David Von Pein

Do you really believe that, Bob?

So? What difference does that make?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF. It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest".

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.) Also: If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall. Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose. The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341. EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is....

That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room. BTW / FWIW.... Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before. A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it. What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence.... Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because....

True. But that witness is a proven l-i-a-r: Roger Craig's Mauser Lie False. What some people have claimed is an "unfired" bullet is not an unfired bullet at all. There seems to be a piece of trash or debris (possibly a small scrap of paper) on the floor right next to the easternmost bullet shell. The piece of debris is situated in such a way as to make it appear as though it could be a complete unfired bullet. But higher-quality photos of the shells indicate that all three shells are EXPENDED (SPENT) SHELLS. None are whole, unfired cartridges. Here's one such high-resolution picture of the shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.... http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339287/m1/1/high_res/ Also see: http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/partners/DSMA/browse/?q=window+book+depository&t=fulltext I'm not sure if that is True or False. Robert Frazier did talk about some corrosion on the inside of the barrel after the FBI received the weapon from Dallas. And I know that many conspiracy theorists contend this "corrosion" (or "rust") issue means the rifle could not possibly have been fired on the day of the assassination at all. Well, I'm certainly no gun expert (far from it), but the evidence is quite clear that the C2766 rifle in question (whether it had some corrosion/rust in the barrel or not) WAS fired into President Kennedy's vehicle on 11/22/63 without a doubt. The two bullet fragments in the front seat of the car are enough to prove that fact for all time (IMO). I know that a lot of conspiracists don't think the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (like those two front-seat fragments) means anything at all. They'll just say "Prove they weren't planted". But it's my opinion that those fragments were not planted. In fact, I think it's dumb to believe those fragments are fraudulent fragments. But many CTers think differently. So be it.

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box. You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510. CE511 (on the right) shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window....

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave? Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor. And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest.... Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd. Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.) But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill). The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted -----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94] But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives). As I have said many times before.... With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable. As Larry Sturdivan said so well.... "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005) And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words.... "Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

Here's another view of Agent Howlett in the Sniper's Nest. There's no problem for a right-handed shooter here. CTers are merely creating problems for the sixth-floor assassin that don't exist and never did.

Mark, How do you explain the fact that the HSCA was able to fire a rifle out that Sniper's Nest window several times in 1978 during the acoustics tests? Do you really think the person firing the rifle in '78 had to "smash through the wall" in order to get off his shots? You can always say the HSCA's shooter was left-handed, of course. That seems to solve the problem for you. I have no idea whether the HSCA shooter was a lefty or not? Do you?

Yeah. And? What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed. Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments? Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that? And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.

Technically, your edit occurred one minute after my post went up (assuming you only edited that post one time). But you must certainly be right about the edit, because I doubt you could type THAT fast. My apologies to you, Ken, for being a bit harsh regarding this point. It does appear you realized you were wrong when you said Shaneyfelt did not have the C2766 rifle in CE887 and you edited your post as soon as possible (before ever reading my comment). Whether you want to believe me or not, I too have put some errors in my posts and then suddenly realized they were wrong, and then made a mad scramble to try and edit the post before the CTer I was arguing with could see the mistakes. So, again, I'm sorry about that. (And I'm deleting my harsh comments from my other post too.)

In order to hit a target on Elm Street below, an assassin sure would hold a rifle in such a manner---and at just that angle. How the hell else would you suggest a shooter fire DOWN at the street below? But maybe you think that Oswald should have held the rifle like this as he was shooting DOWNWARD at JFK's car, eh?....

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures.... yep, and notice that is NOT a Manlicher Carcano and notice it doesn't have a stock. If it had a stock the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. If this were a MC rifle as 2766 is, that position is NOT possible. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that. Oh, for Pete sake. Kenny, you just buried yourself in deep do-do with your above quote. The rifle we see in the above photo is the C2766 Carcano rifle (CE139). Let's listen to Shaneyfelt..... Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight. This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film. Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. 886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission.

I don't think there ever was any damage to the BACK of the mirror..... ANTHONY MARSH SAID:The fact remains that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Who said it was? It sure as heck wasn't Robert Frazier. Give me a citation for this alleged mirror damage. I've never heard anyone else make the claim that the mirror was "smashed in". ANTHONY MARSH SAID:I SAID. I was the first person to notice it. Several other people now agree. If you can't see the obvious damage it is only because you are a WC defender pushing an agenda and can't explain it. DAVID VON PEIN SAID:Yeah. That's what I figured. YOU were the first person to "notice it". The fact is, of course, that no damage to the rearview mirror exists. Nor was any such mirror damage reported by Robert A. Frazier of the FBI. Let me guess, Tony--you think Frazier is lying here (or he just wasn't very observant, even though he went over the limo with a fine-toothed comb searching for signs of bullet strikes): MR. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?" MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir." ------------ Whatever it is that Marsh thinks is "smashed in" on the back of this rearview mirror (via CE350) is nothing more than the design of the mirror and its mounting bracket: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PaPcHRbfp-8/UdL56MLbWxI/AAAAAAAAvAg/EiNqKPVSX3c/s3000-h/ce350.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyObRpFqMPg/UdL56D88mmI/AAAAAAAAvAk/jIS2PHhQ83s/s3000-h/Limo-At-Love-Field-11-22-63.jpg DVP July 2013 --------------- BTW, what the heck is "The Rouge"?

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures....

And, of course, why on Earth my answer wasn't already blatantly obvious to you is a bit of a mystery. This is stuff that is incredibly easy to figure out. It's kindergarten math.

Glenn, The trajectory from Oswald's 6th-floor perch to the windshield of the car was just about perfect at the time of the head shot, as we can see in this SS re-enactment photo.... JFK's head was leaning forward and turned quite a bit to the left when Oswald's bullet struck high on the back of Kennedy's head. After the bullet entered his head, the explosive force of the blast blew out the right/top/frontal area of JFK's head (as is easily proven by looking at the Zapruder Film). The two large bullet fragments then continued forward after exiting Kennedy's head. I.E., they were moving forward toward the front of the car and the windshield. Everything seems perfectly consistent to me. There is nothing unbelievable about the above scenario at all. Also see CE875 for more Sniper's Nest views.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458a.htm In addition, Glenn, here's something else of importance that you might not have known.... JFK's head initially moved FORWARD, not backward, at the moment the bullet struck his head, as we can easily see here in this super-slo-mo clip....

NOTE -- I edited my last post to add more comments after Kenneth Drew's latest inane response.

That's an easy one ---- The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there. But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP..... Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile. Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is. Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory. ================== (I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.)

I'm pretty sure it's from Oliver Stone's movie. He made everything look old and grainy for his '91 film. He did quite a remarkable job at doing that, too. The clip Brian linked to is from the same 1977 TV movie I presented above.

Oh yes he has -----> Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com