(PART 11)


The single-bullet shot has never been replicated, not even close. Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel's 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' was an absolute farce.


Bullshit. Horsefeathers. (And Balderdash.)


I break it down and analyze it [the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT program] in detail in the Single-Bullet Fact chapter at patspeer.com.


I analyze it in a much-better manner at the link below (with ample
amounts of common sense being thrown in, to boot):

JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet


I read David's opinion-laden blog [re: the Discovery Channel program, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"], stating things could have happened, and we never can recreate the events of that day.


We can't re-create the SBT right down to the Nth degree, and
everybody should know why. That'd be like trying to shoot the same
bear in the woods TWICE through the very same small bullet hole in the
bear's head from about 100 yards away. And that's just....silly.

BUT -- What the Discovery Channel program did accomplish in 2004 is to
generally reconstruct the SBT shot using mock human-like torsos, a
Carcano rifle like Oswald's, and a WCC/MC bullet like CE399.*

* And the Australian team of researchers re-created the SBT scenario
with as much accuracy as could be humanly obtained, which is why the
gunman used a much-better scope than Oswald's cheap Japanese
type...and the test shooter STILL missed the exact spot on JFK's back
(even WITH the higher-quality scope on his rifle), proving my previous
point all the more re. the shooting being very nearly impossible to
duplicate to the inch and to the Nth degree.

The end result of the Discovery Channel test wasn't a perfect "SBT Re-
creation", no. That is true. But it was so CLOSE to being spot-on
perfect that any REASONABLE person watching that SBT test would have
no choice but to ask himself the following question:

"Gee, I wonder how that team of Australian researchers was able to
almost mimic the SBT if the SBT was really TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE, as I've
been told it was for lo these many years by conspiracy theorists and
pro-conspiracy authors?"

I'd sooner believe that Kennedy and Connally were never shot through
their respective backs at all, than to believe the silly anti-SBT
nonsense that's been spouted by CTers over the years -- i.e., the CT
belief that up to THREE separate bullets all came together in the
bodies of TWO different victims on Elm Street on November 22, 1963,
with those multiple bullets (THREE of them by most CTer accounts,
since nearly all conspiracists think there was a shot that entered
JFK's throat from the front) almost perfectly mirroring what the ONE
bullet (CE399) is said to have done via the Warren Commission's SBT.

Plus: All three of those anti-SBT make-believe bullets disappear too.
Don't forget that. And TWO of the three DIDN'T EVEN EXIT JOHN
KENNEDY'S BODY AT ALL IN DEALEY PLAZA! (Go figure that "magic" being
exhibited by those two AWOL missiles. I can't.)

Argue about the "third thoracic" and the "spine", etc., all you want
to. But until a more-reasonable scenario comes along that is way more
plausible than what CTers currently think must have happened with
respect to the initial injuries sustained by JFK and Governor
Connally, then the Single-Bullet Theory is positively the most logical
and believable version of the double-man wounding that occurred in
Dealey Plaza in 1963.

Walter Cronkite summed things up fairly well (IMO), when he made the
following remarks to his CBS-TV audience in June of 1967 (on the CBS-
produced television documentary special, "A CBS NEWS INQUIRY: THE

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe
the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even
MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate
bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the
President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking
it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished
without a trace.

Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by
adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald
and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with
Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it
seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.

In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."


In addition, we have Cronkite stating the following....

"We have shown, by carefully-controlled experiments, that a
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle CAN be fired more rapidly and accurately than
the [Warren] Commission believed.

Now these points strengthen the Warren Report's basic finding.
They make it MORE likely that Oswald shot the President. They
significantly weaken a central contention of the critics....their
contention that Oswald could NOT have done it because he did not have
enough time to fire.

It is now reasonable to assume that the first shot, fired
through a tree, missed its mark....and that it was this shot that
Governor Connally heard. The Governor has insisted all along that he
was not struck by the first shot. It now appears he was correct. Now
we can answer all our secondary questions ---

Did Oswald own a rifle? .... He did.

Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository Building? ....
He did.

Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? .... In the
building, on the sixth floor.

Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? .... It was.

How many shots were fired? .... Three.

How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? .... Fast enough.

What was the time span of the shots? .... Seven or eight

Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot President Kennedy? .... CBS News
concludes that he did."



Question -- Is respected TV anchorman Walter Cronkite a rotten liar
too? And was the entire CBS staff filled with liars and cover-up
agents of some kind too in 1967, when they also endorsed the "Lone
Assassin Named Oswald" conclusion?

And what about the riflemen who simulated Oswald's shooting
performance for CBS in that same 1967 documentary (via a specially-
constructed moving track that was built to match the Dealey Plaza
sniper's perch and the distances and speed of the limo, etc.)?

All lies? Even when multiple gunmen (firing Carcano bolt-action rifles)
were able to duplicate and even EXCEED Lee Harvey Oswald's 2-for-3
shooting performance in well under 8 seconds for the CBS-TV cameras?

The "truth" of the JFK assassination, of course, was arrived at in
November of 1963. But when a rabid conspiracy theorist doesn't like
the taste of something, he usually spits it out and puts something in
his mouth that's a little more tasty.

And "chaff" seems to be a conspiracy theorist's delicacy of choice
when it comes to things relating to the death of the 35th U.S. President
(and it has been the favorite food of CTers for 44 years now).

Food for thought.

David Von Pein
October 21, 2007

(PART 10)


Can you summarize what [Oliver] Stone did, please? Have not seen that but once or twice a long time ago.


Oliver Stone (in his 1991 movie "JFK"), via voice-over narration from
Kevin Costner (playing Jim "Mega-Kook" Garrison) during the courtroom
scene, claims that when the police converged in mass on the Texas
Theater it was (quoting verbatim from the movie itself) -- "The most
remarkable example of police intuition since the Reichstag fire. I
don't buy it. They knew--someone knew--Oswald was going to be there.
In fact, as early as 12:44, only 14 minutes after the assassination,
the police radio put out a description matching Oswald's size and

But there was nothing whatsoever "remarkable" or unusual about the
police converging quickly (and in great numbers) on the theater where
Oswald was hiding.

A police officer had been gunned down in the street only half-an-hour
earlier. The police knew that the killer was ON FOOT and heading down
Jefferson Boulevard. When they received that call from Julia Postal,
OBVIOUSLY the police were going to move (fast) to check out the
"suspicious" man who just went into the dark movie theater.

And yet, to hear Stone telling it (through Garrison/Costner's words in
the script), the cops swarming the theater was some incredible piece
of fortune-telling and crystal-ball-gazing. Nonsense.

I need to correct an error I made in my earlier post --- Upon being
reminded of some additional dialogue in Oliver Stone's film (via the
link provided below, which comes from Dave Reitzes' excellent
website), I will retract my earlier statement where I said that Stone
avoided Brewer's and Postal's involvement entirely in the "JFK" movie.
I see now, via Mr. Reitzes' site, that I was not correct there, because
Brewer is, indeed, mentioned (and so is the "cashier", who was Postal).

However, it's still fairly obvious (via the dialogue I re-printed
above) that Mr. Stone just doesn't want to believe that the ONLY
reason the police descended upon the theater on November 22nd was
because of the observations of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal. Stone
doesn't "buy it".

But if anybody, after researching the true facts re Brewer and
Postal, still "buys" Stone's version put forth in his movie, then
they'd probably buy that bridge that's always for sale in Brooklyn

Also -- The 12:44 PM police broadcast put out by the DPD for the
assassin of JFK was not the slightest bit suspicious or
"conspiratorial" in any way either (contrary to what Oliver Stone
wants his viewing audience to believe).

Howard Brennan almost immediately approached the police after the
shooting to give them a description of the man he had clearly seen
pulling the trigger from the sixth-floor TSBD window -- with that
description generally matching Oswald's "size and build" (as Stone/
Garrison/Costner said in the film).

So, quite obviously, the police didn't just sit on their collective
hands sipping sodas and munching on Dunkin' Donuts for an hour.
Instead, they acted on this witness' information and put out an APB
broadcast over all channels of the police radio at 12:43-12:44 PM on
November 22nd, less than 15 minutes after the last shot came out of
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

So, once again, as can be easily determined once the true facts of the
case are researched, Ollie Stone has deliberately deceived and misled
his movie-going audience.

David Von Pein
October 21, 2007





Oliver Stone Speech (January 15, 1992)

The Brainwashing Of America


(PART 9)


>>> "Congratulations! You've just presented possibly the weakest case for Oswald's motives I've ever read. Well done!" <<<


Congrats back! You've earned your spot as "Kook Of The Week" with your
incredibly stupid reply in your last post. Well done!

Just for laughs, let's examine it......

>>> "1) Pure conjecture. There is no evidence to support this claim [that Oswald hated America]." <<<

Bullshit (multiple times over). .....

"Having lived under both Communism and Capitalism, I despise the
representatives of both systems." -- Lee Harvey Oswald

"In the event of war, I would kill ANY American who put a
uniform on in defense of the American government -- any American." --
Lee Harvey Oswald

Yeah, Sweet Lee just LOVED America, didn't he?

>>> "2) An abundance of evidence indicates that Oswald's "admiration" for Castro was, in fact, a cover." <<<

Which is why he told Marina on more than one occasion that he wanted
to go to Cuba and fight for Castro's Revolution, right?

And he hated Castro and Cuba so much, he once was planning to hijack a
plane to Cuba, with the help of his pregnant wife.

(Oh, yes, Marina's a lying bitch...I forgot. So that speculation about
Marina gets pathetic kooks like you off the hook, doesn't it? Lovely.)

>>> "3) Have you simply ignored the Lopez report and the clear implications that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico?" <<<

Of course I have ignored the silly "Lopez Report". What rational
person wouldn't (who's got some common sense and a functioning
brain)? .....

"It's always assumed, of course, that the imposter would
impersonate Oswald [in Mexico City] without his knowledge, that he
would be someone Oswald did not know. But [HSCA investigator Edwin]
Lopez raises the possibility--are you seated?--that maybe the
impersonator was "one of his [Oswald's] companions" in Mexico City. To
think that our tax money went into the preparation of the Lopez
Report." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1053 of "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

>>> "4) LMAO yet again. Him and just about everyone else in Texas [owned a gun]. LOL. Can't believe you bothered listing that." <<<

Hint: The RIFLE was the thing that enabled Mr. Oswald to shoot
President Kennedy. It usually helps to have a RIFLE available if you
want to SHOOT somebody from the sixth floor of a building.

(Can I start my laugh-fest now? Or should I wait until I finish the
rest of your hilarious rebuttals?)

>>> "5) No evidence [that LHO shot at Walker]. Marina is a pathological liar..." <<<

Oh, yes. Naturally. Because if she weren't a "pathological liar", then
Oswald would look like a bitter and pathetic loner/wife-beater/loser,
who took a shot at General Edwin Walker in April 1963 and who owned a
rifle and sat on his porch dry-firing it for hours in the middle of
the night.

And we certainly could NEVER have any of those things being true.
Right, kook?

>>> "6) Garbage. If Oswald was looking for recognition, why would he not only vehemently protest his innocence at every opportunity but also label himself as the last thing any man would want go down in history as, "a patsy"?" <<<

Hint: Oswald's one-man plan WORKED. He DID kill the President with his
own cheap rifle from his own workplace....and he DID become famous,
even while claiming to gullible kooks like you that he was nothing but
a patsy.

It's hard to argue with a successful venture like Oswald's 11/22/63
venture. But, right on cue, the conspiracy-loving kooks in the
"Anybody But Oswald" clique will, indeed, argue it was a rotten plan
on Oswald's part.

Go figure.

(Let the laughing commence. I've held back long enough.)

David Von Pein
October 2007


(PART 8)


>>> "The motorcade route (minus turns on Houston and Elm) and the luncheon were set as of September 13, 1963, before LHO started work at the TSBD." <<<


Total bullshit. Learn the case. And the proper chronology.

It was announced in mid-September that JFK would be going to Dallas,
yes. But the site for the November 22 luncheon (and, hence, the exact
motorcade route through the city) wasn't determined and finalized
until much later (November 13 or 14 to be more precise).

Kenneth O'Donnell is the one who approved the Trade Mart for the
luncheon....and he didn't put the stamp of finality on that decision
until November 13th or 14th.

Look it up on Page 31 of the Warren Report, right here.

Plus -- The specific motorcade route through Dealey Plaza wasn't made
known to the public (including Mr. Oswald) until the morning of
Tuesday, November 19th.

The whole notion of some kind of "plot" with respect to "placing" LHO
in the Depository Building is one of the most insane theories ever
postulated by CTers over the years.

It's insane because of how we KNOW Lee Oswald got his job....which was
a job that was obtained through garden-variety happenstance and
ordinary word-of-mouth -- from Wes Frazier, to Linnie Randle, to Ruth
Paine/Marina Oswald, to Lee Oswald, to Roy Truly (with the latter
hiring Oswald on October 15th).

Were Frazier, Randle, Paine, Marina, and Truly ALL part of the evil
assassination "plot"?

Anyone thinking that ANY of those individuals was part of some scheme
or pre-assassination plot to put Lee Harvey Oswald in the Depository
should be locked up with Charlie Manson. Because such a CTer is certainly
off his or her rocker.

Was Oswald Planted In The Book Depository?

>>> "Since one could expect to be in jail or dead after shooting the president, I would think he could have splurged on a good weapon." <<<

Oswald didn't buy the Carcano specifically to shoot the President
with. He bought it in March '63 to use on General Walker. Oz's one-man
plot to kill JFK wasn't even on the horizon as of late March 1963 when
LHO first laid his hands on Rifle #C2766.

>>> "A professional killer is ready for anything. [Oswald not taking his revolver to work with him on Nov. 22] Just proves he was an amateur and incapable of doing the deed." <<<

Oswald knew he wouldn't need his pistol WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE

He knew this because of exactly what DID occur when he bumped into
Officer Baker in the lunchroom -- i.e., Oswald knew that his status as
an employee in the building would get him off the hook (temporarily at
least) just after the shooting. And, of course, it did just that, when
Roy Truly verified to Baker Oswald's status as a TSBD employee.

Why would Oswald want to start shooting away at cops (and others) when
it wasn't the slightest bit necessary to do so in order to flee the
building without being stopped as a suspect?

Oswald might have also thought it was wiser to NOT bring his revolver
with him to work on Friday. Because if (for some reason) he was caught
with the gun on him inside the building just after he shot the President,
it just might not look too good for ol' Lee at that time.*

* = Although, granted, many Texans did carry guns with them, circa
1963. But, then too, how many TSBD warehouse workers do you suppose
were packing rods on 11/22/63? (I don't know the answer to that
question with 100% certainty; but I'd wager the correct answer would
be zero.)

>>> "[The nitrates on LHO's hands] came from the boxes he was handling all morning." <<<

Huh? Nitrates from handling cardboard boxes?? First time I've heard
that one.

You could be correct I suppose (since I know that many ordinary things
can, indeed, result in a positive nitrate result), but I don't think I've ever
heard the "Boxes Caused The Positive Paraffin Result" argument heretofore.

Of course, Rob doesn't think it's possible that Oswald could have gotten
any nitrates on his hands while he FIRED THOSE FOUR BULLETS INTO
J.D. TIPPIT'S BODY on Tenth Street....right Rob?

Because, per kooks like Robert, Oswald never shot a police officer on
November 22nd. Right, Bobby?


>>> "His cheek was a negative and since he supposedly used a rifle this would be impossible." <<<

Bullshit. Learn the case, Rob. An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle after
the assassination and tested "negative" on BOTH his hands and his

>>> "Professionals constantly practice and they are the best. Why would an average at best shooter not practice and hope to be successful?" <<<

You can't prove Oswald never practiced with his Mannlicher-Carcano.
You THINK he never practiced. But you know you can never prove that

And even if LHO never did "practice" with his weapon leading up to the
assassination, CTers still have noplace to go with this argument. It's
a sidebar issue...at best. It's a meaningless argument based on the
sum total of "OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY" evidence.

Naturally, a CTer prefers their chaff to the abundance of wheat that
LNers are always munching on. Well, so be it. ~sigh~

>>> "Not what the police said. They listed the ballistics for the Walker attempt as a 30.6 bullet." <<<

More bullshit.

The Dallas "police" notwithstanding, both Robert Frazier of the FBI
and Joseph Nicol of Illinois (the independent firearms identification
expert who examined much of the assassination-related evidence)
testified about the Walker bullet (CE573) in front of the Warren
Commission. Let's listen:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet to determine
whether it was or might have been fired in Exhibit 139?


Mr. EISENBERG - And what was your conclusion?

Mr. FRAZIER - We determined that the general rifling characteristics
of the rifle 139 are of the same type as those found on the bullet,
Exhibit 573, and, further, on this basis, that the bullet could have
been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove
impressions. .... All of the remaining physical characteristics of
this bullet, 573, are the same as Western 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano
bullets of the type normally loaded in ammunition made for this rifle,
139. However, the mutilation of the nose of the bullet has eliminated
the length characteristics, and it cannot be definitely stated that
Exhibit 573 is in fact a Western Cartridge Co. product, but all of the
remaining characteristics of base shape, distance from the base to the
cannelure, the width of the cannelure, and the overall appearance,
coloration, and so forth, are similar to Western ammunition.

Mr. EISENBERG - But you do conclude that this was fired from a
Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38, or a rifle with similar barrel

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - When you say you were able to determine it was fired from
this type of rifle or one similar to it, that would include a number
of different kinds of rifles besides the Mannlicher-Carcano?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could include a variety of weapons with
which I am not familiar in the foreign field.

Mr. McCLOY - But it is definitely, according to your best judgment, a
6.5 mm. bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Robert Frazier


JOSEPH D. NICOL - I found that within the limits that Commission
Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard
object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond,
that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to
Commission Exhibit 572 [test bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle
for comparison purposes].

Mr. EISENBERG - As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel
that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572
and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but
not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same

Mr. NICOL - Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families
of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on
the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would
want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area,
all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did
not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as
a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or
suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.



I'm certainly no ballistics expert like Bob Frazier or Joe Nicol, but
I can see the definite "MC/6.5mm" similarities with just one look at
CE573. The similarities are obvious, as can be easily seen in the side-
by-side pictures here:

>>> "If one handles a gun with no gloves, don't you think their prints will be all over it?" <<<

It's my opinion that Oswald used his brown shirt (which he was probably
not wearing during the assassination) to wipe off as many prints as he
could from the rifle while transporting it to the northwest corner of the
sixth floor before dumping the gun behind his (IMO) pre-arranged box-hiding
location near the stairs.

This could account for the fresh brownish fibers being found under the butt
plate of the rifle. (I ask: How would shirt fibers manage to WEDGE
themselves onto the rifle in any OTHER fashion?)


>>> "It [Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle] was a low-velocity gun." <<<

Technically, yes, it's considered "low velocity". But it still produced an
average muzzle velocity of 2,165 feet-per-second (per Robert Frazier's
1964 Warren Commission testimony), which of course is more than
powerful enough to kill a human being who is less than 100 yards from
the shooter.

Let's listen to Bob Frazier again:

Mr. FRAZIER - The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same
weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has
very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is an
established military weapon.

>>> "It jams a lot." <<<

AFAIK, the Carcano never once jammed during the many tests that the
rifle was subjected to by the Army at Edgewood Arsenal. I could be
wrong about that, however. I will admit, on this point, I don't have
the exact stats at my fingertips. But it seems to me that I heard, via
some of the tests that were done after 11/22/63, that Oswald's Carcano
rifle was not prone to jamming up as much as the conspiracy theorists

I might be thinking about Dr. John Lattimer's experiments in the
mid-1970s, in which he tested various MC rifles (although not CE139
itself), with Lattimer finding that the Carcano rifle and its Western
Cartridge Company ammunition were very reliable and accurate.

Lattimer suffered no misfires at all while firing approximately 700 test
rounds from the exact same lots of bullets (four different lots total) that
were used by Oswald himself in CE139.

Upon perusing Lattimer's 1980 book ("Kennedy And Lincoln"), I couldn't
find a specific reference that addressed the "jamming" subject with
respect to the MC rifles he used in his tests, but Lattimer's extensive
experiments definitely showed that the conspiracy theorists are
dead wrong when they insist that Lee Harvey Oswald's feat in Dallas
was "impossible" due to his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a "piece
of junk", as these two diagrams below illustrate (from pages 300-301
of Dr. Lattimer's book):

>>> "Tippit [was] shot by two men with automatic weapons." <<<

Mega-Bullshit this time!

Lee Harvey Oswald killed J.D. Tippit beyond all doubt.

And: I wonder why "two men" were needed to murder Officer Tippit? And
I wonder (even more so) why it was, per Rob's scenario, that EVERY
SINGLE WITNESS (including Acquilla Clemons!) at the Tippit murder
scene failed to notice TWO MEN WITH GUNS?

Nobody saw TWO men with guns on 10th Street. The witnesses (save
Clemons) only saw one killer--Oswald. And only ONE man (Oswald) was
seen fleeing the scene by virtually all witnesses (with, again,
Clemons seeming to be the only dissenting witness in this "one man"

Also: How did the unknown "plotters" think they'd be able to frame
ONLY OSWALD for Tippit's murder when "they" went ahead and killed
the policeman with TWO automatic weapons, instead of just using one
non-automatic gun (which is all the proverbial "patsy" had with him on
November 22nd)?

Those plotters must have just gotten lucky when the cops AND the Warren
boys apparently wanted to frame the SAME patsy named Oswald after the

>>> "He [Saint Oswald] wouldn't have time to shoot Tippit..." <<<

You're referring to Conspiracy Myth #34B -- "OSWALD DIDN'T HAVE

Of course, this is more CT-slanted bullshit. Re-enactments were done,
and it was proven that a person could easily traverse the 0.85 of a
mile in question in the approx. time Oswald had on 11/22/63. It took
about 11 or 12 minutes, per the re-creations.

And that was only at a "fast walking" pace; Oswald might have been
moving faster. Plus, LHO was almost certainly not in that roominghouse
for more than a minute or two, tops....not the "3 to 4 minutes" that
Earlene Roberts estimated.

>>> "...and more witnesses said it wasn't LHO [who killed Tippit] than
did." <<<



Gee whiz, you seem to be trying for "Kook Of The Month" or something.
You've misrepresented just about every single thing you've posted
today....including the above hunk of total balderdash about the Tippit

Virtually every witness identified Lee Oswald as Tippit's murderer or
as the ONE MAN they saw fleeing the murder site with a gun in his

Mrs. Clemons, again, is the exception here. But Clemons only saw the
aftermath of the shooting; and, given the totality of the evidence
that needs to be weighed and assessed in this matter, Clemons almost
certainly HAD to have seen Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun, not some
non-Oswald "killer".

To believe that Clemons trumps people like the Davis girls (who saw
Oswald UP CLOSE and both saw him emptying shells from his REVOLVER
on their lawn) is just plain crazy.

In short, if Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit, then nobody
killed him.

David Von Pein
October 2007


(PART 7)


>>> "The paper [bag] HAD NO ABRASIONS, which, during all other re-creations, showed it HAD TO LEAVE ABRASION MARKS." <<<


Those silly-willy patsy-framing plotters are at it again, I see ---
They plant a fake paper bag that they want people to think carried Lee
Oswald's rifle, but -- oops! -- they forgot one thing! They forgot to
that the "abrasions" (as Richard Van Noord likes to call them) can appear
on the bag and also so that some oil stains will appear on the bag too.

Not to mention the fact that these stupid plotters should have WANTED
to put a rifle in their "fake" bag for another critical reason as well
-- to make sure Oswald's dismantled rifle WOULD FIT INSIDE THE "FAKE"

Did the lazy plotters just get lucky when it was later discovered that
Oswald's 34.8-inch weapon (when broken down) would, indeed, fit inside
the 38-inch "fake" bag that was planted in the Nest (which was a bag
that, per conspiracists, never had a rifle inside of it any any point in

>>> "Answer this, David: when did he [Oswald] make the bag? I would love to hear this." <<<

Nobody can know the answer to that question with 100% certainty, of
course, since Mr. Oswald wasn't nice enough to tell us that
information before Jack Ruby took care of him on Sunday morning.

But given the SUM TOTAL of the paper-bag evidence, there can be little
doubt that Oswald DID, indeed, construct that makeshift, handmade
paper bag at some point prior to approximately 7:10 AM on Friday
morning, November 22nd, which was the first time anyone noticed Oswald
with a bag, when Linnie Mae Randle watched LHO approach her house in
Irving carrying a bulky paper package [see video below].

Vincent Bugliosi, in his JFK book, says something interesting
regarding this "paper bag" subject that I had never heard postulated
before. At one point in the book's "Lee Harvey Oswald" bio chapter, VB
says that when the Oswalds' personal possessions were being moved from
New Orleans to Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas, in late September
1963, the rifle was ALREADY wrapped in brown wrapping paper and then
placed in the blanket roll (where it remained until LHO took it out of
the blanket on November 21st or 22nd).

Quoting from "Reclaiming History":

"Looking back, Ruth [Paine] realized he [Lee Oswald] had been
"distinctly" eager to do the packing. He was probably trying to avoid
having her handle, any more than she had to, the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle, which he had disassembled, wrapped in a brown paper package,
and tied up in a blanket.

[Via the footnote at the bottom of page #746:]

"But of course someone had to unpack the package when Ruth
arrived in Texas a few days later, and it was her husband Michael,
whom she had called to help her. He was perplexed by the weight and
feel of the contents of the package, thoughts like "camping equipment"
and "an iron pipe" entering his mind. These guesses didn't seem quite
accurate to him, but being the "polite" Quaker he was, and aware of
Oswald's "rights to privacy," he never snooped. He would later say he
was satisfied it was Oswald's rifle."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 746
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


So, per Bugliosi's account, the rifle was ALREADY "disassembled" and
it was ALREADY "wrapped in a brown paper package" when Lee Harvey
Oswald placed the rifle atop Ruth Paine's station wagon in September
of '63 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

However, when examining this topic a little further, I really don't
think VB's account can be accurate with respect to the rifle being
wrapped in brown paper when the blanket containing the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle was moved from New Orleans to the Paine residence in
Irving in September.

I now offer up excerpts from Michael Paine's Warren Commission testimony:

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "I now show you Commission Exhibit 364, which is a
replica of a sack which was prepared by authorities in Dallas; and I
also show you another sack, which is Commission Exhibit 142, and ask
you if you have ever seen in or around your garage in Irving, Texas,
any sacks similar to those?"

MICHAEL PAINE -- "No, I haven't."

MR. LIEBELER -- "Have you seen any paper in your garage in Irving
prior to November 22, 1963, or at any other place, at your home in
Irving, Texas, that is similar to the paper of which those sacks are

MR. PAINE -- "No, I haven't." ....

MR. LIEBELER -- "When you moved the sacks, the blanket, the package
that was wrapped in the blanket in your garage, were you able to
determine whether or not the object inside the sack was also wrapped
in paper?"

MR. PAINE -- "I would have said that it was not. When we practiced
wrapping that rifle yesterday, I would have guessed that any paper
around the barrel in there, which I could feel with some clarity,
would have crinkled."

MR. LIEBELER -- "And to your recollection there was no crinkling in
the package wrapped with the blanket?"

MR. PAINE -- "Yes. It was a very quiet package."



There is also the following testimony from Michael Paine regarding the
length of the object that was inside the blanket roll which was being
stored in Ruth Paine's garage.

This is testimony from Mr. Paine that could very well indicate the
possibility that the rifle WAS, indeed, already disassembled when it
was being stored at the Paine residence, because the overall length of
the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest on November 22 measured just
one inch longer than the estimate provided by Mr. Paine.

But, then too, it should also be noted, to be perfectly fair, that the
full length of Oswald's rifle when assembled (40.2 inches) was not
really too much longer than this estimate made by Michael Paine:

MR. LIEBELER -- "How long was this package in your estimation?"

MR. PAINE -- "Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I
indicated with my hand; I think it came to 37 inches."



And then we have this portion of Mrs. Ruth Paine's WC testimony
regarding the length of the blanket roll that she first noticed on the
floor of her garage in late October of 1963 (which is testimony that
would tend to lean toward the probability that the rifle was not
dismantled when Ruth saw it in her garage):

ALBERT JENNER -- "I take it from your testimony that the blanket, when
you first saw it in a garage, was in a configuration in the form of a

RUTH PAINE -- "It was a long rectangle shape with the ends tucked in."

MR. JENNER -- "Would you be good enough to re-form that blanket so
that it is in the shape and the dimension when you first saw it?"

MRS. PAINE -- "About like so."

MR. JENNER -- "For the record if you please, Mr. Chairman, the length
of the form is just exactly 45 inches, and it is across exactly 12



And there's Marina Oswald's testimony, which almost certainly supports
the idea that the rifle was not wrapped in brown paper while being
stored on the floor of Ruth Paine's garage:

MARINA OSWALD -- "I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was
wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in
the blanket?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "I never checked to see that. There was only once that
I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw
that it was a rifle."

MR. RANKIN -- "When was that?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "About a week after I came from New Orleans."

MR. RANKIN -- "And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket,
did you?"

MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I saw the wooden part of it....the wooden stock."


http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Marina Oswald


So, when evaluating and assessing the totality of all of the above
snippets of testimony from the various individuals who saw the rifle
and/or the rolled-up blanket on the floor of the Paine garage, I'm
compelled to think that Mr. Bugliosi is incorrect with respect to his
remarks on page #746 of "Reclaiming History" when VB claims that the
rifle was already wrapped up in brown paper when Lee Harvey Oswald
loaded it into Ruth Paine's car in September 1963.

In the final analysis, I'm convinced beyond any and all reasonable
doubt that Lee Oswald, at some point prior to 7:10 AM on 11/22/63,
constructed a homemade paper bag with which to conceal his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle.

If I had a gun to my head and was being forced to explain just exactly
WHEN Oswald created his makeshift rifle-carrying bag, I'd say this:

Oswald, IMO, most likely took some wrapping paper and tape from the
Texas School Book Depository's first-floor shipping/mailing area on
Thursday, November 21st (which is the same day he asked Wesley Frazier
for the unusual weeknight ride to Ruth Paine's home in Irving).

Yes, it's true that TSBD "mail wrapper" Troy West testified that he
had never seen Oswald hanging around the wrapping-paper area on the
first floor, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption to say
that Oswald, in his quest to gain access to the paper and tape, was
probably wise enough to wait until Mr. West had left his work station
for a few minutes.

Perhaps Oswald waited until West went to use the bathroom, which
everybody has to do a few times every single day of their lives. And
while West was temporarily away from his mailing station, Oswald
swiped some wrapping paper and some tape.

And, undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal
the paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on
Thursday evening.

Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket
that he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before
November 22nd (LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor
"Domino Room" in early December 1963).

It's also worth mentioning that the bag found on the sixth floor of
the TSBD after the assassination had symmetrical, evenly-spaced folds
in it....just as if someone had folded it up to make its size much
smaller before using it for stashing a 30-plus-inch object (like, say,
a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle).....

I'll also add this concerning Troy West and his Warren Commission

West didn't say that a Depository employee positively COULDN'T have
taken some paper and tape from the workbench/mailing area. In fact,
with respect to the tape, Mr. West specifically told the Warren
Commission that employees "could come get it if they wanted to use

More West testimony:

DAVID BELIN -- "Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever help you wrap mail?"

TROY WEST -- "No, sir; he never did."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not he ever borrowed or used any
wrapping paper for himself?"

MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I don't."

MR. BELIN -- "You don't know?"

MR. WEST -- "No, I don't."

MR. BELIN -- "Did you ever see him around these wrapper rolls or
wrapper roll machines, or not?"

MR. WEST -- "No, sir; I never noticed him being around."

[Regarding the tape dispenser:]

MR. BELIN -- "Could other employees come and pick up some of the tape
for themselves?"

MR. WEST -- "Yes, sir. They could come get it if they wanted to use
it; but all the time it was there where it is supposed to be."


David Von Pein
October 2007







(PART 6)


>>> "Of course she [Karen Carlin] was ["in" on the plot to rub out Oswald] to a limited degree. Ruby needed an excuse and the plot was hatched for the money Saturday night heard by witnesses." <<<


Great. Now Karen Carlin was a part of the massive conspiracy too.

So, apparently Carlin deliberately didn't pay her rent prior to
November 24th, so she could use that as an excuse to call Ruby on
Sunday morning and ask for $25. Right?

It's also interesting to note that Carlin told the Warren Commission
that Ruby didn't tell Carlin what TIME on Sunday for her to call him
about the rent money. ......

KAREN BENNETT CARLIN -- "I happened to mention I would need money for
rent tomorrow, and he said to call him [on Sunday]. .... He didn't say
what time."


But, I guess we're really supposed to read the above testimony in a
totally-different (and pro-conspiracy) way. Per Curt J., apparently
Mrs. Carlin was just putting on a big "act" and telling a bunch of
lies when she said the above things to the Warren Commission on April
15th, 1964. Right, Curt?

Carlin, the 20-year-old nightclub stripper, was really a part of the
"plot" to rub out Lee Harvey Oswald in November of '63. Right, CJ? She
was lying through her cute "Little Lynn" teeth when she said she
wasn't even told what time to call Ruby on Sunday, huh?

But, being a part of the "Big Plot", she really knew she had to call
Ruby prior to 10:30 AM in order to make her money request look
authentic and genuine. Right, Curt?

Or, perhaps Curt and other kooks think it wouldn't have mattered what
time on Sunday Carlin gave Jack a ring. If she had waited until 5:00
PM on Sunday to call Ruby, I guess Captain Fritz and the rest of the
crooked cops would have merely stalled Oswald's transfer to the County
Jail for additional 6 hours, so that Ruby could be in position (and
use that "Western Union" excuse, to boot).

Right, Curt J.?

BTW, Curt, was Karen's husband "in" on The Big Plot too? He probably
was, right? Because he talked to Ruby on the phone on Saturday night
at the garage too, and he was right there with Karen at the garage
when Karen was given $5 by the garage man....and he was right there
when Karen talked to Ruby about the rent money that Karen needed.

Or was Karen telling more lies about her husband being there and
actually calling Ruby for her on Saturday night?

To borrow a great quote from Vincent Bugliosi (which most certainly
applies here...for sure):

"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 507 of "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.; c.


>>> "She [Karen Carlin] was onto the assassination by just being an employee and overhearing the plot at her work. When she told the WC this, she was bumped off." <<<

Great. One more addition to the "Mystery Deaths" list. Excellent.

Yes, I know YOU didn't add Carlin to the "Death List"; she's been on
Jim Marrs' crazy list for quite some time.


"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- VB

And, once again (just like with so many other witnesses who the
conspiracy kooks think were "bumped off" by the "Post-11/22 Death
Squad"), here we have the silly Death Squad evidently murdering a
witness (Carlin) only AFTER SHE HAS ALREADY TALKED.

Those Death Squad guys were really on their toes, huh? It never
occurred to them to knock off Carlin BEFORE she testified (twice!) in
front of the Warren Commission, huh?

So, instead of rubbing out Carlin prior to her April 1964 session with
the WC, the Goon Squad lets Carlin (a person who was very close to
Ruby; and who was an insider to "plot" information, per some CT-Kooks)
live to tell the WC of her suspicions about Jack Ruby having had some
kind of contact with Lee Oswald, etc.

VB Excerpt Time.....

"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-
death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book
"Crossfire" lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in
any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known
value to say about the case. ....

"But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig,
Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them,
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, had already told their story, most of them on the
public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?" --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

>>> "Of course Fritz was a conspirator, like all the uppers of DPD." <<<

Definitely worthy of a Hat Trick!......

"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- VB

>>> "Ruby was following the so-called transfer the previous day until it was delayed. He had a gun at the Oswald Public Viewing at midnite the day of the assassination, and didn't get his opportunity because of Oswald opening his mouth and the crowd getting too pushy." <<<

This is a ridiculous and flimsy-as-hell excuse you've invented from
whole cloth here, Curt (especially when considering the way Ruby DID
murder Oswald on Sunday).

You're implying that Ruby, who went barreling into Oswald at point-
blank range while on Live TV on Sunday with dozens of policemen around
him, couldn't have possibly managed to shoot Oswald on Friday night at
the midnight press gathering because of the "pushy" crowd and because

One word seems appropriate in response to the above --- Huh???

Oswald opening his mouth and denying his guilt somehow partially
prevented Ruby from pushing through the newsmen and plugging Oswald
(which is just EXACTLY what he DID manage to do on Sunday morning)?

Again -- HUH??? (And a "WTF?" wouldn't be out of line at this point

But, I'm sure you'll retort with a good explanation for why Ruby
couldn't manage to kill Oswald on Friday night or (better still) on
Friday afternoon right after the assassination of JFK (if Ruby had
truly been hired by the "Mob"--or whoever--to rub out Oswald as soon
as possible after the assassination).

And you'll be able to invent this scenario/explanation because you are
a classic example of a rabid CTer who MUST have a conspiracy in this
case at all costs -- i.e., a person who loves to make up his own
"evidence" and possibilities and scenarios.

And you posted quite a bit of totally-unsupportable and made-up-from-
whole-cloth tripe in just your last medium-sized post linked above

Here are just some of the many examples of your made-up conspiracy-
loving junk from your October 13th forum post, which includes the
wholly-despicable/disgusting (and unprovable, of course) conspiracy-
tinged allegation against pretty much the entire Dallas Police

CurtJester's Inventions......

1.) "Of course Fritz was a conspirator, like all the uppers of DPD."
-- CJ

2.) "All of them [the DPD "uppers"] were on a special payroll, and
only the most corrupt and loyal were assigned to Dealey that day." --

3.) "The assassins were probably police escorted that day, as Dallas
was that corrupt and JFK-hating." -- CJ

4.) All the delays upstairs were to have Ruby get ready. The Western
Union office was visible to them, so they knew when Ruby would be
arriving." -- CJ

5.) "Of course she [Karen Carlin] was ["in" on the make-believe plot
to kill Oswald] to a limited degree." -- CJ

6.) "She [Karen Carlin] was bumped off." -- CJ


When does the next flight leave for "JFK Fantasy Island", Curt? I'd
like to buy a ticket for that flight....just for the laughs that
island provides.

David Von Pein
October 2007


(PART 5)


>>> "Roger Craig: Officer of the Year in 1960. Yeah, he has no
credibility." <<<


I don't care if he was named "Boy Scout Of The Year" five years in a
row, Craig still would have ZERO credibility when it comes to the JFK
case (because of his outlandish and provable bald-faced LIE about
having seen the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle on November 22, 1963).

Roger Craig was a liar when it came to a crucial aspect (the rifle) of
the John F. Kennedy murder case. That is a known fact. And one lie
usually tends to feed more lies.

But if you, Richard, choose to believe some (or all) of Craig's tales,
knock yourself out. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, you have proven
yourself to be a conspiracy-loving kook over the last several weeks.

>>> "David, I know this disagrees with your theory, but he [Officer McDonald] did say "Oswald" when he entered the theatre." <<<

That is pure outright bullshit.

McDonald did not (and could not) have called the name "Oswald" when he
entered the Texas Theater. No way. No how. It never happened. And
that's because as of 1:45 to 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, the Dallas
Police Department (including Officer Nick McDonald) had no idea who
the suspect in the theater was. The man who ducked into the theater
was, at that hour, merely a nameless suspect in the Tippit killing.

When a person retells the details of an event days, months, and years
after the event has taken place, additional and incorrect information
can easily seep into a recounting of the event.

A good example of this type of thing can be found in the 1964 motion
picture "Four Days In November". There's a re-created scene in that
documentary film that shows shoe clerk Johnny Calvin Brewer retelling
the movie audience what he saw on November 22nd, 1963 (the movie was
filmed in early to mid 1964, several months after the assassination).

In that re-created scene [see the video below], Brewer himself tells the
audience (via a voice-over) something that only applies in a RETELLING
of the event, and is something that Brewer did not know as of approximately
1:36 PM on 11/22/63 -- and that is when Brewer tells the movie audience
that he heard on the radio that "Officer Tippit" had been shot.

But it was impossible for Brewer to have known the exact name of the
policeman as of approx. 1:36 PM on 11/22/63, since the name "Tippit"
was certainly not revealed to the public over the radio or TV until well
after that early time on November 22.

The name "Tippit" was obviously learned by Brewer much later than the
initial reports he heard on his radio in Hardy's Shoe Store on
Jefferson Boulevard. But he re-told the story as if he had known at
the time on 11/22 that the officer's name was "Tippit".

The exact same type of thing (with respect to the name "Oswald")
occurred during Johnny Brewer's Warren Commission session on April 2,
1964. Let's take a look:

JOHNNY BREWER -- "Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to
where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way.
And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and
turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theater."

DAVID BELIN -- "Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald.
Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?"

BREWER -- "No."

BELIN -- "So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?"

BREWER -- "No."



I'll add this note regarding Johnny Brewer -- Brewer testified that he had
probably seen Oswald in his shoe store prior to November 22nd. But,
even so, Brewer admitted that he had not known Oswald's name as of
11/22/63 (as the above testimony indicates).

But in the hands of a conspiracy theorist who is bent on skewing the
true facts (even innocent witness testimony), those "Tippit" and
"Oswald" statements made by Brewer when he was recounting his 11/22
observations could be used by certain CTers to make it look like Mr.
Brewer somehow knew the exact names of Tippit and Oswald as of about
1:30 to 1:40 PM CST on November 22, which, of course, is not possible.

I'd be willing to bet a large sum of greenbacks that the very same
kind of embellished retelling of a story has occurred (in some fashion)
regarding Officer M.N. McDonald.

>>> "I love your assessment of Oswald. He lied most of the time, but when he didn't lie, it just happens to support your version of events. That's a hoot!" <<<

And it makes total sense too. And if you weren't so deeply buried in
your fictional account of the assassination (and of Oswald), you'd see
that it makes perfect (common) sense.


Lee H. Oswald (the killer of both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit
without a shred of a reasonable doubt) told many provable lies to the
police about CRUCIAL, SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS, such as:

The rifle and the revolver....his whereabouts at exactly 12:30....the
backyard photos showing LHO with the guns he used to killed JFK and
JDT....the long, brown package he took with him into the Book
Depository on the morning of 11/22....the alias A.J. Hidell that he
used to order both the rifle and the revolver....the "curtain
rods"....and on and on.

But when it came to not-very-critical matters like the bus ride or the
cab ride home or something else fairly innocuous in nature, Oswald
doesn't lie, because he doesn't NEED to lie about those things.

And, moreover, what I have said about Oswald's "lies" vs. his "non-
lies" can be backed up with OTHER EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES to show
that I am 100% correct regarding this topic of "LHO's Falsehoods".

Such as:

1.) Mary Bledsoe (passenger on bus who IDed Oswald as having been on

2.) William Whaley (cab driver who verified positively that LHO was in
his cab on November 22).

3.) Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle (who both verified that
Oswald lied when he said he didn't carry ANY type of long, brown bag
to work with him on the day of JFK's murder).

And who had more reasons to tell lies after JFK's murder -- Lee Harvey
Oswald or Frazier/Randle? In other words, why on Earth would BOTH
Frazier and Randle want to make up a false story about Oswald carrying
a bulky paper package?

4.) Marina Oswald (who confirmed she did, in fact, take the backyard
photos of LHO, proving that Oswald lied when he said the pictures were

5.) The handwriting experts who gave testimony to the Warren Commission
(who verified beyond ALL possible doubt that the writing on ALL of the
pertinent documents surrounding the ordering of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle
#C2766 and Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 in early 1963 were in the
handwriting of one "Lee Harvey Oswald".*

* = This important fact, of course, provides the proof for many more
of Oswald's lies...e.g. (paraphrasing each lie): "I don't own a rifle"; "I've
never owned a rifle"; "I bought the revolver in Fort Worth"; "I didn't order
any guns via mail-order"; "I don't know who A.J. Hidell is".

6.) The HSCA (whose photographic experts confirmed beyond all
reasonable doubt that the backyard photos of Oswald were genuine
articles and had not been faked in any way whatsoever. Allow me to
quote the HSCA directly on this topic:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

David Von Pein
October 2007


(PART 4)


How did Officer McDonald know that Oswald was the suspect when his name was never disseminated on the DPD radio system? I have all the transmissions that day, have listened to them numerous times, but I can't for the life of me figure out how he knew how to call out "Oswald" when he entered the theatre.


Where did that conspiracy myth about Officer Nick McDonald come from?
I'd never heard that one before. Must be a new myth from the CT vine.
McDonald never called the name "Oswald" when he entered the theater;
and that's because the name "Oswald" was not known by any of the DPD
officers at the time of LHO's arrest.

The police got a tip from Julia Postal's phone call. Postal (with
Johnny Brewer's info at the ready too) told the police that a
suspicious-acting man had entered the theater, with Postal also
telling the police "This man is running from them for some reason".

But the name "Oswald" was most certainly never mentioned by Postal,
Brewer, or anyone else until after the police had Oswald in custody
and seated in a police car.

So, the DPD had all the info they needed to act on Postal's tip. They
knew a man who was acting in a suspicious manner had gone into the
theater. And this was just a few blocks from the Tippit murder site
(and just a few minutes after that murder).

McDonald didn't know the suspect was "Oswald" by name when he
encountered him in the theater. The suspect was pointed out to
McDonald and the other officers by Johnny Brewer. But Brewer certainly
didn't say the name "Oswald" to anybody.

Why in the world would ANYONE (other than Oliver Stone) find the above
chain of events leading to Oswald's arrest the least bit strange or
mysterious or conspiratorial in any fashion whatsoever?

I wonder if Oliver Stone thinks Postal and Brewer were co-plotters

CTers....a strange (empty) lot indeed.


And I still can't figure out how Oswald had three wallets either; maybe you could explain that. That's a lot of wallets for one person, wouldn't you agree?


Yeah. But you've got three heads, don't you? (And none of them
contains a working brain that can process information accurately. So,
strange things happen sometimes. Go figure.)

BTW, even if the "extra wallet" on 10th Street WAS Oswald's (and I
think it was probably Tippit's and not LHO's), how does this extra
wallet being found WHERE WE KNOW OSWALD SHOT AND KILLED TIPPIT somehow get Oswald off the hook for that murder on Tenth Street?

A "planted" wallet? Why? What the heck for? There were many witnesses
watching Oswald shoot Tippit, and there were the shells from Oz's gun
left behind too. Why the need to plant any wallet? That idea is just
too goofy for further discussion.


It is amazing how a witness who said, beyond a doubt, he could pick out the sixth floor shooter, failed to do so on the day of the shooting, huh?


Not at all. Howard Brennan fully explained all of that in his WC
testimony and in his earlier FBI interviews. But, naturally, CTers
don't want to accept Brennan's "I Feared For My Life And The Safety Of
My Family" explanation. So, per CTers, Brennan is a teller of tall

It was lucky for Howard, though, that his initial descriptions (via
affidavit and to the police for the APB bulletin) just happened to
generally match Oswald. After all, Brennan could have initially said
he saw a black man in his 60s with a bushy beard firing a gun at JFK
that day, couldn't he have?

And, given the brain-free nature of the bumbling Patsy-Framers who the
CT-Kooks think were arranging the assassination, I'm kinda surprised
those bumblers DIDN'T utilize a black man in his 60s to "double" as
Lee Oswald in the window.


It is amazing how a fully metal jacketed bullet acted like a hollow point bullet that day, isn't it?


And yet the "hollow point" bullet still (somehow) managed to RETAIN
ITS POINTY-NOSE STATUS after striking the bones in John Connally and
making its way onto that stretcher (per some CTers who think Tomlinson
found a "pointy", INTACT bullet inside Parkland Hospital).

Amazing, huh? CTers think that CE399 could never in a million decades
do what LNers and the WC and the HSCA say 399 did to the two victims
in 1963....and yet, somehow, some way, this "pointy-tipped" bullet
that many CTers think was the "Real" bullet found by Tomlinson was
able to cause extensive bony damage to Connally....without even
crushing the pointy tip of the bullet.

How'd that happen, Mr. Conspiracy?

Or was the "pointy" bullet a "plant" too?

If so, your team of plotters/planters just got dumber (if that's even
possible). They plant a bullet that can't possibly be tied to their
"Patsy", and then have to switch the bullets later.

Why not just NOT plant ANY bullet? That'd make much more sense. But
when you've got to make up ridiculous accusations about planted
evidence, you know that such a scenario can never make any sense. And,
of course, it doesn't. Not even from the "CTer" POV.


It is amazing how one cab driver says LHO was in his cab, but never picked him out in a lineup.


You're goofy. Whaley positively identified Oswald as being the person
who was in his cab on November 22, 1963. Let's have a look:

WILLIAM WHALEY (To the WC) -- "I knew he [Oswald] was the right one as
soon as I saw him [in the police line-up]."


Also, there's the added fact that Lee Oswald admitted to having ridden
in a cab on November 22.*

* = You see, Oswald didn't ALWAYS lie to the police after his arrest.
His many, many lies (logically so) centered mainly on his whereabouts
at 12:30 PM and when he was questioned about the assassination itself
and the topic of Oswald's guns.

But the cab ride wasn't important enough for him to lie about, so he
didn't lie about it. Same with the bus ride. He admitted to that too.
Plus, the paper bus transfer in his pocket provides ironclad proof he
was on McWatters' bus on 11/22/63.

And, btw, the cab ride is an interesting topic for multiple other
reasons as well....in that it is circumstantial evidence, itself, of
Oswald's guilt on November 22. And that's because Oswald was a
tightwad/cheapskate/skinflint of the first order.

I doubt, in fact, that you could find one other example of LHO
spending his cash on a taxi ride within the United States. And he
certainly never spent his money on a cab ride JUST TO GO HOME FROM
WORK. (I do believe, though, that he rode in a few cabs while he lived
in Russia.)

Also -- If Oswald were innocent of killing Kennedy....WHY WAS HE IN

He walks PAST a perfectly-good bus stop right there at Elm & Houston
and walks several blocks east on Elm and gets on a bus in the middle
of a block that he normally would not have gotten on to take him to
his lodgings on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.


And then he's in such a hurry that he only stays on the bus approx.
four minutes or so and gets a transfer from driver Cecil McWatters
(which, btw, might mean MORE wasted money down the drain for el-cheapo
Oswald IF he doesn't use the transfer in the allotted timeframe, which
he might NOT do at all that day, since he decides to switch
transportation modes entirely and get in a taxi cab instead of getting
on another Dallas bus).

Why the big hurry to get out of downtown Dallas IF HE'S COMPLETELY

And then, even though he's obviously in a pretty big HURRY (to get
home?), he has cab driver William W. Whaley drive him BEYOND his
roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley, with Whaley dropping Oswald off in
the 700 block of Beckley (at Neely & Beckley).

Obviously, Oswald didn't want Whaley to drop him off right in front of
his roominghouse. Why, if he's got nothing to hide at all?


Five witnesses place him [Oswald] in a Nash Rambler.


Five witnesses? Name one, besides Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig.

BTW, the late Roger Craig was a LIAR. I don't usually come right out
and call people "liars" (even CTers who love to bend the facts every
day of the week)....but Mr. Craig is an exception. Why? Because of his
blatant lie about actually seeing the words "7.65 MAUSER" stamped on
the rifle that was found by Boone and Weitzman on the Depository's
sixth floor. That was a total LIE, plain and simple. No way Craig saw
any such thing stamped on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Of course, the whole "Oswald Got In A Rambler" story is proven to be
the bunk it is with just one good look at the OTHER evidence that
proves Oswald was getting on a bus at that precise time (about 12:40).

Or did the driver of the Rambler suddenly get mad at his co-
conspirator and throw Oswald out of the station wagon, leaving Lee to
his own locomotion devices for the rest of the afternoon?


It is amazing how two witnesses place him [Oswald] on the first floor, while at the same time, people on Elm Street see someone that looks like him on the sixth floor, isn't it?


Who besides Carolyn "I NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT SEEING OSWALD IN THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCH ROOM UNTIL 1978" Arnold said they saw Oswald on the first floor around the time of the assassination?

Carolyn Arnold, btw, gave multiple FBI statements shortly after the assassination. In one of those statements [Commission Document No. 5], she said she might have caught a glimpse of LHO on the first floor shortly before the assassination. But in another FBI statement [CD706], Arnold never said anything about seeing Oswald anywhere in the building on November 22.

But in NEITHER of those FBI statements did Mrs. Arnold say anything about seeing Oswald sitting in the SECOND-FLOOR lunch room, alone, eating his lunch. She made up that tale for Anthony Summers fifteen years after the assassination.

So much for Carolyn Arnold's credibility.

When talking about additional sightings of Oswald on the FIRST floor shortly before 12:30....are you talking about Eddie Piper? Or Bill Shelley?

Well, if so, you'd better re-think that CT strategy. Because neither of those witnesses can possibly rescue your beloved Saint Oswald. Not at all. Or have you thought up a new "1st-Floor Witness" to help clear the dear, sweet patsy?


Isn't is amazing that 5' 10", 165-175 describes Malcolm Wallace rather than Lee Harvey Oswald?


Back to Malcolm again, eh? Similar to gum on the ol' shoe, Mac just kinda sticks there, doesn't he (for CTers without anything ELSE to rely on anyway)? He sticks there, even though no TSBD workers who were working on the 6th Floor on November 22 saw any "strangers" in the building that day. Nor did any other TSBD workers (except possibly one old man being seen on the FIRST floor, but certainly not the sixth floor).

So, apparently Wallace now looks so much like Lee Harvey Oswald that Howard Brennan actually was totally FOOLED by Malcolm's presence in the 6th-Floor window, huh?!

Mac MUST have been an excellent "Oswald Look-alike" indeed.

David Von Pein
October 2007

(PART 3)



"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and
know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Page 953 of
"Reclaiming History"


"Priceless quote."


Yeah....I thought so too. (That's why I posted it...yet again.)

Here's another VB gem that never fails to elicit a smile:

"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB; Page
xiv of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


"What arrogance [Bugliosi displays in his JFK book]."


The truth hurts conspiracy theorists. It has for 44 years. It must be
awfully discouraging for the conspiracy lovers to come up empty in the
"Raw Physical Evidence" department, decade after decade. 44 years
later and lookie what bullets and ballistics evidence are on the table
-- Only Oswald's.

That's some great proof of a multi-gun assassination "conspiracy" that
nearly all CTers place their blind faith in, huh? (Criminy.)

Vince is arrogant. You're 100% right about that. But I love his
arrogance. And that's because he's got ample REASON to display such
arrogance toward the rabid JFK conspiracists of this world. The
theories and "plots" that have purported since 1963 are simply
ridiculous....or, as VB puts it, they are just "pure moonshine".

How anyone can possibly look into the JFK case for more than just a
few days and come away with a "There Must Have Been A Conspiracy"
mindset is just totally beyond my thinking.*

* = But, then again, I don't go around 24/7 accusing everybody in
Officialdom of performing illegal acts with respect to the
investigation of a murdered U.S. President. Call me silly, but that's
the way I am. And I'm not about to change that common-sense philosophy
just because Ollie Stone filmed a crazy 3-shooter, 6-shot, ONE-PATSY
assassination scenario for Warner Brothers in 1991. (Ya GOTTA love
that one for impossible-to-pull-off murder schemes!)


"The way he [Bugliosi] thinks has nothing to do with thinking at all,
and he has dealt with the evidence against Oswald bass ackwards."


You must be high on copious quantities of Goofy Gas to say such a
silly thing re. VB's "evidence" against Lee Oswald.

Bugliosi has laid out so much raw physical and circumstantial evidence
against this nutcase named Oswald, it would make ANY prosecutor's
mouth water non-stop for a month.

There have been few murder cases in the last 100 years that have left
behind such a popcorn trail of evidence (both physical and
circumstantial) leading to the ONE AND ONLY killer.

And if you want to take the normal "bass ackwards" tack that
conspiracy promoters often like to take (i.e., pretend that all of the
massive amount of evidence against Oswald has been faked and/or
manipulated by evil-doers both before and after 12:30 PM on
11/22/63)....then you'd better make an appointment to see Dr. Bob
Hartley (or another well-respected phychologist or phychiatrist of
some ilk), because the standard, unsupportable "Everything's Been
Faked" mantra is nothing but a cop-out that CTers use because THERE'S

When you've got no evidence at all that shows other killers besides
Oswald murdered both JFK and J.D. Tippit, then (obviously) the
conspiracy-adoring clowns of the universe have no choice but to go
down "Everything Was Fake" Avenue.


"So most of us are NOT buying the W.R. [Warren Report] conclusions
about who Oswald was and what he supposedly did."


Gee, there's a shocker, isn't it? Somebody who thinks something
"shady" was going on with an official Government investigation.

The "9/11 Was An Inside Job" Internet Forums are also filled with such
mentally-bankrupt kooks. It's built-in with many people. It's the
"Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be" syndrome.

I wonder if conspiracy theorists regularly argue that Sharon Tate
WASN'T killed as the result of a conspiracy. The way the "CTer" mind
works (i.e., topsy-turvy and usually wrong), it wouldn't surprise me
greatly if that's what they think.


"My God, he [Saint Oswald] was MURDERED before our very eyes, and gee,
even the blind-to-conspiracy people have contrived a way to deny


When somebody with some common sense reflects upon the initial knee-
jerk (and expected) reaction to Oswald's murder at the hands of Jack Ruby,
then the obvious flaws in the "Mob Rub-Out" theory--or ANY "rub-out" type
of theory--amply present themselves. Flaws such as:

1.) Does the Mob usually kill their "patsies" on LIVE TELEVISION in
front of millions of witnesses and in front of 70 police officers (so
that the patsy's killer--who is probably the biggest snitch/
blabbermouth in the state of Texas--has no hope of escaping)?

2.) Does anybody with a lick of common sense actually think that Karen
Carlin was "involved" in this "plot" that CTers believe was behind
Oswald's murder? CTers who buy into a "Ruby plot" must think Mrs.
Carlin WAS a key plotter, because it was her phone call to Jack Ruby
at 10:19 AM on November 24th that prompted Ruby to go downtown and was
the main reason why Ruby was in the exact area of the City Jail at
just the right time to bump off Lee Oswald.

3.) And can any reasonable person actually believe that the "plot"
involving Ruby was so intricate and detailed that it involved getting
Carlin to call Ruby at just the proper time on Sunday morning (which
was actually AFTER Oswald was already supposed to have been
transferred to the County Jail)....and then the "plot" involved Ruby
taking his beloved dog ("Sheba") with him on his "rub-out"
assignment....and then the intricate murder plan (somehow) involved
Ruby going into the Western Union office near the City Jail, where he
waits behind one customer -- and what if it had been SIX or SEVEN
customers? Would Fritz & Co. have "stalled" for 10 or 15 more minutes
until Ruby was done sending his stripper that $25?

4.) Ruby sent his Money Order to Carlin at 11:17 AM on November 24th.
He killed Lee Harvey Oswald at 11:21 AM. Pretty tight on the "Mob"
timeline/schedule, wasn't it?

5.) And part of Oswald's delay in being transferred was brought about
by OSWALD HIMSELF....he wanted to change an article of clothing at the
last minute. And, being the fair-minded writer that no CTer thinks he
actually is, Mr. Bugliosi gives BOTH versions of the change-of-clothes
scenario in his book....with one version being that Oswald himself
asked for the clothing change. And the other being a version which has
DPD Captain J. Will Fritz offering Oswald the clothing change.

On Page #267 of "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi writes......

"11:10 a.m. [Sunday, November 24]...Fritz realizes that Oswald is only
clad in a T-shirt. "Do you want something to put over your T-shirt?"
he asks. "Yes," Oswald says."

I suppose some CTers probably think that Captain Fritz was a prime
"conspirator". But to think that Fritz, a 30-year DPD police veteran,
was a part of some kind of conspiracy to "silence" his prisoner is to
believe in a silly fairy tale that would have had Fritz intentionally
subjecting his very own police department to public ridicule for years
to come, due to a Presidential assassin being killed right inside the
Captain's own police station while surrounded by dozens of armed
officers. That's a theory that is just plain loony.

Also....with respect to Ruby killing Oswald, Bugliosi offers up the
following humorous simulated conversation between Ruby and one of his
co-plotters (appearing on Pages 1143 and 1144 of VB's JFK book)......

"Vito" is talking to Jack Ruby -- "Jack?"

Jack Ruby says --"Yeah, Vito?"

Vito -- "One last thing before I go. We have to make real sure that
Oswald is killed, in fact, right on the spot. We can't afford to have
him last for even a minute. So make sure you don't aim at his head. In
fact, don't even aim at his heart. Shoot him in the belly, Jack.
That's the quickest way by far to kill him right on the spot."

Jack -- "Okay, Vito, anything you say."


"The only thing more biased than Bugliosi himself are his sycophantic
supporters who post on every forum and newsgroup imaginable, as if
they were on some gov't payroll."


That's odd....I thought I was the only one supporting VB so loudly. I
certainly haven't run into any other super-ardent VB supporters. In
fact, at the Internet locations I visit, very few people seem to care
too much about Vincent's book at all (either LNers or CTers).

But, anyhow, I'm more than happy to sing VB's pro-LN praises. Because
after 21 years of wading through the sickening (but laughable)
conspiracy theories of Lifton, Horne, Groden, Garrison, Stone, Marrs,
Vary-Baker, Waldron, and Armstrong (among many others)....Vincent
Bugliosi, in my opinion, deserves HEAPS of admiration and kudos! (For
the aggravation brought on by reading such conspiracy-flavored tripe
for years on end, if for no other reason.)


I always find it quite humorous when "Assassination Sensationalists"
(to borrow a nifty phrase for "CTers" penned by Warren Commission
counsel member and author David Belin) show all kinds of indignation
toward "LNers" (i.e., reasoned-thinking lone- assassin believers)....as
if the wholly-unsupportable conspiracy theories that are continually
and fervently embraced by these "sensationalists" are deserving of
even the slightest bit of attention and/or respect. It's hilarious.

Every single thing that solo assassin Lee H. Oswald did (both before
after after 12:30 PM on Friday, November 22nd, 1963) screams "Guilty
Presidential Assassin" (and more-than-likely "Guilty Alone" as well).

From HIS (Oswald's own) rifle being found on the sixth floor of the
Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's murder....to the bullet shells
from HIS own gun being found under the killer's window....to bullets
from HIS own gun being found in the LIMO ITSELF and in the hospital
where the victims were taken....to HIS fingerprints all over
everything in the very spot where the assassin fired at the President
(including that EMPTY paper sack, which had no logical explanation for
being where it was found after the assassination)....to HIS own crappy-
as-all-get-out escape plan (walking, bus, cab, more walking/
running)....to HIS killing of Officer Tippit in front of multiple
witnesses just 45 minutes after JFK was gunned down from right in
front of HIS own working establishment....to HIS provable lies that he
uttered to the police after his arrest (an arrest that occurred while
HE -- Mr. Oswald -- tried to gun down additional cops in the Texas

Gee, I wonder how anybody could POSSIBLY come to the conclusion that
this guy -- Lee Oswald -- did anything against the law in Dallas on
November 22, 1963?

Reprise --- Criminy!

I'll close this post with another VB quotation:

"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be
proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 973 of
"RH" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
October 2007