David Von Pein

That doesn't really matter. The important thing is was what Oswald himself thought and believed (even if the things he believed were skewed). And Oswald seemed to have a fairly strong dislike for America in general (as evidenced by some of the things LHO said in this letter [CE295] written to his brother, Robert, on November 26, 1959, while Lee was living in the Soviet Union; see excerpts from that letter in the Vincent Bugliosi book excerpt pictured below). That could have created a pretty strong motive in Oswald's warped mind right there. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The bottom line is --- we'll never ever know for certain what "motive" Lee Harvey Oswald had for taking his own rifle to work on 11/22/63 and murdering the President. But one thing is a certainty (in my opinion) --- he had one. Because Oswald did kill John F. Kennedy. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Motive (Part 1) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Motive (Part 2)

Even though you (should) know by now that such a thing is impossible.

Absolutely. No doubt about it (IMO). And why you think such a turn by Connally would have been impossible is beyond me. Your scenario has JBC being shot only AFTER the head shot to Kennedy, which is totally absurd. One reason being: JBC always said he heard the third (head) shot and felt the effects from that shot only AFTER he himself had been shot. https://drive.google.com/video-file/The Zapruder Film

But we know that a bullet (by itself) cannot do that. So Connally's being "doubled over" was something that had to have occurred AFTER the bullet passed through him. It was Connally himself doing the "doubling over". The bullet itself didn't perform that task. It couldn't have.

The "180-degree turn in his seat" is most certainly not the turn that John Connally was referring to when he said he was hit. He was referring to his right turn at about Z-frame 164. And if you think it was a BULLET that caused John Connally to plow into the back of the front seat just after the JFK head shot, you'd be incorrect. Because no bullet (by itself) could possibly cause a human being to move that much. Therefore, that massive movement forward by John B. Connally had to have been caused by something else other than a bullet. In other words, it was a voluntary movement on Connally's part, not involuntary. Plus, it is said by some researchers that blood can be seen on some part of John Connally's body in the frames just after Z225. https://drive.google.com/video-file/The Zapruder Film

RELATED DISCUSSION.... C.B. McCARTY SAID: I'm a bit confused about the Z film in this video from 1964. Was it just for the Warren Commission and the government? I thought the Z film was not seen by the public until years later...correct? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: CB, You bring up a very good point about the Zapruder Film that I had never thought about before today [June 12, 2017]. This Secret Service film must, indeed, have only been available to certain "Government" people for many years. Although, as I understand it, "Government" films are in the public domain from Day 1 and can be obtained and used by any ordinary American citizen. I got my copy of this SS film by just scouring the Internet and downloading it. But I have no idea when the public first had access to this film. But since it's a "Secret Service" film, it is also a "Government" production and should have been readily available and in the public domain for anyone to see back in '64 (I would assume). Good question, though, CB. It now makes me wonder why many more regular citizens hadn't seen (and reacted to) the Z-Film being shown (in full motion) in this film well prior to the ABC-TV showing of the film in 1975. My guess would be that since this Secret Service film wasn't shown on TV or any other place where the public would have easy access to it, it simply was never seen by the average American until the "Internet" came into existence. But now almost everything (including Government films like this one) are readily available with the click of a mouse. If this film had been produced in the Internet era, then everyone would have been able to see Mr. Zapruder's film (in motion) immediately, instead of having to wait 12 years for a bootleg copy to be shown on Geraldo Rivera's TV show. Thanks for your good comments, CB. DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID: A follow-up to my comments above.... Since we can see that the Zapruder Film is being displayed in full motion (and in real time) in this 1964 Secret Service film [8 minutes in], such an occurrence (within a U.S. Government filmed production) would certainly tend to debunk the notion that many conspiracy theorists continue to endorse to this day—i.e., the notion that Abraham Zapruder's motion picture film of JFK's assassination was being deliberately suppressed or hidden from the general public until 1975 (or at least until 1969, when the Zapruder Film was shown in open court at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans).* Although I am not positive, I would assume that this Secret Service reconstruction film was available to the public shortly after it was completed sometime in late 1964. It possibly was made available at certain libraries, schools, and universities around the country. And if that was the case, then the conspiracists who think the U.S. Government was attempting to hide the Zapruder Film from public view for many years are just simply dead wrong. Because this Secret Service film, although probably not seen by very many people prior to the age of the Internet, would have still been out there and available to view by anyone who had an interest in doing so many years prior to 1975 (or 1969). * With New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison being one of the conspiracy theorists who has over the years suggested that the Zapruder Film was being deliberately kept under wraps and out of the view of the general public by sinister forces, as we can see when author Vincent Bugliosi quotes Garrison in his book "Reclaiming History": “The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors, that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power—the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film."” -- Page 504 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (2007) Further comments, concerns, observations...

Yes, you're right. Whoever uploaded that version of the narrated 1964 Secret Service film has edited out all of the parts with the Zapruder Film (which include some still photos and the actual film in motion). This was probably done to avoid having YouTube remove the video entirely due to the "violent" content of the Z-Film clips---which is exactly what happened recently to my own video of the Z-Film that I had up on my JFK YouTube Channel. And, in fact, that's the reason I no longer have the complete version of the '64 SS film on my YT channel. I voluntarily removed it from my channel myself in order to head off its probable future deletion by the YouTube robots who detect such "sensitive" and "violent" material. But you can watch the entire '64 SS film (including the Z-Film clips) HERE. The section with the Z-Film begins at 8:09. The Z-Film version that was used was one of the Secret Service copies, which (I guess) helps explain why part of the image is cut off at the bottom of the frame. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, the date of "March 1964" shown on that "Timeline" page (at the Sixth Floor Museum website) has to be incorrect. There's no way the film was made that early in the Warren Commission's investigation, because the SS film contains details and images from the Commission's May 24, 1964, re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. So it must have been produced after at least May of '64, and probably was made after the Warren Commission closed up shop completely in September of '64. EDIT --- Just a few minutes after I wrote the paragraph above, I dug up an older version of the Sixth Floor's Z-Film Timeline (which I saved about a year ago via Archive.org's handy "Wayback Machine"), and this older version confirms what I said above---that the SS film was not produced until AFTER the Warren Report was released in late 1964 (click the image below to see the older "Timeline" with this different—and more accurate—description of the Secret Service film).... ----------------------------

"JFK Assassination Tediously Reconstructed".... Click for enlargement:

Related Links: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/1964-secret-service-film.html#Discussion http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-reenactment-films.html

You've got the date wrong here, Vince. It was September 13, 1960 ---not Sept. 11. (Confirmed via the newspaper below.)

More info on JFK's 1960 Dallas visit: http://dallasnews.com/interactives/2013-October/JFK1960 My own photo page: http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/10/JFK In Dallas In 1960 Click to enlarge:

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

And you have PROOF of that, right?

What would you know about "The Truth" when it comes to the JFK case? You actually wrote this incredibly inaccurate statement in July 2019: "Oswald never ordered a rifle." -- R. Bulman; July 12, 2019 Now there's a quote that should make any truth-seeking student of the JFK case want to "puke". But since it's in vogue here in the 21st century for conspiracy theorists to believe that all of the Klein's paperwork is fake, we now have to suffer through all of the inept and inane "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" arguments.

Please! Stop! You don't want me to lose my nice Thanksgiving dinner, do you?

It's simple --- in the hands of Mark Lane, some of the witnesses changed their story.....as I talk about (and verify) here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1358.html#Mark-Lane

........

I tend to agree. Because whether or not LHO beat his wife certainly has no bearing whatsoever on the bigger question of: "Did LHO Kill JFK & Officer Tippit?"

So Marina's the li@r, is that it? ~sigh~

You really believe that Vince or Priscilla or maybe MARINA herself (as told to Priscilla) were "just making stuff up" regarding LHO's abusive treatment of Marina, Sandy? You're sounding more like DiEugenio all the time. (And that's certainly not a good thing.) And do you think Marguerite was "making stuff up" too, when she said (at 1 H 140) that Marina told her it was "Lee" who had caused the black eye? Why on Earth would MARGUERITE, of all people, want to falsely paint her son as a wife abuser?

1 H 140 (Full Page): https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0076b.htm

I don't see how anyone—even a conspiracy theorist—can deny the fact that Lee Oswald definitely did physically abuse Marina Oswald during the course of their marriage. There is ample evidence to indicate that Lee smacked Marina around on numerous occasions. From Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", page 646 (main text): "The beatings also resumed, sometimes to the point of leaving obvious bruises. When Marguerite, on a visit one day, saw that Marina, who was nursing Junie, kept her head down, she came around to Marina's front and noticed she had "a black eye." Marguerite called her son on it: "Lee, what do you mean by striking Marina?" He told her to mind her own business, and she did. As she [Marguerite Oswald] told the Warren Commission, there were occasions when her son would come home from work and there would be no supper waiting for him, and "there may be times that a woman needs a black eye." Marina hoped that Robert [Oswald] might intervene, and Robert did see her at least once when she had an obvious black eye, but he said nothing. The beatings became routine—as frequent as twice a week after Marguerite's first visit. What followed was the by-now-familiar, dreary pattern of wife battering. Each time Lee physically abused Marina, he would offer an abject apology and assure her of his love, and Marina would eagerly seize on the assurance of his love, forgiving and no doubt to some extent accepting the blame for the incident herself. With the progressive loss of her self-esteem, she lost more and more of the will to resist. She began to collaborate in fabricating the excuses offered to others for increasingly serious injuries. Underlying it all was Lee's need to control Marina, with alternating abuse and tantalizing offers of affection." --Page 646 of "Reclaiming History" Bugliosi's sources for the above paragraphs: 1 H 139–140, Warren Commission Testimony of Marguerite Oswald. and Priscilla McMillan, Marina And Lee, p.236. ---------------------------------------------------------------------