David Von Pein

5 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

This is the kind of reporting that David von Pein [sic] calls "far out", and yet it comes from the same source that David upholds as the Bible. He wants it both ways. But clearly what you have documented could not possibly be transformed into a BOLO used on KLIF just minutes after the killing of JFK. Clearly it is the 'Warren Report' that is "far out".

There is absolutely nothing odd or suspicious or "far out" about the KLIF Radio 11/22/63 broadcasts. Nothing.

When the topic of "What Radio Station Was Johnny Brewer Listening To On Nov. 22?" came up in 2019, I did a lot of work tracking some of the radio broadcasts I have in my collection. And at one point during that discussion [archived here], I provided this info....

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"But it depends on which "shooting" you're referring to. If you mean the Tippit shooting, then I think you're right---there was no radio report regarding the shooter's description put out within 15 minutes (or so) of the Tippit murder. But there was most definitely a "description" of President Kennedy's assassin broadcast on the radio, and that description was aired on KLIF Radio (the station that Tony Krome just said Brewer was listening to) as early as 12:54 PM (Dallas time), which would corroborate what Brewer said to Eddie Barker in his CBS-TV interview in 1964 when Brewer said this:

"Right after the President was shot, they broadcast a description on the radio of this man..."

If, in fact, Brewer was listening to KLIF Radio that day, the description he would have heard at 12:54 PM would have initially come from a female telephone operator at the Dallas Police Department, who quickly provided the description of the alleged Presidential assassin for a KLIF reporter who was recording the phone call for later broadcast. The description she provided was: "White male, 30 [years old], 5-10, 165, 30-caliber rifle, and I believe it was at Elm and Houston where it came from; now I don't know definitely and I don't like to say." [The audio can be heard HERE.]" -- DVP; April 19, 2019

-------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT --- In reviewing my KLIF Radio files again just now [on August 17, 2023], there was a partial description of the assassin provided by KLIF even earlier than the 12:54 broadcast linked above.

That earlier description was reported by KLIF's Joe Long at 12:46 PM (per the timestamps provided throughout the KLIF coverage), which would have been just two minutes after the APB bulletin had been put out on the DPD radio system at 12:44 PM. Which almost certainly means that Joe Long and KLIF were monitoring the Dallas Police Department calls on a police radio of their own just after the assassination occurred.

Listen to the 12:46 PM description of the suspected assassin here.

I suppose the very early 12:46 PM description of the suspect aired by KLIF is the thing that makes Mervyn Hagger think something is fishy about the KLIF Radio assassination coverage. But Mervyn's suspicions go up in smoke if the KLIF reporters were, in fact, monitoring the DPD radio frequency on a police scanner on Nov. 22nd, which almost certainly had to be what happened that day.

10 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

and even the hint of sarcasm in the two records played back to back except for a commercial. The lyrics of those two records remind me of the bent humor of McLendon, Murchison and Thompson. It is 'undiluted' Texas humor of a kind best represented in that classic quotation from the 'Wizard of Oz' = "The Wicked Witch is Dead!" Or, to extrapolate = "JFK is dead!"

[...] Guess what McLendon was engaged in? PsyOps where misinformation, distortion and misdirection reigns supreme Just up your street David!😁

I had no idea Mervyn Hagger was so far out there in the "outer fringe".

Bye, Mervyn. Enjoy your fantasies.

9 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Footnote in Manchester's book:

OK. Thanks.

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340104/m1/1/

There are many others where that came from.

Crazy.

9 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Good. Please add this thread to your site lol.   

Already did a few hours ago. (Without actually pasting any EF members' posts directly onto my webpages, keep in mind. Because that vile behavior became a dastardly crime four years ago remember.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1367.html

11 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So can you agree this is a non-issue?

Oh, yes. Definitely. I knew it was a non-issue before I ever posted in this thread.

Just for the sake of being complete....

A third different version of the arrest report can be seen here.

52 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

"Investigation for murder" would be my guess.

But that doesn't really make much sense either, because all murders are investigated.

~shrug~

Click Here to see another version of the arrest report which doesn't include the "Deceased" stamp. This version also includes an extra charge: "Assault to Murder" (related to the wounding of John Connally).

Thanks, Steve, for providing this link to the full-sized (non-truncated) version of the Oswald arrest report being discussed in this thread (also seen below).

Now we know it's not a fake report, and we now know who the author of the report was (Dallas Police Officer M.N. McDonald).

One odd thing that I noticed in McDonald's arrest report is the reference to the type of murder that McDonald claimed Oswald was being charged with—"Inv. Murder". I assume the "Inv." means "Involuntary Murder", which is quite strange (and inaccurate) in this case with respect to the murder of Officer Tippit, which was the first of the murders Oswald was officially charged with.

37 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

The recording of the KLIF broadcast which you put on line is perfectly okay, even though it indicates that the police almost immediately knew who they were looking for, and the bizarre arrest in a movie theater is also just fine.

I don't know what you mean regarding the KLIF broadcast. Care to elaborate?

And what was so "bizarre" about Oswald's arrest in the theater?

26 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I am asking you if you think that it is a fake because according to you, it does not mean what it says that it means and therefore David must interpret it for me so that I can agree with you.

It's merely a report that was written (at least in part) at a later time (i.e., well after the arrest of Oswald). That's the only thing that needs to be "interpreted". The contents of the document need no further interpretation. Just the question of WHEN it was written.

36 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I am not suggesting that it is a fake, but you are implying that it is not a true legal representation of fact...

Please explain how you came to that rather strange conclusion.

Is it because I utilized a little basic common sense to conclude that the document in question was not written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22 (as you seem to believe it was)?

18 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

However, your response is to counter that approach by telling me what that document does not say, but what it should say if it is to be understood the way in which you want it to be understood.

Oh for heaven's sake. Why all the fuss about something that couldn't be more obvious, Mervyn?

The majority of the arrest report was clearly written after the DPD had gathered enough evidence against Oswald to charge him with the two murders that the evidence shows he committed.

But let's hear your take on that arrest report, Mervyn. Do you truly think the DPD had all that info about Oswald as early as 1:40 PM CST on 11/22? If so, let's see your proof.

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

David, based upon the information on that card and nothing else, please explain why my comments are "not a fair or accurate statement at all".

[...]

David you are contradicting your own approach to hard evidence and rewriting a forensic document to suit your own interpretation of that document because it does not support what you are claiming. Unless of course you are claiming that the document is false and did not originate with the Dallas Police Department. If you are, then please supply supporting evidence.

Mervyn, are you really suggesting that this arrest report was written at 1:40 PM Dallas time on November 22nd?

You surely aren't seriously advocating such an absurd position regarding that DPD arrest report....are you? Because it couldn't be more obvious that that report was filled out much later than 1:40. (As I mentioned before, Oswald wasn't even in custody until 1:50 PM!)

As to the possibility of the arrest report in question being a fake document, I really don't know for sure. But unlike a lot of conspiracy promoters, I'm not a person who is constantly claiming that documents have been manufactured by the authorities in order to frame the so-called patsy named Oswald. Therefore, I have no good reason to believe it's a phony document.

As for the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police Department at the bottom of the arrest report, I agree 100% with those conclusions. Based on the evidence, Oswald did, indeed, kill JFK and Officer Tippit.

But I'm not contradicting my own approach to "hard evidence", Mervyn. And the arrest report isn't really "hard evidence" anyway. It's merely a brief report providing us with the opinion of the people at DPD who were at that time processing and evaluating the "hard evidence" in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases.

I'm merely using my common sense to evaluate the timing of when the Oswald arrest report was created (which you don't seem to be factoring in at all). Given all the information we have concerning the gathering of the physical evidence against Lee Oswald, plus the "time" factors of when the Dallas police became aware of certain things concerning Oswald, I think it's safe to say that that arrest report was filled out much later than 1:40 PM on Nov. 22.

Now, you might want to argue that the Dallas police shouldn't have been so bold as to place this definitive statement on their Oswald arrest report:

"This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit."

But, based on the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt that was collected within the first few hours after both Kennedy and Tippit were murdered, such a statement can, indeed, be looked upon as a wholly accurate one.
 

10 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I have absolutely no 'inside' knowledge to add to that card, and neither do you. Or am I mistaken? My interest in this subject is peripheral. I was drawn here due to a study of broadcasting and ships. I did not begin with a theory about the murder of JFK. Therefore I intend to continue following the trail of hard evidence that was created at a specific moment in time; at a specific location, and by a specific person. 

But as far as that particular "Arrest Card" is concerned, we cannot possibly know exactly what time (or even what day, for that matter) that arrest report was written out. (I know of no specific info in the Warren Commission volumes that gives us that precise information. Do you?)

But one thing I do know for certain (based on logic and common sense) is this --- that arrest report most certainly was NOT written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22/63. Not even close. It was filled out much later than that.

1 minute ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Thank you for your comment David...

FYI -- I just now edited my last comment in order to add the last paragraph.

Mervyn,

The written section at the bottom of that arrest card showing the "other details of the arrest" was quite obviously not written at 1:40 PM (the time noted at the top of the card). Those details had to have been placed on that card at a time considerably later than 1:40. In fact, there's no way that anything on that card was written as early as 1:40 PM, because Oswald wasn't even arrested in the theater until about 1:50 PM, and much of the information shown on the card wasn't confirmed by the Dallas police until much later than 1:40.

Therefore, given the above time factors, this statement made by Mervyn Hagger — "But within one hour, the Dallas Police Department has solved two murders and arrested the lone suspect. Simply amazing police work. Not" — is not a fair or accurate statement at all.

I'm not hearing even a hint of an S. But I'm certainly hearing the K sound, plus the ER.

I've looped the Tippit transmission several times at the link below.

http://box.com / audio file / J.D. Tippit Radio Transmission (Nov. 22, 1963)

FWIW....

In J.D. Tippit's last radio transmission concerning his location, I definitely can hear a "K" (or hard C) sound being uttered by Tippit, which almost certainly eliminates "Lansing" from the mix. And while the "S" in Lancaster can't be discerned, I think the "er" at the end of "Lancaster" can be heard. Sounds like an "er" to my ears anyway. It's at 5:04 in this video:

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

FBI report:

Frazier, "stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the package he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."  ( 24 H 410 )

[...]

These type of tactics by authorities ( altering what the witness said ) do not occur during legitimate criminal investigations.

And I suppose this means you also think the FBI lied through their collective anal cracks when they said that Linnie Mae Randle said the exact same thing that Buell Frazier said about the bag (with respect to the bag's color). Right?

From a discussion here at the EF in March of 2018:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Reprise [the "she" in this report (CD7) refers to Linnie Randle]....




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Notice in the last sentence, the two dependent clauses begun with the words "if" and "could".

Thanks for posting that David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim.

That point being:

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

[2023 Edit --- Or, more likely, the CTers of the world probably think that it was the FBI that was playing fast & loose with the evidence. In other words, the FBI's only concern in the CD7 interviews with both Frazier & Randle was the COLOR of the bag. They didn't give a damn that both Frazier and Randle were (probably) screaming these words at their FBI interviewers: "That CE142 bag is way too big!! So why are you only interested in the COLOR of the bag?!"]

In addition....

There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit:

"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Frazier actual quote [Mitcham's emphasis]...

"It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.]

But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?
 

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275.html

The Non-Existent Bullet That Buddy Walthers Supposedly "Found"....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-927.html

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Not only have I already seen it, it just so happens that I'm watching it again right now as I logged on.

It's definitely worthy of a second (and third) look, that's for sure.

The JFK-related video below was made public on YouTube on July 24, 2023. It's called "The Kennedy Assassination: Inside The Book Depository" and was created by a "30-something Swedish guy" who runs the YouTube channel known as "LEMMiNO".

And this talented fellow from Sweden evidently has quite a large following there at YouTube, because his Kennedy video embedded below has amassed more than 3-million views in just its three days of existence.

It's a darn good video too—very (very!) good, in fact—featuring stellar graphics, music, and narration. I was quite impressed by just about everything in this video, including the common sense and logic that exists within the video's narration and (most importantly) the accuracy of the evidence and testimony that was presented throughout the 98-minute program.

That last comment I just made should have given away the following fact --- the video definitely was not made by a conspiracy theorist.

Given the tremendous amount of detail that had to have gone into the graphics work, research, sourcing, and voiceover narration for this video, this impressive project must have taken a very long time to complete. I applaud "Lemmino" for his diligent efforts. I, for one, think those efforts were worth it.

Here's the video:

To see the complete (and huge) list of sources utilized for the video, GO HERE.