The Initials Of FBI Agent Elmer Todd Are On CE399 (Hi-Def Photo Proof)

[John Iacoletti]

CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.

This is a silly argument because cops can (and do) falsify evidence because they believe somebody committed the crime but don’t have the evidence to prove it.

But it’s the burden of the person using evidence to formulate a conclusion to authenticate that evidence. It’s nobody’s burden to prove that it was falsified. That’s why evidence handling procedures exist.

Besides that, there does exist cops who are rotten lowlifes.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're the guy who wrote "There is no point in discussing this when you ignore what happened before the 1:16 time stamp" when I pointed out that your timestamp figurin' was wrong. The 'not wanting to discuss this' is your doing, not mine.
 
What do you mean by ""current time"?"

Also, if we quantize it down to the second, some random point in 1:15 will be anywhere from 1 second (1:15:59 vs 1:16:00) to 119 seconds (1:15:00 vs 1:16:59) apart. So there is no problem with the 1:15 and 1:16 timestamps.

This is why there is no point in having a discussion with you. You argue for argument's sake.

You ask me: What do you mean by ""current time"?"

When you are the guy who actually brought up the term first;

It's one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him.

Don't even bother replying. I'm done with wasting my time with you and it will give you more time to try and put square pegs in round holes.

[Martin Weidmann]

Markham said in her WC testimony that she left the washateria (where she had tried to phone her daughter but got no answer) at around 1:06 or 1:07.
When Ball asked her at what time she usually got her bus (on Jefferson) she answered: 1:15

Yesterday, David von Pein said;

I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.

Despite being asked what his reason(s) for doubting for the times given by Markham are, David has so far failed to provide an explanation.

Could that be simply because he has no credible reason(s) for doubting Markham's times?

[Martin Weidmann]

Here's an example of how dishonest David Von Pein truly is. On his blog he published a part of my conversation with him. By way of an example this is what he posted;

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes and she probably did take a delayed 1:12 sometimes and a 1:22 on other occassions. But people don't arrive at a bus stop at the exact moment a bus is due to arrive. They get there a couple of minutes earlier and the fact remains that Markham said she got on her regular bus at 1:15.

This is the actual post.

I think Markham was very well aware of the fact that a bus would come every 10 minutes and she probably did take a delayed 1:12 sometimes and a 1:22 on other occassions.
But people don't arrive at a bus stop at the exact moment a bus is due to arrive. They get there a couple of minutes earlier and the fact remains that Markham said she got on her regular bus at 1:15.

This still means that she would not have been at 10th and Patton at 1:14:30, with another three minutes to walk to her bus stop.

It seems David didn't like the last sentence, so he just simply left it out, probably so he could continue to argue about the scheduled 1:12 and 1:15 bus instead of having to address that if Markham should have been at the bus stop at 1:15 she couldn't have witnessed the shooting of Tippit, if that happened at 1:14:30 or 1:15.

But it gets worse. He then leaves out several posts of mine in which I explain that it doesn't make a damned bit of difference which bus Markham actually got on, either the 1:12 or 1:22. The fact remained that in her mind she had to be at the bus stop at around 1:15, which means she had to have passed 10th/Patton at 1:12 at the latest, if you ignore that people normally like to get to the bus stop a couple of minutes earlier.

David then "resumes" the discussion on his blog by reducing this post;

No, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking a particular witness. It should be about the evidence and not the person, but perhaps that's a foreign concept for you. Ball called Markham an utter screwball and still he used her identification.

I don't think her identification ("was there a # 2) of Oswald was convincing, because of the way it was obtained. And as far as her times are concerned, they are intertwined with those of Bowley and Callaway and unless you want to argue that Bowley needed 22 minutes to drive 6.3 miles and Callaway needed 7 or 8 minutes after the shots to run less than 400 feet, you simply can not dismiss Markham's times.

I have every reason to doubt her specific timestamps, that's for sure.

Sure you do. They don't fit with your preferred narrative. And that's the only reason!

You might not have noticed by I have only used information from the official narrative to make my case. I have shown that the DPD time stamps can not be relied upon by using the actual radio recordings. I have used the information provided by Markham, Bowley and Callaway to present a sequence of events that must have happened within about three minutes and which only could have happened at a particular moment in time for all three components to come together in the right order.

All you have done is actually dismiss just about all the information from the official narrative I have used.

Kinda ironic, don't you think?

Should we call it a stalemate?

Most certainly not, because even if Markham's identification of Oswald was questionable, it doesn't automatically mean that she was also wrong about her daily routine and the corresponding times. Even less so, as the totality of the evidence suggests her times were actually pretty accurate.

But I am not getting the impression that you want to bail out of this conversation. Is that so, and, if so, why?

If you are not bailing out, why don't you explain what reasons you have exactly to doubt Markham's timestamps?

to;

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Why don't you explain what reasons you have exactly to doubt Markham's timestamps?

David then replies by editing even his own post;

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?

CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence.

One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.

So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.

When you read this post on this board you will notice an additional sentence in which David asks me this;

Well, it boils down to this question: What is the best and most reliable evidence re: the Tippit murder (or any murder case for that matter)?

CTers, for the most part, tend to disbelieve and distrust virtually all of the evidence that exists against Oswald. But I, myself, don't see a lot of problems with the evidence---including the Tippit evidence. One big reason to think that no hanky-panky was occurring with the Tippit evidence is: Because it was one of Dallas' own cops who had just been killed. And what kind of rotten lowlife would have wanted the killer of one of their own to get away with murder? You could hardly get mucher lower than that. But it seems that some CTers favor the notion that the DPD did do just that---i.e., framed an innocent Oswald as a cop-killer. Such a notion is just ridiculous, IMO.

So, IMO, not a single bit of the evidence against Oswald was faked or planted. So, therefore, Oswald's got to be guilty. Because in the real world, you can't be the owner of BOTH murder weapons on 11/22 and be innocent. That's just not a reasonable conclusion to reach.

BTW, Martin, do you think you can PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence that exists against Oswald was faked/planted/manufactured? And if so, what is that PROOF?

I did reply to that post, but it seems David wasn't interested, because it's nowhere on his blog.

What is on his blog is something he never said in this conversion;

DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006

Not only did David bail out of a conversation that wasn't going well for him, but, as a true propaganist, he also misrepresented that same conversation on his own blog so that people who only read the blog come away with a completely false impression of the conversation.

The worst part about it is of course that David did not tell me he was going to post the (misrepresented version of) the conversation on his blog, he also did not offer me the possibility to respond on any of it on his blog.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true David von Pein. He wanted nothing to do with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley and Callaway, because he probably understood it caused severe problems for the official narrative. That's why IMO he bailed on the conversation after trying and failing to change the subject by asking me if I could prove that one piece of evidence was faked, which wasn't the subject we were discussing. On his own blog he made sure the conversation stayed well clear of the actual subject.

Btw this is the link to David's blog;

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1352.html?fbclid=IwAR3On7diW__ZFobO4FiJuTsTmOcsz5jpUlELcaQXf0Opkrt9fTFJFv540Cc

[Peter Goth]

Here's an example of how dishonest David Von Pein truly is. On his blog he published a part of my conversation with him. By way of an example this is what he posted;

This is the actual post.

It seems David didn't like the last sentence, so he just simply left it out, probably so he could continue to argue about the scheduled 1:12 and 1:15 bus instead of having to address that if Markham should have been at the bus stop at 1:15 she couldn't have witnessed the shooting of Tippit, if that happened at 1:14:30 or 1:15.

But it gets worse. He then leaves out several posts of mine in which I explain that it doesn't make a damned bit of difference which bus Markham actually got on, either the 1:12 or 1:22. The fact remained that in her mind she had to be at the bus stop at around 1:15, which means she had to have passed 10th/Patton at 1:12 at the latest, if you ignore that people normally like to get to the bus stop a couple of minutes earlier.

David then "resumes" the discussion on his blog by reducing this post;

to;

David then replies by editing even his own post;

When you read this post on this board you will notice an additional sentence in which David asks me this;

I did reply to that post, but it seems David wasn't interested, because it's nowhere on his blog.

What is on his blog is something he never said in this conversion;

Not only did David bail out of a conversation that wasn't going well for him, but, as a true propaganist, he also misrepresented that same conversation on his own blog so that people who only read the blog come away with a completely false impression of the conversation.

The worst part about it is of course that David did not tell me he was going to post the (misrepresented version of) the conversation on his blog, he also did not offer me the possibility to respond on any of it on his blog.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the true David von Pein. He wanted nothing to do with the combined timeline of Markham, Bowley and Callaway, because he probably understood it caused severe problems for the official narrative. That's why IMO he bailed on the conversation after trying and failing to change the subject by asking me if I could prove that one piece of evidence was faked, which wasn't the subject we were discussing. On his own blog he made sure the conversation stayed well clear of the actual subject.

 

[John Iacoletti]

David does the same thing in every conversation he copies over to his website. It’s highly dishonest and it’s part of the reason he was kicked off the education forum.

[Mitch Todd]

This is why there is no point in having a discussion with you. You argue for argument's sake.

You ask me: What do you mean by ""current time"?"

When you are the guy who actually brought up the term first;

Don't even bother replying. I'm done with wasting my time with you and it will give you more time to try and put square pegs in round holes.

Let's go back to what you wrote:

Oh very well. Yes it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him, except there is no guarantee that the clock is showing the "current time" and we know from Bowles that the timestamps were not always called correctly.

You start off by directly quoting me ("it is one guy reading the current time from a clock right in front of him") but then go on to say "no guarantee that the clock is showing the 'current time'." But putting the second "current time" in quotes, you differentiated it from my use of the term. So I asked you to clarify what you'd meant by that.

Your response was to throw a hissy fit and stomp off. Go figure.

[John Iacoletti]

Bowles said that the dispatcher sometimes didn’t even read what was displayed on his clock.

“However, radio operators did not interrupt radio traffic in progress just to give a station check. Accordingly, an operator might give, say, the 10:30 check as 10:30 when it was actually 10:29 or perhaps 10:31 or later.”