David Von Pein

Doesn't really matter, of course. Because conspiracy fantasists like you are going to continue to believe the most outrageous and fantastic CT scenarios imaginable....regardless of anything I have to say. But for truly reasonable and sensible and "honest" people ------>

Let me guess ---- You, Jim Hargrove, are one of those CTers who doesn't even believe Lee H. Oswald got into William Whaley's taxicab on November 22, 1963, despite Whaley confirming via a positive identification that his passenger was, indeed, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that about the size of the situation? IOW --- The "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be In The JFK Case" syndrome surfaces yet again. (And Oswald was never on McWatters' bus either, was he Jim?) (And Oswald was never in Mexico City either, was he Jim?) (And the Lunchroom Encounter never even happened, did it Jim?) (And Oswald never even owned a rifle [or pistol] in the year 1963, did he Jim?) (And Oswald never posed for the Backyard Photos, did he Jim?) (And Oswald never fired that shot at Edwin Walker either, did he James?) I wonder how many more verifiable happenings the Jim Hargroves of the world have rewritten and distorted to suit their fantasy version of events? (Too many to mention here, that's for sure.)

It occurred on Monday, November 25th (the day of JFK's funeral). Dan Rather twice talks about viewing the Zapruder Film in the 11/25/63 video below --- at 15:30 and again at 29:12....

We would need to dig up Lee Oswald and ask him directly---because he's the only one who can answer that now-unanswerable question. But I've given my opinion on this subject in the past, such as this answer I gave to Bill Kelly when he asked me that same question at this forum in 2013: "As to why Oswald took the cab three blocks beyond his roominghouse (it wasn't five blocks beyond, because Oswald was dropped off at the corner of Beckley & Neely, which is the 700 block of Beckley), I think the answer to that is two-fold: He didn't want cab driver Whaley to be able to tell anybody later exactly where he lived. And, probably of more critical importance to Oswald at the time, he wanted to check the area of his roominghouse for police activity. Oswald would have had no way of knowing how quickly the police would be on his trail, and he certainly didn't want to walk right into the arms of a waiting policeman on his Beckley doorstep. Yes, it's true that Oswald wouldn't have to have driven three whole blocks beyond his room in order to see if some police were at 1026 N. Beckley, but he might have been thinking that anybody who wanted to surprise the Presidential assassin probably wouldn't be advertising himself by parking his marked police car right in front of 1026 Beckley. Therefore, he wanted to "case" the neighborhood a few blocks away from his room. (IMO, that's what he did.) I'll once again reverse the tables regarding this question: If Lee Oswald didn't have anything to hide and wasn't worried about being picked up by the authorities on 11/22/63, then why indeed did he tell William Whaley to drive a few blocks beyond his roominghouse that day? In the final analysis, doesn't this type of strange behavior on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald on the day the President was shot from Oswald's own workplace lead much more toward Oswald's GUILT than it does his INNOCENCE?" -- DVP; September 2013 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

It doesn't exist. (See map below.) Whaley simply made a mistake. He meant to say NEELY instead of NECHES. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Neches Street; Dallas, Texas 75208 And please remember the "95 cent" cab ride. That gets Oswald to NEELY, not to the "500 block" of Beckley.

I don't think Oswald had any kind of pre-arranged "getaway plan" at all. He wasn't PLANNING to duck into the movie theater when he shot JFK. The killing of Tippit in Oak Cliff made it necessary for him to get off the Oak Cliff streets quickly. And what better place than a dark theater (which was right nearby)? Makes perfect sense to me (from Oswald's flying-by-the-seat-of-his-pants POV on 11/22).

That type of micro-analyzing can be done with any murder case, Jim. And when it's JFK conspiracy theorists who are doing the "micro-analyzing" and searching for things that just don't seem "right", you can bet the ranch that those CTers WILL find something that they consider to be "fishy". They always do. Just ask any 9/11 Truther.

For another (somewhat) interesting Whaley addendum ------->

Your question makes no sense. He went right past (and well beyond) his boarding house in the taxicab.

But, as I mentioned earlier, a trip in Whaley's taxicab to the 500 block of Beckley is almost certainly going to register more than 95 cents on the meter. Or do you want to pretend that Whaley rigged the meter of his cab during the two 1964 re-enactments so that it would show "95 cents" exactly when the trip ended at the 700 block of Beckley?

From Whaley's 1964 Warren Commission testimony.... WILLIAM WHALEY -- "When I got to Beckley almost to the intersection of Beckley and Neely, he said, "This will do right here," and I pulled up to the curb." DAVID BELIN -- "Was that the 500 block of North Beckley?" MR. WHALEY -- "No, sir; that was the 700 block." MR. BELIN -- "You let him out not at the 500 block but the 700 block of North Beckley?" MR. WHALEY -- "Yes, sir." [...] MR. BELIN -- "Did you ever tell anyone it was the 700 block of North Beckley?" MR. WHALEY -- "No, sir. I left it said just like I had it on my trip sheet. Nobody else asked me about it."

Why did you only cite pages 160 and 161? You should have cited WCR Pages 161-163. (Or didn't you read past page 161?) On Page 162 and Page 163 of the Warren Report, we find this information: --- WCR Quote On: --- "Whaley was somewhat imprecise as to where he unloaded his passenger. He marked what he thought was the intersection of Neches and Beckley on a map of Dallas with a large X. He said, "Yes, sir; that is right, because that is the 500 block of North Beckley." However, Neches and Beckley do not intersect. Neches is within one-half block of the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley where Oswald was living. The 500 block of North Beckley is five blocks south of the rooming house. After a review of these inconsistencies in his testimony before the Commission, Whaley was interviewed again in Dallas. The route of the taxicab was retraced under the direction of Whaley. He directed the driver of the car to a point 20 feet north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Beckley and Neely, the point at which he said his passenger alighted. This was the 700 block of North Beckley. The elapsed time of the reconstructed run from the Greyhound Bus Station to Neely and Beckley was 5 minutes and 30 seconds by stopwatch. The walk from Beckley and Neely to 1026 North Beckley was timed by Commission counsel at 5 minutes and 45 seconds." --- End WC Quotes --- Nothing but more WC lies, right Jim? It never ends, does it? ------------- A Whaley Addendum.... Based on William Whaley's 11/23/63 FBI interview, I think it's pretty clear that Whaley originally did think he had taken Oswald all the way to the 500 block of North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff on 11/22/63. Whaley told the FBI on November 23rd that he "took the young man to the 500 block of Beckley Street". But I think the key to knowing that Whaley was mistaken about the "500 block" is the fact that he always maintained—even in his first FBI interview the day after Oswald rode in his taxicab—that the fare for Oswald's cab ride was exactly "95 cents". And Whaley's 11/22/63 manifest (or trip sheet) also confirms the fare for the Greyhound-to-Beckley trip as being 95 cents. And we can see from the reconstructed cab rides that a trip in Whaley's cab that starts at the Greyhound bus station and ends at the intersection of Neely & Beckley would, in fact, be 95 cents. So if Whaley had actually driven Oswald an additional two full blocks on Beckley, the fare would surely have clicked over to $1.00 (or higher) by the time the cab reached the 500 block. But we know it didn't—based on Whaley's November 23rd FBI interview and his trip sheet.

~sigh~ .... ~double sigh~ ....

But we know he didn't go all the way to 500 Beckley. He only went to the 700 block. Watch the Whaley videos. And anyway, the Warren Commission actually added SIX full minutes to the timeline to account for Oswald's backtracking from Neely Street to his roominghouse (from 12:54 PM to 1:00 PM; see CE1119-A below). So there's certainly no underhanded deception by the WC here when it comes to Oswald's timeline....

That's an easy one to figure out--- Oswald denied living at 214 Neely because he knew that the Backyard Photos were taken there (at his direction), and he knew that those photos were taken at a time when he himself was living there. And the Backyard Photos, of course, show Oswald with the Kennedy murder weapon. Hence, Lee felt compelled to distance himself (again) from any and all "connections" to the murder rifle.

It was, as Paul J. noted, about three long blocks from the intersection of Beckley & Neely to Oswald's room at 1026 Beckley. When Oswald (no quotation marks needed) got into William Whaley's cab, Oswald told Whaley to take him to the 500 block of North Beckley. But when they were getting close to the 500 block, Oswald told Whaley to drop him off at the Neely Street intersection, which is at the 700 block of Beckley. So LHO had to backtrack from the 700 block to the 1000 block (three total blocks, which apparently are fairly long blocks). See Whaley's reconstruction videos here....

When evaluating Darrell Tomlinson's statements and interviews over the years, it couldn't be more obvious that he really had no idea which stretcher he found the bullet on. In one interview, he says he found the bullet on the Connally stretcher; in another interview, he says it was the other stretcher. Tomlinson's best answer (the one he gave Arlen Specter in 1964) is this one.... "I'm not sure." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/Darrell C. Tomlinson Interviews

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-first-family-albums-vaughn-meader.html

Stephanie, I have no idea why my links at the two webpages below won't work for you. They all play just fine for me. ~shrug~ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25724-first-radio-report-on-tippits-shooting/?tab=comments#comment-399074 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1317.html

I know nothing about any Facebook outages. All sites have worked fine for me all day long. But I always hate hearing this from anybody --- "I was trying to access some of your material earlier today, and nothing would come up for me." What material were you trying to access? I'll check on it for you.

The Oprah interview does not contain a single word about the other murder that Lee Oswald committed on 11/22/63---the Tippit murder. That's kind of ridiculous, IMO. (Although I suppose Marina has become convinced that Lee was completely innocent of that murder too.) More Marina Interviews: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html

There's not a thing wrong with the quality of the autopsy photographs. The only thing "poor" about them is the fact they're multi-generational copies. The originals (which were examined in detail by the Clark Panel and the HSCA) are undoubtedly crystal clear. Why Evan Marshall would expect crystal-clear clarity from multi-generational bootlegs is anybody's guess. So, what we have in this thread is a conspiracy theorist inventing a problem (and a controversy) that never existed in the first place. (Which is par for the CT course.) Related Discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP Acquires High-Quality Copy Of Autopsy Photograph

FWIW / FYI / IMO .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The "F8" Autopsy Picture Of President Kennedy FWIW #2 .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The F8 Autopsy Photo Is A Mess

What's so "poor" about them? Yes, the versions we have online are certainly not the first-generation photos. So, quite naturally, they're going to exhibit poorer quality than the originals. We all know that. Always have. But the original 1st-generation pictures are very likely crystal clear and not "poor" at all. It's just that we (the public) haven't seen those first-generation versions. But even though the Internet versions are not the originals, they are still good enough to determine this key fact: President Kennedy was shot two times, with both shots coming from behind the President.