David Von Pein

And isn't it nice that Oliver Stone, in his film, decided to totally ignore the fact that Lee Oswald lied to Buell Frazier about his curtain rods and completely ignored the fact that Oswald carried a bulky package into the Depository on the morning of the assassination? Wasn't it great that Stone decided that those facts just weren't the least bit important to tell the millions of movie-goers that would be jamming theaters to see his wonderful film?

What's truly "revolting" is to think how much profit Oliver Stone has made on his JFK fantasy flick. In my view, people like Bugliosi, Hanks, Posner, Davison, Myers, McAdams, Moore, and O'Reilly deserve all the reward they can rake in from their JFK-related work. After all, they've told the FACTS about the way John Kennedy died. Oliver Stone sure as hell didn't. DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Re: "Parkland")

...

He certainly wasn't "falsely accused", Ray. The evidence tells us that. It's not my fault that you and many other conspiracy theorists choose to ignore all of it. Pretty much, yes. He said he was INSIDE the building when President Kennedy was being shot. Do you think the front steps are INSIDE the building?

Indeed. And then there's the "missing bullets" problem that no conspiracy theorist ever wants to talk about. Is it truly "reasonable" to toss the Single-Bullet Theory into the trash can while at the same time embracing a theory that has JFK and Connally being hit by THREE separate bullets (as nearly all CTers believe, since those CTers insist that JFK's throat wound was an entry wound)? And then BOTH bullets that entered (but never exited) JFK just....vanished? Silly. Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com [End Off-Topic Post.]

I had never really thought of it from that perspective before, Martin. Not a bad point. But, on the other hand, we must consider other things too -- the fact that Couch was riding in a moving car as he filmed. I guess he could have jumped out of the camera car [as Wiegman did] and rush inside the TSBD to film in there or film the upper floors of the building where he saw the gun. But in the latter possibility, Couch knew the gun had already been pulled back inside, so he might have thought "What's the point of filming an empty window?" (even Dillard wasn't fast enough with his camera to capture the gun or the assassin in the window, and he snapped his picture just seconds after Bob Jackson shouted "There's the rifle!"). Plus, Couch could easily see that a lot of confusion was taking place near the Grassy Knoll (the direction his camera car was taking him anyway), so what was he supposed to do under those circumstances? He merely filmed what was handy to film at that chaotic moment, and he'd already passed the Depository. And this quote of yours, Martin, is not an accurate (or fair) remark at all: "This is a good example of guided testimonies of the WC." -- M. Hinrichs How do I know it's not a fair statement? Because we don't need to rely ONLY on what Mal Couch told the Warren Commission months after the assassination. Fortunately for us, we've got the audio of Couch saying that he saw the rifle sticking out of the "fifth or sixth floor" window of the TSBD. And he said that on live WFAA-Radio within just an hour or two of the shooting on November 22nd. Listen to him say it below: DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/MAL COUCH BTW, after Couch's camera car went under the Triple Underpass, he did jump out of the car and run back to the Depository: Mr. BELIN - Did you take any pictures of the School Book Depository Building itself? Mr. COUCH - Not of the south side at the moment. After we went, say, 50 to 75 feet on down Elm, uh - we began to hang on because the driver picked up speed. We got down under the - I think there's three trestles there, three crossings underneath the - uh - at the very bottom of Elm Street - Mr. BELIN - Is that what they call the triple underpass? Mr. COUCH - Right. And - uh - I think, as I recall, right after we made the turn on Elm, one or two of the fellows jumped out. But after we got all the way down underneath the three trestles we finally persuaded the driver - who wasn't to anxious to stop - to stop and - uh - we all jumped out. And I ran, I guess it was about 75 yards or a little more back up to the School Depository Building and took some sweeping pictures of the crowd standing around. I didn't stay there long.

Is it okay with you if I just pretend that the films are fakes? (That explanation usually works for the conspiracy theorists. Maybe I should try that approach more often and see how far it gets me.) :-)

Oh sure. That center rail is MILES from where "Praying Man" is saying grace.

I think a better question might be: Why would Oswald have a desire to follow a policeman into the building and then race upstairs to buy a Coke at that exact moment in time? The above question is a particularly valid one (even to most conspiracists), since almost all CTers, with the exception of J. Raymond, acknowledge the fact that Oswald was most certainly "involved" in the assassination "plot" in some manner. In that set of circumstances (with Oswald involved in some plan to kill the President), can anyone imagine LHO wanting to go back inside the building from which shots had just been fired? Given the make-believe fantasy scenario I just outlined, wouldn't Oswald be much better off just staying outside the building entirely? In reality, of course, Oswald was inside the building when those Couch (or Darnell?) and Wiegman images were taken. Lee Harvey, at that time, was in the process of hiding his rifle between boxes on the sixth floor and then hurrying down the back stairs after having just fired three shots at the President. As to the identity of "Praying Man" -- I do not know. But I'm not quite sure why it couldn't be Wesley Frazier. Wesley even stated specifically at the 1986 mock trial that he was standing "back up in the shadows", a few steps behind Lovelady. BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER'S MOCK TRIAL TESTIMONY There's also the fact that Oswald told the world that he was INSIDE the building when the shooting took place. Now, yes, Oswald was a world-class xxxx (to be sure), but don't you think that if he had REALLY been "praying man", he would have said he was OUTSIDE the building, on the steps? Wouldn't that TRUTH (if it had, indeed, been the truth) have been so much better for Oswald than the LIE that apparently many conspiracy believers think he told when he said this at 7:55 PM CST on 11/22/63?: REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?" LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building." REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?" LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir." Audio: http://app.box.com/shared/5mto6y3w4k Or do some conspiracy theorists actually think that being on the steps in front of the building is pretty much the same thing as being INSIDE the Depository Building? In my opinion, that's a silly argument. If someone is standing on those TSBD steps, they are OUTSIDE the building itself. They aren't "inside".

I'm wondering if the man wearing the cowboy hat in the bottom photo above (which is a remarkably clear still frame taken from Dave Wiegman's film) is the same man we see in the cowboy hat in the Couch film? If so, then I think it's safe to say that the man isn't wearing his hat far back on his head at all. I'd wager to say it is the same man. He's even standing in almost the exact same spot in both images--directly under the round object that juts out from the front of the TSBD facade.

I didn't say "for sure" he is looking up. I said this: "He appears to be tilting his head upward to look at the upper floors of the Depository." And that's what it looks like to me. Your mileage may vary, however, in this "Tilting His Head Back vs. Wearing His Cowboy Hat Far Back On His Head a la Chuck Connors" regard.

In this forum thread, once again, we're treated to people using their vivid imaginations to stamp a specific identity on a fuzzy and very indistinct human being seen in a low-quality film/photo. How in the world can anyone positively say WHO "prayer man" is here? It's impossible. But when I look at these toggling frames from one of the assassination films, the thing I'm most fascinated by (other than Officer Baker running for the TSBD entrance) is the man in the foreground (wearing the hat). He appears to be tilting his head upward to look at the upper floors of the Depository. Hmmmm....I wonder why he'd be doing that? Any ideas?

That'd be a cool new theory, wouldn't it?.... LBJ, riding two cars behind the President, whips out a rifle and murders JFK. Details at 11! Only problem is--the bullet fired by Vice President Johnson missed Kennedy and Hickey's accidental shot killed the President. (What a tangled web, huh?) Oswald, of course, to whom all the evidence leads, is the only person in Dealey Plaza who isn't considered a suspect. Go figure the irony. And it looks like there's no end to the string of garbage-filled books coming out pointing an accusing finger at LBJ. Here's yet another new one, written by some Colonel.... http://kennedy-books-videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html

And just why would Vince Bugliosi (or anyone!) be "afraid" of an open-and-shut case like the Tippit case? You must be joking Ray.

..................

He does no such thing. I do, however, wish Vince would have included a separate chapter on the Tippit killing. But he certainly does not "dodge" the Tippit murder. You know better than that, Len. I come to the undeniable conclusion of Oswald killing Tippit mainly due to the BEST evidence that tells us he killed Tippit. I'm not relying heavily on the remarks Oswald made to C.T. Walker in the police car. Why on Earth do I even need to explain this (particularly to an LNer such as Len C.)? Isn't it obvious?

No. Because we know that Oswald killed Tippit. So, based on the evidence, I'm starting with a proven fact and going from there.

I've wondered the same thing, Dawn. Many of Jim's posts that I had linked to on my own site are now AWOL for no reason whatsoever--even within threads that are still open (but expelled member Tom Scully's posts all still remain). But many threads have now disappeared completely, which I don't understand either. But, Dawn, there is still a way to recover old threads and posts -- via Archive.org's "Wayback Machine". (Although the long threads are never all there; usually just 3 or 4 pages remain; but at least it's something I can attach my links to, because I hate dead links.) Here's an example of one of DiEugenio's threads (that he started) that is recoverable via the "Wayback": http://web.archive.org/web/20130512094853/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110 http://archive.org/web/web.php It would sure be nice to get all of the old threads back in their entirety, however. Can that be done? Moreover, why on Earth were a whole bunch of threads that were there 2 or 3 months ago now completely gone, with only this message available when clicking the thread's link?: Sorry, we couldn't find that! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=150&p=203628entry203628

I've got a much better theory: Lee H. Oswald was a xxxx. (Think: "Curtain rods".) I suppose Oswald was telling the whole truth about his "curtain rod" package too, eh Ray? I'm just wondering how far the "Oswald Shot Nobody" conspiracy theorists will go when it comes to believing every single word Lee Harvey said on Nov. 22 and Nov. 23? How many provable lies out of Oswald's mouth would it take for you to admit that LHO wasn't snow white?

And you believe everything uttered by the person with a huge reason to lie in this case, right? And, of course, Oswald was aiming his "Patsy" remark at the DPD and nobody else. And does anybody really believe the DPD was using Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy simply because Lee had lived in Russia? Because if you want to believe Oswald, then that must be true. Or would you like to pick apart Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement and dissect it to your liking? I.E., Lee was being totally truthful when he said he was a patsy, but he was lying when he said these words exactly one second prior to saying he was a patsy: "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union." Good luck with a jury on that one. JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Big Fat "Patsy" Lie

TV interviews with Paul Bentley and Nick McDonald: DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/Interviews With McDonald And Bentley

Wrong. Oswald's "It's all over now" statement was corroborated by Detective Paul Bentley on live television (WFAA-TV) on Saturday, November 23, 1963. In fact, Bentley confirms that Oswald uttered BOTH of the statements that Officer M.N. McDonald said he heard Oswald say inside the Texas Theater, including Oswald's "This is it" statement as well. And both of those statements, of course, have Oswald's guilty state of mind stamped all over them. You can hear Paul Bentley say those words ["This is it" and "It's all over with now"] in Bentley's hallway interview at the 4:58 mark in Part 27 of the video series below: YouTube.com / WFAA-TV Playlist Footnote--- BTW, before anyone jumps on my case and screams "Double Standard!" about my accepting the testimony of Officer C.T. Walker (with regard to Walker claiming to have heard Lee Oswald say "I hear they burn for murder" and "They say it just takes a second to die"), while at the same time disregarding and deeming false the testimony of another person connected to the JFK case--Roy Kellerman--who claimed to hear someone say something in a crowded car filled with other people that nobody else inside that same car said they heard at all (JFK's alleged "My God, I am hit" utterance) -- I'm ready to fall on my sword right now. I admit it, I'm exhibiting a double standard when it comes to evaluating the truthfulness or falsity of those two very similar situations. But let me repeat a fact of life that everybody must face (whether we want to face it or not): At one time or another when probing and examining the details of the JFK murder case, everybody chooses the testimony and evidence that they like best. I made that very point in a post on this forum just twelve days ago, in fact: "And, FYI, everybody in JFK research "picks & chooses" the testimony they like best. We all do it. It's inevitable. Otherwise, every single witness would likely have to be thrown in the trash can, because there's almost always some part of each witness' testimony or statements or affidavit that we don't think is perfectly accurate (whether it be a "CTer" or an "LNer" doing the evaluating). So, to some degree, we always "pick and choose" the statements that best fit our overall beliefs regarding the case." -- DVP; July 19, 2013 Show me a person who has looked into the JFK case for an extended period of time who says he has never done any "picking and choosing" of statements and testimony or has never exhibited a "double standard" regarding anything connected to the case, and I'll show you a person who is very likely gilding the lily.

Well, Oswald didn't come right out and admit to Officer C.T. Walker that he had just gunned down a policeman, that's true enough. But at the same time, I'm trying to imagine an innocent person, who didn't shoot anybody, making the following statement to a police officer right after being arrested in a violent struggle, during which he is waving a gun around trying to shoot some cops and screaming "It's all over now" and/or "This is it"..... "Well, they say it just takes a second to die." Maybe some people would be so cocky and sure of themselves. But since we all know that Oswald positively murdered Officer Tippit (that's not even a debatable point after evaluating all the evidence), we can therefore know that Oswald's cockiness was most certainly not born out of innocence. He killed Tippit and he started playing around with the cops almost immediately--even on the way to City Hall in the police car. Which is, IMO, something that leads toward his guilt much more so than his innocence. Either that, or Lee Harvey Oswald was one heck of an actor and should have probably won the Oscar instead of Gregory Peck. And, btw, that "sum total of Oswald's behavior after the shooting" needs to include more than just Oswald's actions and statements AFTER being arrested. We need to look at his bahavior and actions BETWEEN the time JFK & Tippit were shot and the time of his arrest in the theater. And during that "in between" time, Oswald did things that reek with a guilty state of mind: 1.) He leaves the TSBD within approx. three minutes of JFK getting shot. (And JFK just happened to get shot with OSWALD'S own gun. But maybe that was just some more of Lee Oswald's severe "bad luck" that he was experiencing on 11/22/63.) 2.) He takes a taxi to his room....which is extremely out of character for the miserly Mr. Oswald. (What was his hurry anyway, if he was only intending to go to the movies after work?) 3.) He grabs a gun. 4.) He's seen acting "funny" and "scared" outside Johnny Brewer's store. 5.) He pulls a gun on policemen inside the Texas Theater. 6.) He shouts one or two things in the theater that can only be looked upon as being quite incriminating in nature. (I mean, how do CTers reconcile a statement like "It's all over now" within a theory that has Oswald INNOCENT of any wrong-doing on Nov. 22? WHAT is "all over now"? Do conspiracy theorists ever say?) In summary -- Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 are practically a blueprint or a road map to his guilt (and conviction). How can anyone examine Oswald's post-assassination actions, movements, and statements and still think he was an "innocent patsy"? How is that even possible to do? That's a cop-out, Pat. Oswald never uttered a word about anyone else being involved. But CTers like to use the excuse of Oh, he was just waiting until the right time to spill his guts. The CTers are, of course, free to believe that if they want to. But it doesn't have the ring of truth, in my view. What was he "waiting" for? If he's innocent of shooting anybody, why not spill the beans BEFORE he's actually officially charged with the President's murder? Or Tippit's murder? Oswald was guilty of both of those murders, Pat. And I think you're way too smart to believe otherwise.

David, old chap, didn't your mother tell you not to trust HEARSAY? Hearsay is not admissible in court, as a general rule, From DVP's website: I say David, old chap, do you have any CORROBORATION for this ridiculous claim? Why do you think Walker would lie about that LHO comment, J. Raymond? Let me guess -- Everybody wanted to join the "Let's Frame Oswald" and "Let's Tell Lies About What Oswald Said" clubs (including C.T. Walker)....right?

But the evidence against him is still there on the table for any District Attorney to thoroughly examine prior to deciding to reopen the case -- regardless of whether or not Oswald ever went to trial. And the evidence against ONLY Oswald is multi-faceted too -- the best combination possible -- hard physical evidence (LHO's gun on him in the theater linked to the bullet shells at the scene of the crime, plus the many eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald as the killer or running from the scene with a gun in his hand). That combination of corroborative types of evidence is a prosecutor's dream. Hooey. Conspiracy theorists have been saying they've got "new evidence" to prove a conspiracy in the JFK and Tippit cases all the time. How many times have you read a blurb attached to a new conspiracy book claiming that This is the book to read! The conspiracy is proven between these covers!? But nothing is going to make the solid evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (along with Oswald's own incriminating actions) disappear into a pile of dust, regardless of the number of conspiracists who have claimed they have unearthed "new groundbreaking evidence". Oswald practically confessed to J.D. Tippit's murder, as discussed here: "They Say It Just Takes A Second To Die" Oh, come now. Do you really believe that, Bill? Also -- Can the D.A. reopen a criminal case without a defendant to prosecute? IOW -- Who's going to be put "on trial" for the Tippit murder 50 years later? Just think "Jim Garrison". He had the same problem of "finding" someone to put on trial. And he selected the totally innocent Clay Shaw (with a little help from a xxxx named Perry Russo, of course). But there's not even a HINT that someone else was involved in the Tippit murder other than Lee Oswald. Unless, that is, the D.A. thinks that Acquilla Clemmons' account is credible. And even then--WHO is the "other" person Clemmons saw? How can that vague description help out any prosecutor, especially when we know that it's coming from a witness (Clemmons) who didn't even see the actual shooting? She saw the aftermath. And all reasonable people know she saw Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun. In the final analysis, any D.A. is going to look long and hard at the EVIDENCE associated with the Tippit murder before reopening the case. And unless the D.A. is blind as a proverbial bat, he cannot possibly reopen the J.D. Tippit case because the murderer was already apprehended on November 22, 1963--in the Texas Theater 35 minutes after the murder occurred.