David Von Pein

Yes, that would be mighty helpful, Ron. Any chance that any CTer--some day or some year--will ever prove that somebody besides Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive? Is it really asking too much to expect an answer to the above inquiry, Ron?

Date: 6/5/2015 (9:50:14 P.M. EDT) E-Mail From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack ------------------- Thanks so much, Gary. Your vast knowledge about this case continues to be amazing and almost beyond belief. I love it so much that you feel comfortable writing to me all the time (and unsolicited too!) about everything under the sun which is "JFK"-related. I'm so pleased to be able to have many of the crazy conspiracy myths so thoroughly debunked via your wealth of knowledge regarding this case. And your messages to me also add a huge element of credibility and detailed info to my articles when I add them to my own website/blog (which as you probably know, I often do), such as your mail today regarding the backyard photos. Many thanks. Regards, David Von Pein jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#Gary-Mack

E-Mail from Gary Mack (re: the backyard photographs).... Date: 6/5/2015 3:57:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein ------------------- Hey Dave, Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense? For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976." I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake. So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies. As for the copies, as we know from DPD reports and later interviews, Det. Studebaker made souvenir copies of them for many officers, including Rusty Livingstone and, apparently, Roscoe White. Of course, anyone could have acquired copies from other officers in later weeks and months and there's just no way to know now who did what and when. What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures. I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard. What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. Gary

David Josephs, As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about. But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home.... "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6 and... "Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007) And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978.... https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7 In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle.... Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?" Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did." Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?" Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that." Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?" Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once." Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?" Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes." Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?" Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours." ------------- AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

If you really believe the things you wrote in the two quotes shown above, Bob, I can only have pity for you. Because those two quotes are--let's face it--just plain rubbish. And what's with this "little guy" put-down of yours? Care to explain?

Linnie Mae Randle wasn't always saying the package was 24-27 inches long. On the day of the assassination, in fact, Linnie Mae told FBI agent James Bookhout that the length of Oswald's package was "approximately 3 feet".... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm And for David Wolper's "Four Days In November" film crew in 1964, she said the package was "approximately 2-and-a-half feet long".... Now, yes, it's true that both of those longer estimates supplied by Mrs. Randle are still wrong, because the package was, in reality, 38 inches long. But I don't expect every witness to nail things right on the money. Why would ANYBODY expect such pinpoint accuracy? The fact remains, however, that both Frazier and Randle observed Lee Oswald with a large-ish (long-ish) brown bag on the day of the assassination.....and, subsequently, a long-ish EMPTY brown bag (with LHO's prints on it) turned up in the same place where a gunman fired shots at JFK. Now, shouldn't those things make even the most stubborn "Anybody But Oswald" CTer stop and pause for a moment or two? And if not....why the heck not?

David J., I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong. Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009..... -----------------

I would maintain that conspiracy theorists do more denying of "circumstantial evidence" of Oswald's lone guilt than the LNers do of ignoring any circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. A good example, I think, of how conspiracists disregard circumstantial evidence that does not favor their beliefs in a conspiracy is when discussing Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements on both November 21 and 22, 1963. The provable things that Oswald did on each of those days have created a whole lot of "circumstantial evidence" of his LONE guilt in the assassination of JFK and the murder of Officer Tippit. Such as: LHO's unusual Thursday trip to Irving to supposedly pick up "curtain rods" (yeah, right). The "curtain rod" excuse has been proven to be nothing but a complete lie on Oswald's behalf. And everyone needs to ask themselves: WHY would he lie about something like that if it wasn't to hide some kind of criminal activity that other evidence proves he WAS involved in the following day? Plus: Oswald's movements right after the assassination, which show "flight" from the scene of the crime. And those movements are SOLO movements. Not a co-conspirator in sight. Oswald was hoofin' it ON HIS OWN after the assassination. Plus there's the murder of J.D. Tippit -- committed by ONE LONE GUNMAN on Tenth Street (unless we want to believe Acquilla Clemmons' account of the shooting instead of accepting the observations of the multiple other witnesses who all said that there was only ONE gunman involved). And then there's Oswald's incredibly "guilty-like" actions inside the movie theater, and the things he said to the police both inside the theater and in the police car on the way to City Hall, which are all things that reek of Oswald's guilty state of mind. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-say-it-just-takes-second-to-die.html But when I argue with conspiracy believers on the Internet about any of the above items of "circumstantial evidence", I get the sense that those CTers look upon those items as being things that somehow (and incredibly) lead more toward Oswald's complete innocence than they do in leading toward his guilt in the murders of either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit. Sure, there are some pieces of circumstantial evidence that, when isolated and never researched and examined any further, would make someone cry "Conspiracy!". But, as I say, when those things are removed from their "isolated" condition and placed back into the "sum total" of evidence in this case, then all thoughts of "conspiracy" vanish into a puff of S.M. Holland's smoke (even Holland's and other witnesses' "smoke" doesn't hold up under additional scrutiny, given the weight of all the other evidence that indicates there was no gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll). jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html Another example of CT "isolation" --- the several Dealey Plaza witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll area.... When ISOLATED, those witnesses seem to be providing pretty powerful evidence in favor of a conspiracy. But when putting their "Grassy Knoll" testimony up against all the other witness testimony (and when factoring in the very important and often overlooked "Multiple Directions" factor that I discuss in my article linked below), those "Grassy Knoll" witnesses don't seem nearly as solid or convincing.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html I think it's also kind of interesting that both Ron Ecker and Glenn Nall in this thread have emphasized only the words "circumstantial evidence" to promote their claims of conspiracy in the JFK case. No "physical evidence" at all. And that's because, of course, there is no PHYSICAL evidence that supports conspiracy in this case. None. Not a piece. Therefore, the only thing CTers can turn to is "circumstantial evidence". Now, I'm not saying all circumstantial evidence that tends to lead toward conspiracy should just be summarily dismissed and tossed in the trash. And as for me personally, I don't think I have dismissed such evidence in such a manner. I think I have debunked much of the "circumstantial evidence" of conspiracy by using sound methods of logic and common sense--plus by UN-isolating (if I may coin a phrase) that circumstantial evidence and placing it back into a framework of the TOTALITY of all evidence (like in the "Earwitnesses" example cited earlier). But I do also think it's rather remarkable that the ENTIRE alleged "case for conspiracy" does, indeed, boil down to ONLY circumstantial evidence. No physical evidence at all. And in a case of this size and magnitude (and multiplied by THREE murders, including the murders of Tippit and Oswald himself), to have not a speck of physical evidence to support a contention of conspiracy is, IMO, rather telling.

Lots and lots of CTers believe GHW Bush was involved in Kennedy's death. And I'd be willing to bet my next CIA Disinfo check (worth tens of thousands of dollars, btw) that there are several members of this very forum who believe that Bush was involved. But I could just as easily utilize Brian Schmidt's own words to get across my feelings about some other really dumb conspiracy theories.... I think John Armstrong's "Two Oswalds" theory is stupid. No serious researcher believes it. Why post it? or... I think the "Fake Backyard Photos" theory is stupid. No serious researcher believes it. Why post it? So, it just depends on what your point-of-view on these topics happens to be. One man's tommyrot is another man's Rosetta Stone to the truth about how JFK died.

~~ WHY WOULD A PLOTTER DO THIS? ~~ A CONSPIRACY THEORIST NAMED RALPH CINQUE SAID: New collage of George HW Bush; it's him. View it and weep. It can't not be him. This collage [shown below] really does serve as a litmus test: If you can't admit that that is George HW Bush on both sides of the collage, you are a xxxx; you are a Kennedy-killer; and you [are] a pawn of the fascist state and doing its bidding. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, right, Ralph. And we're supposed to believe that George H.W. Bush was involved in some way in JFK's murder (as you undoubtedly believe, or else you wouldn't have started this discussion in the first place), and then Bush just decided to hang around the entrance of the Book Depository for a while so that he could be photographed by the many cameramen who flooded the area immediately after the assassination -- an assassination that Bush himself was a part of. Brilliant guy, that Mr. Bush. This is similar in nature to the theory that has a sniper just hanging around the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository for five or ten minutes after the shooting in order to make sure he too had a good chance of being seen and/or photographed by the various witnesses on the street below. And this topic also brings to mind the preposterous and suicidal theory that a lot of conspiracists seem to place their complete faith in -- the theory that has a group of unnamed assassins and behind-the-scenes conspirators attempting to frame (in advance!) a man named Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy, even though those same assassins and conspirators allegedly shot the President from both the front and the rear. How anyone can even begin to believe in such a prearranged One Patsy / Multiple Gunmen assassination scenario is beyond me. (Let alone believing that such a plan actually succeeded in Dallas on 11/22/63.) When evaluating things like this, why is it that no conspiracy theorists ever bother to ask themselves this logical question: "WHY WOULD A PLOTTER DO THAT?" I wonder if Ralph Cinque ever even asked himself that question before rushing to his computer to post this message on an Internet newsgroup on July 3, 2013? I doubt that he did. Moreover, why would George HW Bush even be in Dealey Plaza at all on November 22, 1963? Since no conspiracy theorist I've ever encountered believes that Bush himself was firing a gun at President Kennedy, then what possible pressing and urgent need would there have been for George Bush to have been anywhere near Dealey Plaza on November 22nd--even if he had been part of some conspiracy plot to kill the President? To take this logical point one step further -- if George H.W. Bush had really had a hand in planning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, then the very last place on this Earth he would want to be when the murder occurred is Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. That's food for conspiracy thought. Don't you think? BTW/FYI -- The person on the right-hand side in the photograph shown above is definitely not George H.W. Bush, as this much clearer copy of the photo, provided by researcher Robin Unger, clearly illustrates (click to enlarge the picture): Below is a composite that I put together, with the real George H.W. Bush on the left, with the center picture being the clear version of the man that a lot of conspiracy crackpots are absolutely positive is Mr. Bush, and the fuzzy/crappy version of that same man on the right: And here's another direct comparison below, proving that the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that the man on the left is George Bush don't have a leg (or a bush) to stand on: David Von Pein July 4, 2013 ============================== ADDENDUM: JOHN McADAMS SAID: It's become a standard factoid that George H.W. Bush "could not remember where he was when he heard that John Kennedy had been shot." .... This needs to go in the "silly factoid" file. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: One of the many new books coming out this year [2013] on the JFK assassination is one by Jodie Elliott Hansen called "November 22, 1963: Ordinary And Extraordinary People Recall Their Reactions When They Heard The News". And on the back cover of that book is a signed letter written to Mrs. Hansen by George H.W. Bush in August of 1979. In that letter, Bush recalls quite well where he was when JFK was shot. Quoting Bush from the letter: "I was in Tyler, Texas on November 22, 1963 to give a political speech." Here's a picture of the letter as it appears on the back cover of Jodie Hansen's 2013 book: David Von Pein October 23, 2013

I like Mr. Berkley a lot already. Welcome, Curtis.

More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. It's behavior that should certainly be frowned upon by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special? Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious.

Bob, I don't know Curtis. I don't think I've talked to him before (but I could be wrong about that; I've talked to many people about this case over the years). But, anyway, it's nice to see someone else (besides me) with some common sense posting at this forum.

Bingo, Curtis. You are 100% correct. Also.... "Oswald consciously tried to distance himself from the murder weapon so much that he apparently even went to the following extreme: He and Marina and their daughter June lived at the apartment on Elsbeth Street in Dallas for exactly four months (November 3, 1962, to March 3, 1963), and then moved to the apartment on Neely Street for close to two months (March 3, 1963, to April 24, 1963). However, when he was asked to furnish all of his previous residences since his return from Russia, and the approximate time he lived at each, he gave all of them (including his residences in Fort Worth and New Orleans) with one notable exception. He omitted any reference to the Neely residence, the residence, of course, where he knew his wife had photographed him with the murder weapon in the backyard. He cleverly accounted for the close to two months at Neely by saying he lived seven months (not the actual four) at Elsbeth. And when Captain Fritz, during his interrogation of Oswald, asked Oswald about the Neely address, Oswald flat-out denied ever living there. All of this, of course, shows a consciousness of guilt on Oswald's part." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 966 of "Reclaiming History"

Yes, it is. The two poses are nearly identical. CBS/Schiller did an excellent job of mimicking Oswald's stance and everything else associated with the famous backyard photo. The re-creation even nails the angled body shadow perfectly---right down to the exact slat on the back fence where the shadow of each man's head falls. The fourth slat from the left. Absolutely perfect....

What a crock of crackpottery you continue to post. The CBS/Schiller man has almost perfectly duplicated Oswald's posture. Very little difference whatsoever. You're seeing (and imagining) things---yet again. Nothing new there, of course. Another example of Bob P.'s vivid imagination working on all eight cylinders. Nice, Bobby.

What in the world is so impossible about the way Oswald is standing? I see nothing all that unusual about his pose here at all. Just because he's not standing rigid or ramrod straight up and down, you think his posture is physically impossible for a member of the human race? Silly. So, once again, we're treated to CTers seeing "impossible" things that are far from impossible. Well, that does it for me then. I'm throwing in the towel right now. Bob Prudhomme Jr. has declared one of the BY photos to be fake, so nothing more needs to be said about it. Robert Jr. has the final word. Let's stamp it "MARK VII" right now. Thanks so much, Bob. (And Bob Jr.)

Oh for Pete sake, Ray. You're trying to say that examining this man's posture in the picture below is something that can only be done in this new "electronic age" we live in? Get real. You're flying by the seat of your pants on this BYP thing, Ray. You can't prove the photos are fraudulent and you know it. Nor can any other CTer prove they're fake.

There's that word again --- "impossible". You have no idea that such a pose is "impossible", Ray. And it obviously wasn't "impossible", because we can see Oswald standing in such a posture in the photos. And the photos are verified as real by the person who took them --- Marina Oswald. Try again, Ray. The "impossible" thing is getting old. Yeah, right. Like the man's basic posture is something NOBODY could "examine" back in '63, right? So, again Ray, how were the fake photos made? Do you think a real person stood in the backyard or not? (Apparently not.) So they got a picture of an empty backyard and then they drew in an Oswald-like body and then pasted on a real Oswald head? Is that how it was done? And they wanted to make sure to leave you CT buffs lots of crumbs and they wanted to make it much more likely their fakery would be discovered, so they decided to fake THREE or FOUR separate pictures, even though they all show the very same thing ("Oswald" with guns). Right? And what about Marina saying she took the pictures of Lee while he was carrying guns and dressed all in black? All lies? At what point does this BYP insanity end, Ray?

Re: Waldman No. 10 -----> jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-149.html

So, Ray, I guess this means you also think that NOBODY is really standing there in the Neely backyard, right? The ENTIRE BODY of the man has been drawn in or added to the Neely background. Is that it? And, for some silly reason, the photo fakers decided to draw in a man whose posture is IMPOSSIBLE (according to CTers anyway). Correct? And these same photo manipulators also thought it would be a really good idea to paint in a thumb on the fake "person" that was way too long. Right? (But what for, pray tell?) Those photo fakers were sure a bunch of screw-ups, weren't they? (Or was it just one goofy guy painting in all of the "impossible" things in the pics?)

I'm not convinced it is Oswald's thumb. But it might be (as I said before). But the things that CTers believe to be "impossible" are of no consequence whatsoever. And particularly when it comes to ANYTHING they declare as "impossible" regarding the JFK case. Because they are ALWAYS wrong about everything. It was impossible for Oswald to fire the rifle in XXX seconds... (Wrong.) It was impossible for Oswald to make it to the second floor in XXX seconds... (Wrong.) It was impossible for Oswald to have gotten to 10th St. in time... (Wrong.) It was impossible for a rear shot to result in JFK's head moving to the rear... (Wrong.) The Single-Bullet Theory is impossible... (Wrong.) The shadows in the BY photos are impossible... (Wrong. As I just proved above with the re-creation photo.) And on and on to "impossible" infinity. So when the all-knowing Bob Prudhomme tells me something is "impossible", forgive me for not bowing down and taking his word as Gospel.

Why did I even bother to ask? I knew what Bob's ridiculous answer was going to be. So now let's heap on still more plotters and cover-up operatives, Bob. What's the number up to nowadays? Has it reached 5 digits yet? Must be pert-near that.