Message From David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Who writes the loony conspiracy theories Dave?

Loony conspiracy theorists maybe?

[Norman T. Field]

No less than John Connelly 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. Even President Ford acknowledged to Valery Giscard d'Estaing that the magic bullet was a made up bit of theater. 

IMHO, anyone who continues to fervently espouse this nonsense is unworthy of membership in this forum. I fear the latest DVP experiment will end the same as previous encounters with him banned again for the same reasons. 

As Einstein stated, "doing the same thing over and over and expecting the results to be different is the definition of insanity". 

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[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

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

When you look at the evidence objectively, and actually pay attention to the arguments being made, there’s nothing “loony” about many of the theories concerning Ruth Paine. The problem your side has is that the obvious bias makes the people arguing for conspiracy seem a lot more reasonable in comparison. We will acknowledge that we could be wrong, and concede when we are; but your side frequently props up subjective analysis as fact and refuses to consider alternate interpretations of the exact same evidence that are just as likely to be correct.   

I’m as biased as anyone else, but it’s very hard for me take that kind of thing seriously. A lot of the counterarguments read more like propaganda than research, and the condescending tone toward conspiracy theorists is a big turn off to anyone with a basic understanding of history.

It almost seems like a lot of the lone assassin stuff is specifically designed to encourage people not to study the evidence for themselves by projecting an air of intellectual superiority - which is a big red flag to bright, curious people who are interested in the assassination. If Oswald really did it, would the flashy headlines and smug tone really be necessary? 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Tom Gram

[David Von Pein]

Quote

Tom Gram said:

When you look at the evidence objectively, and actually pay attention to the arguments being made, there’s nothing “loony” about many of the theories concerning Ruth Paine.

You do realize that Ruth Paine could not possibly have "planted" LHO in the TSBD in order to set him up for Kennedy's murder, don't you Tom? The timing and the overall circumstances concerning the way Oswald obtained his Depository job positively eliminate the notion that LHO was "placed" in the TSBD by any evil forces.

And once a reasonable person comes to the realization that Lee Oswald got his Depository job by way of the most regular, ordinary, and non-conspiratorial way imaginable, then (IMO) the remainder of the smears that have been attached to Ruth Paine by CTers vanish into nothingness.

Because if Ruth didn't help "place" Oswald in the TSBD for any kind of nefarious purpose (which she definitely did not do), then what WAS her job as far as the "Frame LHO" plot was concerned? To cook his meals on weekends? To allow Marina to stay at her house? To teach Lee how to parallel park? How do any of these things "advance" the alleged plot along to frame Lee Oswald for the murder of the President?

Or do some CTers think that Ruth's main purpose in the "plot" occurred AFTER the assassination, in the role of "Spreading lies and disinformation" concerning LHO? Is that it?

~shrug~

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/was-oswald-planted-in-tsbd.html

"Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE regarding [Ruth] Paine, [Roy] Truly, [Wesley] Frazier, and [Linnie Mae] Randle in order to weave the magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" plot that conspiracists imagine took place. But just because nobody has yet been able to come close to weaving that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people (like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop conspiracy theorists from pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those very people really did occur in 1963." -- David Von Pein; July 1, 2008
 

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

David,

The problem with your  analysis of Ruth Paine showing that she could not have been the one who placed Oswald at the TSBD (assuming that your analysis is the same as what others have said) is that it assumes that all those involved have testified truthfully.

Since it is possible for witnesses to lie and to be talked into lying (e.g. for national security reasons) then what you think if proof isn't proof at all.

There is a good deal of strong circumstantial evidence that requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD for the purpose of playing patsy in the assassination plot.

It is for that reason that I believe some of the witnesses lied about how Oswald got the job there.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There is a good deal of strong circumstantial evidence that requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD for the purpose of playing patsy in the assassination plot.

It is for that reason that I believe some of the witnesses lied about how Oswald got the job there.

Even IF you are correct that Oswald was "intentionally placed" there (and that's a big "if"), it in no way requires Ruth Paine to have been involved in the conspiracy. Further, your theory flies in the face of the fact that Oswald was hired on Oct. 15, a month before the public was even informed that the motorcade would travel through downtown Dallas.

[David Von Pein]

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There is a good deal of strong circumstantial evidence that requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD for the purpose of playing patsy in the assassination plot.

It is for that reason that I believe some of the witnesses lied about how Oswald got the job there.

And what you just said is one of the major problems I have with CTers. When the conspiracists have to accuse various people of telling lies in order for their theories to have even the slightest chance of being correct, then I would say it's time for those CTers to put on the brakes and re-think things a little bit.

For, in just this one sub-topic (LHO getting hired at the TSBD), you've got---what?---3 different people telling a string of lies about how Oswald got hired? Paine, Randle, and Truly? Right? Anybody else?

Also -- can you please inform me of what the "strong circumstantial evidence" is that "requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD"? Your words "requires" and "strong" are piquing my interest. Please elaborate.

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

You do realize that Ruth Paine could not possibly have "planted" LHO in the TSBD in order to set him up for Kennedy's murder, don't you Tom? The timing and the overall circumstances concerning the way Oswald obtained his Depository job positively eliminate the notion that LHO was "placed" in the TSBD by any evil forces.

And once a reasonable person comes to the realization that Lee Oswald got his Depository job by way of the most regular, ordinary, and non-conspiratorial way imaginable, then (IMO) the remainder of the smears that have been attached to Ruth Paine by CTers vanish into nothingness.

Because if Ruth didn't help "place" Oswald in the TSBD for any kind of nefarious purpose (which she definitely did not do), then what WAS her job as far as the "Frame LHO" plot was concerned? To cook his meals on weekends? To allow Marina to stay at her house? To teach Lee how to parallel park? How do any of these things "advance" the alleged plot along to frame Lee Oswald for the murder of the President?

Or do some CTers think that Ruth's main purpose in the "plot" occurred AFTER the assassination, in the role of "Spreading lies and disinformation" concerning LHO? Is that it?

~shrug~

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/was-oswald-planted-in-tsbd.html

"Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE regarding [Ruth] Paine, [Roy] Truly, [Wesley] Frazier, and [Linnie Mae] Randle in order to weave the magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" plot that conspiracists imagine took place. But just because nobody has yet been able to come close to weaving that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people (like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop conspiracy theorists from pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those very people really did occur in 1963." -- David Von Pein; July 1, 2008
 

You are kind of making my point David with the condescension, inflammatory language, and stating subjective analysis as fact. 

I don’t think that Paine had anything to do with the assassination itself, but there is some pretty compelling evidence suggesting that she withheld certain information from investigators. If that is true, and I think that it probably is, you have wonder why she would do that. The suspicion is not unreasonable. If it was, you’d think that all the allegations could be legitimately debunked with evidence and tempered analysis, not ridiculed with what ultimately amounts to marketing tactics.

All I’m doing here is advocating for more objectivity. I understand that you already believe that Oswald is completely guilty, so there’s an inherent bias in your analysis, but if you want intelligent people to take your research seriously it might be helpful to equivocate on occasion when dealing with ambiguous evidence. Basically, it’s pretty off putting when someone claims to know things that are impossible to know. 

John Manning wrote a very interesting, meticulously researched essay on the TSBD job. Here’s a link if anyone is interested: 

https://gregrparker.com/3615-2/

 

[Vince Palamara]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

Awesome! Thanks, Dave!!

[David Von Pein]

42 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...it’s pretty off putting when someone claims to know things that are impossible to know. 

Despite what some CTers have said, one thing I do know for a fact is that Ruth Paine could not have known for a fact on October 14, 1963, what the exact motorcade route through Dallas was going to be. And, hence, she also could not have known for a fact on Oct. 14th that the Texas School Book Depository Building would be a viable location to place a "patsy" named Oswald on 11/22/63.

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

27 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Even IF you are correct that Oswald was "intentionally placed" there (and that's a big "if"), it in no way requires Ruth Paine to have been involved in the conspiracy. Further, your theory flies in the face of the fact that Oswald was hired on Oct. 15, a month before the public was even informed that the motorcade would travel through downtown Dallas.

Honest question: Is it not a reasonable assumption that any Presidential motorcade in Dallas would end up heading through Dealey Plaza? 

Either way, I agree in the sense that Oswald being set up for the assassination does not require him to have been placed in the TSBD, by Paine or anyone else. Someone could have just seen an opportunity and taken it. 

I don't really know much about the prior plots, but the stuff I have seen, plus the Secret Service destroying documents in the 90's doesn't exactly inspire confidence that everything was completely peachy. Another honest question: is it possible that motorcade planning/security information could have been available to someone involved in the assassination, before the motorcade was publicly announced? The Secret Service's performance that day doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. 

[David Von Pein]

30 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...is it possible that motorcade planning/security information could have been available to someone involved in the assassination, before the motorcade was publicly announced?

But even if that scenario was possible, we know the site of the luncheon (the Trade Mart) wasn't even finalized until either November 13th or 14th (WCR, p.31).

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm

So that's one full month after the Paine/Randle/Marina coffee klatch and almost one full month after Oswald was hired by Roy Truly at the TSBD.

Did the evil plotters of the patsy scheme just got lucky when the place where Oswald got hired turned out to be the perfect spot for a sniper?

Isn't it much more likely (and reasonable) to conclude that Lee Oswald took advantage of happenstance colliding with a golden opportunity that he just couldn't pass up on Nov. 22nd? I think so.

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

But even if that scenario was possible, we know the site of the luncheon (the Trade Mart) wasn't even finalized until either November 13th or 14th (WCR, p.31).

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0028a.htm

So that's one full month AFTER the Paine/Randle/Marina/Roberts coffee klatch and one full month before Oswald was hired by Roy Truly at the TSBD.

Do you think the evil plotters of the assassination and the patsy scheme just got lucky when the place where Oswald got hired turned out to be the perfect spot for a sniper?

Isn't it much more likely (and reasonable) to conclude that Lee Oswald took advantage of happenstance colliding with a golden opportunity that he just couldn't pass up on Nov. 22nd? I think so.

 

See the first part of my comment to Jonathan. If Oswald was somehow maneuvered into the TSBD, and I totally agree that it is a big if, would the exact motorcade route even need to be known? Hypothetically, if the assassination was a conspiracy, would there not have been contingency planning? This is the kind of uncertainty I'm talking about.

I don't think by any stretch that Ruth was involved in the actual planning, or had any knowledge at all that JFK would be killed, but that doesn't preclude someone placing Oswald in the TSBD through social engineering - which is one of the theories in that Manning essay I posted, and is exactly how an intelligence operation would have worked. 

In response to your last question, if there was any evidence that Oswald had anything resembling a motive for the assassination, if there wasn't compelling evidence that Oswald had an airtight alibi that was subsequently railroaded (and that he might even appear on two films that are being withheld from the public - it seems like a win-win for everyone to support getting better scans of Darnell and Weigmann), if there wasn't compelling forensic evidence of two headshots and that the SBT is bogus (I agree with Pat Speer on this), and if the FBI and WC conducted an honest, thorough investigation and didn't provably conceal critical evidence from the public, then yes, absolutely, I'd agree that that it is it a lot more reasonable to conclude that Oswald did it.