H. LOUIS NICHOLS










JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 178)


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course you are. That's because you're geared toward believing the "extraordinary", while disregarding the "ordinary" (and disregarding tons of hard evidence that indicates you are dead-wrong; examples follow below).


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "Dale Myers was posting regularly for a brief period of time a few years back on another forum. I found him to be completely full of himself, arrogant and unwilling to address other posters with anything other than "buy my book"." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I suppose a person like Mr. Myers (i.e., a person who possesses a lot of verified facts about the JFK and Tippit cases) can seem "arrogant" to conspiracy clowns who live in a world of cloudy speculation and extraordinary theories that had no chance of actually occurring in Dallas circa 1963.

And I would guess that Myers' fact-based conclusions that he has reached about Oswald's guilt in 2 murders would, indeed, seem a tad bit "arrogant" to a conspiracy-loving kook who is silly enough to write the following words on a public forum: "I am skeptical about all of Oswald's alleged post-assassination actions."


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "I kept trying to pin him [Dale Myers] down on a very simple point: how did he determine what time Oswald left the TSBD?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You kooks can't even figure out the super-easy stuff, can you?

A checklist:

1.) All hard evidence indicates Lee Harvey Oswald positively shot and killed President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the TSBD.

2.) Oswald is seen on the 2nd Floor approximately 90 seconds (or so) after the assassination by TWO witnesses, Roy Truly and Officer Marrion Baker (who BOTH must be rotten liars if we're to actually believe that Oswald WASN'T stopped at gunpoint by Baker in the lunchroom).

3.) Oswald is then seen by Mrs. Reid as LHO was walking toward the stairs on the 2nd Floor, which are stairs that lead to the first-floor exit of the building.

4.) Oswald is possibly (even probably) seen by one or more newsmen (Pierce Allman and/or Robert MacNeil) right outside the Depository front entrance, within minutes of the shooting.

5.) Oswald wasn't suicidal. He wanted to continue to live after shooting the President. Hence, it stands to reason he probably didn't sit down at a table in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom (with his Coca-Cola) to have a bite to eat immediately after murdering a U.S. President. He, instead, probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the crime scene as soon as he could.

Lee Harvey Oswald's approximate "12:33 PM" exit time from the Book Depository, established by the Warren Commission [see CE1119-A; WR Page 158],
seems very reasonable to me.

But to an "Anybody-But-Oswald-Shot-The-President" kook, I don't imagine ANYTHING "reasonable" is very appealing....is it?


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "As I pointed out, the Warren Commission just picked 12:33 out of the air, with absolutely no evidence, not even the kind of laughable witnesses they used to buttress their other ridiculous conclusions." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

See #1 through #5 above.

The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses.

Plus, it's a timeline based on ordinary common sense as well. I.E., it's a common-sense timeline approximation when attempting to evaluate the probable actions and movements of a person (LHO) who, per the evidence, had just shot the President of the United States and who almost certainly wouldn't want to hang around the scene of the crime any longer than absolutely necessary.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "He [Dale Myers] refused to answer me, because he couldn't." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A more-likely explanation is that he got tired of arguing with a kook about something so incredibly obvious (the approximate time that Lee Oswald vacated the TSBD on 11/22/63).


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "I'd presume their timing worked backwards from the bus. Not that I believe the bus story." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which means you must now add Mary Bledsoe and (probably) Cecil McWatters to your growing list of liars.

Bledsoe KNEW Oswald PRIOR to November 22nd. She immediately recognized him when he boarded McWatters' bus.

Plus: There's the paper bus transfer (with McWatters' distinct crescent-shaped punch mark on it), which was found in Oswald's shirt pocket when he was arrested:



Is the bus transfer depicted above supposedly a "planted" item too (like virtually all other evidence pointing to Saint LHO that is inconvenient for you conspiracy kooks)?

Plus, Oswald HIMSELF admitted to having been on a bus right after the assassination. Was he trying to frame himself in some fashion here?

Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you talk to a conspiracy kook.)


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "It seems to me, the youth [on the bus] who laughed about the assassination was assumed very soon after, to be the assassin. Wade even claimed this had been Oswald in a press conference." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, you are correct on this point. At a press conference on the night of November 24th, after Oswald had been killed, Henry Wade did make that incorrect statemant about Oswald laughing on the bus. Here's a video of that conference:


But we later learned that the "bus laugher" was not Oswald at all -- but was young Milton Jones instead. That information had not been fully fleshed out and revealed as of Henry Wade's November 24 press gathering.


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "McWatters certainly seemed to think he'd been brought to the line-up to view the youth [Milton Jones]. Possibly having made that erroneous assumption about who the passenger was, and discovering the mistake, they decided to put Oswald on the bus anyway." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And then the evil cops planted a bus transfer dated "Fri. Nov. 22, '63" on Oswald which happened to have McWatters' punch mark on it? Right?

You kooks are amazing idiots.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "The truth is, we have no idea what time Oswald really left the
TSBD." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes we do. We can't say TO THE SECOND what time Oswald left the building. But a reasonable approximated time can easily be achieved based on the witnesses in the TSBD and the fact that we KNOW Oswald walked several blocks east on Elm and then got on a bus at about 12:40.

As I said before, you kooks can't even figure out the easy ones. Why bother trying to figure out something harder (like this toughie: did Oswald have two feet or three?)?


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "His [LHO's] alleged post-assassination journey makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what his role was." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bullshit.

Oswald's post-assassination movements make perfect sense.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "Lone nut or Patsy, no one walks away from the scene of a crime he's just committed, then takes a bus back towards it moments later..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I suppose it would have made MORE sense for Oswald (who had no car of his own) to merely stand at his regular bus stop on the corner of Elm & Houston, waiting for a bus to get to HIM, with cops all around him....versus LHO walking out of Dealey Plaza and catching a bus further east of the TSBD?

If McWatters' bus hadn't been bogged down by the post-assassination traffic, Oswald would have no doubt stayed on the bus and passed right through Dealey Plaza on his way to the Oak Cliff area.

But since the bus was unable to move for several minutes (or made very little progress down Elm Street anyway during the time Oswald was a passenger), LHO decided to get off the bus in order to find a faster means of transportation.

And since Lee didn't have his Superman cape with him that day, the next best thing was a taxicab (which is something that tightfisted Oswald, by all accounts, never spent money on in the United States; which is yet another indication that November 22nd wasn't just an ordinary Friday for Lee Harvey).


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "...Then gets off the bus and hails a taxi back in the opposite direction again, only to have the driver drop him off past his rooming house, so he will have to unnecessarily walk back to it." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald probably didn't want cab driver William Whaley to know where he lived; and he almost certainly was also checking to see if there were any cops near his roominghouse too.

So the reasons were probably two-fold for LHO wanting to be dropped off near the intersection of Neely & Beckley, rather than directly in front of his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley Avenue.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "Everything about the official story of Oswald's post-shooting movements is unbelievable." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As usual, a conspiracy theorist has everything backwards. In actuality, Oswald's post-shooting movements make perfect sense....to a reasonable person.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "Every witness he supposedly encountered was absurd and would have been torn to shreds on cross examination by a competent public defender." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don's list of "absurd" witnesses would include the following individuals:

1.) Roy Truly.
2.) Marrion Baker.
3.) Mrs. Robert A. Reid.
4.) Pierce Allman (not confirmed, but a possible LHO witness).
5.) Robert MacNeil (not confirmed, but a possible LHO witness).
6.) Cecil McWatters.
7.) Mary Bledsoe.
8.) William Whaley.
9.) Earlene Roberts.
10.) Helen Markham.
11.) Domingo Benavides.
12.) William Scoggins.
13.) Jack Tatum (grain of salt should be applied here, since Tatum didn't pop up until late 1977 or early 1978).
14.) Ted Callaway.
15.) Pat Patterson.
16.) L.J. Lewis.
17.) Barbara Davis.
18.) Virginia Davis.
19.) Sam Guinyard.
20.) Warren Reynolds.
21.) Harold Russell.
22.) Mary Brock.
23.) Johnny Brewer.
24.) Howard Brennan.

But according to conspiracy theorist Don Jeffries, "every witness" on the above list "was absurd".

Twenty-four "absurd" witnesses, who were ALL involved in some cockeyed and wholly-UNIFIED "Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" plot. (Or: they were ALL just boobs/idiots. Right, Don?)

And we could also add several Dallas police officers (like Nick McDonald, C.T. Walker, and Gerald Hill, among others) to the above list of witnesses who "encountered" Oswald prior to his actual arrest in the Texas Theater as well. Were those cops all "absurd" (or crooked) too?


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "One of the most absurd, William Whaley, even acknowledged this during his side-splitting testimony before the Warren Commission." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN:

It's side-splitting only to a kook who wants to paint Oswald as an innocent person. To a reasonable person, William W. Whaley's testimony is rock-solid in a "positive identification of Oswald" kind of fashion.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "Whaley, Mary Bledsoe, Cecil McWatters and Helen Markham are hardly an impressive array of witnesses." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But I'll bet Roger Craig, Jean Hill, Carolyn Arnold, Gordon Arnold, James Files, and Ed Hoffman are considered the cream of the crop when it comes to great witnesses....right, Donald?


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A man almost certainly did get in a Rambler around 12:40 on Elm Street. But that man could not possibly have been Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not physically possible for that man to have been Oswald, given his known whereabouts several blocks east of the building (getting on a bus) at that very same time.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's pure mush and balderdash when you ask yourself the key question of: COULD RAMBLER MAN HAVE REALLY BEEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

And one of your "Rambler" witnesses--Roger D. Craig--is a known liar when it comes to at least one other major ("7.65 Mauser") issue connected with this same murder case. A great guy for CTers to trust for sure.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "These reports represent the best evidence, and really the
only evidence, that exists regarding Oswald's possible exit from the
TSBD." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're nuts.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "When we try to analyze what happened immediately after the assassination, and whether or not Oswald could have shot Tippit, we are asked to trust a group of uncredible witnesses, as well as Captain Fritz's "notes" from all those unrecorded interrogation sessions." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you'd rather trust Roger "KNOWN LIAR" Craig, eh? Lovely.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "I don't think any of the witnesses are believable, and I don't think the official story of what Oswald is supposed to have done during that time is believable." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's because you're an idiot.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "I also don't trust the veracity of Fritz's "notes"." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's because you're a kook who seems to WANT Oswald to be innocent (for some stupid reason).

And you also seem to be of the opinion that a gob of Dallas cops would NOT WANT TO FIND THE REAL KILLER OF THEIR FELLOW POLICE OFFICER. That is probably the silliest part of all, when examining the mindset of various conspiracy theorists with respect to the J.D. Tippit murder specifically.

To think that all of these Dallas policemen, many of them who knew Tippit personally and were no doubt friends of his, would have just turned a blind eye toward finding the real killer(s) of Officer Tippit (while at the same time trying to pin Tippit's murder on an INNOCENT man named Oswald) is just too stupid a theory to contemplate for more than one-half of a millisecond.

Incredibly, though, there are many conspiracy-thirsty idiots out there who DO believe in that very scenario (or one very much like it).


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "For instance, why would Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) have answered the question about getting his gun from his rooming house with the ridiculous reply "you know how boys are, they get their gun." Huh? This is the response from the disgusted prisoner was was persistently maintaining his innocence every chance he got? Sorry, I cannot believe that Oswald said anything like that." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't believe it because you're an idiot.

But a reasonable person examining that quote from the lips of proven double-murderer Oswald might think differently. (And the quote presented above I don't think is entirely accurate either. I think Oswald's actual quote was: "You know how boys are; when they've got a gun, they just carry it.")

Anyway, Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the theater, as he tried to shoot more officers with the damn thing, for Pete sakes!

And since he wasn't suicidal...and he also had no desire to tell the cops what really happened (i.e., he had no desire to confess to either of the two murders he had obviously just committed; instead, he denies killing anyone)...he, naturally, had to think of SOME kind of excuse--crappy though it was--for having that gun ON HIM in the movie theater.

It's kind of interesting to note the seemingly contradictory mindset of the above-quoted conspiracy-loving kook too -- i.e., he seems to not want to believe anything Oswald said to the police (such as LHO's remark about "boys carrying guns" or his remark about encountering Baker in the TSBD or about having actually been on the bus and taking a cab on the very day of JFK's murder).

But that same CTer (I'm guessing) has no problem at all believing such Oswald verbal gems as "I'm just a patsy", and "I never owned a rifle", and "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir", and "I never carried any long package into work", etc.

Right, Mr. Jeffries?

(I bet I am right. Wanna wager?)

Then, too, since the CTer [Jeffries] said that he doesn't trust the "veracity of Fritz's notes" at all, that CTer probably shouldn't believe ANY of Oswald's behind-closed-doors statements made to the police (no matter what they were).

But I'd bet my next CIA Disinfo check that Don Jeffries believes Oswald was telling Fritz (et al) the Gospel truth when Saint Oz said these two things to the cops:

"I never owned a rifle" and (paraphrasing) "Wesley Frazier is wrong! I never carried any bulky package into work with me on Friday morning, and I never said anything to Wesley about having any curtain rods either".


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "On balance, I don't believe Oswald carried a gun into the TT [Texas Theater]." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Congrats, Greg! You've just earned "Super-Kook" status in just one single post! Nice job.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "We are also asked to believe that the president of the Dallas Bar Association, Louis Nichols, was satisfied that Oswald was not being denied representation, after visiting him in jail. Huh? That's just about all Oswald was talking about, during his brief snippets before the cameras. It is simply incomprehensible to me that the same figure who was complaining constantly about "being denied legal representation" and requesting that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance" could possibly have told Nichols that everything was fine." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh goodie! Another liar to add to the ever-expanding list -- H. Louis Nichols is on the list now too. The number of liars connected with the JFK assassination must be approaching five digits after 44+ years of kooks searching for "the truth".


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "Nichols represented the Dallas status quo. His "impromptu" press conference straight after his brief talk with Oswald was reprehensible by normal lawyerly standards, and quite possibly done conspiratorially for the purpose of ensuring no one was going to come forward before Oswald could be taken care of." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie! More behind-the-scenes, make-believe "conspiratorial" activity. So, Nichols was involved in the massive "Patsy/Rub Out Plot" too, eh?

Pretty soon, somebody's GOTTA get Sinatra into the mix too. His hands surely can't be squeaky clean with all of his "Kennedy" and "Mob" connections.

Right?


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "Nichols, at best, was acting like the rest of the status quo in Dallas, and therefore can be at least partly forgiven. A snake after all, can only act like a snake." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And a kook will always act like a kook. (Status quo, after all.)


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "The greater anger and suspicion should be cast upon the role of the Dallas Civil Rights Union that night." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And how many more "conspirators" would this add up to then? Let's see those numbers.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

>>> "I am skeptical about everything Oswald is alleged to have done on November 22, 1963." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's because you are an idiot who shouldn't be looking into this case at all.

"If anyone maintains that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi


GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "That Baker/Truly/Oswald thing is pure, unadulterated bunk." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Baker and Truly were rotten liars and were out to frame poor innocent Oswald too, is that it?

Any particular reason as to WHY you want to smear Mr. Baker and Mr. Truly in this manner?

Just WHY would Roy S. Truly have had any desire to frame LHO for murdering the President? The same with Baker? Why?

Just make something up off the top of your head to explain these "Why?" questions....like all conspiracy kooks seem to enjoy doing, 24/7.

David Von Pein
March 20, 2008






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 177)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Bugliosi is a sloppy researcher." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bullshit.


>>> "On page 25 [of "Reclaiming History"], he [Vincent Bugliosi] describes the Presidential limousine: Weighing about seventy-five thousand pounds with its special build and heavy armor..." <<<

BUZZ! Wrong. Bugliosi never said "seventy-five thousand pounds". He
said "seventy-five hundred pounds".



That's just one of the many errors made by Anthony Marsh in his
ongoing 99,000-page Internet volume entitled: LET'S CONCENTRATE ON
MEANINGLESS CHAFF DAY-&-NIGHT AND NIGHT-&-DAY
.


>>> "BUZZ! Wrong. Kennedy's Lincoln was not armored." <<<

I think Vince did make a mistake there indeed. I've always been under
the impression that no portion of JFK's limo [SS-100-X] was armor-plated
prior to 11/22/63.

And via the two source notes that VB provides on Page 25 of his book
relating directly to the "armored" issue ["2 H 66, WCT Roy H. Kellerman;
2 H 129, WCT William Robert Greer"], the word "armor" does not appear
on either of those two WC pages of testimony.

So, yes, it appears that Vince did make an error when he said "heavy
armor" on Page 25.

Okay. So, with that small error being revealed, let's move on to
Anthony Marsh's next chaff-happy gripe about Vincent T. Bugliosi's
very good book....


>>> "Again on page 25: [Quoting Mr. Bugliosi, despite Mr. Marsh failing to put in any quotation marks at all, just like the previous VB quote mentioned by Mr. Marsh above:] There is also an electrical system, operable by the president [sic] himself provided the top is down, to raise that seat and its footrest by as much as eight inches from their normal positions. [/VB quote off] .... BUZZ. Wrong again. The documents show that it could be raised 10-1/2 inches." <<<

BUZZ. Wrong. At least you're wrong based on the source note provided
by Bugliosi regarding this point, which is a source note that points
to this citation: "2 H 129, WCT William Robert Greer".

Bugliosi got the "8 inches" figure directly from the Warren Commission
testimony of Secret Service Agent Bill Greer, where Greer specifically says
the following about the mechanical nature of the rear seat of SS-100-X:

"The back seat on this car would raise 8 inches. It was electric, and you could lift, you could raise, the seat up 8 inches from the ground, from the floorboards. It had a little step that went with it. The President could raise it up and down himself. He had a button alongside that would cause it to go up and down when the top wasn't down. It wouldn't go up and down when the top was down. But when it was off he could raise it up or down, and it would be above the other seat." -- WILLIAM R. GREER

So, Greer was certainly of the opinion during his 1964 WC session that
the rear seat could only be raised 8 inches, not 10-1/2 inches.

Perhaps other sources regarding the rear-seat mechanism do, indeed,
indicate that the seat could be raised higher than the eight inches
indicated by Agent Greer. I do not know.

But I do know this -- the above detailed reference to the exact number
of inches that the rear seat of Limo SS-100-X could be raised, plus
the details regarding the exact weight of the car ("seventy-five
hundred pounds"), are things that indicate to me that author Vincent
Bugliosi was doing an excellent job of digging deep into the Warren
Commission volumes while searching and verifying trivial little facts
like the two mentioned above.

And my guess would be that Mr. Bugliosi probably didn't think it was
altogether necessary to look BEYOND the testimony of Secret Service
agent Bill Greer in order to double- and triple-check relatively trivial
details like the exact weight of the President's limousine and the
precise number of inches the rear seat could be raised.

Yes, Mr. Bugliosi strives for accuracy as much as possible. I'm sure
that's true. But with so many details and ultra-trivial facts being
revealed in VB's "Four Days In November" chapter of his book
"Reclaiming History", I would expect to have a few small details and
facts ending up slightly off the mark.

In fact, I myself have amassed my own list of such minor errors that
pop up in "RH" (via this this September 2007 Internet post).

So, yes, there are some minor errors in Vince Bugliosi's massive publication.
There are bound to be some errors like that in a work that immense. But
none of the errors that appear within the 2,800+ total pages of VB's book
amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the final "LONE ASSASSIN"
conclusion reached by Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History".

If you'd like to start a battle of "errors" within certain books relating to
JFK's assassination, I'm quite sure I could dig deep into a couple of
conspiracy-slanted volumes that I have on the shelf and provide quite
a list of errors and omissions and outright distortions that reside within
those conspiracy publications.

But, I guess Tony thinks Bugliosi's bottom-line "LHO DID IT ALONE"
conclusion should be tossed out the window because of a potential
2.5-inch error made by VB regarding the back seat of the President's car.
(Even though, as I mentioned before, Vincent's "error" there really
isn't an error at all, based on the Greer citation provided by Source Note
#118 on Page 25 of VB's book.)


>>> "These are just two obvious errors in the first few pages. His book is full of thousands of such errors and lies. And you praise him for his errors and lies." <<<

The above blatant exaggeration is simply laughable.

"Thousands of such errors and lies", eh?

Geez, looks like Tony's been busy micro-analyzing VB's book for the
"thousands" of "errors and lies" that rest within its covers. (But,
perhaps Tony really meant to say "hundreds" instead of "thousands"?
Kind of like the mistake he made when he said "thousand" earlier in
his post. ~shrug~)


REPRISE:

>>> "There is also an electrical system, operable by the president [sic] himself..." <<<

On this "[sic]" point, I fully agree with Tony Marsh. I think that the word
"President" should always be capitalized. Vince Bugliosi, though, never
capitalizes that word in his JFK book (unless the word is immediately
followed by the actual name of a certain President).

Technically-speaking, however, spelling the word "president" with a
lower-case "p" is not incorrect at all (if the President's name
doesn't immediately follow it, that is):

http://Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/president

So, at least Tony Marsh can't throw all of the evidence against Lee Harvey
Oswald out the window based solely on Vinnie's use of a lower-case "p"
on occasion. (Whew! Thank goodness for that.)

David Von Pein
March 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MARCH 18, 2008)






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 176)


RE: TIPPIT TIMELINES.....


RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:

>>> "With the theatre incident, we run into another witness you have to ignore to make LHO the culprit. As you know, Butch Burroughs, who worked at the theatre, is on record several times as saying Oswald went into the theatre at about 1:10." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now, Richard, all you have to do is figure out how Oswald got from his
roominghouse at 1026 Beckley to the theater on Jefferson in about 6
minutes (based, that is, on the timelines normally used by rabid
"Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists concerning this matter).*

* = This, of course, is similar to the tactic continually utilized by CTers, when
they ask LNers "How could LHO have travelled 0.85 mile from Beckley to
10th & Patton in XX number of minutes to kill Tippit?"
(with some CTers
claiming that Oswald had a mere 2 minutes to make that nearly-mile-long
journey, via the combined timelines provided by Earlene Roberts and
T.F. Bowley/Helen Markham).

Obviously, though, ALL times given by witnesses are only ESTIMATES and
APPROXIMATIONS.

BTW, here's an interesting tidbit from Earlene Roberts' WC testimony,
which is a comment made by Roberts immediately after she made her "3
or 4 minutes" approximation for the time that Oswald was in his room
on 11/22:

JOSEPH BALL -- "How long did he stay in the room?"

MRS. ROBERTS -- "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes. Just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."

Roberts is, therefore, telling us that Oswald was in that shoebox of a
room JUST LONG ENOUGH TO GET HIS JACKET.

People often tend to stretch out time estimates. Happens all the time.
E.G.: J.C. Price...who thought the shooting on Elm took "5 minutes" to
complete! And Ike Altgens....who thought the shooting lasted about
"30 seconds".

Geez, if we want to take those time estimates to heart, there probably
wouldn't have been a person left alive in the whole Plaza. Bodies
would have been scattered all along Elm Street (a la Charles Whitman's
Texas Tower massacre in 1966).

IMO, Oswald was in that room for no more than 1 minute -- tops.

Dale Myers, who wrote the excellent book on the Tippit case "With Malice",
has a timeline in his book that indicates (via his extensive research on
the subject) that Oswald was in his room for 2.25 minutes. Myers has
Oswald going into the roominghouse at 12:57:15, and coming out at
12:59:30. With Tippit being killed by Oswald at 1:14:30. (Source:
"With Malice" by Dale K. Myers; Pages 380 and 382; c.1998.)

And those are, IMO, very reasonable estimates, based on the sum total
of available evidence and testimony with which to make such hard-to-
pin-down determinations.

David Von Pein
March 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MARCH 17, 2008)






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 175)


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

>>> "I will not address the above point-by-point, because if you
really believe what you wrote your cognitive faculties are most likely impaired." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN:

Yeah, why believe the ACTUAL EVIDENCE ON THE TABLE, when I could crawl
into bed with the likes of Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Lifton and believe stupid shit?

Right, Rich?


>>> "None of the WC actually believed those things and stated so." <<<

You're WAY overstating things here. There's no way that ALL SEVEN of
the Warren Commissioners went on record as having totally disbelieved
their own final "LN/LHO" conclusions.

Anyone believing that was the case probably possesses "cognitive
faculties" that "are most likely impaired".


>>> "As for the Bug [Vincent T. Bugliosi], if his research could stand on its own merit, he would not need to resort to ad hominem attacks." <<<

But the "ad homs" are so much fun (and deserved). I love 'em. :)


>>> "They do not enhance his position IMO." <<<

They definitely enhance his position. Why in the world shouldn't a
"zany" be called a "zany"?

It's odd that people who side with the likes of Fetzer and Lifton and
Armstrong and Waldron actually seem to think that their crazy notions
are worthy of NOT being ridiculed.

Curious indeed.


>>> "Fortunately [Bugliosi's] book will not likely make back what it cost to produce it." <<<

And I think even Bugs knows this is probably true.


>>> "And his million dollar promotion tour is out of gas." <<<

~chuckle~

Well, sure it is. His book tour and radio tour was pretty much over in
June/July 2007. (Except for a few later appearances.)

But, thanks to me, you can re-live almost all of Vince's radio appearances
regarding "Reclaiming History", including the SBT debate he had with Wecht
on June 14th, 2007. And I won't even charge you anything to access my
online files either (although donations via VISA or personal check are
welcome; after all, I can't be expected to work as a CIA/VB Disinfo Agent
for free, 24/7, can I?): ;)







>>> "The last Roper poll showed that nearly 90% of the American public believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK." <<<

A virtually meaningless stat, seeing as how probably 90% of that 90%
more-than-likely don't even know who J.D. Tippit is.

But keep plugging those polls. It can't HURT your make-believe case
for conspiracy anyway.

David Von Pein
March 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MARCH 17, 2008)






JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 174)


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

>>> "You called this forum [the now-defunct "JFK Research" forum] "a ghost town." If it is, why are you here??" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Even a ghost town has a passing tumbleweed roll by every now and then.


>>> "You do not have all the bullets. Not even close." <<<

The LN side has all the bullets and fragments that aren't in the "Make-Believe Conspiracy" drawer, that's for sure. Conspiracy theorists like to pretend that additional bullets exist in the case. Unfortunately, a "pretend" bullet doesn't hold much weight with a jury. (Or at least...it shouldn't hold very much weight.)


>>> "There are fragments still in Connally's corpse than are missing from CE 399." <<<

I'm assuming you meant to put the word "more" in your last sentence
(between "are" and "fragments").

Of course, if that's what you meant to say, you couldn't be more
incorrect, because the total amount of bullet fragments that were
buried with Mr. Connally in 1993 wouldn't amount to half-a-grain, and
everybody knows it. Just check Dr. Gregory's detailed WC testimony.

Two related articles HERE and HERE.


>>> "Todd Vaughn [sic] and Jean Davison are long time members [of the "JFK RESEARCH ASSASSINATION FORUM"]." <<<

Oh, really? I didn't realize that. That's two (strong) points in your
Forum Favor, indeed. But have they ever written a post here? Or are
they merely visitors who never post (like I was for five months before
making my first actual post a few days ago)?

Anyway, no matter. I love Jean, though.


>>> "Do you suppose that your reputation didn't precede you here?? But you were allowed in anyway. Now, the ball is in your court." <<<

I'll try not to dribble on your feet, Rich.


>>> "The members of the WC, each of them before they passed, admitted that they didn't believe their own report. So, why do you??" <<<

There's a very good reason for such an "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY" belief in
the post-WC era. And that very good reason is --- the HSCA.

The HSCA fully agreed with the WC with respect to the number of
bullets that hit any victims in Limo SS-100-X and the HSCA fully
agreed with the WC with respect to the name of the one and only gunman
who fired any bullets that hit any victims on 11/22 -- Lee H. Oswald.

Imagine the coincidence of the WC and the HSCA both getting those
last two facts dead wrong
.

But you (and many, many other CTers like you) think the Warren Commission
and the HSCA both got it wrong, don't you?

Amazing Governmental incompetence, huh?


>>> "The [Mannlicher-Carcano bullets] purchased by the Marine Corps on behalf of the CIA??" <<<

Huh?

Plus: "WTF"?

Plus: WTF does the above have to do with Oswald shooting Kennedy on
Elm Street in Dallas in November of 1963? Anything at all? (Didn't think so.)


>>> "There is one data point for Oswald taking a package to work: Buell Wesley Frazier/Linnie Mae Randle." <<<

That's two total "points", isn't it?

Anyway, to believe that anything OTHER than Rifle #C2766 [CE139] was
inside that paper bag that Oswald carried with him on the morning of
November 22nd is to believe in a fairy tale that would rival Aesop's
best effort. More here.

And we know that Oswald didn't take any "lunch" bag to work on 11/22
either. How can we know that for sure? Because Oswald TOLD US so:

"He [LHO] didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day." -- Buell Wesley Frazier


>>> "And why would Oswald buy a gun by mail order?" <<<

Shame on Mr. Oswald for not meeting a CTer's expectations of how he
should have obtained the weapon that he used to shoot some people in
Nov. '63.

He should have called you first, Rich, before he mailed in that Klein's
coupon. You could have set him straight.


>>> "As for Bugliosi, I paid 20 cents for his book. I overpaid." <<<

You want me to get you a refund?


>>> "You can tell him [Vince Bugliosi] he can come here and address the issues -- but he wouldn't last a nanosecond, because we don't allow personal attacks." <<<

You want to spoil everybody's fun, don't you Rich? ~sniff~




>>> "One of our best supporters, Jim Fetzer, has issued his smoking guns -- you can start there." <<<

~~LOL Break~~ Already done that (here).

And after looking over Mr. Fetzer's pathetic (and desperate) list of
"Smokers", I get the distinct feeling that something stronger than
just gunsmoke was being inhaled by Jim "The Zapruder Film Has Been
Wholly Fabricated" Fetzer when he authored his inane list of 16 items.


>>> "Let's see the old LN rant: LHO did it because he wanted the fame -- but, from the first moment he went in front of national TV cameras, he proclaimed he didn't do it!" <<<

And you think that Oswald DIDN'T get any fame by saying he didn't kill
anybody?

Think again. His denials got him all the fame he desired....just as if
he had said "I did it". He knew he left a popcorn trail a mile long
leading back to him. He obviously knew that. He HAD to have known
that.

In fact, I've postulated recently that it's quite possible that Oswald
deliberately left such a trail for the cops (multiplied by two murders
too, including the trail of four bullet shells on 10th St. that obviously
lead straight back into the gun that Oswald failed to ditch after murdering
a policeman with it).

So he knew that that popcorn trail would convict him, regardless of what
he himself said. As to WHY he would intentionally leave such a lengthy
trail of "Oswald Was Here" evidence for the authorities to find afterward,
while ALSO denying all guilt....I cannot say.

Maybe I'll try to dig up Oswald and ask him to explain his oddball
behavior that he exhibited on November 22, 1963. (Think he'll be nice
enough to tell me the truth?)

In any event, in the final analysis of Oswald's actions and behavior
in wake of the events in Dallas that day, double-murderer Lee Harvey
Oswald most certainly achieved any "fame" he may have been seeking by
merely remaining silent and lying his worthless ass off.

Oswald also seemed to enjoy keeping secrets. And I think he also loved
the little game he was playing with the cops and the FBI after he was
arrested.

To quote Oswald himself: "Well, you're the cops--YOU figure it out!"




>>> "LHO shot JFK with surgical precision as he was a moving target traveling away from him..." <<<

And yet LHO missed the actual target (JFK's head) two times out of three
shots. So, your "surgical precision" really equates to only a .333 average.
That average, of course, is very good in baseball, but it's not really so hot
when we're talking about Presidential assassinations.


>>> "...But when he [Oswald] supposedly shot at General Walker sitting
in his stationary dining room with all the time he wished to aim, he missed!" <<<


The bullet hit something before it reached General Walker's body, of
course. The window sill. You know that, of course. And you also no
doubt know that the window-sill ledge (latticework) that the bullet
struck before entering Walker's home was said to be virtually invisible
from the gunman's (Oswald's) POV, due to the lighting in the room
where Walker was sitting.

But there was no window sill between the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano and JFK's body on 11/22/63. There was an oak tree that
partially blocked LHO's view for a few seconds, yes.

And that tree, IMO, is the reason that the first shot (at about Z-Film
frame 160) ended up totally missing JFK and the limousine.

BTW, I love the insertion of the word "supposedly" in Rich DellaRosa's
last comment above. I guess you (Rich) think Marina was just one of
the many liars and cover-uppers who got together to paint Saint Ozzie
as the "patsy" who fired a shot at Walker in April '63, huh?

How long is your list of "plotters" and "cover-uppers", btw? (Can you
keep it under 1,000? I doubt it.)

David Von Pein
March 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MARCH 17, 2008)



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 173)


DON WILLIS SAID:

>>> "The principal post here was my [post on March 7, 2008, when I said] "Bonnie Ray Williams Fires from the Second Window from the End"." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, yeah. Make sure you highlight that PROVEN-TRUE bombshell of an accusation one more time. That'll do your credibility a whole lot of good.

Donald, tell me: Why do you want to put a rifle in the hands of two completely innocent young men named Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Garcia Arce?

Just....why? Is it in order to be different from all the other conspiracy-seeking people of the Earth?


>>> "I love it when you bring up those shells, which Fritz said he didn't touch." <<<

Even if he did touch the shells, how would that make those same shells CEASE BEING SHELLS FROM LEE OSWALD'S RIFLE?


>>> "Arce could not account for his whereabouts..." <<<

Nor does he really need to (given the evidence that indicates he had nothing to do with the shooting in Dealey Plaza).


>>> "...And he [Arce] was with Williams both before and after 12:30." <<<

Great "tie-in" to a plot there, Don. They were seen together in their workplace at certain times on the day the President is killed (but they weren't "together" exactly at 12:30, btw), so this somehow means that Arce and Williams are to be considered the actual killers of JFK. Is that correct, Donald?

Via this logic, I think I could make a pretty fair case for Bill Shelley and Roy Truly being the actual snipers. After all, didn't Truly have one or more guns in his office a few days before the assassination? And surely we have some witnesses who could put those two Depository bosses "together" at certain times both before and after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63....right?

I'd look into that Shelley/Truly teaming if I were you, Donald.


>>> "Yes, when your Homicide Captain tampers with it [all the "CT" evidence in the case, which miraculously disappeared off the face of the globe immediately after the assassination]!" <<<

Yeah, sure Don. And then Captain Fritz makes sure he has a cameraman (Tom Alyea) up on the sixth floor FILMING HIS EVERY MOVE (including, per you kooks, the act of Fritz--one of the main "plotters"/"cover-uppers"--physically picking up the shells for NEFARIOUS, EVIL, AND UNDERHANDED PURPOSES!

You'd think that after 31 years as the Homicide Captain in Dallas that Fritz would have been more careful when he went around framing innocent patsies for Presidential murders in broad daylight.

But, instead of throwing Tom Alyea out of the building (or at the very least, make the guy STOP FILMING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that you kooks think was occurring on that sixth floor that day), Fritz allows Alyea to not only stay at the crime scene, but he allows him to continue to film all of this covert shell-handling activity that conspiracy theorists think was happening in the TSBD.

Go figure the idiocy of that "Fritz Conspiratorial Mindset".

But, back in reality, since reasonable people know beyond a reasonable doubt that no such covert shell-planting activity was occurring on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on Nov. 22nd, it means that Fritz had NOTHING TO HIDE from Alyea's probing camera lens.

IOW -- Innocent people don't have to worry about covering their tracks....because there are no tracks (of conspiracy) to cover. Period.


>>> "Arce & Williams turn up at the Elm St. building about the same time as Oswald. Don't think any of the 3 is innocent." <<<

Then why stop with just that trio of plotters, Don? You surely don't want to leave Wesley Frazier out of your make-believe assassination plot, do you?

Frazier's start date at the Depository, in fact, more closely matches Williams' and Arce's than it does Oswald's.

Here are the TSBD starting dates for these employees (mainly via Warren Commission records/testimony):

Arce -- September 6, 1963.

Williams -- September 8, 1963.

Frazier -- September 1963.

Oswald -- October 16, 1963.

Yep....Frazier's GOT to be a conspirator too (based on the above work timetable).

I'd look into that if I were a kook...er...um...I mean if I were you, Don.


>>> "Hello to David on the moon!" <<<

How could I possibly be on the lunar surface? Astronauts never really did land on the moon at all....did they Don? That was all a ruse too, wasn't it?

It was probably the result of some kind of NASA plot devised by Captain Fritz, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. After all, we can always blame those three guys for any kind of crazy plot a kook dreams up. Right, Don?

I'd look into that angle if I were you.

In the meantime, for a little CS&L [Common Sense & Logic], try this.

David Von Pein
March 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (MARCH 15, 2008)


================================


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:






JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #64
(NOVEMBER 14, 1963)









================================







JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #63
(OCTOBER 31, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #62
(OCTOBER 9, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #61
(SEPTEMBER 12, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #60
(AUGUST 20, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #59
(AUGUST 1, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #58
(JULY 17, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #57
(JUNE 24, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #56
(MAY 22, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #55
(MAY 8, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #54
(APRIL 24, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #53
(APRIL 3, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #52
(MARCH 21, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #51
(MARCH 6, 1963)





================================



JFK PRESS CONFERENCE #50
(FEBRUARY 21, 1963)





================================