David Von Pein

16 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

I believe that everybody is wrong. I believe that PM is not Oswald, but one of his multiple doubles. I agree with Judyth Baker that Lee threw a firecracker from the 6th floor to alert the SS. I'd like to know what David Von Pein thinks of my statements. 

I think it's pretty obvious that you're making such statements while your tongue is being firmly planted in either your left or right cheek.

😁

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Most everything that happened after the assassination was a part of the Johnson Administration's cover-up. They fabricated the false documentation showing that Oswald ordered the gun.

And that must mean you think that LBJ's people somehow got Bill Waldman of Klein's to lie his ass off regarding the microfilmed records that were discovered in the early morning hours of 11/23/63 among the Klein's records in Chicago, Illinois?

Is that what you believe, Sandy?

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Actually, I must say this caption is interesting.  It has explained both occupants had already been hit and that secret service agents were looking where the “shot” came.  Brilliant deductions so early on.  Almost as if the paper had solved the case that day.  

I have to confess --- I wrote that caption myself. The managing editor of The Tampa Times telephoned me at 3:35 PM EST on 11/22/63 and asked me if I would write them an accurate caption for the Altgens photo that they said was going to adorn the front page of their 11/22 second edition. So, I agreed to help out my Tampa newspaper pals and write up the caption. (Not bad for a kid who wasn't even 2 years old yet, huh?) 😁

7 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

On the first paper, why are there two arrows.  

Read the caption, Cory....

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

No, it wouldn't have, because the photo showing Lovelady had already gone out over the AP wire within a couple hours of the assassination and was shown on live television by Walter Cronkite that evening.

Plus, the Altgens photograph was also appearing on the front pages of many newspapers as early as Day 1 (Nov. 22), such as these random newspaper examples (click to make huge):

............

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The official interrogation report says the following happened:

1. Oswald went to the the second floor to get a coke.
2. Officer Baker had an encounter with Oswald there.
3. Then Oswald went to the first floor and ate lunch.

Do you believe that Oswald ate lunch after encountering Officer Baker? Neither do I.

Of course Oswald didn't eat lunch on the first floor after his encounter with Officer Baker. That was merely one of the many lies Oswald told the police after his arrest.

Oswald also didn't "stand around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley" after the encounter with Baker either, which is yet another of Lee Oswald's lies that appears in James Bookhout's 11/22/63 solo FBI report.

One of the very few things that Oswald didn't lie about after he was arrested, however, was his encounter with Officer Baker in the lunchroom. And that's because he had no reason whatsoever to want to lie about that particular event. And he also knew he couldn't very well lie and say the encounter never took place at all, because there were two witnesses (Baker and Truly) who could easily prove that such an encounter did take place.

In order to believe that the authorities just MADE UP the Baker/Truly/Oswald lunchroom encounter from whole cloth, you'd have to believe (as many conspiracy theorists do) that BOTH Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were big fat li@rs, which is an absurd belief (for all the reasons discussed at the link below).

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It seems quite likely the curtain rod "story" was not a story told by Frazier, but a story told by others to hide that 1) curtain rods were needed at Oswald's rented room, 2) curtain rods were missing from Mrs. Paine's garage, and 3) curtain rods were recovered at Oswald's place of work, or somewhere that could be linked back to him...

The curtain rod "story" was most definitely a "story" (i.e., lie) invented by just one person---Lee Harvey Oswald. And unless conspiracy theorists think Buell Wesley Frazier was lying his ass off when he used the words "curtain rods" three separate times in his 11/22/63 affidavit (pictured below), then it's pretty obvious where the curtain rod "story" originated.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald's "Curtain Rods" Lie

Click to enlarge....

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for posting that David. It proves that DCA indeed did make more than one version of the film, as some person reported in another forum several years ago.

(I personally already knew that there was more than one copy because the copy I watched didn't have captions. Neither did it have sound.)

Well, the music was very likely added by someone years later (it wasn't done by me, btw). And the version with the captions could have also been done by some JFK researcher at some point well after 1963 or '64 too, with "DCA" not being involved in those other versions at all.

FWIW --- The copy of the DCA film that I have had in my collection for several years is this shorter version below which ends right after the Mentesana Film is shown. This "NFV" [New Frontier Video; Robert Groden] version also has music added (a tune called "Aftermaths" by David Shire), which I think is a very appropriate and excellent theme considering the video's contents. Also: this version does not include any captions at all (such as the wholly inappropriate "Assassin's Rifle" caption):

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

More info:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1635768217

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

FYI....

The author of this new book, Paul Roderick Gregory, provided testimony to the Warren Commission on March 31, 1964. His testimony can be found HERE.

And Gregory's father, Peter Paul Gregory, also gave testimony to the Commission (on March 13, 1964). His testimony is HERE.

..........

8 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Nice try, but you can see above the puppet the navy pocket stripe that otherwise might be mistaken for Lambchop's eye slits.

There are two such pocket stripes on each side of Jackie's suit jacket.

(Nice try, though.)

4 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

That form-fitting pink wool Chanel number couldn't migrate over to the seat between them unless it were unbuttoned.

It hasn't migrated anywhere. It's just part of the jacket.

19 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Nah, it's Lambchop, not part of the bouquet as seen at Love Field.  Notice the "little dog" is between them, as Jean said.

The circled item here is part of Jackie's suit jacket.

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Well, it's debatable, David, but it looks like the puppet in this image at Love Field.

Why not use this much clearer image I posted earlier showing the items Jackie is holding? It's clearly flowers---not a toy puppet:

8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Some here may recall that Jean Hill's comment about a "little dog" in the back seat was not wrong, since Jacqueline Kennedy had been given a [Lamb] Chop puppet at Love Field and had it with her in the back seat. It resembled a little dog. Jean Hill was ridiculed unfairly for that. She made many misstatements, but that was not one of them.

You're incorrect on this, Joe. Nobody gave Jackie a "Lambchop puppet" at Love Field, and that fact is proven in the film clip linked below. In the video clip, Jackie is clearly handling a cluster of flowers and not any kind of toy or puppet just after she enters the limousine at Love Field:

VIDEO --- Jackie Kennedy Is Holding Flowers, Not "Lambchop"

Photographs taken at Love Field (like the one shown below) also tend to debunk the notion that there was a "Lambchop" toy.

Click to enlarge:

Where on Earth did the "Lambchop" myth come from anyhow? Anybody know?

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well if that is a metal headrest, only the left side of his skull is resting on it. Because I can see the top of its right side. There no skull there to rest on it.

It's the headrest you're seeing, Sandy. The headrest kind of wraps around the head, as is easily seen in the photo showing the left side of JFK's head below:

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can see right through where that portion of the skull should be, and can see a block of some kind resting on the table.

What you're probably seeing is the metal headrest, not a "block".

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The gaping hole in #1 extends to the back of the head, and yet isn't seen at all in #3.

You're wrong, Sandy. The "gaping hole" in #1 doesn't extend to the BACK of the head at all. What you evidently think is part of the  "gaping hole" is merely blood and brain adhering to JFK's hair at the TOP of his head. But the HOLE is nowhere near the BACK of the head (i.e., "occipital" or "posterior").

19 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes you are right, I was totally mistaken. Sorry for that.

That's quite alright, Chris. And thank you for admitting you were mistaken. That's a refreshing thing to see here once in a while. 😁

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

All this going over old ground that has been covered in numerous books (etc.) is an apparent goal of some disinformation operatives who frequent this forum (and have been doing so with more frequency lately) to waste time and distract attention from genuine research. Most members here are interested in doing genuine research that attempts to advance the case, but not these other posters who have infested the site.

Calling other members (whoever they might be) "Disinformation operatives"  is most definitely against this forum's rules.

(Isn't it? It certainly should be anyway.)

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

As Micah pointed out to you and as MOST EVERY seasoned JFK researcher knows full well, McClellend did not capitulate.

And I never said McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives:

And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above.

Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance.

7 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Cherry picking to the point of a complete misrepresentation of Mcclellend at the archives is easily disproved but it is repeated year after year.

Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that.

I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV In 1988

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The blowout on the back of the head was blackened out and a reddish blob painted in.

Oh stop! Please! Nothing was "blackened out" in the Zapruder Film or in the autopsy photographs (as discussed below):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Was The Back Of JFK's Head "Blacked Out"?