David Von Pein

Terry, there were several witnesses who actually saw the rifle in the Sniper's Nest window as the assassination was taking place: Howard Brennan Amos Euins Robert Jackson Mal Couch James Worrell* * From his vantage point directly in front of the Depository, Worrell couldn't tell exactly what floor the rifle was on, but he saw a rifle sticking out of a window on an upper floor of the TSBD--on the east end of the building. And there is also the testimony of Mrs. Earle Cabell, who said she saw a "projection" coming out of a sixth-floor window [at 7 H 486]: MRS. CABELL -- "I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos." Mal Couch, in fact, who was a cameraman for WFAA-TV, even told his story about seeing the gun in the window within just a few hours of the shooting on 11/22. Listen to Couch's account below: http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html

Are you now going to suggest that Linnie Mae was deaf? Or would you like to purport that when Oswald opened and closed the car door, it made no sound whatsoever? (Oh, that's right, I nearly forgot -- Linnie Mae didn't really see [or hear] Oswald do anything with any package on 11/22/63, did she? She just pulled that lie out of her ass, right?) But back here in reality (where DiEugenio does not reside) -- Even if she never testified to what she heard, it's highly likely that Linnie Mae Randle heard SOMETHING when she opened that kitchen door. Jimmy must be totally blind then, because CE446 demonstrates that you definitely CAN see through the openings in the carport slats in order to see something on the other side of the carport. (Who's leaving out information now, Jimmy?) Which, as I said previously, is something Frazier would never had admitted doing (locking his car doors) if he was truly the kind of deceptive evil xxxx who just MADE UP the whole story about seeing Lee Harvey Oswald with a large package on November 22 (as DiEugenio firmly believes Frazier did do). Do conspiracy theorists ever evaluate things like this in any kind of reasonable and logical manner. Ever? The same goes for the whole ludicrous "Triangulation Of Crossfire" assassination plot. According to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison/Jim DiEugenio version of events, in the midst of attempting to frame only Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK, the people orchestrating the Presidential murder decided it was wise to shoot at Kennedy from a variety of different locations (front AND rear) in Dealey Plaza. And yet Jimmy D. doesn't bat an eyelash. He thinks that type of "Multi-Gun / One Patsy" scheme was perfectly reasonable and rational. And apparently Oliver Stone thinks so too. Un-be-liev-able. JUST HOW STUPID WERE JFK'S ASSASSINS?: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html

So if Buell's whole "bag" story is a lie from the get-go (as you obviously think it was), then why would he have said he did lock his car doors, since he knew that LHO couldn't get into a locked car? If the whole story was a big fat lie, Frazier would have said that all his car doors were UNlocked to allow Oswald to have the ability to open one of them on 11/22. Plus: Frazier most certainly would never have said the size of a totally MADE-UP bag in his back seat was TOO SMALL to promote the Oswald-Did-It lie that you obviously think Buell was trying to peddle from the start. Any idea why Frazier said his MAKE-BELIEVE bag was too short to hold the rifle that Buell had to make sure would go into it? Was Buell just not prepared well by his "handlers"? Or was he just a complete idiot? Try again, Lee. You're floundering on this "locked doors" thing (and that bag thing too).

Re: Buell Frazier's speech patterns: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html#Frazier-Talk

But she was definitely a "xxxx", right Lee?

Yeah, I'd better. If I don't, that lying tramp Linnie Mae and her vile brother might sneak into my garage and plant a rifle in my back seat. Thanks, Lee! You're a life saver!

So Linnie Mae and Buell lied to Wolper too, eh? Why would they VOLUNTARILY participate in Wolper's movie if they knew they were going to have to lie their asses off from start to finish? Did they enjoy lying THAT much? I guess you think they did. ~Yawn~ ~Stretch~

Let me also add this: In addition to believing that Linnie Mae Randle lied about everything she told the Warren Commission regarding Oswald's package, conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley ALSO have to believe that Mrs. Randle continued telling her lies a few months later when she voluntarily participated in a re-creation of her 11/22/63 activities for David L. Wolper's documentary film, "Four Days In November". In Wolper's movie, Randle tells the exact same story about seeing Oswald with a brown paper package, and in the Wolper film she says the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's 30 inches. Which is not that far away from the actual size (38 inches) of the bag Oswald was carrying. And if the ends of the bag were folded, it would mean that Linnie Mae's 30-inch estimate would be even closer to the length of the bag that was available for her eyes to see on the morning of 11/22/63 as Oswald crossed Westbrook Street. Go to the 10:40 mark of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KTKrJHYrl3M&list=SPBAA9EF6D0CF44BC0#t=648s

~sigh~ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19720&st=45#entry263628

Jimbo is so out of it that he thinks I think that Frazier parked his car INSIDE the carport. I guess Jimbo just totally ignored my 2009 post. Geez.

Explained in my prior post. And you think that Linnie Mae heard NOTHING that was going on when she opened the kitchen door, eh? She undoubtedly did HEAR the "sticky" right-hand back door being opened. And she might have HEARD the crinkling of Oswald's bag as he placed it in the car. And she probably also HEARD the car door closing when Oswald shut the door. And since there's plenty of light showing through those slats in CE446, she certainly could have seen some of Oswald, even if he was on the other side of Wesley's car. (Oswald was taller than the roof of the car, you know.) You CTers should belong to The Nit-Pickers Association Of The World. You're tailor-made for that clique. I thought perhaps Jimbo DiEugenio was the only person on the Internet who actually was silly enough to think that Wes Frazier AND Linnie Randle BOTH lied about seeing Oswald with a paper bag on 11/22/63. But I see I was mistaken. Lee Farley has now joined Jimmy's odd "No Bag At All" club. Incredible. BTW, no, I do not lock my car at night. It's always parked in a closed garage. But you, of course, know that many people in 1963 didn't even lock up their houses at night. It was a different era. And an unlocked car would not be unusual in the slightest. But by all means, call Frazier a xxxx in that "lock doors" regard too. Might as well accuse him of more lies, right?

Oh, brother. Note to Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque: I am sorry for sidetracking this thread and sending it off into a discussion about Linnie Randle. My apologies.

I wonder why conspiracy theorists pretend that the wall in Mrs. Randle's carport was totally SOLID. It wasn't, as CE446 shows. I can easily see through the slats in the carport wall. And Linnie Mae no doubt could too, as I explained in my 2009 post linked earlier (and reprinted below). And: Jim D. was dead wrong earlier when he implied that Randle had to look through "TWO" walls to see Frazier's car. There was actually only one "wall" between the kitchen door and Wesley's car, and that wall (as we can see in CE446) was certainly not a solid piece of wood or metal. Also: I get a continual "pot/kettle"-like chuckle out of DiEugenio when he says that it's ME who "clips" things from Randle's testimony, when we find a blatant falsehood/misrepresentation like the one below coming from the e-lips of the Great Jimbo. Despicable. "Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- Jim Di. Quoting from 2009 post: A FORUM MEMBER ASKED ME: Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen this [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's 1953 Chevrolet sedan], David? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of space between the slats in the carport [as seen in CE446]. I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all. She possibly HEARD more than she SAW. I.E., She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw walk toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the person at Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle just saw cross the street (Oswald). Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats of the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the bag in the car. So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify in the following manner: "He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door." Original 10/21/2009 post: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3eff31c3d5517b90

Jimbo, once again, wants to pretend that the ONLY time Linnie Mae saw Oswald with a package was after she looked into the carport from her kitchen door. It's obvious that Jimbo, in the quote below, wants people to believe that Randle NEVER saw LHO walking across the street: "Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- J. DiEugenio; 10/3/12 And Jimbo also now wants to pretend that I have never addressed Linnie Mae's testimony regarding her supposed "X-ray vision" as she looked into the carport. But Jim knows (or should) that I have addressed that testimony. I wrote a post about that very subject more than three years ago, on October 21, 2009. And I even linked to that 2009 post (below) when I put together Part 79 of my DVP Vs. Jimbo series in October of this year: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3eff31c3d5517b90 So, as we can see via the above post from back in 2009, I haven't left out anything. But Jimbo sure did when he said this in 2012: "Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." The above quote is just a blatant misrepresentation of Linnie Randle's observations, because Randle saw Oswald as he CROSSED THE STREET heading to the Randle carport area. Was she lying about seeing LHO crossing the street too, Jimbo? And, of course, Jimbo needs to paint Wesley Frazier as a big fat xxxx too, because Frazier has always said he saw Oswald with a package. So who is really the flimflam man when it comes to the topic of Oswald's package? The answer is obvious, because James DiEugenio of Los Angeles will do and say ANYTHING to take that package (rifle) out of Oswald's hands. Anything at all. And Jimmy doesn't care how many people he has to call liars in order to accomplish his ludicrous "There Was No Package At All" goal.

So, Bob Groden has a photo taken at the time of the assassination which shows Connally sitting directly in front of Kennedy, eh? Groden's not really going to try and pass off Dave Powers' film as a film that was taken in Dealey Plaza, is he? And he surely isn't silly enough to claim that Connally was sitting "directly" in front of JFK in Powers' film, is he? Because Dave Powers' film clearly shows Connally sitting INBOARD of President Kennedy: Anyway, I can't wait to see Groden's case-breaking photo, and I'm sure Dale Myers is anxious to see it too, since such a photo would completely contradict Dale's very detailed computer animation, which is an animation that has been Key Framed to the Zapruder Film itself, with the end result of such key framing being: one single bullet coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository most certainly could have passed through the bodies of both JFK and Governor Connally and injured the two men in just exactly the places where they were wounded on 11/22/63. The "Key Framing" in Mr. Myers' computer animation also confirms that Governor Connally was most certainly sitting to the LEFT-FRONT of President Kennedy when the bullet from the Depository struck both victims. But conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio must believe that Dale Myers' 10 years of work on this project is just another part of the continuing "cover up" in the JFK case. Right, Jim? And I also can't wait to read about Mr. Groden's new "bombshell" witness, who apparently spoke up for the first time in her life (just before she died) and said that she was on the second floor of the Book Depository with Lee Harvey Oswald when the assassination was occurring outside the building. I have an inkling, however, that Groden's new bombshell witness is going to be about as reliable as any "new" Dealey Plaza picture of the limousine. Wanna bet? BTW, regarding your comment above about Linnie Mae Randle: Let me remind everyone of something Jim DiEugenio said on October 3, 2012: "Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- J. DiEugenio; 10/3/12 My response to DiEugenio's blatant misrepresentation of Mrs. Randle's observations concerning the paper bag she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, can be found here. This seems like a good time to throw Jimbo's words right back in his face, so I'll do that now: "If you were a lawyer and did this kind of stuff in a murder case, you would be disbarred." Yes, Jim, maybe you would.

So, we can add a whole bunch of additional "fake" pictures to the growing list of fakery in this case, right Jim? Like the following items, which PROVE that Connally was positively sitting INBOARD of JFK in the limo. Apparently Jim even thinks the Hess & Eisenhardt body draft must be fake: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/12/robert-groden.html

I never said anything of the kind, of course. Fetzer, like most conspiracy theorists, thinks he has "proof" that the Government lied about a million things in the JFK case. But, of course, the "proof" that Fetzer and his buddies think exists doesn't exist at all (except in the minds of the CTers who claim the Govt. faked this and altered that and framed Oswald, etc.). My previously-stated observation is still very accurate and rational -- i.e., the more and more theories that are heaped onto the table in this case (featuring wholly disparate and contradictory facets and conclusions concerning the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit), the more likely it is that NONE of those theories are correct at all and the more likely it is that all of those unsupportable theories were merely born out of the fertile ground that resides in the minds of people who WANT a conspiracy to exist in the JFK murder case. That is what I truly believe, and, in fact, that is exactly what the totality of evidence in this case suggests -- because there's not a SCRAP of physical evidence to support Oswald's innocence in either the JFK or Tippit murders, and everybody knows it (deep down) -- even the Internet conspiracy mongers. There is no "missing shoulder". It's merely the angle of the photo and the angle of Lovelady at the time the picture was snapped. Is this the same type of loony theory that some CTers (possibly even Fetzer himself) have purported in the past regarding another photo/film taken in Dealey Plaza? You know, Professor, the theory that in one of the photos or films (I think it was the Nix Film), Marilyn Sitzman is supposedly standing both in FRONT of and BEHIND Abe Zapruder at the same time, thereby indicating some kind of crazy "fakery" involving that film too? Of course, none of these films/photos have been faked by anybody. What we're treated to here, once again, is merely the overactive imagination of a conspiracy theorist who sees some anomaly that he can't quite explain, and so he immediately jumps to the conclusion that the photo or film MUST have been altered or faked, even though in many instances such kooky fakery doesn't even make any sense whatsoever -- such as the Sitzman/Zapruder Dance on the pedestal. Why was there any NEED to fake the positions of those people in any Dealey picture or film? And why would there be a need to eliminate Bill Shelley in the Altgens picture? We have Shelley HIMSELF testifying that he was out in front of the building when the shooting occurred. And Buell Frazier is another witness who verified that Shelley was out in front too. Did the plotters think that Shelley would lie and say he wasn't standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30? More silliness from Fetzer. According to Fetzer, the photo-fakers decided to conceal only a PORTION of Oswald's shirt, but they left the bulk of the shirt in the faked picture, to give brilliant CTers like Prof. Fetzer just enough clues to figure out the photo is a fraud. I'll repeat my earlier thought (which applies just as much to James H. Fetzer as it does to Dr. Ralph Cinque) --- "The fact that [Jim F.] is convinced that so many DIFFERENT portions of the James Altgens photo have been faked and manipulated and altered by evil plotters and cover-up agents is, to any sensible person, a pretty good indication that NONE of the various parts of the photo have been altered at all. .... Doesn't [Fetzer] even wonder WHY some of the silly things were altered in Jim Altgens' picture that [Jim] does seem to think were altered? For example, why was there a need to alter the faces and arms of certain NON-Lovelady/Oswald people in the picture? Just...why?" -- DVP ----------------- This excerpt from the HSCA's Final Report is worth mentioning again too (which is an official report on the "Doorway Man" issue that Jim Fetzer will, of course, totally ignore): "Lovelady or Oswald? -- It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the President's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the depository. Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President. The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. Critics have challenged that conclusion, charging that Commission members did not personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission. The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day. Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady. Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady. 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." -- House Select Committee on Assassinations Final Report; Page 58 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0044b.htm

It makes perfect sense. No conspiracy theory in your "bucket" has been proven. Let alone the "hundreds" that occupy space in that same bucket. OTOH, Oswald's guilt in Tippit's and Kennedy's murders has been proven beyond all reasonable/sensible doubt. (Far, far beyond.) But, as per usual for Jimbo "Garrison Was Right" DiEugenio, the common-sense resolution is beyond his grasp, such as the oh-so-obviously-correct SBT and the oh-so-guilty LHO, even though Jimbo wants to pretend that Oswald was totally innocent of ALL of his 1963 crimes. Talk about "patently impossible". Jimmy's "LHO Is Innocent Of All '63 Crimes" theory is just that. And even James himself must really know it.

Pat, I can agree with you to a certain extent, especially if we were to change the subject and start talking about a murder case OTHER than John Kennedy's murder case (which is a case like no other in history, as you well know). But in THIS (Kennedy) case, I disagree with your above "bucket" analysis. I think your reasoning is flawed via this quote of yours: "If you have a bucket with one possibility--the official story--and another bucket filled with hundreds of conspiracy theories constituting another possibility--and then add another theory into the mix--that doesn't have any effect on the probability one of the buckets has the golden ticket. It's still one bucket or the other." The major flaw in that line of reasoning, IMO, is when you use the words "hundreds of conspiracy theories" which you say can constitute just ONE single "possibility". It goes back to my thought in my previous post -- how can anyone possibly believe ANY of the many conspiracy theories when we are constantly bombarded with, as you implied, literally "hundreds" of theories, many of which totally contradict and defeat other theories in the same "bucket"? If you throw hundreds of theories into the same bucket, you have to know, even if you're a conspiracist, that almost every one of them HAS to be wrong. I think that was Professor McAdams' main point when he wrote these words on page 192 of his book. In other words -- Too many cooks spoil the stew (and a JFK conspiracy plot). But by contrast, in the other "bucket", what do we find? We find ONE theory and only one -- Oswald did it by himself. (Which is the only theory that has ANY physical evidence to back it up, of course.) Therefore, via basic math (and a little common sense thrown in), which bucket is most likely to contain the truth? Not a hard choice, in my view.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d9bb86a9976bdf21 IN A POST AT ANOTHER FORUM (LINKED ABOVE), RALPH CINQUE SAID: All of the anomalies are confirmed: Doorman's missing left shoulder, his impossible fusion with Black Tie Man, the obfuscation of Bill Shelley's face (what we call the "white blob", the expansion of the black woman's hair, the phony placement of Doorman's cuff in front of the neck of the black man, the impossible relationship between the woman and boy, where she is seemingly holding him perfectly vertical with one hand- it's impossible! I'm telling you that as a doctor, and let's see you bring another doctor here to challenge what I'm saying. I'm telling you: she couldn't do it. If they altered that picture even once it was a crime and cover-up, and they did it multiple times. This thing is over! It was Oswald in the doorway! Stop fighting it! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: One thing Ralph Cinque overlooks is this (and it's just basic garden-variety common sense): The fact that Ralph is convinced that so many DIFFERENT portions of the James Altgens photo have been faked and manipulated and altered by evil plotters and cover-up agents is, to any sensible person, a pretty good indication that NONE of the various parts of the photo have been altered at all. It's very similar (in a "common sense" way) to Robert Groden's "15 shots" theory. Since anybody with any sense at all knows that there were not anywhere near FIFTEEN (or even TEN) shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, then it becomes very easy to totally ignore and deem as invalid Groden's "10 shots" and his later (2011) "15 shots" theory. Doesn't Ralph even wonder WHY some of the silly things were altered in Jim Altgens' picture that Ralph does seem to think were altered? For example, why was there a need to alter the faces and arms of certain NON-Lovelady/Oswald people in the picture? Just...why? Along this same line of thought, here's a good quote from John McAdams' book: "The sheer number of extra bullets or confessions or spooky connections is evidence that none of them are strong evidence of anything." -- John McAdams; Page 192 of "JFK Assassination Logic" http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Good Lord, what a convoluted mess of a theory. And just think--the plotters could have just destroyed the picture altogether. Instead, they decided to play Mr. Potato Head. And why not just paste a WHOLE head/face of Lovelady into the picture? Why leave in those bread crumb clues, like Ozzie's ear? It's hilarious. The crap CTers will believe never ceases to astound the senses.

There seems to be no end to the fakery in the Altgens photograph, eh Professor? But instead of merely obscuring Oswald's shirt entirely (or just simply destroying the whole picture in the first place), those wizard photo-fakers decided to leave conspiracy theorists like James Fetzer and Dr. Ralph Cinque just enough clues so that they could figure out it was really Oswald's shirt and not Lovelady's. Brilliant. The people who faked the Altgens picture must have been the same goofballs who also tampered with Zapruder's movie too. You know, leaving just enough clues within the fake film to allow the crackerjack CTers to figure out it was faked -- such as the brainstorm of an idea that the film-fakers had of leaving in the rear head snap, which is, of course, probably the #1 thing in this whole case, even to this day, that causes people to scream "Conspiracy!" at the top of their lungs. Again, a brilliant plan!

I do. Maybe you missed it the previous 11 times I've posted it: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html#Doorway-Man So, is it Oswald's head we're seeing in the Altgens picture? Or is it Lovelady's? Which is it? You can't have it being BOTH Oswald's head and Lovelady's head, you know. Although Cinque has apparently argued in favor of BOTH of those options in the past, as this quote in your earlier post verifies (because the last time I argued with Ralph about this matter, he was positively saying that Lovelady's head was pasted onto Oswald's body in the Altgens photo): "It’s Oswald in the doorway. It’s his t-shirt, his outer shirt, his stance, his ear, his chin, and more."

This just keeps getting more hilarious every day. One day, Cinque thinks that the face we see in Altgens is REALLY Oswald's face ("his ear, his chin"). The next day, Cinque thinks the face of LOVELADY was superimposed over OSWALD'S head in the Altgens picture. Will it be Larry Craford's head in the Altgens pic tomorrow? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

That is exactly what Cinque has been claiming for at least the last couple of months. And I point out the absurd internal contradictions of his "Fake Face, But Not A Fake Shirt" theory in my article below. In addition to pointing out a number of other things that Ralph has gotten wrong, even though he won't admit to anything being wrong with his theory--at all. ..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html#The-Shirt