David G. Healy

Take note of the "Oswald lean" in one of the photos that David Josephs posted above. It's remarkably similar to the "lean" that CTers think was physically impossible in the backyard photos....

a washed out, flat image compared to a high contrast image that reveals no clothing texture at all.... give me a break -- not to mention WHAT lean... dude, for a lone nut, you're priceless! No wonder they kept you out of the Zapruder film alteration discussion. Too much sugar in your Ovaltine this morning?

"...do you believe that the "Russian letter" is bogus?"

Is that the question we should ask? OR ... has it even been established to be relevant to the attempt on Walker... by LHO?

Paul,I don't KNOW weather it is or not, and nobody else does either. It's a letter that has no documented lineage really ( chain of evidence). The way it came into the evidence stream is highly suspicious to me, as it would be considered in any court of law ...hearsay! Does that mean Os didn't have anything to do with the Walker attempt ..No! Nor does it implicate him either ..IMO.

I don't trust Ruth Paine either. She didn't like LHO, that was very evident from the beginning. Does that make her a "L-I-A-R" NO! However, it does throw her objectivity into question, IMO.

I also think it goes to one of her motivations for bending over backwards to send Lee up the river, every chance she got. Some of these things are not knowable anymore, because it wasn't investigated properly in the first place (as Wiesberg said) and witnesses have long entrenched themselves behind walls of silence and self protection.

We will probably never know the when, why or what this "letter " was in reference to...it's all speculation at this point.

Bill

Thank you, Bill, for your candid reply.

My feedback would be this -- insofar as we have a physical, handwritten letter, this removes the topic from the sphere of "hearsay" evidence.

Do we not have handwriting experts to tell us with some scientific, forensic certainty, whether Lee Harvey Oswald wrote this letter by his own hand?

I'm having a heck of time finding consensus on this basic point in our FORUM.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I doubt here will ever be a consensus concerning Walker other than he was a right-winger of the extreme version... He's a distraction and frankly no worth spit. As well, there's more to LHO and Ruth Paine, a lot more--than what we were originally told.

Did I suggest Horne? Did I suggest Lifton?

...

BTW, Mark, do you think you know more than the 9 forensic pathologists who studied the JFK case for the HSCA? Those nine doctors (all of them without exception) concluded that a bullet definitely DID pass through the upper body of John F. Kennedy.

...

Thanks, Mark.

so this is what the SBT has boiled down too at this late date.... you old cherry picker, you!

What is abundantly clear is this: you, David Von Pein, have never, ever debated anyone face to face concerning any topic regarding JFK's assassination...

You're hot air son, period!

And that ain't fantasy!

...

As for Ruth and Michael Paine, I have no idea in the world how to contact them -- but it seems to me that they, being intellectuals, should be more willing to open up and talk to a sincere journalist about the resigned General Walker.

Yet no matter how much I've pleaded with FORUM members to contact them -- to the best of my knowledge, nobody here has yet been able to reach them. This surprises me because there are so many serious authors and journalists in this FORUM that I honestly expected somebody to have the wherewithal to find Ruth and Michael Paine.

...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12049.0.html

Ya might take a peek at the above thread, Paul... Don't expect much, the 'so-called' *interviewer* who saw Ms. Paine recently (on bended knee, evidently) leaves much to be desired. However, her whereabouts are known...

I remember Cronkite's sage conclusion on some CBS program about the assassination that Oswald was able to make those difficult shots because he was shooting at the president of the United States.

But the thing is, Ron -- the shots were not that "difficult".

...

You haven't a bloody clue, Pal!

DVP said:

Larry,

But what about Brennan's FIRST-DAY (Nov. 22) affidavit? In that affidavit, Brennan clearly indicates he saw a "slender...white man in his early 30s ... taking aim with a high powered rifle" from an upper-story window on the east end of the TSBD Building.

That's Brennan's FIRST-DAY account, within hours of the assassination---and that affidavit perfectly matches just about everything he told the Warren Commission a few months later. I see no discrepancies at all between the things Brennan laid out in his voluntary statement on Nov. 22 and his later testimony.

And I find it nearly impossible to comprehend how anyone could even begin to believe (as some do) that NO SHOTS AT ALL came from the sixth floor of the Depository after reading the affidavit presented below by Howard L. Brennan. But, incredibly, there are some CTers who believe no shots at all came from the sixth floor. And among them was the late Harold Weisberg.....

...

time and research laddie have been blowing holes in the 1964 WCR for a long time. The WCR is falling apart before your very eyes...

...

Yet the WC stated motive for raising the Walker shooting was that Marina herself volunteered these accusations in early December 1963. So the WC questioned perhaps a dozen witnesses about the shots at General Walker back in April 1963.

If Marina was only saying what the WC told her to say -- then why, James, do you think that the WC invented that particular story about the resigned General Walker? Please consider the same three questions I asked William:

(i) Why would the WC strain to link the April shooting at General Walker with the November JFK assassination, if it wasn't true?

(ii) Why would somebody in Marina's position agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if she knew it wasn't true?

(iii) Why would several WC witnesses agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if they knew it wasn't true (especially if they opposed Edwin Walker)?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

to prove a conspiracy was afoot?:

(i) what difference does it make whether it was true or not, the accusation was enough...

(ii) because of that very position she found herself in. America with kids or, Russia with NO kids...

(iii) intimidation... pure and simple

Today I was reading Gerald Ford's article that originally appeared in the October 2, 1964, issue of LIFE Magazine, and I noted something odd on page 50 of that magazine when Ford said this....

"H.L. Brennan, who actually saw Oswald shoot the President and provided the first description, decided soon afterward that his own life was in critical danger. At the first police lineup, he later told us, he recognized Oswald immediately but feared to admit it. At the second lineup, he made the identification despite the feared consequences."

But I am unaware of a SECOND police lineup attended by Howard Brennan. No second lineup is mentioned in Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.

The above quote by Gerald Ford, in which he tells America in LIFE Magazine that Howard Brennan DID positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a police lineup, has no doubt raised the hackles (and the suspicions) of some conspiracy theorists who are aware of the quote.

And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one.

I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why Mr. Ford would want to invent a "second lineup", when such a thing is directly contradicted by Ford's very own Warren Commission final report (on Page 143, where it's stated fairly clearly that Brennan only attended one single lineup at the Dallas Police Department), as well as being contradicted in the testimony of Howard Brennan himself in WC Volume 3 and in Brennan's May 7, 1964, affidavit which also appears in Warren Commission Volume 11. All of which can easily be verified by any conspiracy theorist who takes the time to check out the information.

~big shrug~

what lone nut graphics company is doing your graphics?

...$160.00 bucks? That says it all...

Davey "Zapruder Never Filmed The Assassination At All" Healy actually seems to think we will be selling the book to the general public for the outlandish price of $160.

As usual, David H. doesn't disappoint. He gets something else wrong. Gee, what a surprise.

$160 bucks at Amazon or $1 in the K-Mart book bin -- considering the totality of what we NOW know about the WCR (in 2015), I'd say the murder of JFK is ripe for reinvestigation... a travesty of justice the WCR, hell, let's simply call it the "No JUSTICE Warren Commission!"

We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade, or does anyone disagree? So what do we know about JFK's wounds? Only what we know from eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who had no reason to lie or fabricate. There was a back wound with no way to know where the bullet wen, absent a real and credible autopsy. There was a throat wound that the doctors who attended JFK took to be an entry wound. Again, no way to tell where the bullet went. There was a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, characteristic of an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front. There were other head wounds seen at Bethesda that were not seen at Parkland, which suggests exactly what Humes uttered as heard by the FBI agents, surgery to the head area, which can only mean alteration of the body prior to the so-called autopsy. That is basically what we know IMO, which means a conspiracy. What the government shows us with its photos and x-rays and its final "autopsy" report (after the first one I believe was burned) is worthless, one photo being an obvious fake and thus none of them being trustworthy. We can argue forever, to the delight and amusement of the conspirators, about the exact nature of the wounds and type of weapons used. We know enough to know there was a conspiracy, but little else with respect to medical evidence due to the theft of the body from Dallas, after which any hope of knowing more died.

Thank you, Ron Ecker...

It would be wonderful if the community could use this, something so simple to define the current state of investigation and MOVE on from there... there WAS a conspiracy, now, what's next?

And no, I'm not alone in my belief the large fragments supposedly on the back of the head was not really on the back of the head. I am, in fact, in very good company:

...

I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows.

...

I believe David Mantik MD, Ph.D., article is an update, within the last 2 weeks or so. Maybe your neuroscientist "expert" should take a peek, yes?

delete... duplicate

...

I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath. ...

for convenience sake.... Even if a Texas JBS whack job took a shot at Walker and missed, or a pro with intent to miss, what a set up... much the same with the Tippit shooting only NOT missing... LHO a megalomaniac, sociopath and psychopath (and commie)? The possibilities are endless... a set patsy for all 3 shootings: Walker, JFK, Tippit? All 3 on different paths, merged after the fact for convenience sake... 3 Strikes you're out and NO trial....Contrived!

Well David, if it was contrived, look at all the witnesses who defended Edwin Walker -- Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marina Oswald, George De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and Mrs. Igor Voshinin.

My doubts arise because except for Edwin Walker and maybe Mrs. Igor Voshinin, nobody in that list above was a member of the "Friends of Walker."

Why would non-fascists stick up for an alleged fascist?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I don't know Paul... hell, Saint Peter could of been a character witness for Walker, has nothing to do with laying an assault on his life at the feet of a murdered presidential assassin AND a murdered local cop... Has there ever been a resolution to who shot at Walker?

It's not necessary to call anyone fascist or non-fascist for that matter, hell it just muddies the water further... racists leanings and accusations are sidebar here.

Getting Oswald into a grave without saying a word in a courtroom setting was paramount.

Sounds like a bad Hollywood script, which means there's probably some validity to it! LMAO!

...

I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath.

...

for convenience sake.... Even if a Texas JBS whack job took a shot at Walker and missed, or a pro with intent to miss, what a set up... much the same with the Tippit shooting only NOT missing... LHO a megalomaniac, sociopath and psychopath (and commie)? The possibilities are endless... a set patsy for all 3 shootings: Walker, JFK, Tippit? All 3 on different paths, merged after the fact for convenience sake... 3 Strikes you're out and NO trial....Contrived!

David, Jim was taking a personal shot at me with that rhetoric. and i'm not sure what his political lack of success has to do with his book writing. i happen to think that there's some very relevant stuff on his website about this AND other related politics from that era.

and i've read the book all by myself and formed an opinion of it all by myself, without the urging of some professional mainstream media book reviewer.

i happen to have learned some things from it that were not on the cover. that were factual, no less.

it might not occur to some, but some peoples' opinion actually differ from others'. that's why they make wallpaper.

I'm sure you have Glenn. My thought about this is simple, Donald Trump, or, his 3-ring political circus add absolutely nothing to this board/forum here.

Folks will post or start threads what they might, those who care to respond will... I thought this thread had something to do with Oliver Stone.

Now, if this Stone wants to appear here answering questions about LBJ's possible coverup of JFK assassination or spoecifics concerning his book, fine. Stone, the political operative, political stunt-meister is a non-starter, at least as I see it.

Have a good one, I do enjoy your stuff.

David

What does tho shave to do with the JFK case, at all?

How is it educational?

My thoughts exactly....

Stone is a loser.... What % of the campaigns he's worked or ran, have lost? 90% -- maybe he's a closet Democrat!

see below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

Stone's book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, written with investigative journalist Mike Colapietro contributing, was released by Skyhorse Publishing November 4, 2013. In the book, on the market in time for the fiftieth anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, Stone asserts that LBJ was behind a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy.^[44]

In a review for The Washington Times, Hugh Aynesworth wrote: "The title pretty much explains the book’s theory. If a reader doesn’t let facts get in the way, it could be an interesting adventure."

***Comedy Break!!***

24 ASSASSINS IN DEALEY PLAZA---INCLUDING JACK RUBY (IN THE TSBD)!! .....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-993.html

always comedy, eh son? At least until Harold Weisberg is mentioned. Right? Then watch lone neuters flee for higher ground. David VP leading the pact...

The case against Oswald is simple, there is no case!

Add Tippit's murder to the JFK assassination mix, and everyone hates a cop killer, right?

There is no evidence Oswald murdered the president of the United States, PERIOD! Wishful thinking on nutter's part.

delete duplicate

Some reviews for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"....

"'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is co-authored by two of my favourite assassination writers/commentators. For me, Ayton and Von Pein are a dream ticket. Ayton is studious and measured, whilst Von Pein is battle-hardened and caustic. Ayton's academic credentials, allied with Von Pein's years of ferocious online exchanges with the baying masses of the Lee Harvey Oswald fan club, have come together in this outstanding book. This meeting-of-minds is the iron fist inside the velvet glove of assassination writing.

For readers who are looking for a no-nonsense introduction to a case that has been mangled and misrepresented by legions of cynics and paranoiacs for half-a-century, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is an ideal starting point.

The authors begin by discussing the two main investigations into the case: the Warren Commission and the HSCA. As is to be expected, both writers give praise and criticism where it is due. There's no ducking of issues here. Mistakes were made by both investigations and there's no attempt to whitewash the errors. Ayton and Von Pein call it like it is. A pat on the back here and a kick up the rear there.

The chapters move through the gathered evidence—and there was a lot of it—which shows Oswald to have been the murderer of two men.

[...]

The chapters dealing with 'Oswald's Defenders' and the 'Usual Suspects' are particularly enjoyable. Mel and David pour scorn on the charlatans who have earned big bucks by selling lies and deceptions to the public since day one.

[...]

The bulk of the book is given over to re-examining issues that have long been resolved. Unfortunately these issues can't be put to rest because the amateur researchers seem to feel that they are better qualified than the professionals to conduct investigations and reach conclusions. The 'Miss Marple' brigade will be with us for a long time yet, it seems. Hence the need for books like 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'.

[...]

Appendix One is a 'solo' contribution from DVP and those familiar with his outstanding blogspot will recognise the man in full flow.

Appendix Two features a highly detailed debunking of the 'acoustic evidence' written by Michael O'Dell. It's very good and it meshes well with the analyses of the CBA, James C. Bowles and Dale Myers. There never was a grassy knoll shot.

Do I like or love this book? I love it! Readers who are grounded in provable facts and common sense will love it too."

— Barry Ryder; May 8, 2015

"I found 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' to be a very well written, easily readable book, and not simply a Warren Commission apology book. The author does not give the Warren Commission a free pass, and rightly so. Mr. Ayton does a nice job of pointing out that although the ultimate conclusion that Lee Oswald murdered Kennedy and Tippit was correct, the bureaucracies involved in the investigation were their own worst enemies in many respects, and their handling of the investigation ultimately added fuel for conspiracy theorists to pollute the JFK assassination landscape for decades. Much needed context regarding this is found in BRD.

Having David Von Pein's name attached to this book, and his contribution to BRD, is only a plus. Mr. Von Pein is one of the most knowledgeable, respected researchers/archivists around and has amassed an enormous archive of JFK-related material and blogs that is unmatched on the internet.

The contribution Michael O'Dell provides concerning his attempt to recreate the Weiss & Aschkenasy acoustic study results for the HSCA is, in my opinion, nothing short of stunning, and should be regarded as the historical standard of truth about the W&A/HSCA final conclusions of a so-called "possible conspiracy".

A welcome feature in the Kindle version of BRD are clickable links found in the Notes and Sources section as well as links to DVP's blog. This feature alone may make the Kindle version the way to go with this book.

'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' lives up to its title for 'reasonable' people who wish to learn about the assassination, and learn why many theories put forth by conspiracy theorists hopelessly fall flat under close scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists will stomp on a book like BRD, like a rhino putting out a jungle fire, but in the end BRD shows us how the conspiracy theorists have it all wrong, and always have, and beyond ALL reasonable doubt, Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of double murder on Nov. 22, 1963. Well done."

— Michael Giampaolo; April 26, 2015

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

"These gents, especially Mr. Von Pein, who I had the pleasure of debating for 24 hours [HERE], are very sincere in their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Whatever your own feelings, you can be sure that the authors have done their due diligence and are "calling it as they see it". An all around compelling read that belongs on the shelf of all assassination researchers. No matter what your personal feelings are regarding the big event - this book will be a worthwhile addition to your library."

— Bruce Alan; February 1, 2015

[...]

Now I swear I saw a review from the Mozkowitz family of Pine Bluff Arkansas (a family of three plumbers don'tcha know), so what happened to that? You holdin' out on us? They didn't say they loved it!

posted to Ed Forum with permission 8-6-2015 ... --dh

Posted on Aug 6, 2015 1:28:41 PM PDT

Garry Puffer says:

22 outlandish things Davey-poo Von Pein believes.

If you can wrap your head around this, Von Pein actually believes the following nonsense:

1) Oswald shot at Gen. Walker even though Walker was shot at using a 30.06 steel-jacketed bullet

2) Oswald shot Officer Tippit even though Tippit was dead by 1:07 and Oswald was nearly a mile away at 1:04

3) Oswald shot JFK even though Jesse Curry was not willing to say there was any proof of that (but DVP knows better than Curry, of course)

4) That one bullet caused 7 wounds in two men, hit ribs and bone and came out looking virtually unscathed

5) That JFK's anterior neck wound was an exit wound even though all medical personnel who saw it dispute that and even though it was 3-5 mm whereas WC tests showed M-C exit wounds are in the 10 mm range

6) That Oswald picked up a pistol mailed to him even though the proper forms were not kept

7) That Oswald picked up a rifle mailed to him even though the proper forms were not kept

8) That the backyard photos are real even though the nose shadow remains the same and the heads from the different poses can be superimposed to show they are exactly the same photo - he believes this because a photo panel said they were not forgeries and we all know that panels of experts can never be wrong

9) That Marina can be used to justify some bit of data even though the WC and HSCA knew her to be a serial xxxx whose stories changed day to day

10) No one impersonated Oswald in Mexico City even though everyone else seems to be aware of this impersonation

11) That no one could forge Oswald's handwriting even though experts validated the "Mr. Hunt" note which later was acknowledged a forgery

12) That Ruth Paine was merely a kind Quaker lady even though her CIA connections seem to have been well known to many people at that time

13) That Clay Shaw did not commit perjury when he denied in court that he was a CIA asset even though the CIA later admitted he did work for them

14) That there was no interference from the CIA and FBI in the Garrison investigation and trial even though everyone else knows there was

15) That the bullets "discovered" in Oswald's pocket two hours after his arrest were there all along and were not planted by the DPD even though they show bullet slide corrosion and Oswald owned no bullet slide

16) That the DPD would file two detailed reports of the Mauser found in the TSBD if it had not been found but was a Mannlicher-Carcano instead

17) That a person would own a rifle and a pistol and have no gun cleaning equipment

18) That the main goal of the plotters was to frame a lone assassin even though that is merely an assumption made after the fact and used over and over as one of the lamest arguments imaginable

19) That Capt. Fritz had a good reason for running ahead when Oswald was being taken through the basement instead of remaining as a protective shield, which was the point of his being in front

20) That the autopsy photos are genuine even though the autopsy photographer said they aren't

21) That the X-rays are genuine even though we have proof of forgery

22) That the autopsy report is genuine even though Humes destroyed not only his notes but the first report

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx36OD5BRJLYPQ0&cdMsgNo=379&cdPage=16&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx36OD5BRJLYPQ0

--and--

In reply to your post on Aug 6, 2015 3:51:28 PM PDT

1964 Rifle Debate (Mark Lane vs. Joe Ball)....

[...]

dum-da-da-da-dumb! No, Rosemary, this IS 2015! C'mon DVP...

David Josephs' fevered attempts at poking holes in the rock-solid case of Oswald's guilt only further help to illustrate precisely what Vince Bugliosi was talking about when he said this in his JFK book....

• "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB

Vinnie B. is gone DVP, you have my permission to think for yourself.

Make your own argument for a change. After all, it's your name you're posting under, and no one else's including your idol worship Vinne daBug...

[...]

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.

and on, and on, and on, and ON... ad nauseam

Talk about leading with your chin again.

[..]

DVP preparing for retirement? The center of the lone nut universe shifting?