(PART 1)



Everyone can sit around now, well after the events of November 22, 1963, and play parlor games as to how wise it would have been for any conspirators to go forward with such a "Patsy" plot. Hindsight is very nearly always 20/20, of course.

But put yourself in the shoes of whoever it was that you believe was orchestrating and maneuvering the pawns in such a plan PRIOR to the green light being given to these many gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

There are many, many people who put a lot of faith and stock in Oliver Stone's theory purported in his 1991 motion picture "JFK" (or some similar multi-shooter conspiracy theory that closely resembles Stone's).

But it might be wise for those people to think about these facts for just a second and see if it makes even the slightest bit of PRE-assassination sense at all:

In the film "JFK", Oliver Stone seems to have just about everybody east of the Rocky Mountains involved in one way or another in the elaborate plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. The film is a veritable "Melting Pot of Plots". (I guess Mr. Stone just wanted to touch every possible base, and throw in the kitchen sink, to boot.)

There's a point in the film which has Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) and his staff, while eating dinner (or maybe it was lunch) in a restaurant, coming up with conspiracy theories seemingly out of thin air and off the tops of their heads.

Mr. Garrison seems to be taking assassin Lee Harvey Oswald at his word when Oswald shouted "I'm just a patsy!" in the hallways of Dallas police headquarters.

Of course, just exactly WHY this known liar (Oswald) -- who told one falsehood after another to both the police and the anxious press at the police station -- would suddenly be looked upon as a TRUTHFUL person by the conspiracy theorists, who believe he was telling the truth when he uttered his famous "Patsy" declaration after his arrest, is a mystery to me. Most curious indeed.

Oliver Stone's movie might very well make some people think twice about what really happened in Dallas on November 22nd, but I'd ask those same people to consider the rationale and logic that would have been exhibited by any plotters who were attempting to frame their lone patsy (Oswald) PRIOR to the assassination.

In other words, in order to accept the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald WAS, indeed, the "patsy" he said he was, and in order to buy into Oliver Stone's 3-Gunmen, 6-Shot "Triangulation of Crossfire" conspiracy theory that is the central "shooting plot" as depicted in the movie "JFK", anyone who accepts the film's proposed shooting scenario as fact MUST, therefore, also be of the opinion that the conspirators/plotters had no hesitation whatsoever to green-light and proceed full-tilt with a "patsy" plan that would involve the POTENTIAL final results of having the one and only target (John F. Kennedy) being hit with up to SIX SEPARATE BULLETS fired from the guns of THREE different snipers (one of which was firing from the front, the exact OPPOSITE direction from where the ONE "patsy" was supposedly firing in the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was located to the REAR of the President's car).

Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins, who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?

Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?

Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?

And did they really NOT consider the likelihood that many, many doctors and nurses, et al, at Parkland Hospital would be NOTICING the many NON-OSWALD wounds to the President's body?

And: Did these plotters really NOT consider the potential eyewitness accounts of the literally hundreds of witnesses who were scattered throughout Dealey Plaza to watch the President pass by?

Did the plotters just GET LUCKY when not one single witness saw ANY assassin other than the killer located in the "Oswald window" in the Book Depository? Did they just get lucky that the vast majority of earwitnesses heard ONLY THREE SHOTS (the EXACT number that Oswald could have fired in the allotted assassination timeframe)?

And: Did the conspirators also just luck out (again) when very, very few witnesses (less than 5% total) said that they heard shots coming from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION? (And the majority of these witnesses heard shots from BEHIND the President's car, from the direction of the School Book Depository.)

And: Didn't ANY of these crackerjack conspirators who were weaving this unbelievable "patsy" scheme also take into account the possibility that a few of those hundreds of Dealey Plaza witnesses just might have had cameras in their hands and just might have snapped pictures and even MOVIES of the assassination -- photos and moving pictures that might very well PROVE A CONSPIRACY EXISTED on November 22nd?

Didn't ANY of these things go through the heads of these assassination-planning operatives? If these potential problems with their screwball plan didn't enter their brains, these guys weren't earning their covert dollars, that's for sure.

From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.

Because there is virtually no chance of such a moronic plan succeeding, unless the shooters being employed were so rotten that all of the gunmen being used on 11/22/63, EXCEPT the Oswald look-alike on the Depository's sixth floor, miraculously missed the target [JFK] and also missed everybody else in the car and in Dealey Plaza.

Shouldn't just a small bit of common sense and practicality have crept into the minds of these people (whoever they were supposed to be) who were orchestrating this now-widely-believed and accepted-as-FACT "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" conspiracy scheme?

Shouldn't at least one of these plotters have spoken up and said on 11/21/63: "Gee fellas, this plan seems a tad bit loony. We're asking three different killers to all fire at JFK at virtually an identical point in time and yet somehow also expect ALL the trace evidence to, somehow, some way, immediately lead back to Oswald's window and only Oswald's rifle. Hmmm....maybe we ought to re-think this plan. Ya think?"

But, according to many conspiracy theorists of the world (including filmmaker Oliver Stone), I guess nobody on the "JFK Assassination Plot" payroll made any such logical statement, and, therefore, the bound-to-collapse Three-Gun, Frame-The-Single-Patsy plot was allowed to proceed, as planned.

Did these plotters just automatically assume that all of the frontal-shot evidence that would invariably blow the patsy plot to bits just minutes after the gunfire had ceased in Dealey Plaza wouldn't be noticed by any Parkland personnel?

And did the plotters also assume that ZERO of these many bullets that would be potentially entering the body of John Kennedy (or any other victims who might be accidentally hit) would ALL simply get lost on their own or wouldn't be seen by any non-plotters?

Or was it the conspirators' belief that all of these bullets would immediately be collected by some additional conspirators within the hospital?

Or did the plotters just feel it wouldn't make any difference how many bullets had pelted JFK's body, and that any non-Oswald bullet wounds would simply be "taken care of" by other after-the-shooting conspirators who were in charge of the cover-up operation?

Kind of a reckless plan and a very large risk to take, don't you think?

In fact, from a PRE-assassination standpoint, a plan of that nature would have been just plain suicide for the conspiracy team. Which is the main reason why no such plan would have been implemented on 11/22/63; nor would such a foolish plot have even been considered in the first place, given the many obvious hazards and complications that such a "patsy" operation would have presented.

It's hilariously absurd from every given angle! And it's hard to believe that any reasonable and rational person can actually believe such "Oswald Was Merely A Patsy" nonsense.

I think it's kind of interesting that Oliver Stone decided not to accept Robert Groden's complete version of the assassination. In his book "The Killing Of A President", Groden, who served as a technical adviser on the film "JFK", tells of his ridiculous conspiracy theory which involves a minimum of 8 shots (and possibly even more)!

And, incredibly, Mr. Groden claims that NONE of these eight bullets likely came from the Oswald window in the Book Depository Building. (Please note that even Oliver Stone didn't buy into that silliness.)


Most conspiracy theorists [CTers] don't have a leg to stand on either, should they wish to waver on their belief in the "patsy" theory. What I mean by that remark is:

Even if certain CTers do feel that what I've laid out above does make a good deal of sense (from the pre-November 22 POV of the conspirators mapping out the Dallas plot), and those same CTers do have doubts about whether or not such a goofy plan to frame a single patsy would have ever even been attempted or not -- most of those same CTers with doubts still have nowhere to go BUT down the "patsy" path.


Because of up to three other pieces of evidence in the case that these same CTers believe in fervently:

1.) The belief that Bullet CE399 was a "planted" bullet.

2.) The belief (by some of these same theorists, but not all) that the "Backyard Photos" of Lee Harvey Oswald are fakes.

3.) The belief that several "fake Oswalds" were running around all over the place prior to November 22 (in Mexico City and other various locations as well), which obviously would have been a pre-assassination attempt by somebody or some organization to frame the patsy named Oswald.

If a person chooses to believe in any one of the above three items, then it makes that person a believer in the "frame the patsy" plot. There is no getting around that fact.

Because by believing that CE399 was a planted bullet and/or believing that the backyard photographs are phony and were planted in Ruth Paine's garage by conspirators and/or believing that imposter Oswalds were being used before the assassination -- is also to believe, by necessity, that Oswald was being "set up" in advance to take the fall as the patsy for President Kennedy's murder.

Otherwise, why would there have been any need whatsoever to plant the bullet at Parkland, or the backyard photos at the Paine home, if somebody wasn't at the same time attempting to pin the assassination on Oswald?

Answer: There would be no logical reason for planting ANY incriminating items surrounding Oswald if the planters and plotters weren't using LHO as their patsy in the case.

Back to Oliver Stone's flick for just a second more:

I enjoy watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but from the standpoint of fictional drama only, and certainly not from any kind of historically accurate point-of-view at all. The music score and the outstanding work of editing together reconstructed scenes with real film footage from 11/22/63 are things that are noteworthy in the movie.

But I'll stick with my own (and Vincent Bugliosi's) version of assassination events (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty as sin and had no helpers), rather than take a huge leap off the conspiracy diving board, where every theory being discussed is as cloudy and murky as the "Badge Man" image in Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid photograph.

David Von Pein
June 2005
July 2010