(PART 80)




I love that quote you provided from [John] McAdams, David, and cite it in my review of McAdams' book. It shows the confusion inherent in all too many LNers. They think that the more evidence there is that something is wrong with the official story, the more likely it is that this story is correct. And that's just lazy thinking. Juvenile stuff.

While one could make the argument that the large number of possible conspiracies decreases the probability that any individual theory is correct, one can't logically argue that it decreases the chance that one of the theories is correct. That's basic math. I mean if you have a bucket with one possibility--the official story--and another bucket filled with hundreds of conspiracy theories constituting another possibility--and then add another theory into the mix--that doesn't have any effect on the probability one of the buckets has the golden ticket. It's still one bucket or the other. (Which is not to say it's 50/50.)



I can agree with you to a certain extent, especially if we were to change the subject and start talking about a murder case OTHER than John Kennedy's murder case (which is a case like no other in history, as you well know).

But in THIS (Kennedy) case, I disagree with your above "bucket" analysis. I think your reasoning is flawed via this quote of yours:

"If you have a bucket with one possibility--the official story--and another bucket filled with hundreds of conspiracy theories constituting another possibility--and then add another theory into the mix--that doesn't have any effect on the probability one of the buckets has the golden ticket. It's still one bucket or the other."

The major flaw in that line of reasoning, IMO, is when you use the words "hundreds of conspiracy theories" which you say can constitute just ONE single "possibility". It goes back to my thought in my previous post -- how can anyone possibly believe ANY of the many conspiracy theories when we are constantly bombarded with, as you implied, literally "hundreds" of theories, many of which totally contradict and defeat other theories in the same "bucket"?

If you throw hundreds of theories into the same bucket, you have to know, even if you're a conspiracist, that almost every one of them HAS to be wrong. I think that was Professor McAdams' main point when he wrote these words in his book:

"The sheer number of extra bullets or confessions or spooky connections is evidence that none of them are strong evidence of anything." -- John McAdams; Page 192 of "JFK Assassination Logic"

In other words -- Too many cooks spoil the stew (and a JFK conspiracy plot).

But by contrast, in the other "bucket", what do we find? We find ONE theory and only one -- Oswald did it by himself. (Which is the only theory that has ANY physical evidence to back it up, of course.)

Therefore, via basic math (and a little common sense thrown in), which bucket is most likely to contain the truth?

Not a hard choice, in my view.


That makes no sense, which is nothing new for DVP and Paul Nolan [John McAdams].

In one bucket you have a theory that is patently impossible, i.e., the Single Bullet Fantasy.

In another you have several other theories that are based upon other data. Some are patently disinformation and planned that way. Some are from idiot axe grinders like Piper.

But one or two are intricately worked out with good evidence that explains many of the paradoxes of the case that the Paul Nolan bucket does not even acknowledge. Without the impossibility of the SBF. Or ignoring who Oswald really was. Or ignoring the fact that the FBI lied its eyes out in this case, as Hale Boggs said before he died. Or that Earl Warren told the Commission that they could not really investigate the case since it was too dangerous to do so.

Not a hard choice at all. To most rational people.


My earlier remarks make perfect sense. No conspiracy theory in your "bucket" has been proven. Let alone the "hundreds" that occupy space in that same bucket.

On the other hand, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in Tippit's and Kennedy's murders has been proven beyond all reasonable/sensible doubt. (Far, far beyond.)

But, as per usual for Jimbo "Garrison Was Right" DiEugenio, the common-sense resolution is beyond his grasp, such as the oh-so-obviously-correct SBT and the oh-so-guilty LHO, even though Jimbo wants to pretend that Oswald was totally innocent of ALL of his 1963 crimes.

Talk about "patently impossible". Jimmy's "LHO Is Innocent Of All '63 Crimes" theory is just that. And even James himself must really know it.


The idea that the greater the proof the government is lying, the more reason to believe it is telling the truth is bizarre beyond belief.


I never said anything of the kind, of course.

Fetzer, like most conspiracy theorists, thinks he has "proof" that the Government lied about a million things in the JFK case. But, of course, the "proof" that Fetzer and his buddies think exists doesn't exist at all (except in the minds of the CTers who claim the Govt. faked this and altered that and framed Oswald, etc.).

My previously-stated observation is still very accurate and rational -- i.e., the more and more theories that are heaped onto the table in this case (featuring wholly disparate and contradictory facets and conclusions concerning the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit), the more likely it is that NONE of those theories are correct at all and the more likely it is that all of those unsupportable theories were merely born out of the fertile ground that resides in the minds of people who WANT a conspiracy to exist in the JFK murder case. That is what I truly believe, and, in fact, that is exactly what the totality of evidence in this case suggests -- because there's not a SCRAP of physical evidence to support Oswald's innocence in either the JFK or Tippit murders, and everybody knows it (deep down) -- even the Internet conspiracy mongers.


Notice that Von Pein does not "explain away" Doorman's missing shoulder.


There is no "missing shoulder". It's merely the angle of the photo and the angle of Lovelady at the time the picture was snapped.


...The BTM ["Black Tie Man"] in front of and behind Doorman at the same time.


Is this the same type of loony theory that some conspiracists (possibly even Fetzer himself) have purported in the past regarding another photo/film taken in Dealey Plaza? You know, Professor, the theory that in one of the photos or films (I think it was the Nix Film), Marilyn Sitzman is supposedly standing both in FRONT of and BEHIND Abe Zapruder at the same time, thereby indicating some kind of crazy "fakery" involving that film too?

Of course, none of these films/photos have been faked by anybody. What we're treated to here, once again, is merely the overactive imagination of a conspiracy theorist who sees some anomaly that he can't quite explain, and so he immediately jumps to the conclusion that the photo or film MUST have been altered or faked, even though in many instances such kooky fakery doesn't even make any sense whatsoever -- such as the Sitzman/Zapruder Dance on the pedestal. Why was there any NEED to fake the positions of those people in any Dealey picture or film?

And why would there be a need to eliminate Bill Shelley in the Altgens picture? We have Shelley HIMSELF testifying that he was out in front of the building when the shooting occurred. And Buell Frazier is another witness who verified that Shelley was out in front too. Did the plotters think that Shelley would lie and say he wasn't standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30?


...the obfuscated face, or the profile of the black man, which conceals the lower part of Doorman's shirt.


More silliness from Fetzer. According to Fetzer, the photo-fakers decided to conceal only a PORTION of Oswald's shirt, but they left the bulk of the shirt in the faked picture, to give brilliant CTers like Prof. Fetzer just enough clues to figure out the photo is a fraud.

I'll repeat my earlier thought (which applies just as much to James H. Fetzer as it does to Dr. Ralph Cinque) ---

"The fact that [Jim F.] is convinced that so many DIFFERENT portions of the James Altgens photo have been faked and manipulated and altered by evil plotters and cover-up agents is, to any sensible person, a pretty good indication that NONE of the various parts of the photo have been altered at all. .... Doesn't [Fetzer] even wonder WHY some of the silly things were altered in Jim Altgens' picture that [Jim] does seem to think were altered? For example, why was there a need to alter the faces and arms of certain NON-Lovelady/Oswald people in the picture? Just...why?" -- DVP

This excerpt from the HSCA's Final Report is worth mentioning again too (which is an official report on the "Doorway Man" issue that Jim Fetzer will, of course, totally ignore):

"Lovelady or Oswald? -- It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the President's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the depository. Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President.

The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. Critics have challenged that conclusion, charging that Commission members did not personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission.

The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day.

Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady.

Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady. The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph."

-- House Select Committee on Assassinations Final Report; Page 58

More on "Doorway Man" HERE.


In Groden's new book, he will further demolish Bugliosi and Dale Myers. JFK and JBC were perfectly lined up on top of each other in the car. That is the kind of research VB did for that crappy book. He never even asked Groden for photos of the car from behind. There was not the inboard positioning that VB advocates.


So, we can add a whole bunch of additional "fake" pictures to the growing list of fakery in this case, right Jim? Like the following items, which PROVE that Connally was positively sitting INBOARD of JFK in the limo. Apparently Jim even thinks the Hess & Eisenhardt body draft must be fake:


I love the way you shoot off your mouth without seeing the evidence.

You did it with Reclaiming History two years in advance.

You did it with the so called Marcus memo.

Now you do it again.

Question: Did you ever ask anyone for a photo from the car right behind JFK's limo as the car entered Dealey Plaza?

Would that not be the best evidence in this case?

If not, what would be?

It certainly would not be empty diagrams of the car, would it? People can slide around in a wide back seat, correct?

It would not be the car while JBC had his hat on, right? Or when the door was open either. Since that was not in Dealey Plaza.

This is what I mean by your bizarre approach to evidence and why no one takes you seriously here.

It is like you deliberately clipping off Linnie Mae Randle's testimony about seeing Oswald place a bag in Frazier's car. Something she could not do.

If you were a lawyer and did this kind of stuff in a murder case, you would be disbarred.


So, Bob Groden has a photo taken at the time of the assassination which shows Connally sitting directly in front of Kennedy, eh?

Groden's not really going to try and pass off Dave Powers' film as a film that was taken in Dealey Plaza, is he? And he surely isn't silly enough to claim that Connally was sitting "directly" in front of JFK in Powers' film, is he? Because Dave Powers' film clearly shows Connally sitting INBOARD of President Kennedy:

Anyway, I can't wait to see Groden's case-breaking photo, and I'm sure Dale Myers is anxious to see it too, since such a photo would completely contradict Dale's very detailed computer animation, which is an animation that has been Key Framed to the Zapruder Film itself, with the end result of such key framing being: one single bullet coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository most certainly could have passed through the bodies of both JFK and Governor Connally and injured the two men in just exactly the places where they were wounded on 11/22/63.

The "Key Framing" in Mr. Myers' computer animation also confirms that Governor Connally was most certainly sitting to the LEFT-FRONT of President Kennedy when the bullet from the Depository struck both victims.

But conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio must believe that Dale Myers' 10 years of work on this project is just another part of the continuing "cover up" in the JFK case. Right, Jim?

The image below was culled from Dale Myers' FAQ page:

And I also can't wait to read about Robert Groden's new "bombshell" witness, who apparently spoke up for the first time in her life (just before she died) and said that she was on the second floor of the Book Depository with Lee Harvey Oswald when the assassination was occurring outside the building.

I have an inkling, however, that Groden's new bombshell witness is going to be about as reliable as any "new" Dealey Plaza picture of the limousine. Wanna bet?

BTW, regarding your comment above about Linnie Mae Randle:

Let me remind everyone of something Jim DiEugenio said on October 3, 2012:

"Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- J. DiEugenio; 10/3/12

My response to DiEugenio's blatant misrepresentation of Mrs. Randle's observations concerning the paper bag she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, can be found here.

This seems like a good time to throw Jimbo's words right back in his face, so I'll do that now:

"If you were a lawyer and did this kind of stuff in a murder case, you would be disbarred." -- Jim D.

Yes, Jim, maybe you would.


More Blah blah blah from DVP.

You never answered my question, did you?

Wonder why?

As per throwing words back at me, isn't everyone a bit tired of this shopworn technique from a guy who is so imbalanced he cannot even understand what is on his own site? [DVP Interjection -- Huh? I can only shake my head and wonder why on Earth Jimmy made such a goofy utterance.]

I invite everyone to click the last link in the above post. Read the testimony DVP quotes by Randle.

Then go to WC VOL 2 p. 248 at History Matters.

Tell me if Linnie said this with [Joseph] Ball questioning her:

WC: Did you see him go to the car?

LMR: Yes.

WC: What did he do?

LMR: He opened the right back door and I just saw he was laying the package down. ...

Now go to CE 446 and CE 447 in the volumes. Then explain to me how LMR could see through two walls of a carport to Wesley's car which WAS PARKED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CARPORT! [Jimmy's wrong; there was only one wall, not two, between the kitchen door and Frazier's car.]

Davey, the chicken man, leaves that testimony out since it proves she was lying.

Now, in the real world--which you have little relation to--who would be disbarred, Davey?

What is so sick about you is that you know all this. I went through it before. But you never get tired of being exposed as a cheap flim flam man, do you?


Jimbo, once again, wants to pretend that the ONLY time Linnie Mae saw Oswald with a package was after she looked into the carport from her kitchen door. It's obvious that Jimbo, in the quote below, wants people to believe that Randle NEVER saw LHO walking across the street:

"Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- Jim DiEugenio; October 3, 2012

And Jimbo also now wants to pretend that I have never addressed Linnie Mae's testimony regarding her supposed "X-ray vision" as she looked into the carport. But Jim knows (or should) that I have addressed that testimony. I wrote a post about that very subject more than three years ago, on October 21, 2009. And I even linked to that 2009 post (below) when I put together Part 79 of my DVP Vs. Jimbo series in October of this year:


So, as we can see via the above post from back in 2009, I haven't left out anything. But Jimbo sure did when he said this in 2012:

"Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision."

The above quote is just a blatant misrepresentation of Linnie Randle's observations, because Randle saw Oswald as he CROSSED THE STREET heading to the Randle carport area. Was she lying about seeing LHO crossing the street too, Jimbo? And, of course, Jimbo needs to paint Wesley Frazier as a big fat liar too, because Frazier has always said he saw Oswald with a package.

So who is really the flimflam man when it comes to the topic of Oswald's package? The answer is obvious, because James DiEugenio of Los Angeles will do and say ANYTHING to take that package (rifle) out of Oswald's hands. Anything at all. And Jimmy doesn't care how many people he has to call liars in order to accomplish his ludicrous "There Was No Package At All" goal.


Frazier's car was on the other side of the wooden slats of the carport as seen in the second image [below]. The front of Frazier's car was pointing out toward the street. Linnie Mae had fantastic eyesight to be able to see Lee laying his brown grocery bag down on the back seat after opening the "right back door" of Wesley's car.


Nice one, Lee. That picture of Linnie is priceless.

DVP is like his mentor Bugliosi.

He is immune to presenting all the evidence, all the time claiming that he does.

There is simply no excuse for clipping off the key part of the testimony and demonstrating why it proves the testimony is worthless.


I wonder why conspiracy theorists pretend that the wall in Mrs. Randle's carport was totally SOLID. It wasn't, as CE446 shows:

I can easily see through the slats in the carport wall. And Linnie Mae no doubt could too, as I explained in my 2009 post linked earlier (and reprinted below).

And DiEugenio was dead wrong earlier when he said that Randle had to look through "TWO" walls to see Frazier's car. There was actually only one "wall" between the kitchen door and Wesley's car, and that wall (as we can see in CE446) was certainly not a solid piece of wood or metal.

Also: I get a continual "pot/kettle"-like chuckle out of DiEugenio when he says that it's me who "clips" things from Randle's testimony, when we find a blatant falsehood/misrepresentation like the one below coming from the e-lips of the Great Jimbo. Despicable.

"Linnie could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision." -- Jim Di.

Quoting from 2009 post:


Do you think it is possible for her [Linnie Mae Randle] to have seen this [LHO putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's Chevrolet sedan], David?


I'm not sure. But I certainly think it's possible, given the amount of space between the slats in the carport [as seen in CE446].

I certainly don't think Linnie Mae was lying at all. She possibly HEARD more than she SAW.


She peeks out the kitchen door and HEARS the person who she just saw walk toward her brother's car (Lee Oswald). It's obvious that the person at Frazier's car at that point in time was the person Randle just saw cross the street (Oswald).

Randle then HEARS the door of Frazier's car being opened. It's also possible that she gets enough of a glimpse of Oswald through the slats of the carport to see at least a portion of Oswald as he places the bag in the car.

So, the combination of HEARING what Oswald was doing at the car and very likely SEEING a little bit of Oswald through the slats was certainly enough information, IMO, for Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle to reasonably testify in the following manner --- [Quoting from Linnie Mae Randle's 1964 Warren Commission testimony:] "He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door."


You drive, don't you Dave?

Do you know your left from your right? If you do you'll know the right hand side of Frazier's car was furthest from Randle. She had to SEE through the slats and through to the other side of the car.


Explained in a previous post.


To counter this you have to invent what Linnie Mae Randle HEARD instead.


And you think that Linnie Mae heard NOTHING that was going on when she opened the kitchen door, eh?

She undoubtedly did HEAR the "sticky" right-hand back door being opened. And she might have HEARD the crinkling of Oswald's bag as he placed it in the car. And she probably also HEARD the car door closing when Oswald shut the door.

And since there's plenty of light showing through those slats in CE446, she certainly could have seen some of Oswald, even if he was on the other side of Wesley's car. (Oswald was taller than the roof of the car, you know.)


On another driver related question. Do you lock your car at night, Dave?


You CTers should belong to The Nit-Pickers Association Of The World. You're tailor-made for that clique.

I thought perhaps Jimbo DiEugenio was the only person on the Internet who actually was silly enough to think that Wes Frazier AND Linnie Randle BOTH lied about seeing Oswald with a paper bag on 11/22/63. But I see I was mistaken. Lee Farley has now joined Jimmy's odd "No Bag At All" club. Incredible.

BTW, no, I do not lock my car at night. It's always parked in a closed garage. :)

But you, of course, know that many people in 1963 didn't even lock up their houses at night. It was a different era. And an unlocked car would not be unusual in the slightest. But by all means, call Frazier a liar in that "lock doors" regard too. Might as well accuse him of more lies, right?


In his WC testimony, Frazier says that he always kept his car parked on the outside of the car port, that is on the other side of it.

We are supposed to think that DVP missed this?

I don't think that at all.


Jimmy D. is so out of it that he thinks I think that Frazier parked his car INSIDE the carport. I guess Jimbo just totally ignored my 2009 post. Geez.

Let me also add this:

In addition to believing that Linnie Mae Randle lied about everything she told the Warren Commission regarding Oswald's package, conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley ALSO have to believe that Mrs. Randle continued telling her lies a few months later when she voluntarily participated in a re-creation of her 11/22/63 activities for David L. Wolper's documentary film, "Four Days In November". (And Buell Wesley Frazier also appears in the same film.)

In Wolper's movie, Randle tells the exact same story about seeing Oswald with a brown paper package, and in the Wolper film she says the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long". That's 30 inches. Which is not that far away from the actual size (38 inches) of the bag Oswald was carrying. And if the ends of the bag were folded, it would mean that Linnie Mae's 30-inch estimate would be even closer to the length of the bag that was available for her eyes to see on the morning of 11/22/63 as Oswald crossed Westbrook Street. Go to the 4:47 mark of this video:




So Linnie Mae and Buell lied to Wolper too, eh?

Why would they VOLUNTARILY participate in Wolper's movie if they knew they were going to have to lie their asses off from start to finish?

Did they enjoy lying THAT much?

I guess you think they did.



Go lock your car, Dave.


Yeah, I'd better. If I don't, that lying tramp Linnie Mae and her vile brother might sneak into my garage and plant a rifle in my back seat.

Thanks, Lee! You're a life saver!


From [Buell Wesley] Frazier's HSCA deposition:

FRAZIER. He had already put the package in the car.
MORIARTY. Now, uh, let me see, you always locked the car.
FRAZIER. Mm-hmmm.
MORIARTY. But he didn't have any trouble putting the package in the car.
FRAZIER. Well, uh, I know I told you that, uh, previously, I would always lock the car.
FRAZIER. Uh, but I did, uh, but if I remember correctly I owned that ol' car I believe, uh, one of the back doors you - you try to lock it, you know, but you couldn't lock it. When it looked like but it couldn't be locked.
FRAZIER. But, uh, to the best of my knowledge was that, that was the thing was wrong with the car, you know, you could make it look like the door was locked. But it wouldn't. You could just push it and it would open right up.
MORIARTY. That's just one of the odd parts of that particular car I guess?
FRAZIER. Yes, it was old.


Dave, I almost feel sorry for your boy Buell reading this sad pile of BS. It's a sign of a man buried up to his neck in excrement that when he is found lying out of his backside that he just keeps the BS coming. "Uh, well, uh, I know, I uh, told you that, I, uh, always locked my, uh, door. But the uh, thing, is right, uh, is that, the thing, the thing that locks, you could make it lock, but it it didn't uh, lock. Just appeared that, uh, way, to the best of my knowledge. One of the, uh, back, doors wouldn't uh, lock. Yeah the one that, Oswald, uh, opened, so I, uh, guess he was, uh, lucky opening that, uh, particular door, that morning."

Keep the propaganda coming, Dave...ha ha ha.

Why don't you ask your pal Gary [Mack] to ring Buell Wesley Frazier and enquire as to why he felt the need to lock his car doors at all? I mean it was a different time and place back then. If he'd have left the damn things open he wouldn't have been caught with his pants round his ankles by the HSCA, would he?

No wonder they didn't publish it, eh?


So if Buell Frazier's whole "bag" story is a lie from the get-go (as you obviously think it was), then why would he have said he did lock his car doors, since he knew that Lee Oswald (the resident "patsy") couldn't get into a locked car?

If the whole story was a big fat lie, Frazier would have said that all his car doors were UNlocked to allow Oswald to have the ability to open one of them on November 22nd.

Plus: Frazier most certainly would never have said the size of a totally MADE-UP bag in his back seat was TOO SMALL to promote the Oswald-Did-It lie that you obviously think Buell was trying to peddle from the start.

Any idea why Frazier said his MAKE-BELIEVE bag was too short to hold the rifle that Buell had to make sure would go into it?

Was Buell just not prepared well by his "handlers"? Or was he just a complete idiot?

Try again, Farley. You're floundering on this "locked doors" thing (and that bag thing too).


When did LMR [Linnie Mae Randle] say she heard anything? I don't see it in her WC testimony.


Are you now going to suggest that Linnie Mae was deaf? Or would you like to purport that when Oswald opened and closed the car door, it made no sound whatsoever? (Oh, that's right, I nearly forgot -- Linnie Mae didn't really see [or hear] Oswald do anything with any package on 11/22/63, did she? She just pulled that lie out of her ass, right?)

But back here in reality (where DiEugenio does not reside) -- Even if she never testified to what she heard, it's highly likely that Linnie Mae Randle heard SOMETHING when she opened that kitchen door.


Secondly, the idea that she could see through those slats from that distance is ludicrous.


Jimmy must be totally blind then, because CE446 demonstrates that you definitely CAN see through the openings in the carport slats in order to see something on the other side of the carport. (Who's leaving out information now, Jimmy?)


Frazier said that he did lock his car at night.


Which, as I said previously, is something Frazier would have never admitted doing (locking his car doors) if he was truly the kind of deceptive evil liar who just MADE UP the whole story about seeing Lee Harvey Oswald with a large package on November 22 (as DiEugenio firmly believes Frazier did do).

Do conspiracy theorists ever evaluate things like this in any kind of reasonable and logical manner. Ever?

The same goes for the whole ludicrous "Triangulation Of Crossfire" assassination plot. According to the Oliver Stone/Jim Garrison/Jim DiEugenio version of events, in the midst of attempting to frame only Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK, the people orchestrating the Presidential murder decided it was wise to shoot at Kennedy from a variety of different locations (front AND rear) in Dealey Plaza.

And yet James DiEugenio doesn't bat an eyelash. He thinks that type of
"Multi-Gun / One Patsy" scheme was perfectly reasonable and rational. And apparently Oliver Stone thinks so too.



Buell Wesley Frazier's original handwritten statement concerning Oswald's arrival at the Randle house says the following:

"I got up between 6:00am and 6:30am and got ready to go to work and then sit down to eat breakfast about 7:15am with my mother and my 2 little nieces were at the table and my sister was at the sink, my mother looked up and said "who is that looking in the window." I looked up and said "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready."

Here's Essie Mae Williams' (Buell's mother) statement:

"She stated that on the morning of November 22nd, 1963, she did get a glimpse of a man through the kitchen window while they were having breakfast around 7:15am. She inquired as to who this man was and her son, BUELL, advised that it was LEE."

So with these two statements in mind we are asked to believe that Linnie Mae Randle is at the kitchen window. She sees Lee heading toward the house carrying a package, that we are also asked to believe contained a damn rifle, and that she saw him walk around the side of the carport. She then opens the kitchen door, and according to her testimony SAW him through the slats of the carport and across the other side of Buell's car, open the car door and lay the package on the back seat.

And while she is doing all of this, we are then asked to believe that while Buell and his mother are sitting 6 feet away eating breakfast, she not once says to her brother "Here's Lee for work, Buell." Her actions not even prompting a curious "What's up? Is someone outside?" from Buell or Essie.

When Linnie Randle spoke to the Secret Service she later claimed that Oswald's actions disturbed her which is why she opened the door to SEE what he was doing. And she still didn't say to her brother, "Hey, Lee's just opened your car door and put a large package in the back seat."

Nope. We are instead asked to believe that she stayed silent about all of this, not informing her brother that his workmate was on his way to the house, outside the house opening Frazier's car and putting a package in and then looking through the window. Not a peep out of Linnie to the point that Essie has to ask who the guy is outside of the window.

David Von Pein can invent as much stuff as he wants about what his favourite witnesses saw and heard, but he cannot get around the fact that the actions of Linnie Mae Randle defy rational belief. She could not see through wood and metal and the statements of her brother and mother prove she said nothing at the time about Lee's early arrival or his placing something in Buell's car.

All of this concerning a young lad walking toward a house for a lift to work has to instead become sinister through the eyes of Linnie Mae Randle when she speaks to the Secret Service about Lee Oswald's arrival that day. When the truth of the matter is, it is her own actions that are bizarre because most "normal" people seeing their brother's work colleague walking toward their house would probably shout "Hey, Buell, you're late because here's Lee" or "Lee's here early" or "Yo, Buell, your friend's here." But instead Linnie was "disturbed" and "frightened" that Lee Oswald was outside her property that morning and she found it "peculiar" that he waved at her.

Give us a break, eh, Dave? I'd have to sit here for a week if I was to list all the problems with this one part of the story.


All of those "problems" are easily solved via this very reasonable and believable scenario:

Buell simply got up and left the kitchen area for a few seconds (or a minute or two). And perhaps Essie did too. How can we know the precise timing for when they ALL were at the table together? And while Buell was away from the breakfast table, Lee Oswald approached the Randle house carrying his brown paper package. Linnie Mae then opens the kitchen door and sees a portion of Lee as he puts the package into Buell's car. A very short time later, Buell re-enters the kitchen, and possibly within just a few seconds of coming back into the kitchen, Essie sees Lee at the window.

Via the above perfectly reasonable scenario, there would have been virtually no time available for Linnie Mae to even mention to Buell that she saw Lee putting something into Buell's back seat.

Now, which scenario is more likely to be true? The one I just laid out above (wherein nobody is a rotten, evil liar)? Or the scenario believed by people like James DiEugenio and Lee Farley, which contains one lie after another being told (for years on end) by two average, ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens named Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle?

Ponder that for a while, Lee, and let me know why your "Everybody Lied About The Paper Bag" scenario is worthy of more belief than my "Nobody Lied" scenario.

In short -- Your "problems" regarding what Linnie Mae did and didn't do to meet your satisfaction of what she SHOULD have done after seeing Oswald on 11/22/63 are not nearly enough of a "problem" for me to want to start calling both Linnie Randle and Buell Frazier liars with respect to whether they each saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a large paper bag on the morning of November 22, 1963.

Some conspiracists are ready (and eager) to make the leap and call Frazier and Randle liars. I, however, am not. Not even close.


Tell me something, Dave, would you not be interested in hearing a detailed and substantial answer concerning Buell being pressured to sign a confession as Lee Oswald's accomplice? Would you not be interested in hearing a detailed and substantial answer as to why Buell told the HSCA that his interrogation left him with the impression that the case against Lee was going to be a "whitewash"?

Wouldn't anybody with a deep interest in this case be interested in hearing a series of honest answers to just these two questions?


Actually, Lee, I'd be more interested in hearing why Buell decided to add an obviously false element to his story (about having seen LHO walking on Houston Street 5 to 10 minutes after the assassination) when Buell was interviewed for two hours by Gary Mack on June 21, 2002.

That very odd tale told by Frazier in 2002 totally contradicts what he said within hours of the assassination (in this 11/22/63 affidavit).

Is that "add on" story enough for me to think Buell Frazier was a part of some kind of "Let's Frame Oswald" plot in 1963? Of course it's not. But it certainly would be nice to hear Frazier answer this question:

Wesley, in a 2002 interview, you said that you saw Lee Oswald on Houston Street about 5 or 10 minutes after the shooting of the President. But in your 11/22/63 affidavit, you specifically said (in your own words) that you had not seen Lee at all after about 11:00 AM on November 22nd. How can you reconcile this discrepancy?

More Buell Frazier interviews and videos:


Anyone who can say that Linnie Mae Randle and Wesley Frazier are just ordinary witnesses, I mean what can you say?

I don't know anyone in this case who was snapped up to a polygraph at midnight on the 22nd at the DPD.

I don't know anyone who was so panic stricken that the operator could not get a reading on him.

I don't know anyone who had an Enfield rifle in their house, the first rifle reported used in the assassination.

I don't know any witness who the DPD tried to deliberately cover up what they did to him as they did with Frazier.

I don't know any witness with who the DPD deliberately deep sixed the evidence of what happened to him to the point that it completely disappeared from the archives.

I don't know any testimony in which both witnesses to one event have been impeached.

And for Davey to say that...

1.) You can see anything distinguishable through those slats,

2.) You can see to the other side of the car,

This is just BS, so what does DVP do, he invents testimony about "hearing the door".

Utterly shameless.

But par for the course with him.


Yes, you are shameless, Jimbo. You're shamelessly trying to smear the names of two totally innocent people with your outrageous and wholly unfounded BS about Frazier and Randle being "forced" by the DPD to make up the paper bag story from whole cloth. That's a despicable theory and anyone with any common sense knows it. But, of course, it's par for the DiEugenio course, because Jimmy D. couldn't live with the thought that Lee Oswald took that rifle into work with him on 11/22/63 (as the ludicrous 2010 quote shown below amply demonstrates).

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- J. DiEugenio; Jan. 14, 2010

Yeah, right. As if all the bullets, shells, fragments, guns, fingerprints, fibers, paper bag, the Tippit murder, and Oswald's own actions weren't going to be nearly enough to hang Oswald. Jimbo's out to lunch.

And all of DiEugenio's other concerns melt away like butter on just-popped popcorn when evaluated in anything close to a reasonable way.


Frazier was scared stiff. So what? Wouldn't you be too, given the circumstances?

Frazier had an Enfield rifle. And since Frazier drove the assassin to work in his own car on the day of the assassination, OF COURSE Frazier (along with his rifle) is going to be considered a potential suspect and a possible accomplice. Why WOULDN'T he be considered in such a light right after an assassination had just been committed by a person who was driven to work by Frazier on the day it happened?

The same goes for Joe R. Molina, another Depository employee with an apparent "subversive" history (per the DPD files). Molina was questioned within 24 hours of the assassination and released when it was discovered he had nothing to do with the assassination. The same with Frazier.

William Randle's rifle (scope) is investigated. Again, so what? That's to be EXPECTED, in my opinion, since Mr. Randle had a "connection" to Buell Wesley Frazier, who was also investigated.

I can just hear you conspiracy clowns balking and complaining if Frazier and Mr. Randle HADN'T been investigated. You'd be crying: "Why were they and their rifles totally ignored?"

But when they (and their rifles) ARE investigated by the authorities, you still want to complain that THAT action is sinister and suspicious too.

There's no pleasing a conspiracy hound. Is there, Jimmy?





Good luck in getting even very many conspiracy theorists to swallow your
"NO LARGE BAG AT ALL" theory. I doubt very many CTers will jump on that bandwagon.


Because the hardline theorists of today like their own theory much better -- i.e., Oswald DID carry a good-sized bag into the TSBD, but it was obviously way too small to hold the Carcano rifle. Hence, LHO is totally innocent.

How many people have abandoned that particular longstanding BS theory in order to embrace the even more absurd and outlandish hunk of BS currently being dished up by conspiracy-happy clowns like Lee Farley of the United Kingdom and James DiEugenio of Los Angeles?

Not many, I surmise.


I am 99.9999999% convinced now that Oswald did not room at the Bledsoe residence. He did not know this woman.


More liars, eh Lee? And what could POSSIBLY be the fruitful purpose of creating this lie about Oswald's Marsalis St. address? Was the FBI just bored and wanted something to do?

You probably think they needed Oswald to rent a room on Marsalis in order to firm up Bledsoe's "bus" story, right?

But...why? Why not just pretend that Oswald went straight to the Greyhound station to get a taxi? There's no logical reason to ADD a "liar" named Mary E. Bledsoe to this scenario at all. It's not needed. Just have Bill Whaley do the lying.* It cuts down on the "liars" and the loose ends. Right?

* And I'm just assuming (naturally) that you think William W. Whaley was ALSO a big fat liar when he said he gave Oswald a cab ride to Oak Cliff on 11/22/63. That's GOT to be another lie. Right, Farley?


Do we not find interesting the fact that 1026 North Beckley at the very same period of time had a guy living there called Herbert Lee? We have a H. Lee living at the rooming house and we have an O. H. Lee living at the rooming house? Bit of a coincidence don't you think? Plus, H. Lee can easily be turned into O. H. Lee by inserting an O in front. Do any of us know who the real Mr. Lee was at 1026 North Beckley? Do we really believe there were two, at the same time?


Good! More liars! Earlene Roberts, A.C. Johnson, Gladys Johnson.

Any end to the liars in this case, Lee F.?

The world vs. The Patsy.

That's Lee Farley's world.

What a crock.



You cannot be serious about the above?

Can you?

Why did they need Bledsoe to put him on that bus?

This is thick, even for you.

1. No one else could do it, as Sylvia Meagher pointed out. The other witnesses were just preposterous. Even for the WC.

2. If LHO is not on that bus, then that gives ballast to Roger Craig.



It does no such thing, Jimbo. Not even close. Or do you now want to totally ignore the fact that Oswald took a taxicab to Oak Cliff?

You think if Oswald was NOT on Cecil McWatters' bus, then Roger Craig's story about seeing Oswald getting into a Rambler station wagon in front of the Book Depository at about 12:40 PM is MORE LIKELY to be true?

LOL. You're kidding!

Via that type of "Craig's right" scenario, it would mean that Oswald left the TSBD, jumped into a Rambler (heading WEST on Elm Street), and then in the next few minutes, Oswald vacated the Rambler and got into a taxicab at the Greyhound bus station, which was several blocks EAST of the Depository.

Did Oswald's accomplice driving the Rambler suddenly get pissed off at Lee Harvey and he decided to kick him out of the car, forcing Lee to take a cab to Oak Cliff? Is that what happened?

And if Oswald's "flight" is totally made up from whole cloth to begin with (which is probably what you believe, since you are now a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" club), then there's no need to put him on a bus that only moves at a snail's pace and only proceeds down Elm St. for a few blocks before getting stalled in traffic.

Oswald took a cab to Oak Cliff. Not the bus. And the cab driver, Bill Whaley, positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the passenger in his cab.

So why the bus charade, Jimmy? Just...why? Why on Earth would anybody want to deliberately complicate the so-called "Let's Frame Oswald" plot by adding a totally unnecessary element like a bus trip that lasted for only 3 or 4 blocks? It's just dumb. Not to mention needlessly reckless.


What I have said is that Craig's story indicates a conspiracy because at the least it suggests there was an Oswald double in the area associated with a Latin looking man. And further, Craig's story is bolstered by both Marvin Robinson and photos recovered from the archives by Anna M. Kuhns Walko and John Armstrong.

What Craig saw did happen.

What we don't [know] for sure is what it means, and who the guy really was running down the embankment.

(This does not compute with DVP since his McAdams disease kicks in harder the more evidence there is to discredit the WC. Sometimes he is in danger of having a stroke.)

But there is no doubt on this earth that Bledsoe was used to discredit Craig. And her story was aided and abetted by those who knew about Craig's story and how credible it was.



You said earlier that if Oswald was not on the bus, this would give more credence (or "ballast") to Roger Craig's Rambler story.

But HOW does it do that?

We know that Oswald took that cab to Oak Cliff at just about exactly the same time that he was allegedly riding in a Rambler (per Craig).

Therefore, with or without that very short bus trip, Oswald STILL went to Oak Cliff in Whaley's cab. Ergo, he wasn't riding in a Rambler at the very same time.

Isn't this obvious?

And surely you don't dispute that Oswald drove to Beckley in Whaley's cab. Or do you? Is Whaley a liar too?

As for "Rambler Man" being an Oswald "double" or "look-alike" -- well, okay, the guy who got into the Rambler looked like Oswald. That doesn't mean a whole lot, since a lot of people looked generally like Lee Oswald. Heck, just two people who were very close to this case ALONE looked remarkably like Oswald -- Billy Lovelady and Larry Crafard.

And a third "Oz Look-alike" is also Donald House, who was picked up by the police shortly after the assassination. So the Oswald look-alikes were in great abundance in Dallas it would seem.



Did the WC give credence at all to Craig?


Did they believe Bledsoe and in fact help her story along?


Why did they do that?



The Warren Commission arrived at the ONLY reasonable and logical conclusion they could have possibly arrived at when it comes to the following two questions:

1.) Did Lee Harvey Oswald get on a bus shortly after the assassination?


2.) Was Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig correct when he said he saw Oswald get into a car on Elm Street approximately ten minutes after JFK was shot in Dealey Plaza?

Given the sum total of the evidence in this case, the only possible reasonable answers to the above two questions are:

1.) Yes.


2.) No.

And the WC didn't even NEED Mary Bledsoe to arrive the above two answers.

Was the Warren Commission supposed to just ignore this little item of evidence shown below, which was found in Oswald's shirt pocket after he was arrested? Don't tell me -- you think this is yet another piece of "planted" evidence in this case, right Jim?



Who is the best type of witness to shore up an identification of a suspect? Someone who has never met the suspect before or someone who has?


Someone who HAS met the suspect, of course. Which is why Mary Bledsoe's testimony about the man on the bus being Oswald carries more weight than it would under other circumstances -- because she DID know Oswald on sight.

And I even mentioned that very thing when arguing with Greg Parker about this same topic in this 2008 discussion.


In order to believe that Lee Oswald never rented a room from Mrs. Mary Bledsoe in early October of 1963, conspiracy theorists are going to have to somehow get around the fact that Ruth Paine had written down Bledsoe's telephone number in her address book (the number was WH2-1985).

Mrs. Paine, who I'm sure many conspiracy theorists think was telling a bunch of lies in this testimony below, gave the Warren Commission the following information concerning that telephone number (at 3 H 37 and 3 H 38):

Mr. JENNER - Now, give it as chronologically as you can; how you came by that telephone number, the circumstances under which it was given to you.

Mrs. PAINE - He [LHO] said this is the telephone number.

Mr. JENNER - Was Marina present?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes. He said of the room where he was staying, renting a room, and I could reach him here if she went into labor.

Mr. JENNER - I see, the coming of the baby was imminent?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - When was the baby expected?

Mrs. PAINE - Any time after the first week in October. Any time, in other words.


Mr. JENNER - Now, relate for the record the telephone number that Mr. Oswald gave you, the first one he gave you on this particular occasion?

Mrs. PAINE - The number was WH 2-1985.

Mr. JENNER - And that is at the bottom of the page written in ink.

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Is that in your handwriting?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; it is.

[DVP INTERJECTION -- See CE402; the number has been partially scratched out by Ruth Paine, which occurred after Oswald had changed addresses in mid-October 1963, thereby rendering the WH2-1985 number invalid as contact information for Lee Oswald; but the number "1985" is still clearly visible in CE402.]

Mr. JENNER - What exchange is "WH" in Dallas?

Mrs. PAINE - I don't know. I did not know. I know now, maybe I know, Whitehall, something. I know now what it is, but I didn't know then.

Mr. JENNER - Did he on that occasion say anything about where the apartment or room was?

Mrs. PAINE - No; he did not.

Mr. JENNER - He did not give you an address?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Didn't locate it in any area in Dallas?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - All he gave you was the telephone number?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did he say anything that would indicate to you that you are other than free to call him and ask for him by his surname you knew him by?

Mrs. PAINE - No; he did not make such a limitation.

Mr. JENNER - I take it from your testimony that the number was given to you, at least the discussion was, so that you could call him in connection with the oncoming event of the birth of his child?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.


To confirm that "WH2-1985" was, in fact, Mary E. Bledsoe's home telephone number, there is Mrs. Bledsoe's 11/23/63 affidavit, which has that number typed at the top of it (click to enlarge):

I talk more about Ruth Paine and the WH2-1985 telephone number in this June 2008 discussion with another conspiracy theorist.


Yes, both the Bledsoe number and the Beckley number were written in both Oswald's and Paine's diaries.

So what? It ain't difficult [to] write two numbers in a diary post-assassination, is it, Dave?

Give me something that proves Bledsoe rented to ANYBODY, Dave. Do you have anything other than Ruth Paine's word?


Yep. Just what I thought. More lies being told by people who have no reason to tell them.

The main motto of conspiracy theorists rears its hideous head once more -- Just call everyone a liar, and you're home free.



There is no handwritten affidavit from Mary Bledsoe. Why not?


What's the difference? Bledsoe SIGNED the typewritten copy.

Let me guess -- Farley thinks Bledsoe's signature here is a forgery. Right, Lee?


I take it you skipped my post containing all of the things you have to accept to believe this fairy tale? Any particular reason?


Because every single item on your list concerning Bledsoe and McWatters is nitpicking meaningless crap stirred up by a conspiracy theorist who will ALWAYS look sideways at everything connected with the JFK murder case. And every item on that nitpicking list has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lee Oswald shot and killed JFK on 11/22/63.

And here's another official report concerning Mary Bledsoe for you to (probably) claim is fake. It's L.C. Graves' brief report about how he took an affidavit from Bledsoe on 11/23/63, and how Bledsoe said "she knew Oswald and saw him get on and off of a bus on Elm Street shortly after President Kennedy was shot".

David Von Pein
November 2012
December 2012

(PART 282)


>>> "Dave, why would I care if LHO is innocent or not?" <<<


You tell me. You're the President (and Secretary) of the current
version of the "Anybody But Oswald" club here in these parts. So
you'll have to tell me.

>>> "You sound silly saying things like that." <<<

Another classic Pot/Kettle moment from the Robster. Lovely.

>>> "My motive is I believe someone accused of two murders
should have a fair trial, but since the DPD made sure this didn't happen,
at the very least we should make sure all the "evidence" is accurate and correct." <<<

And you think that task can be better accomplished by chucking all of
the evidence in the case into File 13 (i.e., into the nearest trash
dumpster)....right, Rob?

If you toss out ALL of the Oswald-Is-Guilty stuff, there's virtually
nothing left. So, as Bud has asked you previously, how can you expect
to solve a double-murder case with no evidence in "Rob's Courtroom"
at all? A difficult task, indeed, wouldn't you agree?

The case then must be totally unsolvable. Right, Rob?

>>> "In this case, NONE of the evidence supports the theory that LHO was the shooter of JFK and JD Tippit. Absolutely none of it." <<<

Which can mean only one of two things:

1.) You haven't evaluated any of the evidence properly at all.
(Because anyone who has looked at it and evaluated it in a reasonable,
non-kooky manner knows that what you just said above is total horse


2.) You're an ABO [Anybody But Oswald] member who (for some reason) wants
Oz to be cleared of these charges.

There is no third choice in this particular double-murder case.

>>> "You can get me off of it [the CT vs. LN merry-go-round] anytime by providing real PROOF, EVIDENCE AND A MOTIVE." <<<

Already been done....thousands of times, and by hundreds upon hundreds
(if not thousands) of JFK researchers. You just flat-out don't like
the LHO-did-it answers, so you'll dismiss them. Simple as that.

And so, back on that merry-go-round we go.

And, of course, proving "motive" is not at all required to prove a
person's guilt in a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You surely know
about that basic point of the law, right?

But, as for Oswald's motive, although not critical toward proving
LHO's guilt in the 2 murders he committed in Dallas (the flood of
evidence against him, of course, provides all the proof we need in
that regard), I have some thoughts on his motive too -- HERE.

Plus, I'll add this quote from my book review for Jean Davison's
magnificent 1983 book "Oswald's Game", which is a review snippet that
fits in nicely here too:

"In a (lone)-nutshell .... 1.) This book ["Oswald's Game"] shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion) that Lee Harvey Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF the desire to shoot President Kennedy. .... 2.) The physical evidence positively indicates that Oswald's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WAS the one and ONLY weapon used to kill JFK. Those two things go together like bread and butter. When adding #1 to #2, it's pretty clear that Lee Oswald was not the "innocent patsy" that so many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe he was. Instead, numbers 1 and 2 above, when merged, are telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy." -- DVP; January 2007

David Von Pein
July 17, 2008

(PART 281)




As if the alternate (lighter) versions of the BOH [back-of-the-head] photo or the lateral X-ray [of JFK's head] show something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the versions I have used in my Internet postings.

What a crock.

No wonder he wants to remain "anonymous".

And I guess the HSCA's/FPP's determination regarding the location of JFK's large head wound is supposed to be tossed aside too (in favor of some oddball "alternative" theory, like Mr. Canal's), correct?:

"The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head.

"But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head."

Repeating a very important part of Dr. Baden's above comments (for extra effect and emphasis):

"There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- M. Baden; January 2000

David Von Pein
July 16, 2008

(PART 280)


Herbert Blenner [in this July 2008 Internet post] is trying to place precise exactitude on things that can never be ascertained with such precision. Never have. Never will (of course). Can't be done. No way.


The precise to-the-inch location of JFK's head in relation to Oswald's head-shot bullet entering Kennedy's head is impossible to determine with the precision that Herb seems to think exists. Can't be done. No way. No how. It's a "best guess" scenario. Always was.


The exact to-the-inch locations of John Connally and President Kennedy when they were struck by CE399. Those measurements, too, are just "best guesses". Always were. Always will be.

Dale Myers has put about as much "exactitude" on these things as can possibly be done by mere mortals/humans, via Dale's "Secrets Of A Homicide" computer animation project. And via that animation, the Single-Bullet Theory is obviously not only DOABLE, but almost certainly a FACT.

And the argument about the amount of deflection with respect to the head-shot bullet is a totally irrelevant one in the long run.


Because we KNOW with 100% certainty that only ONE bullet struck JFK's head...and that one bullet entered in the BACK of the head, with associated inward bevelling. [See autopsy doctor Jim Humes talk about the bevelling of the head wound in the 1967 video presented below.]

Therefore, since there is absolutely ZERO pieces of evidence to indicate that President Kennedy was struck in the head by a SECOND bullet, the math becomes quite easy at this point.

That is to say:

Regardless of WHERE the large exit wound was located (which was in the right-front of the head, of course), and regardless of how many degrees the bullet deflected after striking Kennedy's cranium, the basic ironclad fact of "Only One Bullet Hit JFK's Head From Behind" will never change, which makes all the arguments surrounding these sub-topics moot and rather meaningless when all is said and done.

But, by all means, continue to try to pump oil from that dry-as-the-Mojave hole in the ground you've created, Herbert. Knowing conspiracy theorists, I'm sure you shall continue to pump away at the dust like mad.

David Von Pein
July 14, 2008



(PART 279)


>>> "For those like me who have always suspected that Dallas photographer Bob Jackson got a picture of a rifle at the wrong window in the depository, his 1993 interview is all but confirmation of same. See David Von Pein's valuable posting of this. (Way to go, Dave!) Recall from Jackson's Commission testimony that the empty camera was on his lap, the loaded one around his neck. Then listen to this unintentionally hilarious interview." <<<


Just like a conspiracy kook -- leaping to incredible conspiratorial conclusions on the slimmest info imaginable.

Donald Willis just flat-out doesn't like Robert Jackson's "I Swung An Empty Camera" explanation, so Mr. Willis has decided to disbelieve it entirely. Simple as that.

In reality, Robert Jackson's comments made during his 1993 interview are perfectly consistent (in every way) with Jackson's 1964 Warren Commission testimony.

In the '93 interview, Jackson specifically says that the camera he "swung" around toward the 6th-Floor TSBD window after seeing the rifle sticking out of the sniper's window was the camera WITH THE LONG LENS -- i.e., the SAME camera that Jackson had just emptied of its film at the corner of Main & Houston (he threw the roll of film to Jim Featherston at that corner).

Jackson explains in the '93 interview that he used the long-lens camera (the one without any film in it) in order to zoom in on the sixth-floor window and get a closer view of the window.

Now, yes, Jackson also had a loaded camera around his neck. But he specifically stated in '93 that it was the EMPTY ("long lens") camera that he used when he swung the camera up toward the sniper's window to get a zoomed-in view.

COULD Bob Jackson have swung his LOADED camera up toward the sixth floor that day in Dallas? Sure, he could have. But the plain fact is: he did not do that. He swung his empty camera toward the window.

Maybe that was a stupid, unthinking move on Jackson's part. But that's irrelevant here, because the fact is (stupid move or not) Mr. Jackson swung his EMPTY camera toward the assassin's window that day, and no amount of Donald Willis whining and disbelieving is going to change that fact.

Part of Bob Jackson's Warren Commission session is shown below, and it is testimony that perfectly matches Mr. Jackson's recollections during his 1993 interview.


Jackson saw the rifle sticking out of the 6th-Floor window at the SOUTHEAST CORNER of the Book Depository. There is no other window he could possibly be describing here, since he specifically refers to the "two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them". And Jackson says that exact same thing in his '93 interview as well.

Or do some conspiracy theorists now want to invent a theory that has "two Negro men" ALSO in a fifth-floor window at the OTHER end of the Texas School Book Depository Building at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63? .....

"Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of [the] weapon, I guess I saw, and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window." -- Robert H. Jackson

David Von Pein
July 14, 2008

(PART 278)


>>> "Now it is your turn, Mr. Von Pein, to explain how a bullet could [enter] the President's head and change direction by fifty or sixty degrees to exit from the right-front of the head while CE-399 could not make a highly similar turn?" <<<


You're kidding, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this line
of silly thought.

Bullet CE399 hit NO BONES while traversing JFK's body. None at all.
Hence, no deviation of the bullet upon exiting the President's throat.
Even Cyril Wecht agrees with the "no deviation" stance with respect to
Bullet CE399. He even said so in those exact words ("no deviation") as
recently as June 14, 2007 (at the 13:15 mark of this radio program).

But Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit Kennedy's
head hit bone immediately. Hence, some deviation from the projectile's
initial flight path was no doubt INEVITABLE. And perhaps some
significant deviation, considering the object that was struck by that
missile (i.e., John Kennedy's skull).

Now, I have a question for all conspiracy-minded individuals:

Why does this same "CE399 Didn't Behave Like The Head-Shot Bullet"
junk keep getting resurrected....year after year after year? Why?

Is it because conspiracy theorists enjoy being embarrassed by LNers
via the logical answer the CTers receive each and every time this
moribund subject is dragged out of the closet?

David Von Pein
July 14, 2008

(PART 277)


>>> "Oh sonny, now you display your complete lack of knowledge concerning these matters. Cite, son, CITE. Your source son...for all
we know [you're] quoting from a person 15 times removed from
Jean Hill." <<<


LOL. Lovely! Now the kook who owns the industrial-sized crackpipe [that's Dave Healy] is going to pretend that he's never once in his life heard either of the two 11/22/63 radio and TV interviews featuring Jean Hill's live statements (which were recorded) about the assassination she had just witnessed a very short time earlier.

A slightly edited version of the first interview with Hill can be heard HERE. The segment with Hill is at the 4:30 mark.

The second WBAP interview with Jean Hill on November 22nd (a recorded TV interview) is the one that contains these exact words from the lips of Mrs. Hill (which I posted previously):

QUESTION: "Did you see the person who fired the weapon?"
JEAN HILL: "No, I didn't see any person fire the weapon."
QUESTION: "You only heard it?"
JEAN HILL: "I only heard it."

You can hear Hill's second interview in its entirety (including comments made by Mary Moorman as well) at this NBC-TV link, approximately 13 minutes after the start of the audio file.


BTW/FYI, I "cite" evidence and testimony constantly in my various forum posts, and I provide clickable links to specific documents, etc., far more often than anyone else on these forums (at least since mid-2006 at any rate, which was when my activity on the Google Groups forums increased substantially). Anyone, therefore, who claims I don't often provide "cites" for the evidence just flat-out doesn't know what he is talking about. Period.

BTW #2, some people might be interested in reading Jean Hill's 11/22/63 affidavit, wherein she doesn't mention a thing about seeing anybody shooting a gun from the Grassy Knoll.

She does say in that affidavit that she "thought [she] saw some men in plain clothes shooting back", but that comment cannot possibly be propped up by anyone in an effort to substantiate Hill's later claims of having physically seen an ASSASSIN firing a weapon FROM THE KNOLL.

Based on Hill's obviously inaccurate opinion with respect to the SINGLE source of ALL the gunshots she heard that day (the Grassy Knoll), any person whom Hill thought might have been "shooting back" would surely have been doing so from a NON-Knoll location, and therefore would have been shooting TOWARD the Knoll.

In any event, as we can see from Hill's official November 22 statement below, she doesn't say a word about seeing any killer or killers on the Grassy Knoll. And this statement, btw, gels almost perfectly with her WBAP taped interview from that same day, with some portions being close to verbatim to the WBAP interview:

"Mary [Moorman] and I...were the only people in that area and we were standing right at the curb. The President's car came around the corner and it was over on our side of the street. Just as Mary Moorman started to take a picture, we were looking at the President and Jackie in the back seat and they were looking at a little dog between them. Just as the President looked up toward us, two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie's lap, and she fell across his back and said "My God he has been shot". There was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back, but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying "Get down they are shooting". I looked across the street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I started running over there. By the time I got up to the railroad tracks, some policeman that I suppose were [sic] in the motorcade or nearby had also arrived and was turning us back, and as I came back down the hill, Mr. Featherstone [sic] of the Times Herald had gotten to Mary and ask[ed] her for her picture she had taken of the President, and he brought us to the press room down at the Sheriff's office and ask [sic] to stay." -- /s/ Jean Hill [11/22/63]





David Von Pein
July 14, 2008

(OCTOBER 30, 2012)



(PART 276)


>>> "DVP, it sure is tough defending a lie, isn't it?" <<<


You would probably know the answer to that question better than I.

>>> "Ok, then DVP, forget F-66 and use the top of the head photo. .... Compare the top/right/front in that photo to the same area in the BOH photos and then explain why the scalp there is ripped up in the former and intact in the lat[t]er. Thanks for your honesty on that." <<<

You think that the two photos below are depicting the exact same area
of President Kennedy's head, eh? That's a curious notion.

Plus: the top-of-the-head photo obviously depicts the head in a
completely different "state" than does the BOH color photo (which has
an autopsist holding JFK's scalp in place so that John Stringer could
photograph the entry wound in the BOH). The top-of-head photo doesn't
have anyone holding the scalp of the President, and gravity is
obviously playing a major part in what we're seeing in that picture
(just as gravity also MUST have played a major part in what the
Parkland witnesses erroneously thought they were seeing with respect
to the location of the large exit wound in JFK's cranium while he was
in the Parkland ER).

In short, those two photos above don't provide the information that you
need to make this broad determination that you made a minute ago (one
that you seem to consider to be an ironclad fact):

"Explain why the scalp there is ripped up in the former [autopsy photo] and intact in the latter [color autopsy photo]."

>>> "If I've got this straight, DVP is now on record as saying he doesn't agree with the Dox drawing....not even close?" <<<

Where did I say that I think the Dox illustration is "not even close"?
To the contrary, I specifically said this in my prior post:

"The Dox drawing in F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound."

Key words there being: "slightly off".

As an addendum to this post, I think that the following two comments
fit together fairly nicely. But your mileage, John C., might vary on
that (as usual):

"The Dox drawing isn't the BEST EVIDENCE -- the autopsy pictures, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy report are the BEST EVIDENCE. .... The Dox drawing in F-66 is slightly off on the gaping exit wound....quite obviously, since the scalp of JFK is, indeed fully intact (i.e., not blasted completely away) in the area of the head just a little forward and right of the cowlick entry wound. This just proves that it's silly to rely too heavily on only the drawings, [...] which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while much better than Rydberg's, are still off a little." -- David Von Pein


"When the bone blew out anterior to the cowlick entry wound, it tore open the scalp, but it didn't make the scalp in that area disappear. But blew it back, and the BOH photo shows a blown-back piece of scalp held up to highlight the entry wound." -- John McAdams

David Von Pein
July 12, 2008