David Von Pein

I'm glad to finally hear someone say this, because if this turns into a Pay to Post forum, I'll have to stop posting altogether. (Which I'm sure will make some people here endorse a pay-to-post system even more heartily. ) But I just simply cannot afford any new expenditures at the present time. No way. No how. So I hope some other alternative besides a pay-in-order-to-post system can be worked out.

First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy makes her delayed entrance into the Grand Ballroom of the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth on the morning of November 22, 1963. Ahead of Mrs. Kennedy is Secret Service agent Clint Hill. (Color version HERE.) ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/ Prayer Man

........

JOHN IACOLETTI SAID: It’s just a fact. If you can’t see somebody enter the theater, then you didn’t see him enter the theater. By the way, Brewer wasn’t watching the “funny-looking” man the entire time. He said he went back into the shoe store first and talked to the two “IBM men” who were hanging out there (?), and then walked down to the theater. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, John, I suppose you could conceivably be right, but the 1996 interview that contains that information about Johnny Brewer going back into his shoe store after going out to the sidewalk to watch Oswald needs a little bit of clarification if you ask me. Because in that '96 interview that Brewer had with Ian Griggs, Brewer seems to be saying (or at least implying) that he left the immediate area in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store before he ever "went back" inside the shoe store. What I just said is, indeed, implied when Brewer told Griggs that his store was "locked" when he "came back" to the store. And according to Brewer's own chronology in that 1996 interview, that was before he went up the street to the theater to talk to Julia Postal. Now it stands to reason that if Brewer was merely standing a few feet outside the front door to his shoe store, why in the world would there be any need to lock the door? It seems logical to me to conclude that the only reason there would have been to lock the door would be if Brewer had gone some distance away from his store down the street. But if Brewer was merely standing right in front of his store the whole time (before going back inside), why would there be any need for either Brewer himself or the two IBM guys (who were in the store at the time) to physically lock up the property so that no more customers could enter? The interview excerpts seen below, therefore, are telling me that Johnny Brewer might very well have gone up to the theater entrance a total of two different times. Hence, we find Brewer telling Ian Griggs that he "went back" and "came back". And when Brewer said those words, he was referring to a point in time that was BEFORE he ever went up to the theater to talk to Julia Postal. If you, John Iacoletti, or anyone else reading this, has a better explanation for what we find in the interview excerpt seen below, please chime in and let me know what it is. But these remarks by Mr. Brewer sure make it sound as though Brewer walked up the street (i.e., some distance away from his shoe store) twice on 11/22/63. ILG = Ian Griggs (interviewer); JCB = Johnny Calvin Brewer: The complete 1996 interview: JOHN IACOLETTI SAID: Are you suggesting that Brewer walked all the way down to the theater, but didn’t talk to Postal, then went all the way back to his store, told the IBM men that he was going to go check, and then went back down to the theater? That makes ZERO sense. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I'm suggesting he went at least part way down toward the theater initially. Otherwise, the chronology that Brewer himself laid out in his 1996 interview makes ZERO sense too. The key portions that make zero sense IF he really made only one trip up to (or near) the theater entrance are these two sentences: "When I came back, the store was locked. I said I'm going to check." Obviously those two sentences, being in the order Brewer uttered them, would mean the store was locked BEFORE he went down to the theater to "check". That makes no sense, unless he left the area of his store initially, thereby making the locking of the shoe store a necessity. But this whole sub-topic of "Did Brewer physically see Oswald go into the front doors of the Texas Theater?" is totally ridiculous, superfluous, and downright stupid in the first place. Why? Because we KNOW without a shred of doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald DID go into the Texas Theater on the afternoon of 11/22/63 and was apprehended by the Dallas Police Department at approximately 1:50 PM CST on that same afternoon while inside that same theater. To deny my last statement is to deny a fact and to deny a physical reality. And since everybody knows—even all conspiracy believers—that Oswald was inside the movie theater between the hours of 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM CST on November 22nd, then somebody please tell me what the odds are of Johnny Brewer somehow being wrong (or lying) when he said he saw Lee Oswald go into the theater between the those same hours of 1:00 and 2:00 PM on 11/22/63? ------------------------- Source:

I, too, spent hours trying to solve that mystery: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Johnny Brewer & The Tippit Shooting

Boy, talk about taking something OUT OF CONTEXT. Geez, this takes the cake, Gil! When I said "He had nowhere else to go but into the theater", I was (of course!) talking about what Brewer was observing with Oswald's movements when we add up my #1 thru #4 items on my previous list. I certainly wasn't talking about what LHO's options were PRIOR to the time when Oswald was seen walking in front of the theater. Gil, you knew you were taking my "nowhere else to go" comment completely out of context, right?

To throw your own words back at you --- You're kidding, right?! You MUST be kidding here. Because nobody could possibly think Johnny Brewer was lying when he said Oswald went into the theater. Why? 1.) Brewer, while standing on the sidewalk on Jefferson Boulevard in front of his Hardy's Shoe Store, sees Oswald approaching the Texas Theater. 2.) Brewer then sees Oswald turn right toward the front entrance to the theater. 3.) Brewer then walks toward the theater himself. 4.) After starting to walk toward the theater and after reaching the front of the theater, at no time did Brewer see Oswald come back out to the sidewalk on Jefferson. 5.) The logical conclusion that Johnny Brewer reached, therefore, was that the man who was acting "funny" and "scared" and "nervous" in front of his shoe store just a minute earlier (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) must have physically entered the Texas Theater because (similar to the logical reasoning that explains where Bullet CE399 went after it came out of John F. Kennedy's throat)---He had nowhere else to go but into the theater. (Unless you want to theorize that Oswald was able to cloak himself somehow and become invisible.)

Oh yes they can, Charles. That's an easy one to figure out, in fact. Very easy.... Lee Harvey Oswald ducked inside the Texas Theater (without paying) shortly after he killed Police Officer J.D. Tippit because he figured that a nice dark movie theater would be a good place to hide out from the police---i.e., the police that Oswald knew would be searching the Oak Cliff area high and low for Tippit's killer. And if it hadn't been for the very observant Johnny Brewer, Oswald might very well have succeeded in not being seen or detected while hiding out in the theater. We can't know, of course, exactly how long Oswald would have stayed inside the movie theater if he hadn't been spotted by Brewer and then subsequently arrested just minutes later, but Oswald might have had it in his mind to stay in the theater until it got dark and then he could try to get away under the cloak of darkness. That plan certainly makes sense to this "Lone Nut adherent" anyway.

Just goes to show how lousy some people are at calculating time. Most people are really terrible at it. Apparently Mrs. Markham was too.

She didn't make anything up. Read the Myers article I linked. It explains how CTers like Mark Lane have twisted and mangled some of the things Clemons said.

Joe, you really should read THIS BLOG ARTICLE written by Dale Myers in 2017. It's a very interesting piece, which reveals several things relating to Mrs. Acquilla Clemons that had never before surfaced or been discussed previously. Here's an excerpt: "Here, for the first time, we have Mrs. Clemons explaining that it’s not a cadre of faceless, nameless law enforcement officers harassing her to keep quiet (as everyone has been led to believe by Mark Lane and the conspirati), but rather, a strong suggestion by her employers – John and Cornelia Smotherman – who are no doubt sick and tired of the parade of “journalists” (remember, this is the third visit in as many weeks) who keep showing up at her home." -- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017 ------------------ I've culled what I think are the top highlights from that Myers' article at my own webpage below: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Acquilla Clemons & The Tippit Murder "After reading all of Mr. Myers' excellent 11/1/17 blog article, there can be no doubt [that] Mrs. Acquilla Clemons, when her statements are not edited and trimmed and molded by conspiracy theorists such as the late Mark Lane, definitely was NOT the type of bombshell "conspiracy" witness that she has been portrayed to be by conspiracists for the last fifty-plus years." -- DVP; November 1, 2017

BTW / FWIW..... I pretty much agree with Vince Palamara's earlier post in which he said: "The three most obscene theories I have heard: 1) Jackie did it/was involved 2) Greer shot JFK 3) Hickey shot JFK The most popular dumb theories: 1) Greer shot JFK 2) Hickey shot JFK" ----------------- I can tell everyone here from my own personal experience of having to wade through hundreds of comments each week written by ill-informed people at my JFK YouTube channel that Vincent Palamara is 100% correct when he said that the #1 "popular dumb theory" about JFK's assassination (at least at the present time) is the "Greer shot JFK" theory. When I read through the comments at my YouTube channel, I've been keeping track (loosely) of which theories are being supported by my YouTube followers, and I'd say in the last year or two, the theory that most YouTube commenters seem to endorse far more than any other is the insane theory about limo driver Bill Greer turning around in his seat and firing the fatal shot into JFK's brain. And it doesn't seem to matter how many times you tell them that what they think is a gun in the Zapruder Film is, in actuality, merely sunlight reflecting off of Roy Kellerman's head, the theorists still won't budge an inch. They're convinced beyond all doubt that Greer is the killer. Another ultra-crazy theory that popped up several years ago that could also be attached to Vince Palamara's list of "obscene" theories is the one created from whole cloth by a certain Brian David Andersen (for a good laugh, click that link and watch that first video). Andersen believes (or says he does) that President Kennedy wasn't really killed at all in Dealey Plaza. Andersen says the whole "incident on Elm Street" (as he calls it) was a staged/fake assassination, with JFK himself taking part in the charade by activating a "pyrotechnics device" that was situated on his head, and it was really that "device" that exploded and not Kennedy's cranium. As I said before --- There's one born every minute.

It's truly astonishing (and sad) that Bonar Menninger's absurd 1992 book "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" currently has a very nearly perfect rating at Amazon.com (4.8 stars out of 5 as of this writing on August 1, 2022, based on over 320 ratings, which includes both written reviews and other people who simply gave the book a "rating" of one to five stars). That level of high praise for a publication that promotes such an obviously bogus theory only tends to prove the age-old adage: There's one born every minute. Here are my thoughts about the notion that Secret Service agent George W. Hickey accidentally ended the life of the 35th U.S. President (the second link below includes my lengthy [text] debate in 2006 with an almost-forgotten conspiracy theorist who went by the name "Grizzlie Antagonist" in his online posts; anybody here remember him?).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/The Hickey Theory http://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Hickey Theory (Part 2) --------------------------------------------

CLICK THE LOGOS TO WATCH THAT NETWORK'S JFK ASSASSINATION TELEVISION COVERAGE:

My thanks to Tom Gram for the post above, plus some other good observations he has made since recently joining this forum on June 26.

Pat, Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed posts today. As usual, you have put up a good fight for your side. I, like Vince Bugliosi, also think the JFK case is basically a "simple case". Physical evidence-wise, I'd say it's quite simple. (And none of the physical evidence in the case has ever been proven to have been tampered with or planted.) The rifle that killed the President is Oswald's....the bullets and bullet fragments connected with the case are all from Oswald's rifle....the prints are mostly Oswald's....and Oswald's very own movements and actions on both November 21st and November 22nd (including LHO's obvious guilt in the murder of policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street) are about as incriminating as you could possibly get. Certainly not the movements and actions of a "patsy". Author Mark Fuhrman made two very good observations in his 2006 book, "A Simple Act Of Murder", when he said: "There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Lee Harvey Oswald]." And: "A cloud hangs over [President Kennedy's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth---that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man [Oswald] who left evidence proving his guilt."

There's so much fantasy and anti-SBT garbage in Denny Zartman's last post, I'd need a bulldozer to get rid of it all.

And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda. Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded: "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right? And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not).... "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." Instant Replay.... "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.) It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that. Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy. And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it? And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head* being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.*) * http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Head-Entry-Wound-According-To-Pat-Speer Get real (again), Pat!! You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early. And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane". Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.) That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.) I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

For Pete sake, what does common sense tell you about JFK's wounds, Pat? 1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back. 2.) A bullet hole in JFK's neck/throat. 3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body. And this fourth item below needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly argue with: 4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. (But, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, right?) Please get real!! Do you, Patrick J. Speer, really think that somebody (or a team of covert "somebodies") dug two bullets out of JFK's body prior to (or during) his autopsy on 11/22/63? Lacking the above hunk of covert silliness to explain the lack of bullets left inside Kennedy, what else do you have to offer to reconcile that "No Bullets In Kennedy" fact? Did BOTH of the missiles just fall out on their own---never to be seen by anyone at either Parkland or Bethesda? Please lay out your scenario, because I'm anxious to hear what it is. (Yes, you've probably said it all before--on your website or here at the EF--but please tell me again right now. Thanks.) You're too smart a fellow to believe that, Pat. Because when just the tiniest bit of common sense and rational thought is applied to the known facts surrounding the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963, the Single-Bullet Theory is not only not the "hoax" you say it is, but it is unquestionably the ONLY scenario that makes ANY sense at all when it comes to JFK's non-fatal wounds. (And Connally's too.)

"Mystery Deaths" Addendum.... Today I dug up one more newspaper—the Corpus Christi Times—which confirms that the death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Eddy, occurred in February of 1965, not in 1964. Click to enlarge: Lots more "Benavides / Benavidez" Talk: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1059.html

Don't these tired myths ever die out? Sigh. ARE THESE SO-CALLED "MYSTERY DEATHS" REALLY SO MYSTERIOUS?

Your trust is severely misplaced. Craig lied about the rifle, as proven HERE.

A wild imagination is something that seems to be inherent amongst conspiracy theorists....as Gil J. Jesus once again proved with his ridiculous post above.