David Von Pein

I would not be surprised if the altered version of my quote is already posted on your website...the out-of-context, partial quote.

Oh, yes. It's on my site. I archive almost everything there. But it's certainly not out of context at all. I copied both of our posts (yours then mine) verbatim from this forum thread. And, just like on Page 12 of this EF thread, the two posts appear back-to-back, with no other comments between them. Therefore, given what YOU wrote (which I posted in full), followed immediately by what I wrote right underneath your post, how could anybody possibly think I was trying to deceive anyone?

Answer -- They couldn't think such a thing.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

Or posted on another discussion board...perhaps to demonstrate to the unsuspecting how you "converted" a "nonbeliever."

Oh, come on, Mark. (Excuse me, make that just "Knight". No first names permitted. Sorry.)

You think that by posting those two posts BACK-TO-BACK, I could have possibly have had an intention of trying to show how I "converted" you?

You cannot possibly be serious.

The more I deal with you, the less faith I have in your integrity, Mr. Von Pein.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Because you are 100% incorrect about me. I'm not in the habit of "altering the meaning" of quotes or "deceiving" people. And I think you surely realize that my explanation about how our two posts appear back-to-back on the same forum page certainly eliminates any possibility that I was on some evil and dastardly mission to "deceive" all of those millions of EF lurkers out there.

It looks to me as if you are just inventing excuses to question my integrity without thinking your accusations through in a logical manner.

You can't possibly be serious, Knight.

I was AGREEING with you when you said I should have done this in an earlier post....

"I'm simply surprised you didn't double down, and use your "anyone with half a brain" argument...as in, "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all. I'm totally SHOCKED that you failed to go there with your "explanation." That wasn't like you at all." -- M. Knight

And I guess you think nobody can follow a forum thread from post to post without having every last word of a prior post quoted (i.e., repeated) by the next poster. Is that correct?

You think someone who has read BOTH of our posts is going to think that *I* was ACTUALLY suggesting that you were REALLY advocating and supporting your "half a brain" quote? Which, btw, are posts that appear BACK-TO-BACK on Page 12 of this thread. They were CONSECUTIVE posts in the same thread, interrupted by ZERO other posts.

And yet you still think that my intent was to "alter the meaning" of your words and to "deceive"?

Get real.

Anyone who has read BOTH posts (one right after the other on Page 12) could not possibly think that I was intending to "deceive" anybody.

Even he [DVP] has admitted that some evidence is 'useless' such as Brennan's 'sworn statement'...

When have I ever said anything like that about Brennan? Please provide the citation. You'll never find it.

You probably meant to say that I said that Ruby's polygraph was essentially worthless.

But, as always, Kenneth gets nothing right.

Brennan could barely see beyond the tip of his nose...

Dead wrong (as always). Brennan didn't suffer his eye injury that affected his eyesight until January of 1964, two months after he saw Oswald murder the President (3 H 147):

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?"

HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir."

BELIN -- "What has happened?"

BRENNAN -- "The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted."

BELIN -- "This is January of 1964?"

BRENNAN -- "Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours."

BELIN -- "How is your eyesight today [as of March 24, 1964]?"

BRENNAN -- "He says it is not good."

BELIN -- "But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?"

BRENNAN -- "Yes."

And PLEASE...I prefer NOT to be on a first-name basis [with] you. In fact, I INSIST on it, Mr. Von Pein.

No problem, Knight.

Please just ignore me from now on. In fact, I INSIST on it. And I'll ignore you too.

Okay, Knight? Life will be so much easier.

Thank you.

"Tippit's" that's 'your' spelling, did you put an 's on it or not?

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it.

Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working.

Good for you, Mark.

Now go get your pitchfork.

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name?

You're too much, Big K.

So when I'm writing and Tippit's name comes up, I'm supposed to remember that there is a saying I'm supposed to remember to know the correct way to spell it?

Yes. Exactly.

It's just a little memory trick. Kind of like the "trick" regarding the EF posts of somebody named Kenneth Drew, who keeps posting bogus nonsense about how DVP has never posted a single solitary piece of evidence to support Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. When I see such a post by Kenny Drew, my "memory trick" automatically comes to the forefront. (Unfortunately, this being a moderated forum, I can't post what that memory trick entails. Sorry.)

So when you spell it backwards, do you still put the s at the end or does it go at the beginning?

Huh? You think his name has an S at the end, do you?

Oh, and one other difference, the first t is capital, the last one is not...

Well, Duh!!

Kenny, The Picker Of Nits strikes again.

I've seen it [J.D. Tippit's last name] spelled several ways over the years...

Only because people are too lazy to confirm the correct spelling.

A quick way to recall how to spell Tippit's name is to remember this---

His last name is spelled exactly the same BACKWARD as it is FORWARD.

...when you post a certified copy of his birth certificate with the correct spelling, I'll go with that.

Maybe Tippit's gravestone will give you a hint....

You don't want me to start pointing out every time you have a 'misspelled' word, do you?

Good luck with that task.

Mark,

Actually, that "anyone with half a brain" argument isn't too bad. Maybe I should have used those words. (But this being a moderated forum, I'm always walking on eggshells, of course, so such a comment might not fly too well here. So I'm always careful not to heap on the insults in large doses.)

But, yes, since the SUM TOTAL of the Baker & Truly & Oswald (through Fritz) statements positively indicates that the "encounter" did take place on the SECOND floor and no other floor of the Book Depository, you could, indeed, look upon that previous post of mine that you seem to have a problem with (where I put "second-floor encounter" in quotation marks) as representing substitute wording in lieu of using these precise words Mark Knight just now used....

" "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all." -- M. Knight; 7/17/15

Not bad, Mark. In fact, given the obvious fact that the encounter did occur on the second floor, that quote of yours above fits like a glove. Thanks.

I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA

Pat,

I think it's a case of Pat Speer seeing what he wants to see. (And, yes, I looked at your webpage on this, Pat. I see no "hole" in the place you think there is one.)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/boh-part-10.html

Also, let's ponder this question....

I wonder what the odds are of there being a "red spot" on the back of JFK's head in the autopsy picture below that only LOOKS like it could be a bullet hole--but really ISN'T--and then, on top of that coincidence, there happens to be another bullet hole somewhere else on the back of JFK's head that can't really be seen at all (except by Patrick J. Speer)?

Those TWO things MUST co-exist in tandem here in order for Pat to be correct --- a thing that looks like a bullet hole (but isn't) and something in the same picture that is pretty much invisible that is the actual bullet hole.

Again---what are the odds? Let's take it to Vegas and see.

And, btw, the red circle in the picture on the left below is certainly located BELOW the EOP, wouldn't you say, Pat? And we know the wound was said to be "slightly ABOVE the EOP", per the autopsy report (meager though that description is).

You've obviously scared DVP quite badly by posting it. When he completely ignores something, you know it is Kryptonite to him.

Oh, that's not true at all. I ignore a whole lot of the junk you CTers post. I ignore most of it, in fact.

But, anyway, the "Lane/Baker" exchange that Jim D. posted was obviously just invented by Jim entirely. It was Jim's "What if Mark Lane had cross-examined Marrion Baker on the witness stand?" exercise.

I've performed several similar exercises with Vince Bugliosi in the role as prosecutor in "simulated" courtroom questioning. Such as this one (which is a simulation that assumes the Warren Commission had ALSO investigated the JFK case, even though a court trial was taking place too; but, it's just make-believe stuff anyway)....

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mrs. Markham, did you provide verbal testimony before

the Warren Commission panel in the year 1964, telling them what you

saw on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff/Dallas on November 22nd, 1963, as a

police officer was shot dead before your eyes?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And did you tell the Commission at that time, in

1964, that the man you saw shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit in Oak

Cliff had "bushy" hair and was "stocky" in build?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir...I did not say those things."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did you positively identify Officer Tippit's killer

as a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. I did."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I now offer for this court's approval, as an exhibit,

a tape recording containing a telephone conversation said to have been

recorded by Mr. Mark Lane on March 2nd, 1964, just a little more than

three months after the assassination of President Kennedy and the

murder of Officer Tippit. I'd like to have that tape marked as an

official exhibit and I'd also like to play that tape for the jury, if

it pleases the court?"

THE COURT -- "The exhibit will be so marked. You may play the tape,

Mr. Bugliosi."

[Playing tape...A transcript of the tape recording can be found HERE.]

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mrs. Markham, after just now having heard that

taped telephone conversation, do you recognize the female voice on the

recording as being your own voice?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, that is me."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, does the playing of this recording here in the

courtroom today refresh in your own mind that taped conversation that

you had in early March of 1964 with the lead defense attorney in this

case--Mr. Mark Lane--who is currently seated in front of you at the

defense counsel table?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, I can recall the conversation now."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, to reiterate a key point brought out on that

tape, did you at any time EVER say to any reporters who might have

interviewed you following November 22nd, 1963, that Officer Tippit's

killer was "stocky", "heavy", or a person who possessed "bushy hair"?"

MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir. I do not ever recall having used those words

to describe the man I saw shoot the policeman."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mrs. Markham. No further questions at this

time."

That's kinda like Tippet was killed at 1:05...

Irony alert!

Kenny is punishing the DMN for inaccurate reporting in a post in which he mangles Tippit's name.

Ken must take lessons in being a punching bag.

Name one CTer that has stated that they don't believe ANY encounter occurred between Truly Baker and Oswald. I don't believe you can come up with a name.

Huh? Are you really this thick, Ken? Really?

Try DiEugenio for starters....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

And, as I said, it's obvious Prudhomme thinks there was no Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter at all (as I proved in my previous post about this, which you obviously totally ignored).

And it's fairly clear that Mark Knight doesn't believe in the Baker/Oswald meeting either. If he did, he wouldn't be fighting so hard to win an argument in this thread. He would be keeping silent. But he's not.

And Tommy Graves is also a member of the "No Baker/LHO Encounter At All" club, as we can see HERE.

Pat Speer, however, is a reasonable CTer (and getting more reasonable by the day, based on several of his very good posts here at EF recently). He believes that Baker encountered Oswald, just as all other rational people do.

So, you're still batting a perfect .000, Ken. Somebody should have benched you for the whole season while you were still down in Florida for spring training.

If it had just been an encounter, then no one would be lying and you wouldn't have a point.

Dead wrong, as usual.

In fact, that was THE WHOLE POINT that I WAS making in that post --- i.e., to show that "an encounter" (ANY encounter, regardless of the TSBD floor number) had occurred between a policeman and Oswald and that it was being reported in the media PRIOR to 12:01 AM Nov. 23rd. And I proved it via the DMN article. (Seeing as how the DMN reporters would have had that info on Nov. 22 for the 11/23 morning edition.)

Let's see you mangle what I just said yet again, Ken. You have a nice talent for that sort of thing.

As it is, you tried to make up something to support your misleading info and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Wrong yet again, as usual, Ken.

I only searched the newspaper archive to combat Prudhomme's previous post when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- B. Prudhomme

And the Curry video doesn't say a thing about the encounter being a "second-floor encounter" either. And the Curry video (via Bob P.'s post referring to that Curry video) was my entire motivation for seeking out a newspaper article to shove down his throat which proved that the same type of ENCOUNTER that was referred to in the Curry video (regardless of floor number) was also being reported on a day which Prudhomme said he would find more satisfactory so that he could stop pretending that ANY "encounter" took place INVOLVING OSWALD and a Dallas policeman (which I did find in less than four minutes via the DMN article, which HAD to have been put to bed on Nov. 22, not Nov. 23).

Anyway, I knew exactly what I meant and what I was doing when I put "second-floor encounter" in quote marks.

You actually think I would be stupid enough to think you CTers wouldn't catch me in a lie if I truly was trying to suggest that those exact words ("second-floor encounter") WERE part of the DMN article---even when I posted the article itself for all to see and check?

That's hilarious.

Good job, Ken. Let's crucify the DMN for saying "about 12:20" when the shooting actually occurred at 12:30. That surely must mean there was a conspiracy. (Maybe JFK was shot at BOTH 12:20 AND 12:30. Eh?)

BTW, the key word is "about" in the "about 12:20" quote. Or don't you think 12:30 is close to "about 12:20"?

So then...the term "second floor encounter" is nowhere to be found in the newspaper page you used to prove a "second floor encounter." Thank goodness; I though my eyes had failed me.

While I believe you DID intend to mislead by using the phrase, "second floor encounter" in conjunction with the newspaper page, I'll let you off the hook since I cannot prove intent.

I resent the implication in that remark, Mr. Knight. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Never have. Never will.

I fully explained the reason I utilized the quote marks in that previous post. And I even cited TWO previous recent examples where I did exactly the same thing (and I certainly wasn't quoting the DMN in those posts; ergo, those quote marks were there for a different purpose---the very same purpose I intended in the DMN post).

Because it is in a morning paper does not mean they had to know the 'evening' before. Some reporters may actually work until the paper goes to press.

And when do you think the DMN went to press in order for it to be on the streets early in the morning on the 23rd?

Care to split any more hairs tonight, Ken?

You guys are cooked on this thing and you know it.

After my Curry and DMN proofs in this thread, no CTer can possibly still pretend that NO "encounter" (regardless of the floor number) took place between a Dallas policeman and Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.

But I'm guessing there will be a few CTers who will still give it a try.

You're the confused one, Ken.

Bob Prudhomme most definitely is silly enough to think there wasn't ANY "second-floor encounter" between Baker and Oswald.

Isn't it obvious he thinks there was no such encounter when he said all this?.....

"Whomever Baker saw on the 4th floor (wearing a jacket that Oswald did not own) could not have been LHO. .... At no point does Curry say where the encounter with Baker and Oswald took place. .... You got nothin', Dave."

~sigh~

Mark, when I put quotes around the words "second-floor encounter", I was certainly NOT directly quoting the DMN article. I've been putting quote marks around those words ("second-floor encounter") for the last couple of days now in my posts here at EF (such as this post and this post), only to stress that the conspiracy theorists think the "second-floor encounter" is a totally bogus and fabricated "second-floor encounter" altogether. The utilization of quotation marks around a word or phrase, as you know, oftentimes is done by a writer to denote something that ALLEGEDLY has taken place.

If I confused you with my quotation marks in my last post, I'm sorry. But I was not quoting the DMN there. Because, you're right, the paper doesn't specifically say the "encounter" took place on the second floor. But the main point I was making in posting that DMN article was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. With the press also receiving the additional important information about Oswald being "turned...loose when he was identified as an employe".

All of that information fits perfectly with every version of the event that was ever uttered by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. The only thing missing is the exact location within the Depository where the "encounter" took place.

Now, let's see if Robert Prudhomme would like to take back what he told me just a few hours ago when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- Bob Prudhomme

Well, I think I just proved in my last post (via the DMN article) that the press most definitely had the story on November 22 itself about Oswald being seen by the police in the TSBD and then "turned loose". But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL.

So let's see if Bob now wants to claim that the alleged official cover story concerning the Baker/Oswald encounter started just a tiny little bit BEFORE the 11/23/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News went to press.

And then when I find an AFTERNOON paper from November 22 from somewhere else in the country, or when I locate a radio or television snippet from the afternoon of November 22 which mentions the policeman/Oswald encounter (which might very well exist somewhere in my huge audio/video collection), maybe Bob can then move those goal posts even more, perhaps to the MORNING of November 22nd.

Addendum / Follow-Up.....

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....

Let me get this straight, Bob....

You, too, are actually in the "THERE WAS NO SECOND-FLOOR ENCOUNTER AT ALL" camp?

So, here's the LIARS COUNT (per CTers) on JUST this one issue re: the second floor....

Baker
Truly
Fritz
Curry

Incredible.

And your excuse about Mrs. Reid and Oswald is laughable. If the encounter with Oswald had really happened on the 4th floor, there's no good reason under the moon to CHANGE it to the 2nd floor. In fact, it's idiotic. They'd be lying for no good reason whatsoever. And Oswald could have easily still seen Mrs. Reid in the 2nd-floor offices AFTER the encounter with Baker just two floors higher. There was nobody with a stopwatch timing Oswald's movements. The timing could have still worked out perfectly for LHO and Mrs. Reid to see each other on the 2nd floor.

You're inventing bogus nonsense out of nothing more than Marrion Baker misremembering exactly what floor he saw LHO on.

Pathetic.

IOW---par for the ABO / CT course.

ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Nice try, Davey, but probably one of the lamest posts you have ever come up with. You actually are trying to tell us that, as Baker made the turn, INSIDE the stairwell, from one set of steps to another, he believed he had arrived at the 2nd floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Bob, I just don't know. I was just throwing that out there as a possibility. And I said I was a bit confused myself as to the configuration of the staircases in the building. But I recalled from the Secret Service re-enactment films and the diagrams (like the one above) that the stairs were not laid out in one continuous set of steps from one floor to the next. So.....~SHRUG~.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Baker made no mistake in his statement when he said he was on either the 3rd or 4th floor. The only mistake he made was allowing himself to be pressured into changing his memory to the 2nd floor lunch room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But if the whole "second-floor lunchroom encounter" was fake and bogus from the very start, then why would the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Oswald want to make it look like Baker and Truly saw the "patsy" on the SECOND floor instead of where YOU say Baker really did see an "Oswald-like" person on the third or fourth floor?

Keeping the patsy CLOSER to the sixth floor (i.e., the "Floor of Death") would be better than creating a fake "encounter" way down on the SECOND floor, don't you think?

And what about Oswald HIMSELF? Captain Fritz' report shows that Oswald said he WAS on the second floor when the policeman stopped him. So was Oswald himself lying? Or was it Fritz who was lying?

And what about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit? I guess it's nothing but a lie too, correct Bob? Because Truly, right off the bat, said the encounter took place on the second floor and inside the lunchroom.

And then there's the video featuring Jesse Curry that I posted earlier. Is that nothing but a lie too?

All those lies and liars just to put Oswald four floors away from the gunman's sniper's perch?

Yeah, right.