David Von Pein

1 minute ago, Gerry Down said:

I dont recall ever seeing or hearing you being interviewed and giving your thoughts on the JFK case, despite you having researched it for so long. Are there any interviews of you online?

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)....

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

9 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

Oswald's taxi got stuck in traffic, so he took the bus to his rooming house!! Keep on researching people, make him change his mind.

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. 😁

55 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

@David Von Pein wasn't there something about an "S" mark showing in the back-yard pictures on the M-C ?

~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:

18 hours ago, Robbie Robertson said:

So that’s how you get your footage

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.

56 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Did you ask, or was there anything from Day regarding where he initialed the rifle?

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

4 hours ago, Robbie Robertson said:

 

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

4 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

 Thanks Dave! Another great journey down Memory Lane.

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:

22 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You asked for plausible explanations, which I provided, for inconsistencies you perceive in the idea of a cover-up. I think it’s reasonable to ask for a plausible innocent explanation for why the DPD submitted a form with a later release date and without Howlett’s signature to the WC. 

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.

10 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The original form was not released to the WC, and was never seen by anyone until fairly recently when the DPD archives were released. This isn’t that hard to understand.

They never thought anyone would ever see it. 

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).

29 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Now that we have the original form, you can’t just hand-wave away the possibility of a second set of rods like Bugliosi. An objective look at the evidence suggests that the scenario being proposed by Pat has a very real probability of being true, and you can’t debunk it just by feigning outrage at the thought of the DPD doing something shady.  

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?

31 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

sorry Dave; you not only missed the original point but you missed the next point which is, as someone said earlier, Oswald wouldn't be making plans to move if he was also planning to murder the president.

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....

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Please explain why

1) The curtain rods submitted to the DPD were submitted and photographed before any curtain rods were recovered from Mrs. Paine's garage.

That's a huge assumption on your part that cannot be proven. The March 15 date on CE1952 is simply wrong.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2) The Lt. Day-authored report on these curtain rods was doctored before publication by the WC.

Another huge assumption on your part that you certainly can never prove.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

3) Joe Ball failed to ask Mrs. Johnson about the damaged curtain rod in her rooming house.

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.

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

4) All the dates on all the copies of the FBI report referring to this damaged curtain rod were changed to reflect that Ball and the WC were informed of this damaged curtain rod after Ball took Mrs. Johnson's testimony.

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

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

5) The curtain rods residing in the archives have no arrows or markings indicating where Lt. Day found an identifiable print.

So?

Is this another one of those "This Must Mean I Should Believe In Conspiracy & Cover-Up" moments again?

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

6) There is no FBI report on its own study of the curtain rods (quite possibly because there were no prints on the rods sent to them).

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.

19 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

If you don't agree, at least make an effort to "agree to disagree" like a gentleman... 

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.)

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

She didn't say it there. That's what the FBI said she said. She could very well have said something like "I don't know when or how the curtain rods were damaged--it may have been by the police." (She later told Howard Roffman it was the press who'd damaged the curtain rods.) In any event, the WC in the person of Joe Ball never followed up on this, at least not officially. I'm relying on memory here, but if I recall the FBI knew about the damaged curtain rods mid-March, after they interviewed Mrs. Johnson. Joe Ball then took her testimony on April 1, and NEVER (at least not on the record) asked her about the damaged curtain rods. The FBI then forwarded their report on their interview with the Johnsons on the 2nd... ONLY...ONLY...a close look at all the copies of this report proves it was originally dated April 1 and that someone individually re-typed each copy so it would say April 2. Well, this suggests that Ball or the FBI or both knew how bad it looked that Ball had failed to ask Mrs. Johnson about the curtain rods on the record, and that they sought to change the record to look like he didn't know about them when he took her testimony.

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.

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You keep insisting no curtain rods were ever found. Why don't you ask the BIG question. Where did the curtain rods tested by the DPD BEFORE any were recovered from Mrs. P's garage come from? And why would they be fingerprinted if it wasn't someplace connected to Oswald?

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

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If Oswald damaged the curtain rods in his room, he would want to replace it himself to insure the return of his deposit. 

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:

19 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

David you’re kind of missing the point. If Oswald was planning to murder the president, he would think about escaping the area not moving to a new apartment.

On the other hand, if you believe that’s true, thank you for the assistance as you’ve helped prove that he was not a participant in the presidents murder.

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.

13 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Yes. Tomorrow I'm going to murder the president, then I'm going to find a nicer place to live.

Do you think Oswald had curtain rods in the package he took to work on 11/22/63, Andrew?

Curtain Rod Addendum....

From comments he made to his wife on 11/21/63, there is at least some indication that Lee Oswald was planning to move away from his Beckley room soon after 11/21/63. If this was in Oswald's mind on the evening of November 21st, then the act of obtaining curtain rods for a room he would soon be vacating makes no sense whatsoever.

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Curtain Rods --- Part 2

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

From a July 2016 Internet discussion.....

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I can't prove anything about the package, but I can GUESS. .... The package held a pair of curtain rods, because he [Lee Oswald] wanted to put up room darkening curtains instead of the flimsy curtains he had in his rooming house. I had to do the same thing when I moved into a rooming house and my room was right under the street light.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then what happened to those "curtain rods" after the assassination, Tony? Why weren't they found ANYWHERE?

You're not going to theorize that the cops deep-sixed the rods, are you Anthony? That would be pure speculation and wishful thinking on your part, wouldn't it?

I guess you could create a brand-new theory --- i.e., Oswald had the curtain rods with him when he left the Book Depository Building at approximately 12:33 PM on November 22nd, but somebody stole them from him before LHO could reach his roominghouse on Beckley Avenue. And then Oswald just decided to keep quiet about this theft after he was arrested, because he didn't want to get the poor thief in trouble.

How 'bout that one, Tony? Great new twist, eh?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

The conspirators took his rifle out of the garage while Oswald slept. One of them carried it up to the sixth floor and shot the President.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's fun to just invent unsupportable theories out of thin air, isn't it Tony?

But, Tony, why would you choose to believe the wholly unsupportable scenario you just put on the table above instead of simply believing what the evidence (coupled with Lee Harvey Oswald's own actions and LIES) clearly indicates is the truth --- which is: Lee Oswald himself took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and used that gun to shoot President John F. Kennedy.

Why would you go with an extraordinary theory about "conspirators" sneaking into Ruth Paine's garage and stealing Oswald's rifle when a perfectly reasonable ordinary explanation is available for the choosing?

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

Much more about Oswald's "Curtain Rods" lie:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html

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

8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The two wrapped packages in the garage were venetian blinds and curtain rods. There were no other wrapped blinds in the garage. The pull blinds (or pull down shades as you call them) were on the windows.

You're wrong, Gil.

In Ruth's testimony that took place in her garage, she definitely unwrapped TWO different wrapped packages....and then they took down the two curtain rods (which were not wrapped in anything) from a shelf.

Here's the testimony concerning the TWO distinctly separate wrapped packages [located at 9 H 422-423] (emphasis is my own)....

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

MR. JENNER -- "Now I'll ask Mr. Howlett to take the package down, since he is already up there on top of the bench, and we will open it in the presence of Mrs. Paine and see what it contains. ---- The package has now been taken down from the shelf in our presence and Mrs. Paine is opening it. Mrs. Paine, and in your presence, Mr. Howlett, what does the package contain?"

MRS. PAINE -- "It contains two venetian blinds, both of them are 2 feet, 6 inches."

MR. JENNER -- "And they are of the metal variety, are they not?"

MRS. PAINE -- "They are." ....

MR. JENNER -- "For the record, when we sought to rewrap the package, it has a paster on the outside of Sears, Roebuck & Co., Dallas, No. 4017, and "Will call--M.R. Paine"." ....

MR. JENNER -- "Now, we see in back of this package that we have just described a much longer package also wrapped...in light-tan wrapping paper. .... And it is how long?"

MR. HOWLETT -- "3 feet, 9 inches long, as it is folded now."

MR. JENNER -- "And in general, is it a rectangular package?"

MR. HOWLETT -- "Yes, sir." ....

MR. JENNER -- "Mrs. Paine, before we open it, what is in that package?"

MRS. PAINE -- "My best guess would be that it contains two pull blinds which I did have in the southeast bedroom." ....

MR. JENNER -- "Mr. Howlett, would you be good enough to take that package down and we will open it in Mrs Paine's presence here."

[Package is then opened.]

MR. JENNER -- "It contains, does it not, what you call the pull blinds, and which I, in my vernacular call spring window shades."

MRS. PAINE -- "All right, that's correct, and these are cut to fit the windows in the southeast bedroom."