David Von Pein

16 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Whatever was done [to the Zapruder Film] was done very hurriedly--i.e., essentially within the first 15 hours (approx) and I am sure that those involved were not pleased that the result. Why? Because it contained something as powerful and telling as the Zapruder film headsnap (regardless of how you and your apologist friends try to explain it). But the "head-snap" was the result of the film editing done to remove the car stop.

That's a mighty weak argument for Z-Film Alteration, David. Mighty weak (IMO).

And what about the OTHER films that show the SAME THING that the Zapruder Film shows? The Nix Film can be placed in perfect "sync" with the Z-Film (see video below), and they are identical as far as the limousine ALMOST coming to a stop but not quite coming to a complete stop. So, you must think Orville Nix's film has been altered too, right DSL? Or maybe you can now theorize that the person who put together the film comparison linked below (and it wasn't me who created that video) didn't know what the hell he was doing, or he was a crook and deliberately "altered" his digital versions of one film or another so that they would seem to be in perfect harmony....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOR0p1ZFlqbTlKeDg/view

Quote

But what about the body, DVP?

Does it not bother you at all that, as I described in my previous post(s), that JFK's [body] left Dallas with a small bullet entry wound, and--possibly, but not definitely--a small and modest trach incision ("2-3 cm", according to what Dr. Perry told me on 10/27/66) ; and arrived at Bethesda with a wide gash, measured at "7 - 8 cm"? And which, according to the autopsy report, had "widely gaping irregular edges"?

I'll again refer to the words of Dr. McClelland (and the ARRB testimony of Dr. Perry as well). Do you think McClelland was just flat-out lying here?....

Skip to about the 10:00 mark in this 2009 interview with Dr. Robert McClelland to hear him talk in some detail about the "incision" that was made through the bullet wound in JFK's throat; and then go to 41:25, where McClelland says the large tracheotomy wound in the autopsy photos is exactly the same size as the trach wound he saw at Parkland on 11/22/63. [Also see this related article.]

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

And there's Dr. Perry's 1998 ARRB session (DVP's emphasis):

MR. GUNN -- "Could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?"

DR. PERRY -- "I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon, but my reply to that was that it was big enough. There are only two medical emergencies, airway and bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and [they were?] quite large with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound, I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea."
 

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

DVP:

You refer to my "outlandish" altered CBS tape theory. 

Yes, I certainly did. IMO, it is, indeed, an outlandish/outrageous/ridiculous/preposterous (take your pick) theory. For the reasons I previously stated.

Quote

Now here's something that could be done, if Groden was willing to assist.  The 3/4" tape of the CBS show, that he played for us (Pat Valentino and me) in June 1989 is in his possession.  A high quality digital copy could be made of that part of the show; and we could all listen to it, and decide.  Is what Groden possessed (and played for us) superior to what is available today--for example, at the Dan Rather site?  Or is it identical?  That would be an interesting matter to pursue, and I'd like to see it done.

Yes. I'd like to see that done too. Not that I think it's really necessary, because that 1967 tape hasn't been "altered" at all. And, as I keep saying, one of the best reasons we can know it hasn't been altered is because the key word that you, David Lifton, are most concerned about on the tape---"inviolate"---IS STILL PART OF THE EXISTING AUDIO on that tape --- although Dr. Perry is obviously not saying "inviolate" there, because that word makes no sense in the sentence in which it was used. But you, DSL, seem to think the word is undeniably "inviolate", even though you ALSO insist the same tape has been "altered". Go figure that strange dichotomy. ~shrug~

Now, can you think of ANY reason why the "Tape Alterers" would have wanted to LEAVE IN the word "inviolate", even though it comes right alongside the words "cutting through the wound", so that the end result of their tampering was an incoherent mess?!

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

Reprise.....

DAVID LIFTON SAID:

We (Pat V. and I) were both astounded to hear Perry say, “I left the wound inviolate.”
 

SANDY LARSEN LATER SAID:

Well, this is certainly interesting.

It appears that the 1967 CBS interview audio has two versions, one with Dr. Perry saying he "left the wound inviolate" and the other with him saying he "rendered it invalid." ("Inviolate" and "invalid" sound the same, but can be differentiated via he context in which the word is used.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There aren't two different "versions" of the CBS video/audio at all. David Lifton just misquoted what Dr. Perry said in the ONE and only version. Lifton is just wrong when he put these words in quotes --- "I left the wound inviolate". We know Perry never said those exact words because of this video I posted previously. In that video, Perry's lips match the audio perfectly. How can anyone doubt that fact---even David S. Lifton?

And the words "I left" in Lifton's version of Perry's quote are very important too. And those are words--"I left"--that Dr. Perry never uttered in that CBS statement at all. Lifton simply misquoted Perry.

The question that remains is --- Did David Lifton deliberately misquote Perry when it comes to the 1967 CBS interview? Or was DSL merely attempting to recall the exact quote from memory and incorrectly (but innocently) put the words "I left" in Dr. Perry's mouth by mistake?

[...]

Of course, it's possible that Robert Groden's taped version of the 1967 interview is out of sync for some reason. That's quite possible. But that certainly doesn't have to indicate any "monkeying around" with the original video. Any number of technical things could happen that can result in audio going out of sync with video on VHS tapes, DVDs, digital files, etc. I've had that happen to my video files all the time, and it's annoying as hell. But I don't think it has anything to do with somebody trying to "monkey around" with my files. It's just something that happens in the "A/V" world.

Bottom Line (as usual) --- A conspiracy theorist is making a huge mountain out of something that doesn't even rise to the level of an anthill.

[...]

Regarding this comment [by David Lifton]:

"A friend who has audio expertise...notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought NOT to be the sound of any words."

And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-)

If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever.
 

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, Your cut and paste style fails [one] very important test. [It] does not pass the "would you want everyone else do what you do?" test. You take advantage of the good sense of others by acting in a way that they do not act. If everyone pasted quotes from their archive of debates there would be no debate. 

I think my "style" is just fine, thank you. In fact, in many instances, I find it even more powerful and useful to repeat (i.e., "cut and paste") something I have already posted (such as the Feb./Mar. 2018 excerpts I repeated above regarding David Lifton's outlandish "altered 1967 CBS-TV tape" theory) in order to emphasize and reiterate things that I perceive to be obvious and which were not adequately (IMO) addressed and/or refuted by the CT defense counsel (i.e., Mr. Lifton).

IOW, I felt the need to repeat a point (or points) I had previously made. And since a perfectly good written record of those points already exists in my saved archives, why shouldn't I use them again to reiterate my position (vs. typing out pretty much the exact same argument again, while utilizing just a few different words)?

Perry....your witness.

P.S. ....

Another good "case in point" to illustrate the benefit of having a fairly large archive of JFK-related written material readily at hand occurred just 4 days ago in another thread at this forum --- here --- concerning the contradictory statements made over the years by Buell Frazier.

BTW, I'm certainly not the only person who cuts & pastes their previously archived material at this forum. Many times in the past few years I've seen other members---such as Pat Speer and Jim DiEugenio---copy their verbatim quotes taken from their own websites (patspeer.com and JD's K&K site) into forum threads. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. In fact, as I stated, I think it's a good thing to do in many instances.

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Anyone reading this please note: There weren't any gremlins who fooled around with this record. There were real people who sat at editing machinery and --whatever the rationale provided--wanted  to make the word "inviolate" go away, and make it sound like (or close to) "invalid."  (And, unfortunately, they succeeded in fuzzing up this issue).

And around and around in circles we go (again), with Mr. Lifton apparently (again) totally ignoring the following facts that were discussed about a month ago. Quoting from my previous posts....

---Quote On:---

"In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound".

And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was:

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection."

Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had really said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"?

[...]

Some additional thoughts....

Since you [David S. Lifton] are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?)

Also....

Since you are convinced that Perry did NOT cut through JFK's throat wound at all, then that must mean that the following portion of Perry's interview is a portion that you think was "altered", right?....

"...cutting through the wound..."

Or do you think that Dr. Perry was in a lying mood (or mode) when he uttered the above sentence, but then he turned off his "lying mode" a couple of seconds later when the word "inviolate" came out of his mouth?"

-- DVP; February 28 & early March 2018; Hendricks County, Indiana; USA; North America; Earth; Milky Way

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

------

What possible useful purpose does this tongue-in-cheek thread serve? All it does is provide a platform for the Fetzer and White haters. So why was this topic created in the first place? It certainly does nothing to improve the forum's "tone", which is something James R. Gordon wants to see improved, otherwise this forum might go down the drain completely due to a lack of funding in the near future. And this type of wholly unnecessary backhanded swipe at James Fetzer and Jack White (even though I don't agree with their theories either) is just the kind of intentionally antagonistic thread that we shouldn't be seeing at this forum at this particular time (given the posts that have been made in recent weeks by Mr. Gordon, who is deeply concerned about "the future of the forum").

Just my $0.02.

Trygve,

I'm not aware of anyone ever asking Buell about the contradictions in his statements.

It would be ideal if Buell would join this forum. Then everybody here could ask him about it. But in his 2014 interview, he said that "surfing the 'Net isn't my thing". So I kinda doubt that "JFK Forums" are his bag either. But, hey, Mary Moorman has an Internet presence now. She's on Facebook, and she even answered some of my questions last April. So maybe the possibility of talking to Buell Frazier online in the future isn't totally a crazy idea either.

FWIW, here's my examination of Frazier's WC testimony....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html

Trygve,

Here's my page dedicated to Buell Frazier....

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html

22 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That's great news!  Thank you, James!

I agree. Thanks to James G.!

Trygve,

See my "FYI" edit in my previous post above.

Trygve V. Jensen said:

...wouldn't know...if Gary [Mack] confronts him [Buell Wesley Frazier] with his contradiction in relation to his earlier statements.

He didn't confront him with it at all. And that's something that is very aggravating, particularly since Gary Mack was well-versed in almost every aspect of the JFK case, so he no doubt knew during the 2002 interview that Frazier was telling him something that didn't match his earlier statements.

I kept wanting Gary to say to BWF --- But, Wesley, how do you explain the fact you said in your first-day affidavit that you didn't see Oswald at all on November 22nd after about 11:00 AM? Now you say you saw him just 5 or so minutes after JFK was shot? What gives?

But Gary never asked Frazier anything like that. Nor have any of the several other interviewers who have interviewed Frazier since 2002. None of the interviewers seem to even care about (or they are just unaware of) Wesley's "I saw Lee / I didn't see Lee" contradiction. ~big shrug~

Trygve,

It's quite reasonable to critique Buell Frazier's statements regarding his alleged sighting of Oswald on Houston St. within 5 to 10 minutes after the shooting. As far as I am aware, the first time Buell ever said those things was in his interview with Gary Mack in 2002 (see video/audio below).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISUhXaldpNmN2QmM/view

Here are my thoughts on this (via a 2010 post)....

"A FEW NOTES:

The most interesting parts of [the] 2002 interview with Wesley Frazier
are when he totally contradicts some of the things he said in 1963 and
1964.

For example:

In the 2002 interview, Frazier actually tells Gary Mack that he saw
Lee Harvey Oswald "5 to 10 minutes" AFTER the assassination, as Lee
was walking south on Houston Street. Wesley said he then lost Lee in
the crowd after Oswald had crossed Houston Street. Frazier said he
thought Lee was "going to get him a sandwich or something, so I really
didn't think anything about it".

But when we look at Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit (which was written by
Wesley within hours of the assassination), we find this:

      "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today
[11/22/63], and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the
first floor." -- BWF

Frazier also completely changed his mind in 2002 about the source of
the three gunshots he heard on November 22nd. He told Mack in 2002
that the shots came from "above" him. But in 1964, he told the Warren
Commission that the shots came from the railroad tracks on top of the
Triple Underpass. Wesley even drew a circle on a Commission exhibit
(CE347) to indicate the area where he said he heard the shots coming
from:

CE347:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0484b.htm

      "These railroad tracks there is a series of them that come up
over this, up over this overpass there, and from where I was standing,
I say, it is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like
it came from over there, in the railroad tracks." -- Buell Wesley
Frazier; WC Testimony; 1964

So much for 39-year-old recollections, huh?

Maybe it would be better to simply not interview witnesses thirty-nine
years after an event has taken place. You just never know what a
witness is going to "remember" after so many intervening years.

Such "newer" interviews are interesting to see and listen to, but many
of the recollections being recounted by the witness become garbled,
semi-incoherent, and inconsistent with things the same witness has
said in previous interviews and depositions. And such inconsistency
only tends to muddy the waters even more when it comes to
investigating the JFK murder case.

I'm guessing that Gary Mack was in a mild state of shock when Wesley
Frazier told him on 6/21/02 that he had seen Lee Oswald walking along
Houston Street "5 to 10 minutes" after the assassination.

If that were true, of course, it would mean that Oswald did not leave
the Texas School Book Depository Building by way of the front
entrance, but instead he left via the back door of the building.

I, however, place more faith in what Wes Frazier said on the day of
the assassination itself, when he said he did not see Lee Harvey
Oswald at all "after about 11:00 AM today"."

-- DVP; January 25, 2010

Thanks for that heads-up, Trygve. That's one more for me to add to my Hugh Aynesworth page....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/hugh-aynesworth.html

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

All you have to do is read Officer Baker's first-day affidavit and WC testimony to see that he lied.

Balderdash, Sandy!

There is nothing in Marrion Baker's 11/22 affidavit or in his WC testimony that PROVES HE LIED.

When comparing a statement given by a person who was obviously confused as to the floor number (such as Officer Baker's "3rd or 4th floor" statement that we find in his first-day affidavit) to the later testimony given by Baker at a time when his confusion had been cleared up, does not equal a LIE.

And in Baker's affidavit, it couldn't be more obvious that he was NOT SURE which floor he encountered Oswald on. Hence, he writes "third or fourth floor".

How can you possibly turn that "3rd or 4th floor" confusion into an outright LIE being told later to the WC by Officer Baker? You can't---if you're a reasonable person looking for the truth.

With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase.

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And the only thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald where he said he was during the shooting -- on the first floor -- is that the people whose testimonies create the 2nd floor encounter were l.y.i.n.g.

That would include Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, and Jim Bookhout. (And if Fritz and Bookhout weren't lying, then Oswald himself lied about encountering the policeman on the SECOND floor.)

Now, I wonder which one of these options is more likely to be correct:

All of the above people were liars....or....Victoria Adams simply made an honest mistake about exactly how long it took her to get to the first floor?

Is that really a tough choice for you, Sandy?

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

"THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER"....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

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

38 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

So then David, do you feel you have debunked Ernest's research? Have you effectively proven or demonstrated that Adams' testimony isn't valid in the case for LHO's whereabouts on 11/22/63?

Here's what I said 7 years ago (and I still feel this way today)....

"With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase.

And if she's off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then her whole story unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that Oswald used the back stairs just after shooting President Kennedy from the sixth floor.

The key to pretty much knowing without a doubt that Adams and Styles were on the stairs only AFTER Lee Oswald used the same stairs is not really Oswald himself--but Roy Truly and Marrion Baker.

Because if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker.

Since Adams saw nobody and heard nobody, the very likely solution is that she was mistaken about her timing (which couldn't be a more common error with human beings), and she was on the stairs AFTER all three men (Oswald, Baker, and Truly) had already utilized the same stairs." -- DVP; February 14, 2011

FWIW....

A discussion re: Adams & Styles (and some others)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

1 minute ago, Karl Kinaski said:

I never said that Ruby wasn't a gifted storyteller.

But if you really are searching for some gifted storytellers, look no further than a JFK Assassination Internet forum.

8 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

@DVP  I knew of a time, when this forum was filled with a lot of hard boiled Lone Nutters like you. Now you are a kind of LAST MAN STANDING ---  hats off!! 

If Ruby had really come in through the side door, instead of the ramp, there would have been no good reason under the sun for him to LIE about it.

And, of course, you have to bring Postal Inspector Harry Holmes into the "conspiracy" plot too. Because if it weren't for Holmes extending the interrogation of Oswald by several minutes on Sunday morning, then Ruby would have never had the chance to plug Oswald at 11:21.

But I always like how CTers add in the extra element of "signalling" to Ruby across the street. This part of their conspiracy fantasy allows them to totally ignore all of the timing issues (e.g., the Carlin phone call, the 11:17 timestamp at Western Union, and the fact that the public was told on Saturday night that Oswald would be moved at 10 AM on Sunday), which are timing issues that indicate one thing to a reasonable person:

Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald on the spur of the moment and could not have been part of some pre-planned conspiracy to rub out Mr. Oswald.