David Von Pein

"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021

---------------------------------------

https://www.facebook.com/Wheelman1963

----------------------------------------------

More Mark Lane Videos:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This from the guy who is forced to believe that Oswald ate lunch twice.

Incredible silliness coming from Mr. Larsen here. He seems to be implying that I, DVP, a long-time LNer who knows Oswald was a Lying Machine on 11/22/63, actually believe Oswald "ate lunch twice" on Nov. 22nd. When, in fact, it couldn't be more obvious that my belief really is that Oswald ate no lunch at all on 11/22 and that every single thing Oswald said about his "lunch" was a lie.

But even CTers are dead regarding the chronology of the statements (i.e., lies) made by Oswald about his "lunch" after his arrest. Because even if Oswald couldn't keep his own alibi attempts straight in his head (which he couldn't), there's still no reason under the sun why he couldn't have been implying by his statements (lies) that he had STARTED to eat his lunch on the 1st floor, then he went to get a Coke on Floor #2, and then went back to Floor #1 to CONTINUE eating the lunch he had started minutes earlier.

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

They do if they have the evidence to show that the report was altered as part of the coverup.

Which, of course, is "evidence" that nobody has acquired. Not even Mr. Larsen.

17 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

How about the Sibert & O'Neill 11/22/63 receipt for "a MISSILE removed by Commander James Humes"? Let me guess: They were really only talking about the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from the skull, right? Find me a single other FBI document where two tiny fragments are described as "a missile."

The Navy Corpsman who wrote the memo that said "missle" [sic] was definitely mistaken. Even BOTH of the FBI agents think he was wrong/mistaken, and they've said so in various interviews over the years.

"There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during this autopsy that was found." -- James W. Sibert; June 30, 2005

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / 2005 Interview With James Sibert

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / 1979 Interview With Francis O'Neill

2 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Was Chief Mills mistaken or lying too?

Refresh my memory --- Who is Chief Mills?

22 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

How could Dr. Young have been describing CE 569 when CE 569 was never at the autopsy, was found at a different time, was found by different people, and was found in the opposite end of the limo? 

I wasn't attempting to make any sense out of this "Dr. Young Bullet" mess/silliness in my first reply in this thread. I was merely answering this question you asked earlier:

"Could you imagine anyone, even a child, looking at one of those [CE567 & CE569] and calling it a "deformed bullet"?"

And, as Gerry and I have both said, the answer to THAT question SPECIFICALLY (and all by itself) is, in my opinion, Yes.

16 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Leaving aside the fact CE 569 was never at the autopsy...

Well, we know that no "whole bullet" was ever at the autopsy either. Because if it had been, then that whole bullet would have most certainly been entered as evidence in the case by Dr. Humes, and it would have been given to FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill (along with the two fragments from JFK's head that were given to those two agents). But no whole bullet was given to Sibert & O'Neill.

Therefore, Dr. Young must be wrong.

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Agreed. It seems that every piece of evidence suggesting Oswald's innocence, whether it be Oswald's presence in the second floor lunch room, or the movement of JFK's head in the Z-film, eventually comes under fire by...conspiracy theorists, who are on the constant hunt for something more sexy. 

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

I would contend that:
- 100% of LN's, or defenders of the official version, firmly believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen!
- 95% of Warren report critics and conspiracy theorists likewise believe that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter did happen!

That leaves a tiny, tiny group of people who resort to (if I may say so) "farfetched theories". Isn't there a point where some conspiracy theorists actually go against their own cause?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (IN JANUARY 2019):

That whole second floor lunch room encounter has been decimated by, among others, Bart Kamp, Greg Parker, and Sean Murphy.

It was manufactured and [Marrion] Baker never got his story together about it. Anyone who supports that today simply is either not aware of the new work, or is just denying the new facts.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And it's my opinion that anyone who could possibly think that the second-floor lunchroom encounter never occurred at all is a person living deep within a fantasy world all their own. There are many reasons to disregard the conspiracy fantasists who constantly insist that the Baker/Oswald encounter never happened at all. (See link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Lunchroom Encounter

Excerpt....

"It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too.

I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom.

But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all.

And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short.

But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure.

Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so." -- DVP; July 2015
 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You TRUST that it was Oswald's weapon.

Given the wealth of evidence that exists concerning Oswald's March 1963 rifle purchase from Klein's, no sensible person could possibly believe that Rifle No. C2766 was anything BUT Lee Harvey Oswald's weapon.

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And you twist evidence to make it seem like he carried that weapon into the building.

Like all sensible people evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case, I make reasonable inferences based on that evidence. And the only "reasonable inference" that can be made regarding the large-ish package LHO took into the TSBD on 11/22 is that the package contained Oswald's rifle.

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And you then say he lied "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a legal term) over something that was never tried, or even honestly investigated.

So, Pat, does that mean you think Oswald told the TRUTH about the "curtain rods"? (Come now.)

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

YOU have convicted him, not based on the evidence, but on what you WANT the evidence to be. 

Another Pot/Kettle moment here. Sounds to me like you're talking to a CTer. Because almost all CTers do exactly what you just accused me of doing. They make Oswald the "patsy", not based on the actual evidence, but based on what the CTers WANT the evidence to be. All the REAL evidence is to be tossed aside (if you're a CTer).

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Are you just trying to annoy people, David? Because this seems to be deliberately annoying. We KNOW we don't know exactly what was said in the interviews. We KNOW the only person to ID Oswald as the shooter refused to do so when it mattered, and only did so after a visit to his house by the FBI. We KNOW the shots purportedly fired by Oswald were beyond his presumed skill level, and could only have been fired from him if he got "lucky". So why are you SO SURE he was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting? What is it that nails it down for you?

Oh, for Pete sake, Pat! You're one of the most sensible and reasonable of all online CTers (without doubt). So how can you possibly pretend not to know all of the various things that "nail down" Oswald's guilt for an LNer like myself?

There are many many things that (collectively) "nail down" Oswald's guilt. None of which will ever satisfy a CTer, of course. But that's of little consequence in the long run.

Just start with these two items.....

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound John Connally.

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.

Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Then, when James Hosty went to write this down, he wrote that Oswald said that he went outside to watch the P. Parade.

Geez Dave, how on earth did Hosty HEAR that?? When Oswald SAID he ate lunch twice, and met up with Baker on the second floor?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Lee Oswald's Whereabouts At 12:30 PM On November 22

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, let me get this straight. According to you....

When Oswald was asked where he was as the motorcade went by, he lied and said he was on the first floor eating lunch. Then he said that he went to the second floor to get a coke, where he encountered Officer Baker. After that, he botched it and said he went back to the first floor and ate lunch (again).

Why would you say "ate lunch AGAIN"? Via Lie #1, he could be implying to Fritz/Bookhout/Hosty that he had already started to eat some of his lunch while he was on the first floor, then he went up to the second floor to get a Coke, then he came back down to the first floor to CONTINUE eating the rest of his lunch.

But it makes very little difference in exactly what ORDER Oswald told his lies. For they were still ALL LIES regarding anything he said about being on the first (or second) floor EATING LUNCH at around the time JFK was being shot. Because in reality, of course, Mr. Oswald was on the sixth floor aiming his Carcano rifle at John Kennedy's head at the exact moment when Mr. Kennedy was killed by gunfire.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / index / Lee Harvey Oswald

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

LOL, oh right David. Oswald couldn't let anybody know that he ate lunch before he had his encounter with Baker! Too.... uh.... incriminating?

Get real, man.

It's very likely merely an indication of the President's assassin not being able to come up with a very believable alibi for himself and he botched it when he had to tell it to Captain Fritz.

-----------------------------------

Also.......

• "There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 958 of "Reclaiming History"

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh, so you believe that Oswald went down and had his lunch AFTER the second-floor encounter.

No, of course he didn't. That was just another one of the dozens of LIES that escaped the mouth of Lee Oswald after he was arrested. Similar to the lie that Oswald told to Fritz about how he (LHO) was on the FIRST FLOOR at the time of the assassination itself. Which is a lie that even many (most) CTers don't believe, because the "Prayer Man" CTers think Lee was OUTSIDE the building at 12:30, and hence he wasn't anywhere IN the building on the "first floor".

But if you're a CTer who believes in the "Prayer Man" nonsense, it means that it was really Captain Fritz who lied, instead of Oswald telling his "first floor" falsehood.

CTers, however, also have to paint FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty as falsehood tellers as well, because they said this in their joint report on Page 613 of the Warren Report:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."

Sandy Larsen's imagination is running wild....as usual.

It's The World vs. The Patsy  in a CTer's fanciful universe.

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

in FBI Agent James Bookhout's official report on Oswald's interrogation, it is revealed that Oswald's alibi was that he was outside with Bill Shelley. Here is the relevant excerpt:

Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly....

You've totally misrepresented the TIMING of the above information in Bookhout's solo report, Sandy!

A reading of the whole Bookhout report clearly indicates that the paragraph quoted by Sandy Larsen above is unquestionably referring to a point in time AFTER the Baker/Oswald encounter in the lunchroom.

And when did that second-floor encounter occur? It occurred, of course, AFTER the shooting had taken place. Therefore, Bookhout's report most certainly does not give Oswald an "alibi" for the exact time of the shooting itself.

Why did you misrepresent the timing like that, Sandy?

2 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Did LBP even read the book?

Does it really matter? Absurd theories such as "Prayer Man Is Lee Oswald" practically debunk themselves, as discussed here.

On 9/13/2023 at 9:04 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Could you imagine anyone, even a child, looking at one of those and calling it a "deformed bullet"?

I agree with Gerry Down. The answer to your above question is most certainly Yes.

Let's have a look at Commission Exhibit No. 569....

-------------------------------------

Also See:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

Here's a review of Bart Kamp's new 2023 book "Prayer Man: More Than A Fuzzy Picture". This well-written review, which contains opinions that I agree with 100%, was posted at Amazon by an individual using only the initials "LBP" [who, I later learned, is former EF Forum member Lance Payette].....

Review Title:

"Well-meaning and worthwhile presentation of patent nonsense"

"Bart Kamp is a serious and well-meaning JFK assassination researcher who is a fixture at the Reopen the Kennedy Case forum, where the overarching theme is that LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT!!! This book thus reflects that perspective. More to the point, one of the obsessions there is Prayer Man, an exceedingly fuzzy photo of someone on the Texas School Book Depository steps who might well be a woman but WAS IN FACT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!!!

There is an initial mental hurdle you must overcome to find this book fascinating and worthwhile. It must make sense to you that Oswald, the designated patsy whose rifle would be found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was nevertheless allowed by the bumbling conspirators to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. A secondary mental hurdle is accepting that it "just so happens" that Oswald was captured in a single fuzzy photo that could well be your Aunt Tillie but not in pristinely clear photos that were or well could have been taken in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day. A third mental hurdle, I suppose, is that Oswald never said he was standing on the steps - as I probably would've done if I'd been in his shoes and had such an ironclad alibi- and precisely no one, including the TSBD employees who actually were standing on the steps, ever said they saw him.

I confess, I am of such puny and limited imagination that I am incapable of clearing these hurdles and entering into the wild and wacky world of Prayer Man enthusiasts. I can conceive of no possible conspiracy scenario this side of "Reptilian aliens did it!!!" that would have allowed Oswald to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Nope, sorry, I regard Prayer Man as utter and self-evident nonsense.

That being said, I emphasize again that Mr. Kamp is a serious assassination enthusiast whose Prayer Man website is a veritable goldmine of documents and information even if you regard Prayer Man as nonsense. Ditto for this book. It is chock-full of worthwhile information and links regardless of your perspective on Prayer Man. I give it 4 stars for sheer effort. I am constantly agog at some of the wild and wacky notions that seemingly sane and intelligent conspiracy enthusiasts manage to compartmentalize in their otherwise sane and intelligent minds, and this book also serves as a good illustration of why I am constantly agog." -- "LBP"; August 4, 2023

Link To This Review At Amazon.com

------------------------------

Also See:

http:// DVP's JFK Archives / "Prayer Man" (And Other Assorted Topics)

Excerpts from a forum discussion from several years ago, including an interesting "131 pounds" coincidence regarding both Lee Harvey Oswald and Donald Wayne House....

THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

So, when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the Warren Commission exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one.

But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.)

[2021 EDIT: I just came across this 11/23/63 FBI report concerning the details of Donald Wayne House, who was picked up by the police as a suspect in President Kennedy's assassination shortly after the shooting. And in that FBI report, it gives the weight of House as precisely 131 pounds, which is an interesting coincidence, isn't it? Because that's the exact same weight figure attached to Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprint card being discussed [here]. Did somebody goof at Dallas P.D. and mix up the two JFK Assassination suspects? Food for thought anyway.]

But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that.

As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen.

And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald.

And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle.

How 'bout that for coincidence?
 

The two-page FBI report relating to Donald Wayne House (click to enlarge):

On 8/18/2023 at 4:32 AM, Mervyn Hagger said:

Still no one has anything to say about Don House, but plenty to say about Lee Harvey Oswald.

To see video of Don House in custody at the Fort Worth police station, see the video below (at the 6:25:33 mark):