David G. Healy

Here's my take:

... I've seen researchers past their prime, desperate to see their life's work substantiated somehow, grasping for straws towards the end and making wild and desperate claims. In this case, DVP can be salt in an open wound.

past their prime, Brian? I had no idea there was a "researcher(s) prime"? What IS a researchers prime, btw-lmao?

DVP has been simply having a rough go of it lately. His hero has stepped beyond, so he's depressed, out of sorts... understandable... Salt in a wound, first who's doing the wounding and who's the wounded... I, frankly, could care less about nutter's...

Lone nuts have a history of doing no, zero, zilch, nada research... they haven't a clue beyond the 1964 WCR summary and report. Hell man, they don't even realize the HSCA determined a "conspiracy" murdered JFK...

Steve,

OK, find any two different people in the world and using the techniques you mentioned make a composite image for us.

the lone nut's worst nightmare: an altered Zapruder Film... that work for a composite?

yeah, Gary M. (and Hi.).... Von Pein's having a couple of bad days..... Give'em some solace.

...

But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over.

Well, from what I understand, Vin's Reclaiming History had somewhere in the neighborhood of 53 reasons laid out. I also understand all 53 of those reasons were demolished on another forum. Is that correct? I understand you fled debate?

BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide.

So why aren't you?

...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be.

I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents.

...

well, there it is..... between Reclaiming History and Beyond Reasonable Doubt a total of 161 books sold... tsk-tsk. What a couple of barn-burners!

Given all of the evidence presented HERE, plus adding in just a small amount of common sense to go with it, can any reasonable person really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963?

I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.

Lots more Rifle Talk below.....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/lee-harvey-oswalds-rifle.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html

the old drown CT's in absolute WCR, LHO did it all by his lonesome nonsense, eh, Davey?

Listen, I'd like to see you deal with money order problem(s). The how, where and timing re LHO mailing the money order for the alleged rifle. Who deposited the money order? 24 hours for the money order to get (Dallas-Chicago) to Klein's? 1963? How? Explain, please!

Get the lone nut minion's busy proving the rifle was actually received by and handled by LHO....

I have been informed that Harrison Livingstone of "High Treason" fame first brought Larry Dunkel out into the light.

Ahh, that explains why I was in the dark. Who in their right mind would ever buy that book?

Who are you kidding? I suspect it was one of the 1st books you read and BOUGHT concerning the murder of JFK on the good streets of Dallas Texas...

So when will you post [an] interview where a JFK assassination researcher is interviewed?

As if Talbot and Bugliosi aren't "researchers". You're funny, Healy.

But maybe this one will suit your needs. I know all CTers love this guy. Right, DGH?....

daBugliosi (perhaps Myers is) and you certainly aren't researchers! However, lone nut-LHO did it all by his lonesome preachers comes to mind.

BTW, having pro/anti 1964 WCR advocates debate is not, NOT an interview... Just focus on the topic son!

...

So when will you post and interview where a JFK assassination researcher is interviewed? Focus on the topic son! Not disinfo!

they're clearly the same signs - the right post is leaning just as it is in some of the pics from 11/22.

probably the reality is that you've heard a few CTers say that and less studied ones at that. but sure, "many" sounds better.

but they've fixed the bullet hole in the "O", and that guy's tie wasn't like that in Betzner, and those Nuns weren't there in Zapruder, so clearly SOMETHING's going on here...

Von Pein clearly has issues with WCR testimony unless, of course, it supports his and/or Meyer's & DaBug's Reclaiming History tripe!

hmmm - how long after the shooting was the SF Sign removed?

these reenactors seem to be using a close replica of the limo - the govt didn't, right? why not, i'm just curious...

see emphasis...

"Whitewash 11..The Report on the Warren Commission"........Harold Weisberg 1966..

Page 4......

"The Commission staff was not unaware of this, for although there is no indication it ever heeded it's own unavoidable proof or wondered why anyone would dream of destroying evidence in the assassination of an American President, the whole story was blurted out by Emmett J.Hudson, ( witness to the killing )groundskeeper of Dealey Plaza, in his belated testimony of July 22,1964, almost two months after the Commission had originally scheduled the end of it's work..( first mentioned page 45..WhiteWash.) .

Not only were the hedges and shrubbery trimmed, thus destroying all the projection points essential to photographic analysis, but all the road signs absolutely vital in any reconstruction had been moved-------All Three Of Them--------Zapruder had filmed over the top of the center sign ( Stemmons) ..Two of the signs were entirely removed. The one over which Zapruder filmed was replaced, and there is no reason to believe it's replacement is in exactly the same location in the ground or at exactly the same height above it.

Unless both of these conditions, plus the angle of the sign toward Zapruder's lens , were exactly identical with conditions when he took his pictures, no precise reconstruction is possible..

All this funny business with the signs got on the record by accident, not through the dilligence of the Commission or it's counsel. Wesley J.Liebeler was questioning Hudson. Not until eight months to the day after the assassination, but finally Hudson was being questioned. He volunteered this testimony: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign ".....It was this "Stemmons" sign over which Zapruder photographed.

"They have? They have moved it?" Liebeler asked, his cool nonchalance preserved in cood type.

"Yes, sir." replied Hudson.

"That might explain it", Liebeler then said. at the same time, without even seeming so to intend, preserving for both the Commission and history the certain knowledge that the two photographs about which he was interrogating Hudson, one taken at the time of the assassination and the other after it, were not in agreement. ....And here the accidental interest of the Commission in the destruction and multilation of the most essential evidence ended"..................

Page 130:

"When Hudson reaffirmed his testimony ( and the landscaping also was altered, with the destruction of essential photo-intelligence and analysis reference points in the backgrounds of the pictures)..., the complacent assistant counsel replied, ""That might explain it, because this picture here, No 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time----No. 1..""

The "after" refers to the official reconstruction of the crime!.....Hudson's unanticipated blurting out of what is obvious from the most cursory examination of the photographs evidence marks the beginning and the end of the Commission's interest."

**************

I have read various times of sign removal... from near immediately after the assassination (and replaced soon thereafter) to weeks and even months after the assassination...

So answer Bob's question... you ever been within 10 feet in front of the muzzle of a fired high powered rifle?

... trying to prove whether Oswald was guilty or not?

the great lone nut quest... keep that question alive, right Davey me-boy? LMFAO!

Are you still spinning in a circle, is your head pointed to the front or back. So there is no way that LHO could have made the shot, he had a rifle that could not have made the shot, he had a scope that could not have made the shot and he was in a spot where he could not have been and no one else (including top marksmen) has ever made this shot, but old Bug Man is sure LHO did it. Let me know when you stop laughing and digging.

THINK for two seconds, Ken! THINK!

Vince wasn't saying Oswald was INCAPABLE of the shooting. (Obviously he's not saying any such stupid thing, because Vince says LHO did it. Duh.) He's saying that Oswald---THE PROVEN ASSASSIN (regardless of his deficiencies)---would not have been a real good choice for any type of "professional" CIA or Mob hit on the President.

Got it now? Or will you still pretend that you don't understand Bugliosi's obvious point?

bug's point is regular or extra crispy? Or should one contact Dale Meyer's for the answer?

If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes'. Did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes.

Is that the answers you gave?

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave?

The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words...

"True or false".

So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE.

At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics.

The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie

And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.)

So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking).

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.

perhaps some see a desperate DVP dealing with a few newcomers to the fray? Not to mention lone nutter plants...

If you see desperation, I suspect you'd dust off your daBug shrine and get some quality time in with your Reclaiming History book of nonsense...

Glenn,

That obviously was a fairly early evaluation (and OPINION) concerning the timing of the three shots, which was put together for the Warren Commission shortly after the WC began doing its work on the case. And the timing of the shots as seen in that FBI report (CD298) is quite clearly in error. The last shot is now widely believed to be the head shot, which is quite clearly occurring at Z313.

with some many "errors" one might ask why on earth believe the 1964 WCR under *any* circumstance... Perfidy comes to mind! Both the FBI/SS recreation with and without use of Z-film frames as a guide!

Dance on young man!

and Brennan's (eyewitness) WC testimony concerning the shooter in the window was what (sitting, crouching, standing), again?

very informative... thanks Paul Trejo!

From the 12/5/63 Village Voice:

Villagers Report Oswald Was Here

The Voice has learned that a number of proprietors of Greenwich Village establishments have been given photographs by the FBI of a youthful right-winger who has spent considerable time in the Village.

The subject of the photographs has been identified as Stephen L'eandes, a native of Wiggins, Mississippi. The FBI is checking out information that Lee Harvey Oswald, alleged assassin of President Kennedy, had spent time in Greenwich Village reputedly in the company of L' eandes. L' eandes has not yet been located. The FBI is apparently eager to fill out the details of Oswald's life.

Meanwhile, reports have been snowballing that Oswald actually lived in the Village for a time since his return from Russia. A number of people insist they knew Oswald, but informants present their story via the telephone and have generally avoided direct contact with the FBI and the newspapers. One rumor links Oswald with a Village psychotherapist whose card Oswald was allegedly carrying at the time he was picked up by the Dallas police.

Village Voice reporters may not have known that Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald and his new family arrived in NYC aboard the Maasdam on June 13, 1962 and were already at Love Field in Dallas the very next day. Funny how those "snowballing" reports all disappeared.

I know one thing for sure-we won't be hearing anything about the psychotherapist mentioned above in relation to H&L since "Harvey" is not in NYC unless he stopped by for a checkup in the very brief time he was in the city. Of course the H&L crowd claim to be unaware of the concept of false sightings or unfounded rumors. In the just completed manhunt in NY I believe the number of tips from the public ended up at 2200 and the number of those that were actually correct were 2.

apples to oranges.... focus son!

Glenn,

That's a re-creation that was done for a movie. (Probably for Oliver Stone's fantasy film in 1991.)

...

a "fantasy film" that has kept nutters and trolls running in circles for 25 years...

Kenneth,

Let me try a little "Fact" test on you here. (I want to see if you're as predictable as I think you are.).....

Regarding the four spent bullet shells that were found near the Tippit murder scene, the following testimony exists in the record at 3 H 466, in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham....

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

And CE143 is the revolver that was in Oswald's hands when he was arrested (the S&W .38, Serial No. V510210).

Now, Ken, when I therefore say that it's an established FACT that Oswald's revolver was the weapon that killed J.D. Tippit, do you disagree?

And do you dispute the FACT, as established by Cunningham's testimony, that the Tippit shells came out of Oswald's own gun?

This same kind of "fact test" can be done with many other pieces of evidence too, of course. E.G., the TSBD bullet shells, verification of Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle, the front-seat limo fragments, CE399, Oswald's palmprint on the rifle, the paper bag with LHO's prints on it, the verification of the authenticity of the Backyard Photos, the verification that Oswald was in Mexico City via multiple documents with Oswald's signature and/or picture on them, verification of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, etc.

I'm just wondering how many "Facts" you're willing to ignore (or deem as "fake")?

you not only drank lone nut Kool-Aid you're filling your swimming pool with the smelly stuff ... fact this, fact that... yet you buy the 1964 WCR? Lies, exaggerations, falsehoods... Palmprint, magic bullet? Ya need help Peinski... CT's are here to serve you, but, you're nearing the abyss... Since old Vince passed away you haven't been the same, dood!

I was unaware that there was still a feeling that the zapruder film is authentic. I have seen no serious evidence to support it, other than the fact that the film has been widely shown to the public. But that's not evidence of authenticity. No eyewitness accounts support it.

Roland Zavada was the lone nut's last hope in authenticating the Zapruder film. He was qualified to only comment on the physical properties of the film itself, NOT content of the film!

The in-camera original was exhibited publicly in still frame right from the time of the assassination. Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example.

The other film, as I understand it, is either an unknown film taken from a slightly different location, or an unedited Zapruder film. If plotters went to the trouble of making and concealing (or editing) such a film, how could they have been so careless as to let it leak out and be shown in theaters or TV, especially to several of our own group of assassination researchers? Something doesn't make sense here.

"Among the reasons that it wasn't shown in motion was that it graphically showed a young president receiving a severe fatal head wound. I can understand their reluctance to show it on TV, for example."

Out of their kindness of LIFE magazines heart, right? Kinda like Jack Ruby doing a huge favor for Jackie by murdering LHO, eh?

Vietnam murder and mayhem on Uncle Walter's Evening News 5 nights a week, no-less.... LMAO! Self-serving BULL pookey, Blackburst! All sorts of shenanigan's going on with all sorts of Elm Street assassination-related films/photos

Just a reminder-the current tally is 16-8 for those that haven't voted.

lone nutters are really, REALLY dancing these days... lmao!

BTW, Mike Hogan forgot more about the 1964 WCfantasyR than any nutter-xxxxx posting here or Dunc's board, newbie or otherwise...

I am mystified as to how an entity capable of pulling off a complex plot could have failed to prevent "the other film" from being exhibited in public.

how did the "alleged" in-camera original Zapruder escape public viewing for as long as it? What's so mystifying?

David, did Fritz pick up the shells and then replace them or not?

... That's Conspiracy Myth No. 1,121. ...

actually it's closer to 3,576... Simply goes to show nutter-trolls like yourself just how seriously most take the 1964 WCR conclusion(s). Bull-pookey comes to mind... You need another hobby, Von Pein!