David Von Pein

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.

Alan, Your silliness about the "Exhibit 275" really meaning "27.5 inches" is quite a howler as well. (Is the "276" supposed to really indicate "27.6 inches"?) The amazing made-up crap from the desks of CTers never ceases to astound us all.

This silly reply of yours on Page 37 of the thread at MacRae's forum is better.

From the 2022 discussion..... ----------------- Alan, Please tell us what connection there is between the Ruth Paine curtain rods that you seem to be fixated on and the "curtain rods" that Lee Oswald lied about? Even with a date discrepancy on the document you've posted many times now, tell us what the connection is. Do you think Oswald DID take some rods into the TSBD and then the cops took them back to Ruth's garage? Enlighten us all as you answer the proverbial question that can be asked of nearly all conspiracy theorists whenever they start talking about their murky theories----with that question being: Where are you going with this? -------------------------- And here's Alan's fabulously speculative reply.... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3326.msg123560.html#msg123560

FWIW / FYI / IAI [If Anybody's Interested].... Here's that full discussion from January 2022.... https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3326.msg122175.html#msg122175 ----------- And it then continues on Page 35 of that thread, here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3326.272.html

I haven't the slightest idea.....and neither do you. But to think it is absolutely, positively Commission Exhibit No. 142 defies all rational and logical thinking. ~Large-Sized Snicker~ (But Milky Ways are better.)

"Reclaiming History" book excerpt........... ---------------------------------

I see we have another indistinct and amorphous blob that is being turned into something that's now being labeled as absolutely definitive and ironclad by conspiracy theorists. Pathetic. Plus.... ~Grin~

1967 Arlen Specter Interview (Video): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGObExqcU9YWEVlSHM/view

Thank you, Vince.

Vince, Thanks for the link to your Landis book review. But I have a big problem with the fact that you have (perhaps unintentionally?) taken a large chunk of my writing and then placed it in your book review as if you had written it yourself. And you've also placed no footnote of any kind after the words that I definitely wrote to indicate the true source of that paragraph. The paragraph in question (which was originally written by me at this forum on September 12, 2023 -- HERE'S THE E.F. LINK) begins with the words "The reason for why his total silence is not believable". ---- [Click.] * * Please note that Joe Bauer, in his reply above, obviously thinks that that particular paragraph (which Bauer himself quoted in his post) was, indeed, written by Vincent Palamara, with Mr. Bauer's reply to much of that paragraph being, "Right on Vince!" I understand that mistakes and "source" oversights can happen. They happen to me in my writings too. And you, Vince, say in your book review (via a source note) that you had the help of K.K. Lane in putting together your list of questions for Paul Landis (with the part that I wrote appearing as your last "bullet point" item on that list in your review). So maybe K.K. Lane provided you with my quote for you to use in your review, and you (perhaps?) thought that the quote was something that Lane himself had written?? Could that be the explanation for why I'm finding a pretty good-sized amount of my written words within an article with only Vince Palamara's name on it?? Anyway, if you, Vince, would simply add a footnote to my quote that goes directly to this EF Forum post (or to this webpage from my blog, which contains the same quote plus lots of other informative stuff about the Landis topic), that would satisfy me. And, btw, I'm pleased and flattered that you would want to use some of my written words in your own review. I just don't think it's right to pass those words off as your own. (As I'm sure you'll agree.) Thanks, Vince. Regards, DVP [FEB. 2024 EDIT --- As of February 21, 2024, Palamara's article hasn't been changed or edited to reflect the fact that I wrote a portion of it. I can only shrug and wonder why this is so.]