Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,017

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. David Von Pein
    I, for one, do not dismiss Arnold Rowland's account of seeing a "west side" gunman out of hand at all. He was almost certainly telling the truth about that part of his testimony (even though Vincent Bugliosi disagrees; and this is one of only a small handful of times I disagree with Vince's analysis and conclusions). And, in my opinion, the key to knowing that Arnold Rowland was truthful when he said he saw a man holding a rifle on the west end of the Depository's sixth floor shortly before 12:30 is the testimony of Rowland's wife, Barbara. (Plus Barbara Rowland's 11/22/63 affidavit as well, which corroborates her husband's version of events.) But the person Arnold Rowland saw that day on the west end of the Depository wasn't some unknown gunman. It was none other than Lee Harvey Oswald. That is almost certainly a fact, despite the "timeline" discrepancies that inevitably will crop up in a situation like this when many people are asked after an event to try and reconstruct the times when certain things occurred. But such timing discrepancies are not absolute proof of conspiracy or of multiple gunmen on the sixth floor. More here -----> JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / An Oswald Timeline -----
  2. David Von Pein
    HENRY RYBKA, DON LAWTON, AND SECRET SERVICE CONFUSION AT LOVE FIELD: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html
  3. David Von Pein
    Not true at all. The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible. Why you think such a thing is a complete impossibility only shows how desperate you are to trash the totally reasonable (and feasible) Single-Bullet Conclusion. Plus: Why is it not possible in your world to have the collar portion of a person's jacket hiked up just SLIGHTLY and (at the same time) also have a different (lower) portion of that same person's jacket hiked up (or "bunched up") more than just SLIGHTLY? In the world of Cliff "Everything In The Whole JFK Case Revolves Around Kennedy's Clothing" Varnell, the above scenario of having President Kennedy's COLLAR only raised (or "hiked") a little bit but a lower portion of his suit coat hiked up a bit MORE than "just slightly" is something that couldn't happen in a million years -- even though several photos taken of JFK in the Dallas motorcade PROVE beyond all doubt that that very thing I just described regarding JFK's jacket WAS occurring when Mr. Kennedy was riding in his limousine through the streets of Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. You couldn't be any sillier if you tried, Clifford. Are you finished with your derailing of this thread yet, Cliff? Or can you talk about anything except that jacket and collar?
  4. David Von Pein
    If you can't tell that Mr. Kennedy's jacket is hiked up a bit in the Croft photo, pity on you, Cliff. Because the "bunching" or "hiked up" nature of JFK's jacket in that particular picture couldn't be any more obvious. Cliff, you'd probably be better off jumping on the "Photo is fake" bandwagon regarding the Croft picture, rather than sticking to this odd stance: "...the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck [in the Croft photo]." -- C. Varnell; 8/30/14 Related "Bunching" Note..... Just a few minutes (maybe less) before JFK entered Dealey Plaza, a man named Andre Leche took a home movie of the President's car on Main Street (his film wasn't discovered until November 2013), and President Kennedy's "bunched up" jacket is clearly visible in his film too (and in George Jefferies' film as well)..... Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com/The Leche Film (Video & Photos)
  5. David Von Pein
    Regardless of what I may have said to you in our previous forum conversations regarding photos taken PRIOR to the turn onto Elm Street, this photo below is the KEY picture with respect to JFK's "bunched up" jacket. And it's a picture that was snapped just seconds before Lee Oswald's second shot went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And no reasonable person with even one functioning eyeball could possibly even begin to deny that there is most certainly some "bunching" of the jacket going on in this Robert Croft photograph:
  6. David Von Pein
    Lame Conspiracy Argument #1: ALL FOUR of these home movies have been "faked" or "altered" to remove a full limo stop and/or a swerve of the car: The Zapruder Film, the Nix Film, the Muchmore Film, and the Bronson Film. Mass "impossible fakery" belongs in a Twilight Zone episode (or a loony bin), not in a realistic debate concerning the events that took place on Elm Street on November 22, 1963. What's Argument #2, Bob?
  7. David Von Pein
    Name the last three "stupid Lame Nut arguments", Bob. If any one of them tops the "Multi-Gunmen, Lone Patsy" plot endorsed by almost all Internet conspiracy theorists on the "stupid" scale, I'll gleefully give back my entire CIA Disinfo salary for 2014. Good luck.
  8. David Von Pein
    Charles Brehm, in 1986, also said the car "took off in a zig-zag motion". Several people said they saw things that never happened that day. And the FOUR films prove those people never saw the things they said they saw regarding JFK's car.
  9. David Von Pein
    Robert, Jean Hill said "I didn't see any person fire the weapon, I only heard it" on November 22, 1963. She later said she saw a gunman on the Knoll firing a rifle at President Kennedy. Should we believe Jean Hill in 1963, or Jean Hill post-Oliver Stone's movie? This is fun. Your turn, Bob. Use a Parkland "BOH" witness this time. Carrico would be a good one. He decided to completely change his tune in later years about the huge hole in JFK's cranium (changing from a "back of the head" witness to a "side of the head" one). I get to use Domingo Benavides for my next "wishy-washy" witness. He first says he couldn't possibly identify Tippit's killer. Then, more than three years later on CBS-TV, he's absolutely positive that Oswald killed Tippit. (Go figure witnesses.)
  10. David Von Pein
    Yes, you're right, Duncan. I forgot about Marie Muchmore's film. Thanks. In fact, after I just now looked again at a slow motion version of Muchmore's footage, that particular film probably is the BEST film to illustrate the fact that the President's car did not come to a complete stop. The angle is just right to measure some degree of FORWARD MOVEMENT of JFK's limousine throughout the key point in time in Muchmore's film. And there is always forward movement. The car does not completely stop, making Muchmore's film perfectly consistent with all three of the other films (Zapruder, Nix, and Bronson): jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/jfk-assassination-films.html#Muchmore
  11. David Von Pein
    Ray, “The car kept going; the car did not stop.” -- Pierce Allman; 11/22/63 @ approx. 2 PM CST So, who should we believe here -- Pierce Allman in 1963 or Pierce Allman in 2013? ~shrug~
  12. David Von Pein
    Why is this topic even debatable? ALL of the films--from Zapruder to Nix to Bronson--prove that the witnesses who said the limousine stopped were mistaken. The car almost came to a stop, but it didn't come to a full stop. Simple as that. And the car didn't swerve or zig-zag either. Are there really conspiracy theorists out there who think ALL of those home movies were altered? What a job that was for the Film Fakers Society Of America, Inc. The JFK CTers are a hilarious lot. Even when there's FILMED proof (multiplied by THREE films, no less), the conspiracy crowd still isn't convinced. Not even close to being convinced, in fact. Hilarious. It's similar to what I've said in the past concerning Oswald's guilt -- the more evidence there is against the real killer (Oswald), the more innocent he seems to become in the minds of many conspiracy theorists. Now if that's not convoluted logic, I don't know what is. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/jfk-assassination-films.html
  13. David Von Pein
    And--predictably--Gary offers up perfectly reasonable analysis.
  14. David Von Pein
    Gary Mack's Comments
  15. David Von Pein
    To show that there’s more than just one side to the “Limo Stopped” story, here is an interview with assassination eyewitness Pierce Allman, a WFAA newsman, who said —— “The car kept going; the car did not stop.” Also note Allman’s account of the spacing of the "THREE" shots he heard —— “The shots didn’t seem rapid at all. They were three well-spaced, reverberating shots.” This interview with Allman was aired live on WFAA-Radio in Dallas less than 90 minutes after President Kennedy was shot: Of course, the whole "Limo Stopped" topic that is constantly being dredged up by conspiracy theorists is ridiculous in the first place, because everybody agrees (and the films confirm this too) that the President's car was moving at a snail's pace the entire time it was on Elm Street. It was only moving at about 11 MPH even BEFORE the first shot was fired. That's incredibly slow to begin with. So I guess it must be the contention of the conspiracists that driver William Greer was deliberately driving at a super-slow speed all along Elm Street, and he then (per the CTers) completely stopped the car in order for the kill shot to be achieved with greater accuracy (even though the Nix and Zapruder films prove the car did not completely stop). Such accusations against SS agent Greer are despicable, of course. And the theory about the Zapruder Film being altered to "remove" the alleged limo stop is equally as ludicrous, because such a theory requires Orville Nix's film to be altered in the exact same manner. And as the following video demonstrates, the Zapruder and Nix films are in perfect "The limo slowed down and almost came to a stop, but it did not come to a complete stop" harmony: DVP's JFK Archives / Assassination Arguments (Part 786)
  16. David Von Pein
    Photos from the 11/27/63 re-enactment ----> http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2014/07/kennedy-gallery-398.html Also see CE875 (which includes pictures of the Secret Service re-enactment that was done on 12/5/63) ----> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0450a.htm
  17. David Von Pein
    >>>"Are you using your real name?"<<< Why wouldn't I be?
  18. David Von Pein
    The documents I provided above come directly from SECRET SERVICE personnel, not the WARREN COMMISSION. Those SS statements exist within a "Commission Document", yes. But the material in that document consists of FIVE different statements made by SECRET SERVICE agents, not "Warren Commission" people, for Pete sake. Are you saying that all of those statements made by the Secret Service agents in April of 1964 are filled with nothing but lies? Plus, the Commission, as far as I am aware, didn't even publish ANY of the statements found in that CD821 document. That's why it's buried at the Mary Ferrell website only---it's not a "Commission Exhibit". Therefore, it wasn't even published in the volumes. And yet, why would a Commission that you, Peter McGuire, evidently think is totally useless and worthless (and obviously corrupt to its core) have NOT wanted to publish CD821 in its 26 volumes? They certainly wouldn't be hiding such information. That'd be silly to believe--even for CTers. But, once again, when faced with overpowering proof that goes against what some conspiracists want to believe (and in this instance that "proof" comes in the form of multiple signed statements written by the various Secret Service agents themselves), we're treated to the normal response by a conspiracy theorist, such as Peter McGuire's brilliant retort -- "You apparently don't understand that what the Warren Commission says means nothing" -- which is a retort that is worthless unto itself, seeing as how those reports that comprise CD821 are Secret Service reports and really have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Warren Commission" directly at all. (Unless Peter now wants to say that James Rowley and his Secret Service agents were all in league and in cahoots with Earl Warren's boys, and therefore Rowley's men decided to start writing phony reports just to please the rotten crooks on the Warren Commission. Is that the idea, Peter?)
  19. David Von Pein
    This should be of interest to Mr. Palamara..... I have now found several more Secret Service documents, available to view in Warren Commission Document No. 821, which indicate President Kennedy's desire to not have the SS agents riding on the rear steps of the Presidential limousine during motorcades. More info at my website here..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html#Commission-Document-821 Plus: Similar information from the 12/18/63 Secret Service Assassination Report..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html#Excerpt-From-December-1963-Secret-Service-Report Click to enlarge top photo below..... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  20. David Von Pein
    Would he?
  21. David Von Pein
    Below are several post-assassination phone calls with new President Lyndon Johnson. Many conspiracy theorists think LBJ was up to no good in these phone conversations. But I wonder what kind of conspirator would deliberately record his own calls while he engages in shady activity? Particularly his 9/18/64 call with Senator Richard Russell, wherein LBJ says he doesn't believe the SBT is true, which is a very strange thing for LBJ to say if he was, as many conspiracists insist, an integral part of either a plot to actually murder JFK or a major force in covering up the true facts of Kennedy's murder. dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/lyndon-johnson-phone-calls.html
  22. David Von Pein
    JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Index / The Warren Commission
  23. David Von Pein
    ....
  24. David Von Pein
    Golly gee, Bob! I have no idea! I can't wait to find out from the all-knowing Robert Prudhomme what the answer is, though.
  25. David Von Pein
    I don't know, Bob. But why is that tremendously important or significant?
×
×
  • Create New...