David Von Pein

1962 was such a great year for movies. And the rest of the '60s wasn't too shabby either. (I still practically live in the '60s. Maybe it's because I was born in that decade....on JFK's 342nd day as POTUS.) 😁 http://DVP's Classic Movies Website / 1960s Index

Another good '63 tune from "The Ronettes": "BABY, I LOVE YOU"

"Regardless of how many of Ruth's family members were charter members of the CIA, just how much direct influence do [conspiracy theorists] think Mrs. Ruth Paine actually had over the actions of one Lee H. Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination? And when we eliminate the silly idea that Ruth had anything whatsoever to do with "planting" Oswald in the Book Depository in order to frame him for President Kennedy's murder (which is exactly what many conspiracy theorists firmly believe DID happen in 1963, despite the fact we know that Ruth could not possibly have had any knowledge of the motorcade route through Dealey Plaza at the time she helped Oswald secure his TSBD job in mid-October), then what would be left for Mrs. Paine to do with Lee Oswald in any type of "frame-up" plot? What "role" did Ruth Paine supposedly play as Oswald's alleged "handler" in October and November of 1963? From the paper-thin arguments I've heard from some CTers over the years, it's never really fully defined as to just what purpose Ruth Paine served in the "Oswald Frame-Up" theory endorsed by conspiracists. Once we remove the "Planted In The Depository" nonsense, what's left? I'd like to know what Ruth's specific tasks and functions were in October and November of '63 as she supposedly served as Lee Harvey Oswald's "handler"? Because merely being friends and roommates with a person's wife doesn't seem to me to be enough to qualify Mrs. Paine as "handling" or "guiding" Lee Oswald in any manner whatsoever. And I'd also like to know what MOTIVE Ruth Paine would have had for participating in the evil DOUBLE plot of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the President AND to frame an innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald for that murder? In short, shouldn't a little more EVIDENCE be required before conspiracists feed Ruth Paine to the lions? [...] Plus, are ALL "CIA employees" supposed to automatically be looked at as potential bad people? Or is the ENTIRE Central Intelligence Agency supposedly the scum of the Earth in the eyes of conspiracy theorists? Talk about painting things with a very wide brush. I also find it quite humorous to see how CTers treat Ruth Paine, whom the CTers have no evidence against whatsoever. They treat her as much more of a criminal than they do Lee Oswald, who [per the sum total of evidence in the case] is the man who took the life of JFK. I guess the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" motto that CTers SAY they live by goes flying out the window when the discussion turns to Mrs. Paine. Because in the minds of many conspiracists, Ruth Paine IS guilty--of something. Irony at its best." -- David V.P.; September 2014 [Original Post] ------------------------ More:

Not at all. The favored LN scenario is, of course, three shots in 8+ seconds, with the first shot occurring at circa Z160. And, of course, there is some evidence to support such a Z160 first shot, in the form of Rosemary Willis' reaction and her subsequent comments on the subject, plus Governor Connally's right turn starting at about Z164. Yes, there are several (many) witnesses who seemed to think JFK was reacting to his wounds right after the first shot. I don't deny such witness testimony exists. But it's my opinion—based on the accumulated evidence that has convinced me beyond all doubt that the Single-Bullet Theory is most certainly true and occurred at circa Z224—that those witnesses who thought JFK was struck by Shot #1 are simply wrong. After the shocking and fast-moving shooting event took place, those eyewitnesses were asked to try and piece together a timeline of the shots in order to discern which of the shots hit the two victims, and I think a lot of those witnesses fall into the same category that Nellie Connally falls into (even though those witnesses don't realize it), which is this category (IMO): A witness who heard an unexpected noise (the first rifle shot), then started looking around to see if they could locate the source of that noise, then heard a second gunshot, then (and only then) caught a glimpse of President Kennedy in the limousine with his hands coming up to his throat. Given the fact that I (along with about 95% of all other Lone Assassin believers in the world) think that Shot #1 missed everybody in the limousine, and Shot #2 was the SBT shot that struck both Kennedy and Connally, and Shot #3 was the fatal head shot that struck only JFK....this combination of beliefs concerning the shot sequence, therefore, has to mean (per LNers like myself) that many of the Dealey Plaza witnesses were simply mistaken in their belief that Shot #1 struck the President. Ergo, in reality (IMO), those witnesses really heard TWO gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza prior to the point in time when they noticed President Kennedy reacting to being hit. In attempting to re-create the sequence of events, however, many of the witnesses thought they saw Kennedy reacting to being hit by Shot #1, when (in reality) two rifle shots had been fired prior to their taking note of JFK's reactions. If put in the same position that those Dealey Plaza witnesses were put into on 11/22/63, could anybody here at this forum (or anywhere else) guarantee that they would be able to precisely piece together the brief shooting timeline accurately enough so that they would be able to confidently say that they know with 100% certainty which of the gunshots first struck John F. Kennedy? Given the sudden and wholly unexpected nature of those gunshots that were fired on November 22nd, if anyone answers "Yes, I could very easily do that" to the question I just asked above, I would have my doubts as to whether that person was telling me the full truth (unless they were related to Superman).

March 1964....

~obligatory sigh~ But the shells dumped at the Tippit murder scene are a different story, as you no doubt know. And how many gunmen were seen dumping shells at 10th & Patton? And who did the witnesses say that ONE gunman was? And what gun did Oswald have on his person when arrested? (Answer: Smith & Wesson Revolver No. V510210 --- aka: The gun that killed J.D. Tippit.) But conspiracists always want to fixate on the bullets themselves, never the shells. And I can see why, of course. Because those shells convict Lee Harvey Oswald and no other person on the planet.

The more accurate equation is this one: Oswald + Revolver that killed Tippit being in Oswald's own hands 35 minutes after Tippit was killed with that same revolver = No way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting Tippit ..... UNLESS.

If you can't figure that one out, Charles, I feel sorry for you. That's an easy one.

This is probably just like the Elmer Todd/CE399 controversy. For years, CTers insisted Todd's initials weren't on the CE399 bullet. But when hi-def photos emerged of the bullet, Todd's initials are plainly visible: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html I'd be willing to bet that this Lt. Day/CE573 episode is exactly the same as Todd & 399. And some high-resolution photos would no doubt prove it (just as they did with Elmer Todd).

That's absolute nonsense, Pam. If we were to completely eliminate and disregard all of Marina's testimony, Lee Oswald's guilt would still be ironclad in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases (based on the available evidence).

Thanks, Pat. Point taken.

FYI / FWIW.... Here's another excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book regarding George DeMohrenschildt, the CIA, and J. Walton Moore (who, btw, is also referred to by Bugliosi as Walter Moore; and both DeMohrenschildt and Albert Jenner refer to him as Walter Moore during DeMohrenschildt's WC session [at 9 H 235]).... Click to enlarge: ------------------------------------------------------------------ Related Link: http://DVP's JFK Archives / George DeMohrenschildt's Suicide ------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point isn't confirmed at all via the book excerpt I provided. In fact, just the opposite. Because (via Bugliosi's research) the only "Moore/DeMohrenschildt" timeframe involved was from 1957 to 1961, which was BEFORE DeMohrenschildt ever even met Lee Oswald. So what makes you think there was any discussion about Lee Oswald between Moore and DeM. during that 1957-1961 time period mentioned by Bugliosi (which was a period when Oswald was either in the Marine Corps or in Russia)?

Yes.

Of course this shouldn't be on your list, since it never happened.

David Von Pein said: You think Marina's testimony was the sole basis for the WC finding LHO guilty of two murders? Come now. Let's not forget about the dozens of other things pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt, outlined here:

No, she didn't. She just changed her opinion about whether LHO killed JFK (after she had been inundated, no doubt, with various crackpot [and unsupported] conspiracy theories over the years). But Marina never "recanted" any substantive facts relating to Lee Oswald -- such as the two major facts that many conspiracy theorists, still to this day, think Marina was lying about: 1. Lee admitting to Marina that he had taken a shot at General Walker. and 2. Marina confirming that she took the backyard photos of LHO. What a silly statement that is.

Main Street, Dallas, Texas, in 1895....