David Von Pein

It's incredible how the JFK case makes the most obvious things the subject of controversy and debate. (The obviousness of the SBT being yet another example of this tendency.) It couldn't be more obvious that Oswald's basic posture is virtually the same in both of these pictures....and yet there are people (such as Chris B.) who are actually willing to argue the exact opposite. Fascinatingly bizarre behavior indeed.

I would, therefore, suggest you get some new eyeglasses. And focus on the position of Oswald's feet in both images. Notice anything similar there?

More CTer excuses in order to deny the obvious, I see. Main Point: Oswald's general posture is virtually identical in both of these photographs. And that's telling me that Lee Oswald stood in this manner routinely (i.e., placing more weight on his right foot than his left)....

On the contrary, Robert Stone's "Oswald's Ghost" is a very good film.* DVP Review: "Oswald's Ghost" (2007) * IMO.

I think you'll want to change Anniversity to Anniversary, Charles. (I knew a guy who once attended Harvard Anniversity.) 😛

FYI / BTW / FWIW.... Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo of LHO on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos. I wonder if there are now CTers who think the picture on the left is a fake too? .... DVP's JFK Archives / The Backyard Photos (Part 1)

I totally agree with your points above, Gerry. And, in fact, after reading Pat Speer's last post and before reading yours, I was thinking to myself --- Fred himself is probably funding his own video promotions. Seems logical to me.

February 2014. (Verified via the date on the first comment.) Odd that Morley's posts themselves aren't dated in any way on that site. Not even in the URL.

You mean the exact same kind of "black patch" that appears on Clint Hill's head in the same Z-Film?.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/ Was JFK's Head "Blacked Out"?

---CLICK HERE FOR A 2462-px. VERSION OF THIS MEL McINTIRE PHOTO---

IMO, the main "gigantic assumption" being made around here is that there was any conspiracy at all.

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought Ben meant in his post. And it just goes to show how totally contradictory the various conspiracy theories are, because I've argued with many CTers over the years who believe that the shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD were really "diversionary" shots to draw the attention of witnesses to the place where the so-called "patsy" was located---which is the exact opposite of the rather silly and plot-blowing idea you just proposed of the shooters creating a fake "diversion" on the Knoll. Why on Earth would anybody who was trying to frame Oswald as a lone assassin have any desire to want people to think shots came from the Grassy Knoll? That scenario makes zero sense. What was the mindset of all these conspirators on Nov. 21, Matt & Ben? They're deliberately firing away from two separate directions....and yet they expected the authorities to declare only ONE assassin was doing the shooting from only the Depository? Crazy. It sounds like a reprise of Oliver Stone's 3-gunmen, 1-patsy foolishness to me. http://amazon.com / DVP Review / The Patsy Plot Is Just Idiotic

Huh? What does this mean? Are you implying fake shots from the Knoll?? Please elaborate.

Thanks for your last response, Joe.

I guess that means you don't really "fully believe" or "trust" the solution to ANY criminal case in the history of the United States (or the world). Because EVERY crime is investigated by some type of "authority figures" (local police, DA's office, etc.). They don't just let strangers off the street look into murder cases.

I'm not unsure at all. Far from it. And that's because the evidence speaks loudly in this case. And that evidence is pointing directly at one single person and no one else. But conspiracy theorists are always insisting that I should just disregard the physical evidence in this case because those CTers are always insisting (without a shred of proof, of course) that the evidence is all (or mostly) fake and/or manufactured. And Lee Harvey Oswald's very own unusual (and incriminating) actions and statements/lies on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 are also things that conspiracy theorists don't want me to pay too much attention to either. But I guess it's understandable why the "Oswald Is Innocent" conspiracy promoters want to stay a million miles away from Oswald's very own actions and movements. Because these things that Oswald did and said on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 are saturated with his very own guilt. Have you, Joe, ever even considered the possibility that Oswald was guilty and that there was no conspiracy---and that the idea of "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases has been the product and the invention of the many conspiracy theorists over the years who, let's face it, have been trying their darndest to find any signs of a conspiracy in the JFKA case (but, to date, have proved nothing)? And doesn't at least the bulk of the evidence in the JFKA case suggest to you at least the possibility that Lee Oswald could have accomplished the murders of John Kennedy and Officer Tippit on his own, without the aid of anyone else's assistance or guiding hand? I think it's about time for the JFKA conspiracy theorists to consider another reality. Namely, this one:

NBC-TV was the only network that actually managed to air the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald "live". The other television networks only showed replays. CBS missed it by just 5 seconds or so. The CBS affiliate in Dallas—KRLD-TV—did videotape the shooting "live" as it was happening in the police basement, but whether or not anyone watching KRLD-TV actually saw this live footage of the exact moment of the shooting, I really do not know. It's quite possible that KRLD, like most other CBS affiliate stations at that time, was airing Roger Mudd's report from the steps of the U.S. Capitol at the precise moment when Ruby was killing Oswald. I'm just not sure. Related links: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, whether conspiracy believers like it or not, that's precisely where the evidence leads us, Bob---to that "crazy mixed-up kid" named Oswald. Just follow Oswald's own movements and actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22. If you do that, you can't help but lean toward the "Lone Assassin" conclusion. It's inevitable. http://DVP's JFK Archives / Everything Oswald Did Indicates His Guilt

Interview with Paul Landis on November 23, 2013:

While looking at some old newspapers today, I found this very interesting UPI article in the July 22, 1962, edition of The Cincinnati Enquirer (also seen below). The article is titled: "Would-Be Assassins Show Rise But Kennedy Is Protected" Here's one of the intriguing nuggets of info included in the article: "There has been an alarming increase in the number of threats since President Kennedy took office. The Secret Service investigated 870 threatening letters addressed to the President last year [1961]. .... The figures are about 50% higher than those for the last year of the Eisenhower administration." Those figures mean that President Kennedy was receiving an average of about 2.5 threats by mail each and every day in 1961. And that's just the letters. Who knows how many more verbal threats were being aimed at Kennedy in other ways (via telephone, TV, radio, etc.). Click to enlarge:

A portion of Vince Bugliosi's look at Richard Case Nagell: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MCFh-s3yh1o/m/S48-OGfmdQ4J

That's a nice hunk of irony there, Pat. Because, IMO, it's Patrick J. Speer (not DVP) who belongs in the "desperate" category when it comes to the topic of "How Did The Shirt Fibers Get On The Rifle?" My theory regarding that topic isn't nearly as desperate as yours. But, of course, it doesn't make a bit of difference whether my theory regarding the shirt fibers is correct or not. Because Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder has been established beyond all reasonable doubt---even without wiping down the gun.

Go tell that to Oswald. Oswald might very well have felt it was necessary to wipe down the rifle's wooden stock. We can't know what he was thinking when it comes to the parts of the rifle that he might have thought fingerprints would adhere to. Also.... The fact that there were fresh fibers matching Oswald's brown arrest shirt wedged into a surface of the C2766 rifle is, in my opinion, pretty good circumstantial evidence that Oswald did, indeed, utilize that brown shirt to wipe off the gun on 11/22. Otherwise, how did the shirt fibers manage to firmly wedge themselves onto the rifle? Yes, I know that you, Pat, think the fibers were planted onto the rifle by the evil DPD. But that's a theory that only a desperate CTer would come up with. So, IMO, that ridiculous theory about the cops wanting to plant some fibers under the butt plate of the rifle is something that (to use Pat Speer's own words in a post to me earlier) "did not happen". Yes, there are certainly other legitimate (non-planting) ways for the fibers to have gotten there other than using the shirt as a print-wiping tool. But my theory has some weight too. And it can't possibly be totally disproved.