David Von Pein

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We have no way of knowing why Baker went on that show 23 years later. I mean, why would he do that even if he did tell the truth in 1963/64? Do you think he wanted media attention? I don't.

Then you'll admit it would have been a very odd thing for Baker to have done (to go on TV voluntarily 23 years later) if he knew he was going to have to tell one lie after another to the American public....right?

But going on TV in order to tell the TRUTH (and to get a free trip to London, England) doesn't sound very odd at all. Wouldn't you agree, Sandy?

32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

I believe that Roy Truly was a CIA asset and was instructed to do what he did.

Marrion Baker was probably told that his lies were necessary to prevent WW3, or some other national security nonsense. He was doing his patriotic duty.

And that must mean you think that Marrion Baker thought that "prevent[ing] WW3, or some other national security nonsense" was STILL a valid reason for him to voluntarily appear on television and lie his butt off in the year 1986, twenty-three years after the assassination. Correct?

And weren't the conspirators/plotters super-lucky to have a "CIA asset" named Roy Truly employed as the Superintendent of the Book Depository on the day JFK was shot?

Was Truly "planted" in the building as a TSBD employee by his CIA handlers? If so, those plotters sure had great foresight, because Truly had worked for the Depository for 29 years as of 11/22/63:

MR. TRULY -- "I went to work for the Texas School Book Depository in July 1934."

54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I...ultimately concluded that the second floor encounter didn't occur.

Sandy,

If the lunchroom encounter never occurred at all, then can you provide an explanation for WHY both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly would have a desire to go on national TV in September of 1964 and tell lie after lie regarding their encounter with Lee Oswald on 11/22/63?

Those two men weren't being FORCED to go on television and repeat their alleged lies....so why do you think EITHER man would want to say the things they said in this 1964 video? Did they do it just for kicks---even though, according to you and many other conspiracy believers, they KNEW they would have to lie their asses off every second they were on camera with CBS News?

And the same question applies to Marrion Baker and his VOLUNTARY appearance at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence docu-trial. Baker wasn't issued a subpoena forcing him to appear at that mock trial. So why did he want to (again) go on national TV and lie his butt off? Who would do a thing like that--over and over again--if he didn't HAVE to?

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I once said that DVP should do stand up.

The proof of that is above us for all to see.

The guy just rewrote the first day Baker affidavit.  Which does not take place in the lunchroom, does not take place on the right floor, and which features no coke, and the guy he accosted does not fit the correct description and is wearing a jacket.  Dave says, no problem.

And Greg and Sandy  just showed how Oswald's words were transformed,  but Davey says, forget it.

And the one person DiEugenio completely ignored just now is Roy S. Truly, who is the person who verified the "encounter" took place on the SECOND FLOOR in the LUNCHROOM with OSWALD.

But I guess Roy Truly was just one more lying S.O.B. who wanted to frame poor Lee Harvey, right Jim?

(Jimmy's stand-up gig in Vegas awaits.)

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

1964 interview with Baker & Truly:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOVXZ4WkFnSDVWdzA/view

3 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

For the record, what is your explanation for Baker's lack of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter in his first affidavit? He wrote it on the very day according to the record.

Marrion Baker describes the encounter in his original affidavit. He just didn't specifically say the encounter occurred in the "lunchroom". Given the frantic circumstances just after the assassination, I think it's quite possible that Baker might not have had the slightest idea he had encountered Oswald in a "lunchroom" at all. The brief encounter took just a matter of seconds, and Baker was certainly not concentrating his attention on the TYPE of room he was in at the time he shoved his gun up against Oswald's mid-section. And Baker, of course, wasn't familiar with the layout of the building at all on November 22. So he might have only later learned that the encounter took place in the Depository's lunchroom.

Yes, Baker got the floor number wrong in his Nov. 22 affidavit. But the absolute proof that the "Oswald/Baker Lunchroom Encounter" took place is Roy Truly's presence there in the lunchroom when Baker saw Oswald. Truly confirmed it happened on the SECOND FLOOR and in the LUNCHROOM. And Truly confirmed it was OSWALD who had been stopped by Baker.

Do conspiracy believers really want to drag Roy S. Truly through the mud by labelling him a l-i-a-r or a "conspirator"? Come on. That's just silly.

Also --- I'm wondering if the skeptics would be more willing to accept the lunchroom encounter if Officer Baker had said "second or third floor" in his original affidavit, instead of "third or fourth floor"? I doubt they would. But it's quite clear to me that Baker wasn't sure at all which floor he was on when he saw Oswald. Hence his writing "third or fourth floor".

In addition --- OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not on any other floor. Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz? Or was Fritz lying too?

More on the Lunchroom Encounter here:

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I wonder how "the body wasn't altered" supporters explain how the thin incision in the President's throat became the gash we see in the autopsy photos.

Re: the trach incision --- Here's something I pointed out in 2013....

"I loved the [Nov. 2013] Posner/Waldron radio debate [which can be heard here]. .... And here's a piece of advice for Gerald Posner --- The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. Maybe that will make Waldron flinch a little bit. And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- DVP; November 2013

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I got a reply from Greg Parker on this.

He says that the first mention of the coke was in Oswald's  FBI interrogation.  But the problem with that was he made it pretty clear that he had gotten the coke before the motorcade had come by and was drinking and eating on the first floor.

And Oswald would never lie.....right Jim?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke

"NOVEMBER 23-25, 1963" (JFK'S FUNERAL SERVICES) (OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE COLOR FOOTAGE)

My thoughts from 2006....

Quote

"As a firm believer in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, I cannot deny that I'm puzzled
and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly Parkland Hospital witnesses)
who have gone on record to say they saw a gaping hole in the back of
President Kennedy's head that day back in '63:



But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in
Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine)
position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency
room? It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying
on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his
head. Very strange.

But in order to believe the several back-of-the-head ("BOH") wound
witnesses, we are also (at the very same time) being forced to DISbelieve
and completely disregard an enormous amount of the official, documented
evidence in the JFK murder case (and at the same time assume that a large
number of people, within various organizations, told numerous lies with
respect to the facts surrounding Kennedy's death and also faked evidence
to support a Lone-Assassin conclusion).

I ask -- Is that type of conspiratorial belief any MORE logical than
the LNers who disbelieve the witnesses who support a large wound in the
back of JFK's head?

If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at
Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must
totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary
doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President). In such
a conspiracy-favoring scenario, all three of those doctors MUST be
scheming, low-life liars, who didn't hesitate to sign off on the most
important document any of them would ever sign, even though they had to
know the report was nothing but a pack of lies.

And if there really was a big hole in the back of JFK's head, it would also
have to mean that the official autopsy photos and X-rays of President
Kennedy's wounds have been faked or altered, even though the
House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that those materials
"had not been altered in any manner".

As we can see, there's no great-big hole in the BACK (occipital) portion
of John F. Kennedy's head here:






And....

If there had actually been a large hole at the back of JFK's head,
we've also got to swallow the notion that a large amount of the ballistics
evidence in the case is dead wrong and was deliberately falsified by an
unknown number of people who served the "cover-up" very well.

Or, short of believing that theory, we'd have to believe that a "magical"
thing occurred just after JFK was shot from the front, and that all of
those frontal-shot bullets (however many there might have been that
struck President Kennedy) just vanished on their own without the aid of
any conspirators' handiwork.

In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to
believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no
good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee
Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city policeman
J.D. Tippit as well).

And in such a "conspiracy mindset", it would also almost assuredly mean
that many, many members of the House Select Committee On Assassinations
in the late 1970s were also no-good, lying SOBs too -- because that
committee came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren boys did in
1964, when it came down to the question of: "How Many Bullets Struck
The Victims; And Who Fired Those Shots?" .... With the answers being:
only 2 shots hit any of the victims in the President's limousine; both
of those bullets came from behind the vehicle; and Lee Harvey Oswald
fired those shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Does any pro-conspiracy book or any conspiracy theorist really trump the
hard, physical evidence in the JFK case? Because if it truly does, then a
whole bunch of OTHER STUFF sure worked out in perfect apple-pie order
for these unidentified conspirators who mapped out that amazing
multi-shooter plot to kill the President.

Did the "real assassins" really get THAT LUCKY with respect to all of
the physical evidence (i.e., guns, bullets, shells, and fingerprints),
which ALL adds up to ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murders of
Jack Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

Is it even remotely possible that a group of plotters could have
pre-arranged such a perfect "It Was Only Oswald" plot (save for those
"BOH" wound witnesses), while at the same time utilizing multiple
gunmen hidden throughout Dealey Plaza?

The number of people who needed to be "in" on such a massive
after-the-shooting cover-up operation must have been staggering. ....
Extending from the Dallas Police, to the FBI, to the Secret Service, to
the Dallas doctors who attended both JFK and wounded Texas Governor
John Connally (doctors who must have hidden some of the bullets from
view, surely!), to the scumbags at Bethesda doing the botched autopsy
and then faking the official autopsy report (a report which states,
unequivocally, that Kennedy was shot twice from behind....no mention of
any frontal shots at all striking the President). .....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired
by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point
behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via Page 6 of
John F. Kennedy's Official Autopsy Report

People who wish to believe that President Kennedy received the fatal
blow to his head as a result of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll in
Dealey Plaza should ask themselves a thought-provoking question
regarding the above paragraph I just provided from the 1963 autopsy
report.

That question being ----

Is it reasonable to believe that all three of those autopsy physicians
would have possessed a desire to attach their signatures to an
incredibly-important document like the official autopsy report of the
President of the United States, all the while knowing full well that
the conclusions they reached within that document they had just signed
were complete, outright lies? Is that truly a "logical" thing to
believe with respect to Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell?

What a perfect all-inclusive "Let's Frame Oswald" plot it must have
been (per many conspiracists) -- to have been able to wangle signatures
out of ALL THREE of those autopsy doctors....even though the doctors
KNOW what they're signing isn't true at all; and they know without
question that that "Report" they've signed-off on would probably be
more at home on a roller in their bathrooms!

And then (as if signing and fully endorsing an obviously-inaccurate
autopsy report isn't bad enough) -- All of these doctors then must have
been forced to follow up their initial falsification of the autopsy
report by lying about the true nature of JFK's wounds whenever they
spoke of the matter to anyone .... for years and years on end,
including during their sworn testimony in front of the WC, the HSCA,
and the ARRB. An amazing and comprehensive decades-long cover-up that
is still continuing to this day evidently.

And that's precisely one of the biggest reasons to know why such a
large-scale JFK conspiracy never could have possibly happened (or have
been covered-up so beautifully) in the grandiose fashion that many
CTers champion. Because only Houdini could have masterminded such
sleight-of-hand magic and such indomitable powers of unrelenting
influence and domination over so many different people (within various
official and unofficial capacities) in 1963, and for all eternity thereafter."

David Von Pein
February 2006

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

 

1963 Color Motion Picture Filmed By Tom Atkins & Robert Knudsen of the White House -- "The Last Two Days" (with 1080p HD Upgrade)....

Click image below to play video....

William F. Buckley interviews David Belin and Robert Blakey (September 1981)....

David J.,

All of the various botched versions of Lee Harvey Oswald's name that we heard coming out of the mouths of different reporters during the weekend of JFK's assassination—which included, btw, ALL THREE of LHO's names (his first, middle, and last), and not just his middle name—can, in my opinion, be categorized as plain ordinary non-sinister errors.

And you'll notice that each time somebody got LHO's name wrong, they managed to get the first letter correct in the botched version of his name, e.g., Leo H. Oswald and Lee Henry Oswald and Lee Harold Oswald and Lee Harvey Osburn. So each reporter seemed to know the correct three initials (L, H, and O), but at various times just couldn't recall the exact name.

21 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Thanks Dave....

What significance do you attach to this - if any?

Absolutely none (of course). Cronkite merely got LHO's middle name wrong in that one instance on 11/25/63. And, as I previously said in July 2016, Walter messed up LHO's name on other occasions that weekend too---first calling him "Leo H. Oswald", and one other time calling him "Lee Harvey Osburn". So, should I now attach some kind of conspiratorial "significance" to those two other incorrect monikers too (Leo and Osburn)? And should I also think there was something fishy about the fact that KRLD reporter Bob Huffaker kept calling Oswald "Lee HAROLD Oswald" on November 24th? (Huffaker, btw, said he got the "Harold" name from Glen King of the Dallas Police Department.)

I finally found the CBS footage showing Cronkite saying "Lee Henry Oswald". It's at the 25:35 mark in my video linked below, and it occurred on Monday, November 25th (after JFK's funeral)....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzTwSedFirxtSHBDTmU1eldNNU0/view

To hear Walter Cronkite's "Leo" remark, go to the 2:29:15 mark in the video below (top link). That "Leo" reference, btw, is the first time LHO was mentioned on CBS-TV after the assassination. I haven't been able to locate Cronkite's "Lee Henry" reference, but it's definitely located somewhere within the CBS Nov. 22-25 coverage (2nd link)....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIM2QxZ09BRHpSWnM/view

http://jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-tv.html

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19926-when-was-oswald-first-ided-in-media/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-331272

Here's a direct link to the largest version I have of the Croft photo (click it again after the picture loads)....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/RyxiSHwgMZI/AAAAAAAAAD0/w3b1lrO3KIE/s1600/15c.%2BCroft%2BPhoto%2BShowing%2BJFK's%2BCar%2BOn%2BElm%2BStreet.jpg

Cory, et al.....

The picture in question was taken by bystander Robert Croft. It equates to approximately Zapruder frame #161. I've got a full-sized version of the photo on my Kennedy Gallery website, here....

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-035.html

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Where's the part where a bullet enters near Kennedy's EOP?

Since no bullet at all entered near the EOP of JFK (just as the autopsy photos indicate), then there certainly would be no need for David Wolper to include anything in his 1964 motion picture about any bullet entering John F. Kennedy's cranium near the external occipital protuberance.

Quote

Or where the autopsy doctors lies [sic] about when they discovered Kenenedy's [sic] tracheotomy was made over a small bullet wound?

Since the three autopsy doctors didn't lie at all about when they CONFIRMED FOR SURE that Dr. Perry had performed the tracheotomy incision over the top of the bullet wound in JFK's throat, then there would of course be no reason at all for Mr. Wolper to include in his film any such non-event about the autopsy physicians telling a bunch of lies.

Quote

Or where autopsy photographs were destroyed? 

Why would Mr. Wolper want to put a total myth in his movie, Micah?

There's no proof whatsoever that any autopsy photographs were (quote) "destroyed". It's possible that some autopsy photos are missing from the original inventory of pictures. But I'm not sure that is an absolute fact either.

Here's what Vince Bugliosi said....

• "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing" autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of people from various official investigative agencies...examining and working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people through whose hands they passed." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (2007)

My plethora of webpages featuring my all-time favorite JFK Assassination film (deserving of a re-watching every November)....

Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/Four Days In November (1964 David L. Wolper Film)

Four-Days-In-November.blogspot.com

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Four Days In November (1964)

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Re-Created Scenes From The Film "Four Days In November"

DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/Four Days In November (1964)

DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/Four Days In November (1964)

JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com/Four Days In November (1964)

Drive.Google.com/drive/folders/Four Days In November (1964)

Amazon.com/DVP Review For "Four Days In November" (1964 Motion Picture)

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

Review Excerpts....

"Many of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination have been disputed and debated by researchers for decades. And this tragic crime will likely remain a topic that shall cause heated debate for many more years to come. But what the film "Four Days In November" does accomplish is to allow the viewer to re-live those sorrowful November days, in the order in which the events transpired, based on the evidence available.

[...]

In late October 2010, I was discussing the movie "Four Days In November" with Vincent Bugliosi, and he told me something I had never heard before -- Vince said that in the early stages of writing his JFK book (when the book was still untitled), David Wolper told him that he wanted to make another documentary on the JFK assassination, which would be based on Bugliosi's book. Unfortunately, however, that documentary was never made.

Mr. Wolper passed away at the age of 82, on August 10, 2010. He will be remembered for producing many excellent documentaries, mainly for television. And the Academy Award-nominated "Four Days In November", which was a United Artists theatrical release, is certainly one of his finest accomplishments.

Anyone who has a collection of John F. Kennedy-related videos and DVDs should definitely own a copy of this remarkable motion picture."

-- David Von Pein; July 2001 and November 2010

......

JFK'S SPEECH AT THE YOUNG DEMOCRATS CONVENTION IN MIAMI, FLORIDA (DEC. 7, 1961)

BASEBALL GAME: JUNE 14, 1965 (10 innings of no-hit ball by the Reds' Jim Maloney---and he loses!)(It *must* be a conspiracy!)

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So, there really is a ladder? If so, why did Baker make out there were stairs?

Pat,

Marrion Baker straightened that out in his Warren Commission testimony. David Josephs posted it earlier [repeated below]. That testimony makes it clear that the "Ladder to the roof" (as depicted in the diagram of the 7th floor) is, indeed, the "stairway" Baker referred to in his testimony. Baker merely used the word "stairway", but it was really a "ladder". No big deal there, IMO. And, actually, it wasn't really BAKER who called the ladder a "stairway"; it was BELIN. Baker merely agreed with Belin (see testimony below).

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

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

JFK'S SPEECH IN NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK (DECEMBER 6, 1961)