-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:
I do not have Ayton's contact info.
https://www.facebook.com/mel.ayton.1
1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:Could you approach him? Perhaps you can reach out to both for expediency?
Or .... how about this solution? .... just buy THIS BOOK. (Only 19 bucks.) 😁
And you'll also want to purchase this item as well (in order to read O'Dell's appendix).
-
1 hour ago, Stu Wexler said:
But is that the W&A re-analysis? Or just acoustics in general?
Well, I just checked, and you're right, it's not the same thing that's in my book at all. It's almost entirely different.
Sorry. I wasn't attempting to fool anybody with that McAdams link. Based on the first few words that appear in the McAdams version, I thought it was the same material that's in the BRD book. But it's not.
-
18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
David could you post phone calls between JFK and Marilyn Monroe?
How can I post something that doesn't exist, Cory?
18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:Are those on your hard drive (people still use those)?
Huh? (WTF?) You think "hard drives" are obsolete in 2023??
~big shrug~
18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:Do you share those or keep them private?
Why are you continuing this fantasy?
-
58 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:
I do not have Ayton's contact info. Could you approach him? Perhaps you can reach out to both for expediency?
Well, Stu, as it turns out, we don't need to contact anybody on this matter, because after doing a bit of searching myself online, I found that the link you said was broken was very likely this old McAdams link --- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell --- which merely needs to be revised to the "new" 2021 working link with this address:
http://jfk-assassination.net/odell
And, Voila! -- There's Michael O'Dell's full acoustical study (which was obviously approved by Michael before John McAdams ever put it on his website many years ago). I saw one reference to that webpage which said it had been accessed in February of 2013. So it's been online now for at least 10+ years.
-
59 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:
Sorry. I confused pages. I know you had the report in your book with Ayton. On another page that I thought was yours there was a link to an online version of it that no longer works. If you have some way of posting a version of it, it would be appreciated.
I don't have any version of Michael O'Dell's work that I could post online. And even if I did have one, I'm not too sure it would be right to post the whole thing here without getting Michael's permission first, seeing as how it was first published in Beyond Reasonable Doubt in 2014. I doubt Michael would mind, but I wouldn't want to post it myself to any public forum without talking to him first.
Was the "online version" of O'Dell's work that you mentioned above something that Michael himself posted? Or was it somebody else who swiped his entire acoustical essay from the pages of BRD and then put it online? Or would you know such info?
-----------
EDIT / CORRECTION --- Sorry, Stu, I was mistaken above when I said I didn't have any version of O'Dell's acoustical study. But I just now looked at my computer files and I was actually surprised to see that I do, indeed, have Michael's full essay/study regarding the HSCA acoustical topic stored on my hard drive. (I had thought that his contribution to the Beyond Reasonable Doubt book was something that was added only after the final galleys were sent to me. But I was wrong. I have the full PDF of the book, including Michael's work too.)
But I'm not going to post it here unless you can get Michael's express permission to do so. I'm also thinking that the permission of Mel Ayton (the main author of BRD) should be obtained as well. If they say it's OK, then I could easily send you a PDF version via Private Message here at EF.
My guess would be that Mr. O'Dell would probably be happy to see his acoustical work published somewhere online in a PDF file like the one I possess, mainly because the version that appears on Pages 441 to 455 of Beyond Reasonable Doubt was printed in such a small font that it's very hard to read (without the aid of a magnifying glass). And that is something I've been kind of embarrassed about ever since the final version of the book came out in December 2014.*
* You should have seen the way the publisher messed up the very first version of the book. Incredibly, Michael's entire essay/study in "Appendix 2" of the book was cut out entirely. There was merely a notation on page 441 that said "See PDF File". LOL. Can you believe that a publishing house would actually print up a final version of a book in such a sloppy and careless manner? Mel and I were boiling, and made them re-print the whole thing, of course.
So having a readily accessible online version of Michael's writings would probably be welcomed with open arms by Michael O'Dell, since the font of the PDF version can easily be increased to a bigger size by the reader.
-
18 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:
The link does not work
What link?
-
-
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:
Just a weird JFK/Jackie story here. Not sure if the story is true at all.
JFK had Jackie committed to a mental health clinic in Carlyle, Mass after he and she had a very contentious argument one evening after JFK came home late and Jackie hit the roof and kind of lost it regarding JFK's philandering. This was back in the 1950's when JFK was a congressman. The story goes that Jackie lost it to such a high emotional distraught degree that JFK had her put in this clinic where she underwent two shock treatments.
Why is it even necessary to bring up this kind of tawdry stuff here at this forum?
What purpose does it serve?
-
5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
It...makes hardly any sense to me that there would not be legal propriety for batch deposits in which money orders were considered stamped if they were in a batch that had that information in a cover document applicable to all identified items inside. .... It boggles my mind if batch processing was not considered in legal satisfaction of requirements for money order processing by those banks.
Indeed, Greg.
Here's what I said about that topic of "bulk batch" deposits during these marathon EF forum sessions concerning the Hidell money order back in 2015:
-----------------------------
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago.
All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order.
I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too.[...]
DVP LATER SAID:
To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.
If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?
Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".
It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....
"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorsement of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement."And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):
-
From 2015.....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey has so much rubber on his face from trying so many angles to get around this orphan money order that he looks like Jason from Friday the 13th.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And so, Jim, let's see if you (or your hero, John Armstrong) can defeat by FAR the biggest VICTORY for the "Money Order Is Legit" side in this whole discussion --- the File Locator Number, which is a number we KNOW (via Lance Payette's excellent work) is only stamped on a check or money order AFTER it reaches the Federal Reserve Bank.
Good luck proving the FLN seen on Oswald's M.O. is a forgery, Jimmy. Not to mention the other THREE things that pretty much prove that CTers are dead wrong about the M.O. being fraudulent --- (1) Oswald's own writing on the subject M.O.; (2) the Klein's stamp on that same document; and (3) the fact that the money order was found on 11/23/63 in just exactly the place where you'd expect to find it if it had gone through the proper banking channels--the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia.
Have fun proving ALL of that stuff was part of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot, Jim.[...]
DVP ALSO SAID:
Let's review....
>> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or L-words, per people like DiEugenio).
>> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O.
>> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB).
>> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington.
>> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers.
You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Lee Harvey Oswald, Klein's Sporting Goods, and the Federal Reserve Bank. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact.
ALBERT DOYLE SAID:
Even if the Money Order turns out to be processed with Oswald's handwriting on it, the situation involves 2 Oswalds being worked as a team. One Oswald could have been used to set-up the other and the rifle could still be worked around the Oswald who was being set-up.
I don't think Von Pein realizes how easy the Money Order evidence could fit this scenario. Von Pein doesn't understand (or pretends not to) that the Money Order could have been sent but sent in a way where it was covertly worked around the normal flagging triggers in the system.
Everything Oswald did was Intel-guided after he came back from Russia.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In other words --- If one stupid, unproven conspiracy theory falls flat on its face, CTers will merely insert another stupid conspiracy theory to take its place.
Nice policy![...]
ALBERT DOYLE SAID:
Do you understand that the Money Order could be processed, or partly processed, and still be 'handled' through the system in order to frame Oswald?
In other words, it could have a legitimate File Locator stamp and still be planted on Oswald in order to frame him.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I love that constant moving of the goalposts by CTers.
Since it couldn't be more obvious that the Hidell money order now has a proper path to legitimacy (and conspiracy theorists like Albert Doyle know it), we're now treated to more sheer crackpot speculation about how the LEGITIMATE money order (with Oswald's writing on it that was bought and handled by Oswald HIMSELF) was being used to frame Oswald anyway.
The CTer mind is a spinning whirlwind of ever-expanding and forever changing concocted claptrap.
IOW --- Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it -- even if the number of goalposts that must be moved reaches triple digits.
-
Marcus,
That's a pretty decent job at imitating Oswald's writing. Especially your two "Hidell" attempts. I salute you.
So, Marcus, do you think all of the various "Questioned Documents Experts" (i.e., the handwriting experts) who testified in front of the Warren Commission and HSCA were all wrong (or perhaps lying) when several of them testified that the writing on the money order was put there by Lee Harvey Oswald himself?
---------------
Warren Commission Testimony:
Mr. EISENBERG -- Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN -- Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG -- What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN -- That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG -- The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN -- That is correct.
--------------
HSCA Testimony:
Mr. KLEIN -- The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?
Mr. McNALLY -- It was; yes.
Mr. KLEIN -- And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?
Mr. McNALLY -- That is right.--------------
The second picture below is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, which is a higher-quality version of the Postal Money Order, which shows the money order prior to it being treated for fingerprints (hence, the "Bleed-Thru" mystery of CE788 is explained):
Mr. EISENBERG -- Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?
Mr. CADIGAN -- Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial.------------------------
Also See:
DVP's JFK Archives / Archived Discussions Regarding The "Hidell" Money Order
-
Just look at the autopsy photos of John F. Kennedy's own body, Pat.
Why are you ignoring those photos of the actual victim in favor of a CD case?
-
We don't really even need the Clark Panel to know the HSCA was full of beans regarding that one particular matter about the back & throat wound locations. All we need is this composite of two of the autopsy photos:
-
33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
The autopsy photos show a back wound too low to support the single-bullet theory.
Dead wrong. (As per usual.)
And CE903 forever provides the proof that Pat Speer is dead wrong when he says that "the autopsy photos show a back wound too low to support the single-bullet theory".
And Pat's above comment also means (I guess) that the Clark Panel was filled with nothing but scheming rotten l-i-a-r-s too.
----------------
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. .... The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body." -- From Clark Panel Report
-----------------
So, as we can see, the Clark Panel concluded that the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in his upper back.
But, instead of relying on the Clark guys, I'm supposed to trust Dr. Speer's analysis re: the SBT and CE903 and lots of other medical issues.*
Thanks. But no thanks.
* Yes, it's true that I'm tossing in the trash the HSCA's ridiculous "11-degree upward angle" nonsense re: the back & throat wounds. But any sensible person MUST do that after looking just once at the appropriate autopsy photos.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
He is incorrect, as proved by the 5-24-64 re-enactment photos.
Wrong.
-
A NOVA/PBS Addendum....
In my last post above, I linked to one of my webpages which includes this 5-minute excerpt from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program ("Who Shot President Kennedy?" ), which was hosted by Walter Cronkite. And I recently noticed something odd in that program that I had never noticed before—it's when Mr. Cronkite utters this blatant falsehood to the viewing audience:
"The drawing [pictured below] suggests what many of the photos examined by the doctors and NOVA show—a large wound about this size and location."
The above statement made by Mr. Cronkite is, of course, just flat-out wrong, because there are ZERO autopsy photographs which support the notion of a large blow-out wound in the rear (occipital) portion of JFK's head. So I haven't the slightest idea how NOVA and Cronkite arrived at the conclusion that some of the autopsy photos depict a large back-of-the-head blow-out.
And I find it very strange that a statement like the one quoted above concerning the official autopsy photographs at the National Archives would have been aired on national television, especially when weighed against the observations of the HSCA's Michael Baden (who had full and complete access in the 1970s to all of the first-generation autopsy photographs):
"Clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head."
-- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 -
6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
LOL. Why on Earth would you believe that? Because you read it in Bugliosi's book? That's pathetic.
[...]
It boggles my mind that so many find McClelland's story credible.
LOL back at ya! I certainly hope you're not placing me in the category of someone who actually finds the story of the late Dr. Robert McClelland "credible". Because nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I've been ripping McClelland's story to shreds for many years now (particularly his insane "pulled-up scalp" fantasy).
And I certainly don't require the assistance of Mr. Bugliosi (or anyone else) when it comes to evaluating the multiple things that Dr. McClelland gets wrong in his initial November 22nd statement. It's all right there on pages 11 and 12 of CE392, including the bizarre conclusion reached by Dr. McClelland about there being "a fragment wound of the trachea". What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway? It would seem as if McClelland was speculating that a "fragment" of some sort [bullet? bone?] had caused the wound in JFK's throat. Where that notion came from is a mystery to me.
In the final analysis, Dr. McClelland's conclusion concerning the location of JFK's large head wound (which was very similar to many of the other "Back Of The Head" witnesses) is provably wrong—as discussed in greater detail HERE).
-
https://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-bullet-theory.html
- "At that angle, no matter WHERE it came from [the bullet that struck Governor Connally], it had to pass through the President's body first!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr. (Warren Commission Assistant Counsel); February 11, 1967
-
6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
You can not write a report describing two head wounds if you only mention the location for one, and fail to designate that wound as an entrance and/or exit for a bullet entering elsewhere.
Why not? What rule book did you get that out of?
Anyway, you're obviously wrong in your above comment, because that is exactly what Dr. McClelland DID do in his November 22 Admission Note -- i.e., he wrote a report in which he only described the location for where he thought (incorrectly, of course) the bullet had entered the head of President Kennedy, and he did not describe (at all) the location of the large wound of exit.
Like it or not, that's precisely what Dr. McClelland did.
-
It's clear as day (to me) that when Dr. Robert McClelland wrote the following words in this 4:45 PM Admission Note on 11/22/63....
"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."
....McClelland was only talking about where he thought at the time the bullet had entered JFK's head (via the erroneous information he had garnered in Trauma Room #1 from Dr. Jenkins).
McClelland's "left temple" reference is obviously not meant to convey information concerning where the large wound was located on the President's head. McClelland never even attempts to mention the location of the large exit wound in his 4:45 Admission Note. He never says a word about the large wound at all.
So it's a mystery to me as to why on Earth Pat Speer seems to think that Dr. McClelland's initial 4:45 PM report suggests that he (McClelland) actually was implying he saw a huge hole in the "left temple" of President Kennedy. I don't interpret it that way at all. And I don't think very many other people would either.
-
-
59 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
In the report, McClelland mentions one wound--a massive wound--and the only location mentioned is the left temple.
But Dr. McClelland never saw any "left temple" wound. He got that erroneous info from Dr. Jenkins. See the quotes from McClelland below (via an interview that Vince Bugliosi had with McClelland in 2002).
Quoting from Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History" (page 406):
-------------------
"It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this." "
-------------------
Many more excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2002 interview with Dr. McClelland can be found HERE.
------------------
Also go to the 14:21 mark in THIS 2009 INTERVIEW WITH DR. McCLELLAND, which is where McClelland talks about the erroneous "left temple" observation (which he, again, attributes to Dr. Jenkins and not to his own observations).
-
-
Re Paul Landis? 11/22/63 FBI Memo Confirms?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
In addition to the relevant and on-target points brought up by Pat Speer in his post above, let me add this....
The FBI report in question is dated "November 22, 1963" (at the top). If it had been dated November 23 or November 24, it would be a lot easier to make the claim that the report was talking about the two large bullet fragments that were recovered by the Secret Service from the front seat of the Presidential limo late on the night of Nov. 22 (with those fragments then being turned over to Robert Frazier of the FBI at 11:50 PM EST on Nov. 22; see Frazier's testimony at 5 H 67 for confirmation of the "11:50 PM" timestamp).
But since the FBI report which has the following information in it was dated Nov. 22nd, it's somewhat difficult to believe (but not totally impossible to accept) that these words below could be referring to the front-seat fragments, which are bullet fragments that weren't even found until close to midnight on the night of the 22nd....
"Shanklin subsequently advised information had been received that a Secret Service Agent had searched the car in which the President was riding and had found the bullet which allegedly killed the President."
And so....the mystery deepens.