Message From David Von Pein

[Mark Tyler]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

@Mark Tyler:

In keeping with the new (2019) rule here at this forum about not posting the comments of other forum members at my website without first gaining express permission to do so....

Is it okay with you, Mark, if I copy your posts in this thread over to my website (on my "Prayer Man" page)?

Thanks.

That's fine, feel free to quote me.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The bullet hit Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.

BB--

Well...please read 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-death-of-the-tumbling-magic-bullet-theory-the-governor-s-shirt-the-president-s-shirt-and-the-overlooked-dr-robert-shaw

I include in there a photo of the bullet hole in JBC shirt, rear.  3/8th by 3/8ths....

The hole in JBC's shirt back is much smaller than the hole in JFK's shirt rear, which no one says was tumbling.

I welcome a conversation with you, and your point of view, but give my story a fair read first, if possible. 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

….and [DVP] with the plethora of pics/vids you have, can you find that person [Prayer Man] elsewhere? Just asking…..

 

A request to find PM in another photo or film doesn't seem reasonable given how poor the Darnell film quality is.

But I do have a reasonable, related question.

In March 1964 the FBI took statements from apparently every person working in the TSBD building (compiled in CE 1381). Apparently each person was asked where they were during the shooting, who they were with, and if they saw Oswald at that or any other time of that day. All very good questions.

My question is, why didn't any of the people standing next to Prayer Man identify him? Why did they all forget him?

I think that most of us know why.

 

I believe that the primary purpose of the March 1964 statements was to find out which people saw Oswald during the time of the motorcade. (They already knew that Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady had, out on the steps.) Anybody who saw Oswald when he was supposed to have been on the 6th floor or in the 2nd floor lunchroom needed to be given the WW3 speech and asked to exercise their patriotic duty of forgetting what they saw, for national security reasons.

I believe that those who saw Oswald up close on the steps (Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady) were asked to take further steps in helping to implicate Oswald. For example, Shelley and Lovelady assisted in creating the fake Baker/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor. (The Darnell film proves that they lied in their late statements and WC testimony.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

In other words, when you do not like what the witness testimony tells you, ignore it and call them all  l i a r s.  Problem solved.

 

It's not what I like or don't like.

When the preponderance of the evidence contradicts what a few witnesses say, you have to conclude that the witnesses were wrong.

 

[Sean Coleman]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

A request to find PM in another photo or film doesn't seem reasonable given how poor the Darnell film quality is.

But I do have a reasonable, related question.

In March 1964 the FBI took statements from apparently every person working in the TSBD building (compiled in CE 1381). Apparently each person was asked where they were during the shooting, who they were with, and if they saw Oswald at that or any other time of that day. All very good questions.

My question is, why didn't any of the people standing next to Prayer Man identify him? Why did they all forget him?

I think that most of us know why.

 

I believe that the primary purpose of the March 1964 statements was to find out which people saw Oswald during the time of the motorcade. (They already knew that Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady had, out on the steps.) Anybody who saw Oswald when he was supposed to have been on the 6th floor or in the 2nd floor lunchroom needed to be given the WW3 speech and asked to exercise their patriotic duty of forgetting what they saw, for national security reasons.

I believe that those who saw Oswald up close on the steps (Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady) were asked to take further steps in helping to implicate Oswald. For example, Shelley and Lovelady assisted in creating the fake Baker/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor. (The Darnell film proves that they lied in their late statements and WC testimony.)

 

Agreed. And BWF who is clearly present could quite easily not recall a stranger on the step, but could he fail to notice his oddball car sharing buddy stood a yard away? 
Extremis puzzlementis

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Reporter:  "Were you in that building at the time?"

Oswald:  "Naturally if I work in that building, yes Sir."

 

That's an ambiguous question. "At the time" could very well mean "earlier today." Oswald was being rushed and could have taken the question in many different ways.

Compare that to when Oswald was sitting in his interrogation. Where TWO of his interrogators wrote that Oswald was outside.

That, obviously, was Oswald's alibi.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

The point is pm photo is so unclear unless it is Oswald then it has no value in exonerating him.

 

True. But it is yet one more piece of evidence that Oswald was outside, given that those around PM "conveniently" (IMO) forgot he was there.

 

[Paul Cummings]

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

True. But it is yet one more piece of evidence that Oswald was outside, given that those around PM "conveniently" (IMO) forgot he was there.

 

Maybe Oswald was a "Sidler"

 

[Denny Zartman]

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

@Mark Tyler:

In keeping with the new (2019) rule here at this forum about not posting the comments of other forum members at my website without first gaining express permission to do so....

Is it okay with you, Mark, if I copy your posts in this thread over to my website (on my "Prayer Man" page)?

Thanks.

Once again, exactly as I expected and exactly contrary to DVP's promise, the Education Forum has become David Von Pein's personal content farm for his own private website.

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The bullet hit Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.

The Ovoid argument is Oh, Void!

From patspeer.com, Chapter 11:

 

So the question then becomes: is there anything (beyond the slightly ovoid entrance on Connally's back) to support that the bullet striking Connally first struck Kennedy?

No, not at all. Not only do single-bullet theorists misrepresent Shaw's testimony and the size of Connally's back wound to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm, respectively, improbable if not impossible if the back wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they almost uniformly propose.

While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally. He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the defect in Kennedy's jacket to be even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm).  He also overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm.  While the ovoid nature of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as offered by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964. 

Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz. 

Just a little something to think about.

As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45 mm.

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

True. But it is yet one more piece of evidence that Oswald was outside, given that those around PM "conveniently" (IMO) forgot he was there.

 

No one can identify Prayer Man, therefore it is yet "one more piece of evidence" that Prayer Man is Oswald.  This is faulty logic.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My question is, why didn't any of the people standing next to Prayer Man identify him? Why did they all forget him?

I made an argument that one individual on those front steps of TSBD did tell family members that she saw Oswald there on those front steps. See second up from the bottom, titled "The Sarah Stanton daughter-in-law interview" at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/page/2/. 

It conflicts with the reported signed FBI statement of Sarah Stanton that she did not see Oswald at the time of the assassination. Whether that is or is not sufficient to discount Sarah Stanton's private story to family members I do not know. Also, my interpretation of the elevator-using Sarah Stanton's repeated (according to the daughter-in-law's hearsay telling) "steps" where she saw Oswald as she went to those "steps" to "prepare" to see the President coming by, as the front steps of the TSBD, is innovative from me and has not been endorsed or discussed by others involved in the Prayer Man discussions. 

I also offered (in the last comment at the bottom of the page link above) a different take on Wesley Frazier's failure to identify Prayer Man as Oswald (or as anyone else): he did not notice him for the same reason he also did not notice uniformed officer Baker rushing by him through the front doors, i.e. (in the case of Prayer Man's possible identity as Oswald) stress combined with gazing at Elm Street where the presidential limousine was last seen at the time of the shots, and not noticing what was in peripheral vision. If Oswald was unobtrusively standing in the shadow in that western corner of the steps for some ca. 35 seconds, not very long, and if Frazier did not notice him that could account for just about everything since all the others on those steps either would have had their backs to Prayer Man or not be expected to have noticed Prayer Man.  

 

[Cory Santos]

Ask, if it was Oswald, after witnessing this incident, why would he not mill around like everyone else?  Why would he go back up to the second floor and buy a soda?  That doesn’t seem odd to anyone?  If he was outside and wanted an alibi doesn’t it seem odd he did not establish an alibi?  Or did all the witnesses lie?

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

That's fine, feel free to quote me.

Thank you.

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Once again, exactly as I expected and exactly contrary to DVP's promise, the Education Forum has become David Von Pein's personal content farm for his own private website.

As everyone can see for themselves in this thread, I specifically asked permission from Mark Tyler (and received it) before I put one word written by him on my site, which is in accordance with the new (2019) EF rule.

I followed the new EF rule to the letter. And yet I'm being scolded for it by Denny Zartman.

Are you, Denny, attempting to stir up trouble where none really exists? If so, why?

Edited July 10, 2022 by David Von Pein