David Von Pein

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.]

Nonsense. You're living in Conspiracy Fantasy World [CFW]. You can't have that much evidence against you and still be Not Guilty (unless you reside in CFW, of course).

I guess it comes down to each person's own definition of "proof". As we all know, the definition and scope of that particular word varies (greatly) from one person to the next. And when you say that "various assertions" that have been made by certain Lone Assassin believers have not been "backed up", can you provide a specific example or two? Frankly, I just don't see how a person (namely Mr. Oswald) can have this much evidence pointing toward his guilt (in two separate murders that occurred within 45 minutes of each other on 11-22-63) and yet still be innocent.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com http://drive.google.com / Summary Of Oswald's Guilt (By Vincent Bugliosi) (All 53 Items) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com

http://educationforum/topic=Paul-Landis-Revelation / What About The 1983 & 1988 Landis Statements?

From September 11, 2023:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/12-9-63-fbi-report.html

But given the situation Marina Oswald was confronted with after the assassination ---- her husband is dead, she has no money, very few friends, speaks very little English, and she's now on her own and living in a country that's foreign to her ---- can you think of one good reason under the sun WHY she would be afraid (or unwilling) to go back to her native Russia? In other words, why on Earth would she have been afraid of being "deported"? The "Marina Was Afraid Of Being Deported" line of reasoning has never made any sense to me at all. But apparently it does make sense to most conspiracy theorists. But I would think that Marina would have been anxious and eager to get back to her USSR homeland, which is where her family and friends were located. Marina did later say that she did want to remain in the United States. But the notion that has been advanced over the years by various conspiracy theorists that she was deathly afraid of being "deported" back to the Soviet Union (and therefore she lied her ass off on numerous occasions in her Warren Commission testimony in order to avoid deportation) is, in my opinion, a totally ridiculous and illogical notion.

Marcus, Lee's wife, Marina, testified that she personally saw the rifle inside the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. So it wasn't merely a wild GUESS on the part of Marina that a rifle was in the blanket. Many conspiracy theorists, naturally, think Marina Oswald was telling a bunch of lies when she testified in the following manner in early 1964: MARINA OSWALD -- After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle. [Later....] Mr. RANKIN. After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time? Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket? Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle. Mr. RANKIN. When was that? Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans. Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

.....

Greg D., Can you confirm for a fact that the Irving Sports Shop was even open for business on Monday, November 11, 1963? It was, after all, a federal holiday (Veterans Day).

If Lee Oswald was an accomplice, then you're right. Oswald, under those make-believe conditions, certainly wouldn't have wanted to tell the cops that he had handed off the murder weapon to somebody else within the context of Oswald himself KNOWING that the "other person" was going to kill the President with it. But my last post was based on an assumption that you, Gregory Doudna, were very likely of the opinion that Lee Oswald was completely blameless for the assassination (i.e., he wasn't a shooter and he was also not an "accomplice"). Maybe my assumption was inaccurate? ~shrug~ In any event, your entire "November 11" theory is nothing but 100% guesswork and speculation on your part, and you've got a HUGE hurdle to climb if you really expect anyone here to believe that Lee Oswald REALLY had his "lunch" in that large-ish paper sack on 11/22. Because if that was the case, then we've got no choice but to paint Buell Frazier as a major story-teller (l-i-a-r) with regard to TWO key aspects of his post-assassination story and testimony --- 1. The part about Lee telling Buell that the package contained curtain rods (a very silly thing for Oswald to say, of course, if the bag really had a sandwich and an apple in it). 2. And the part of Buell's story where he says he specifically ASKED Oswald about his lunch that morning (Nov. 22), with Oswald telling Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day. And I think any explanation that you (or anyone else) comes up with to try and logically explain away BOTH the "curtain rods" lie that Oswald quite clearly did tell Buell Wesley Frazier on BOTH Nov. 21 and 22....plus the "No Lunch / LHO Said He Was Going To Buy His Lunch" testimony provided by Frazier....is destined to be a very weak (and desperate!) explanation indeed. Plus, if Oswald's paper bag contained merely his lunch, then why didn't Lee fold down the bag after he put his lunch inside of it? Don't tell me a cheese sandwich and an apple took up 27 inches of space? Remember, the amount of the bag that was visible on the back seat of Frazier's 1954 Chevy, according to Frazier's own observations, was measured and was found to be about 27 inches (per Frazier's own estimate). In addition, there's Frazier's "Tucked under his armpit" story too, which would mean that this long bag that you (Greg) think held merely a person's "lunch", was being carried by Oswald into the Book Depository in a very strange manner---with Frazier claiming Oswald had one end "cupped" in his right hand, with the other end stuck up under his armpit. Who on Earth would carry their lunch bag in such a strange non-folded-up manner? It makes no logical sense whatsoever. You'd be better off going back to saying the package contained curtain rods. And.... No, I do not think that Lee Harvey Oswald removed his rifle from Ruth Paine's garage on November 11th, 1963, and I most certainly do not believe that Oswald (with Marina and his 2 daughters in tow)....quoting Greg Doudna.... "borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it." That latter part about Oswald using Michael Paine's car is, in my opinion, a preposterous story. (For one thing, why would Lee want to drag his wife and two tiny children with him to the Irving Sports Shop? For what purpose would they be needed on such a journey?)