David Von Pein

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming. And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone.

Yeah, sure Ray. All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right? And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae). As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman.

Ray, As I've said before, everybody cherry picks. I do it. You do it. All God's children do it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. And the JFK case is no different. But as I said to Thomas Graves at this very forum just two months ago.... "In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff"." -- DVP; April 17, 2015

I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray? Replay..... "I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP

I don't need your permission. Your posts are public property after you make them visible on a public forum (like this one). And in keeping with Ray Mitcham's current theme in this thread (that theme being: "Inconsistent Statements"), let's now compare Ray's words quoted above with these words Ray said to me just three days ago.... "Glad to see you are keeping a collection of my postings, David. I'm flattered." -- Ray Mitcham; June 20, 2015 All I can do now is.... ~shrug~

Yeah, we've heard that before from you already, Glenn. That lasted about 10 hours last time. BTW, my berating people who can't spell people's names correctly isn't proof of my devious intent to sidetrack anyone. (But it's humorous that you would actually have that odd state of mind about my intentions.) I just hate it when names are misspelled or when other words are misspelled. Such as Glenn Nall's refusal to use his shift key to capitalize the words I and I'm. He does this all the time. Just laziness, I surmise. But I couldn't stand to leave my posts in such sloppy disarray. Thank goodness for the "Edit" button. Bye, Glenn. Your posts saying everything is "irrelevant" are valuable pieces of CTer denial for my site (archived below). Thank you for those. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

And what part of this logic do you not understand, Ray? --- If the bag was merely an "invention", then Frazier (or the police) would have invented a bag LONG ENOUGH to hold the rifle owned by the person you think Frazier (or the police) was framing. Believing that Frazier INVENTED a bag AND believing that Frazier would ever say the bag was only "2 feet" long are two beliefs that do not go together at all. The fact that Frazier always has maintained the bag was too short to hold Oswald's rifle is virtually proof, all by itself, that Frazier really did see Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on 11/22/63. Unless, as I said before, Mr. Frazier was one really stupid xxxx and patsy framer. And then Frazier decided to voluntarily tell his alleged "paper bag" lie yet again, in front of millions of potential movie-goers, in David Wolper's 1964 feature film. Spunky little xxxx, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he? ....

So, you really DO believe what I suggested in my previous post --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it. So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really xxxxty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options.

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?) I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy. Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag. Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed: "If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size." Hilarious.

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray? You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag". But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright xxxx) when he said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22. I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars. But you MUST think Frazier WAS a xxxx regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right? And yet you don't seem to realize the hypocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me: "You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham Pot meets up with Kettle yet again. There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is.... IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag? If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right? But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged xxxx has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existent bag way too small. Brilliant, huh? LOTS MORE "PAPER BAG" TALK AND DEBATES: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-the-paper-bag

FYI, I always provide a direct link to the original source for the forum discussion's I put on my site. So anyone who wants to can read the entire discussion from top to bottom. Here's the 70-page-long full discussion involving Colin Crow that I already linked in one of my posts on Page 10 of this thread -----> jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12150.0.html

It'd be nice if Mark and Bob would have the decency to spell Colin Crow's name correctly. I have done so in all of my posts here. So why would anybody think there was an E in his name? ~shrug~

From my "CE903 -- PART 4" post..... ---------------------------- DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think it's quite possible that the chalk mark on the back of President Kennedy's stand-in (as seen in the top picture below, which is an opposite-angle view of Warren Commission Exhibit 903) has been placed too low. When compared with the actual bullet hole in JFK's upper back, it sure looks to me as though the chalk mark has been placed too low on the stand-in's back: This makes me think that it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back. However, I can't find any specific documentation in the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt or Robert Frazier to support my theory regarding the chalk marks. Bob Frazier did say this in his WC testimony (which would tend to refute my above theory about the chalk mark): "They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures." -- Robert A. Frazier The above comment by Frazier, however, is a bit puzzling, since the official autopsy measurements performed by the doctors at Bethesda did not utilize the "FROM THE TOP OF HIS HEAD" method for determining where Kennedy's wounds were located. Dr. Humes, et al, instead used the "mastoid process" as the body landmark for calculating where the upper-back bullet hole was located. So, I'll confess that Frazier's "from the top of his head" testimony has me scratching my head a little bit. [EDIT -- In May 2013, three years after writing the above words, I discovered that there is something in the official record that might indicate I was at least partially correct after all when I said this in 2010: "...it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back." --- CLICK HERE.] Anyway, if the JFK stand-in's suit jacket were to be "bunched up" a little bit (as Kennedy's jacket was when he was shot in the back), the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would be elevated slightly higher than it is in this photo and this photo, and therefore the chalk mark representing the bullet hole almost certainly would merge with Arlen Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle photographs. ADDENDUM: I recently realized something else that is quite important (IMO) regarding Warren Commission Exhibit #903..... CE903 [seen below] provides very good circumstantial evidence to buttress the conclusion that the entry wound in President Kennedy's upper back was most certainly located HIGHER (anatomically-speaking) than the exit wound in JFK's throat (despite an opposite conclusion being reached on that subject by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s). Of course, I fully realize that the person standing in for JFK in CE903 is not the real John Kennedy. And I also realize that you cannot extract three-dimensional information from a two-dimensional picture. But even with those two stipulations in place, I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter's pointer, in CE903, is being placed in a position that definitely mirrors the true and accurate location of the throat wound sustained by JFK in Dallas (i.e., the pointer is located at the location of the JFK stand-in's TIE KNOT, which has been determined to be the precise spot where a bullet exited President Kennedy's throat). And it's also fairly obvious (via just a casual evaluation of CE903) that the location representing the ENTRY WOUND on the stand-in's upper back is in a place that is most definitely ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the location representing the throat wound. And: it's also quite obvious (to my eyes anyway) that the man who is substituting for JFK in CE903 is NOT LEANING FORWARD to any great extent whatsoever. He is pretty much sitting straight and upright and relatively erect in the back seat of the car in Commission Exhibit 903. Hence, the math isn't too difficult here -- the upper-back bullet wound was ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the bullet hole in the throat. This kind of garden-variety photo analysis, of course, is far from being "scientific" in nature. But I think it's just basic common sense (coupled with the things that anybody with at least one working eyeball can easily see in Commission Exhibit No. 903). And as far as the REAL John F. Kennedy's body is concerned, the two side-by-side autopsy pictures below provide further photographic indicators that can only lead to one reasonable conclusion. And that is: JFK's upper-back wound was located HIGHER than the wound in his throat. (The HSCA's conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html

Pat, All of the things you mentioned might very well be accurate. But I'll repeat my post from earlier.... "It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took [the] photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period."

Since when is a poster required to quote only members of the EF forum, Mark? Is that a new rule you just made up?

Why single me out? You've got to contest a whole bunch of people (and committees) a whole lot more important and knowledgeable than some nobody in central Indiana named DVP. You've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true. So I'm the least of your troubles, Bobby.

Looks like it's time to shrug those shoulders once again after reading the above convoluted mess penned by Mr. Drew. Do you really not know what I meant by an "anti-SBT re-enactment"? Or do you really think JFK was NOT shot at all in the areas of the upper back and throat and that John Connally suffered NO wounds at all? ~shrug time ensues~

Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there. And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well. that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. So, in the future, you're going to tell us when you have tongue in cheek, and/or other mannerisms that we need to decipher what you 'really mean'? Well, you've already got your shrugging system working, so it shouldn't be too hard to add a few more symbols, statements etc. Maybe there's a modicon for tongue in cheek, shoulder shrugging, etc. Shouldn't the last four words have given you just a TINY hint, Kenny?

...

Yes, exactly. I do have that freedom. But keep trying to make your new signature look like something it's not. I'm used to CTers misinterpreting things. You do it every day (almost every post). So it's nothing new to me.

Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there. And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well.

I guess to those who don't understand how the YouTube comments system works, that comment of mine might seem a bit contradictory. What I meant was.... I allow all comments to go through to my YouTube video pages automatically (sans any "moderation" on my part). But after then reading the allowed comments, I sometimes have to delete some of them (because of the pure filth that many of them contain). Ten-Four?

You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it. I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind". That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear as to what I meant.

Boy, that makes a whole lot of sense. ~large shrug~

Maybe you should try reading the testimony of these police officers--all of whom testified to seeing the bag in the SN before it was picked up off the floor.... Bob Studebaker J.C. Day Marvin Johnson L.D. Montgomery All liars, Ken? You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? Is there ANY crackpot conspiracy theory you don't embrace? Any at all? Try reading the last paragraph of CE3131, Ken.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm More lies, Ken? (The part about only a single PALMprint being unidentified, I mean.) BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~