David Von Pein

17 minutes ago, Norman T. Field said:

John Connelly [sic] did not believe in the 'magic' bullet and stated that he carried enough lead in his body for the rest of his life to personally disprove the single bullet theory.

If Connally ever did say that, he was most certainly overstating things. In fact, I've made a pretty good case for there possibly being only TWO tiny fragments of bullet lead remaining inside the whole body of John B. Connally at the time of his death in 1993....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Who writes the loony conspiracy theories Dave?

Loony conspiracy theorists maybe?

I'll let others answer that one for me. I have to walk on eggshells around here---and I know it. So I'll do just that and not allow Mr. DiEugenio to bait me.

But even with those eggshells beneath my feet, I won't hesitate to call a theory "loony" if I think that is the description it deserves. And, in my view, the theories being propped up by many CTers concerning Ruth Paine do most definitely belong in the "loony" category.

On 7/1/2022 at 1:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Did you see the title he [DVP] put on his Ruth Paine post on his site and he then cross posted here?

I was very careful, in fact, about the specific wording I utilized in that Ruth Paine logo. I intentionally did not use the words "Conspiracy Theorists" in that logo. Instead, I used the words "Conspiracy Theories". Implying, in my view, that it's the THEORIES about Ruth Paine that are "loony", which IMO they most certainly are.

Any other complaints today, Jim?

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Where are the 302's concerning Ruth's story? I have never seen them.

Along similar lines, I've asked the following question in past years on this forum (to combat the notion posited by CTers that Bardwell Odum, due in part to a lack of FD-302 reports, never went to Parkland in June of '64 to show CE399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P Wright)....

Has anyone seen any of the FD-302 forms for ANY of the other 59 FBI interviews that are also represented in the document known as CE2011? I never have. Has anyone?

Does that therefore mean that if we can't locate FD-302s for any of those various interviews, we have to trash ALL of those interviews in CE2011? Including this one here, which says that G.M. Doughty of the DPD identified his mark on the bullet shell he received from witness Barbara Davis at the scene of Tippit's murder?

And should we also scrap this interview that Odum did with J.M. Poe on July 6, 1964, wherein Poe said he marked the two bullet shells he handled at the Tippit scene? But it's hard to believe that CTers would want to think THIS "Poe" part of CE2011 is a fraud, because it's always the contention of CTers that Poe really did mark the shells, even though he hedged on that point in front of the Warren Commission. So the FBI must be telling the truth about this then.

Point being: Even when the evidence doesn't always mesh together neatly and cleanly, the FBI is on the record saying so, such as the Poe example above.

And I doubt that any large investigation like the JFK/Tippit investigations ever has 100% of its evidence and testimony and reports come together in a perfect, neat package, free of any errors and/or discrepancies.
 

35 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

Welcome back, Dave! Now don't be mean LOL; be nice. You definitely have a good side to you. You have an impressive archive of materials.

Thanks, Vince. And I see you've just added some "What's My Line?" clips to your own YouTube channel. Nice. WML is a favorite of mine.

If you're interested, I've got a "Kennedy-Related" WML page on my site:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/whats-my-line-kennedy-related-episodes.html

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Connally is pushed forward about Z-295. JFK is struck in the head at Z-313.

That is about one second apart. LHO was armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle? 

I do not know why the JFKA community has somewhat overlooked this simple observation. 

This timing of shots does not exonerate LHO. But it also affirms he cannot be a lone gunman. 

You're merely stating your OPINION as to when Gov. Connally was shot. But as we know, there are more "opinions" about the timing of the shots than you can shake a stick at. I've got my "opinion" on the matter too....

http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

David has not done anything to me personally. I just question his motives to return.

See the first post in this thread.

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 And that is what GD is doing by flooding the board with these silly posts.

Greg's posts regarding Ruth Paine are hardly "silly" at all. They are very good, and very useful (to a reasonable person, that is, who realizes that all of the efforts by CTers to trash Ruth Hyde Paine are nothing more than pure conjecture on the part of those conspiracy theorists.

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And here goes DVP with that provable hack Jean Davison. The following is in two parts.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/davison-jean-oswald-s-game

Gee, what a sweet comment, Jim. (But it's not surprising, of course, considering the source.)

Jean Davison is hardly a "hack". She has written some of the finest online replies when dealing with CTers that I've ever seen. I've archived many of her posts at my own website. Everybody should take a look sometime.

Equal time (re: Jean's 1983 book "Oswald's Game", which is a fine book on LHO):

http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com

On January 20, 2021, I discovered this interesting 1983 newspaper article on Jean Davison. Click to enlarge it:

QUOTING JEAN DAVISON (one of the best and finest JFK researchers I've ever had the pleasure of talking to):

"The book you're quoting claims that Adams spoke with someone at the Paine house about an offer for a permanent, higher-paying job. But if you'll look at Adams' affidavit you'll see there's no evidence that he mentioned any details about this job to Ruth. His affidavit says only that he left a message for Oswald to contact him:

[QUOTING ROBERT ADAMS:]

My best recollection is that on that day I called [the Paines' phone number]. I learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not there. I left a message with that person that Oswald should contact me at the Commission. My further recollection is that the following morning at 10:30 o'clock I again called ... and learned from the person who answered that Oswald was not there and that he had in the meantime obtained employment and was working.

[END ADAMS QUOTE]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0246a.htm

Everything else was the author's [James Douglass] assumption -- or rather, the assumption of whoever first made this allegation about Ruth Paine.

[...]

Again, there's no evidence that she [Ruth Paine] ever heard these details [about how much the airline/cargo job paid], so why should she recall them?

[...]

[Robert Adams' affidavit of 8/4/64] says that on October 7 Adams left a message at the Paine house. Evidently Ruth told Oswald, because he applied for the job but wasn't hired. It would've been a permanent job paying $350 a month.

Here's the agency record showing Oswald's job referrals. "NH" in the Results column means "not hired." (Scroll down)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0209b.htm

[...]

It's likely that Ruth took the call [from the Texas Employment Commission after Oswald was hired at the TSBD], certainly. But you're still *assuming* that she was told there was a *higher-paying job available* -- there's no evidence for that! Adams said the message was to have Oswald return his call, nothing more.

It's possible that Ruth did tell Oswald about the call, and that Oswald himself decided not to bother since he'd already started working somewhere else. Don't people usually stop looking for work after they've found a job?

Ruth apparently did pass on a lead to a different higher-paying job, mentioned above. How does that fit into her nefarious plans for Oswald, in your view? If he'd gotten that job, no 6th floor sniper's nest for him!"

-- Jean Davison; June 29, 2008

[Original 2008 discussion is HERE.]

PPPS....

10 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Ps. Oswald didn’t do it 

PPS. Yes he did. 😇

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

David was also free to modify his own responses, giving the impression that whomever he was debating was simply ignoring arguments that, in actuality, were not in his original forum posts but something he had added later.

You're wrong about what you just said above, Denny. I have done no such "modifying" of my own responses after I take them to my website/blog. The responses you see by me on my site are the very same responses that also appear in the original threads here at this forum.

Do you have a particular discussion(s) in mind (occurring during a period when I was an active member of this forum [Aug. 2010 thru Aug. 2019]) that prompted you to make the claim you just made?

18 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

It provided no identification of the person who picked the package up. And the FBI could have obtained the bank records of REA and Seaport Traders to show payment was received by REA and made to Seaport. But they didn't do that.

Such information was no doubt deemed totally unnecessary to obtain by the Warren Commission. And the reason those things were totally unnecessary in this case is fairly obvious: It was because the Warren Commission knew that J.D. Tippit's killer (Lee Oswald) was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands just half-an-hour after Tippit was killed with that very same gun (as proven by the four bullet shells that littered 10th Street and Patton Avenue, which were shells matched conclusively to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver, Serial No. V510210). (The protests of conspiracists notwithstanding, of course.)

The following comment is worth repeating every few days whenever the topic of Oswald & The Tippit Murder comes up. And so I had it digitally laminated in July of 2021 in the form of this logo below. I'm thinking of having a few hundred wallet-sized versions printed up and distributed to all conspiracy theorists in the United States and Canada:

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Hi Sandy,

Once again, I think these concerns you have with the "gouge" all come down to perspective and the angle that the camera is to the bullet. Perspective can play such a huge role in our perception of things, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Here (below) is another NIST photo (which I posted once earlier today), which shows the gouge in relation to the very top of the bullet. As we can see, the gouge is not right AT the very top of the bullet. There's some distance between the gouge and the bullet's top.

I'm not sure this picture below will resolve any doubts you have about the gouge's location, but I think it goes to show (once again) that perspective is huge in photographic matters like this.

Also --- When trying to reconcile the perceived differences in the "gouge locations" between the various CE399 photographs, what would a reasonable "CTer" alternative be?

Would a reasonable alternate conclusion be that we're really seeing two different bullets in the various photo montages that have been posted in this thread (with both bullets displaying other characteristics that are identical in nature)?

I don't think any "2 bullet" alternative answer is a reasonable one.

FYI / FWIW....

Here's yet another "montage" photo that I just now created---this time depicting a different NARA photo of CE399 from the ones presented earlier.

And this is quite frustrating, because the area of the bullet which most definitely does contain the "ET" initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd is most certainly shown in this NARA image below---just to the right of the "K" in Charles Killion's initials. And Killion's "K" is easily discernible in both photos, indicating that Killion dug deeper into the bullet's surface with his marking than did Todd, because I can't see a trace of Todd's "E" or "T".

This only tends to emphasize the point I have made many times over the last 10 or more years --- i.e., that Todd's initials are most certainly on the bullet, but the NARA photos just aren't clear or pristine enough to capture those initials.

I enlarged the NARA pic in this montage below. To see the same photo in its original (non-enlarged) condition, go here --- https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-CE399

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In the NARA photo you posted above, the gouge at the top of the bullet seems to have a different appearance than it has in the NIST picture with the "ET" initials. .... That scraped area (for lack of a better term) kind of looks like an extension of the gouge, and is probably what we're seeing (in a blurrier form) in the NARA photo.

As an addendum to my thoughts about the "gouge" and the "scraped" area which appears to be an extension to the left of that gouge, I created another comparison montage, using the two NARA photos below.

When viewing these non-hi-def NARA pictures, so much depends on the angle and the light which is falling on certain parts of the bullet when the photos were taken. Here we can see the "gouge" at the top of the bullet, but because of the way the light from the flashbulb strikes part of the gouge, that gouge has a totally different appearance in each photograph.

Such differences might cause some CTers to shout "Something's wrong here", but IMO the differences in appearance can easily (and properly) be explained in ways that are far from conspiratorial in nature.

25 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Lol, I remember you saying "The Elmer Todd initials MUST be on the bullet somewhere" and everybody was saying you're in denial

Indeed, Micah. It was that way for years. Here's just one example:

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

ROBERT HARRIS -- "Those initials [of FBI agent Elmer Todd] are not on CE399."

DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yes, they are. You just can't see them in the NARA photos."

JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "This has now gone beyond absurdity. Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages: Prove John Hunt is a l-i-a-r."

DAVID VON PEIN -- "Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399. Get real. Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread. And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399. Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 and CE2011). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself. Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period."

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

[The above discussion is from October 2012. The original EF Forum link is HERE.]

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

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Is that supposed to be the same gouge as the one we see here?

I think I can see what you're getting at, Sandy. But, again, I think it's just a case of being at the mercy of the NARA photos, which just are not nearly as good and clear as the new NIST images.

In the NARA photo you posted above, the gouge at the top of the bullet seems to have a different appearance than it has in the NIST picture with the "ET" initials. But here's another NIST image (below) posted by Steve Roe in his June 11th Washington Decoded article. Take note of the "scraped" area just to the left of the gouge itself. That scraped area (for lack of a better term) kind of looks like an extension of the gouge, and is probably what we're seeing (in a blurrier form) in the NARA photo.

I created this additional comparison "montage" showing the NARA and NIST versions of CE399, with this montage including a clearer version of the NARA photo. I can't really see the "T" (or the "E") in the NARA picture. It's just too indistinct to make out in the NARA version, IMO....

FYI ---

On the morning of June 28, 2022, I sent the following request to the Education Forum administrators via e-mail. The following day at 3:00 PM EDT (today, June 29th), I received a reply saying that I would be allowed to re-join the EF forum. For that, I am very grateful.

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

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As he points out, forums come and go and his site might be the only place to read those debates at some point.

Exactly.

Repeating what I said earlier in this thread (on page 3, in Feb. 2016)....

---quote on---

"The stuff I save on my site is mainly (as I said in my 2014 post above) for the purpose of archiving MY OWN words and MY OWN Kennedy arguments. And what better place to archive one's own material than at their own site (or blog)?

Why on Earth would people want to use up hundreds of hours of their time to write up posts for an Internet forum, only to run the high risk that those posts will vanish into nothingness in just a short time? One year? Two years? Who knows? All Lancer Forum posts are now gone forever, except for perhaps a few that are recoverable via the Wayback Machine at Archive.org.

IMO, it's just dumb to take that risk. So, I archive my own material at my site. And if "my material" is in the form of a REPLY to a conspiracy theorist on a JFK forum, then (of course) it makes sense to bring the CTer's words that I'm replying to along for the ride too.

And since I'm an "LNer", I naturally am going to think I have outlasted or defeated the CTer I'm battling. Just as you, Jimmy, undoubtedly think YOU have won every single war you've ever waged online. Right? (Have you ever admitted that you've been "defeated" by a lowly LNer like me? Of course you haven't.)"

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I agree. I wish our resident LN attorney Lance would weigh in with a legal opinion on this mess.

Yes, I too have been wishing that would happen.