Message From David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

45 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...compelling evidence that Oswald had an airtight alibi...

Yikes! You mean you actually endorse the blurry-as-all-get-out "Prayer Man" theory? That theory is about as solid as a bowl of mush. (More here.)

If Oswald had really been standing on the front steps at 12:30, can you explain why I don't have in my extensive video collection a recording of Oswald yelling this out to the TV cameras (or something similar) when he had ample opportunities to do so on both Nov. 22 and Nov. 23?....

"No, I didn't shoot JFK! I was standing right next to my friend Wesley Frazier on the steps of the Depository at the time of the shooting!"

Instead, Oswald admits to the press he was INSIDE the building when JFK was being shot.

Doesn't that seem kind of strange to you if Oswald, as you say, had an "airtight alibi"?

Edited July 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Even IF you are correct that Oswald was "intentionally placed" [at the TSBD] (and that's a big "if"), it in no way requires Ruth Paine to have been involved in the conspiracy.

 

Right. But it does require Oswald to be placed at the TSBD. Since Ruth was instrumental in getting Oswald that job, she must have been instructed by the plotters to encourage Oswald to apply there. And Oswald must have been instructed to take Ruth's advice.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

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.

 

The plotters obviously knew about that leg of the motorcade trip in advance.

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yikes! You mean you actually endorse the blurry-as-all-get-out "Prayer Man" theory? That theory is about as solid as a bowl of mush. (More here.)

If Oswald had really been out on the front steps, can you explain why I don't have in my extensive video collection a recording of Oswald yelling out to the TV cameras "No, I didn't shoot JFK! I was standing on the steps of the Depository, right next to my friend Buell Frazier! Go ask him!" ?

Instead, Oswald admits to the press he was INSIDE the building when JFK was being shot.

Doesn't that seem kind of strange to you if Oswald, as you say, had an "airtight alibi"?

Prayer Man is, at this time, just a blurry image - and there still is no solid identification because the NBC affiliate holding the films refuses to release them.

None of the current research into Oswald's alibi (which I'm guessing you haven't read - and on which views differ) is dependent on him being on the front steps. The evidence that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shots however is a lot more compelling than any evidence that he was on the sixth - and it's pretty hard to dispute that the TSBD evidence and witnesses were selectively parsed and even manipulated by the DPD, FBI and WC to conceal that fact. I'm not the one to debate on this though David - if you really want to go down the TSBD rabbit hole and have a new debate on Oswald's alibi I'm sure others here will oblige you. 

That said, the figure in Weigman and Darnell just happens to look a hell of a lot like Oswald - and Oswald told Hosty he stepped out to watch the parade, so what's the harm in advocating for better scans of those films? If it isn't Oswald, all the evidence placing Oswald on the first floor still stands, but the lone assassin types still get a major win - and we find out who the hell was really standing there, and if it is Oswald the JFK case gets reopened. Is that not a win-win for everyone interested in the truth?  

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

 

You talk as though CTers develop a theory first and then look for evidence to support it. Well, okay, I think some of them do work that way. But the smart ones do it the other way around. When they see evidence that contradicts the official story, they develop hypotheses to explain the discrepancies.

While developing these hypotheses, some begin to fit together and as you continue working with them, making them fit the evidence, you eventually end up with a working overall theory. The working theory needs adjusting if new, contradictory evidence comes to light.

 

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

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?

 

Either their testimonies are wrong, or a bunch of other evidence is wrong. LNers' solution to this conundrum is to ignore the inconvenient evidence.

 

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

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.

 

First, Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy. Second, he had no history of violence. Third, the evidence indicates that Oswald didn't shoot a gun that day.

Add to that all the Mexico City evidence indicating that Oswald was in a plot with Russia and Cuba to kill Kennedy. Except that the evidence was all contrived and the person who was supposedly Oswald in the Cuban consulate was actually an imposter.

Do you believe that evidence, Dave? I don't. But the evidence was there and was reported.

The Mexico City incident has the makings of a false flag operation against Russia and Cuba. And that's what I believe it was.

The false flag operation required that patsy Oswald be placed in a building "friendly" to the CIA and located where the President could be shot. It required that he be placed in the TSBD.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

25 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

If it isn't Oswald, all the evidence placing Oswald on the first floor still stands, but the lone assassin types still get a major win - and we find out who the hell was really standing there, and if it is Oswald the JFK case gets reopened. Is that not a win-win for everyone interested in the truth?  

If Oswald was on the Depository steps during the assassination, I find it highly implausible he would not have trumpeted his whereabouts to every single police officer or reporter he came in contact with following his arrest. I also find it implausible that none of the other people in the doorway would have come forward to say Oswald was, in fact, standing with them in the midst of the shooting. That said, I welcome and support more detailed study of the Darnell and Weigman films.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Second, he had no history of violence.

Tell that to Marina, whom Oswald beat repeatedly ...

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

...what's the harm in advocating for better scans of those films?

You're right. No harm in advocating for that at all. I'm all for it. I'd love to see higher-quality versions of those films.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Instead, Oswald admits to the press he was INSIDE the building when JFK was being shot.

 

No, that didn't happen.

 

[Tom Gram]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Tell that to Marina, whom Oswald beat repeatedly ...

I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know that at least some of the evidence for Oswald's wife beating is rather flimsy. For example, Alex Kleinlehrer told two wildly different stories to the FBI and SS in separate interviews conducted on the exact same day about witnessing Oswald hit Marina. 

Also, I'm glad everyone seems to agree that the JFK research community really needs better scans of the Weigman and Darnell films. This is an issue both sides of the debate could push for the 60th anniversary: "Potential proof of Oswald's innocence: release the films!" and "Prevent the spread of misinformation:"...you get the idea. 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Second, he had no history of violence.

Tell that to Marina, whom Oswald beat repeatedly ...

 

Oswald did not beat Marina.

One time she got a bruise on her face when she fell down while clutching the baby in her arms. (Paul Gregory saw this and later wrote that the thud from her head hitting the hard ground was so loud that he thought she might be seriously injured.)

Marina made up the story about running into a door to avoid embarrassment. Then rumors started that the bruise was from Oswald hitting her.

It was one bruise, one time.

 

[David Von Pein]

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Either their testimonies are wrong, or a bunch of other evidence is wrong. LNers' solution to this conundrum is to ignore the inconvenient evidence.

I disagree. I think the LNers are much better than CTers at evaluating the sum total of the JFK evidence and much better at reaching a more plausible and reasonable conclusion from that evidence.

Here's something written four years ago by an outspoken LNer at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet Newsgroup. I think he makes some very good points here. (And I've changed a few not-so-kind terms to "CTers")....

"The [conspiracy theorists] hate Occam's Razor, because in almost every case they opt for complex and fantastic explanations. Not once or twice. Not even dozens of times. HUNDREDS of times. This is why they won't put their ideas out there. Think I'm exaggerating? Just look at one thing, the BY [backyard] photo. Two possibilities, fake or genuine. They opt for the fantastic one. Now "faked" comes with a whole truckload of fantastic subsets --- getting competent people on board, acquiring a suitable "head" to use, etc. Now there are two possibilities why it was among Oswald's possessions, a simple one, it was one of his possessions or a fantastic one, it was planted. Again, the [CTers] opt for the complex fantastic one. Marina said she took a photo of Oswald holding the rifle. The simple answer is that this is true, the complex and fantastic one is that someone put her up to lying about this. Again the [CTers] go for the fantastic. Before they are done with this single issue they have posited an impossibly fantastic scenario involving dozens of people." -- Bud; June 30, 2018

 

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

First, Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy.

You don't know that, Sandy. Oswald very likely DID have a motive. We just don't know FOR SURE what that motive was.

"Motive" Talk:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html

 

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Second, he had no history of violence.

Totally untrue, Sandy. The evidence indicates he tried to end the life of another human being on April 10, 1963 (General Edwin Walker). That certainly qualifies as a "history of violence".

 

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Third, the evidence indicates that Oswald didn't shoot a gun that day.

Actually, the evidence strongly indicates exactly the opposite.

 

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Add to that all the Mexico City evidence indicating that Oswald was in a plot with Russia and Cuba to kill Kennedy. Except that the evidence was all contrived and the person who was supposedly Oswald in the Cuban consulate was actually an imposter.

Do you believe that evidence, Dave? I don't. But the evidence was there and was reported.

I believe Oswald was in Mexico City in Sept/Oct '63. But I don't think he was involved in any "plot" with Russia/Cuba. And I certainly don't believe there were any "Oswald imposters" running all over the place. There were no such "imposters" in Mexico and none in the USA either. (IMO.)

Edited July 2, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Connally did also testify that he cried out “Oh no, no…etc.” after being shot, which a big part of why several researchers on the conspiracy side believe that he was hit around Z-224 to Z-243, since the film shows him speaking while he was turning around. On the other hand, Connally of course also testified that he was hit after he’d turned around to look at JFK, and that he was knocked over (to the HSCA), so it’s all a bit confusing, especially since he told the WC that after he’d been hit he turned to his right again. 

What’s more believable, a) Connally was confused about his movements; or b) he was confused about his speech? I have no idea. 
 

DVP:

It is difficult to believe JBC could have turned around to look for JFK after being struck in the back by a large slug which tore through five inches of a rib, and exited his chest.

Then...he turns around? 

(BTW, JBC's shirt, on display in Texas, reveals a small bullet hole in its back---thus was struck by a non-tumbling bullet). 

So, if we watch the Z film, we see is JFK struck--that is, JFK's balled fists near his throat, and his wife looks concerned. 

Then...we see JBC begin to look his own right shoulder, and indeed make a near 180-degree turn in his seat.  You can see the left profile of JBC face on the Z film. 

I strongly suspect a man does not turn around and make a 180-degree turn in his seat after being shot through the chest. 

Then as JBC begins to turn to again face the front of the vehicle,   he is violently pushed or thrust forward. 

As you know, the bullet that coursed through JBC took out four to five inches of rib. It makes sense that a bullet entering JBC and hitting solid mass would push him forward.  That happens about Z-295. 

JBC's memory of being pushed forward concurrent to being struck in the back by a bullet makes sense, and is not the sort of memory that is easily confused, and also is verified by the visual record, that is, the Z film. 

The SBT is weak and a bit loony, IMHO. 

Why the giant reservations about a second gunman? The weight of evidence is nearly conclusive, if we assume LHO had a single-shot, bolt-action rifle. 

Over the years, almost like political partisans, people develop fanatical beliefs about the JFKA.

Such as, Allen Dulles must have hand-directed the JFKA, or there absolutely could not be a second gunman.

LHO obviously acted alone, or he was not involved at all. 

The evidence for such stretches is weak, and fit biases. 

The fact that there was a second gunman 11/22 does not mean the CIA did it, or the communists. It just means there was a second gunman. 

It does probably mean the WC was more interested in a public and mollifying resolution of the JFKA, and not a determination of facts. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben Cole: If he expresses his views, and does not denigrate others, then good. 

Did you see the title he put on this Ruth Paine post on his site and he then cross posted here?

BTW, one reason he got thrown out of Lancer is that he recommended the others get psychiatric help, and he then suggested some mental health books to read.

People should respect other viewpoints on this Forum. If DVP cannot, then he should leave or seek assistance. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

First, Oswald had no motive to kill Kennedy.

You don't know that, Sandy. Oswald very likely DID have a motive. We just don't know FOR SURE what that motive was.

 

First, Oswald was reported to have liked Kennedy.

What possible motives are there? He wanted to be famous? Then why did say he didn't do it?

There has to be a reasonable motive, and I have never seen one put forward.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

The evidence indicates he tried to end the life of another human being on April 10, 1963 (General Edwin Walker). That certainly qualifies as a "history of violence".

 

That's just another BS story that's been discredited.