Yet another Harvey & Lee factoid that doesn't withstand scrutiny?

[David Von Pein]

16 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

So David, you admit the [HSCA] final conclusion was wrong. Certainly I would expect you to admit it was a government investigation. Therefore, you admit a government investigation can be wrong. Yes or no?

So, would you admit that the Warren [Commission]--a government investigation--could be wrong? Yes or no?

Logically, in any aspect, could you admit that there was even a 1% chance on some WC finding [that] was wrong? Or, in your opinion, is there a zero percent chance, that the WC was wrong on any of its findings?

In my opinion, there's virtually no possibility that the Warren Commission was wrong when it comes to their basic bottom-line conclusions, which were:



However, there is at least one mistake to be found in the Warren Commission's Final Report. (And there are probably several other errors in the Report too, which wouldn't surprise or shock me at all. Finding a few relatively minor errors in a report that's nearly 900 pages in length is, I would think, perfectly normal and to be expected.)

The WC mistake I had in mind today can be found on Page 166 of the Warren Report, where there's an error concerning Domingo Benavides and the J.D. Tippit murder. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Benavides who had made the citizen's call on Tippit's police radio ("We've had a shooting out here"). But it was later learned that it was really another witness, T.F. Bowley, who made that radio call, which was done only after Benavides had been pumping (or mashing) the microphone for about ninety seconds. [See the quote below from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice".]

"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (1998 Edition)

The Warren Commission was apparently relying on a truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of Commission Exhibit No. 1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes).

The Commission, therefore, in trying to pinpoint the precise time of Officer Tippit's shooting, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.

So the actual time when Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed had to be sometime prior to 1:16 PM, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16.

If you give me a few more hours (or days....or maybe weeks 😁), I can probably find a few more things that the Warren Commission got "wrong" in their 888-page Final Report. But none of the errors I am liable to find in the Report could possibly be substantive enough to dismantle or demolish this conclusion reached by the Commission:

"The Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy."

And the main reason I can be so confident that the above WC conclusion can never be debunked is because the evidence and Oswald's own actions prove that LHO killed JFK and J.D. Tippit. And that evidence was in existence for a full week before a Government entity known as "The Warren Commission" was even created.

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In my opinion, there's virtually no possibility that the Warren Commission was wrong when it comes to their basic bottom-line conclusions, which were:



However, there is at least one mistake to be found in the Warren Commission's Final Report. (And there are probably several other errors in the Report too, which wouldn't surprise or shock me at all. Finding a few relatively minor errors in a report that's nearly 900 pages in length is, I would think, perfectly normal and to be expected.)

The WC mistake I had in mind today can be found on Page 166 of the Warren Report, where there's an error concerning Domingo Benavides and the J.D. Tippit murder. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Benavides who had made the citizen's call on Tippit's police radio ("We've had a shooting out here"). But it was later learned that it was really another witness, T.F. Bowley, who made that radio call, which was done only after Benavides had been pumping (or mashing) the microphone for about ninety seconds. [See the quote below from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice".]

"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (1998 Edition)

The Warren Commission was apparently relying on a truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of Commission Exhibit No. 1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes).

The Commission, therefore, in trying to pinpoint the precise time of Officer Tippit's shooting, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.

So the actual time when Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed had to be sometime prior to 1:16 PM, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16.

If you give me a few more hours (or days....or maybe weeks 😁), I can probably find a few more things that the Warren Commission got "wrong" in their 888-page Final Report. But none of the errors I am liable to find in the Report could possibly be substantive enough to dismantle or demolish this conclusion reached by the Commission:

"The Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy."

And the main reason I can be so confident that the above WC conclusion can never be debunked is because the evidence and Oswald's own actions prove that LHO killed JFK and J.D. Tippit. And that evidence was in existence for a full week before a Government entity known as "The Warren Commission" was even created.

 

Do you know enough about his actions, per the WC alone, to conclude with 100% certainty that he acted alone?  Certainly, prior to the wc being formed this could not be proven solely based on his actions as you mentioned above.  

[David Andrews]

 

Herr Von Pein, why do you remind me of Professor Fate in The Great Race?

 

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Do you know enough about his [Lee Oswald's] actions, per the WC alone, to conclude with 100% certainty that he acted alone? 

No, of course not. The possibility that someone might have aided Oswald on 11/22/63 is something that can never be disproven with absolute "100% certainty". I've admitted that fact myself many times in the past.

But....

"Oswald's very own actions on those two critical days (November 21-22) speak much, much louder than any conspiracy theorist when confronted with the all-important question of: WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD PERFORMING A SOLO MURDER ACT IN DEALEY PLAZA? Just follow all of Oswald's movements and actions on both of those days, and you'll get the most reasonable answer to that question." -- DVP; May 2008

Also....

Edited August 22, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

On 8/19/2019 at 1:58 PM, Denny Zartman said:

Yes, there is credible physical evidence. It's the police dictabelt. It was so credible that the current official position of the United States government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This is your cue to cite cherry-picked scientific reports "debunking" the dictabelt, but until you have written an American congressperson and urged them to successfully reopen the case and overturn their current conclusion that John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, this conclusion will stand. Whether they like it or not, it is the Lone Nutter's that are outside the official conclusion of the US Government as it regards the JFK assassination, not the conspiracy theorists.

A single conspiracy theory explanation for the assassination is not necessary in order to recognize and investigate aspects of the assassination that do indicate a conspiracy.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is neither viable nor coherent.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't viable because the autopsists at Bethesda reported JFK's back wound was a shallow one inasmuch as the end of the wound could be felt with the tip of a doctor's finger. That alone disproves the single bullet theory and therefore proves conspiracy. Furthermore, every medical professional at Parkland that observed JFK's anterior neck wound before the tracheostomy described it as one of entrance. The conclusion that a bullet struck JFK in the back, traveled through his body, and exited the front of his neck is not a conclusion that was arrived at by medical professionals. This unproven theory arrived at by WC lawyer Arlen Specter, a man with no medical training that did not examine JFK's body, and apparently didn't even see at the autopsy photos.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because the Commission could not determine Oswald's motive, nor would or could it demonstrate that he was mentally unbalanced. The best anyone can say is that he was a loner looking for his place in history, but no one can explain how he was going to become famous for a crime that he planned to deny. Oh, he wanted to "save" his political diatribe or other reasons for the public forum of a trial, as if being dragged in front of reporters for a press conference wasn't a public forum. The LN's believe that a man they consider clearly and obviously guilty of killing JFK was planning to shock the world by confessing to his crime at his trial. Please.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass by the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the same time Carolyn Johnston saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, the same lunchroom he was reported as being seen in two minutes after the assassination in a state apparently calm, cool, collected, not sweaty or out of breath.

According to the WC' we are supposed to believe that Oswald, at 12:25 PM and in danger of missing his date with destiny, ran from the lunchroom to the stairs, ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner of the floor to the southeast corner, shot Kennedy and Connally at the last few available seconds (arguably when his vision was obstructed as well), ran a maze of boxes again to stash the rifle, ran again to the stairwell, ran down four flights of stairs unobserved by others who were also descending the staircase, and was then seen cool and calm in the same lunchroom that he was seen in seven minutes before.

It appears to me that Oswald would be exhibiting some sort of adrenaline reaction simply from committing the crime of killing the President in cold blood, much less running up and down four flights of stairs and repeatedly navigating a maze of boxes at top speed.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because motiveless Oswald had no getaway plan, despite having over $180 dollars at his disposal, despite his knowledge of how to travel long distances and go to other countries, despite making a clean getaway from the TSBD, and despite boarding at least two motor vehicles. Oswald was allegedly travelling in a southeastern direction until meeting Officer JD Tippit, then Oswald started travelling northwest. Where was he going before he encountered Tippit? It was just a coincidence that Oswald was travelling in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, of course.

What single thing about Oswald's movements between his escape from the TSBD and his arrest at the Texas Theater was coherent? I wonder, if Oswald hadn't been seen entering the theater, would he have stayed for the double feature? Perhaps gone out for a burger and soda afterward?

But, as I said in my first post, there are dozens of examples of evidence pointing toward conspiracy, none of which will ever be recognized as such by our LN friends. Notice how Mr. Baker says "physical evidence" because he's well aware of the many witnesses who were ignored, intimidated, or said that their testimony had been altered. Mr. Baker is also aware that, legally, testimony is evidence. That is why Mr. Baker is careful to make the "physical evidence" distinction, because he is well aware that when the statements of witnesses and others are included, the evidence indicating conspiracy becomes overwhelming. I appreciate his attempt, but Mr. Baker isn't fooling anyone.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent. It posits a completely motiveless and sane killer who supposedly tried to kill right wing General Walker and left wing President Kennedy, had no getaway plan despite having nearly $200 and the knowledge of how to get out of the country, and who carried around ID linking himself to the murder weapon in one of his two wallets. You have Oswald's prints on the rifle not being discovered until after Oswald's death. You have the accused killer himself killed by another lone nut, Jack Ruby, a man who loved the Kennedy's so much that he was willing to face the electric chair or life in prison to save Jackie the terrible emotional anguish of having to return to testify in an Oswald trial, but who didn't care enough about the Kennedy's to cross the street to see them in person.

There's nothing coherent or viable about the Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.

There is one massive issue with what you wrote above.

Carolyn Arnold said she went back to get a glass of water after leaving with a group of co-workers and not seeing Oswald then.

There is no fountain or sink/tap inside the lunch room. There was however a fountain in the corridor at least 10 ft away from the entrance of the lunch room. She could have never seen Oswald in there, which btw was off limits to manual workers. Besides getting a coke, they had no business in there (something even Marrion Baker said during his WC testimony, geeh I wonder how he knew that!?) Roy Lewis has confirmed this and so has Buell Frazier that without permission they were not supposed to be on the 2nd fl That floor was for mgt and office workers only.

Furthermore you would need to point out the buried FBI statement by Arnold is a fake which no one has been able to do. Then you also need to consider that the statement about her 'seeing' Oswald at that time (after leaving and going back to getting a glass of water, which no one else confirmed btw) roughly 15 years after the happening. Arnold became an issue, during the HSCA,  in the sense that she became known to the public as the person that saw Oswald in the vestibule near the entrance of the TSBD She ended up doing three interviews in quick succession and she claimed she did not look back, when Wiegman shows her turning and looking already at DalTex while the shooting is going on and the water thingy became part of her story to manoeuvre herself out of her first statement to the FBI

But what is more concerning is that the second floor lunch room encounter never happened and was created by Fritz to ascertain Oswald's guilt as to killing Kennedy.

In the picture above Oswald is seen drinking his coke which he got for his lunch 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Bart Kamp

[Paul Baker]

5 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

In the picture above Oswald is seen drinking his coke which he got for his lunch 

With a little bit of imagination, you can see almost anything in this picture. I've highlighted Hitler. Plain as day. He's saluting The Pope, I think.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Paul Baker
Saw something else in the photo I hadn't noticed before.

[Guest]

You have highlighted almost 5 people

Please do better, the Nile is a river in Egypt.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Bart Kamp

[David Von Pein]

11 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

In the picture above Oswald is seen drinking his coke which he got for his lunch.

And therefore you must believe that Oswald, within seconds of that photo (film) being taken, decided to go back inside the building and climb up to the second floor and wander around the offices for a little while so that he could be noticed with a Coke in his hand by Mrs. Reid.

Any idea why Lee Harvey Oswald would do something like that----since you say he already had his Coke with him while he was out on the TSBD steps?

Or have you added Mrs. Reid to your list of l-iars (alongside Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Captain Fritz)?

Or --- do you want to pretend that there were actually two different "Oswalds" roaming around in the Book Depository on 11/22/63, and that it was really HARVEY and not LEE (or vice versa) who was seen by Mrs. Reid in the second-floor offices within two minutes of the assassination?

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

Neither my darling David.

if you had paid some attention to what I have researched and presented these past three to four years you would understand that the second floor lunch room encounter never happened.......but somehow that keeps eluding you. 

Do not attempt to argue the same horse manure again and again dear David as you end up leaving the thread with yer tail between your legs and it has happened so many times already that it is becoming boring.

The ignore function on this forum is just not enough is it?

i mean if FB can have a full on block function why can it not be here as well, this forum would be such a breeze to plough thru.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Bart Kamp

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

If you had paid some attention to what I have researched and presented these past three to four years you would understand that the second floor lunch room encounter never happened.......but somehow that keeps eluding you. 

Do not attempt to argue the same horse manure again and again dear David as you end up leaving the thread with yer tail between your legs and it has happened so many times already that it is becoming boring.

The truly "boring" people are those who continue to fool themselves into believing that they have proven that the "second floor lunch room encounter never happened".

The arrogance of many Internet conspiracy theorists is staggering when it comes to the things these amateur sleuths like to pretend they've "proven". They live in a world of fantasy-filled dreams all their own. Just amazing.

For a dose of much-needed reality and non-conspiratorial fresh air pertaining to "The Lunchroom Encounter", click the logo below:

 

Quote

The ignore function on this forum is just not enough is it?

I mean if FB can have a full-on block function, why can it not be here as well[?] This forum would be such a breeze to plough thru.

Yeah, I can see why conspiracy fantasists like Bart Kamp would, indeed, have a desire to "ignore" or "block" common-sense arguments like the ones presented above concerning the lunchroom encounter. That way, they never have to see what complete fools they make of themselves each and every time they say something ridiculous (and wholly untrue) like this:

"The second floor lunch room encounter never happened and was created by Fritz to ascertain Oswald's guilt as to killing Kennedy."

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

ZzzzZZZZzzzzzzZzzz you one trick pony.

[Denny Zartman]

17 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

There is one massive issue with what you wrote above.

Carolyn Arnold said she went back to get a glass of water after leaving with a group of co-workers and not seeing Oswald then.

There is no fountain or sink/tap inside the lunch room. There was however a fountain in the corridor at least 10 ft away from the entrance of the lunch room. She could have never seen Oswald in there, which btw was off limits to manual workers. Besides getting a coke, they had no business in there (something even Marrion Baker said during his WC testimony, geeh I wonder how he knew that!?) Roy Lewis has confirmed this and so has Buell Frazier that without permission they were not supposed to be on the 2nd fl That floor was for mgt and office workers only.

Furthermore you would need to point out the buried FBI statement by Arnold is a fake which no one has been able to do. Then you also need to consider that the statement about her 'seeing' Oswald at that time (after leaving and going back to getting a glass of water, which no one else confirmed btw) roughly 15 years after the happening. Arnold became an issue, during the HSCA,  in the sense that she became known to the public as the person that saw Oswald in the vestibule near the entrance of the TSBD She ended up doing three interviews in quick succession and she claimed she did not look back, when Wiegman shows her turning and looking already at DalTex while the shooting is going on and the water thingy became part of her story to manoeuvre herself out of her first statement to the FBI

Definitely food for thought. I need to examine Arnold's FBI interviews and take a closer look.

To be painfully honest, my biggest problem with disbelieving the "second floor encounter" is that I find it exculpatory, not incriminating. But I am always interested in the most likely series of events, so I will try to study it closer.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Denny Zartman

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Definitely food for thought. I need to examine Arnold's FBI interviews and take a closer look.

To be painfully honest, my biggest problem with disbelieving the "second floor encounter" is that I find it exculpatory, not incriminating. But I am always interested in the most likely series of events, so I will try to study it closer.

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter Aug 27 2017-by_Bart Kamp.pdf

[Guest]

Thanks Ron, but the most recent version is here.

[Cory Santos]

On 8/21/2019 at 11:26 PM, David Von Pein said:

No, of course not. The possibility that someone might have aided Oswald on 11/22/63 is something that can never be disproven with absolute "100% certainty". I've admitted that fact myself many times in the past.

But....

"Oswald's very own actions on those two critical days (November 21-22) speak much, much louder than any conspiracy theorist when confronted with the all-important question of: WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD PERFORMING A SOLO MURDER ACT IN DEALEY PLAZA? Just follow all of Oswald's movements and actions on both of those days, and you'll get the most reasonable answer to that question." -- DVP; May 2008

Also....

So you admit then there is a chance LHO did not act alone because it cannot be disproved 100%.

You also admitted to errors in the warren report. 

Ok.

Despite the above two truths, you believe 100 percent the conclusion of the warren commission.

So logically, if a conspiracist believes there is a chance LHO acted within a conspiracy because the warren commission could not prove otherwise 100 percent then the conspiracist and you basically are using the same logic to get to a different result.  A conspiracist can even admit errors in the preferred  conspiracy theory just as you do with the warren commission.

Hence, I propose then this proves that the investigations so far legally, scientifically, historically or otherwise are not correct nor up to the standards we would expect of such an important event.

When both sides are employing the same facts and logic but interpreting them to make different conclusions the answer is abundantly clear.  The true answer has not been told because if it was, those questions above would be easy to answer.

That does not make any conspiracy theory right, but it does make the warren commission report  for lack of a better description, flawed and wrong.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Cory Santos