David Von Pein

So, you can easily envision Oswald there in the Sniper's Nest, firing a rifle, but not to HIT Kennedy. Only to miss? CTers can sometimes get to within a whisker of reality....but then they feel the need to back away from it for some reason. Amazing.

And we do, indeed, possess just that in the Tippit case. As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course) --- 1.) Ballistics (firearms) proof. (Via the 4 bullet shells that Oswald was kind enough to scatter on the Davis girls' lawn, coupled with the additional hunk of kindness exhibited by Oswald on Nov. 22---that being: hanging on to the gun for 35 more minutes after ejecting those four shells on Tenth Street, so that Oswald could be caught carrying what various firearms experts proved was the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands at the time he was arrested in the Texas Theater.) 2.) Positive identification from multiple eyewitnesses who either saw Oswald kill J.D. Tippit or saw Oswald fleeing the area of 10th & Patton with a gun in his hand. The above combination of evidence provides rock-solid proof of the guilt of the killer (Oswald). It is not logical, therefore, when faced with the above combination of evidence, to conclude that Lee Oswald was not the murderer of J.D. Tippit.

"I watched the two-hour version of Oliver Stone's "JFK Revisited" documentary on December 19, 2021, and while some of that program's material is probably "new" from the standpoint of its having never been presented in documentary form on the big screen or on television in the past, I myself saw very little (if anything) that could be considered "new" or "revelatory" in nature buried within the program's 118-minute running time. Of course, I'm saying that from my position as someone who has argued with many JFK conspiracy theorists during the last two decades (including the author of the "JFK Revisited" screenplay, James DiEugenio), with those arguments spanning nearly all of the sub-topics that surface in the Stone/DiEugenio program. In my opinion, there is certainly nothing in that documentary that could be considered definitive proof that a conspiracy existed to end the life of President Kennedy in 1963. And there was nothing in that broadcast that would warrant the bold declaration that was uttered at one point by the show's director, Oliver Stone, when he said that "conspiracy theories" have now been turned into "conspiracy facts". I would vigorously argue just the opposite, Mr. Stone. Your "conspiracy facts" belong in the same categories that they have belonged in for these last 58 years—the categories reserved for "speculation", "guesswork", "conjecture", and "wishful thinking"." -- David Von Pein; December 19, 2021

Well, with regard to Marina Oswald's testimony, the Warren Commission was merely utilizing a witness they really had no choice but to utilize. Since Lee Oswald only had ONE wife---namely Marina---what was the WC going to do---just totally ignore the person who was by far the closest to the accused assassin? That would have been a foolish thing for the Commission to do. And so, naturally, we got a lot of testimony, warts and all, from Marina Oswald. Her testimony could not possibly have been avoided. Nor should it have been. Even with some warts included in it. And regarding Howard Brennan.... I, for one, find Howard L. Brennan's testimony to be perfectly reasonable, realistic, and totally believable. And the reason Brennan gave to the Warren Commission for not initially positively identifying Lee Oswald at the DPD lineup on November 22nd is, IMO, a perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Brennan not wanting to I.D. the assassin of the President of the United States. I.E., he feared for the safety of himself and his family in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. An utterly believable reason there, without doubt. In my view, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio don't accept the WC testimony of Howard Brennan simply because they just do not want Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin of President Kennedy. I think it pretty much can be boiled down to that fundamental fact for many CTers. BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147].... DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way? HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir. BELIN -- What has happened? BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted. BELIN -- This is January of 1964? BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours. BELIN -- How is your eyesight today? BRENNAN -- He says it is not good. BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct? BRENNAN -- Yes. -------------------- So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself.

Huh? What are you talking about? I never mentioned anybody named Brandon.

You're unfamiliar with Carolyn Arnold's story? .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Carolyn+Arnold

To think that someone within "Officialdom" somehow got all of these various people (Lovelady, Shelley, Baker, Truly, and maybe more?) to tell a bunch of lies just so the official "patsy framers" could say the second-floor lunchroom encounter took place is something that I think all reasonable people would consider to be a totally FANTASTIC [i.e., fanciful] idea. And it's a fantastic idea that I don't think the conspiracy theorists have nearly enough support for. Also.... Why is it that so many people who weren't charged with committing two murders (e.g., Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, Ruth Paine, Buell Frazier, et al) are accused of being l-i-a-r-s in the JFK case, and the person who was charged with two murders is treated with kid gloves by so many conspiracists? Isn't that also a rather "fantastic" idea? (I think it is.)

The idea that the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter never took place at all is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. It was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence?

My above question was actually answered 5 years ago by Sandy. It's a very lame answer, IMO, but here it is anyway: "David, I believe that Roy Truly was a CIA asset and was instructed to do what he did. Marrion Baker was probably told that his lies were necessary to prevent WW3, or some other national security nonsense. He was doing his patriotic duty." -- Sandy Larsen; Dec. 19, 2017

You have no choice, therefore, but to call the two men seen in the video below outright l-i-a-r-s. And you have no problem with such a (double) accusation, Sandy? ....

That's ridiculous. The 2nd-Floor Lunchroom Encounter has not been "debunked" by anybody. Those who think they've debunked it are, as usual, merely engaging in more wishful thinking. There is no doubt whatsoever, in the mind of a reasonable person who is capable of properly evaluating the evidence, that Marrion Baker positively did encounter Lee Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom on Nov. 22. More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

As everyone can see for themselves in this thread, I specifically asked permission from Mark Tyler (and received it) before I put one word written by him on my site, which is in accordance with the new (2019) EF rule. I followed the new EF rule to the letter. And yet I'm being scolded for it by Denny Zartman. Are you, Denny, attempting to stir up trouble where none really exists? If so, why?

Thank you.

Do I need one, Ron?

Did everybody connected with this case have a "handler", Ron?

I doubt that very much. I don't think Oswald changed his shirt at all at the roominghouse. And (quite obviously) the WC and the HSCA didn't think he did either.

From this 2014 discussion.... MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID -- "What made several police officers say in their reports that Oswald was arrested on the balcony of the TT?" DVP SAID -- "A very minor mistake really. Not important. He was arrested IN the theater. Just not "in the balcony". But we know the initial DPD radio call said they thought the suspect was "hiding in the balcony". This early erroneous speculation could have been repeated by some of the officers. Some errors get repeated from one person to the next."

Regarding Butch Burroughs.....

No, of course not. I was merely putting myself in the place of the CTers who DO think such a plot was afoot. Let me ask you this, Ron.... If a plot had been in place by some unknown plotters to "frame LHO" on Nov. 22, do you personally think it would have been a good idea to have TWO different "Oswalds" walking around in the Texas Theater at the very same time?

Utter B.S. Never happened.

I wasn't calling YOU stupid, Ron. I was calling the theory stupid. And I was calling any plotters stupid who would have been engaged in such a "Let's Allow TWO Oswalds To Walk Around The Texas Theater At The Exact Same Time And Potentially Blow To Bits Our Plot To Frame LHO" scheme. You actually think the DPD records prove as a "documented fact" that there were 2 "Oswalds" in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63? You're dreaming.

And you do know that that is a totally unconfirmed theory, right? Moreover, it's a really silly theory too. And for a very obvious reason. Because why would anybody who was setting up LHO want to risk having TWO different "Oswalds" being seen at the very same location at the very same time? Were the plotters TRYING to expose their patsy plot right away? It's just stupid.

I was looking at Buell Wesley Frazier's Facebook page, and I noticed the following post written by Mr. Frazier in March of 2021 concerning the topic of "Prayer Man": "To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021

@Mark Tyler: In keeping with the new (2019) rule here at this forum about not posting the comments of other forum members at my website without first gaining express permission to do so.... Is it okay with you, Mark, if I copy your posts in this thread over to my website (on my "Prayer Man" page)? Thanks.

After my last post, I went to Robin Unger's excellent photo archive and downloaded this version of the "PM" picture (taken from Jimmy Darnell's WBAP-TV news film), and now I think I've changed my mind about the "forearm in sunlight" theory. When looking at the whole image, I don't think PM's arm is in sunlight at all. We can see where the shade/shadow ends, and we can see the sunlight shining on Buell Frazier's chest in this image. But it doesn't look like the forearm of "Prayer Man" is in the sunlight at all. All of PM seems to be in the shade. But I'm wondering still about something I brought up before.... If PM is Oswald (as many CTers believe), then did he roll up his sleeves when he was filmed by James Darnell out on the steps? Because we know Oswald wore that brown/rusty long-sleeved shirt to work on 11/22. And we also know (or at least I am convinced of it) that LHO did not have his sleeves rolled up when Mrs. Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus just a few minutes after the "PM" image was captured (because Bledsoe saw the hole in the elbow area of Oswald's brown shirt, which means his sleeves were not rolled up at that time). Anyway, I'm just curious as to what CTers are thinking regarding Oswald and his shirt sleeves in relation to what we see in the Prayer Man image. Click to enlarge this image to 1999px: