David Von Pein

I've never thought of the "Dealey Plaza EarthCam" as being either creepy or tacky. (But to each his own, I guess.) I've always thought of it as more of an "Eye on History", as the 24/7 camera is able to take all of us instantly to the location where an important historic event took place. It's fascinating, IMO. Sometimes I'll go to the Dealey Cam website and just watch for a little while, and count the number of people who dodge traffic in order to stand in the middle of the street on Robert Groden's "X". (Now THAT is something that qualifies as "tacky", Glenn---that "X" in the middle of Elm Street. I think it's rather offensive. But, YMMV.) Here's the view through the "Dealey Cam" on the 50th anniversary (Nov. 22, 2013).....

Oswald took his gun to the sixth floor....fired three shots at JFK on the street below....hitting the President twice....and killing him. ~~Mark VII~~ P.S., Can any conspiracy theorist answer this for me?..... If firing those shots at JFK from the sixth floor (while using the Carcano rifle) was so utterly "impossible" (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think it truly was)....and if a large part of the assassination "plot" was to frame Lee Harvey Oswald....then why were the architects of the "frame-up plot" so reckless? Did they think (on 11/21/63) they could make people believe Oswald could really do the impossible? In reality, of course, the shots from Oswald's sniper's perch were not difficult shots at all. All of the shots were under 90 yards. And even if LHO didn't use the scope, so what? He was trained to use a rifle in the military. And he compiled some pretty decent shooting statistics (while firing at targets a lot farther away than 88 yards). And he certainly didn't have the benefit of a four-power telescope to aid him when he attained the ranking of Sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956. So why would shooting at a target that was barely in motion at all (JFK's head), from a distance of under 90 yards, be such an arduous chore for a former Marine like Oswald? In short, the notion that Oswald's shooting performance in Dallas on November 22, 1963, was more difficult than building the Pyramids is yet another conspiracy myth that was disproven decades ago. And yet the myth persists.

You think Mother Teresa was in Dealey Plaza toting a rifle on the Knoll, do you Clive? That's an intriguing theory.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: J. Raymond Carroll is one of the very few conspiracy theorists on the planet who thinks Lee Oswald was totally innocent of everything regarding JFK's death---that is: Lee didn't even have any knowledge at all of the plot to kill the President. Lee was as innocent as Mother Teresa, per J. Raymond. That's how far afield from reality Mr. Carroll has strayed. And I see that Raymond has been gullible enough to fall for the worn-out "Oswald Was Doorway Man" schtick too. Oh, my. Ray is in trouble. I wonder if Ray can explain to us why Oswald HIMSELF lied about his location at the time of the assassination? Or does Raymond think that being on the front steps of the Book Depository is the same thing as being "inside" the building? RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front," just as he told Fritz. The front steps are actually "in the building," as you can see for yourself if you go there. The proof is in the Darnell film, discovered by Sean Murphy, and you can see it for yourself in this thread on the Education Forum. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Nobody who was standing on the TSBD steps would ever say they were "in the building". That's nuts. The steps are OUTSIDE the front door, for Pete sake [see photo below]. And it goes to show how desperate CTers like Raymond Carroll truly are to exonerate a double-murderer. RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: He never said he was "inside," he said he was "in the building." Since the steps he was standing on are within the building's structure, he was quite correct in stating he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" yet still "in the building." Actually, we cannot hear the question in the video, and the question may have been "were you in the building TODAY?" Anyway, we don't have to parse what he said. The Darnell film PROVES he was on the front steps. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The Darnell Film proves no such thing. Your "Prayer Man" could be almost anybody. But you now like the idea that "PM" was Oswald---so, it's Oswald. And we most certainly CAN hear the reporter's question to Oswald. The reporter clearly says: "Were you in the building at the time?" Oswald's answer: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir." And what do you think Oswald thought the reporter meant by "AT THE TIME"? Considering the previous question had been: "Did you shoot the President?", I don't think there's much doubt. See the video below. It is the highest quality version of Oswald's "patsy" statement you will ever see or hear, because it was culled from the excellent 2009 documentary "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America": Again, only a person hell-bent on finding Oswald innocent for some odd reason could possibly think these steps are located "in the building".... David Von Pein July 2014

Think again..... "I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There's also this from Vince.... "The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Letter from Vincent Bugliosi to David Von Pein; August 22, 2009

Kenneth, Let me try a little "Fact" test on you here. (I want to see if you're as predictable as I think you are.)..... Regarding the four spent bullet shells that were found near the Tippit murder scene, the following testimony exists in the record at 3 H 466, in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham.... Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ And CE143 is the revolver that was in Oswald's hands when he was arrested (the S&W .38, Serial No. V510210). Now, Ken, when I therefore say that it's an established FACT that Oswald's revolver was the weapon that killed J.D. Tippit, do you disagree? And do you dispute the FACT, as established by Cunningham's testimony, that the Tippit shells came out of Oswald's own gun? This same kind of "fact test" can be done with many other pieces of evidence too, of course. E.G., the TSBD bullet shells, verification of Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle, the front-seat limo fragments, CE399, Oswald's palmprint on the rifle, the paper bag with LHO's prints on it, the verification of the authenticity of the Backyard Photos, the verification that Oswald was in Mexico City via multiple documents with Oswald's signature and/or picture on them, verification of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, etc. I'm just wondering how many "Facts" you're willing to ignore (or deem as "fake")?

Kenneth, Do you think you're fooling anybody with this incessant "You Have No Evidence Or Facts" act of yours? It's embarrassing for you. Maybe it's time to stop playing that game. Ya think?

Yeah, it is pretty good, isn't it? (And oh so accurate.)

Oswald killed two people on Nov. 22. Hence, his "double-guilt". Simple.

Kenneth Drew, After slogging through much of your inane "LHO NEVER SHOT ANYBODY" and "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" crap on this forum, I am pretty much convinced that you wouldn't know a "FACT" regarding the JFK case if your life hung in the balance. And if you think I've ignored the "two different brands of bullets" controversy re: the Tippit murder, think again. I've covered it many times on my sites. The keywords to put into my search engine are: REMINGTON, WINCHESTER, and MIS-MATCH (with a hyphen). And you do know, don't you Ken, that the man whom you think never shot Tippit DID have BOTH of those brands of bullets (Remingtons and Winchesters) in his revolver when he was arrested? You're not IGNORING that crucial FACT, are you Ken? (No, not Ken.)

Well, yes, Pat. But I think most CTers consider the timing of Oswald's death to be "quite suspicious" even without factoring in the stuff you just talked about above. Wouldn't you agree?

Glenn, I was just trying to help you overcome your admitted ignorance when it comes to many areas of the JFK and Tippit cases. If you want to use the links, fine. If not, just wallow in your ignorance. I don't care. I was just trying to be helpful. And you will find a lot of "proof" of Oswald's double-guilt on my pages, as well as hundreds (if not thousands) of primary sources to back up my claims.

Okay, Glenn, since I now know that you apparently don't know any of the evidence in this case, perhaps you'd like a primer.... You can always start your journey by perusing some of my webpages. I've put about 11 years into building this JFK archive. It can't hold a candle to the primary source documents found at the fabulous "Mary Ferrell" and "History Matters" sites, but I have a lot of info here (and I utilize the Ferrell/HM sites continuously; i.e., I link to ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL whenever possible; so if you go to my pages, you'll be seeing a whole boatload of Ferrell and HM links..... http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com and http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com and http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com Re: Tippit specifically.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

Now I'm wondering why the heck you're even posting on this forum? The people who post here are generally very knowledgeable about the evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit cases. And yet you weren't even aware of something so basic as the fact the three bullet shells (CE510) were linked to the C2766 rifle. That's pretty basic stuff, Glenn. And yet Mr. Nall has been scolding me for not knowing what the words EVIDENCE and PROOF mean? Good heavens! Give me strength!

Nice. Another silly taunt from Mr. Nall. Thanks so much. (However, given your latest reply regarding your seeming ignorance of the fact that the TSBD shells have been linked conclusively to the C2766 rifle, it makes me wonder if you know about any of the Tippit evidence either. Do you?)

Are you REALLY that ignorant of the evidence, Glenn? Check out the testimony of the FBI firearms guys---Frazier, Cunningham, and Killion (plus Nicol from Illinois). They all confirm the shells were fired in and ejected from Rifle C2766. How is it possible you didn't know that?

The only possible way to make Oswald innocent of shooting Officer Tippit is to literally ignore all of the evidence. And why would anyone want to do that? Care to answer that one, Glenn?

Oh, brother.

Such a juvenile taunt requires no response, Glenn. You should have realized that.

Pot meets Kettle again. It's Bob P. who is spinning this thing like a top. I'm not spinning at all. Just LISTEN to the audio.... OSWALD ANSWERS REPORTERS' QUESTIONS There is not a speck of a doubt that the ONLY question being asked by any reporter just one second before Oswald said "I work in that building" is this question --- "Did you shoot the President?" There are no questions coming from any other reporters at that time. None. And yet Bob Prudhomme seems to believe Oswald was responding to some unknown and unheard reporter's question that Bob just made up. And yet I was just berated by Bobby for "spin, spin, spin". Hi-lar-ious! Sure there is. I just explained that to you a few posts back. Oswald was trying to get himself off the hook by the mere fact he worked in the building. It's obvious. And that IS a responsive reply to the question. He just didn't put a "No" at the beginning of it. More "spin" from Bob P. This OPEN AIR entranceway to the Book Depository cannot reasonably be described as a portion of the INSIDE of the actual building. If I was standing on these steps, I would not be INSIDE the Depository building. No way. No how. If I was on the steps, I'd be OUTSIDE the front doors (as we can easily see here). I'd be, therefore, OUTDOORS. But keep spinning, Bob. You must be about ready to fall over after your last two dizzying posts....

Let's see.... We've got THREE shots being fired (per more than 90 percent of the witnesses). And we've got THREE shells from LHO's gun in the SN. And we've got TWO bullets from Oswald's rifle (in the car and hospital). That leaves one more bullet to account for. Now, since I know there are THREE shells in the Nest and I know that only THREE shots almost certainly were fired as the assassination was happening, should I conclude that the third shell was planted there in the Nest? Why would any sensible person conclude that? Everything fits together perfectly. But I'm supposed to "think outside the box" (and the Nest) and conclude that the third shell must have been planted. Right? I see now why some CTers have an aversion to those two evil words I've been talking about today -- Common sense. Geez Louise.

Sure, Glenn, a jury must go by the "evidence". I totally agree (of course). But that doesn't mean they can't ALSO utilize some "common sense and deductive reasoning" in conjunction with the evidence. You seem to want to throw the words "common sense" out the window altogether. And that's crazy. In fact, I'd argue that common sense is an ESSENTIAL tool for juries to use. Because without it, you end up with verdicts like the O.J. verdict. Common sense is vital in all areas of life. Even in a jury room.

Glenn, And you don't think there's any "evidence" to show that Oswald killed Tippit? Is that what you just implied?

I'm fairly "shore" that if all juries consisted of "JFK Internet CTers", all guilty defendants would be set free. You'd find SOME evidence that you could pretend was fake. Most Internet CTers can't even find it within themselves to string Oswald up for Officer Tippit's murder, let alone JFK's. And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by any first grader with a learning disability. And yet the CTers are stumped by it. Go figure.

I can put the third BULLET SHELL CASING in C2766. And THREE shots were fired (based on the preponderance of evidence and the witness accounts). So the math isn't too difficult here. But, you see Glenn, I'm using some of that "common sense and deductive reasoning" I was talking about before. And THAT is taboo in your world, isn't it?