(PART 62)

Amazon.com/Forum/November 23, 2007

Amazon.com/Forum/November 23, 2007


>>> "They [the non-Oswald bullets] didn't [vanish off the planet],
David." <<<


Okay. Show me those bullets. Where did they go (PROVABLY so)? Or would
you like to merely "opine" about where they went, instead of using the
evidence on the table?

>>> "But let's use the correct science when trying to establish the day's events, shall we?" <<<

While we abandon all semblance of common sense at the same time, you

No thanks.

>>> "David "I'm going to prove my opinion by opining" Von Pein still
needs to get over that little fact the back wound was below the neck wound." <<<

No it wasn't.
No way.
No how.

Even Dr. Humes said that the back wound was higher:

"The angle which we observed in measuring...is one that the
point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with
the vertical."
-- James J. Humes; 1964

>>> "I was in Dealey Plaza the other day, David." <<<

Which means you must have run into Bob Groden peddling his overpriced
wares, huh?


After attending a screening of the new movie "Oswald's Ghost" the
other day, Groden was interviewed; and when the topic of Vince
Bugliosi's book came up, Groden said:

"[Bugliosi] mentions me about 80 times and 79 references are inaccurate."

I got a big kick out of that comment by RJG. So, Mr. Bugliosi (always
a very fastidious and meticulous perfectionist when it comes to the
material that appears in any of his true-crime books) apparently only
got one out of eighty things right when referring to Mr. Groden in
VB's book "Reclaiming History".

(No wonder Mr. Groden is considered an outcast even among many of the
wackier conspiracy-loving kooks of the world.) ;)

>>> "Do you still contend that [the first] shot hit the tree?" <<<

Yep. I sure do contend that. But I also acknowledge the possibility
that I'm wrong in that belief.

I think Mr. Bugliosi's hypothesis regarding the first (missed) shot
fired by Lee Harvey Oswald could conceivably have some merit too, but
I find his scenario much, much less likely than Gerald Posner's
"Bullet Hit The Tree And Deflected" theory.

>>> "Or are you going to back Max Holland's latest story, where a shot was fired at JFK as he was proceeding down Houston Street, and the bullet struck a traffic sign or overhang?" <<<

No way. Mr. Holland's "11 Seconds In Dallas" theory regarding the first shot
is not possible, IMO. More on that HERE.

>>> "Either way, it takes a vivid imagination for either account." <<<

Not really. And that's because, via the "Oak Tree" scenario that I
believe is probably true, the bullet that came out of Lee Oswald's
rifle at approx. Zapruder frame #160 and struck the tree could very
well have (and almost certainly did) change direction slightly after
striking the tree and partially fragmenting (see Commission Exhibit
No. 875 below).

But what DOES require the substantial use of one's "vivid imagination"
is believing in the kind of multi-gun shooting scenario that many,
many conspiracy theorists have placed their unwavering faith in for lo
these last four decades -- i.e., a scenario that features (literally)
NO BULLETS from any of the "other" guns used in the assassination.

And that CT scenario also features (per most theorists) THREE
vanishing bullets that must replace CE399 and the SBT. A remarkable
"Three Shots Look Like Just One" feat accomplished by those THREE
amazing riflemen. (And the CTers need THREE shooters too, make no
mistake about that. Because just two gunmen aren't enough to advance
that theory, based on the timing of the victims' reactions as seen in
the Zapruder Film.)

And yet I'm the one who has the "vivid imagination", eh?

Classic irony.

David Von Pein
November 23, 2007

(PART 61)

Amazon.com/Forum/November 19, 2007

Amazon.com/Forum/November 22, 2007


>>> "The accoustical [sic] evidence was revisited, and UPGRADED to a 96% or better degree of probability." <<<


And that 96% is perched on a foundation that is 100% invalid, based
on the location of where a motorcycle NEEDED TO BE (per the HSCA's
acoustics experts) in order for the Dictabelt "gunshots" to be

The film taken by assassination eyewitness Robert Hughes ALONE debunks
the HSCA's acoustics evidence. It couldn't BE any more obvious that no
motorcycle is going to be at the corner of Elm & Houston at the time
the HSCA desperately needed one there. Just look:

Debunking The HSCA Acoustics Evidence

>>> "The Texas A&M studies show [Dr. Vincent P.] Guinn operated from a FALSE premise and based ALL his findings on this premise." <<<

CTers love to spout this nonsense (it makes the conspiracy kooks feel
better to concentrate on chaff like this, rather than focus any attention
at all on the much more important and overpowering "LHO Did It" evidence
that flows like water in this murder case).

The long and the short of the ballistics matter is that the odds of
ANY of the tiny bullet fragments recovered in the limousine or in the
bodies of the two victims coming from a different rifle than Lee
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766 are incredibly small.

The odds of those fragments coming from a non-C2766 weapon are so low
as to be nearly a flat zero. Certainly darn close to zero at any
rate, when some common sense is thrown into the argument concerning
the ballistics evidence. (This being based on the provable fact that
the ONLY bullet fragments and whole bullets recovered at the crime
scene or at the hospital are bullets conclusively from Oswald's

If the plotters were able to shoot John F. Kennedy AND John B.
Connally with bullets from more than just Oswald's gun and yet have
the ONLY ballistically-linked fragments and bullets that showed up in
the car and hospital being linked to Oswald's rifle and only his
rifle....then it was such an incredible miracle that the plotters
probably deserved to get away with it. (Because miracles like that
don't occur every day; so we might as well celebrate it in grand
fashion when they do occur.)

BTW, Dale K. Myers wrote an impressive and extremely interesting
article that appeared this morning on his website. In the article,
Dale touches on the silliness of the "NAA studies" (particularly the
July 2006 Grant/Randich study). Here's the Dale Myers' link.

>>> "I find it amazing you believe that the shot to the head blew out the right front part of his skull, but the autopsy photos show his forehead intact." <<<

So what? The forehead need not be blown out by Oswald's bullet.
Kennedy was leaning significantly forward and to his left at the time
of the head shot. There's no question about this. Just look at the
Moorman picture for a good look at how FAR LEFT Kennedy was leaning at
the time of the fatal shot:

Via this orientation of JFK's head when it was struck by a bullet,
plus the possibility of the bullet changing course slightly after it
crashed full-speed into the President's head (which is quite likely,
at least to a small extent), a RIGHT-FRONTAL blow-out is perfectly
consistent with a bullet coming from Oswald's window in the Book

And even WITHOUT any pictures to verify the "Kennedy Lean", it
wouldn't matter....because there's the verifiable proof of the autopsy
pictures and autopsy report, which confirm beyond all possible doubt
that only one bullet hit JFK in the head, and that bullet entered in
the back of the head and exited in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP portion of the

Whether CTers wish to accept those irrevocable FACTS is not really of
any particular importance or significance. For, no LNer on the planet
can satisfy a CTer's Wishful Thinking. It's impossible. The kooks WANT
a bullet hitting JFK from the front, and always will WANT that. And to
hell with the evidence that says otherwise.

44 years of denial. Pathetic, isn't it? (I think so too.)

>>> "You need to compare the autopsy photo to the actual X-ray admitted in evidence; they DON'T MATCH." <<<

Is that why the HSCA had no qualms whatsoever in declaring that all of the
autopsy photographs AND X-rays "had not been altered in any manner"?
As well as the Clark Panel in 1968?

The HSCA's distinguished Forensic Pathology Panel seems to disagree
with Richard. Then, too, every official Government body disagrees with
Mr. Van Noord about almost everything connected to the tragedy that
occurred in Dallas 44 years ago this very noon. So, there's nothing new

But Richard will dredge up old, worn-out conspiracy arguments today as
if the last 597 debunkings of such tripe had never even taken place.
Go figure.

>>> "Meanwhile, it seems as though David is a medical expert and has placed the [upper-back] wound conveniently above the throat wound." <<<

Which it is...and always was. And that fact can easily be verified by
this autopsy photograph of the late President Kennedy:

Quoting from Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the] autopsy photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

>>> "I was at a conference proving Marrion Baker arrived at the TSBD doorstep in 22 seconds, smashing the Dale Myers/Todd Vaughan timeline of 35 seconds." <<<

I love it. Evidently, a whopping THIRTEEN seconds difference = A conspiracy.
And it's 13 seconds that cannot possibly be verified with 100% certainty,
because ALL TIMELINES connected with the shooting are only approximations
and estimates (just as the Warren Commission fully acknowledged).

And those approximations include, of course, the estimated movements
of the ASSASSIN HIMSELF (Lee Oswald), in conjunction with Officer
Marrion L. Baker's movements just after the shooting took place. And
(quite obviously) nobody was able to get Oswald himself to tell us just
exactly how fast or how slow he was walking or running just after he fired
his three bullets at President Kennedy forty-four years ago today.

Therefore, any 13-second differential in Marrion Baker's movements
immediately after the assassination means very, very little when compared
to the GRAND WHOLE that tells the world that Lee Harvey Oswald was
shooting at John Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

those thirteen ESTIMATED seconds are evidently supposed to bring the
Lone Assassin scenario to its knees. I love it!

David Von Pein
November 22, 2007

(CE567 AND CE569)


>>> "The Secret Service had possession of the limo...for 12 hours after the assassination. They provided no record of what they did, no diagrams, nothing. There was a lack of accountability, and as a result, everything that turned up needs to be questioned. How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?" <<<



If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to overcome:

How (and when, and by whom) did the Secret Service (or the FBI) manage to plant the two large bullet fragments from OSWALD'S RIFLE in the limousine?

Oswald's rifle, we know, was in Dallas and was in the possession of the DPD until about 11:45 PM (CST) on Friday, November 22nd. Then it went to the FBI in Washington. So neither the Secret Service or the FBI had physical possession of Oswald's Carcano until about 12 hours after the assassination.

Do conspiracy believers actually think that the Secret Service and/or FBI just INVENTED the notion that the fragments were found in the front seat area of JFK's limousine? They just made that up out of thin air? Is that it?

If that's the silly theory that conspiracists want to endorse, then they should at least have the decency to tell the world what evidence they've got to accuse the Secret Service (and maybe the FBI too) of such a vile, despicable evidence-planting deed.

But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Earth can supply any evidence to substantiate their continuing claims of evidence manipulation in the JFK case. All we ever get are comments like this one:

"How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so?"

Footnote ----

The theory that CE567 and CE569 are fake/planted bullet fragments almost certainly MUST be a theory that a lot of conspiracy theorists endorse, whether they know it or not. Because if those two bullet fragments are legitimate pieces of evidence in this case, it positively means that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being fired at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

And those two bullet fragments, in conjunction with Oswald's own actions and all of the other many things of a physical nature, go a long way toward incriminating the owner of the rifle that was conclusively linked to those two front-seat bullet fragments. And that owner's name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

When arguing with conspiracy theorists over the years, I've noticed that those two limo bullet fragments don't very often come up in conversation. And I think there's a very good reason why CTers like to distance themselves from those two very important (and Oswald-incriminating) pieces of bullet evidence.

The CTers can't possibly even begin to prove that those fragments weren't really found in the front seat of JFK's car. And the CTers can't begin to support their nutty idea that ALL of the physical evidence against Oswald in the JFK and Tippit murders is fake, planted, or phony.

So the conspiracists normally just ignore the two limo fragments from LHO's gun. I guess maybe they think those fragments will just go away if they don't talk about them very much.

But those fragments aren't going to suddenly disappear from the official record in this murder case. They are there...and there to stay. And those fragments indicate a very important thing:

Those fragments indicate that the rifle owned by Lee H. Oswald was the weapon that killed President John F. Kennedy.

And that's a stubborn fact that many conspiracy theorists just simply do not want to accept. And they never will.

David Von Pein
September 23, 2011

(PART 60)


>>> "Why do so many LNers have no idea what their theory is
all about?" <<<


I can only stand here, mouth agape, as I gaze at the above idiocy, and

Hey, all lone-assassin advocates: Did you guys know that we
have "no idea" what our theory is all about?

That's kinda odd, huh? I always thought it was just the opposite.

But, leave it to a conspiracy kook to get everything topsy-turvy. It
must be a gift they're born with.

I wonder if most conspiracists type with their feet? After all, everything
they say seems to be backwards; so their hands are probably located
at the bottom of their legs.

>>> "Why can't they [LNers] debate evidence?" <<<

Goodie! Another WTF moment. Lovely.

Try this 60-Volume set of debates. Maybe you'll learn something.

(~~ Awaiting Rob's next retort, which will no doubt be something
akin to this --- "Making up the questions and the answers yourself
isn't "debating", Davy. It just shows how much of a nutjob you are by
talking to yourself."

To that retort, of course, I can suggest that Robby use his feet
(er, hands, sorry) to utilize the Google Search function, and then
he'd be able to find almost all of the "Debate" points brought up by
the "CTers" in my links above.

Many of the "CTer" comments from my posts can also be found coming
from the mouths of various conspiracy-mad nuts at the JFK Lancer forum,
which is now occupied for the most part only by conspiracy theorists
(most of them kooks, similar to Robert Caprio).

>>> "I'll be right here to keep you in line though." <<<

Goodie. Robby's going to keep me "in line". I love to be kept "in line"
by a mega-kook who says things like the following (which are all
direct quotes from Rob; I'm not kidding, he really said them; and
remember: this fruitcake named Rob is going to keep me "in line";

"LHO shot no one."

"No one saw LHO do anything."

"It wasn't LHO that shot JDT [J.D. Tippit]."

"Which witness said they saw the [Tippit] killer shaking out

>>> "It does really sadden me to know I have contributed so much to something no one will ever read though (save the seniors in between bingo)." <<<

Yeah, your "LHO shot no one" gem is a major breakthrough contribution
to the truth surrounding the events of November 22, 1963.

You should be very proud. (Even though nobody but Grandma Moses will
be reading it.)

>>> "You have provided no real proof to show I'm wrong in my beliefs." <<<

I've proven your "LHO Shot No One" beliefs to be 100% wrong a hundred
times over
. For some reason (probably because you're an idiot as well
as being an Any-But-Oswald moron), you just cannot realize that obvious fact.

>>> "I have been called Superman a lot by women!" <<<

Are those same women impressed by the life-sized poster of Lee Harvey
Oswald that you've got stuck to your ceiling too (with the bold caption
"Patsy!" printed diagonally across it)? That poster is sure to turn a lot
of women on, huh?

>>> "I have the knowledge that 85-90% of the rest of the people in the world think like me." <<<

Rob The Kook actually thinks that 7% = 85-90%:


Go figure.

David Von Pein
November 2007


(PART 2)


Some conspiracy theorists seem to believe that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
with serial number C2766 on it (marked as CE139 by the Warren Commission) is not the same rifle that is being held by Lee Harvey Oswald in the famous backyard photos.

I will mention just a few things here which re-confirm the obvious fact that the backyard photos are definitely genuine (i.e., they have not been faked) and the common-sense fact that the rifle Lee Oswald is holding in those backyard pictures is most certainly the same rifle found by police in the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63:

1.) Marina Oswald has ALWAYS maintained that she took the backyard photographs. And we know LHO was holding a RIFLE in all of those pictures she took.

2.) We know the pictures were taken in the early portion of the year 1963, probably on March 31, 1963, which was a time period when the Oswalds were living at the Neely Street address in Dallas.

3.) We know for a rock-solid fact (despite the crazy theories of conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and others) that Oswald was shipped Carcano Rifle C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods on 3/20/63. (And the timing of that shipment is in perfect harmony with Oswald receiving the rifle [plus his revolver, which was also shipped on March 20] in time for the March 31st backyard photo shoot.)

4.) The backyard pictures were determined by Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the FBI and by the HSCA to be real and genuine and had not been faked or manipulated by anyone.

5.) There is absolutely no indication to show that Lee Oswald owned more than just the one Carcano (C2766) rifle in the year 1963. This fifth point is also crucial, when placed in conjunction with #1 through #4 above, because it indicates (logically) that the rifle Oswald is posing with in the backyard pictures MUST be C2766....because he owned no other rifle in 1963.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, can always argue that just because Oswald OWNED only one rifle (C2766), this wouldn't necessarily have to mean that C2766 is positively the rifle he is holding in the backyard photos.

But that logic is about the same as making the following statement (which, incredibly, some CTers have actually tried to say in the past): Just because Lee Oswald was brandishing a pistol and trying to kill policemen with it in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, this doesn't have to mean it was THE SAME pistol that was used to kill Patrolman J.D. Tippit.

That latter hunk of insanity is also nutty from a "ballistics" standpoint too, of course, since we know beyond all doubt that the revolver that was used to murder Officer Tippit is positively the same gun that Seaport Traders shipped to Lee Harvey Oswald in March of '63.

Which would mean that if that latter piece of "CT logic" were true, it would
mean that somebody OTHER than Oswald killed Tippit WITH OSWALD'S OWN GUN, and then somehow managed to get Oswald to take his gun back after the Tippit murder, with Oswald then proceeding to pull that gun on Dallas police officer M.N. McDonald in the theater. (Yeah, right.)

Here's something else for conspiracy theorists to chew on and ponder (which is something that probably should be "pushed" more often by the conspiracists who think Oswald was just an innocent patsy):

CTers want to believe that some unknown force was trying to frame poor Lee Oswald for President Kennedy's murder. And many of these conspiracy buffs also acknowledge the fact that Oswald did own the C2766 Carcano rifle. (Which, of course, couldn't be more obvious, with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 being the PROOF-POSITIVE that Oswald [aka A. Hidell] was shipped that exact rifle.)

Therefore, why wouldn't any plotters simply attempt to frame Oswald WITH HIS OWN RIFLE IN THE FIRST PLACE -- vs. attempting to frame him by using a Mauser rifle or some other weapon to kill JFK?

Conspiracy theorists cannot logically answer my last question, because it would make no sense at all to leave a "Mauser" in the Book Depository to frame Oswald if the C2766 rifle was REALLY OSWALD'S all along (which it was, of course).

But I have found that conspiracists almost never ask such logical questions of themselves. Instead, they are "piecemeal" investigators. They look at one singular anomaly and apply that anomaly or discrepancy (or whatever) to the case, without ever once looking at the "totality" or the "whole" of the case, or the mere illogic of their isolated, piecemeal theory.

Take the backyard photos as yet another example of this:

Many goofy conspiracy believers actually seem to think that the "plotters" who supposedly faked the pictures would have WANTED and NEEDED to fake up to THREE (or maybe even FOUR) different backyard pictures....even though just ONE such "fake" photo would easily suffice.

It's just silly beyond all belief to think that even if the photos had been faked, that anyone would have felt the need to fake three or four different pictures, when they all show the exact same thing--Oswald holding weapons in the same backyard in Dallas.

To reiterate a key point:

When my above-mentioned "Point #5" is added into the mix regarding this matter concerning the rifle, it then becomes even more crystal clear that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald is holding in the backyard photos can only be ONE particular rifle -- and that is Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766.

David Von Pein
September 7, 2011


In 1999, The History Channel (A&E) produced and aired this intriguing documentary about the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (aka: "The Warren Commission").

Roger Mudd serves as the host for this very interesting cable-TV documentary, which will probably even appeal to most JFK conspiracy theorists, due to the fact that there's quite a bit of Commission-bashing going on in it.

Putting in appearances during this 95-minute program are a host of assassination experts and authors, including: Gerald Ford, David Belin, David Slawson, Gary Cornwell, John Tunheim, G. Robert Blakey, Harold Weisberg, Gus Russo, Richard Trask, Josiah Thompson, Gary Mack, Edward Jay Epstein, Gaeton Fonzi, Paul Hoch, Max Holland, John Newman, Jefferson Morley, Anthony Summers, and Dr. Robert McClelland.