David Von Pein

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

Clickable link: http://KennedysAndKing.com

Yes, Ron, you're right. Maris managed to swat only 14 four-ply wallops in his two years with St. Louis in 1967 and '68. But, amazingly, the Cardinals won the pennant in both of those seasons---even with Maris' meager power output. '68, of course, was the Year Of The Pitcher (mainly, Bob Gibson). If you're interested, I've archived Maris' 61st circuit clout (and lots more stuff) at my Baseball webpage. JFK Segue.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/JFK Interview On Opening Day Of The 1961 Baseball Season

I have no problem with linking to sites that offer a different viewpoint from my own. As I said, I've been linking to Jim's CTKA site for years. And I've got links to JFK Facts, JFK Lancer, plus links to various conspiracy-oriented forums too (including DPF and The Education Forum): http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/#More-Resources http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/#JFK-Assassination-Forums If anybody knows of any additional JFK forums that could be added to my list above, please let me know. I might want to add them. Thank you. (BTW/FWIW, I'll be adding the proper link to the JFK Lancer forum when it becomes available again after the rebuild of their archive is complete. Currently, though, that link points to another part of the Lancer site.)

Now, is that a very nice thing to imply, Mr. Ecker?

I know we disagree on every single aspect of the JFK case, but I still want to say.... Good luck with your new site, Jim. I'll be posting a link to it on my own website/blog when I get the URL for it today. (It will replace the CTKA link. Yes, I've had a CTKA link on my site for years. Incredible, isn't it?)

I've had no problems along those lines with the Drive since I started using it.

It's there, Michael. I'd bet on it. You're just not checking the unique webpage version of the file. You're probably only checking the overlay version of the file that comes up when you click on a video from the "lobby" area of your Google Drive account. I've had other people, including my brother, ask me "Why can't I embed this video, dammit?" .... and I then point out that the video needs to be opened in a new window/tab first. Here's another visual demo, with this one showing one of my video files being opened in an "overlay" fashion (on top of all the other stuff in my Drive account. And as you can see, in this overlay mode, I don't have the embed option either. But if I were to click "Open in new window", and then click "More Actions", I'll find the embed code....

Oh, heavens no. Not at all. I've embedded hundreds of Google Drive videos on my sites and I've never had to "sync" anything. The embed code is available for every file you make public. But you have to make sure to make them public, by turning on Link Sharing from the "Share" option after you've uploaded a file. And I assume the Link Sharing works with files other than just video files too. I've used it for a few PDF files as well, and I can embed those files too (after making them public). After activating the Link Sharing (which creates a unique URL for the file in question), you can embed the file by clicking the "More Actions" button in the upper-right corner of the unique page/URL that has been created by GD for that file. You'll then see an option for "Embed Item". Click that and you've got the embed code. And Voila! Here's a visual demonstration of where to find the embed button (using this video file as an example): Guilty as ever-lovin' sin. And I wonder what the odds are of these two things BOTH occurring within the very same murder case? I'd like your opinion, if you'd care to provide it.... http://amazon.com/review/What Are The Odds?? http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-oj-simpson-murder-trial.html

Oh, come now, Michael. You know what that is --- it's called "dramatic license". Some "over the top" license is always used when an author is writing in narrative style like that. Think maybe you can cut Manchester and Bishop some slack in that "license" regard? It's my review (of course), which is quite obvious since I "signed" it at the end. Sorry you disapprove, Mike. (Should I have pretended Oswald was innocent because he never went to trial, like most Internet CTers keep telling me I should do?) Oh, I've already done that, Michael. (In a way.) I've self-embedded many of my videos on my own sites (blogs) using the outstanding (non-YouTube) service provided by Google (Google Drive). I just recently (this year) discovered that Google Drive existed and was available for free video uploading (and with no ceiling on file size!). So I started using the Google Drive service to replace most of the "non-YouTube" videos that I had been putting on my sites in past years via the rather subpar "Blogger" uploading tool (which only allows 240p uploads and a maximum file size of only 100MB, which doesn't get me very far for my long-form JFK videos). Samples: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/JFK Radio Coverage http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-mutual-radio.html P.S. -- Don't get me wrong, I still love YouTube too (for the most part).

Cool. Glad to hear it.

Okay. I was wondering if you were just pulling my chain or if my memory about my relatives was getting very poor. (Forrest was a very good Oswald, btw.) http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruby-and-oswald.html I occasionally have to rebuild it from the ground up because of the ol' Copyright Police, although many of the copyright claims are downright bogus ones, and provably so. Anything I use on my channel that comes from the JFK Library, for instance, is perfectly acceptable for use by anybody because the Library has all those recordings clearly labelled as "Public Domain" programs. So it ticks me off when somebody puts in a "claim" on something that I know to be Public Domain. BTW, if you're anything like me and you have a deep interest in the O.J. Simpson trial, I've just this week completed a massive months-long video editing project which includes hundreds of hours of testimony from the 1995 O.J. trial, which can be accessed here -------> http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com

Thank you, Vince. And, no, I'm not related to Mr. Forrest in any way that I'm aware of. What gave you that idea anyway?

I don't understand, Vince. Are you saying that Clint Hill is saying that the hair-snipping incident is being revealed for the very first time in his (Hill's) book(s)? If that is what you are implying, Vince, can you show me where within this Esquire article Clint Hill says that he's revealing the hair-snipping event for the first time? I don't think Hill is saying any such thing. BTW, for the record.... Somebody has made a mistake concerning WHEN that hair-snipping incident took place. I just now noticed the discrepancy when comparing the various book excerpts I previously cited. William Manchester's book has Jacqueline Kennedy performing the hair-snipping on Sunday, November 24th between 12:30 and 1:00 PM (EST), which aligns with Clint Hill's version of when that event transpired via the excerpt in the Esquire article linked above. But Jim Bishop's book claims the hair-snipping occurred shortly after JFK's body arrived back at the White House from Bethesda in the early morning hours of Saturday, November 23rd. (Vince Bugliosi, in his 2007 book, agrees with Bishop's account.) Since Clint Hill was actually there at the time and was a witness to the hair-snipping event as it was occurring, I think it's pretty safe to say that the November 24th date is the correct one.

FYI / FWIW, Here's the related passage concerning the hair-snipping done by Mrs. Kennedy that appears in Jim Bishop's book: "Robert Kennedy held her elbow and whispered to her. They started slowly across to the center of the room. General McHugh barked an order: "Honor guard, leave the room!" There was a hesitation. Each man did an about-face and started to walk away. "No," Mrs. Kennedy said, holding up a hand. "No. They can stay." They stopped but did not turn back. One man was in midstep, and remained in that attitude. Robert led her to where Clint Hill stood. The Secret Service man lifted the lid high and stepped down. The Attorney General helped the lady up the step. She stood looking in, still wearing his dried blood on her strawberry dress and on her stockings. She stared at the image and asked for scissors. Hill got them. She reached in and snipped a lock of hair. Robert Kennedy glanced at his brother and turned his glance down. Mrs. Kennedy held the snip of hair and the scissors. Then she turned away. "It isn't Jack," she said." -- Page 678 of "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop (1968) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/day-kennedy-was-shot.html

Here are the exact quotations from the book: "Together, the President's widow and brother knelt by the open coffin. This was the first time Mrs. Kennedy had seen her husband since Parkland. It isn't Jack, it isn't Jack, she kept thinking; and she was so glad Bobby had agreed to keep it shut. She put the three letters, the scrimshaw, and the cufflinks in the coffin. Bob Kennedy took off his PT tie pin. He said, "He should have this, shouldn't he?" "Yes," she whispered. Then he drew from his pocket an engraved silver rosary Ethel had given him at their wedding. Bob placed this with the letters. Then, with a lock of her husband's hair, she went out with Bob. To all of those awaiting the motorcade's departure for the rotunda, it was clear that the widow was in agony. Mary Gallagher, standing with Dr. Walsh, thought that "I had never seen her look worse. Bobby was leading her by the arm, holding her up; she was limp, with her head down, weeping. She looked as though she were ready to fall." She was swaying visibly; Clint Hill was afraid she might faint. She didn't."* -- Page 517 of "The Death Of A President: November 20—November 25, 1963" by William Manchester (First Edition; 1967) * Two necessary commas added by DVP due to Mr. Manchester's inexplicable lack of proper punctuation in various portions of his book. http://The-Death-Of-A-President.blogspot.com

That information about Jackie Kennedy snipping off a piece of JFK's hair in the East Room isn't a new revelation by Clint Hill. It's been out there for almost 50 years. It was revealed in William Manchester's 1967 book "The Death Of A President" (on page 517) and in Jim Bishop's book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" in 1968 (page 678) and in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (page 199). So it's certainly not brand-new information coming out for the first time in 2016.

That's a lousy thing to say, Vince. Among other things, you seem to like the idea that Agent Hill has said "the back of the head was gone", and yet you still feel comfortable labelling him as a "fraud"? Sounds a little inconsistent to me. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/12/kennedy-detail.html

Ohhhh, my poor, poor bladder!

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-165.html

Here's a radio interview with Mal Couch on 11/22/63....plus Couch's film and some more stuff: http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/presidential-elections.html

It's absolutely incredible. I, too, am stunned. Maybe it's all a dream. Somebody pinch me. It's a new low for America. I'm thinking about packing up and moving to Canada. Now, the question is, will Donald Trump's swelled head even fit through the Oval Office door? I'm doubting it will. So much for Trump's constant refrain about the election being "rigged", eh? To make people feel a little better, you can always listen to a real President anytime you want to, right here: http://JFK-Press-Conferences.blogspot.com

Will breathing deeply make all that evidence against Oswald vanish off the planet? Is that how CTers manage to pretend the evidence doesn't exist (or was all planted)?

Thanks, James.