) this statement you made a short time ago:

"The sixth floor was being refurbished by outsiders that November, which enabled access to the building by unknown people." -- J. McBride

But you're now saying that two "strangers" were seen on the "upper floors" (not necessarily the SIXTH floor, which is where we know the floor-fixing project was taking place on November 22nd), and you imply that those strangers "might have taken advantage of the construction work to blend in". That, IMO, is a whole lot different from your earlier definitive "was being refurbished by outsiders" comment. Now you've gone all wishy-washy on us regarding the "strangers" who "might" have been involved in the construction work.

Plus, how did those "two strangers, if not more" manage to not be seen or noticed by any of the four or five TSBD workers (including boss William Shelley, who was up on the sixth floor multiple times on 11/22) who were laying the new plywood on the 6th floor that day? Did the "strangers" just get really lucky when nobody saw them as they attempted to "blend in"?

40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...the boxes had been moved after the fact...

There was nobody in the window moving boxes around a few minutes after the last shot was fired at the President. It's a ridiculous theory to begin with. Why on Earth would anyone have felt any need to move boxes around right after the shooting? It's dumb.

John Mytton has created a really nice gif clip which merges the Powell and Dillard pictures together, and the merged montage indicates that no boxes were moved at all. It's all a matter of perspective. Here's Mytton's montage gif:






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

And the CTers who tout Lillian Mooneyham's statement of seeing somebody in the SN window "4 to 5 minutes following the shots" aren't thinking about this thing logically. For WHY would any person involved in the assassination STILL be up there hanging around the window up to FIVE full minutes later? It's totally illogical.

More (including Carolyn Walther's story)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-960.html

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...There was no "sniper's nest"...

Oh, good Lord! What a fantasy world these conspiracy theorists reside in!

Let me guess --- CTers think the Sniper's Nest was merely a "smoker's nook" for employees who wanted to goof off in private? I've encountered multiple fringe CTers who, incredibly, do believe that very thing. They'll just disregard the bullet shells that littered the "nook", and they'll disregard the several witnesses who SAW a man with a RIFLE in that very window.

"There was no sniper's nest"???? A person writing such claptrap should not even be looking into the JFK assassination at all. It's pathetic.

16 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

The sixth floor was being refurbished by outsiders that November, which enabled access to the building by unknown people.

That's not true at all. The plywood flooring on the sixth floor was being worked on by regular TSBD employees, not by "outsiders" or "unknown people". The workers who were fixing the wooden floor up on the sixth floor on 11/22/63 were Charles Givens, Bonnie Ray Williams, Danny Arce, and Billy Lovelady---all of whom were employees of the Texas School Book Depository Company. (Williams had been transferred from the Houston Street TSBD warehouse building, where he normally worked, to the building at 411 Elm to help with the floor-laying project in late October or early November. But he was still an employee of the Depository Company when he was temporarily assigned to the Elm Street building.)

Where, Joseph, did you get the information that the floor was being "refurbished by outsiders that November"?

Also see the signed statements of 73 TSBD workers in CD706 (below), which pretty much prove that there were no "strangers" seen in the TSBD Building on November 22nd (except one old man who went into the building to use a restroom on the first floor and was then seen leaving in a car immediately afterward)....

I'll also refer to what Vince Bugliosi had to say about this topic in his book:

"Some of the stock boys in the Texas School Book Depository Building are laying new flooring up on the sixth floor. The schoolbook business is a little slow this late in the year, and rather than lay the boys off entirely, Bill Shelley, a Depository manager, put them to work resurfacing the upper floors, where most of the books are stored.* Half a dozen of them are at it—Bill Shelley himself, Bonnie Ray Williams, Charles Givens, Danny Arce , Billy Lovelady, and occasionally Harold Norman, when he has time to give them a hand.

The work is pretty straightforward. They have to move the heavy cartons of books from one side of the floor to the other, then back, as they lay new flooring over the old planks. It took them about three weeks to do the fifth floor, and they're just starting in on the sixth, moving as many cartons as they can from the west side of the open floor over to the east. Given the number of books they have to move, they aren't very far along. They're still working on the first section, on the westernmost portion of the sixth floor.

* The Depository had previously been occupied by a wholesale grocery company engaged in supplying restaurants and institutions, and during the time it occupied the building, the floors became oil-soaked and this oil was damaging the books that were now being stacked on the floor (CD 205, p.135)."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 26 of "Reclaiming History"

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

NEWSPAPER CLIPPING FROM NOV. 28, 1940:

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

11/22/63 AUDIO CLIP:

More:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/11/kennedy-gallery-360.html

The Dallas motorcade....

9 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

...I don't think there are any worshippers here...

I don't think there are either. I've certainly never noticed any such "JFK Worshipping" from any of this forum's members.

So the question I have is --- Where did Mervyn even get such an idea?

Excerpt from the January 25, 1964, issue of TV Guide Magazine:

"From the moment the first TV news bulletin cut through the sticky story line of a soap opera called "As the World Turns", at exactly 1:40 (EST) on Friday afternoon, the world of communications, if not the world, was to be a vastly different sort of place, never to be quite the same again. It was not just the sudden, senseless cutting down of a young, vigorous President that made the experience cut so deep, but the fact that no one had ever lived a national tragedy in quite these terms before. When Lincoln was assassinated by a frenzied actor at Ford's Theater in 1865, Americans had time to assimilate the tragedy. Most people in the big cities knew within 24 hours, but there were some in outlying areas for whom it took days.

In the new world of communications there was no time for any such babying of the emotions, no time to collect oneself, no time for anything except to sit transfixed before the set and try to bring into reality this monstrous, unthinkable thing. Because the word was not only instantaneous but visual, and because at no time did the television reporters know any more than the viewers did, 180,000,000 were forced to live the experience not just hour to hour, or minute to minute, but quite literally from second to second, even as the reporters themselves did. According to Nielsen statistics, a point was reached during the funeral on Monday afternoon when 41,553,000 sets were in use, believed to be an all-time high. For four days the American people were virtual prisoners of an electronic box. ..."

[Complete article linked below....]


 

Back to some more photos....

Here are hundreds of screen captures taken from the television coverage of President Kennedy's assassination (click each network logo):


 

Joseph,

I agree with you that the TV reporters (and the radio reporters too), as you said, "put out a lot of false information that day" (see my "Media Errors" video below)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html

....But on the whole, I've always held the opinion that the assassination media coverage on 11/22/63 was quite good and was mostly accurate (on both radio and television). Some mistakes were inevitable in a big "breaking news" story like this one, especially in the early hours just after the story broke. But most of the early errors were corrected on the air in a short amount of time.

And the very early erroneous report that was aired on all of the networks about the shooters possibly being "a man and woman who were scrambling on a walkway overlooking an underpass" is a very understandable error when we factor in what some of the witnesses were doing on the Grassy Knoll at the time the "man and woman" were being observed. The "man and woman" in that erroneous story were almost certainly the Hesters, who can be seen in this film taken by NBC cameraman Dave Wiegman, and the term "scrambling" would certainly be an accurate term for what we can see the Hesters doing in the Wiegman film, as they run for cover and duck down on the grass at the very top of the Grassy Knoll.

As for Oswald allegedly not be arraigned for JFK's murder, that's utter nonsense—and provably so—as I discuss here.

And as for the conspiracy theorists' favorite Tippit murder witness—Acquilla Clemons—CLICK HERE.

Also See....