David Von Pein

Oh, come now, Randy. He gave his WC testimony in 1964. He was talking to Gary Mack in June of 2002! Can't you cut the guy a LITTLE slack? Geez.

Well, yes, I suppose that's true. But do you remember the exact dates when you were hired for every job you've ever had in your life? (And I'm sure at least a few of those jobs of yours involved a situation where you had to serve as personal chauffeur to a future Presidential assassin. Right? ) BTW, what's the point of bringing up Wesley Frazier's bad memory anyway? Are you suggesting he was LYING when he was vague about his TSBD hiring date? If so, please answer this for me: What possible reason would Buell Frazier have had to lie, or become deliberately vague, about something so incredibly mundane and innocuous?

Some people just don't remember dates very well, Randy. Apparently Wesley Frazier is one of those people. It couldn't be more common among human beings. And I cannot understand why you're elevating his hiring date to a level of such significance. Yes, it's significant that he was hired AT ALL at the Depository. But why is the EXACT DATE so important for Wesley to remember?

You think Frazier became famous and a part of history in September of 1963, eh? That's weird.

Oh, for Pete sake, why in the world would anyone consider Frazier's HIRING DATE to be the most important and unforgettable date in his life? How silly. Do you think his hiring date in Sept. '63 was MORE memorable than 11/22/63 itself? And we know that Wesley misremembered a few things relating to 11/22: 1.) He told Gary Mack that the first time he heard the name "Lee Oswald" after the assassination was on the radio BEFORE Oswald was even arrested. (Which is dead wrong and never happened.) 2.) Wesley told Gary he saw Oswald walking on Houston St. about 5-10 minutes after the assassination. (Which is in direct opposition to Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, where he plainly states, in his own words, that he never saw Oswald again on November 22 "after about 11:00 AM".) So why should the date of Wesley's being hired at the TSBD be emblazoned in his memory?

But by the same token, Randy, he also had 39 years for that information to escape his memory. That's a long time.

I wonder why Frazier doesn't mention a single word about being hooked up to a lie detector in this 2002 interview with Gary Mack? http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/178017 Yes, it's true that Gary didn't ask Wesley this question -- Were you given a lie detector test? And if so, were you pissing your pants with fright as you were being used as leverage by the DPD as they were naming you as a co-conspirator in the President's murder? -- but Gary gave Wesley ample room for telling everything that occurred at City Hall when Frazier was being questioned for many hours on Nov. 22. In short -- the DPD probably SHOULD have considered Frazier to be a possible co-conspirator of Oswald's. Heck, I would have thought the same thing. After all, Wesley drove the assassin (and the gun) to work on the day Kennedy was killed from his workplace. But he cleared himself of any conspiratorial conduct. Only rabid conspiracy clowns try to implicate 19-year-old Buell Frazier.

Another common-sense reason to know that Lee Oswald is not Doorway Man (besides the fact that Billy Lovelady verified that he, himself, was Doorway Man in Commission Exhibit No. 369) is that we'd have to swallow the following preposterous notion if Oswald really was standing in front of the TSBD in the Altgens photo: Oswald was watching the motorcade from the steps of the Depository Building....he sees JFK get shot....he sees all the commotion that follows....and then what does he decide to do IMMEDIATELY after seeing this catastrophic event take place right before his very eyes? He decides he wants to go inside the building and get himself a Coca-Cola from the second-floor lunchroom. And the above scenario would have been unfolding involving a man (Oswald) who certainly was involved in some way in the plot to murder the President. And even most hardline conspiracy theorists will admit to Oswald having been knowingly "involved" in at least some peripheral way in the assassination plot on 11/22/63. Which would mean (when factoring in my last paragraph) that Oswald, if he was Doorway Man, incredibly, still had that desire to walk back inside the TSBD Building and buy that Coke from the second-floor vending machine immediately after watching the President get killed -- vs. getting the heck out of Dodge and high-tailing it away from the scene of an assassination that he, himself, helped orchestrate. Anybody here think that tall tale would sway any of the jurors at Mr. Oswald's murder trial? Footnote #1 --- Yes, it's true that Buell Wesley Frazier did something almost as unbelievable and incredible very shortly after watching JFK get killed from the TSBD steps, with Frazier going back into the building and down to the basement (no less) to eat his lunch. But the key difference between Frazier's actions and Oswald's (via the scenario laid out above) would be: Buell Frazier wasn't a conspirator and had no reason to want to flee the murder scene after JFK was killed. Footnote #2 --- Of course, the mere fact that Oswald was anywhere near the scene of the assassination if he really wasn't the triggerman is a preposterous thing to believe as well (via the widely-accepted scenario of Oswald being "involved" in some way in the assassination plot beforehand, but not as a gunman). But, quite obviously, many many CTers do believe that Oswald was "involved" in the plot but not as a gunman, but he still (for some unknown reason) needed to be right there at the scene of the murder anyway--even though he really did NOTHING at all to help out his co-conspirators at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63. David Von Pein May 2012 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

Yes, James, it would have been better if JFK's SS-100-X limo could have been used on 5/24/64 for the re-enactment. But, as previously stated, the Warren Commission was very clear to point out in the Warren Report that "ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT" between JFK's limo and the Queen Mary car that subbed for it during the reconstruction. Is that just a lie, James? I think now might be a good time to put forth a little bit of ordinary common sense and logic (apart from the topic of the WC's re-enactment): 1.) JFK was hit by a bullet in his upper back. 2.) John Connally was hit by a bullet is his upper back too. 3.) No bullets were found in JFK's back and neck regions. 4.) The Zapruder Film makes it clear that JFK & JBC are reacting at the same time to bullet injuries or (at the very least) they are reacting within a short enough time period that would prohibit a gunman using Oswald's Carcano rifle from firing two separate bullets into the two victims within that short timeframe. Don't any conspiracy theorists think the above 4 points of absolute fact are mighty strange if the Single-Bullet Theory is not true? IOW -- Wasn't it amazing for TWO separate gunmen to be able to perform that incredible "SBT"-like magic on TWO different victims in Dealey Plaza? The fact that the SBT could be proposed at all if it is truly the impossible fairy tale theory that almost all conspiracy theorists believe it to be is possibly the most amazing "miracle" of this whole murder case. Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Why not? Shaneyfelt's position as he's holding the camera gun is pretty close to what a real gunman's posture would be when firing on a car on the street below -- i.e., rifle muzzle aimed at the car below; gunman looking through the telescope or looking down the barrel through the open iron sights (which is quite possibly how Oswald shot Kennedy after missing with his first shot and then switching to the iron sights for shots 2 and 3). How much different would you expect ANY gunman's posture and positioning of the rifle to be when compared with Shaneyfelt's position? Oswald's exact posture and position in the Sniper's Nest when he shot the President can never be known with 100% certainty, of course. But it seems to me that the key aspect on this point is this one--- Is the muzzle of the gun in a position where a shot from that gun could have struck JFK at the various Z-Film frames that were re-enacted (Z207, Z225, Z313, etc.)? And the answer to that question is Yes, unless you want to call the WC and FBI complete and outright liars, as many conspiracy theorists do, of course (but I'm not travelling down that path). BTW, yes, I did misinterpret your previous post, James. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that Shaneyfelt was standing on Zapruder's pedestal while making his trajectory calculations. My error. Sorry. Give or take a very small degree of angularity, yes, I think Shaneyfelt's position is just about right. Again, I think it's pretty much GOT to be right just based on the simple fact that if it wasn't right, then the muzzle of Shaneyfelt's camera gun would not be fixed on the proper targets of JFK's upper back and head at the proper times (Z210-225 and Z313). And how could ANY gunman (Oswald or otherwise) have been in a substantially different posture while also making sure the muzzle of the gun was in line to hit his target on the street below? Can you see what I'm driving at? And you surely have got to admit that at least ONE bullet fired from that sixth-floor window (from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano) did, indeed, find its way into JFK's car on 11/22/63. Right, James? I mean, CE567/569 provide the proof of that fact beyond all possible doubt, wouldn't you agree? Plus there are the three bullet shells from Oswald's gun right underneath the window. Therefore, somebody was firing Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle from that Sniper's Nest window on Nov. 22. That's a virtual certainty. And that "somebody" must have had that gun pointed in a very similar manner (toward the car with JFK in it) to what we see in the Shaneyfelt photograph. I wouldn't say the window is open "far higher" in the Shaneyfelt picture than it was on November 22. In the montage I prepared below, it seems that the window heights are pretty close to being the same, with the Shaneyfelt window being open perhaps a tad more than in the Dillard photo taken on 11/22. But keep in mind the severe angle of the Dillard picture is quite possibly making the window look not quite as high as it really was. The other photo is a still from Mark Bell's film, where the angle isn't as steep. It's kind of hard to tell whether Shaneyfelt has got the window open too far or not. But I will say this: we can easily see that even if the Shaneyfelt window is open too far, there is still ample space between the camera gun and the bottom of the open window pane. That is to say, even if the window were to be lowered by a few more inches, there would still have been enough open window space for Oswald to shoot from without the window hindering his shooting:

Thank you. Huh? You surely aren't suggesting that the WC's "Sniper's Nest To Street" angles were derived while standing on Zapruder's pedestal, are you?

Which means that any trimming done to the tree was done AFTER the Warren Commission and FBI had already taken all of their pictures from the TSBD window (such as CE889 and 890 shown below). Because those pictures were taken on May 24th, not 25th. So, if your dates are accurate, James, it turns into a "so what?" situation entirely (with respect to the 5/24 photos that were taken). Or do you contend the pictures we see in CE888 and the following exhibits were actually taken on May 25th? I wasn't even aware the WC was still doing any "re-enactment" work in DP on Monday, May 25th. They chose May 24 due to the fact it was a Sunday and would therefore disrupt normal Dallas traffic the least. BTW, who is Robert West? Let me just add this: Unless you, James Gordon, are prepared to perform the kind of detailed ON-SITE reconstruction of the shooting angles and measurements that was performed by the Warren Commission and FBI from the exact window from which shots were fired at President Kennedy, then your calculations and measurements are always going to take a back seat to the WC's conclusions about the angles and measurements, in my opinion. James, what methods are you utilizing to try and prove the WC wrong? I hope photogrammetry is involved. Otherwise, you've got major problems (if, that is, you're attempting to extract 3D information from two-dimensional photographs, which cannot be accomplished without photogrammetry being used). There is also this (from page 97 of the Warren Report): "On May 24, 1964, agents of the FBI and Secret Service conducted a series of tests to determine as precisely as possible what happened on November 22, 1963. Since the Presidential limousine was being remodeled and was therefore unavailable, it was simulated by using the Secret Service followup car, which is similar in design. ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT." [DVP's emphasis.]

I wonder why the plotters were so stupid as to place an "Imposter Lovelady" into film footage who, per Fetzer, looked NOTHING like the person he was supposed to be impersonating. Why did they do that, James F.?

Any idea how much the branches of a Texas live oak would have grown in the six months between 11/22/63 and 5/24/64? That's a possible explanation for any tree-trimming seen by Robert West. Wouldn't you agree, James? And could the tire thing be related to the fact that the Queen Mary car sat higher than SS-100-X? I know the WC/FBI had to account for a 10-inch difference in height between the two vehicles when figuring the angles from Oswald's window to the victims. You suspect foul play on the part of the WC though, don't you James?

Looks like a 5/24/64 image to me. That was the date of the WC/FBI re-enactment in DP. The guy in the street with the tripod sure matches this image, which is confirmed to be May 24: http://eMuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:26797 More: http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-268.html What was done in Feb. '64?

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!"