David Von Pein

One of these days, it'd sure be nice if someone would sue the pants off of a few of the conspiracy-happy clowns (like DiEugenio, for example) for defamation of character, as a result of the clowns constantly calling various people liars, Presidential murderers, "accessories after the fact to murder", and various other specious and vile charges that the clowns couldn't prove if their lives hung in the balance.

And J. Raymond Carroll suffers from the very odd disorder known as Anybody But Oswald Syndrome. Perhaps Raymond should review Commission Exhibit No. 1820 again: "MARINA states that in reflection, now she believes this to be strange, because OSWALD had always been most frugal and did not allow her to spend hardly any money." -- Via CE1820; An FBI interview with Marina Oswald, in the Russian language, on January 15, 1964 After reviewing the list of things I mentioned in an earlier post above (and when adding in all of the many, many things which show Oswald to be a double-murderer that I didn't mention in that post), only a person who has totally taken leave of every ounce of common sense he may have possessed could possibly believe that I have attempted to "DEMONIZE an innocent man" named Lee Harvey Oswald. In other words, to the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy crackpots, the MORE evidence there is of Oswald's (double) guilt, the more INNOCENT Oswald becomes. Now THAT'S bizarre.

My latest e-mail conversation with Gary Mack: Subject: Gary Mack Explains Date: 3/10/2013 7:08:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Hi Dave, Exactly right, folks who think I would make up something wrong to mislead people just make me laugh. I sat for an interview with a News reporter and spoke off the top of my head for well over an hour and got one thing wrong out of many, many topics we discussed. I sent word to him quickly and the story was corrected. What's online is the archive version people will read forever. There may even be a formal correction notice. As for the property invoice, that was the standard form used for items retrieved with a prisoner. Unfortunately, it was misidentified twenty-five years later when the DPD's Kennedy papers were inventoried by city archivists. Such forms were kept by the property clerk and the listed items would be released to the prisoner later. Prisoners were allowed to keep their wallets but Oswald's bullets were likely withheld along with the revolver police found him trying to fire at them. There's a separate listing for the items found in Oswald's room, though I haven't seen it in years. Gary ================================================= Date: 3/10/2013 7:17:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack Thanks, Gary. Did the reporter just get mixed up and confused about the "note left for Marina" topic? I mean, when you talked about a "note" in your lengthy interview with the Dallas Morning News, were you really referring to the Walker incident from April 1963 and the reporter got mixed up and thought you were referring to 11/22/63 instead? Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to write. Regards, David Von Pein ================================================= Date: 3/10/2013 9:09:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein As for the mistake, it was probably mine, but I'm not sure. We did talk about the Walker shooting and I could have mentioned the note then. BTW, the DPD records probably have a similar property receipt for Ruby, too. Gary ================================================= Date: 3/10/2013 9:14:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack Gary, Thanks for your latest reply. It just goes to prove that even someone who knows the JFK case backward and forward (like yourself) can sometimes make an inexplicable error about a fact relating to the assassination. I said that exact same thing to conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes when discussing Vincent Bugliosi's "brain cramp" regarding the "ragged" nature of the wound in JFK's throat (which is a topic that Ben is absolutely positive Bugliosi "lied" about in his book). Vincent's memory is not exactly what it was many years ago (and Vince even admits that fact himself), and I think a little bit of that failing memory did, on rare occasions, sneak into the pages of his JFK book. Bottom line -- People are HUMAN. Not machines. They make mistakes and always will as long as we humans roam the Earth. Best regards, David Von Pein

David "ZAPRUDER WASN'T ON THE PEDESTAL AT ALL" Healy said: Gosh, you're a strange person.

I'm glad you brought this up, Raymond. Because I was not entirely correct or clear when I said this in an earlier forum post: What I should have said is this (with the emphasis on the "and" being the crucial point that I didn't stress previously): Has there ever been another occasion which had Lee Oswald leaving behind most of his money AND his wedding ring prior to him leaving for work? It's the COMBINATION of "money + wedding ring" that is important, IMO. Because, Ray, you are correct to point out that Lee could very well have left money in that wallet at the Paine house on previous occasions (in addition to November 22). In fact, the Warren Commission testimony of Marina Oswald actually verifies that Lee did, in fact, leave money in that wallet on prior occasions (and Marina also testified that Lee left extra money in a wallet while they were living in New Orleans as well): J. LEE RANKIN -- "Did you usually keep a wallet with money in it at the Paines?" MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes, in my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it." MR. RANKIN -- "On the evening of November 21st, do you know how much was in the wallet?" MRS. OSWALD -- "No. One detail that I remember was that he had asked me whether I had bought some shoes for myself, and I said no, that I hadn't had any time. He asked me whether June needed anything and told me to buy everything that I needed for myself and for June and for the children. This was rather unusual for him, that he would mention that first." MR. RANKIN -- "Did he take the money from the wallet from time to time?" MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he generally kept the amount that he needed and put the rest in the wallet. I know that the money that was found there, that you think this was not Lee's money. But I know for sure that this was money that he had earned. He had some money left after his trip to Mexico. Then we received an unemployment compensation check for $33. And then Lee paid only $7 or $8 for his room. And I know how he eats, very little." -------------------- There is also this from Vince Bugliosi's book: "Friday morning, before leaving Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170, believed to be virtually all of his money, for Marina, demonstrating that he realized he might never see her again--that is, he might not survive the assassination he was contemplating. Moreover, as he left Marina that morning, Oswald told her to use the money to buy..."anything" else that she felt was necessary for the children. Marina thought this to be strange since Oswald had always been "most frugal" and hardly allowed her to spend any money at all." -- Pages 955-956 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi [sourced from CE1820, at 23 H 479] http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0256a.htm -------------------- In summary -- Lee Oswald leaving behind the money and his ring doesn't PROVE he shot the President, of course. But the TOTALITY of unusual things he did on November 21 and 22 certainly indicate that Friday, November 22, 1963, was not just an ordinary regular work day for Lee Harvey Oswald. E.G.: 1.) Visiting his wife at Ruth Paine's house on a THURSDAY instead of his normal FRIDAY. 2.) Leaving Marina $170 and his wedding ring (in tandem) -- which left only approximately $15.10 in Lee's pockets when he left the Paine house on November 22 (and, remember, per Buell Wesley Frazier, Lee was not planning on returning to Irving on Friday night). 3.) Telling Marina to buy "anything" that was needed for the children, which was highly unusual for the penny-pinching Mr. Oswald, according to his wife. 4.) Telling Wesley Frazier he was going to Irving to get some curtain rods at the Paine house, which we know was a lie (based on the preponderance of evidence and testimony that proves it was a lie). 5.) Taking a large paper package into work with him on Nov. 22. 6.) Taking no lunch to work on Nov. 22, which was very unusual (per Buell Frazier's testimony). And when we add in the evidence of Oswald's guilt that was discovered AFTER the assassination, then what do all of these things suggest--in combination with one another? Do they suggest the actions of an innocent patsy? Or do they suggest the actions of a person who had a one-man plan to murder the President? Mr. Spence, your witness.

Well then Jim, you should be asking yourself this question: Did Gary Mack REALLY think he could get away with such a blatant and obvious inaccurate statement about Lee Oswald leaving a "What To Do If I'm Arrested" note for Marina on the morning of 11/22/63 -- when Gary has surely got to know that many sharp-eyed people on Internet forums like this one will surely point out the obvious mistake/lie and call him on it? Now, Jim, when Gary's quote about the note is put into the above context and framework, do you truly believe that Gary Mack would have deliberately lied about such a note being left by Oswald? Or could it possibly--just possibly--have merely been an honest mistake (which, btw, has since been corrected at the DMN site)? I know what Jimbo's answer will likely be. But I thought I'd ask it as kind of a rhetorical question nonetheless.

Like what, Pat? Any ideas? Maybe a Mauser? Or perhaps the $6500 that he obtained from co-plotters in Mexico? Is there anything that isn't suspicious to JFK conspiracy theorists?

Well, for Pete sake, Pat, that same inventory sheet also shows the bus transfer and Oswald's bracelet -- which are things that were ON OSWALD when he was arrested. Don't tell me you think the bus transfer was found in Oswald's room too?

Why are you misrepresenting the evidence, Pat? There was no money found in Oswald's room on Beckley. The $13.87 was found IN OSWALD'S POCKETS when he was arrested. [see WR, Page 745, below.] I think it's ironic that certain conspiracy theorists are raking Gary Mack over the coals for making a mistake about the note, and here we have Pat Speer making a similar mistake--claiming some money was found somewhere where it definitely was not. Nice hunk of irony there indeed. And you and Raymond are totally missing the boat regarding Oswald leaving behind his wedding ring and nearly all his cash ($170.00) in Irving on November 22. How many times had Lee EVER done such a thing prior to 11/22? Answer: Never. Doesn't that suggest something to you, Pat/J. Raymond?

A very good film (IMO): http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2011/04/suddenly.html http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/suddenly-1954-movie.html

True. But it couldn't be any clearer from Joseph Ball's words during Lovelady's Warren Commission testimony that the arrows drawn on Commission Exhibit No. 369 by both Buell Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady are both pointing to "Doorway Man" in the Altgens photo: "You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you." -- Joseph A. Ball Jim, don't you think that Mr. Ball was fairly clear as to WHO Frazier's arrow "in the white" was pointing to when Ball said these words -- "IN THE WHITE POINTING TOWARD YOU"? The "you" in the above quote is, of course, Billy Lovelady. Plus, Ball's quote is certainly not implying that the two arrows were each pointing toward a different person in the photo. Just the opposite, in fact. Since we know, via Ball's words, that Frazier's arrow "in the white" is definitely pointing to a person deemed to be "you" (Lovelady), it HAS to mean that any arrow drawn in by Lovelady MUST also be pointing to the same person Frazier's arrow is pointing to. Because why in the world would Lovelady draw an arrow pointing to someone OTHER than himself in the Altgens photo? Ralph found no such thing. We can KNOW that Ralph found no arrow pointing to someone OTHER than "Doorway Man" because of what I just said about Ball's "in the white pointing toward you" quote. More: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/03c46aba3b5d4ce0

"Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369 (which is a picture of James Altgens' photograph showing Doorway Man) was actually marked with TWO different arrows pointing toward Lovelady (aka Doorway Man). CE369 was first marked with an arrow by Buell Wesley Frazier on March 11, 1964, at 2 H 242: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0125b.htm And that same exhibit was then marked with another arrow by Billy Lovelady himself on April 7, 1964 (at 6 H 338): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174b.htm When looking at the picture of CE369, I cannot see the second arrow that was drawn in. I see only one dark arrow to the left (west) of Lovelady. But the testimony is very clear -- TWO arrows were drawn on CE369, the first one by Wesley Frazier when the exhibit was first introduced into evidence by the Warren Commission on March 11th; and a second arrow marked on the same picture by Billy Lovelady on April 7th. Now, from the testimony, it's a bit unclear as to which witness (Frazier or Lovelady) drew in the dark arrow that is easily visible in CE369. But that visible arrow might very well have been drawn by Frazier and not Lovelady. But I'm not entirely sure of that. But Joseph Ball's instructions to Lovelady might give a clue. Ball said this to Lovelady: "Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. .... Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you." So, via the above testimony, it's possible that Lovelady's arrow is "in the dark" and cannot be easily seen. I suppose this confusion about who drew the dark arrow pointing to Doorway Man in CE369 will spark some additional controversy concerning the true identity of the man in the TSBD doorway, with some conspiracy theorists possibly wanting to now claim that Billy Lovelady didn't really mark CE369 at all with an arrow in 1964. But it's quite clear to me from the Warren Commission records that BOTH Wesley Frazier AND Billy Lovelady drew separate arrows pointing to the SAME PERSON (Doorway Man) in Commission Exhibit No. 369. And, of course, as I've pointed out in previous posts, there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 mock trial in London, where Frazier identified Doorway Man as Lovelady." David Von Pein June 4, 2012

My, my. How convenient for you, Ralph. Just pretend everything's fake AND everybody's lying. That's pretty much the motto you live by, isn't it Ralph?

I'd like to ask Ralph this: Since the face of "Black Hole Man" is obscured, then how on Earth could Lovelady know for certain if that was him in the picture or not? Who can tell? The face of that person is not discernible at all in CE369. I suppose you can always say that even though the person's face can't be identified, Lovelady knew he was shielding his eyes from the sun when the President drove by the building, and that's how he knew "Black Hole" was really him.

Ralph Cinque's nonsense never stops, does it? I guess Ralph thinks the HSCA or Lovelady (or both) lied through their teeth when the HSCA said this in their final report: "The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph."

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations. Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film. [...] Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892. Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.

I really do think regular ol' common sense and logic is the way to look at the SBT and the wounding of the two victims, who were each struck in their UPPER BACKS at the same time (or, at the very least, VIRTUALLY the same time, via a study of the Zapruder Film). All of your trajectory analysis and placement of the wounds are fine for you to want to get right and precise and perfect. But CAN you accomplish that "precise and perfect" task with the data we have available from the official records? I'm not too sure you (or anyone) can fine-tune the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally to the level you seem to think can be accomplished. And one of the biggest reasons I say that is because it is virtually impossible for anyone to say with 100% confidence and certainty what the precise and exact positions of the two victims were in relation to each other. And it's also virtually impossible, via any reconstruction, to pinpoint with absolute precision the exact position of JFK and Connally individually when they were shot. Dale Myers' computer reconstruction is, IMO, the best such re-creation ever made (to date). But even Dale's model has a 3- to 6-degree margin of error built into it (and it's Key Framed right to the Zapruder Film itself). So an EXACT replication is just about impossible given the subtle variables involved in the positioning of the victims. Plus, an added problem, of course, is the fact that President Kennedy is actually hidden by the Stemmons sign at the exact moment when he is struck in the upper back by a bullet, which makes fine-tuning his precise position even a more futile task. Mr. Myers has, however, been able to interpolate the position of JFK while behind the sign, but I think that even Dale will tell you that the interpolation of Kennedy's position while behind the sign is, indeed, just a best guess position determined by a computer. But when combining the best guesses of various re-creations of the SBT event -- such as: the Warren Commission's detailed reconstruction done right there at the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza on 5/24/64, and Dale Myers' computer work, and the real-life shooting test performed in 2004 in Australia by the Discovery Channel people (which is not perfect, I'll admit that fact; but, as mentioned, I doubt any re-creation ever could be "perfect") -- what I have concluded is this: The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the best and most logical explanation for the double-man wounding of JFK and Governor Connally, far outdistancing any theory that could be used to replace it. And the two bullets entered JFK but neither exited and then got lost or stolen explanation that is believed to be true by many conspiracy theorists is a scenario that only deserves scorn (and a few laughs), because such a two-disappearing-bullets explanation is, frankly, just silly. Yes, I do insist that they were wounded at the same time. And I cannot see how anyone can possibly watch the following four toggling clips a few times and still continue to insist that JFK and Connally were positively not hit at the same time (as many conspiracists do insist). Such firm denial by the conspiracy crowd on this issue (after watching these Z-Film clips) is, in my view, mindbogglingly stubborn: Then why is the Governor making the herky-jerky movements he is making from frames Z225 to about Z230? The shoulder "hunch"? The arm/hat "flip"? The facial distortion/grimace? The open mouth at exactly Z225? All of this stuff is being done by Connally BEFORE Z230. If Connally has not yet been shot, then how can you, James, logically and reasonably explain these obviously involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally which are happening prior to Zapruder frame #230? Let's watch again (and refer again also to the Z225-Z226 clip above, which shows the "arm/hat flip"): And yet, amazingly, several witnesses saw a gunman firing a rifle out of the EAST-end window, with NOBODY seeing any gunman firing any weapon from the west end of the Book Depository. Nor did anybody see any gunman anywhere PERIOD except in the southeast corner window on the TSBD's sixth floor, which perfectly matches where the "Sniper's Nest" was discovered and where three spent bullet shells from Oswald's rifle were also found. Any claim that a gunman was firing from the WEST side of the Depository is derived purely from the imagination of the person purporting it. Because we know that any such theory is certainly not being based on the totality of known evidence in the case. Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

So you think Buell Frazier is a xxxx now, too, eh Jim? Did somebody put the word "stocky" into Buell's mouth at the 1986 mock trial? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAFbJ5fTEG8 Yes, they are the same. Billy Lovelady HIMSELF confirmed he was Doorway Man. I still don't really know why that verification by the person in the doorway himself isn't enough to convince you it is Lovelady. The explanation for any perceived visual differences in the Lovelady footage has simply got to be accounted for via the angles of the photos and films. A different camera angle can sometimes make a lot of difference. Wouldn't you agree, Jim? You, Jim, have got a bunch of people lying and running around creating fake films and fake Loveladys. Don't tell me THAT type of scenario of yours is MORE reasonable than to just accept Lovelady's OWN WORD that it was he (Billy L.) in that doorway.

Has it ever occurred to Jim Fetzer that Billy Lovelady could have lost some weight between 11/22/63 and March of 1964? I guess such a "weight loss" possibility is just impossible in Dr. Fetzer's world. And apparently the notion that a shirt can be buttoned and then unbuttoned in very short order is another impossible-to-conceive concept in the daffy "Everything And Everybody Is Fake" world that James H. Fetzer resides in. (Although others in this discussion have proven via films and photos, besides just the Altgens picture, that Lovelady's shirt was unbuttoned at the exact time of the assassination. Heck, I even provided some proof of that in one of my posts, where I showed a frame from the Wiegman film.) BTW/FYI -- In 1986, Lovelady's co-worker, Wesley Frazier, described Lovelady as being "stocky". Go to approximately the 9-minute mark in this video to hear him say that word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604Fr5t198A

I totally agree with you, Pat. And I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Gary Mack for stirring up this "Mack/Dunkel" pot here at the Education Forum. (Although it was mentioned by others in this thread prior to my bringing it up.) But I dredged it up in an attempt to put a stop to what I thought at the time was another of the many myths that conspiracy theorists believe in. But apparently most people here already knew that Gary had changed his name from Dunkel years ago. I, however, had no knowledge of that name change whatsoever. I always thought the CTers were accusing Gary of creating a fake name from whole cloth. But I see I was wrong. But now I see that Jim DiEugenio has taken the opportunity to further ridicule Mr. Mack, with Jimbo scolding Gary and wondering why he doesn't go back to using his real name of Larry Dunkel since his days as a radio disc jockey are far behind him. I think I can speak for Mr. Mack when I type my next sentence, which seems most appropriate at this point: Mind your own freakin' business, DiEugenio! The Dallas Morning News article is quite clear about the reason for Gary's name change: "In 1969, Mack had earned his degree in journalism. He was Lawrence Alan Dunkel then, and after graduation, he went into broadcasting. During his time as a disc jockey, he changed his name to Gary Mack at the request of his boss, who thought it would be catchier." http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130302-gary-mack-and-the-evolution-of-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist.ece So, we can see it wasn't even Gary's/Larry's own idea to change his name. His boss encouraged it.

Says the man named Randy who said this (about nothing) earlier today: Pot/Kettle Alert.

Of course, Jimbo. Yet another "cover-up" by those scumbag Dallas cops. Right?

Ahh, that explains why I was in the dark. Who in their right mind would ever buy that book?

I can't recall if the stuff about Slack came up in the Frazier/Mack interview or not. But it is interesting. I've always held out hope that Oswald's presence at the Sports Drome Rifle Range could be positively proven in some way. (Although at this point, I don't think that's possible.) Because if it could be proven that Oswald (the REAL Oswald, not some make-believe "Oswald imposter" invented by conspiracists) really did take his rifle to the rifle range shortly before Nov. 22, it should forever silence the critics who love to say this: There's never been any proof that Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano at all. Therefore, how are we supposed to believe he killed JFK if he never practiced with his gun in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9G5kVXC8i4

Okay. Thanks, Pat. You could be 100% right about this. But I had the impression that some CTers thought "Larry D." was a made-up name used by Gary to hide his true identity. But maybe I'm wrong. (There's a first time for everything, right?)