David Von Pein

Oops. That was a no-no. Bye-bye, Bart.

Keep that vivid imagination blasting at full speed, Greg. You're doin' fine.

So, Fritz is a l-i-a-r too, eh? Lovely. How big is your Liars List, Bart? Just an approximate number is fine. Dude.

Yeah, it was such a good lie that Mrs. Roberts even got the patsy to believe it.... "I [Dallas Police Captain J. Will Fritz] asked him [Lee Harvey Oswald] where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show." -- Warren Report; Page 601 Amazing woman, that Earlene Roberts. The stupid things some CTers believe continue to boggle the mind 50 years on.

It's called common decency, Jon. And for all their faults and foibles with respect to the JFK case, the vast majority of conspiracy theorists (thankfully) still possess common decency, as we can see in this thread. And that's nice to see.

Mighty weak, Greg. Why even try anymore? Cut your losses and admit defeat. What about that last little item I posted from the Dallas Municipal (Police) Archives regarding Oswald's possessions collected from 1026 Beckley? You want to ignore that item too? Call it a fake report, Greg. I just love it when CTers pretend stuff is fake. Here it is again.... http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0110-001.gif

And let's just have a look at a few of the items that the Dallas Police took possession of while searching Oswald's room at 1026 Beckley after the assassination.... Letter to Lee Oswald, dated August 2, 1963. Letter to L.H. Oswald, dated July 31, 1963, from Communist Party U.S.A. Letter to Lee H. Oswald dated December 13, 1962. Letter to Oswald dated December 19, 1962. And more.... http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0110-001.gif And yet Greg Parker doesn't think Lee H. Oswald set foot inside the 1026 North Beckley roominghouse--ever. Incredible.

Incredibly, folks, Greg Parker is seriously wanting people to believe that Gladys Johnson AND Earlene Roberts AND Ruth Paine AND (apparently) the Dallas Police all got together to make it look (falsely) as though Oswald rented a cubbyhole room at 1026 Beckley in the fall of '63. The DPD gets in on the act by (apparently) only PRETENDING to seize Lee Oswald's possessions from the roominghouse. Whose items WERE seized by the DPD then, Greg? Or did the DPD just make it all up about seizing ANY items from that location? This is what happens when a foolhardy, crackpot theory gets put on the table. An LNer like me will come along and thoroughly debunk it with hard evidence (like CE402 and the Johnson/Roberts interviews, not to mention the WC testimony of those women to boot), while the CTer pushing the fairy tale does nothing but flop around on the deck like a fish out of water. Greg, you're flopping around, in case you hadn't noticed. And you've got nowhere to go, because EVERY single solid FACT is against you. You need one l-i-a-r on top of another --- Roberts, Johnson, Paine, the DPD, and probably Marina too. Everybody's lying. And for WHAT purpose again, Greg? You never did tell us? The "Let's Get Rich By Pretending Lee Harvey Oswald Lived Here" excuse is laughable, of course. So try something else that won't make you blush so much.

Yeah. I presented actual interviews with two people who knew that Oswald had rented a room at 1026 Beckley (and who actually SAW Oswald at that roominghouse), plus CE402 (Ruth Paine's address book featuring the Beckley phone number). Greg has produced silliness like this.... "Maybe the story is a crock because he never lived at that address. Ever." Not even a close call on this one. DVP wins. And Greg Parker looks like a desperate CTer who can't possibly explain the logic of anyone wanting to pretend Lee Oswald lived at a particular address in October and November of 1963. But it somehow makes sense in Greg's CT world. I guess the "Beckley ruse" somehow was supposed to make Oswald look GUILTIER of murdering the President. ~shrug~

Keep baying at the moon, Greg. It won't make the videos of Roberts and Johnson disappear. Nor will your incessant baying make that Whitehall phone number disappear from Ruth's address book. Is it possible for CTers on this forum to deny more obvious facts than they have in the last few days? I mean, Baker never encountering Oswald at all? And Oswald never living at 1026 Beckley at all? And even some guy claiming we don't yet know how to properly spell J.D. Tippit's last name? Somebody call the Get Real police!

I don't know what will happen to Vince's papers. But it would be nice if a complete "On Trial" transcript could be made available. Several years ago, I asked Vince if there was any way to obtain the complete 21-hour trial on videocassette. He told me to contact his lawyer friend Jack Duffy, because Vince thought that Duffy had the whole 21 hours of the trial on VHS tape. I did try to reach Duffy at his law office website, and I asked if he did have the entire trial on tape. I never received an answer through his law office. But Jack Duffy is a person I have talked to (and argued with about the JFK case) at Facebook in the past few years. I don't recall ever asking Jack if he had the tapes or not. But anyone here could contact him at Facebook. Here's his FB page.... https://www.facebook.com/jack.duffy.58 Whether or not he'd be willing to make copies of the tapes for anyone who asks is another matter entirely however.

....

It's been an established fact for more than 50 years now that Lee Harvey Oswald lived for a few weeks at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. You, Greg Parker, just refuse to accept that fact (for some reason).

Now all you have to do, Greg, is answer this question: WHY WAS THIS ROOMINGHOUSE CHARADE EVEN NEEDED? Why?

No idea. Nor do I care in the slightest. It's irrelevant. This type of peripheral crap only matters to rabid CTers like Greg Parker. No idea what you're talking about. But, again, it's chaff. Meaningless. Plus: WHY would anybody want to pretend Oswald lived in a roominghouse if he didn't? (Oh, yes, to get rich after the assassination. Sorry. I forgot.) They were. In "Incidentals". The paltry fare would only be about $1.60 or so per week (8 individual bus trips to and from work). Oswald might have been able to find that much in the seat cushions in the Beckley living room while watching television. Who's avoiding it? Big deal. An "H. Lee" lived there. Okay. But so did an "O.H. Lee" and that Mr. Lee was Lee H. Oswald.

And, Greg, what about the phone number WH 3-8993 that was in Ruth Paine's address book (CE402), which was the number of the Beckley roominghouse? That was a number given to Ruth by Lee Oswald himself. And yet he never was there at all? .... RUTH PAINE -- "I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house?" He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up." CE402: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0050b.htm

So, I guess we can assume that Gladys and Earlene got rich (quarter of a million each perhaps?) by lying about "O.H. Lee". Right, Greg? And what about the cops who searched Oswald's room and gathered up OSWALD'S personal belongings? Did Earlene and Gladys "plant" Oswald's belongings in a room he never actually rented? You're a riot, Greg. (And I'd bet my next Langley check that you don't believe Oswald rented a room from Bledsoe either. Do you?)

Please note, everyone, that Greg Parker just called Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson bald-faced liars when he said this... "There was no "O.H. Lee" at that address." Why did Roberts and Johnson lie through their teeth about their roomer, "O.H. Lee", Greg? (Just make up some half-baked excuse if you can't explain it logically.)

I think it's logical to conclude that the whopping total of approximately $1.60 per week for LHO's bus fares would be included in the monthly category the WC reserved for "Estimated cost of food, clothing, and incidental expenses".... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0385a.htm Yes, the WC did include a separate entry for the "$1.23" that Oswald spent on bus and taxi fares on 11/22/63, but the meager total that Lee spent on the bus for the rest of the month could easily have been covered by the $75.00 that the WC allowed in the "Food & Incidental Expenses" category. Okay, Greg. Tell me, then, why the housekeeper at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff, Earlene Roberts, said all of these things about Lee Oswald (aka "O.H. Lee") in the 1964 CBS-TV interview below? Among other things, you don't think she actually saw the real Lee H. Oswald hurriedly enter his room on Nov. 22nd at all? And then there's an interview on 11/23/63 with the landlady of the Beckley roominghouse, Gladys Johnson. Was she a l-i-a-r too, Greg? Or was she also fooled by some "Oswald double" posing as "O.H. Lee"?.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngYZi47eURI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5KzxaZcc5w

I believe he took a bus, Ron. There was a bus stop right outside his front door at the Beckley roominghouse. And I think there was also a bus stop on the corner of Elm & Houston outside the TSBD front door too. So Lee wouldn't have even needed to walk more than a few steps to get to a bus stop at either location. And the "bus stop" thing is something I've brought up in the past too. Because if there was a bus stop right there at Elm & Houston Streets, then why (if he wasn't "on the run") would he have walked several blocks east of the TSBD on Nov. 22 just to catch his bus? Why not just wait at the Elm & Houston corner? That was just one of the unusual things that LHO did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, 1963.

Note -- The "altering" spelling error was corrected by me before I ever saw Kenny's complaint. (Kenny won't believe that, but it's true just the same.) And TIPPIT is unquestionably the correct spelling of Officer Tippit's name. Why Ken thinks it's even possible that it was spelled differently (esp. after seeing Tippit's tombstone) is anyone's guess. It's just Ken being Ken, I guess. ~shrug time~ And btw, Ken, you missed a chance to scold me for another typo I made in that same post.... "Thereforwe" (Already fixed, of course. Yet another fat-finger typo. Happens constantly. But they never STAY that way in my posts.)

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. I'm just demonstrating that no matter how silly or outrageous something is that is posted you have to weigh in as the "expert on that subject" even to attempting to be an elementary teacher and teach spelling techniques. So let me get this straight. Tippet's name doesn't actually have an s on the end it is just almost always spelled that way to make it correct, is that what you're saying? So if you were talking about his pistol, it would be correct to say the pistol of J.D. Tippet, not J.D. Tippet's pistol. Because then you would be putting an s on the end of his name and it doesn't have an s. Is that what you're saying? You're just being deliberately ridiculous and obtuse, Ken. Because it's not humanly possible to be THAT dense about the "apostrophe S". (Nice job of intentionally mangling Tippit's name again, BTW. And three times too. Nice touch.)

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 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. 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.

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. 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."