David Von Pein

ANY date after March 23.

The March 15 date was wrong. Simple as that. No l-i-a-r-s required. Just a mistake on a paper. CTer Version = L-i-a-r-s / schemers / evidence manipulators everywhere! Which version is more likely to be the truth---mine or yours?

Now you're just making stuff up. There is NO EVIDENCE which points "precisely" to any curtain rods being recovered from the TSBD. None. And your fantasy and cloak-and-dagger crap regarding Paine Exhibits No. 275 & 276 doesn't come CLOSE to showing that any rods were found IN THE DEPOSITORY. Why you think otherwise is yet another mystery.

The JFK Conspiracy Fantasists have people scheming and plotting and planting and lying and conniving and altering and framing patsies all over the place in this case. You think all of those never-ending accusations can be wiped out by replacing all of those terms I just used with the simple word "WRONG"? Get real.

I don't accept any of the claims by any of those people, Mr. Conspiracy. They were all "wrong", but not necessarily L-words. Just like the many Parkland witnesses who said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. I have never called any of those witnesses the L-word. But they were all "wrong". And they were provably wrong too, with the autopsy X-rays and photos providing the proof (for all time) that they were wrong.

Better read my quote again, Mr. Conspiracy. I never said there were "Zero L-i-a-r-s" in the whole case. What I said was this.... "I require a total of 0 (Zero) l-i-a-r-s (not counting Lee Oswald) in order for my Lone Assassin position to be supported and maintained." The above statement is certainly still 100% true even with L-i-a-r-s like Russo, Hill, and Craig in the mix. I can easily maintain and support my LN position even without those 3 people ever surfacing in any discussion. Can CTers maintain and support THEIR position with only THREE measly l-i-a-r-s in the mix? Not a chance. You need at least ten times that many (if not more). P.S. -- People that I think were just simply "wrong" about something don't go into my "L-i-a-r-s" list. Maybe that's something that CTers like you, John, should learn.

I added Russo too.

You're out of your mind if you truly think that I (or ANY other LNer) thinks ALL of those people on your silly list are to be labelled as "l-i-a-r-s". The only people who I would label as l-i-a-r-s on that list would be Roger Craig, Perry Russo, and Jean Hill. (And all 3 of them are, of course, told PROVABLE lies.)

But in the "EXHIBIT NO. 275 / CURTAIN ROD" instance, which some CTers are now insisting was all just a "charade", if those CTers are correct, we'd actually have to believe that not only did people in "officialdom" fib/lie out their respective ass cracks, but we'd ALSO have to believe that Ruth Paine (and probably Michael Paine too) were lying about the curtain rods that Ruth said were stored in her garage both BEFORE and AFTER the assassination. And neither Ruth nor Michael are part of the police, the FBI, or "officialdom" in general. And regarding the "SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER", which many many CTers on the Internet now firmly believe NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL .... the l-i-a-r-s in that instance would have, just like the "Exhibit 275 Charade", also consisted of a COMBINATION of "officialdom" people telling one lie after another (Marrion Baker) and regular ol' citizens (TSBD Superintendent Roy Truly). And then there's the Tippit murder (which many conspiracy theorists believe was committed by someone they are sure was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald) .... with witnesses like Johnny Brewer and Ted Callaway and the Davis girls and William Scoggins all being thrown under the bus and treated like l-i-a-r-s and crooks by various CTers over the years. And none of those people I just mentioned can be labelled as being part of "officialdom" at all. They were all just ordinary Dallas citizens in 1963. So, again, in the Tippit case, if the CTers are right, it would have been a combination of ordinary people PLUS various police officials who must have lied through their individual and collective teeth and then they all gathered together in Chief Curry's office at City Hall and decided to join forces to frame an innocent Oswald. It's just flat-out absurd. And there are, of course, many additional examples that I could easily cite in order to support my previous (admittedly) tongue-in-cheek comment about "The More L-i-a-r-s, The Better" motto/mantra that seems to have been embraced in recent years by many Internet conspiracists. But if I were to cite all of those examples in just this one post, I wouldn't get any sleep for the next five days.

Yes, Alan, you are.

The BIG / HUGE / TREMENDOUS / IMPORTANT difference between JFK conspiracy fantasists and myself is: I require a total of 0 (Zero) l-i-a-r-s (not counting Lee Oswald) in order for my Lone Assassin position to be supported and maintained. CTers like Alan Ford, however, require a very large number of people to be telling many lies about various aspects of the evidence connected to the 11/22/63 events in Dealey Plaza and on Tenth Street. In just this "Exhibit 275 / Curtain rod" instance alone, the CTers who think it was nothing more than a staged "charade" require several different people to be telling blatant falsehoods about the curtain rod evidence, including Ruth Paine, John Joe Howlett, Albert Jenner, J.C. Day, and (probably) Michael Paine. And it's very likely that CTers would place many other people at the Depository on this particular L-i-a-r-s List too. But, as I've said many times in the past, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who couldn't care less how many people they have to call rotten evil l-i-a-r-s in order to try and support their silly theories. It would seem the CTer policy has been (and still remains today): The More L-i-a-r-s, The Better.

Talk about leaping to an unfounded and wholly unsupportable claim! Mr. Ford has sure done that here. Via a series of cloak-and-dagger conspiratorial contortions and outright speculation, Mr. Ford has decided that there WERE, in fact, some curtain rods found in the TSBD after the assassination of JFK, even though the only actual evidence (and testimony) indicates the exact opposite -- i.e., no curtain rods were found in the TSBD (via CE2640, plus the fact that the police never found a single curtain rod anywhere in the Book Depository Building during their extensive searches of that building for evidence on the weekend of the assassination). So what we end up with is more of the usual coming from a conspiracy theorist -- with that "usual" being nothing more that a bunch of wishful thinking.

----------------------------------------------- As the 60th anniversary of President Kennedy's death quickly approaches here in November of 2023, I wanted to renew a little bit of interest in what is, in my opinion, the very best motion picture film or documentary ever produced about JFK's 1963 assassination....with that film being David L. Wolper's 1964 masterpiece, "Four Days In November". Here's a review for the film that I wrote at Amazon.com in July 2001: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Four Days In November is my all-time favorite program dealing with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. You really get a sense of re-living the events of November 22-25, 1963, when America's all-too-young, 46-year-old leader was gunned down on the sunny streets of Dallas, Texas. This 1964 black-and-white documentary, skillfully narrated by actor Richard Basehart, was filmed only months after the events, making the re-creations that were filmed for this movie all the more effective, since the people involved, the locations, the landmarks, and even the automobiles had not changed to a great degree (if at all) since the tragedy occurred. I truly had the sense of being there BEFORE it happened because of the very good re-created scenes. This wonderfully-edited chronological documentary guides the viewer through all four of those dark November days that shocked the nation in late 1963. An integral part of this program lies in its outstanding musical score, by Elmer Bernstein. Mr. Bernstein's stirring score fits just perfectly here, adding emotional impact to each portion of the film. In addition to many re-created scenes, there is a hefty amount of stock news footage presented throughout this 122-minute film, some of which you probably have seen before, and some you probably haven't. The Joan Crawford/Richard Nixon clip was one I'd never seen in the past, as well as the footage of Lee Harvey Oswald's funeral, which nearly no one attended. One particular re-created scene in the film that has an especially eerie feeling to it is the scene where we see Wesley Frazier driving his 1954 Chevrolet sedan toward the "drab bulk" of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which looms ahead in the foreground. Frazier was the 19-year-old Depository co-worker of Lee Harvey Oswald's who gave Oswald a ride to work on the morning of the President's assassination. The Zapruder Film is not represented in this documentary. It was to be yet another 11 years before the public at large was to see Mr. Zapruder's infamous film. Four Days does include a sequence from the Nix Film, however. Wolper Productions sidestepped all the conspiracy theories [thank goodness] and stuck by the Warren Commission Report for this documentary. Many of the facts surrounding JFK's assassination have been disputed and debated by researchers for decades. And this tragic crime will likely remain a topic that shall cause heated discussion 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. This is definitely one program that deserves to be in anyone's JFK collection.” David Von Pein July 2001 -------------------------------------- Related "Four Days" Links:

Regarding your non-stop inquiry re: the 3/15/1964 AD date on the CSSS document(s).... Yes, Mr. A. Ford, you now have my official permission to designate my "repeated evasions" regarding that topic as a "tacit admission" on my part that I have no answer for it --- other than to keep repeating my own opinion that it is an (obvious) mistake, since the curtain rods weren't even retrieved by the Warren Commission from Ruth Paine's garage until the night of March 23rd, 1964. But, by the same token, you cannot explain the March 15th date either (with any explanation that approaches anything of a PROVABLE nature, that is). Now, would you care to admit to this forum, Mr. Ford, the obvious truth that is contained within my last sentence? Mr. Ford is growing more obnoxious by the minute. Congrats!!

Yes, it is. Why didn't the Commission utilize more 5000+ numbers instead of STARTING at 3001 for the Semingsen Exhibit?

Yes there is. And I already provided that comparable item --- it's Semingsen Exhibit No. 3001. ~Grin~ ~Smirk~

Whoopeee! A two-member "club" (per Mr. Ford's choice of verbiage). How silly.

No, you've just decided on your own that there's a "3000 club". But there are only TWO witnesses in this "club" (Semingsen and Wilcox). Whereas the "5000 club" has dozens of examples. But there are a mere TWO members of your invented "3000 club" (and both witnesses worked for Western Union). Plus: as I said, I see no connection between Semingsen and Wilcox and the corresponding "CE" numbers (3001 thru 3017).

Well, after just a brief search, I was indeed able to find a total of FOUR such WC exhibits, all of which appear in WC Volume No. 21, with none of these four examples having numbers in the 5000s. Here are those four examples: Pizzo Exhibits 453A—453C. * Raigorodsky Exhibits 9—14A. Semingsen Exhibit 3001. Wilcox Exhibits 3002—3017. Sorry, Alan. Looks like another crackpot conspiracy theory has just gone sliding down the drain. Better luck next time. -------------------- * Note --- The "Pizzo" exhibit numbers shown above aren't just "out of the blue" numbers picked by the Warren Commission (which no doubt will make Alan Ford very happy). The WC, in the Pizzo instance, must have chosen the number "453" in order to match "CE453", which is an exhibit that also surfaces in Mr. Pizzo's WC testimony. So there is a "tie in" there. I tried to find such a tie-in with the other three witnesses mentioned in this post, but I couldn't do it. Mr. Wilcox, for example, certainly has no connection with "CE3002", because CE3002 is Lee Oswald's autopsy report and Mr. Wilcox worked at Western Union Telegraph Company in 1963. So there's no "connection" there at all.

I think I already did that with all those exhibit numbers that START in the 5000s. Since there's only 3,154 "CE" exhibit numbers, what reason would there be to start the Armstrong Exhibits (to pick just one of many examples) at #5300? Please enlighten us all, Mr. Ford.

OK. That explains part of the numbering system (I guess). But then the Ruth Paine exhibits jump from 461 to 469 without apparent reason. What's the reason for that particular jump, Alan? And I also can't help but scratch my head and wonder why CE449 and CE459-1 and CE460 weren't labeled as "Ruth Paine Exhibit 449", etc.? Quite a confusing numbering system indeed, with some exhibits dealing directly with Ruth Paine materials being straight "CE" numbers and some being labeled with "Ruth Paine Exhibit" numbers.

Here are many more witness exhibits which appear to be just randomly numbered with very high numbers -- including the B.G. Patterson exhibits, which begin with #5311. And the Riggs exhibits, which begin with 5128. And then there's the Talbert exhibit series, which begins with numbers 1 and 2, but then jumps to number 5065 for some reason. And, btw, the Ruth Paine exhibit numbers jump around too, going from #278-A to #461 and finally to #469 for the last one in the Ruth Paine series. So there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for the strange numbering system utilized by the Warren Commission for the numbers assigned to the exhibits that have the witness' name attached to them---which is something else I've also never understood. Why didn't the Commission just simply label every exhibit the same way (e.g., CE1, CE2, etc.)? Why did some witnesses warrant having their own names being attached to their exhibits? I've always wondered why that was done. ~shrug~

Alan thinks that the word "marked" equals "measured". We can only sit back and marvel at the way in which the mind of the conspiracy theorist (i.e., fantasist) works. It's a truly extraordinary thing to behold.

The odd numbering system occurred for many witness exhibits. Such as: The "L.C. Graves Exhibits" begin with number 5003-A. And then there's the "Hardin" exhibits, which begin with No. 5125. And the "Harrison" exhibits start with #5027. Plus a bunch of other oddball starting numbers for other witnesses too. (See link below.) https://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh20.htm So Ruth Paine's exhibits being numbered 275 and 276 is not unusual IN THIS CASE at all.

I did explain it. The March 15 date is simply an error. It HAS to be.