Message From David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...this is disinformation. .... [DVP] routinely spreads WC nonsense.

So, Sandy, you think that if somebody quotes something from one of the official investigations (or a quote in later years from the head of the HSCA's FPP), it's "disinformation", eh?

It's incredible you could actually call such quotes "disinformation". Particularly the Clark Panel quote I supplied. I know CTers can't stand Dr. Baden, but what's the beef with the FOUR doctors who were on the Clark Panel? They're part of a plot and "cover-up" too, Sandy? Come on!

(And remember, the Clark Panel doctors were looking at the original first-generation autopsy photos and X-rays, which are much better quality than anything that's available on the Internet.)

Edited July 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...this is disinformation. .... [DVP] routinely spreads WC nonsense.

So, Sandy, you think that if somebody quotes something from one of the official investigations (or a quote in later years from the head of the HSCA's FPP), it's "disinformation", eh?

 

If someone quotes incorrect information from the WR or any other source, then yes, it is disinformation.

Just because something is written in a report doesn't make it true. If it is contradicted by the evidence then it is disinformation.

 

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

So, do you think the Clark Panel was examining fake photos and X-rays in 1968? Is that what you believe---despite what the HSCA determined on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?

Edited July 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I don't think so either. But for the sake of argument, let's say he said that. It just means that he told two different versions of the story regarding where he was. At least one of these is then false by any standard. This would fit right in with the other lies he told while in custody.

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But for the sake of argument, let's say he [Oswald] said that. It just means that he told two different versions of the story regarding where he was. At least one of these is then false by any standard. This would fit right in with the other lies he told while in custody.

Precisely.

Allow me to rewind the calendar back to 2019 once again:

"Even if the handwritten notes were written by James Hosty (and they probably were; I'm not arguing that they weren't), then IMO it's just another in a long list of lies being uttered by Lee Oswald after he was arrested.

My goodness, are LNers supposed to now fold up their tents and go home whimpering because another lie has been discovered coming from the lips of Lee Harvey Oswald (assuming LHO actually did say those exact words about going outside to watch the "P. Parade")? [EDIT -- And I have some doubts about whether Oswald actually did utter those exact words; Click Here.]

LNers didn't fold their tents after seeing that Oswald told Fritz he was on the first floor (and not the sixth) at the time of JFK's murder. So why would LNers now decide that this new revelation discovered by Malcolm Blunt in the National Archives is revealing something TRUTHFUL being spoken by Oswald? That'd be crazy.

So, nothing's changed for Lone Assassin believers. Nothing at all. The hard evidence of Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders doesn't suddenly stop being in existence just because of one additional lie being told by the assassin himself. To think otherwise is to be mired in the "Prayer Man" garbage, which is where "Wishful Thinking" and a reference to "P. Parade" will now merge to provide the "PM" disciples with something to make them feel that their fantasy about Oswald being on the TSBD steps has now turned into reality. But, at most, all that's been "discovered" is just one more lie being told by a World Class l-i-a-r named Oswald." -- DVP; Feb. 2019

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Precisely.

Allow me to rewind the calendar back to 2019 once again:

Yes, you beat me to it.

[Mark Ulrik]

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'm getting old too, but my memory helped me get admitted to Harvard Medical School back in the day.

I think I read about that forensic data long ago in Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact.

James DiEugenio probably knows the answer.  He's the world's leading authority on the JFKA-- a veritable walking encyclopedia.

The idea of the FBI performing test shootings on cadavers in DP is, of course, pretty absurd. What Meagher refers to are the experiments performed by the US Army at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland at the request of the WC. Parts of their studies involved gelatine-filled skulls and cadaver wrists.

[Tom Gram]

23 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 I know CTers can't stand Dr. Baden, but what's the beef with the FOUR doctors who were on the Clark Panel? They're part of a plot and "cover-up" too, Sandy? Come on!

(And remember, the Clark Panel doctors were looking at the original first-generation autopsy photos and X-rays, which are much better quality than anything that's available on the Internet.)

David, I think the biggest beef with the Clark Panel is the invention of the cowlick entrance wound, which even many lone assassin theorists think is baloney.

20 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Allow me to rewind the calendar back to 2019 once again:

If the stated goal of lone assassin theorists is to debunk conspiracy theories and restore trust in government, is there any better way you can do that than to rally your side to really push for better scans of Weigman and Darnell for the 60th anniversary? Those films belong at NARA, not locked in the basement of some second-rate TV station in Dallas. If you don’t want people to think that the unidentified Oswaldian figure on the steps in those films is the man himself, what better way than to prove it? Recycled arguments achieve literally nothing, and convince no one - and that applies to both sides. The scans are one of very few issues on which both sides can unite and achieve something that will enhance the historical record of the assassination.

Getting prominent lone assassin theorists to actually take action on this would benefit everyone, since “preventing the spread of misinformation” is obviously a much easier sell than “Oswald on the steps”, and the Posners of the world actually get media coverage. I got NARA to formally agree to take new catalog photographs of CE143 that show the chain of evidence markings using that same argument (I’ll believe it when I see the photos, but NARA is now on the record saying it’s happening - as of about a month ago). Like I said before, the result is a win-win for everyone interested in the truth, and it’s tough to argue against someone advocating for a complete and accessible historical record of the assassination. The challenge is getting people to actually do something about it, which is something you could legitimately help with if you wanted to.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If the stated goal of lone assassin theorists is to debunk conspiracy theories and restore trust in government, is there any better way you can do that than to rally your side to really push for better scans of Weigman and Darnell for the 60th anniversary? .... The challenge is getting people to actually do something about it, which is something you could legitimately help with if you wanted to.

As I've said before (such as right here at this forum just three days ago), I'm definitely in favor of trying to get better versions of the Wiegman and Darnell films. Let's do it! But how? Is there a petition of some kind that all of us can sign which can then be placed in front of the eyes of the people who own those original films?

And who does own them now? Wiegman's is an NBC-TV film. Does NBC own it now? (I would guess that they do.) And Darnell was a WBAP-TV reporter/cameraman, right? So is his original film in the hands of KXAS-TV (formerly WBAP) in Fort Worth? Or did the Sixth Floor Museum snatch up some rights to those films (which they have done with other TV footage)?

Edited July 4, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

As far as the differences in LHO's supposed answers during his interrogation sessions, do we know with absolute certainty what LHO said?

That is a big NO. N-O, NO.

There were no tape recordings made, or at least discovered at this point. [There were consumer-quality reel-to-reel tape recorders available as early as 1957, and by 1963 they could commonly be found in any city the size of Dallas.]

There was no stenographer present during LHO's questioning. Yet secretaries who could take shorthand notes were commonplace by 1963.

And what we have are CONFLICTING notes of different police officials/postal inspector from different interrogations.

DPD Chief Jessee Curry admitted his notes were written AFTER OSWALD WAS DEAD.

Yet we're to believe the notes and recollections are absolute gospel...while at the same time dismissing the testimony of half or more witnesses to the shooting simply because they may have been mistaken. Sounds like selective evidence-gathering to me. [Which, BTW, is exactly what the Warren Omission did.]

Now, Vince Bugliosi was a pretty good prosecutor. As a prosecutor, you hammer on the evidence you think makes the defendant look guilty, and you either disparage or outright dismiss any exculpatory evidence. While that's a great way to run a prosecution, it's a lousy way to run a fact-finding mission. Starting with a conclusion of guilt and then ignoring exculpatory evidence is prosecutorial logic. It's NOT how you search for truth. The prosecution and the defense are out to WIN THEIR RESPECTIVE CASE. Sometimes the truth becomes a casualty on BOTH sides of the courtroom.

And what keeps this forum going is a quest for the TRUTH.

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

As I've said before (such as right here at this forum just three days ago), I'm definitely in favor of trying to get better versions of the Wiegman and Darnell films. Let's do it! But how? Is there a petition of some kind that all of us can sign which can then be placed in front of the eyes of the people who own those original films?

And who does own them now? Wiegman's is an NBC-TV film. Does NBC own it now? And Darnell was a WBAP-TV reporter, right? So is his original film in the hands of KXAS-TV (formerly WBAP) in Fort Worth? Or did the Sixth Floor Museum snatch up some rights to those films (which they have done with other TV footage)?

I’ll ask the people who’ve tried unsuccessfully to get the films for the specifics, and for a potential action plan, but as far as I know the rights to the Weigman and Darnell films and original films themselves are still in possession of NBC and KXAS, respectively. I believe the Sixth Floor Museum has a first generation copy of Darnell that they can’t show anyone since they don’t control the rights. 

It just seems like a unifying issue that everyone can get behind for the 60th, and up until now there are only a couple researchers who’ve even looked into it. It is encouraging that you seem to be on board with this. I’ll do my best to keep the scans alive as a relevant and important topic here,  and regardless of anyone thinks of Prayer Man I think it would be great if others take the same position and approach it as a genuine opportunity to improve the photographic record of Dealey Plaza. 
 

 

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

As far as the differences in LHO's supposed answers during his interrogation sessions, do we know with absolute certainty what LHO said?

That is a big NO. N-O, NO.

There were no tape recordings made, or at least discovered at this point. [There were consumer-quality reel-to-reel tape recorders available as early as 1957, and by 1963 they could commonly be found in any city the size of Dallas.]

There was no stenographer present during LHO's questioning. Yet secretaries who could take shorthand notes were commonplace by 1963.

And what we have are CONFLICTING notes of different police officials/postal inspector from different interrogations.

DPD Chief Jessee Curry admitted his notes were written AFTER OSWALD WAS DEAD.

Yet we're to believe the notes and recollections are absolute gospel...while at the same time dismissing the testimony of half or more witnesses to the shooting simply because they may have been mistaken. Sounds like selective evidence-gathering to me. [Which, BTW, is exactly what the Warren Omission did.]

Now, Vince Bugliosi was a pretty good prosecutor. As a prosecutor, you hammer on the evidence you think makes the defendant look guilty, and you either disparage or outright dismiss any exculpatory evidence. While that's a great way to run a prosecution, it's a lousy way to run a fact-finding mission. Starting with a conclusion of guilt and then ignoring exculpatory evidence is prosecutorial logic. It's NOT how you search for truth. The prosecution and the defense are out to WIN THEIR RESPECTIVE CASE. Sometimes the truth becomes a casualty on BOTH sides of the courtroom.

And what keeps this forum going is a quest for the TRUTH.

All excellent points.

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’ll ask the people who’ve tried unsuccessfully to get the films for the specifics, and for a potential action plan, but as far as I know the rights to the Weigman and Darnell films and original films themselves are still in possession of NBC and KXAS, respectively. I believe the Sixth Floor Museum has a first generation copy of Darnell that they can’t show anyone since they don’t control the rights. 

It just seems like a unifying issue that everyone can get behind for the 60th, and up until now there are only a couple researchers who’ve even looked into it. It is encouraging that you seem to be on board with this. I’ll do my best to keep the scans alive as a relevant and important topic here,  and regardless of anyone thinks of Prayer Man I think it would be great if others take the same position and approach it as a genuine opportunity to improve the photographic record of Dealey Plaza. 
 

 

I don't know if you know this, Tom, but a first generation copy of the Darnell film was made available to certain researchers 3-4 years ago. They've told me that if I saw this I would be won over to their cause. But it's in the hands of a private collector, and he's hoping to make some moola off his film.

If I'm not mistaken, moreover, Oliver Stone is one of those who've been shown the film. Now, do you think that this film--if it really shows Oswald-- would still be in private hands? Wouldn't those with the money means and opportunity have found a way to get this film released, or at least be clamoring to raise money for its release? 

I'd bet the farm it remains unseen because it doesn't actually show Oswald. 

[David Von Pein]

22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I'd bet the farm it remains unseen because it doesn't actually show Oswald. 

I think every reasonable person knows, deep down, that the film cannot possibly show Lee Oswald. Because if it did show Oswald, I'd have at least one or two news videos in my collection which include Oswald shouting to the world, "I was on the steps!"

Can there be any doubt at all that what I just said is absolutely true and makes total sense?

Edited July 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I think every reasonable person knows, deep down, that the film cannot possibly show Lee Oswald. Because if it did show Oswald, I'd have at least one or two news videos in my collection which include Oswald shouting to the world, "I was on the steps!"

Can there be any doubt at all that what I just said is absolutely true and makes total sense?

Well, he could have been holding back on stuff like that until he got a lawyer. But, yeah, I agree, it seems probable he would have said something like "I am just a Patsy! I was standing outside watching the parade!" That he did not suggests he was inside the building.