David Von Pein

56 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

What are the blunders exactly?

Well, here are three (from just a quick glance at Matt Douthit's review / hit piece)....

1.) Fred Litwin never implied that O.P. Wright gave CE399 to SS Agent Richard Johnsen at 7:30 PM. That's absurd. The 7:30 time comes from Johnsen's memo that he wrote after he returned to the White House on 11/22. Johnsen wrote that memo at 7:30. That's the "7:30" that Fred Litwin is referring to in his book. And Bob Frazier would have no doubt seen Johnsen's "7:30 note", which was still stapled to the envelope containing CE399 when Todd delivered the bullet to Frazier.

2.) And Fred is certainly correct when he says that John Connally's account of the shooting generally supports the SBT. And that's mainly because all reasonable people know that John Connally is just about the WORST EYEwitness in Dealey Plaza when it comes to the question of: Did the first shot hit JFK? John B. Connally could not possibly have answered that question knowledgeably....because he never saw JFK during the operative timeframe. Why CTers ignore that basic fact is beyond me.

3.) Then, of course, there's the ridiculous assertion made by Douthit (and other CTers, such as DiEugenio) that Fred Litwin's book ("Oliver Stone's Film-Flam") isn't really a book at all---simply because much (or most) of the contents of the book started out in blog form on Fred's website. But....so what? I'm sure that many books have been published that started out in different non-book forms. But once they're compiled and completed and edited (with sources added), etc., they become books. (Duh.) This repeated "It's not really a book" refrain is nothing but an additional excuse used by conspiracy theorists to trash and disregard the well-sourced contents of Fred's book. In short, it's a pathetic (and totally absurd) complaint.

.......

18 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

But the image that looks like Lee does show in the HSCA copy. 

Where? I see no face here....

http://DVP's JFK Archives/2014/11/Faking The Dillard Photo

All-too-obviously fake.

7 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Larry is a respected researcher.  You are not.  If he found Martino's son sincere, I trust his judgement.

Good for you. But sincerity doesn't equal "fact", does it? Most conspiracy theorists are sincere in their beliefs that a conspiracy took place on 11/22/63, but that's a far cry from proving such beliefs are facts.

20 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Laugh yourself stupid Dave. 

Are you calling me stupid, Ron?

20 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Martino's son told Larry Hancock many years ago his dad had said if JFK goes to Dallas they will kill him.

And you think that means Martino had actual  foreknowledge of the assassination? Utterly silly.

3 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

John Martino, who it has been confirmed had pre-knowledge of the assassination, told John Cummings (a Newsday reporter) that Oswald went to the theater to meet a contact - and the rest - at least to those of us with a clue - is history.

"...confirmed had pre-knowledge of the assassination..."

The things that are "confirmed" in the mind of a conspiracy theorist are actually things that haven't come even close to being "confirmed" here in the World of Reality.

(But thanks for today's laugh break, Allen.)

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

Do you understand that the Money Order could be processed, or partly processed, and still be 'handled' through the system in order to frame Oswald?

In other words, it could have a legitimate File Locator stamp and still be planted on Oswald in order to frame him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I love that constant moving of the goalposts by CTers.

Since it couldn't be more obvious that the Hidell money order now has a proper path to legitimacy (and conspiracy theorists like Albert Doyle know it), we're now treated to more sheer crackpot speculation about how the LEGITIMATE money order (with Oswald's writing on it that was bought and handled by Oswald HIMSELF) was being used to frame Oswald anyway.

The CTer mind is a spinning whirlwind of ever-expanding and forever changing concocted claptrap.

IOW --- Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it -- even if the number of goalposts that must be moved reaches triple digits.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

So now your lone nut buddy Lance is stupid for bringing up the topic? 

Huh?? Lance didn't bring up the topic of Brewer not seeing LHO go in the theater. You did, when you said this on February 4th (last post on Page 1 of this thread):

"Brewer did not see anyone run into the TT.  Physically impossible."

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Nah, plenty of room for debate here.  What happened to the list of TT patrons Johnny Brewer gave his name to?  Disappeared by the DPD.  Much more here.

Good job, Ron. Now you've evidently decided it's wise to just ignore the Johnny Brewer/Ticket Booth topic since you're caught without a logical answer to any of the recent posts made by myself and Bill Brown. So now you're moving on to the next thing on your "BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS...?" list.

~sigh~

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Are you calling me stupid David? 

No. I said the whole TOPIC is stupid. And it sure is.

And are you going to continue to ignore my previous common-sense remarks regarding what Johnny Brewer saw on 11/22/63 and how he came to the obvious conclusion that Oswald did, in fact, enter the theater (even if Brewer couldn't actually see the door that LHO entered through)?

And did you watch the "Four Days" video clip, which shows Julia Postal's ticket booth right next to the sidewalk?

Why are you avoiding those things, Ron?

17 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Any documentation for your wild conspiracy theory?

Why not just look at the photos and video already posted? It's obvious from this 11/23/63 photo below that the ticket booth is NOT jammed all the way up against the doors of the theater entrance. And that fact is proven in video form in the "Four Days In November" movie clip I provided earlier. The box office/ticket booth was located very near the sidewalk on Jefferson Boulevard. And anyone who was buying a ticket would have been visible to Brewer on the sidewalk. And that was another thing that made Brewer suspicious of Oswald---the fact he didn't see Oswald out on the sidewalk in front of the ticket booth....

This whole topic of "Did Johnny Brewer physically see Oswald go into the front doors of the Texas Theater?" is totally ridiculous and downright stupid in the first place.

Why?

Because we KNOW without a shred of doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald DID go into the Texas Theater on the afternoon of 11/22/63 and was apprehended by the Dallas Police Department at approximately 1:50 PM CST on that same afternoon while inside that same theater.

To deny my last statement is to deny a fact and to deny a physical reality.

And since everybody knows—even all conspiracy fantasists—that Oswald was inside the movie theater between the hours of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM CST on November 22nd, then somebody please tell me what the odds are of Johnny Brewer somehow being wrong (or lying) when he said he saw Lee Oswald go into the theater between the those same hours of 1:00 and 2:00 PM on 11/22/63?

13 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Here is a good shot of the Ticket Booth, which apparently dates to 1931.

But that's not where the ticket booth was located on 11/22/63. The booth was closer to the sidewalk on the day of the assassination. (See video clip below.)

And, of course, Ron Bulman will apparently forever ignore my totally reasonable comments that I posted earlier in this thread.....(repeated below)....

"You MUST be kidding here. Because nobody could possibly think Johnny Brewer was lying when he said Oswald went into the theater.

Why?

1.) Brewer, while standing on the sidewalk on Jefferson Boulevard in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store, sees Oswald approaching the Texas Theater.

2.) Brewer then sees Oswald turn right toward the front entrance to the theater.

3.) Brewer then walks toward the theater himself.

4.) After starting to walk toward the theater and after reaching the front of the theater, at no time did Brewer see Oswald come back out to the sidewalk on Jefferson.

5.) The logical conclusion that Johnny Brewer reached, therefore, was that the man who was acting "funny" and "scared" and "nervous" in front of his shoe store just a minute earlier (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) must have physically entered the Texas Theater because (similar to the logical reasoning that explains where Bullet CE399 went after it came out of John F. Kennedy's throat)---He had nowhere else to go but into the theater. (Unless you want to theorize that Oswald was able to cloak himself somehow and become invisible.)

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just because somebody printed an FLN on the money order doesn't mean it was legit. What a ridiculous notion.

"How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document?" --DVP; January 9, 2016

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

"And now some conspiracy theorists are moving those goalposts (just as I expected), with some CTers now saying they think the ten-digit File Locator Number was faked by plotters. (What a surprise.)

So that would mean that the plotters, who were all members of the "Brilliant One Minute & Dumb As A Box Of Rocks The Next" club, were smart enough to forge the 10-digit File Locator Number on the Hidell money order, but too stupid to forge a First National Bank stamp (which most CTers still think should have been affixed to the Hidell money order).

"Let's Frame Oswald, Inc." evidently had Albert Einstein as its President and Homer Simpson as Vice President." --DVP; Circa 2015-2016

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

http://DVP's JFK Archives / The "Hidell" Money Order (Archived Discussions)

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

As with Young Earth Christianity, Scientology and many other absurd beliefs, I am convinced NO ONE this side of rational thought, including Armstrong himself, actually believes Harvey & Lee. It's a game, a way to mesh with a community of kindred spirits, by pretending to believe obvious nonsense. It's fun! Nothing is too wacky! You can be a big fish in a tiny pond just by coming up with something so bizarre even your fellow enthusiasts are agog.

"[John Armstrong] carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to
such absurd lengths that not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified
in the main text of my book ["Reclaiming History"], but I resent even
having to waste a word on it in this endnote. ....

"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....

"Perhaps most important, Armstrong doesn't deign to tell us why
this incredibly elaborate and difficult scheme was necessary. I mean,
if the CIA were willing to frame the Russian refugee for Kennedy's
murder by setting him up as a patsy, why not simply frame the real Lee
Harvey Oswald? After all, both the real Oswald and the imposter Oswald
were, per Armstrong, recruited by the same conspirators at the CIA and
both were being "handled" by them. ....

"So before Armstrong even writes the first word of his long
tribute to absurdity, the premise for his whole book is seen to be
prodigiously ridiculous." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 565-567 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I think you [David Josephs] take yourself, and this forum, RATHER TOO SERIOUSLY.

Amen !!!

Example after example:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP vs. David Josephs

On 2/4/2023 at 11:45 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Brewer did not see anyone run into the TT.  Physically impossible.

From an August 2022 discussion.....

GIL JESUS SAID THIS.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To throw your own words back at you --- You're kidding, right?!

You MUST be kidding here. Because nobody could possibly think Johnny Brewer was lying when he said Oswald went into the theater.

Why?

1.) Brewer, while standing on the sidewalk on Jefferson Boulevard in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store, sees Oswald approaching the Texas Theater.

2.) Brewer then sees Oswald turn right toward the front entrance to the theater.

3.) Brewer then walks toward the theater himself.

4.) After starting to walk toward the theater and after reaching the front of the theater, at no time did Brewer see Oswald come back out to the sidewalk on Jefferson.

5.) The logical conclusion that Johnny Brewer reached, therefore, was that the man who was acting "funny" and "scared" and "nervous" in front of his shoe store just a minute earlier (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) must have physically entered the Texas Theater because (similar to the logical reasoning that explains where Bullet CE399 went after it came out of John F. Kennedy's throat)---He had nowhere else to go but into the theater. (Unless you want to theorize that Oswald was able to cloak himself somehow and become invisible.)

GIL JESUS (INCREDIBLY) SAID THIS.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Boy, talk about taking something OUT OF CONTEXT. Geez, this takes the cake, Gil!

When I said "He had nowhere else to go but into the theater", I was (of course!) talking about what Brewer was observing with Oswald's movements when we add up my #1 thru #4 items on my previous list. I certainly wasn't talking about what LHO's options were PRIOR to the time when Oswald was seen walking in front of the theater.

Gil, you knew you were taking my "nowhere else to go" comment completely out of context, right?

[Gil's response to my post above was ...... Dead silence.]

More....

http://jfk-archives / Johnny Brewer, The IBM Men, The Texas Theater, & More

24 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Who were the two men in his shoe shop, from IBM that he left in charge of it that closed it down for him?

That's a very weak and pathetic dodge there.

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

JOHNNY BREWER & THE MURDER OF OFFICER TIPPIT:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1317.html

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Brewer did not see anyone run into the TT.  Physically impossible.

So you do want to call Brewer a li@r.

(Why am I not surprised in the slightest?)

Plus:

If Lee Oswald had really been innocent of killing BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many CTers seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like such a guilty person in the Texas Theater?

Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? Things such as pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it". Those two verbal statements -- all by themselves -- are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.

What do CTers think Oswald meant by "It's all over now" or "This is it"? (And he most certainly uttered at least one of those phrases, if not both, on Nov. 22 in the theater.) Can any conspiracy theorist explain (in a reasonable and believable way) what the "It" means in each of those statements?

More on Oswald's post-arrest behavior here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-983.html

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Did Lee ever have a handgun to pull? Or was one planted on him?

Oswald, himself, admitted to having the gun in the theater (see WCR Pg. 601 below):

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0313a.htm

Plus, in order to promote the "Oswald Didn't Really Have Any Gun In The Theater" theory, you'd have to call civilian witness Johnny Brewer a li@r too (see video below). And is that a reasonable thing to do?....

One more VB gem---just for the common sense (and the laughs):

"The Garrison devotees have apparently never been troubled by the question of why [Clay] Shaw and [David] Ferrie would select Oswald, of all people, as their hit man...or patsy when they had no way of knowing that the president would even come back to New Orleans, where Oswald lived at the time. Or were they planning to finance Oswald as he traveled, Carcano in his violin case, all around the country stalking Kennedy for a good opportunity to kill him or be the patsy for someone else who would? If the latter, aren't they troubled by the fact that we know, from Oswald's known whereabouts, that he never did travel around the country?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 847 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Eegads! I am forced to agree with Bugliosi.

And here are two more quotes from Mr. Bugliosi that should be very easy for any reasonable person to wholeheartedly agree with who has been exposed to the threadbare arguments presented by the various conspiracy theorists since 1963:

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

"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen. In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators behind the assassination were. So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 982 of "Reclaiming History"

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

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History"

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

Dozens Of Bonus VB Quotations (Culled By Yours Truly):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP's Favorite Vince Bugliosi Quotes