David Von Pein

Here's another close-up view of the strap....

Well, gosh, 1:40 is just as bad as 1:45 in this instance. Either way, it's pretty clear that Craig had no clue as to when Tippit was really killed. Just as he had no clue as to what kind of rifle was found in the TSBD. And he said exactly that in 1968 too.... "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles." -- Roger D. Craig; March 1968 Complete 1968 interview with Roger Craig: https://app.box.com/s/n0hkvccua7iczh71h5bp

I just listened to the excerpt in question again (exactly ten minutes into the interview). And I want to now apologize to Robbie Robertson for my earlier comment about Robbie saying that the chronology was "Cab then Bus". I was wrong. Robbie never said that. But what Robbie did say was also incorrect. He said that Oswald "gives up the taxi to some lady". But that's not right either, because Oswald never did "give up the taxi" to a lady on Nov. 22. According to cab driver William Whaley, Oswald did offer to let the lady have the cab, but Oswald never got out of the cab. Here's what Whaley told the Warren Commission: "And about that time an old lady, I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me a cab down here?" She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one too, and he opened the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will let you have this one," and she says, "No, the driver can call me one." So, I didn't call one because I knew before I could call, one would come around the block and keep it pretty well covered." Therefore, Oswald stayed put in Whaley's cab. So I apologize, Robbie, for my earlier mistake. But you still made a mistake yourself. It's just not the same one I accused you of making. 😄

Oh, it's not really so hard, Gerry. 😇 I did get my courage up and challenged Jim DiEugenio to a radio debate back in 2010 (see link below), but Jim wouldn't have any of it. He didn't like my proposed format for the debate. (And, to this day, I still can't figure out why my terms were so unpleasing to him.) ~shrug~ http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-34.html

I've been asked a few times to do online interviews, but I'm much more comfortable when I can write out my responses to questions that interviewers ask. (Perhaps that comes from a persistent fear of my responses coming out all "Uhhhhh's" and "Duhhhh's" in audio/video form.) 😁 And so I prefer to do "text" interviews, which I've done (twice)--in 2011 and 2021. If you'd care to read them, I (of course) have them both archived at my website (below).... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Barry, I took notice of the "cab/bus" mistake in Robbie's interview with Gerald Posner too. In fact, BOTH Gerald and Robbie got it backwards regarding the bus and the cab. Robbie seems to think it was the taxicab that got stuck in traffic, causing Oswald to vacate the cab and get on a bus. Of course, as we all know, it was the bus that got stuck in the traffic jam, with Oswald then switching to William Whaley's cab. And Mr. Posner, of course, knows perfectly well what the order of Oswald's movements really was on Nov. 22. Gerald even mentions the "Bus then Cab" chronology in some of his other interviews. He merely suffered a slight brain cramp when talking to Robbie Robertson in Aug. 2022. Which just goes to prove that even a person who knows the JFK case inside and out can innocently say something that is not accurate. I've pointed out in the past numerous similar "brain cramps" (aka "senior moments") that were suffered by Vincent Bugliosi during his "Reclaiming History" book tour in 2007. The biggest of which actually occurred in multiple radio interviews (one of them even years later, in 2013) when Vince (incredibly) actually said that Jim Garrison's initial interest in the JFK murder case was sparked when the Zapruder Film was shown on television for the first time---which (of course) was an event that didn't occur until 1975, six years after Garrison's case against Clay Shaw had ended. It should have been a rather embarrassing radio moment for Mr. Bugliosi, but it wasn't (at least not at the time of the interviews), because the radio hosts never corrected Vince on the air and never even noticed VB's "brain cramp" at all. I think that I, too, as old age creeps up and up, am experiencing more "senior moments" and "brain cramps". Especially with people's names and dates. Drives me nuts too. I hate the thought of my memory going bye-bye in future years. I just hope I can remember who J.D. Tippit and Buell Wesley Frazier and Domingo Benavides are several years from now. If I ever start scratching my head and looking skyward as I try to contemplate "Who the heck is John F. Kennedy?", I will then know that I'm in big trouble. 😁

~shrug~

I'm not positive, but I would think that embedding individual videos would very much help and aid a channel's overall viewership and analytics. Plus, YouTube does, indeed, provide a handy link at the top of every embedded video that takes you directly to that channel's main (Home) page. And when you mouse-over the channel icon in the upper left (the portrait of JFK in my example below), the full name of the channel pops up. So, YouTube has done a nice job of providing the dual functionality (within the same embedded player) of having the ability to embed individual videos while also being able to access the channel's home page in one easy click. Plus, the option is also provided (twice) to watch the embedded video on the YouTube site too. It's a win-win-win situation if you ask me. Which is why I always allow my videos to be embedded into other websites:

What do you mean? I merely utilized the embedding feature that YouTube has always had. And why on Earth have you turned off the ability to embed your Posner video? Just to spite me? There's nothing illegal or underhanded when somebody embeds a YouTube video on their own sites. That's what the embedding feature is for, for Pete sake.

Here is J.C. Day's name as it appears on the butt end of Oswald's Carcano....

Thanks, Robbie. Good interview with Gerald. I'm pleased to now add it to my own Gerald Posner webpage.... http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2014/11/gerald-posner.html

Here's another one for the Memory Lane file (which includes another Kennedy motorcade photo)---from exactly one year earlier than the above Chicago picture. This is a photo which I've used on my webpage here to help drive home the fact that the 11/22/63 Dallas motorcade, despite what many conspiracists believe, was not lax or substandard as far as the normal security is concerned during JFK's term in office. In fact, please note the complete lack of any Secret Service agents at all on the running boards of the follow-up car. Plus, there are NO motorcycles beside JFK's car at all (even though the crowd is pretty close to the car in the photo). The cycles seen in this Oakland picture are riding some distance ahead and behind the President's car. The rear motorcycles, in fact, are riding behind the follow-up car! So from those two standpoints alone—the motorcycle security and the SS agents not being on the running boards—the President's vehicle in Dealey Plaza was much MORE secure and better protected than it was during this portion of this California parade.... Make it bigger with a click:

Enlarge by clicking:

I haven't the slightest idea, Tom. But in order for me to believe that this type of "doctoring" of reports was shady in some fashion, I think that CTers should offer up a better explanation for why the DPD didn't simply get rid of the document that they didn't want anybody to find out about. And the "They never thought anyone would ever see it" excuse that you offered up previously just isn't going to cut it (IMO). To reiterate what I think is a very good point ---- The fact that documents like the one we're discussing in this thread even exist in this year of 2022 is, in my view, a pretty good indication that those documents were not being created and utilized by the authorities in any sinister or devious way.

And I guess all the trash cans at City Hall were too full. Maybe that's the explanation for why those dastardly guys at the Dallas Police Department just refused to get rid of something that they really should have gotten rid of (if, that is, they were truly the cover-up artists that CTers make them out to be).

And then they decided to retain the original document, instead of deep-sixing it. Right? Why would they retain it, when they could have just as easily destroyed that unwanted piece of paper so that nobody would ever see it again? That same question -- Why would the plotters/cover-uppers retain this original document? -- can be asked when discussing other allegedly "suspicious" documents as well. And the fact that such original documents even exist now for us to examine is, IMO, a strong indication that those documents are not the sinister and conspiratorial documents that many CTers suspect they are. For if they truly were signs of an actual cover-up, you've got to ask: Why on Earth did these guys leave behind evidence of their wrong-doing? Don't you ever want to ask that question yourself, Tom?

It looks like you've failed to understand it for a second time. Wanna go for the hat trick? Hint: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html

It's downright silly for conspiracy theorists to suggest that the FBI and/or DPD and/or Warren Commission "faked" or "doctored" this version of CE1952 in order to fool the American people into believing that the fingerprint check that was done on some curtain rods was done after Ruth Paine's curtain rods were submitted as evidence on March 23rd. And that's because the alleged "fake" document still includes the "March 15" date at the top. Therefore, what good did this alleged "fakery" accomplish? Did the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald screw up big-time when they failed to change the March 15 date to March 23 or March 24? Or could it be that the conspiracy theorists are (once again) trying to make something out of nothing?

Related video....

That's a huge assumption on your part that cannot be proven. The March 15 date on CE1952 is simply wrong. Another huge assumption on your part that you certainly can never prove. And this fact is supposed to mean----what exactly? Am I supposed to think that Joe Ball helped to deep-six Oswald's "curtain rods" and deliberately buried the info about his room having a damaged rod? (Even though we know that Mrs. Johnson claimed that somebody damaged the rod AFTER Oswald last set foot in that room.) Well, I guess you can believe stuff like that if you want to. And you KNOW for a fact that this "April 2" date was "changed" to a date that was not the actual and correct date for this FBI report, eh? How do you know that? https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11103#relPageId=2 So? Is this another one of those "This Must Mean I Should Believe In Conspiracy & Cover-Up" moments again? Maybe it's buried at the Mary Ferrell Archive someplace. Or perhaps the FBI just didn't create a report on the matter---similar in nature to the total lack of those 60 FD-302 reports that CTers insist should exist (but evidently don't) relating to the sixty individual interviews that comprise CE2011. Beats me. But I fail to see how something like this should automatically lead a person down the "conspiracy" path.

Okay, JPC. I do, indeed, "agree to disagree". (But the constant "Li@r, Li@r" refrain coming from the keyboards of conspiracists does get a bit tiresome. Such a refrain is, IMO, nothing but a huge cop-out on the part of CTers.)

Wow. Until now, I don't think I was fully aware of how far down "Everybody In Officialdom Lied And Fudged The Evidence Every Time They Turned Around In Order To Help Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" Avenue Mr. Patrick J. Speer has travelled since he began writing online about the JFK assassination in 2006. But with each passing post, I'm realizing that Pat has, indeed, traversed many miles down that rocky (and unprovable) road. What a shame.

No curtain rods were tested other than CE275/276 (the Paine rods). The "March 15" date at the top of CE1952 is simply a mistake. (Much like other documents connected with this case, such as the duplicate First National Bank receipt related to the deposit that Klein's Sporting Goods made on March 13, 1963. It shows an obviously incorrect date too.) The March 15 date on CE1952 is almost certainly merely a slipped digit or a clerical error, because everything else in CE1952, as Vince Bugliosi put it in the book excerpt pictured below, "relates precisely to the events surrounding the curtain rods recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage on the night of March 23". Click to enlarge: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html

And if that had been the case, then Oswald would have had no reason at all to deny the existence of any curtain rods. And yet we know (from Capt. Fritz' report on his interrogations with LHO) that Oswald did deny taking any curtain rods into work on the day of the assassination. Plus, we know that Oswald himself didn't damage the curtain rod in his Beckley room. The police caused that damage. The owner of the roominghouse, Gladys Johnson, confirms that fact in CD 705. Now, is there any reason why I should not believe what Mrs. Johnson says there? Here's a photo taken on either 11/22 or 11/23 showing the bent curtain rod:

I think it's you who have missed the point. That point being (of course).... The package that Lee Oswald carried into the TSBD on 11/22 did not contain any curtain rods, and Oswald lied to Buell Frazier when he (Oswald) said the package did contain curtain rods. And the fact that Oswald told such a blatant lie to Frazier (and then told another blatant lie to the police when he denied ever saying anything at all about "curtain rods" to Frazier) is extremely powerful circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.