David Von Pein

As if accepting Barry's "JFK Challenge" is required to convict Oswald. I guess if I don't take Barry's "challenge", then all of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (which was firmly established long before I was three years old) will completely cease to exist. Somebody better check on Barry....because I doubt he's able to leave his house anymore. His inflated head won't fit through the front door.

Yes, I agree. He was very likely "working" throughout most of 11/22, although I feel it's important to also point out the fact that there were multiple unfilled orders on Oswald's clipboard (which was found very near the location where LHO hid his rifle near the staircase). BTW, Pat, would you mind telling me which LNers have purported that Oswald was "hiding out" on the upper TSBD floors "the bulk of the morning of 11-22"? I cannot recall ever hearing that specific theory re Oswald before.

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: There are now so many questions about these three [Williams, Jarman, and Norman] that people wonder just what the heck they were doing and where they actually were at the time of the shooting. DVP SAYS: Incredible. Jimbo actually wonders WHERE Harold Norman, James Jarman, and Bonnie Ray Williams were "at the time of the shooting"?? Even with Tom Dillard's photos staring him in the face, DiEugenio still can't quite figure out WHERE those three guys were located "at the time of the shooting". Are Norman, Williams, and Jarman being impersonated by imposters in these pictures, Jim?.... Jim, you're hilarious. Footnote -- Jimbo gave us this bladder-buster earlier: "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were reenactments." Great! More fake stuff! DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman, & Williams to be somewhere other than the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the above Dillard pictures staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the Dillard pictures are "re-enactment" photos. Lovely. As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However much NEEDS to be fake and phony, IS fake and phony (per the conspiracy clowns). Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD. There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer). You guys are truly hysterical.

For some silly reason, DiEugenio (the leader of the "Anybody But Oswald" pack around these parts) thinks that it would have been unusual (and totally impossible) for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gone up and down from the first floor to the sixth floor a few times on 11/22/63. Why was that type of up and down activity unusual for Oswald on Nov. 22nd, Jimbo? You never did say.

This really isn't a bombshell revelation regarding James Jarman at all, because Jarman essentially told the Warren Commission the same thing in 1964 (except he didn't say anything about sending Oswald upstairs to correct a book order "shortly before lunch"): Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning? Mr. JARMAN - I did. Mr. BALL - When? Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time it was. Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten? Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say. Mr. BALL - Between 8 and 9? Mr. JARMAN - Between 5 minutes after 8 and 9. Mr. BALL - You had him correct an order? Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. http://mcadams.posc....russ/jarman.htm But even if Jarman did send Oswald back upstairs to correct an order "shortly before lunch" (in addition to having him correct a different order between 8 and 9 AM, as he told the WC), that doesn't prove much of anything, and certainly doesn't negate any of the evidence that indicates Oswald was on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before noon. Oswald might have been sent upstairs to correct a dozen orders "shortly before lunch". But so what? All of the times that witnesses gave for certain events (like when they saw Oswald, etc.) are only estimates and are very loose and approximated timelines. There's no fixed times for these things and everybody knows it. Oswald could still have had plenty of time to correct a few orders upstairs "shortly before lunch", then come back downstairs, and then go back upstairs again....all within just a very few minutes. He did it all the time, every day. That was his job--to go upstairs and then come back downstairs again--repeatedly.

Just what I thought---Barry won't admit he made an error in his book concerning his "Which one?" question re the boxes....which is a question that was fully answered in 1964. Therefore, Barry will continue to promote yet another of the hundreds of already-debunked CT myths associated with this case, as he continues to ask "Which one?", even though he already knows the answer. Nice.

Not unless your arbitrator is a robot (i.e., someone who has never been exposed to any of the various myths and distortions about the evidence in the JFK case). But since any arbitrator is going to be human, and since more than 75% of all humans with any opinion about the JFK case favor the idea of conspiracy, and since virtually all of that opinion has been based on nothing but silly myths and conjecture (such as the still-favored myth about Oswald being a terrible shot and the myth about how the Warren Commission insisted that the shooting took place in only 5.6 seconds and the myth about how the WC had no choice but to "move" JFK's back wound up into his neck in order to make the SBT viable)....then I don't think I'd be willing to risk any cash on such a venture.* And that's because, all too often, I've run into people who claim to be totally unbiased about this case, only to hear the very same tired, worn-out conspiracy myths coming from their lips--over and over again. * = Or does the person accepting your challenge actually risk any cash at all in this venture? Or are you the only one who pays out the dough if you lose? But if your arbitrator is made out of metal and microchips (with its "CT Myths" mode set to the "Off" position), then I'd be more than willing to argue the case in front of such an unbiased machine.

You've still got a major error there, Barry...and that's because your basic question of "Which one?" was answered in 1964...by Bob Studebaker....which is why I asked if you even read his testimony. Because if you had, you wouldn't need to ask "Which one?", because Studebaker answered it for you in '64. The box confusion is really only confusing if you decide not to read through Bob Studebaker's testimony at all (which, granted, I imagine very few people have likely done). But as I pointed out in my WC excerpts, there is no doubt about which photo (CE733 or CE509) represents the configuration of the boxes prior to them being moved--it's 733, just like Studebaker said (although that picture, too, is a "re-creation" photo, taken after the boxes were moved; but it perfectly matches CE1301, which I think was taken before the boxes were moved). The whole "box" thing is a silly argument to begin with, IMO. Just because a few boxes might have been moved by the police doesn't undo all the other evidence against Oswald. And there definitely were pictures taken of the SN prior to any of the boxes being moved.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007TBWQ3W?ie=UTF8&tag=dvsre-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B007TBWQ3W Upon looking at the free sample of text from Barry Krusch's book "Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald: Volume One", I can already see a pretty major error (regarding the TSBD boxes that Barry points out in the book's Foreword). Barry asks: "Why are these boxes in different positions [in Commission Exhibits 733 and 509]? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?" Well, the answer is: Yes, of course somebody at the WC noticed, and all of the information about the movement of those boxes fully comes out in the Warren Commission testimony of the DPD's Robert Studebaker (beginning at 7 H 141): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0075a.htm Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," [which is the same exact picture that is seen in CE509] was that taken by you? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were moved? Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint dust on every box. Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw them? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No. --------------- So, neither the Warren Commission nor the DPD (Studebaker) were trying to pass off CE509 (aka Studebaker Exhibit D) as a photo depicting the Sniper's Nest boxes as they were first found by the police on 11/22/63. Quite the contrary, in fact. Studebaker was very honest and forthright about the photos that were taken after the boxes had been moved, and he openly told the WC that CE509/Studebaker D is a picture that was taken after the boxes had been moved and that that photo did not represent the configuration of the boxes when they were first discovered by police, with Studebaker also noting the fingerprint dust all over the boxes. Now, I haven't the slightest idea why the DPD felt it was necessary to photograph the boxes in different positions after they had been dusted and moved around. I'm still scratching my head about why those photos were needed at all, but the fact is they were taken--and the DPD told the truth about them. They didn't hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the boxes had been moved and dusted for prints. And when looking at the photo of CE509, it couldn't be more obvious that the DPD wasn't even attempting to perfectly re-create the position of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest, because they didn't even place a box back on the window ledge for CE509. Instead, they stacked the "windowsill" box on top of the other two boxes. And, btw, the other picture that Barry pointed out (CE733; aka Studebaker Exhibit J) is ALSO a picture that was taken after the boxes were moved--and that fact also comes out in Studebaker's WC testimony, at 7 H 147: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0078a.htm Mr. BALL. The picture of the boxes; this is after they were moved? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; they were moved there. This is exactly the position they were in. Mr. BALL. It is? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes - not - this was after they were moved, but I put them in the same exact position. Mr. BALL. Were they that close - that was about the position? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. Let's take one of these pictures and mark it the next number, which will be "Exhibit J." Mr. BALL. After the boxes of Rolling Readers had been moved, you put them in the same position? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Mr. BALL. And took a picture? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And this is Exhibit J, is it, is that right? Mr. STUDEBAKER. Exhibit J, yes, sir. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0337a.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268a.htm ------------------ So I'm wondering why any conspiracist would look at CE509 and CE733 and still think the DPD was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes--particularly with Studebaker's very own truthful testimony about those boxes staring them in the face at 7 H 141 and 7 H 147? Didn't you bother to even read Bob Studebaker's WC testimony, Barry? Apparently you didn't, otherwise you would have never written these words in your book: "Why are these boxes in different positions? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?" MORE ABOUT THE BOXES AND STUDEBAKER: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-police-fake-evidence.html

Barry, Congrats on publishing Volume 1 of your book. I've just added it to my Kennedy Catalog website: http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#I You are, of course, dead wrong about Lee Oswald, but I still commend you for getting your book published and made available on Amazon. (I like the cover too. Looks nice.) Two Things That Prove Oswald's Guilt

DVP's JFK Archives / David Mantik On John McAdams

The credit needs to go to Gary Mack, not me. I haven't said a word about this topic. In fact, I'm totally clueless about this particular matter of the "good character" certificate. I merely pasted in Gary Mack's e-mail. I do know, however, that Oswald's make-believe "D.F. Drittal" signature that LHO used on his mail-order coupon for the revolver served essentially the same purpose as the "certificate of good character" that Gil is complaining about. And Heinz Michaelis of Seaport Traders made that fact quite clear: Mr. MICHAELIS. A statement to the effect, I believe that it said that the buyer states that he is a citizen of the United States, and that he has never been convicted in any court of the United States, territories, possessions, et cetera. Do you want me---- Mr. BALL. Well, now, this fourth copy that has on the back this statement by the customer, is that mailed to the customer? Mr. MICHAELIS. It is mailed to the customer, but not in this particular case. Indicated on the invoice are three X's, which indicates that we have already a statement to this effect on file because this particular mail order coupon has already the statement, and the name of the witness. --------------- As for the rifle purchase, however, since there was no "Witness" area for Oswald to fill in (and lie about) on the Klein's order form, I cannot say anything about the "good character" stuff regarding that purchase. But it seems to me that Gil's complaint is with Klein's (if they did not provide all the proper forms when selling their rifles). It's certainly not Oswald's fault if Klein's did something wrong. (I'm not saying Gil said it IS Oswald's fault. I'm just sayin'....) But in the long run, this is just another in a long line of things that CTers like to dredge up (decades later) in order to try and create some "doubt" about whether or not Lee Oswald ever ordered and possessed Rifle C2766. But even without a certificate showing Oswald to be a choir boy and a perfect citizen (if such a certificate was even required, which is doubtful after reading Mr. Mack's comments), it doesn't make a bit of difference--since all reasonable people know beyond all doubt that LHO did possess Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 and the Tippit murder weapon in 1963. He had the revolver in his own hands on 11/22 and his prints are on the rifle. What more proof of possession could possibly be required?

"FYI.... Gary [Loughran], David [Von Pein] had my permission to pass my observation along, though I did not ask him to do so. By the way, I do not hold a "public office" - however did you get that impression? I am merely an employee of a private, non-profit, 501©(3) organization. Also, as best I remember, I haven't complained to the Ed Forum about private email republication until the recent Fetzer article." -- Gary Mack; March 12, 2012; Via E-Mail

Hi Gary L., Many months ago, Gary Mack told me that I could take the private e-mail messages that he sends me and post them on public forums unless he expressly tells me not to do so (on a message by message basis). Therefore, if I don't see a comment in one of Gary's e-mails that says "do not post this" or "not for public consumption", I have his permission to copy his message on the Internet. Perhaps Mr. Mack has utilized the same blanket rule with other people he corresponds with by e-mail. I don't know. I have no idea why Gary himself refuses to post his own messages on forums like this. Maybe it's a "Sixth Floor Policy" now or something that prohibits him from doing so. But, yes, it sure would be a lot better if Mr. Mack just posted his messages himself on the forums, instead of using e-mail. Addendum: I want to also mention this: I almost never get an e-mail from Gary Mack that says this: "Please post this at The Education Forum for me". Hardly ever does Gary ask me to post something for him. But I also know that pretty much the only reason he sends me occasional e-mails that relate to specific forum threads (like this thread) is because he does, indeed, want the information he is telling me via e-mail to be placed on the forums--mainly to keep the record straight and to keep silly conspiracy theories from spreading some more on the Web. But Gary rarely asks me to post something. I do that on my own...knowing, as stated, that he has given me permission a long time ago to do so. And I also know that Gary very likely expects his e-mails to me to end up on a public forum. Regards, David Von Pein

"It's just as I wrote. Oswald followed Texas law for ordering guns, at least at that time, except for the fact that he forged his witness' signature and used a fake name to help get the revolver (as the WC explained decades ago on two pages): http://books.google.com/books?id=zraHCKufHakC&lpg=PA174&dq=oswald%20drittal&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=oswald%20drittal&f=false He purchased a revolver from California and the California form required a witness signature, so Oswald happily faked one. Seaport was legally off the hook, since the witness signature fulfilled the legal requirement for 1963. No wonder the Dodd Committee was troubled by the myriad of ways folks could obtain a firearm." -- Gary Mack; 03/11/12

I'll repeat this question for Scott (because a picture of two people taken in Miami is not exactly "physical evidence" in the murder of JFK): "Have you got any physical evidence that doesn't point directly to Lee H. Oswald? That's what I want to see." -- DVP

Yeah, I'll bet. Just like Bob Groden, in his next book, is going to finally "solve" the case by showing us JFK's brain AND by showing us proof that Oswald and a TSBD female employee were together on the 2nd floor of the Depository when JFK was being shot. Can't wait for that. (Great job by the patsy-framers there, huh?) But before publishing your book, maybe you should read some of the very interesting posts that have been made recently at John McAdams' forum regarding "Look-alikes": http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4e420234edcbfa73 [Quoting Dave Reitzes:] "This is a true story. It was related to me by a married couple I’ve known for many years. They told it to me some years ago, soon after it happened, and affirmed the essential details again recently. I’ll call them Mary and Joe. Mary was being honored at a dinner by a civic organization for which she worked. Joe was there. Their son, who I will call Josh, had expressed interest in going, but he was attending college out of state and couldn’t make it. At one point while Mary was preoccupied, Joe looked around the room and was surprised to see Josh there, holding a small dog. Joe went over and greeted him by name, but Josh only stared back blankly. It wasn’t Josh. But even as they began talking, Joe, Josh’s own father, wasn’t 100% sure whether it was him or not. The young man even talked like Josh. He did seem to have a slightly heavier build, and the little dog was unfamiliar, but Joe found the similarity unbelievable. Mary walked over. She had seen Joe and the young man conversing and she, too, thought the young man was her son. When she found out he wasn’t, she wasn’t completely convinced. In fact, she wondered whether her son and her husband were playing a joke on her. Once she had become (mostly) convinced, she took out a wallet photo of Josh to show the young man. He agreed that there was a resemblance, but said, “If you think I look like him, you should see my brother!” At which point he took out a wallet photo of his brother, who also appeared identical to Josh. Mary says she walked away from the encounter in disbelief that she couldn’t tell a stranger from her own son. This happened quite some time ago, but Mary and Joe still tell the story. “It was like a Twilight Zone moment,” Joe says. Food for thought." -- David Reitzes; Mar. 1, 2012

...

So what? You were told by someone? That's essentially worthless then. I was told by Wim Dankbaar that James Files killed Kennedy. Should I believe him too? Beats me. But there are a lot of fiction lovers out there. So don't get too discouraged. BTW, have you got any physical evidence that doesn't point directly to Lee H. Oswald? That's what I want to see.

You disagree with my self-assessment? That'd be curious, given your previously-thrown arrows aimed at me.

You're absolutely right about that, Pat. Stone's "Lost Bullet" program was very strange--and, yes, in several areas, just flat-out dishonest (as I said in my review of it). http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-lost-bullet.html But "Oswald's Ghost" is a very good film. It's too bad that Mr. Stone had to be a part of the Max Holland documentary. Because that show certainly doesn't help anybody's reputation who was associated with it.

Any chance of backing up any of the above theories with any evidence at all? Or should I just take your word for it? (And Mark Lane's?)

Yeah, but my main purpose was to highlight Bob Stone's excellent comments about the JFK case. But if the truth about Mr. Osanic's awful radio-host skills and non-existent interviewing talents should happen to add an extra layer of information on that Stone webpage--so be it. Even CTers must be embarrassed by Mr. Osanic's total lack of interviewing skills and his nearly total lack of useful information coming from his lips during virtually any "Black Op" program. And his questioning of Robert Stone is so bad, it's almost physically painful to listen to. And even Michael "Let's Bash Von Pein By Constantly Calling Him A Lightweight" Hogan knows I'm right about Mr. Osanic. He's got to know it. He just doesn't like the fact that that truthful fact is coming from a "lightweight", low-class, scumbag LNer like David Von Pein. Ergo, we get Hogan's last huffing-and-puffing post. But, anyway, Robert Stone's very good remarks during his February 2008 radio appearance more than make up for Osanic's train-wreck hosting talents. http://www.box.com/s/cgm3qaaz0yv9a2b4bu0o

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-163.html

More nonsense from DiEugenio, as usual. There's no "allegedly" about it -- Lee Oswald positively ordered and took possession of Rifle C2766 and Revolver V510210 in March of 1963. The evidence tying LHO to both weapons is rock-solid....DiEugenio's denials notwithstanding. For Pete sake, LHO had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested. But that, of course, still isn't good enough for Jimbo. He requires several more layers of paperwork in order to be satisfied that Oswald ordered the revolver. (But Jim would claim all of the extra documents were faked too--so it's really a Catch 22 with Jimbo.) Dozens and dozens of questions for Jim D. here: DVP Vs. DiEugenio -- Part 78