(OCTOBER 1962)

(PART 195)


The landlady of Oswald [it was actually the housekeeper, not the landlady] reported on the day of the murder of JFK that Oswald returned home (to his room) at a certain time, was wearing certain clothing, left at a certain time, wearing certain clothing, and she described his mannerisms. All this testimony was accepted without question; however, she also stated a Dallas police car came up to the house just prior to Oswald's leaving and blew its horn. This testimony was not accepted. It was stated that the Dallas records did not show any police car in the area at that time.

I don't get it. If they accepted the landlady's [sic] testimony on Oswald's time of arrival, and his time of leaving, his clothing and mannerisms, why didn't they accept her testimony on the police car? This makes it look like the authorities were picking their evidence. What do you think?


Hi Alan Dale Daniel,

The Warren Commission was in a bit of a tough spot regarding some of the witness testimony. I don't deny that fact. I.E., they had to sort out the witness accounts that were probably true and reliable from other testimony (sometimes coming from the very same witness) that was not as reliable and therefore not likely to be very accurate.

And the WC came to the conclusion that it was very likely that Earlene Roberts (the housekeeper at 1026 Beckley where Oswald was renting a shoebox-sized room for $8 a week at the time of JFK's assassination) was definitely telling the truth when she said that Lee Oswald came into the roominghouse, in a hurry, at about 1 PM on 11/22/63. This is almost as certain as certain can be--based on three other things too:

1.) The location where cab driver Bill Whaley dropped off his passenger (Oswald), which was a mere three blocks away from 1026 Beckley.

2.) The fact that Oswald was definitely not wearing his gray zippered jacket when he left the Book Depository at approximately 12:33 PM, but WAS wearing it when he was seen killing Officer Tippit on Tenth Street at approximately 1:15 PM.

3.) And Lee Oswald's own admission that he went back home after the assassination. (It's not always a good idea to believe the accused murderer when he says something, that's for sure. But in this case, Oswald's "I went home" story is corroborated by Mrs. Roberts.)

But the Warren Commission decided Roberts was probably wrong about the police car honking its horn when Oswald was inside his room for those very few minutes on November 22nd (btw, it's my personal opinion that Oswald wasn't in that small room of his for any longer than 1 minute--tops; despite Roberts' own estimate of "3 or 4 minutes"; no way he was in there up to 4 minutes, IMO).

With respect to the horn-honking police car --- it must be kept in mind that Mrs. Roberts testified that it was not unusual at all for a police car to stop in front of the roominghouse and toot its horn. It happened on multiple OTHER days, according to Roberts.

So even if such an occurrence DID take place on November 22nd, it could be looked upon as a NORMAL occurrence, not an ABNORMAL or unusual one.

Or do some conspiracy theorists think that the Dallas Police were so shrewd in their advanced planning of the so-called "Frame-Up" of Lee Harvey Oswald that they had a police car stop in front of 1026 N. Beckley Avenue every so often in the weeks and/or months BEFORE the assassination, just so the car could honk its horn in front of the house...in order to make it look like an ordinary occurrence?

I'd like to know how the conspiracy theorists who think that a police car was "signalling" to Oswald on November 22 can possibly explain away the very same kind of horn-honking which took place at that exact same residence on multiple OTHER days when Presidents WEREN'T being murdered?

When we look at the horn-honking topic from that point-of-view, it makes any 11/22 horn-honking incident seem much less sinister. And if it WAS "sinister", then it's an awfully strange coincidence that the horn was honked ("tip-tip", says Roberts) in the exact same manner in which it was honked by other policemen on OTHER days prior to November 22nd. Wouldn't you agree?


When viewing photos of the JFK assassination, I noted the car carrying Lyndon Johnson, which is right behind the Kennedy car, has secret service agents on the back (two) and two or three on each side.


You're confusing JFK's Secret Service follow-up car with LBJ's car. Johnson wasn't sitting in the car directly behind JFK's limo. LBJ's car is behind JFK's Secret Service car. You can even see LBJ and Lady Bird in the back seat of their rented Lincoln convertible in the Altgens picture (below).


I have also been given to understand the route was changed just prior to the motorcade starting off. Is that true?


That's an enduring conspiracy myth, and is 100% false. More on that HERE.

David Von Pein
April 17, 2008



(PART 194)


>>> "Are you taking the word of proven liars? (DPD)" <<<


And do you want to take the word of a proven liar (LHO)? Of course you
do....because you're a nut.

But a non-nut (aka: a reasonable person) would probably ask themselves
a very logical question when attempting to determine who was telling
the truth in November 1963....with that question being --- Who had
more of a reason to lie after LHO's arrest--Lee H. Oswald or the DPD?

BTW, Tom, do you REALLY think Oswald took some curtain rods to
work on November 22nd?

If not, what the hell was in the bag he positively took inside the
TSBD on 11/22? His laundry?

Speaking of laundry....

I'm surprised more CTers don't bring up the topic of LHO Laundry
more often....seeing as how it was determined via Ruth
Paine's testimony that LHO definitely brought his dirty laundry
("underwear and shirts") to the Paine home in Irving on the weekends
he visited there, with Lee then taking "clean things with him" when he
returned to Dallas with Buell Wesley Frazier on Monday mornings (or at
least on SOME of the Monday mornings following his Irving weekend
visits). ....

"Lee brought his underwear and shirts to be washed at my house,
and then Marina ironed his things and he would take clean things with
him on Monday."

AFAIK, no CTer has ever theorized that the long bag carried by LHO on
11/22 contained his clean laundry. And, frankly, that WOULD indeed be
a better argument for CTers to make with respect to the contents of
the package that we know Lee took with him to work on the day of JFK's
murder, since such a proposed "laundry" theory would at least be a
theory that fits some of the known (R. Paine) testimony re LHO and
his laundry habits while visiting the Paine house on weekends.

Of course, any such "laundry" argument would still have major
problems, because of Oswald telling Frazier that the bag had "curtain
rods" in it. (Plus there's the empty bag, with LHO's prints, being
found in the Sniper's Nest too. Since the bag was completely EMPTY
when it was found, where did the laundry...or the curtain rods...go?)

Plus, if the bag had actually contained some innocuous item like
laundry or curtain rods, there would have been no reason under the
moon for Oswald to want to start telling lies about the contents of
the package at all.

In short, CTers should face the obvious fact that Lee Oswald took his
rifle out of the Paine garage on the morning of November 22nd, wrapped
it up in a handmade brown paper bag, and took it into his workplace at
the Depository on the morning of 11/22/63.

The amount of CUMULATIVE evidence (both of the circumstantial and
physical varieties) that indicates the fact that LHO did take his
rifle to work on 11/22 is impossible for any conspiracy theorist to
sidestep, skew, or overcome (although, as we all know, rabid CTers
WILL continue to ignore and/or mangle this cumulative evidence until
the proverbial cows come home....or until the Devil's residence turns
to rock-hard ice).

David Von Pein
April 16, 2008



NOVEMBER 24, 1963:


NOVEMBER 24, 1963:

NOVEMBER 20, 1993:










(PART 193)


>>> "First you have to prove [Lee Harvey Oswald] owned a 40.2-inch Mannlicher-Carcano before you prove he lied." <<<


It's been proven a thousand times since 1963. But, being the nutcase you are, you feel that the slight discrepancy in lengths (40.2 inches vs. 36 inches) between the mail-order ad and the rifle Oswald so obviously received from Klein's is enough to take Sweet Lee off the murdering hook.

But only a total loon would think this small discrepancy would be enough to cast doubt on whether Lee Oswald took possession of the Kennedy murder weapon in March of 1963.

1.) Oswald ordered ONE rifle via mail-order.

2.) Klein's shipped ONE rifle to Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas.

3.) President Kennedy was shot and killed by ONE mail-order rifle (Serial Number C2766), which was linked beyond every shred of a doubt to Lee Harvey Oswald.

But Rob C. apparently wants to toss the above three common-sense items out the window and pretend (I guess) that a SECOND Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is in the mix somewhere. Instead of accepting the obvious, which is:

Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle and Klein's shipped him a model that was almost that size, but not quite....with the Model 91/38 MC that Oswald got being a 40-inch version.

And there are certain conspiracy theorists who just don't want to believe Oswald lied when he told the police he had never owned a rifle AND when he lied about never purchasing any guns by mail-order in 1963 AND when he lied when he said he had never heard the name "A. Hidell" before in his life AND when he lied about buying the pistol from a store in Fort Worth (vs. where he really bought it--via mail-order).

Face it, Robert -- you're defending a liar and a double-murderer.

The big question that remains, therefore, is this one --- WHY would anybody want to continually defend a double-killer?

Just for kicks? Just for the sport of it? A hobby? What?

~big shrug~

David Von Pein
April 15, 2008

(PART 192)


>>> "Presently the Bugliosi/HBO team is sending up flags (on this board in particular) looking for program material that resonates and addresses CT concerns re the case...and, more importantly, what the Bugliosi-HBO producers frankly need to address if they ever have hopes for a successful JFK/Bug/Hanks program. Frankly, they've noplace else to test their *dumb* theories. This is their incubator." <<<


~~Big Laugh Goes Here~~

Healy thinks that Vincent Bugliosi and HBO actually give a rat's ass about the stupid things that are being uttered by a bunch of evidence-mangling super-kooks at a nearly-deserted JFK forum that doubles as a padded cell for conspiracy-thirsty idiots who think they've somehow "cracked the case wide open" as they race to their keyboards whenever they discover "bold new evidence of conspiracy" in JFK's murder.

The only possible reason for Mr. Hanks or Mr. Paxton or Mr. Bugliosi to ever want to check out the goings-on in this CT evidence-skewing factory would be to laugh themselves silly. (That's certainly the main attraction for me anyway.)

>>> "They need to float specific LHO topics, questions and areas of concern re JFK's assassination and following cover-up--as witnessed by the current Ruth Paine threads. Von Pein is drowning this board. And Ruth Paine is a problem, a REAL problem for Lone Nuts." <<<

As if VB or anybody else has the slightest control over the things I choose to write about on the Internet. Healy's back in his imaginary little dream world again I see -- a world that comes complete with a handy crystal ball, with which the kook knows exactly what's going on in everybody's head, including Tom Hanks' and Vince Bugliosi's. (I love it! I ask you--who WOULDN'T love the hobby of making fun of a kook like Dave Healy on a regular basis?)

INSTANT REPLAY (just for the inevitable huge laughs that will follow):

>>> "They [meaning: the evil and dastardly VB, T. Hanks, and HBO] need to float specific LHO topics...as witnessed by the current Ruth Paine threads. Von Pein is drowning this board. And Ruth Paine is a problem, a REAL problem for Lone Nuts." <<<

As if Vince B. said the following to me the other day----

You know, Dave, I think we're going to have a really big problem getting the HBO viewers to believe anything that that lying vixen named Ruth Paine said. Her story, as you know Dave, just reeks with lies and phoniness and underhanded conspiracy-flavored plots underneath the surface. So Tommy Hanks and I want you to write up a series of articles on Ruth Paine and her Warren Commission testimony at the Google place where you post all the time, and let's see what kind of reaction you get from those ever-so-smart and all-knowing conspiracy theorists in there.

Remember, Dave, don't tip your hand or anything. Let 'em think you really believe Mrs. Paine's hogwash that she testified to in '64. Prop up Ruth as a really good LN witness and all that kind of LN bullshit that you're so good at doing, just like you did with your William Whaley essay a while back. And then we'll be able to get the REAL scoop about Mrs. Paine from the likes of Ben Holmes, Walter Cakebread, Lazuli what's-his-name, Robby "LHO Shot No One" Caprio (he's one of the TOP brains of that CT outfit for sure!), Donny Willis, and Gil Jesus.

And if we get really lucky, we'll get a lot of great anti-Ruth stuff out of Davey G. Healy and (let's hope and pray) Tony Marsh. If that happens, we've got it made, DVP my boy! Because those guys know it ALL when it comes to Ruth "Vixen" Paine (and any other sub-topic we choose to throw at them).

So get to work on that right away, Dave. And then after the CTers/mega-brains at the asylum give us the whole true story about Paine, we'll sound 'em out on all of those other rotten liars connected with the case -- like that little tramp Marina, and that "so-called" Oswald eyewitness Roy S. Truly [spit!], and his partner in lies Marrion L. Baker.

And then we'll get the real story on Will Fritz [no tape recorder available, my ass!]. And Buell Frazier [no lunch bag, my rear end!]. And Howard Brennan [positive ID on LHO, my spleen!]. Remember to seek out "Walt Duncan-Hines" on the Brennan thing, Dave. That guy's got the REAL story on Howard for sure. I've already seen some of the excellent stuff Walter's written on Brennan, and it looks great. I mean, who'd have thunk?--Howard REALLY was "DESCRIBING" the WEST end of the Depository all that time he was testifying! I had never thought of that before. [slaps forehead.] But thank God there are alert students of the case like Walter around.

And just think, Dave, we don't even have to PAY a single freakin' cent to get the real story of the assassination! All we have to do is "plant" a schnook like you--DVP--into the asylum (which is disguised as a forum) and we can pick the brains of geniuses like Walter and Robby and David "Zapruder Wasn't Even There" Healy FOR FREE! Can it GET any better than that?!

>>> "Dave persists, perhaps in the hope of clarifying the very weak WCR evidence and witness points concerning LHO/SBT." <<<

If you've got ANY pity in you at all, Mr. Kook, you'll stop before my bladder bursts (again). Ten-Four?

>>> "David [V.P.], of course, has his own agenda." <<<

Yes, I do. And I thought I made that agenda clear long ago. My "asylum" agenda is (as is quite evident by way of my fictitious VB conversation shown above) --- To ridicule the likes of conspiracy-happy kooks like David G. Healy as much as possible.

>>> "So, David Von Pein, accept the failure...the longer you deny it, the less likely you'll get that on-camera role you desire in the next Bugliosi soap opera installment." <<<

There is nothing I desire less than that.

But one of the things I enjoy MOST is watching Healy make his weekly fool of himself (as he just did with his incredibly silly thread-starting post linked here.

>>> "Bug doesn't need you Dave, he needs Dale Myer's [sic]." <<<

And the one person that the conspiracy brigade certainly does not need is: David Healy. His foolishness has done more for the Lone-Assassin cause than it's done for the CT one.

CTers, if they have even a single brain cell left working in their craniums, desperately should want to put as much distance between themselves and this mega-kook named Healy as is humanly possible.

David Von Pein
April 11, 2008



(PART 191)


>>> "We noticed that you only post the FAVORABLE reviews [of Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"]..." <<<


Yeah, that must be why I just a few minutes ago posted this stuff, huh?:

"Bugliosi is a CIA asset doing disinfo cover-up of the JFK hit. .... His job is to infiltrate the 'internet left' that knows what crimes the CIA specializes in, neutralization of opponents and cover-up. .... The dot called 'JFK' must be fuzzied up so it doesn't connect to the dots called 'RFK' and 'MLK' that form a line that points at '9/11'. [~~LOL BREAK HERE~~] .... Bugliosi lies to protect the CIA, USG, LAPD, and Operation Mockingbird." -- Author: Some Kook; Nov. 2007

>>> "...And always attack those who express a different opinion from your own." <<<

Well....yeah....that's because I vigorously disagree with those people.


Should I be endorsing a viewpoint I vehemently oppose, instead of "attacking" it?



>>> "You seem to have a problem with people expressing themselves freely." <<<

Express yourself all you want to. That still won't make your theories any less lame.

The "Anybody But Oswald" [ABO] crowd should try to wake up out of their 45-year slumber and realize just how much covert maneuvering of the evidence and massive after-the-fact covering up and "keeping quiet" would have really been required from so many people in order to make the "Blame It All On The Patsy" plot a reality.

Merely PRETENDING that Oswald was an innocent patsy is a far cry from making him one.

And, in addition to the huge amount of evidence manipulation that is essential in order for the ABO kooks to be correct about this case, there's also the so-called "patsy's" OWN ACTIONS on 11/22/63.

How in the wide, wide world of Covert Patsy Plots did the conspirators talk their INNOCENT PATSY (who killed nobody, per the ABO kooks) into ACTING LIKE A GUILTY KILLER immediately after SOMEBODY ELSE shot John Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit on November 22nd, 1963?!

How can an ABO conspiracy kook realistically answer the kind of question I just asked above?

How did Jim Garrison, who said the two incredibly stupid things I'm going to quote below, handle such a question (if he was ever confronted with it prior to his death)? I wonder. .....

"I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination...and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine...is in some ways the greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; 1988


Common Sense Break! ---

"If you are innocent of a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But every once in a while there might be one or two or three things that point toward your guilt, even though you're completely innocent. But in this case [the JFK case], EVERYTHING pointed toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. And under those circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be innocent." -- Vince Bugliosi (paraphrased); 2007

David Von Pein
April 10, 2008

(PART 190)


>>> "Fascinating interview [above]...particularly for anyone who
actually knows the facts. It's fun to count how many times Bugliosi
simply lies." <<<


Which, of course, is zero.

Vince does get a few things wrong in most of his radio interviews. But he's not "lying" (i.e., he's not exhibiting a willful "intent to deceive"), and you can't prove he is.

I fear Bugliosi's memory is not as good as it once was...in fact, he tells us that fact point-blank right straight out during his interviews when he insists on taking only one question at a time, because by the time he gets around to answering the second question--he's totally forgotten it.

The same thing, I think, applies to certain small, relatively unimportant matters regarding his book and the JFK case overall, like the "Oswald never went to Irving on a weekday other than Nov. 21" topic. Or another time in the book where Vince suggests that JFK's limo was decked out with "heavy armor".

Or another location in the book when he says that Dr. Gregory never provided additional details regarding the precise number of fragments that Gregory removed from Governor Connally's wrist (Vince apparently forgot to read an entire day's worth of Gregory's Warren Commission testimony).

And that particular error (or "oversight" would be a better word) involving Dr. Gregory, which is certainly not a lie by any means, definitely is to the distinct DETRIMENT of Mr. Bugliosi's overall lone-assassin position. Because, when this error is corrected, the corrected version of Gregory's testimony tends to bolster (even more) the general one-killer conclusion reached by the WC and by Vincent Bugliosi as well.

Vince also has made the mistake (not a deliberate lie, as Holmes probably wants to believe) of saying that "Reclaiming History" is the "only book out there" that contains photos of both Zapruder Film frames 312 and 313. That is obviously wrong, and is merely a misconception Vince (for whatever reason) has with respect to those two Z-Film frames and the vast number of books connected with the JFK case (many of which do, indeed, contain Z312 and Z313 in them, including some books that I know for a fact have been read by Vince himself -- Mark Fuhrman's 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder" to name just one example).

But that's called an honest mistake. It's not a lie. But I doubt that a mega-kook named Ben Holmes agrees with me.

Getting back for a moment to the small error Vince made about Oswald's weekday vs. weekend visits to Irving in October and November of 1963:

As far as I am able to determine (via the records and witness statements of Wesley Frazier, Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald), the only time prior to 11/21/63 that Lee Oswald went to Irving to see his wife on a weekday (vs. a Friday or Saturday) was on Monday, October 21, 1963, which was a special occasion for Lee because Marina had just given birth to LHO's second child the previous night (October 20th). Lee then travelled back to Dallas with Buell Wesley Frazier on Tuesday morning, October 22nd.

There was one instance (on Veterans Day, Monday, 11/11/63) which had LHO staying at the Paine house one extra day, because of the National holiday on Monday, November 11th. But he didn't travel TO the Paine home on a weekday in that instance. He merely extended his weekend visit by one extra day.

Small errors made by Vince Bugliosi, like the ones brought up by Ben "I Love Chaff" Holmes, are completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But those types of tiny, innocent errors that appear in Bugliosi's book, or that might come out of VB's mouth during an interview, are just the kind of honest mistakes (as opposed to "lies") that tend to make a conspiracist like Ben Holmes salivate, with the conspiracy kook then proceeding to shout "victory" by being able to claim that Vince Bugliosi "lied" about something that is completely insignificant in the long run.

But Vince B. never ONCE told a lie in "Reclaiming History" -- based on the following (and most common) definition of that word:

LIE [noun] -- 1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.

Vince has a few errors in his book, yes. I don't deny that for a moment. Any book of that size (almost 2,800 total pages) is bound to have its share of errors. But does Bugliosi tell any lies (via the above-mentioned definition)? No way.

In past Internet posts, I have openly talked about a number of mistakes that reside in Bugliosi's book --- HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

And just the other day I found another small error in "RH" (of a spelling nature only) -- VB spells "Jaggars" (of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall) incorrectly in many places in the book and on the CD-ROM disc. He spells it "Jaggers", a common and excusable error, of course, that I'm guessing hardly anyone has noticed (I didn't even notice it until April 2008). But, interestingly, Vince also spells it right (once) on the CD.

Kook Holmes probably wants to string Vince up by the strongest tree limb because of these "Jaggars/Jaggers" errors too. Right, Ben? (Prob'ly so.)

But all of these mistakes/errors in Vincent's book are very minor in nature and certainly do not undercut, in any way whatsoever, Bugliosi's bottom-line conclusion of LHO acting alone in the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

Ben and other assorted conspiracy nuts no doubt vehemently disagree with my paragraph above. Well, so be it. But, as we all know, a Conspiracy Super Kook like Benjamin is going to continue to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe when it comes to the death of John Kennedy, despite the vastness of the forest in front of him that says he's dead wrong.

>>> "If VB had any balls, [he'd] try his hand here -- where there are people who know the evidence as well as he claims to know it." <<<

I doubt Vince has the patience, or the stomach, or (if he's anything like me) a strong enough bladder to listen (for more than three-and-a-half minutes) to the unsupportable, piecemeal ramblings of a bunch of conspiracy-desiring nutjobs at an Internet forum.

But I can always ask him (through his secretary, who has been extremely nice to me). :)

And if Ben is lucky, maybe he too can get Vince angry enough to threaten Benji with a lawsuit, based on the stupid shit Ben continues to spout about VB over the Internet airwaves. (A la: Ric Landers, Joan Mellen, and David S. Lifton.)

That'd be kinda fitting (and sweet), wouldn't it now?


>>> "But LNT'ers can't survive without lying about the evidence." <<<

Kook Holmes is preaching about LNers "lying about the evidence". Can it GET any better (and hilarious) on the Pot/Kettle scale than that? I kinda doubt it.

>>> "Everything *does* point to a frontal shot." <<<

Oh, you mean like the X-ray shown below (which is a picture that was deemed "unaltered in any manner" by the HSCA)?:


>>> "Everything *does* point to a frontal shot." <<<

What was it I was just saying above about "pots" and "kettles" (and "lies"). Now is a good time to emphasize those three words again, it would seem.

>>> "Exculpatory evidence just fries Bugliosi." <<<

But the 53 things that lead inexorably to Lee Harvey Oswald's GUILT are supposed to be totally ignored. Right, Ben?

Tell me, Ben, do you agree or disagree with Vince Bugliosi (who is a lawyer who has had a great amount of experience dealing with ACTUAL criminal cases in ACTUAL courtrooms) when he says this:

"As a prosecutor, I found out something -- if you are innocent of a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But every once in a while there might be one or two things that point toward your guilt, even though you're innocent. And in very rare situations, there might even be THREE things that point toward your guilt even though you're completely innocent." -- VB

Does anyone here disagree with the above common-sense statement put forth by Mr. Bugliosi?

If you DO disagree with Vince's words I just typed above, you're totally nuts.

Now, with that obvious observation out of the way, we can move on to the specifics of the JFK murder case.....

"In 'Reclaiming History', I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt. And under those circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be innocent. Because you cannot have fifty-three separate pieces of evidence pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent....at least not in the real world in which we live. Only in a fantasy world can you have fifty-three pieces of evidence pointing to your guilt and still be innocent." -- VB

Good luck, Ben, with your "exculpatory" evidence that is somehow going to overcome the carload of "Oswald's Guilty" evidence that undeniably exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

I think author and former LAPD cop Mark Fuhrman said it very nicely, too, in his JFK assassination book when he said this:

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Lee Harvey Oswald]." -- Mark Fuhrman; Page 89 of "A Simple Act Of Murder" (c.2006)


>>> "It's fun to count how many times Bugliosi simply lies." <<<

There isn't a person alive who can prove that Vincent Bugliosi told a deliberate "lie" (with the "INTENT TO DECEIVE" attached) within his 2007 book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy".

Mr. Bugliosi, over the course of a two-decade period, wrote what is now (by far) the most comprehensive book on the assassination of JFK. He analyzes the evidence (the REAL evidence, that is) and uses a great deal of ordinary common sense--which IS allowed to be used when writing a JFK book--and comes to the only possible rational, reasonable, BASED-ON-THE-EVIDENCE conclusion that a reasonable person can reach at the end of those 2,700-plus pages -- with that conclusion being: Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty (alone) of the two murders he was accused of committing in 1963.

And the Internet ramblings of a rabid conspiracy theorist like Ben Holmes certainly are of no major (or minor) consequence whatsoever when placed next to the huge number of things (which number in the DOZENS) that indicate the fact that Lee Oswald was performing a solo act in Dallas on November 22nd.

"For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986

The above words spoken by VB couldn't be more accurate, in my view. If truer words have ever been uttered in reference to many of the JFK conspiracy theorists of the world, I've yet to hear them.

David Von Pein
April 6, 2008



(PART 189)


>>> "In the Wiegman film, Wiegman starts filming just after the first shot is fired. Take a good look at it David, NONE of the people in front of the TSBD are looking UP at the source of the shot, they are ALL looking down Elm (and, yes David, they had time to react and look). You say the time between shots 1 and 3 was 8 seconds. That means the crowd has FOUR seconds to react, since Wiegman started filming four seconds before the head shot. Look at the film and explain why no one is looking UP." <<<


So what are you saying, Richard....that the first shot (or maybe even
ALL of the shots) came from the Grassy Knoll (which we all know is
dead wrong)?

You think that the first shot came from someplace OTHER than where the
proverbial "Patsy For All 11/22/63 Murders" (LHO) was located?


In other words, the architects of this grandiose "One Patsy Named
Oswald" plot decided to BEGIN the shooting by firing a shot from the
KNOLL, instead of starting with a gunshot from the only place where
their patsy could be blamed--the TSBD??!! Get real.

You'd better re-think your Wiegman analysis, because it's certainly
not doing your conspiracy theory very much good, unless you actually
do want to believe that by the time Wiegman started filming, ZERO
shots had actually been fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor
of the Texas School Book Depository.

And I know of only one "JFK researcher" who thinks that zero shots
(at all!) came from Oswald's Nest -- his name is Robert J. Groden.

>>> "Fact: Shots 2 and 3 were nearly simultaneous, impossible from the MC rifle." <<<

FACT: The above "fact" is positively NOT a "fact" (despite Mr. Van Noord's
assertion to the world that it is a "fact").

IMO, a "fact" is something that has been established beyond all reasonable
doubt (like, say, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the two 1963 murders he
was charged with having committed).

But the exact time between gunshots has certainly not been established
beyond all reasonable doubt by way of the Dealey Plaza
witnesses....mainly because it's so very subjective in nature.

For example, I'll provide you right now with multiple witnesses who
said that the three shots they heard were "evenly spaced", and not
"bunched" together (8 witnesses in total here, plus Governor Connally
thrown in for good measure on a related issue; and I could probably
find more than this if I wanted to dig even deeper into the Warren
Commission volumes and my audio/video archives):

James Romack:

Mr. BELIN. How many [shots] did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4
seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was
closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced.


Officer Marrion L. Baker:

Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of
these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they
were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.


Tom Dillard:

Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.


Mal Couch:

Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of
time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but
it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second
shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there
been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were
relatively the same.


Nellie Connally:

Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.


Emmett Hudson:

Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them
closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.


Harold Norman (Via his re-creations of what he heard):

Mr. NORMAN - Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom.

Norman always "re-created" his "Booms-Clicks-Clicks" in a
PERFECTLY-EVEN distribution of the gunshots.


Pierce Allman (Via WFAA-Radio interview on 11/22/63):

Mr. ALLMAN - The shots didn't seem rapid at all. They were
three well-spaced reverberating shots.



QUESTION -- "What was your impression then as to the source of the
[first] shot?"

JOHN B. CONNALLY -- "From back over my right shoulder which, again,
was where immediately when I heard the first shot I identified the sound
as coming, back over my right shoulder."

QUESTION -- "At an elevation?"

GOV. CONNALLY -- "At an elevation. I would have guessed at an

QUESTION -- "Did you have an impression as to the source of the third

GOV. CONNALLY -- "The same. I would say the same."

Are Nellie and her spouse full of feces here when they say, without
reservation, that ALL SHOTS CAME FROM BEHIND US?

So much for Richard's above-mentioned "Fact".

>>> "Fact: The first shot sounded different from shots 2 and 3, impossible if all coming from the same rifle." <<<

You must be crazy to pull this weak-sister argument out of your CT
hat. But, since you want to travel down this subjective path, I'll
give you Abraham Zapruder (and I could no doubt find a few more
witnesses like Abe if I tried hard enough):

"I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were shots
that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I
heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but
it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded
alike; there was no different sound at all."
-- Abraham Zapruder; 1967

You've got to give Richard V.N. points for trying though. No matter
how many times his piecemeal, threadbare, non-existent examples of
"Conspiracy" are beaten back into the deep woods (where they all
belong, naturally), Richard just keeps on rehashing the same old
tired, already-trampled CT ground another day.

But, that's another longstanding trait amongst rabid, never-wanna-give-
up conspiracists -- ALL debunked theories become shiny and new
once again with the passage of each new 24-hour period.

Go figure.

David Von Pein
April 4, 2008


JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:

1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them?

2.) What other weapons were used?

3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?

4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?

5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)?

6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?

7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles?

8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?

David Von Pein
April 4, 2008
May 2012