David Von Pein

Eleven years ago, in December of 2011, I was engaged in some discussions [archived HERE] concerning the question of why there were evidently no official "FD-302" FBI forms associated with the interviews the FBI conducted for Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011. At that time, in 2011, I had speculated this: "It's possible that an official FD-302 report by Odum (or Shanklin) would not really be required in the instance of the FBI interviews with Tomlinson, Wright, Rowley, Johnsen, and Todd.....and that's because the July 7, 1964, FBI report essentially COULD serve as the FD-302 report regarding those interviews. In other words, the FBI report of 7/7/64 (seen in CE2011) says the exact same thing that a 302 would also say." -- DVP; December 2011 Well, thanks to Tom Gram's post today in another EF thread, I saw for the first time this June 27, 1964, FBI Airtel, which seems to confirm my above speculation that there were no FD-302 reports filed by the FBI agents for the individual interviews they conducted for the FBI report which eventually became Commission Exhibit 2011. Quoting from the 6/27/64 Airtel (also pictured below): "Inasmuch as this investigation was conducted at the specific request of the President's Commission, information contained in the letterhead memorandum will not be set forth in a subsequent report UACB [which means: Unless Advised to the Contrary by the Bureau]." And even though the above 6/27/64 FBI Airtel message doesn't specifically say the words "We're not going to bother with all the individual FD-302s in this matter", I think that that Airtel does provide enough information ("will not be set forth in a subsequent report") to at least cast a lot of doubt over whether Bardwell Odum filed any FD-302s at all for the interviews he conducted at Parkland Hospital in June of 1964. (And Tom Gram, in his post I linked to above, obviously thinks that way as well.) So, should the issue of "The Missing FD-302s" now be considered a non-issue altogether? I think so. Just like Steve Roe's discovery of Elmer Todd's initials on Bullet CE399 should forever silence the CTers who for years kept asking "Where are Todd's initials?!" I'd say that 2022 has been a good year for debunking tired old conspiracy theories. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Darrell Tomlinson And CE399 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Elmer Todd's Initials Are On CE399

Well, there ya go. That makes DiEugenio's thread title even more misleading.

How true. And if only the many Anybody But Oswald CTers out there would adhere to such a basic rule of life (and "facts"). That would be a refreshing change.

No, but the title you (DiEugenio) gave to this thread most certainly will lead people to think that RFK Jr. was, indeed, on Carlson's TV program, that's for sure. That is certainly what I thought when I first read these words: Stop the Presses: RFK Jr on Tucker Carlson

People still use Twitter? I can only ~shrug~ and wonder why? I gave up on that awful platform years ago. And Facebook is nearly as useless/worthless.

Cronkite didn't use those words. He said it was "Soviet propaganda", which, of course, it was. You surely don't doubt that fact, do you Lori?

Pot meets Kettle (yet again).

You really should be much more careful when you utilize the word "facts", John. Because in many instances, the things you regard as ironclad "facts" relating to the JFK case are not really proven "facts" at all. They are merely suppositions or outright guesswork on your part (and on the part of other CTers who also toss around that word---"facts"---in a loose fashion, as if they could actually prove anything they say---which, of course, they cannot, and never once have). An excellent example of what I just said occurred in John Cotter's last post, when he boldly gushed forth the following batch of pure conjecture and guesswork as if it were an "undeniable fact" (John's own words), when, in fact (pun, pun), nothing in this paragraph has been remotely proven to be a "fact" at all: "The undeniable fact of the persistent sheep-dipping of Oswald implies that there was a longstanding conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that this conspiracy involved scapegoating Oswald for the assassination. That being the case, placing Oswald in the TSBD was part of the plot and Ruth Paine was wittingly or unwittingly implicated in it." -- John Cotter; 12/17/2022

Another "coincidental fact" that can be added to the discussion concerning Lee Harvey Oswald getting his job at the Texas School Book Depository is the information supplied by Roy Truly in the testimony below [3 H 237]: ROY S. TRULY -- "Actually, the end of our fall rush—if it hadn't existed a week or two weeks longer, or if we had not been using some of our regular boys putting down this plywood, we would not have had any need for Lee Oswald at that time, which is a tragic thing for me to think about." The above testimony by Mr. Truly makes me wonder if some conspiracists think the installation of the new plywood floor on the upper floors of the Book Depository Building in November 1963 was something that was pre-planned by conspirators so that Lee Harvey Oswald's employment at the Depository could be extended through the day of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas on November 22nd. (JFK CTers, of course, believe a lot of strange things, so if they were to endorse a "Plywood Floor" conspiracy theory, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.)

You tell me, John.

But here's something else for the CTers to think about.... Even if we were to make the wholly ridiculous (IMO) and outlandish (IMO) assumption that Ruth Paine was, indeed, working for the CIA in 1963....and if we make the further wholly insane (IMO) assumption that Ruth was Lee Oswald's "handler" in October and November of '63....and if we make the additional absurd (IMO) and preposterous (IMO) assumption that Ruth had a desire to "plant" Oswald in the Book Depository Building before JFK came to Dallas.... It seems to me that the conspiracy theorists still have no choice but to admit and accept the fact that there simply must have been a fair amount of coincidence and happenstance and pure luck that must have accompanied Ruth Paine's CIA-sponsored handiwork with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald getting hired at the TSBD on 10/15/63. Because without the coincidental fact of Buell Wesley Frazier getting hired at the Depository in September of 1963....and without the coincidental fact that had Ruth Paine living just a half-block down the street from Linnie Mae Randle's house....and without the luck and happenstance that resulted in Roy Truly actually hiring the alleged "patsy" named Lee Oswald....then even if Ruth Paine had been deeply involved in a plot to plant Oswald in the TSBD and frame him for JFK's murder, such a plot couldn't possibly have worked out without all of those examples of luck, happenstance, and ordinary coincidence I just discussed. Unless.... Conspiracy theorists also want to theorize that all of that "luck", "coincidence", and "happenstance" circulating around those people in Irving, Texas, and at the Book Depository in 1963 (people like Randle, Frazier, and Truly) wasn't really luck and/or happenstance at all. Do some conspiracists think that Buell Frazier was "planted" in the TSBD also---one month ahead of Oswald's alleged "planting"? And do some CTers think that the close proximity of the Paine and Randle houses in Irving was deliberately arranged (somehow) by the CIA or other sinister forces who were bent on murdering the President? And do some conspiracy believers believe that Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly was somehow forced (or coerced) into hiring Lee Oswald? Or maybe Truly was part of the "CIA" too? Food for coincidental thought....don't you think?

Roy Kellerman's phrase in his WC testimony was: "Flurry of shells" and also "Flurry of shots". https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search=Kellerman+Flurry

Bulls**t. You don't have a speck of proof to back up your above speculation....and you damn well know it. Plus, if you think Ruth Paine was part of some plot to "plant" LHO in the TSBD, then you have no choice but to bring Linnie Mae Randle into the plot too. Are you sure you want to do that, Gene?

That's in the Nix Film. Agent John Ready can be seen stepping off of his QM running board and down to the street and moving slightly forward just after the fatal head shot. He then goes out of Mr. Nix's camera range. .... https://drive.google.com/video file/The Orville Nix Film

You bet I do. Absolutely. He's not "acting" there. Ruby had gone a little cuckoo in the head by that point in time, IMO. But there's no way Ruby was "acting" his way through this crying jag: https://drive.google.com/file/Jack Ruby Video

Boy, I disagree with you there, Lance. Oswald was most definitely both of those things (IMO).

🡻 🡻 🡻 🡻 Click to enlarge:

In January 1964, Jack Ruby choked back tears at a press conference and said: "I couldn't understand how a great man like that could be lost." (See the video of it here.) The "great man" Ruby was referring to was, of course, John F. Kennedy. In March of 2014, when the Amazon forums were still alive and kicking, I had a discussion there at Amazon with some CTers about Jack Ruby and that video I just linked above. (Discussion archived at my site here.) Here are some of the highlights: DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That one brief video clip of Ruby breaking down and crying over President Kennedy's death in front of the news media, two months after the assassination, just might be the single best piece of anti-conspiracy evidence there is when it comes to the subject of: Why did Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald? Because if Mr. Ruby was merely putting on a show of fake emotion in the video clip presented above, then he should have won the Academy Award for Best Actor of 1964 instead of Rex Harrison. [Was it all] just an act [by Ruby], Garry Puffer? Or genuine emotion being exhibited for a person Jack Ruby obviously admired? GARRY PUFFER SAID: Once again, David, I don't believe you can possibly be serious. Sorry. Your whole schtick just doesn't fly any more. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I'm crushed beyond repair. What can I possibly do now? Garry Puffer has shunned me. ~sniff~ But it's a handy way to avoid answering my perfectly reasonable question, isn't it Garry? GARRY PUFFER SAID: I thought my answer was kind of obvious. But evidently it zipped past you, so no, David, I do not believe he [Ruby] was at all serious. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Then Mr. Ruby was one whale of an actor. Hollywood's top directors should have made proper use of his amazing talents long before 1964. In other words, anyone who actually thinks Jack Ruby is putting on an act in the video embedded above must desperately WANT Ruby to be part of some kind of conspiracy. Because if that was merely an "act", then I'm Jack Ruby's illegitimate son. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-673.html

Because Jack Ruby held a grievance against Lee Oswald. Ruby was convinced that Oswald had killed President Kennedy. It's really as simple as that, IMO. And in many ways, Ruby's killing of Oswald was the same in the "perfect opportunity" departmant as Oswald's killing of Kennedy. Ruby was presented the perfect opportunity on Sunday morning (via pure chance and ideal timing). And the fact that Ruby regularly carried a revolver on him and was the type of person who would often take matters into his own hands (e.g., such as acting as his own bouncer at his nightclub) only enhanced the likelihood that Ruby would act upon his grievance when he discovered (by pure accident and happenstance) that Oswald had not yet been moved to the County Jail as of the time when Jack was downtown near the City Hall sending a money order to one of his nightclub employees. As it turned out, happenstance and good fortune were on the side of Lee Harvey Oswald at 12:30 PM on November 22nd (in the form of Bonnie Ray Williams deciding to vacate the sixth floor of the Book Depository just minutes before Oswald required complete solitude to perform his evil deed from that same sixth floor). And, similarly, happenstance and good fortune were also on the side of Jack Ruby at 11:20 AM on November 24th (in the form of police officer Roy Vaughn stepping away from the Main Street ramp at City Hall just far enough and just long enough to allow Ruby to slip into the police basement undetected).* * Although I do allow for the slight possibility of Ruby entering the DPD basement in another manner (via a side door), as discussed here. [Oops! I'm sure that was over 100 words. Sorry, Kirk. Oh, well.]

Only a person who demands 100% to-the-inch perfection in a Single-Bullet Theory re-creation like the one performed in October 2004 in "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet" would think that the SBT was actually "debunked" in that program.

Ready said he first "got back ON the car" (not IN it). Then, sometime later (on Stemmons obviously, since Ready is still on the running board in the McIntire pictures), he got IN the follow-up car.

Can you summarize that bombshell evidence again, Sandy? I think I missed it. Thanks.

Yes, I agree. And not only are Oswald's denials completely consistent with his guilt (IMO), but his actions right after the assassination are most certainly consistent with his guilt as well. E.G., fleeing the TSBD within minutes of the JFK shooting; going home to get a gun; killing J.D. Tippit; and all the lies he dished up to the police after his arrest. Plus: Those actions are also totally consistent with his denying he killed Kennedy too. He obviously didn't want to be caught. So he ran. And then he denied his guilt after he was caught. When people ask: Why didn't Oswald confess if he was wanting to become famous for his crime? I think he probably wanted to play the part of the "Innocent Patsy" to the hilt for a while longer (maybe forever). But it's possible he would have confessed at some point down the road, but since he was killed just two days later, we'll never know. But also keep in mind that by just playing the part of the "Patsy", Oswald was still becoming ultra-famous. So he knew he didn't have to shout "I did it" from the rooftops to gain the fame and attention he might have been seeking. Just by clamming up and NOT confessing and pretending to be the snow-white patsy was serving his "fame" purposes just fine, thank you.