(PART 524)


I believe that Lee Oswald shot neither JFK or Tippit. Can I prove it? Of course not. Just as the Warren Commission failed to prove LHO committed the murders.


That's kinda what I figured.

In other words -- Mr. Jeff Shaw will totally ignore the dozens of pieces of evidence that prove Oswald to be guilty of BOTH 11/22 murders.

Jeff must believe that all of those DOZENS of pieces of evidence are "faked", "forged", "planted", and/or "manufactured". Right, Jeff?

BTW, is there any particular reason that the DPD wanted to paint poor Oswald as the killer of their fellow officer (Tippit), all the while the DPD doesn't give a damn about letting the real killer of their fellow officer go scot-free?

Or was it only the "Feds" who forged all the evidence against Saint Oswald for Tippit's murder (and not the Dallas Police)?

How about the 13 witnesses who positively IDed LHO as either Tippit's killer or the only man with a gun fleeing the scene? Were all 13 of them "coerced" into picking out an INNOCENT man as the killer?

What would it take to get YOU, Jeff, to positively identify a person in a police line-up, even though you KNOW darn well that the man you just IDed was innocent?

Would ANY amount of coercion and strong-arming be enough to get you to do such a vile thing, Jeff?

Now, multiply that vile deed by THIRTEEN different witnesses who IDed LHO.

Sounds pretty silly to believe that 13 people would do that, doesn't it?

At the very MOST, those witnesses would have simply been wishy-washy and said "I can't say for sure if the killer is in that line-up"....instead of going whole-hog and positively IDing an INNOCENT man as the killer or the man fleeing the scene.

See how stupid the CT version of events sounds when it's put into print? I sure do.


The line-ups were really fair, [weren't] they (he says sarcastically)[?]


Great excuse there, David Williams.

So, what you're really implying is this:

Since the line-ups weren't exactly "fair" to poor Oswald, it must mean that all of the many witnesses who positively IDed Mr. Oswald as the bad guy did so because Oswald was the one person in the line-ups who "stood out" (so to speak).

I've got two words that easily knock down that type of silly argument (which most certainly is the type of argument you are implying):

That's nuts.


That's nuts, you mean like WC star witness to [the] Tippet [sic] killing, Helen Markham, who [Warren Commission counsel member Joseph] Ball called "an utter screwball"[?]


Are you therefore implying that Mrs. Helen Markham would have been willing to positively I.D. an INNOCENT man (Lee Oswald) as the murderer of J.D. Tippit?

If so, Mrs. Markham was not only a "screwball", she was a criminal.

Now, what about the other dozen witnesses? Are they all "screwballs" too.

And, IMO, Johnny Brewer should really also be included amongst the large batch of "Tippit witnesses". Brewer is never included in that collection of "Tippit" witnesses, because he was located several blocks from the actual Tippit murder scene.

But what Brewer saw (just a few blocks from where Tippit was killed and only about 20 minutes after the murder) definitely links him in with the general batch of "Tippit" witnesses, in my opinion.

And what Brewer saw Oswald doing is extremely incriminating behavior on Oswald's part -- i.e., lurking in Brewer's shoe-shop doorway while police cars scream by with sirens blazing behind him, as he deliberately attempts to ignore/dodge the police cars.

Plus: Brewer said that Oswald looked "funny" and "scared" and his hair was mussed up. And then Brewer gives what amounts to a "positive identification" of the suspect (Oswald) inside the Texas Theater when he (Brewer) steps up on the stage and points out Oswald to the police.

Then, a minute or two later, the man Brewer pointed out pulls a gun and tries to use it on more cops in the theater. Plus, LHO exclaims one of two things -- "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Both statements are very incriminating unto themselves. Can you imagine a totally INNOCENT person uttering either of those things as the cops try to grab him?

Now, what was Jeff saying about Oswald being innocent of shooting policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street?

Heavens to Murgatroyd, Oswald just BEING IN THE AREA OF TIPPIT'S MURDER BRANDISHING A PISTOL is extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence of LHO's guilt.

How can any sensible person possibly deny the truth that resides within my last sentence above?

(And I haven't even mentioned any of the ballistics evidence yet.)


Oswald was being arrested for killing Tippet [sic; ~sigh~], yet Brewer heard a policeman shout "kill the President will you".


A perfectly natural assumption on the DPD's part (to link LHO to JFK's murder at that particular time, considering the fact that this same man had just killed a bluecoat).

And anyway...so what? Even if some cop did say "Kill the President, will ya?!" -- who cares? He was right!

And if there had been a poll taken of the many witnesses who were outside the theater when Oswald was arrested, I'd bet that almost all of them would have been of the opinion (at that exact point in time at approximately 1:55 PM CST on 11/22/63) that the man who was being dragged out of the theater was very likely the same man who killed the President less than ninety minutes earlier (especially if those people outside the theater had been privy to the fact that a policeman had just been killed nearby also, which most of those people probably were not aware of at that time, with Brewer being an exception; we know he heard that news on his radio at work).


Mr. Von Pein, [Lee Harvey Oswald] was a human being and an American citizen deserving of a swift and fair trial. What he received was swift execution at the hands of a conspirator.

To you, the conpirators and the government agents who participated in the cover-up, he was nothing more than a pawn relegated to the trash heap for political expediency. Your callous disregard for justice is exceeded only by your willful ignoring of common sense and decency.


Here, Jeff. You can borrow Mr. Benny's violin. Your last tearful (and ridiculous beyond all belief) speech needs some stringed music behind it:

In summary -- Lee Oswald was a double-murderer....and he was a double-murderer who tried to kill a total of FOUR people in the calendar year of 1963, with Officer McDonald being #4.

So forgive me for not bowing at the waist at the sight of Sweet Lee Harvey.


I'm of the opinion that had the man picked up as the alleged killer of JFK and Tippit been allowed to live to see a trial, he probably would have been convicted. However, over the ensuing years, as the truth began to trickle out, that conviction would have been overturned.


You know David, your "taunts" here are like a manager who would send his player to the plate without a bat and then make fun of his measly batting average. It's much the same way in this debate; much of the evidence (our bats, if you will) were taken away (altered, destroyed) from the critics and now you ask why we can't hit (prove conspiracy).

And despite all that, you Warren Commission apologists are still struggling to keep the ever-eroding foundation of your theory intact.


It boils down to this immutable reality, Mr. Shaw ---

You and all the other "Oswald Was Really Innocent And Was Framed" conspiracy theorists have no choice but to believe in an extraordinary thing (since every bit of the evidence leads in one direction only--toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald), and that extraordinary belief is this one --- you have to believe that ALL of the "hard evidence" (i.e., the physical evidence) in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases was faked or fabricated or manufactured in order for your "Oswald Was Really Innocent And Was Framed" theory to have any hope of being accurate.

I'm going to defer now to ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, who wrote a terrific book on the JFK assassination that came out in 2005, called "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation Of The Kennedy Assassination". Sturdivan wrote something in that book that just oozes common sense regarding the often bandied-about subject of "fake and planted evidence" with respect to President Kennedy's murder. I offer up Larry's sage observations now:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole.

This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence. It is as near a certainty as anything involved in this case that, individually or collectively, they were neither.

All of them--Secret Service, FBI, police, postal employees, Warren Commissioners, laboratory workers, and others involved in the investigation--were ordinary human beings. Like the rest of us, they were capable of making mistakes but, within their areas of expertise, they certainly possessed far more skill and experience than their critics."
-- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (c.2005)

David Von Pein
May 11, 2009

(PART 523)


You trolls [aka: reasoned-thinking individuals known as "LNers"] keep begging us to "prove Oswald innocent", but in America, it's called "innocent until PROVEN GUILTY". That means the burden of proof is on YOUR side.


Quite right. And you seem to think (for some odd reason) that Oswald's guilt has NOT been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"...when, of course, Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders has been proven way, way beyond any reasonable doubt.

Sure, Oswald didn't have his "day in court" (thanks to Mr. Ruby), but that doesn't mean the evidence against the defendant named Oswald suddenly has vanished. It's still there--the whole mile-high pile. And no CTer can even begin to prove that ANY of that evidence is "faked" and/or "planted".


The limousine was a CRIME SCENE. You keep asserting that there were bullet fragments in the limousine, but you can't provide the crime scene photographs of them.


You surely don't want to go down the path marked "The authorities planted CE567 and CE569", do you Gil?

There's no official photo of Darrell Tomlinson finding CE399 on a stretcher either. Does that mean that CE399 never existed at all?

There's no crime scene photo of the four Tippit bullet shells lying on the ground on Tenth Street either. Does that mean we have to toss those four shells in the toilet too?


Then you keep saying that Tomlinson found CE 399 on Governor Connally's stretcher, which Tomlinson says he did NOT.


Tomlinson seemed quite unsure about the stretchers (per his Warren Commission testimony). But CTers like to forget his uncertainty regarding the stretchers from his '64 WC session. He was quite unsure which stretcher he removed from the elevator that day.

But one thing's quite obvious -- Tomlinson found a bullet from Oswald's rifle on a stretcher at Parkland on 11/22/63. And the only way that that bullet from LHO's gun could have gotten into that hospital and onto that stretcher where Tomlinson found it on that day is by dropping out of the body of John B. Connally. Nothing could be more obvious.

Plus -- If the bullet was really a "pointy"-tipped bullet (as many CTers believe), don't those same conspiracists wonder how such a POINTY bullet could have remained POINTY after crashing through John Connally's chest and wrist?


Shouldn't those conspiracy theorists be asking themselves this question:




You keep saying that Tomlinson found CE 399 on Governor Connally's stretcher, which Tomlinson says he did NOT.


What other reasonable choice is there? You think he found the bullet on a stretcher occupied by the young boy named Ronnie Fuller, is that it Gil?

In other words, the goofball bullet-planter (Ruby?) decided to "plant" the bullet on the wrong stretcher?


Stop spreading disinformation and lies you can't prove.


Somebody make Mr. Pot/Kettle (that's Gil) stop! Please! My bladder!

David Von Pein
May 11, 2009

(PART 522)


Bugliosi's middle initial isn't "D".


Perhaps not, but "Dumbass" usually begins with a "D", does it not?

Anyone who proclaims the virtues and truths of the WC is most assuredly a DumbAss!


Exactly what was it that Henry Heiberger said to you in regards to the spectrographic analysis of JFK's clothing which he conducted?

Oh! I'm sorry, you do not actually conduct research do you? Instead, you either read (or have someone else read and explain to you) what the WC has to say, as well as what your butt-buddy Bugloisi [sic] has to say on the subject matter.

And then, not unlike many of the CT community, you dive off into a rabbithole and run around expousing this as if it were the FACTUAL truths.


Some of us here are not "Dumbass Von Parrots" who know only how to repeat the BS of the WC and/or VB, and we actually know the proper format for conducting research.

You should make an attempt to learn it and then try it some time. One is far less likely to ultimately look BONEHEAD STUPID if they do so.


Wow-wee! Nobody get near Thomas H. Purvis right now! He's obviously rabid (and ready to bite)!

That kook named Purvis gets wackier (and funnier) with each passing 24-hour period. I hope he continues, too. I love watching a kook unravel "on the air" (on the Internet).

In short -- ANYONE who has looked at the SUM TOTAL (aka THE TOTALITY) of evidence in the JFK murder case who actually thinks that there was a second "BULLET" hole in John F. Kennedy's jacket is not only a "bonehead" (which is Kook Purvis' favorite term it seems), but that person who believes such craziness is just plain RETARDED.

P.S. -- Purvis, please do continue to cross-post my messages at The Education Forum. You're doing me a great favor by doing that, and I appreciate it. Because you're allowing any "lurkers" there to read the posts of a reasonable person (that's me) regarding your "2 Head Shots From The Rear" fantasy. Thank you.

And say "hi" to Mr. Serling for me too -- because we all know you have ready access to him, what with you being firmly entrenched in "The Twilight Zone" the way you are.

David Von Pein
May 10, 2009

(PART 521)


You evidently can't read either. I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER, THE REAR SCALP was LACERATED [a la "cut"], not "extensively damaged" with none missing. .... Try to remember that the next time you post your silly refutations of what you claim I said. Again, I never said the occipital scalp was "extensively damaged" like you said I claim it was!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I didn't say that you did SAY that (at least I didn't imply that in the post of mine that you are responding to here).

Here's exactly what I said (in the post you were just replying to):

"John C. needs to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be extensively damaged in order for his theory to be correct, which is a theory that has all of the Parkland witnesses being correct." -- DVP

Now, where in the above statement did I say that YOU SAID that the right-rear of JFK's head was "extensively damaged"?

Answer -- Nowhere.

What I said is that you "NEED" to have the scalp in the occipital to be "extensively damaged". And you do "need" that, whether you want to admit it or not.

Looks like it's John C. who "can't read" (or comprehend) in this instance, instead of DVP, isn't it now?


Stop misrepresenting what I say...dammit!


Again, in this "extensively damaged" instance, I didn't misrepresent what you said in the slightest. I merely was stating what you truly NEED to have (i.e., an "extensively damaged" right-rear of JFK's BOH) in order for your silly theory to have any hope of surviving at all -- and I'm right too....you NEED to have the right-rear "extensively damaged" in order for your theory to be accurate regarding all of the Parkland Hospital witnesses.

Or do you, John C., actually want to think that the Parkland witnesses saw what they SAID they saw (i.e., a huge, gaping hole in the back of JFK's head), even though there was only merely a fairly small "cut" or "laceration" in the scalp?

Via such a screwy scenario, we have many Parkland witnesses (somehow) supposedly seeing this large-ish, "gaping" wound [see drawing below] that would have been visible through what was (per John A. Canal) only a VERY SMALL "CUT"/"LACERATION" IN THE RIGHT-REAR SCALP.

Is that the story/theory you're trying to peddle here, John Canal?

At Dr. Robert McClelland's request, this diagram of John F. Kennedy's head was created:

Now, did McClelland supposedly see all of that damage to the back of JFK's head through just a "quarter"-sized "cut" or "laceration" that existed in the dead President's scalp? That was quite a feat by McClelland if John C. is correct.

In short -- John Canal is making up theories to suit his "BOH" purposes. It's as simple as that, IMO.

David Von Pein
May 10, 2009

(PART 520)


Are there any conspiracists here who have the slightest conception of what the words hard evidence mean? Anybody at all?


How about you tell us. Oswald-did-it-alone theorists use that term a LOT, but they can't come up with a definition. Even [Gary] Mack uses it. Tell us what "hard evidence" is. Give us a definition so we can use it to refute your claims.


Guns, bullets, bullet shells, fibers, fingerprints, palmprints, a paper bag lying in the Sniper's Nest with Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it, and clothing (Oswald's jacket on the ground near the Texaco gas station in Oak Cliff).

Plus, we can also add in a couple more things that (IMO) go into the category of "hard evidence" (to a large degree) -- the ACTIONS and PROVABLE LIES of the person to whom EVERY LAST BIT of this "hard evidence" leads -- a Mr. Lee H. Oswald.

All of these things (including Oswald's own actions and known lies) corroborate and support each other, including the fact that each piece of physical evidence in the case corroborates and supports all the other evidence, which is evidence that leads only in one direction and to one single person -- Lee Oswald.

That was pretty easy, wasn't it?

And it should be easy for most conspiracy theorists to figure out, too. The difference being, of course -- most conspiracy theorists don't WANT to face the "hard evidence" in the JFK case. Because if they did, they'd have no choice but to stamp Mr. Oswald as a double-murderer.

~Mark VII~

David Von Pein
May 10, 2009
May 11, 2009

(PART 519)


Rossley thinks that's Lee in the TSBD doorway?


Yep. He sure does.

For those who are unaware, the old man known as Thomas Rossley is a certifiable nutjob/mega-kook.

In addition to believing that Oswald was in the TSBD doorway (a myth that only a handful of kooks still believe here in 2009), Rossley (get this!) thinks John Connally was shot in the chest from the front, not from behind.

Also: Rossley is of the opinion that Jack Ruby was "forced" to kill Lee Harvey Oswald because of (get this!) something that CBS' Dan Rather said on 11/23/63.

This is the kind of kook (Rossley) that many CTers think "spanked" Professor John McAdams during the WHPR-Radio debate on April 5, 2009. Such is the very strange and delusional mindset of many conspiracy theorists.

David Von Pein
May 10, 2009

(PART 518)


"With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the traumatic damage is particularly severe with extensive fragmentation of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind."


IMO, the above Clark Panel quote doesn't really aid Paul Seaton's "BOH" theory at all. And it certainly doesn't aid John Canal's theory either....because John C. insists that OCCIPITAL bone was "fragmented" (broken apart) on JFK's head (not to mention the fact that John C. needs to have the SCALP in the OCCIPITAL area of JFK's head to be extensively damaged in order for his theory to be correct, which is a theory that has all of the Parkland witnesses being correct).

The Clark Panel quote above is talking mainly about the "right frontoparietal region of the skull" (front-right side) and the "frontal bone" (the front part of Kennedy's skull).

I maintain that the following portion of that Clark Panel determination about the skull fragmentation is too non-exacting for these words to be utilized as definitive proof that the VERY BACK PORTIONS of President Kennedy's head (including "occipital" regions, which aren't mentioned at all in that quoted Clark Panel passage) were severely fragmented (i.e., falling to pieces):

"...to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind."

YMMV. But that's my opinion.

David Von Pein
May 9, 2009

(PART 517)


You have to ignore a LOT of evidence to believe that Ruby just happened to have lucky timing, and shot Oswald on impulse.


And conspiracy theorists have no (reasonable) choice but to call Karen Carlin one of the prime conspirators in a plot to murder Lee Harvey Oswald.

Because without Carlin being nearly penniless and having her rent due very soon (as of 11/23/63), then she's not going to make that call to Jack Ruby on Sunday morning, which is a call that enabled Ruby to be at the right place at the perfect time to slay LHO.

And the fact that Ruby closed his clubs on 11/22 and 11/23 is a key factor in Ruby being where he was on 11/24/63 too.


If Ruby hadn't closed his nightclubs on those two nights, then Karen Carlin could have (and undoubtedly would have) gotten her $25 advance AT ONE OF THE NIGHTCLUBS THEMSELVES, instead of having to bother Jack at home for the money.

Any way a CTer slices it, they need Karen Carlin to be a key "plotter" in November 1963 if the CTers want to actually believe that Ruby killed Oswald due to anything except an "impulse" (and being in the right place at just the right time to pull off the murder).

Or do CTers want to believe that the "Carlin Asks For Money" part of the scenario was merely PURE LUCK for plotter Jack Ruby?

IOW -- Carlin just HAPPENS to need some cash (and can't get into Ruby's clubs to get the money because they're closed for the weekend)....and she just HAPPENS to call Ruby prior to 11:00 AM on Sunday morning....and Jack then suddenly realizes he has the perfect "non-conspiratorial" reason for going downtown to the Western Union office (even though, per this silly scenario, Jack knows in advance he's going to pop Oswald on Sunday, but he decides to wait until about 11:00 to go downtown, even though the transfer of Oswald was supposed to have occurred at 10:00 AM)?

In the final (and most reasonable) analysis.....

Every last thing connected to Jack Ruby and his killing of Lee Harvey Oswald spells SPUR OF THE MOMENT. Right down to "Sheba" [one of his dogs] going downtown with Jack.

~Mark VII~

David Von Pein
May 8, 2009

(PART 516)


You do know the difference between HAIR & SKULL don't you? I was not debating the condition of the rear hair.


So you're in league with John Canal. (Yes, of course you are.)

Major problem with Mr. Canal's theory is this:

He wants to promote that the Parkland witnesses were correct when they said they did see a LOSS OF SCALP AND SKULL at the right-rear (occipital) area of JFK's head.

Of course, the autopsy pictures which show no sign of such SCALP damage totally knock down Canal's thesis:

So, what does John Canal do? -- He creates another thesis to add to the first...i.e., the scalp was magically "sutured" to total perfection, which conveniently (for John C.) hides the great-big hole that the Parkland people said they saw.

And John then tries to shrink the size of his imaginary hole in the occipital area of JFK's head, even though nearly every Parkland witness said the hole was massive in size and not just "quarter"-sized, as John wants to conveniently shrink it down to.

So, you can dodge the IN-UNISON photographic record regarding JFK's head wounds if you wish, Paul Seaton. But the photographic record will still be the very best evidence to access in order to answer this very controversial question:


And that photographic record (IN UNISON -- EVERY single item, including the X-rays and the Zapruder Film) is answering that question loudly and clearly --- No.

David Von Pein
May 8, 2009

(PART 515)


[Nick Kendrick stated] that only two people in deely plaza [sic] said they heard gunshots from the grassy knoll.


You'd better learn to read better, because there's no possible chance that Nick ever said that.


Why is DVP defending Nick? How could he intimately know exactly what Nick wrote or didn't write? Oh that's right. They are the same person. [LOL.] David Von PEON indeed.


[It] couldn't be more obvious that the two frauds [Nick & DVP] are one and the same. Scum bags. Remember, according to Von Pein himself, he never takes his travelling circus show into the public domain because he has "a terrible case of stage fright." LOL!!! Chicken-hearted lying cowards.


Dave Von Pein--or whatever the hell his name really is--was actually kicked out of the room [i.e., "The Education Forum"] because he was not able to provide a picture of himself. LOL!!! Of course not -- that's because he's probably [Gary] Mack or [John] McAdams posting under a phoney alias.


Von Pein and this Slick Nick character were kicked off the JFK Lancer forum a few years ago for posting lies and playing little troll games with other posters.


In reality, we were both kicked out of Debra Conway's "JFK Lancer" nuthouse in late July of 2005 due to the fact that Nick had just joined the forum eleven days earlier, and the combination of common-sense-based and evidence-based posts from both Nick and myself became too much for the conspiracy-happy clowns at Lancer to bear. Therefore, we both had to go. And, therefore, on July 28, 2005, we were both banned from posting the actual evidence (and common sense) at the Lancer forum from that point forward.

And since our departure, I don't think there's been one single "LNer" to post on a regular basis at JFK-Lancer.com. Offhand, I can't even think of a single LNer that has posted even ONE post there in the last few years. There probably have been a few lone-assassin believers to post there once in a while; but I can't think of any right now. The place is saturated with nothing but conspiracy-seekers.


There is really no moderation on this [IMDB] forum, so they can pretty much post all the lies they want freely. Put them on a serious discussion forum, and they fold quickly.

Their "job" is to create so much distraction with bogus arguments that newbies to this subject will either be discouraged from studying further, or will be duped into adopting the official story as their belief. I put the word "job" in quotation marks, as that is what Slick Nick described it as the other day. He said the CTers on this forum make his "job" easy. An admission that he is being paid to do this.


I see the conspiracy-happy kooks are out in force today. It's just a shame that none of these kooks has any bullets from any non-Oswald gun(s) to show anybody. If a 3-gun, 6-shot assassination took place (as Oliver Stone insists was the case on 11/22/63), you'd think that there would be at least ONE non-Oswald bullet in the evidence pile someplace.

And to think that all of these bullets from non-LHO weapons that were supposedly GOING INTO THE VICTIMS could have been miraculously hidden from everyone's view at Parkland and Bethesda right after the shooting is a belief that only David Copperfield might try to embrace. Because to any non-magician, such sleight-of-hand with the bullets (and the WOUNDS IN THE VICTIMS too!) is just pure fantasy...and always has been.

The conspiracy kooks think they can realistically prop up the kind of "3-shooter" fantasy promoted by Stone and Garrison even though they have ZERO bullets or bullet fragments that can be said to have come from a gun other than Lee Oswald's.

And Garrison went on the Johnny Carson show in 1968 and actually hinted that there might have been as many as FIVE different guns being aimed at JFK in Dealey Plaza (even though, per Mega-Kook Garrison, Lee Harvey Oswald was being "sheepdipped" and framed as the LONE PATSY).

And yet when the dust settled, we have ONLY bullets and fragments that lead to Oswald's gun. But the conspiracy kooks aren't the least bit concerned about little details like that. They apparently think that it's to be EXPECTED to have found definitive proof of ONLY OSWALD'S gun after a shooting which nuts like Garrison and Stone say occurred as a result of multiple gunmen pumping the President full of bullets.

I honestly ask every conspiracy theorist -- Can it GET much sillier than that kind of 3-gun, 1-patsy scenario that is laid out in Oliver Stone's ridiculous movie?

If anyone answers "Yes" to my last question above, they should seek mental help asap. Because the only reasonable answer to my last question is a resounding "No, it cannot".

David Von Pein
May 8, 2009

(PART 514)

Subject: Bag
Date: 5/8/2009 3:04:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Emerling
To: David Von Pein


Didn't we recently have a brief exchange about the bag that Oswald's rifle was wrapped in?

I ran across the following in the book "Marina and Lee" (by Priscilla McMillan) where she is describing the scene when Ruth Paine came down to New Orleans to pick up Marina and take her back to Dallas to have her baby. Unbeknown to Ruth, Lee was planning a trip to Mexico to visit the Cuban Embassy. Lee was loading up Ruth's car with their possessions.

(p. 462:)

"What she (Ruth) did not know was that among the items he (Lee) was loading with such care in her car was, almost certainly, his rifle, dismantled, wrapped in brown paper and a blanket, and tied up in heavy string. Somehow he led the Paines to understand that it was "camping equipment"."

Her citation for this is Michael Paine's testimony.


It seems like speculation, however. But, it does seem somewhat reasonable as Lee was obsessed with concealing this from the Paines. I can see where he might have added the extra precaution of wrapping it in paper.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN


Subject: The Rifle And The Paper Bag
Date: 5/8/2009 3:26:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: David Emerling


Interesting. But I can't possibly see how Priscilla McMillan reached that conclusion about the rifle already being wrapped in brown paper in September based on Michael Paine's testimony. But it could explain why Vincent Bugliosi put that very same thing in his book, too. Vince does utilize McMillan's book "Marina And Lee" heavily as a source at various points in "Reclaiming History".

I wrote an Internet post on October 15, 2007 [portions of which are quoted below], which touches on that very subject about the paper bag, including citations from Mr. Paine's Warren Commission testimony.....

[2007 DVP Quote On:]

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

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

Quoting from "Reclaiming History":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

MRS. PAINE -- "About like so."

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


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

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

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

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

MR. RANKIN -- "When was that?"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll also add this regarding Troy West and his Warren Commission testimony.....

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

More West testimony:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Re: the tape dispenser....]

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

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

[2007 Quote Off.]

Thank you, David Emerling, for that tidbit of info from McMillan's book.

David Von Pein
May 8, 2009

(PART 513)


The ONLY evidence for this silly 'back of the head intact' factoid is the Dox drawing.



1.) This autopsy photo:

2.) This autopsy photo:

3.) This autopsy photo:

4.) This autopsy X-ray:

5.) Comments like this one made by the head of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel:

"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." -- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408 of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)]

All of the above things provide ample evidence and information to back up the "silly" back-of-the-head-is-intact thinking possessed by reasonable individuals.

Is all of the above stuff "faked", Paul?

And is Dr. Michael Baden a liar? Was Baden merely trying to pull the "No BOH Wound" wool over the eyes of Vincent T. Bugliosi when Baden told Bugliosi on January 8th, 2000, that 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"?

Are the photos and X-rays merely not clear enough to arrive at any kind of a "The BOH Was Intact" determination? Are ALL of the autopsy pictures, IN TANDEM, somehow depicting misleading information concerning the condition of the back of President Kennedy's head?

Come now, let's be reasonable.

David Von Pein
May 7, 2009

(PART 512)


[John] McAdams claims Judyth [Vary Baker] "must have" studied the literature extensively. You take the opposite position to argue the same conclusion.


Judyth no doubt studied a lot of the details regarding Oswald and his whereabouts on certain days prior to 11/22/63, etc., yes. She would have HAD to study those kind of pre-Nov. 22 details in order for her lies to have any chance whatsoever of being believed (by anyone).

The chronology of Judyth's fairy tale, though, ends in mid-November of 1963 (prior to the assassination itself, of course), so she doesn't need to memorize any of the details pertaining to LHO or the assassination AFTER the point in time when she says she last saw him or talked to him.

Which makes me continue to wonder if Judyth ever studied (in some depth) the details of THE ASSASSINATION ITSELF, which includes Lee Oswald's own actions and lies AFTER the murders that LHO so obviously committed in Dallas.

So, I was referring mainly to the evidence against Oswald AFTER 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 when I said this in an earlier post:

"My guess is that Judyth probably has not seriously studied and evaluated the hard evidence that exists against Lee Oswald in the TWO murders that he was charged with in 1963. Nor has Judyth focused very heavily on another very important aspect of the JFK murder case -- the ACTIONS and the PROVABLE LIES of her "lover", both before and after the assassination of President Kennedy." -- DVP; 05/04/09

David Von Pein
May 6, 2009

(PART 511)


>>> "The bullet hole in Kennedy's back had to be round with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle." <<<



And just exactly HOW on this green Earth of ours does Herbert "Mr. Forensics" Blenner think he's going to go about the task of proving that last silly statement of his?

How does Mr. Blenner KNOW for a fact that the hole in Kennedy's back "HAD TO BE ROUND"?

And Blenner's "with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle" comment just might make the "CT-Kook Hall-Of-Fame" of speculative, idiotic statements.

Hint for Blenner -- The bullet entered at a 17.72-degree downward angle from Oswald's 6th-Floor TSBD window. I.E., it didn't enter JFK's back straight on.

And yet Blenner thinks the bullet hole "had to be round".

Talk about egotistical bluster. Herb's got it down cold.

>>> "Even a naive child could tell you that the medically documented 4 mm by 7 mm oval hole was not even close to a circle.

Just two words are needed in response here:

So what?

>>> "Similar considerations apply to the entry wounds on Connally's back and thigh." <<<

The bullet was tumbling into Connally's back, of course, after exiting Kennedy's throat. Given these parameters, if you think that you can apply geometric precision and your own silly brand of "The Bullet Holes In The Victims MUST Have Been A Certain Size Because I Say So" logic to both Kennedy's and Connally's wounds, then you're farther off the deep end of the CT scale than I thought.

>>> "I would continue but I have depleted my supply of wasteable time." <<<

Yeah. Me too. Definitely.

Your analytical mumbo-jumbo is a total waste of anybody's time, mainly because your mumbo-jumbo doesn't prove anything, and it most certainly does not eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5-mm. Carcano bullet as having been the bullet that struck both JFK and JBC, and your mumbo-jumbo (aka: bullshit) most certainly does not eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman who fired Bullet CE399 into the bodies of both John Kennedy and John Connally.

In short -- Herbert Blenner's nonsensical BS doesn't go anywhere (as per the norm for conspiracy theorists). Just ask James DiEugenio. He's one of the kings of propping up meaningless chaff and pretending it actually means something substantial.

It looks like Herb's in the same league as chaff-happy DiEugenio. And that's not a league that anyone should have a desire to be in.

David Von Pein
May 6, 2009

(PART 510)



Today [April 10, 2009] I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary Baker. I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am as bewildered by this as anyone could be.


Dave Reitzes,

Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that JFKResearch.com message on this forum?


No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since he is not a member.


I let my [JFKResearch.com] membership lapse some years back when they started demanding a donation.

Someone was clearly willing to risk their membership in order to forward me this breaking news about Judyth.


I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off Rich's forum:


Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious restriction.


My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know who can and cannot read their submissions.



If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout it to the whole wide world?

Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small group of people?


As I said before, it's a very odd stance to take when it comes to "Internet Forums" (IMO).

I would think that if people are proud of what they post and they think it's worthy of being posted on a JFK forum (and why would anyone post stuff that they DON'T feel is worthy of posting?)....then why on Earth would any such person object to his or her messages being seen by the Internet world at-large?

~shrug of bewilderment~

I truly wish Mr. DellaRosa would remove his "Only Members Can Read Posts" restriction at JFKResearch.com, because I'd enjoy reading some of the stuff that is posted at that forum.


Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and confidently. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."

Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct themselves with civility.


What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your forum's content?

I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just won't permit it.

You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.


That is how we evolved. In the late 90s, we had various email groups, but at the time not everyone was capable of attaching or viewing photos. So we moved to a web based forum.

The folks who abide by the simple rules of civility can read and post to their heart's delight. And it is not necessary to agree with me or any other member. There is considerable debate, but the debaters don't use the "sharp stick in the eye" technique to get their points across.


I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication.


The above quote is a truly sad one indeed.

Judyth Vary Baker has some serious problems it would seem. I often wonder if Judyth has ever even studied ANY of the many, many pieces of hard evidence that easily would have convicted her "lover" (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a court of law, had he lived to stand trial, such as the stuff discussed at my blog below?

My guess is that Judyth probably has not seriously studied and evaluated the hard evidence that exists against Lee Oswald in the TWO murders that he was charged with in 1963.

Nor has Judyth focused very heavily on another very important aspect of the JFK murder case -- the ACTIONS and the PROVABLE LIES of her "lover", both before and after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Judyth even admits (as recently as her April 10, 2009, e-mail to Rich DellaRosa) that "I am not a 'researcher' about the JFK assassination".

In short, Judyth Vary Baker either has been inflicted with a terminal case of "denial" regarding the obvious guilt of Lee Oswald, or (perhaps) she can be defined as author Vincent Bugliosi defines her in VB's 2007 JFK book "Reclaiming History" -- "a sick puppy".


Interesting that you are comfortable pushing the fairy tale of the WCR, not to mention Bug's [Vincent Bugliosi's] fiasco, and yet complain at Judyth speaking out on behalf of Lee's innocence.


Yeah, imagine the gall of me complaining about a proven liar (Judyth Baker) telling lies. Who'd ever thunk it?!

Two words that can never be placed together are these words:

1.) Lee's.

2.) Innocence.


That's the easy way to avoid discussing tough issues. Just call everyone a liar.


I've called very few people outright liars. Very, very few, in fact.

By my rough count, I think I've only called three people who are connected in some way with the JFK case "liars" in any of my forum posts over the years:

1.) Roger Craig
2.) Jean Hill
3.) Judyth Vary Baker

It's possible (and probable) that a few more people could/should be added to the above list as proven liars, but I think I've used the word "liar" only when speaking of the three individuals named above. (Not counting members of JFK newsgroups and forums, of course.)


You seem to be comfortable calling people names who don't agree with you. You claim Judyth is a liar for believing in Lee's innocence? Guess that's an easy way to debate when you don't have any evidence.


"DVP" seems to think his credentials allow him to designate people as liars.

But just what does he say his credentials are?


Did Judyth ever say Lee was innocent?


Good gosh, Tony....READ!!

What do you think these words from Judyth's own mouth mean?:

"I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary Baker; April 10, 2009


Do you think that Judyth is seeking to "exonerate" and "vindicate" a person whom she believes to be GUILTY of killing President Kennedy and Officer Tippit? That would be a rather strange (not to mention evil) thing to do, wouldn't it (even if she DID have a love affair with Lee Harvey)?

David Von Pein
May 4, 2009
May 5, 2009

(PART 509)


Attached is a scan of my best copy of one of the JFK autopsy photos. It shows the back of JFK's head where John Canal asserts there was a (BOH wound) - back of the head wound. The photo was given to me (1 among many) years ago by David Belin. The quality is superb, and I have never published this before now.

The area in question is behind JFK's right ear which is where the purported wound is supposed to be. You will note there is absolutely NO laceration of JFK's scalp. John's idea about "scalp stretching" simply does not apply.

The area above, below and to the side of JFK's ear is essentially pristine. The contour of JFK's head is intact.

There is no wound, there is no cut, there is no blood, in fact there is nothing visible, because there is nothing to see.

There was NO BOH wound!!

(Please do me a favor and do not post this all over the internet - thanks)


John F.,

Any chance you can e-mail me that same photo scan? I'd appreciate it.


I assume Dave is asking for this because he doesn't have access to binary posts. A lot of people don't. Everybody who uses Google, for example.


Yes, exactly.

Anyway, somebody else e-mailed me the photo today. How that person obtained it, I have no idea. (I guess he got it through those "binary" posts that John McAdams mentioned.)

That autopsy photo (a black-and-white one) is a very clear photo indeed (as John F. pointed out).

And my eyes are seeing absolutely NO DAMAGE whatsoever to John F. Kennedy's RIGHT-REAR scalp in that autopsy photograph. The right-rear (occipital) area of JFK's head is perfectly intact.

David Von Pein
May 5, 2009

(PART 508)


So we should just accept this [the Single-Bullet Theory] as fact because the "bugman" [Vincent Bugliosi] says it is so?


No, of course not. And why would you even think that I think such a crazy thing, Mr. Blubaugh?

I certainly don't need Vince B. to tell me that the Single-Bullet Theory is true. The SBT is true because the totality of evidence indicates beyond all possible reasonable doubt that it's true.

In fact, I disagree strongly with Vince Bugliosi's Z210 timeline for the SBT, and I still have a hard time believing that Dale Myers wasn't able to convince Vince that Z223-Z224 is the correct SBT Z-Film timing.

Vince is a very smart person, and therefore he should have been able to easily figure out the obviousness of the Z224 SBT timing.

Regarding that last sentence I just wrote, my guess is this -- Vincent Bugliosi (being an "old school" type of man, and a person who has an aversion to computers) has never once seen the following toggling digital Zapruder Film clips which show the SBT in action. Because if Vince HAS seen clips like these (and examined them closely), I cannot understand how on Earth he could still endorse a Z210 timeline for the SBT:

David Von Pein
May 4, 2009

(PART 507)


Hey Dave, are you ever going to give us evidence that shows CE399 was ever inside JFK and JBC??


The evidence has been there since Day 1. You (as usual) just refuse to accept it:

1.) CE399 is a bullet from Rifle C2766 (CE139).

2.) Rifle C2766 was being fired at the limo in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

3.) CE399 was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. And the only possible stretcher it could have been found on is John B. Connally's (a conspiracy kook's whining and foot-stomping notwithstanding, of course).

4.) No whole bullets were found inside John Connally's body on 11/22/63.

5.) Connally was hit by just ONE bullet on 11/22/63. ....

"We all thought, me included, that this was probably one missile, one bullet [that hit Governor Connally]. .... Everyone was under the impression this was one missile--through and through the chest, through and through the arm and the thigh." -- DR. TOM SHIRES; 1964

6.) The bullet that entered JFK's upper back exited the front of his throat, heading straight toward the person sitting in front of him (JBC). ....

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." -- FROM JFK'S OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT

It's not too terribly difficult to do the math from this point on. But for conspiracy theorists, the super-easy CE399 math is way over their heads.

David Von Pein
May 4, 2009

(PART 506)


Thanks for posting that [CE903]. It again proves that Specter's SBT is impossible.


Commission Exhibit 903 proves no such thing. CE903 pretty much demonstrates the perfection of the Single-Bullet Theory....right down to Arlen Specter's rod being placed nicely into the actual bullet hole in John Connally's jacket. It's a shame that you can't see this fact, Tony.

But, as usual, all anti-SBT conspiracists (like Anthony Marsh, et al) feel the need to abandon all notions of logic and common sense before they ever step into the arena marked "JFK Research".



BTW, who wrote the explanatory text under the WC exhibit?


I did [pictured below].


The author should make clear those are only his fantasies and not part of the official WC conclusions.


Pardon me if I refuse to revise my caption that I used for the [above] CE903 photograph. I like it just fine the way it is.


"[Conspiracy theorists] claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim. Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903.

Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck".


My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?


To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT
trajectory, not strengthen it.

Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple.

Or take a look at this photo of JFK. Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I haven't made my point by now, I give up."

-- Jean Davison; December 31, 2006 and January 2, 2007

David Von Pein
May 4, 2009

(PART 505)


The interest in the [JFK Assassination] case is dwindling, and there is no reason to believe the number of viewers [for the proposed HBO 10-part miniseries based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History"] in 2013 will be much greater than the number of viewers in 2010.


I'm fairly confident in saying that Pat Speer is 100% wrong about the statement quoted above.

"Round Number Anniversaries" of major historical events almost always attract a goodly amount of interest from people. And I can prove that is true when using just my single YouTube channel as a mini-example.

I recently uploaded some videos to my YouTube channel that are of interest to me personally. But I really didn't know if they were going to be of any interest to other YouTube viewers.

But suddenly I noticed that these particular videos were getting a whole bunch of views and comments. And then I put 2 and 2 together and realized why I was getting so many views for those videos -- it was the "Anniversary" angle that was creating the spike in viewership.

The two videos I'm referring to are a documentary about the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant....and the first flight of the Boeing 747 jumbo jet in 1969.

The 30th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident was last month (March 28th); and the 40th anniversary of the maiden flight of the 747 was on February 9th of this year.

And as of the writing of this post on 4/29/09, the top 3 "Most Viewed" videos on my channel (and 8 of the top 12) are videos that relate to those two "anniversary" events.

So, it's quite obvious to me that anniversaries spark interest. And the 50th Anniversary of JFK's assassination will definitely be a "biggie".

Therefore, it makes a whole lot of marketing sense for HBO to want to wait until November 2013 to debut the 10-part miniseries based on Vincent Bugliosi's book [which was later downsized to the theatrical motion picture "Parkland"].

David Von Pein
April 29, 2009

(PART 504)


Is this the BlackOp program where Jim DiEugenio eludes [sic; Healy The Illiterate really means alludes here] to you and David Reitzes being the same person? If so, have you taken steps to prove you aren't? After all, IF you're one in the same, why hide behind an alias? Doesn't help your credibility, therefore Bugliosi's credibility.


Here we have more backward logic from a conspiracy crackpot extraordinaire named David G. Healy, with Healy placing the burden of proof on ME to show that I'm NOT someone else (namely the very fine JFK researcher David A. Reitzes)....instead of the burden of proof for this make-believe "alias" allegation resting where it does rest--on the silly people who like to make such untrue allegations, of course.

Anyway, it would probably do no good for me to "prove" who I am, because nuts like Mr. Healy are going to believe whatever they want to believe about me (and about the JFK assassination in general as well).

And Mr. Healy, et al, will also continue to believe stupid things with respect to many other people too, such as "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi and animator Dale Myers and the whole Warren Commission -- with people like Healy actually believing that the WC was filled to the brim with nothing but liars and "Let's Nail Oswald" cover-up operatives, including the WC's entire staff of lawyers and assistant counsel members.

For any "lurkers" out there, let me add this footnote --- Within the last year or so, this conspiracy-happy retard named David G. Healy has arrived at the conclusion (which he is only too eager to put in print for all to see and read, and laugh at) that I am not only Dave Reitzes (in Internet disguise)....but Healy has also accused me of posing as various other people as well, such as a man named Steve Keating and (get this) also Vincent Bugliosi himself! Let's have a look:

"C'mon Vince [Bugliosi]....we KNOW its [sic] you, you old slime bucket you. And hiding behind a ghost secretary, yet -- shame on you. We understand you've taken a major defeat, the publishing disaster of the century fer christsakes. You'll get over it Vinnie, you're all washed up hon, time to put it out to pasture.... Old Mark Lane would drive you to insanity, dance around you like you weren't even there..... ya see Vin, that's the problem with doing a "book of the century" (sic)....You're a joke Vin, er Dave Von Pein and we know you haven't the nads to show up here under your real name -- so you just hide behind that secretary that doesn't exist - we won't tell a soul, promise....ROTFLMFAO!" -- David G. Healy; April 20, 2009

Now, can anyone imagine a 50+-year-old man actually wanting to type out the paragraph of child-like gibberish that I've copied above? It's just incredible, isn't it?

After reading such tripe (which is not at all uncommon for Mr. Healy, btw; he writes nonsense like that on a daily basis on the Internet), I can only shake my head in bewilderment as I envision men in white coats approaching Mr. Healy's dwelling (with caution).

My response to Healy's April 20th "You Are Vince" ranting-and-raving session was this, btw:

"Oh, goodie! I get to be Vince Bugliosi again today! Thanks, Senor Crackpipe! And we've just learned from the druggie/retard [that's Healy, of course] that Rosemary Newton [Mr. Bugliosi's secretary] doesn't even exist at all! She's a "ghost". Isn't that special? Make sure not to show Kook Healy page 1514 of "Reclaiming History". That page might make Healy turn all colors. .... Tomorrow -- DVP = Steve Keating (again). On April 22 -- DVP = Dave Reitzes (again). Right, Mister Retard?" -- DVP; April 20, 2009


Noticed you ran fast and furious from the question, troll....

My-oh-my, state sponsored David Von Pein has crawled out of his Vince Bugliosi lined hole, AGAIN! Good to see you alive and well, troll! We need lone nuts such as yourself to show just how stupid some can be.... case evidence notwithstanding. So truck along little guy, and when your brother moves you out of his bedroom, give us a call -- then we'll take you seriously.

Being one of the most prolific lone nut posters (some 20,000 posts) doesn't mean anything, hon..... of course you, also being David Reitzes doesn't help matters any either.... Carry on troll -- ROTFLMFAO!


Hon, you're shucking and jiving and avoiding a simple question... Is Jim DiEugenio correct? Are you David Von Pein and Dave Reitzes the same person?

Hope you're not TOO bothered and bewildered by the difficult question....

GAWD, you'd be horrible when it comes to writing a TV script, no wonder you were passed over for Reclaiming History, but don't take it personally. Myers simply had more to sell, namely his animation -- if you'd like a Peter Jennings autograph I can arrange one for you, though.... After all, we CTer's are here to serve... Now, back to that Internet Radio Black Op question, troll what say you?


Now listen son, we know you shouldn't lie, so you simply avoid answering. Simply tell this entire board (and your loving fans) if in fact David Von Pein and Dave Reitzes are one in the same? Simple english lad! Is Jim DiEugenio correct in his assumption? If a lot of us are correct in [our] collective assumption?


Von Pein/Reitzes --- finally, at loss for words, AMAZING!


Hint for Mr. Retard (aka David G. Healy):

Check out my username.

David Von Pein
April 28, 2009
April 28, 2009 [This forum link is no longer available.]

(PART 503)


David -- Superb collection of videos. I was most curious about: "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald". Very interesting. .... I am disappointed that [Vincent] Bugliosi did not point out that the Anti SBT diagram that Dr. [Cyril] Wecht was using was totally off. .... Wecht's diagram is even more inaccurate than the Costner diagram in the movie JFK. .... I wonder why there was no challenge? .... Questions for David: Have you ever discussed this issue with Bugliosi? Do you know why Bugliosi did not challenge the accuracy of that diagram?


I've wondered that same thing myself, Joe.

No, I've never discussed that particular issue with Vince Bugliosi (or through his secretary, Rosemary Newton, which is the only way I've ever "contacted" Vince).

But a possible (partial) reason for why Vince didn't challenge Wecht's skewed diagram [shown below] is because Wecht told the jury at the 1986 TV docu-trial that he was of the opinion (via his own personal "analysis") that at least one of the bullets that struck JFK from behind had originated from the WEST end of the Texas School Book Depository and from the second floor, instead of from Oswald's sixth-floor window on the east end of the TSBD building.

Dr. Wecht's make-believe west-end gunman is the thing that enables Wecht to pretend that the bullet that went through President Kennedy was able to miss Governor Connally completely.

And Cyril's "second floor" theory also enables the good doctor to pretend that the bullet was able to somehow miss the entire limousine after exiting JFK's throat as well (via the not-as-steep angle for the bullet that is provided by Wecht's make-believe "second floor" TSBD assassin).

But there's one part of Wecht's diagram that Bugliosi should have strongly objected to and should have verbally ripped to shreds....and that's the positioning of John Connally within that diagram.

Wecht does have Connally correctly sitting inboard of President Kennedy (which is unusual for a diagram/chart/sketch that's being propped up by a conspiracist), but that diagram doesn't show Governor Connally turned in his jump seat at all, which is definitely inaccurate and misleading, and is something that Bugliosi should have mentioned at the top of his lungs at the '86 TV trial. But he didn't (AFAIK).

Prosecutor Bugliosi should have probably produced a sketch of his own when cross-examining Dr. Wecht -- such as an accurate sketch like this one here (which appears in the photo section of Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book):

Another thing that Bugliosi should have nailed Wecht for at the '86 trial is when Wecht said that JFK's head was "driven backward and to the left with substantial force at the moment of impact with the head wound", which is a statement that everyone knows is 100% false. Kennedy's head isn't "driven backward and to the left" at the precise "moment of impact" at Z313 -- JFK's head, instead, moves FORWARD at the precise "moment of impact" between Zapruder Film frames 312 and 313 [as seen in the clip below].

That very important point regarding JFK's initial forward head movement was established by Mr. Bugliosi earlier in the trial (during the testimony of Cecil Kirk), but when Dr. Wecht wanted to leave the incorrect impression in the minds of the jurors that Kennedy's head moved to the rear at the critical "moment of impact", Vince should have thrown the truth of the matter back into Cyril's face during VB's cross-examination of Wecht.

Related stuff:

Vincent Bugliosi debated Dr. Cyril Wecht on Pittsburgh radio station WPTT in June 2007, with the Single-Bullet Theory being the prime focus of that radio debate. And after I first listened to it, I was scratching my head and asking myself why in the world Bugliosi didn't bring up a couple of key points that would totally embarrass Dr. Wecht. These points:

1.) Why didn't Bugliosi bring up the fact that the bullets that were fired for the Warren Commission's tests at Edgewood Arsenal were NOT fired through TWO BODIES OR ANIMALS (to properly simulate the flight path of the SBT and the damage to Bullet CE399)? This was a rather large oversight on Bugliosi's part during the 2007 radio debate; and it was also a large oversight on Vincent's part during the 1986 mock trial as well.

It's possible, I suppose, that Vince did bring up this very important point when he cross-examined Dr. Wecht at the '86 trial in London and perhaps the editors of the TV trial snipped out that portion of Wecht's testimony due to time restrictions.

But in the 5-hour version of the docu-trial that aired in 1986, Bugliosi never once mentions the fact that the WC/Edgewood test bullets were fired directly into rib and wrist bones, which are tests that don't come close to replicating what CE399 is said to have done by the Warren Commission.

It should also be noted that the WC test bullet that was fired directly into a wrist bone (which is a bullet that Dr. Wecht loves to prop up so much) not only didn't have the benefit of initially travelling through any kind of a simulated "JFK neck", but that particular test bullet also didn't travel through a simulated "Connally chest" before reaching its "wrist" target either.

So, in the final analysis, the Edgewood Arsenal bullet tests are pretty much worthless for the anti-SBT purposes that Dr. Wecht loves to continually utilize them for.

2.) When the topic of "Has The SBT Ever Been Duplicated?" came up during the radio debate, Mr. Bugliosi should certainly have mentioned the Discovery Channel program that was made in 2004, "Beyond The Magic Bullet". And that's a program that had Vince HIMSELF making an appearance, too!

"Beyond The Magic Bullet" did, indeed, properly simulate the SBT by firing a Carcano bullet like Oswald's through TWO surrogate bodies, with the results being very similar in character to the Single-Bullet Theory, including the test bullet emerging in a totally unfragmented condition. Here's the Discovery Channel test bullet:

I don't know why Mr. Bugliosi didn't mention those two important issues during the 2007 radio debate after Dr. Wecht started talking about how the WC test bullets were "mushroomed" and more flattened, etc.

But, IMO, Vince should have talked about those things I mentioned, in order to significantly deflate Wecht's anti-SBT arguments.


Clay Shaw Diagram Questions: I also want to know about the Clay Shaw trial. In the real trial of Clay Shaw, did Garrison's team try to pull a fast one with a diagram like that? Do we have a picture of such a diagram that would have been used in that trial. Do we know what challenge was made to such a diagram, if such a diagram was used? Thanks David.


I'm not entirely sure, Joe. I'll defer those inquiries to resident Garrison expert Dave Reitzes. I'll bet he knows. In fact, the answers are probably located somewhere within Mr. Reitzes' excellent website.

David Von Pein
April 26, 2009