David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
OK, you hold that after being shot simultaneously to JFK, by a bullet that passed through four inches of rib, then JBC did a 180-degree turn in his seat, tried to see JFK, and then began to turn forward when he imagined (but as is seen on the Z film) he was pushed forward by the missile that struck him about three seconds earlier.
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...
-
14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
This version, cited, does not seem to have the JFK assassination Z film.....the Z film is cited in opening credits, but then absent. I do not know the date of this production.
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:
-
-
On 11/22/2022 at 9:28 PM, Vince Palamara said:
JFK/LBJ motorcade: 9/11/60 DALLAS/FORT WORTH!
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:
-
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
24 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
Yep, the FBI heard one thing and wrote another.
And you have PROOF of that, right?
-
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:
If the Truth makes you puke....
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
He [ Mark "The Ultimate Saint" Lane ] is an American Hero.
Please! Stop! You don't want me to lose my nice Thanksgiving dinner, do you?
-
15 minutes ago, John Cotter said:
When I put this to prominent lone nut theorist, David Von Pein, all he could come up with is that Mark Lane had manipulated the witnesses who had observed shooting-related activity on the “grassy knoll” into making false statements on camera. Thus, DVP made a scurrilous allegation against Mark Lane without a scintilla of evidence to support his allegation.
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
-
........
-
15 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:
this entire debate is nonsense.
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?"
-
3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
All Marguerite knew is what Marina privately told her.
So Marina's the li@r, is that it?
~sigh~
-
41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Bugliosi is just making stuff up, when he writes things like "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. Or maybe it's Priscilla McMillan who made it up.
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?
-
-
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.---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Sure Dave... they're going to change Dealey Plaza so that nothing changes. Got it.
The proposed re-design won't change one single significant landmark in Dealey Plaza. Unless you think the parking lot behind the knoll is a "significant landmark". And why would anyone think that? And that parking lot has undoubtedly been "changed" at least a little bit since 1963 anyway.
-
9 hours ago, Lori Spencer said:
If this project goes forward as proposed, the Dealey Plaza we have known for nearly a century will be unrecognizable.
Nonsense. It won't be "unrecognizable" at all....as I talk about HERE.
The "pools" in the middle of the street are a stupid (and very tacky) idea, though, I'll grant you that.
Click:
-
6 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
the back wound was shallow.
Not only do the autopsy surgeons disagree with the above comment (via the autopsy report which was signed by all THREE autopsy doctors!), but the 1968 Clark Panel disagrees as well. Let's have a gander....
"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." --From Clark Panel Report
Replay (for emphasis)....
"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html
-
-
7 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:
David, after re-reading the section from Hear No Evil, the KBOX recording is overdubbed with the announcer. It's actual audio from KBOX.
What you just said above is very likely not true.
But, as I have said before, the whole topic of the KBOX tapes is quite confusing and muddled.
Old Secret Service Reel on the JFKA
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.