David Von Pein

Boy, what a horrible comparison that is, Tommy.

Have you been chatting with Judyth recently? And so Lee took his rifle into the building in order to shoot the real assassins, so he could "help stop the assassination"? Is that it, Thomas? I love it. It's fun just making stuff up out of thin air, isn't it, instead of actually evaluating the evidence for what it really means -- i.e., Oswald took his gun to work on 11/22 and killed the President with it. But that boring conclusion can't compare with drug smugglers, gun runners, and Saint Oswald playing the role of Kennedy's bodyguard and life-saver. Right, Tom?

You're so right. It isn't Oswald. (Not that we can really verify that fact by looking at a frame taken from a blurry movie.) But there are so many OTHER reasons to know that Doorway Man is Billy Lovelady and not Oswald. The #1 reason, of course, is because Billy Lovelady HIMSELF told the world it was him (Lovelady) in the doorway. But according to people like Fetzer and Cinque, evidently Lovelady was telling a big whopper of a lie to BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA when he said he was Doorway Man. And there's Buell Frazier's testimony too. He took a pencil and drew an arrow to a person he said was Billy Lovelady in CE369. (And Lovelady himself drew a second arrow pointing to the same person in the same exhibit.) And Frazier repeated his "Lovelady Was In The Doorway" testimony in 1986 too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604Fr5t198A So, per Fetzer & Co., Frazier must be a xxxx too. And then we have Oswald himself (i.e., Oswald's own actions on 11/22). Per Fetzer & Co., Oswald's in the dooway at 12:30 .... he sees the President get shot .... he then (apparently) has an uncontrollable desire to dash into the TSBD Building and trot on up to the second floor to buy a Coca-Cola. And these would be the actions of a man who was "involved" in the plot to kill JFK to at least some limited extent, according to most CTers. And I think even Dr. Fetzer thinks that Oswald was "involved" in the murder plot to at least some partial degree. Given the fact that almost everyone agrees that Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination in at least some peripheral way, does it seem even remotely logical that Oswald would have wanted to go back INSIDE the building within seconds of the assassination taking place? In fact, if a little more common sense is applied to this "involved" topic, it really makes absolutely no sense WHATSOEVER to have Lee Harvey Oswald even being anywhere near the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza if he wasn't there to physically shoot at the President. What help or aid was Lee supposedly providing the "real assassins" that day? According to Oliver Stone's paper-thin theory, Oswald was supposed to wait by a telephone on the lower floors of the Depository. He was "waiting for a call that never came", per Stone's 1991 fantasy film. But nothing else is ever said about it in the film. It couldn't be more obvious that Stone's theory about the physical movements and whereabouts of Oswald at the time of the assassination is merely the product of the imagination of a filmmaker who was desperately attempting to manipulate the evidence of Oswald's guilt into something it was not. And that's why Stone's theory about Oswald looks so disjointed and flat-out silly on the movie screen. Or, to quote the great Jean Davison: "The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt." -- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game" ---------- And wasn't it nice of Oliver Stone to totally ignore the paper bag that Oswald brought into the TSBD on November 22nd? And wasn't it also nice and fair and BALANCED of Mr. Stone to also totally ignore Oswald's unusual Thursday-night visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21st and to completely ignore Oswald's "curtain rods" story as well? A person watching Stone's film who is uninformed about the facts in the JFK case would think that Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving had never even occurred. And that viewer would also be completely in the dark about any curtain rod tale. And the unsuspecting movie-goer would be totally unaware of ANY brown paper bag that was being hauled into work by Oswald on the day of Kennedy's murder (regardless of the shape and size of that bag). You want to talk about a biased look at the JFK assassination? Talk to Oliver Stone. (Sorry, I digressed. But once a train of conspiracy-bashing thought pops into my cranium, it's hard to derail her.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

This frame from the Wiegman Film also shows the unbuttoned nature of Lovelady's shirt:

Yes, Robin. Anybody can figure out this simple fact of moving body parts in about two seconds. I certainly figured it out in two seconds or less. But apparently Dr. Fetzer can't. The "manikin [sic] arm" crackpottery provided today's daily laugh here at the Oswald Shot Nobody Society of America. So I see that Fetzer now believes that pictures that weren't even taken on November 22nd have been faked and altered. Will he next purport that Billy Lovelady's baby pictures are forgeries too? (I hope so. Because tomorrow's daily laugh awaits.)

So what?

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130302-gary-mack-and-the-evolution-of-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist.ece I particularly enjoyed the part of the above article which says that Gary Mack changed his name from Larry Dunkel to Gary Mack (probably way back in the 1970s sometime). Unless I'm mistaken, that name-changing declaration will probably come as a big surprise to some conspiracy theorists, who I think have asserted in the past that Mr. Mack had simply MADE UP the name Larry Dunkel in order to pose as a different person when discussing the JFK case. The CTers will still say that by using the name Dunkel, instead of Mack, it still served to "hide" his true identity. But I just think it's kind of funny to find out that Dunkel is Gary's REAL name--and Gary Mack is, in essence, a FAKE name. Interesting irony there, isn't it? :-)

~Big Yawn, Jim~

How can any sensible person possibly believe that Clint Hill performed all of those actions by the time the car reached the Triple Underpass? It's just plain silly. If Clint Hill ever said he did ALL of the above things BEFORE the car ever reached the underpass, he obviously was merely a little off on his timing of when he performed all of those actions. And all reasonable people, of course, have the capability and the ability to evaluate Mr. Hill's statements in a reasonable way. The same can be said of another one of Mr. Fetzer's claims: On March 27, 2009, James Fetzer said: "I advance an 11-page study of Jean's [Hill] interview with Len Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in her testimony with that of Mary Moorman, which not only indicates they were in the street at the same time but that, if the Zapruder [Film] were authentic, it would show ( a ) Mary handing her photos to Jean, ( b ) Jean coating them with fixative, ( c ) the limo moving to the left (toward them), ( d ) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, ( e ) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, ( f ) Mary taking her picture, ( g ) both stepping back onto the grass, ( h ) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but ( i ) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film." In response to the above hilarity, David Von Pein (that's me) said the following on January 8, 2010: "For those who want the exact statistics on this, here they are: Assassination eyewitnesses Jean Hill and Mary Moorman first become visible in Abraham Zapruder's home movie in frame #287, when the right half of Hill's body comes into view: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z287.jpg The very last frame that shows any portion of either of the two women is Z316, which is a frame that depicts a very small part of Moorman's left arm: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg This means that the two ladies are visible (either individually or together) for a total of only 30 frames of the Zapruder Film (inclusively; Z287 through Z316), which in "real time" equals 1.639 seconds. But Jim Fetzer, incredibly, seems to think that an unaltered version of the Zapruder movie should show ALL of the events he mentioned above--even the post-assassination event of Moorman tugging on Hill's coat or leg (as Mary encourages Jean to get down on the ground to avoid the gunfire, which is an event that obviously did not occur until Mr. Zapruder had panned his camera further to his right and well out of the view of either of the two women). Does Dr. Fetzer believe that the "real" and "unaltered" Zapruder Film is focused on Jean and Mary for more than just 1.64 seconds? Fetzer must certainly believe that is the case, because otherwise how could ALL of his laundry list of Hill's and Moorman's actions have possibly been captured in just 1.64 seconds by the CONSTANTLY-PANNING motion of Mr. Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera? There's only one truly accurate word to describe such nonsensical and impossible beliefs on the part of James H. Fetzer --- Crazy!"

Keep on ignoring all the evidence, Ray, if it makes you happy. Apparently it does.

No graveyard whistling coming from me, J. Raymond. I couldn't be more confident of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder. And you should be too (of course). Because we don't JUST have to rely on the eyewitnesses (who are, indeed, strong and plentiful), but we can COMBINE those eyewitness accounts with the physical evidence (the bullet shells littering the Davis yard at 10th & Patton) that ALSO proves Oswald's guilt beyond all possible doubt. And if you want to, throw away the two Poe shells. Doesn't matter one bit. There are still two other shells that didn't go through J.M. Poe's hands on Nov. 22. And guess what gun those other two shells came out of? So we've got several eyewitnesses who all said: It was Oswald. And we've got ballistics proof in the form of those bullet shells dropped at the crime scene that says: It was Oswald's gun that killed Tippit, to the exclusion of all other guns on the planet. And we've got that gun still in Oswald's hands when he was arrested 35 minutes after Tippit was killed with that gun. (And Oswald tried to kill more policemen with that same gun in the theater too, which is another thing that often gets completely overlooked by the Anybody-But-Oswald fantasists. I guess they think Oswald was fighting like a wild man and brandishing his pistol just for the sport of doing it, while at the same time uttering one or two phrases that can only be looked upon as words being spoken by a man with a guilty state of mind.) All of that stuff above is a hard combination of facts for the ABO crowd to combat (although they try desperately to combat it on a daily basis as they continue to put forth the mindless assertion that Oswald wasn't even at the scene of the murder when Tippit was slain). Still think I'm whistling in that cemetery, Ray?

Gil Jesus' attempt at discrediting William W. Scoggins' positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman at 10th & Patton is a futile and desperate attempt by a conspiracy theorist to avoid the obvious fact that Oswald was present (with a gun) at Tenth and Patton on 11/22/63. Gil's attempt is futile because there are so many OTHER witnesses who ALSO fingered Lee Oswald as the Tenth Street gunman. So where can an "Anybody But Oswald" type of conspiracist like Gil really go with his Scoggins' article? Answer: Not very far. Or would Gil like to create similar webpages on Barbara Davis....and Virginia Davis....and Ted Callaway....and Sam Guinyard? All four of those above-named witnesses ALSO positively identified none other than Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they each saw leaving the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder--with a gun in his hand--immediately after Officer Tippit was shot and killed on Tenth Street. What can Gil possibly do to discredit and undermine the positive identification of Oswald made by all four of those witnesses (not to mention several others--like Patterson, Searcy, Russell, and Lewis). And I won't even place Helen Markham on the list of Tippit witnesses, due to her "screwball" nature. But even without Mrs. Markham, Gil Jesus doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not even a wobbly leg. Because there's too much corroboration of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder for him to possibly be innocent. Way too much. What can a conspiracy theorist possibly do with Ted Callaway, who is a witness who unquestionably saw the exact same gunman that William Scoggins saw on 11/22/63? And even Gil Jesus would surely stipulate to the fact that WHOEVER Scoggins saw cutting through the shrubbery on the corner of Tenth & Patton on November 22, it was, indeed, the very same person seen by Ted Callaway (and the Davis girls and Guinyard too). And since we know beyond all reasonable doubt, via the testimony of several other (non-Scoggins) witnesses, that the man cutting through the shrubbery was positively Lee Harvey Oswald, it can only mean one thing: The man Scoggins saw cutting through that same shrubbery with a gun on Nov. 22 was also Lee Harvey Oswald. Given these facts, Scoggins could not possibly have seen anyone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald that day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz1-3JmSbzk

HAROLD NORMAN (PART 2): PAT SPEER SAID: To support that three evenly-spaced shots were fired by a bolt-action rifle, he [DVP] uses Warren Commission testimony taken 4 months or more after the assassination, after the witnesses had been told by the media and their government that Oswald had acted alone. He avoids the earliest statements of the witnesses like the plague. .... This is not chaff, by any means. A competent and committed defense attorney could establish reasonable doubt on this fact alone. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: When thinking some more about witness Harold Norman and his comments made after President Kennedy's assassination, this thought struck me: The argument about the SPACING between the gunshots that Norman heard is really kind of an irrelevant and unimportant argument. Why? Because regardless of the exact number of seconds that passed between the three shots, ALL THREE OF THOSE SHOTS CAME FROM THE SAME RIFLE ABOVE NORMAN'S HEAD. And surely no conspiracy theorist wants to propose a theory that has TWO gunmen and TWO different rifles being fired from the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th Floor directly above Mr. Norman's head....do they? Therefore, no matter what the precise spacing was between the shots, per Norman's never-wavering "I HEARD THREE SHOTS FROM ABOVE ME" account of the shooting, it HAS to mean that the ONE gunman WAS able to fire those three shots from the gunman's ONE rifle in the allotted time to get off three such shots from his bolt-action weapon. The same argument I just made regarding Norman could also be made when it comes to many of the other Dealey Plaza witnesses, i.e., the witnesses who fall into the following category: I HEARD EXACTLY THREE SHOTS AND ALL OF THOSE SHOTS CAME FROM THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING. That is to say: What major difference does it really make what the precise SPACING was between these three shots, which were ALL shots (per those witnesses in the category just mentioned) that VERY LIKELY CAME FROM THE VERY SAME GUN? So, given these parameters that many witnesses DO agree on (i.e., exactly THREE shots fired and all coming from ONE rear location at or very near the Texas School Book Depository Building), the "spacing" issue is largely a moot point altogether. David Von Pein October 2007 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/harold-norman-part-2.html

HAROLD NORMAN (PART 1): When President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, 25-year-old Harold Norman was located on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He was situated directly underneath the sixth-floor "Sniper's Nest" window when rifle shots were being fired at JFK from that sixth-floor window. Does anyone truly think that Norman was making up a false story when he claimed to hear a rifle's bolt being worked directly over his head? And do conspiracy theorists also think that Norman lied when he said he heard exactly "three" shots being fired over his head? And did he also lie when he said he heard "three" bullet shells (or "hulls") hitting the floor above him? Harold Norman's testimony in each of the above "three shots" regards provides an additional (and, IMO, very important) layer of evidence leading toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murder of President Kennedy (coupled with all the other ballistics, witness, fingerprint, and fiber evidence that back up LHO's guilt as well). Because if Norman was dead wrong about everything he heard going on directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Book Depository, it would certainly be an incredible coincidence that he would be WRONG, but in such a "THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR" fashion....which is a scenario that is backed up by lots of other evidence (and witnesses), besides just Mr. Norman. And if conspiracists want to paint Norman as yet another in a series of "liars" or "Warren Commission shills" after the assassination, it only adds one more ludicrous and unproven "He Was Lying" allegation to the already silly length of such a list that has been created by some conspiracy theorists over the years since 1963. And it's interesting to note in the Warren Report, that all seven Warren Commissioners (via three separate re-creations of bullet shells hitting the floor above Norman's position on the Depository's fifth floor) were each easily able to hear the cartridge cases hitting the floor. "All seven of the Commissioners clearly heard the shells drop to the floor." -- Warren Report; Page 71 In addition, there's also the test that was conducted by Warren Commission counsel member David W. Belin. To quote Belin directly on this matter: "We scheduled the testimony of Harold Norman on March 24, 1964. Before he testified, we wanted to interview him on the fifth floor of the TSBD Building and check whether these sounds [of the rifle shells hitting the floor and of the rifle's bolt being worked by the gunman] could be heard. "We had with us the equipment necessary to make the test. A Secret Service agent with the bolt action rifle stood with Joe Ball in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. I stayed with Harold Norman on the fifth floor directly below. "Before giving the signal to conduct the experiment, I waited until a train passed on the nearby railroad overpass so there would be plenty of street noise. In addition, at that time, several large trucks were moving down Elm Street. I then yelled to have the test begin. "I smiled, for I really did not expect to hear anything. Then, with remarkable clarity, I could hear the thump as a cartridge case hit the floor. There were two more thumps as the two other cartridge cases hit the floor above me. "The Secret Service agent then worked the bolt of the rifle back and forth, and this too could be heard with clarity. "When we re-assembled after the re-enactment, I said to my colleague, 'Joe, if I had not heard it myself, I would never have believed it'." -- David Belin; Pages 139-140 of Belin's 1973 book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" http://You-Are-The-Jury.blogspot.com ------------------ Now, either Harold Norman was an amazing xxxx, or somebody fired three shots from just above Norman's 5th-Floor Depository position on 11/22/63 (with three shells hitting the floor too). And Norman confirmed he did hear precisely THREE shells/("hulls") hitting the plywood floor directly above him during the shooting. He confirmed this fact in 1986 when he was being questioned about the matter by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi during the television docu-trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald". Here is some of the verbatim testimony given by Harold Norman at that mock trial in 1986 (which can also be seen in the video presented below): VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?" HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired directly above you?" MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming from directly above you?" MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?" MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle being pushed back and forward." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?" MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?" MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?" MR. NORMAN -- "Three." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that you're going to remember for the rest of your life?" MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of the assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book Depository Building?" MR. NORMAN -- "No sir." http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/harold-norman.html -------------------------------------- Many conspiracy believers think the three shells were "planted" in the Sniper's Nest after the shooting. But Norman heard the shells dropping to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING, not several seconds AFTER the gunfire ceased. Do some CTers think that the plotters had a guy standing in the Sniper's Nest dropping shells to the floor IN REAL TIME during the actual eight seconds when the assassination was taking place on November 22nd? "Real Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting"! Now THAT'S Patsy-Framing organization and efficiency, for damn sure! So, if Norman's not a xxxx (and there's absolutely no reason to think he is), then three shots WERE definitely fired from that southeast corner window of the Book Depository's sixth floor. Period. Which is something that very few conspiracy theorists I've ever talked to actually believe occurred that day. And Harold Norman's testimony, all by itself, makes conspiracy theorist Robert Groden's crazy "No Shots Were Likely Fired From The SN Window At All" theory look even more ludicrous than it already is. (And it's pretty ludicrous to begin with.) David Von Pein July 28, 2006 January 1, 2007 July 30, 2010 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/harold-norman-part-1.html

There were three separate trips made to Dallas by the various members of the seven-man Warren Commission panel in order to take part in just the "shell-dropping" experiments alone. (And it stands to reason that they did more than just that experiment while they were there too.) On each of those three occasions, different members of the Commission stood on the fifth floor as a test was conducted by dropping bullet shells on the sixth floor. All seven Commission members heard the shells drop to the floor above them. The dates of those three tests (with at least one of the seven Commission members present each time) were: May 9, 1964 June 7, 1964 September 6, 1964 [source: Warren Report, Page 71.]

And yet we find the signatures of each of those men on page vii of the Warren Report. Wasn't it nice of those men to sign off on a report that they really didn't believe?

Listen to it again, Karl. The word you think is "IT" is very likely "THAT", and then some mumbling that is just about impossible to discern, but it sounds like the word "REPORT" comes right after "THAT" (which you claim is "IT"). Regardless of the exact verbiage, it's obvious (to me) that Cooper isn't telling the reporter that he doesn't believe that one man shot the President. Cooper, in essence, is AGREEING completely with Dulles' following remark about not wanting to "get into" the details. So, as I said, it's mountains from molehills. Or, in this instance, half a molehill.

Karl, You're misrepresenting Cooper's words in that video. He was about to say something akin to what Dulles says, but Cooper was cut off. Cooper didn't merely say: "I don't believe it" -- he added something AFTER "I don't believe...", which (if allowed to continue) would likely have been something like this: "I don't believe we should get into that subject here" -- which is precisely what Dulles does say. Do you really think Cooper was involved in some kind of grandiose cover-up operation, and then he just blurted out "I don't believe it" to a reporter with a live microphone? Or is Cooper one of the "good guys" on the Commission (who wasn't "in" on the cover-up operation)? And Dick Russell too?

Here we have a conspiracy theorist making more mountains out of more tiny molehills (yet again). So McCloy was fidgeting with his eyeglasses. Oh boy! That must mean he's a xxxx! Horse manure. CTers see conspiracy everywhere. Even in John McCloy's glasses. BTW, the McCloy interview was done in 1967, and aired in June of '67 in Part 4 of "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report", an excellent re-examination of the JFK case by CBS News, featuring many very good interviews and observations, including THIS re-creation of the backyard photos, which debunks one more conspiracy theory about those pictures (the "funny shadows" theory).

Indeed, Chris Davidson. Very good.

After digging into this matter a little further, I have been able to positively confirm that Lee Oswald's name is first mentioned on the ABC Television Network (and on WFAA-TV in Dallas) at approximately 2:40 PM Dallas time (Central Standard Time). The way I was able to confirm it is by comparing the WFAA-TV local Dallas coverage with the raw feed from the ABC-TV network footage that I also have in my collection. They are identical when comparing the timeframe in question, starting with Abraham Zapruder's WFAA interview and continuing for several minutes after that interview concludes. And the timing on the ABC Network raw feed works out to just exactly what I said earlier -- ABC said the name "Lee Oswald" at just about 2:40 PM CST, which was precisely four minutes after Jay Watson of WFAA finished his interview with Abraham Zapruder. As I mentioned earlier, the "2:40 PM CST" timestamp hinges on the Zapruder interview beginning at the time when the Sixth Floor Museum chronology says it began--2:31 PM CST. But I think I can pretty much confirm that timestamp as well, via my two hours of uncut ABC-TV coverage coming from the raw feed in New York City. The 2:31 PM time works out perfectly when timestamping things in my 2-hour ABC series (which is a series that begins at approximately 12:45 PM CST): jfk-assassination-as-it-happened.blogspot.com/ABC-TV Network Feed

Date: 2/14/2013 9:51:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time E-Mail From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack But isn't it possible that there was an earlier ABC report mentioning Oswald at 2:40 PM CST, along with the 3:46 PM CST report you have mentioned? Maybe somebody merely overlooked the 2:40 report by mistake. DVP

Date: 2/14/2013 9:15:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Must be. But I'm really baffled by some of this. I checked the ABC log this afternoon and I could swear the log said 4:46 was the time, which means 3:46 in Dallas. Just before I sent you and Bill [Kelly] the note tonight I found that NBC gave Oswald's name at 3:23 Dallas time, but then I found where I sent someone else the WBAP quote months ago. So if I have the time tomorrow, I'll check the ABC log again. Weird. Gary

Date: 2/14/2013 8:24:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: David Von Pein To: Gary Mack Thanks, Gary. I've been expecting to hear from you on this. So, via the WBAP log, it appears that my 2:40 PM CST timestamp for the ABC-TV "Oswald" announcement (which another person, Jeff Carter, also mentioned in the forum thread) is probably spot-on accurate. David V.P.