(PART 314)


I truly have a problem with the idea that Oswald could score any hit with the rifle he is presumed to have used, let alone 2 critical strikes and one of those being a fatal head shot.



SOMEBODY killed President Kennedy with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. That is a 100% fact.

Unless you want to actually believe that CE567 & 569, the front-seat fragments linked to LHO's rifle, didn't result from the bullet that hit JFK in the head. And if you take that stance, the difficulty then becomes trying to reconcile how two large fragments from Oswald's gun got into that limo WITHOUT having first gone through the head of Jack Kennedy.

And ANY alternate explanation regarding those front-seat fragments put forth by conspiracy theorists pales on all levels when placed next to the lone-assassin scenario concerning those fragments.

But the LN scenario regarding CE567 and 569 has no loose ends or even any unanswered questions. None. Therefore, Rifle C2766 killed John F. Kennedy. Period.

So, I'd then ask:

Who is more likely to use Oswald's rifle on any given day than Lee Harvey Oswald?

Answer: Nobody.

And then when we add in all the OTHER evidence that indicates Oswald is guilty as Hitler, including LHO's incredibly guilty-like actions after the assassination (killing Tippit, telling one lie after another, etc.)....then Oz's guilt becomes fixed in cement.

Carlos Hathcock's meaningless shooting tests notwithstanding, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered a President in 1963.

David Von Pein
August 29, 2008

(PART 313)


Why did Oswald, who was planning to kill the President from the building where he worked, bring a 38-inch rifle to work and leave his revolver in his rented room, a revolver he would have needed to facilitate his escape?


Obviously Gil is wrong (yet again). Because Oswald didn't need his revolver to facilitate his escape from the Book Depository. He was able to get clear of the building without his pistol.

And he no doubt knew that such a thing could likely occur, seeing as how he worked in the building and could be cleared as just another employee--which is exactly what did happen.

Whereas, if he'd been caught with a gun on him within minutes of the President being shot, it might prove a stickier wicket for Ozzie to negotiate successfully.

IOW, why start shooting people until it becomes mandatory? And it did become mandatory for LHO (at least from his POV at the time) at approx. 1:15 over on Tenth Street. To avoid arrest, he obviously felt he had no choice but to shoot Officer Tippit.

And if he had only been confronted by one single officer in the Texas Theater, it's very likely the exact same scenario that played out on Tenth Street would have repeated itself on Jefferson Boulevard in the theater -- i.e., one more dead Dallas cop.

But, unfortunately for double-killer Oswald, there was more than one cop in the theater.

David Von Pein
August 29, 2008

(PART 312)


>>> "What you are suggesting [HERE] is theoretically possible, but it would be very confusing for the public to understand where to stand and look for the President while the motorcade splits in two." <<<


Only if the press busses were AHEAD of the President's car, which wasn't the case at all (of course).

Or do you think the crowd in Dealey Plaza was waiting breathlessly to get a good look at those 3 busses as they passed by?

Plus: Dealey Plaza was at the very end of the motorcade. The parade was essentially over after Dealey.

Again, to emphasize, this is all meaningless hindsight. I was merely stating my opinion about how, in a make-believe motorcade situation that did not occur on 11/22/63, the three press busses could have very well taken the jog through Dealey, even though the President's car did not.

>>> "I have brought up that problem with the buses myself." <<<

You mean the part I brought up about the busses being able to take a differing route from the President's? I've never once heard anyone talk about any such thing...be it CTer or LNer.

>>> "But you would still have to close off the side streets and control
the crowds running across Houston to see the President going down
Main." <<<


>>> "Maybe you missed the first hundred times I mentioned the problem of the buses." <<<

Reprise: You mean the part about the busses being able to take a differing route from the President's? I've never once heard anyone talk about any such thing...be it CTer or LNer.

So, yeah, I guess I did manage to miss those 100 previous "bus" posts.

>>> "Well, was there or was there not a rule against such a slow turn [such as the Houston-to-Elm hairpin]?" <<<

What difference does it make? The Secret Service did it anyway. Just like they allowed JFK's car to stop multiple times on Main Street amongst the thick crowds of spectators, with tall buildings (with windows open wide, no doubt) located on both sides of Kennedy's halted vehicle....even though that particular activity is also probably strictly prohibited (per the USSS manual).

>>> "Spell Check: traveling - buses." <<<

Nope. You're wrong there. My alternate spelling of both of those words is perfectly legitimate and acceptable, as verified HERE and HERE. Buy a Webster's volume sometime, Tony.

David Von Pein
August 28, 2008

(PART 311)


Fritz/Curry both said that the city workers would have had to remove a piece of the curbing and create some sort of ramp onto Stemmons, BUT that remedy would NOT have allowed for access by the press buses, as their length and height off of the ground would not have been able to make the ramp's grade.


Then, too, when thinking about this particular issue for a moment or two, you must ask yourself:

Why would the three press busses necessarily be FORCED to travel the EXACT same route (foot by foot) as the President's vehicle in front of them?

In such a situation which had JFK's limo travelling straight down Main Street, instead of making the two turns in Dealey Plaza, why couldn't the busses have veered off this course momentarily at Main & Houston and taken the snake-like route through Dealey that Kennedy ultimately did take on November 22nd?

Obviously, if need be, the busses could have done just that, instead of being forced to negotiate the high Main Street curbing (not to mention the very tight turn for those busses onto the Stemmons ramp if Main Street had been used instead of Elm).

There was surely no written-in-granite rule regarding "motorcades" which dictates that EVERY single vehicle had to travel the exact same streets, regardless of hazards and/or potential obstructions.

Now, I too have argued in the past with conspiracy theorists about this very topic concerning possible access for the President's car onto Stemmons directly from Main Street. And, I'll admit, I actually hadn't thought too much about the "Busses Taking A Different Route" scenario before writing this post. But, IMO, it just makes sense.

And, interestingly, I've never once heard a conspiracy theorist bring this up either....which is kind of surprising, since that type of scenario regarding the route for the press busses would benefit a portion of their conspiracy scenario (at least in a small way).

But all such post-assassination talk about the motorcade route is Monday-morning quarterbacking, of course. The Secret Service had taken JFK past tall buildings at slow speeds in an open car many, many times during motorcades preceding the Dallas parade, and there's no reason to think that the SS or the DPD felt there was anything remotely dangerous or unusual about taking the President around those two curves in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

For heaven's sake, Kennedy's car even came to a complete stop on at least two occasions on Main Street before reaching Dealey Plaza that day in Dallas....and yet I've never heard even one CTer ever balk or gripe about those two COMPLETE STOPS the President made.

The CTers don't seem to think that STOPPING the President's limo completely was the slightly bit out of line or a violation of Secret Service protocol, but many conspiracists do seem to feel that the hairpin turn from Houston onto Elm WAS a terrible violation of some Secret Service rule or regulation. Weird.

Do conspiracy theorists want to believe that the Secret Service should have been of the opinion (as of the morning of 11/22/63) that there was MORE danger to the President by taking him slowly through Dealey Plaza (moving at about 11 MPH) than there was during those two complete stops that JFK made in his open limo that same afternoon?

Food for "Motorcade Route" thought.

David Von Pein
August 28, 2008

(MARCH 25, 1968)




(PART 310)


I only heard him [Dale Myers] insulting me and claim that people who watch YouTube have short attention spans. But maybe I overlooked something. Could you cite the part where he dealt with the fact that the HSCA produced a drastically different drawing, showing the two victims much further apart? And could you tell me what his answer was to the fact that his own trajectory line, which he chopped off after returning to an accurate image, was much too steep and would have struck the back of Connally's car seat--exactly as the shot from the Discovery Channel simulation was??


Bob, you're incredible. Just incredible. It's as if Dale Myers' words in his rebuttal to you were never even written! They've sailed right past Mr. Harris, with no hint of their existence resonating with Mr. Harris at all! Amazing.

Here's a portion of what Mr. Myers wrote on his website concerning the unwarranted allegations made by Mr. Harris (and, once again, these words will undoubtedly fly into Mr. Harris' left ear and then zoom straight out the right one, with nothing sinking into the gray matter that resides in-between those two locations):

[Quoting Dale Myers:]

"Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.


What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the dimensions of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory? Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise at visually aligning two different photographs made from two completely different angles in three dimensional space--a virtual impossibility--along with an unsupported declarative statement: 'There is no way JFK's legs could have been up against the back of Connally's car seat.'


What Mr. Harris doesn't know is that the two renderings (wireframe and solid form) depict the SAME MODEL. That's right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been "jammed together" in order to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the EXACT SAME MODEL (and in the same position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly."
-- DALE MYERS; 08/18/2008

In addition to the above remarks by Myers in his main article/rebuttal, Dale wrote these lengthy follow-up comments two days later:

[Quoting Dale Myers:]

"Mr. Harris cannot seem to let well enough alone, posting a response to my article on one of the newsgroups dedicated to assassination discussion, in an effort to redeem his false and poorly conceived charge that I manipulated geometry in my computer reconstruction of the Kennedy murder in order to hide the truth about the trajectory of the single bullet theory.

Normally I wouldn't respond to Mr. Harris' retort because he has proven in the past (and again in his latest response) to be incapable of grasping even the simplest of scientific concepts. I'm going to make an exception this time in order to demonstrate in living color why I don't bother to spend any valuable time debating such nincompoopery.

Since Mr. Harris has deemed it necessary to serve up his rosey bottom for a thorough spanking on this issue, I will be happy to oblige him -- this one time. I promise this will not be a habit.

In a newsgroup thread titled "Myers Responds!", Mr. Harris repeats his unfounded and false contention that I "reduced the distance between JFK and Connally, in the first part of his presentation, using what was obviously a hastily thrown together wireframe of the limousine, and that he switched back to an accurate rendering of the two victims after finishing his 'analysis'."

This charge was made after Mr. Harris was informed that the wireframe version of the limousine and the solid form version (which Mr. Harris refers to as "an accurate rendering") were one and the same model rendered with two different rendering shaders -- a fact Mr. Harris fails to even mention in his response, and with good reason: it shows him to be completely ignorant of the process involved in constructing the model and destroys the foundation of his entire argument.

What evidence of deception does Mr. Harris offer in the face of the true facts about my work that show his claims to be false at their very core? Get this -- Mr. Harris writes: "...my argument was that he shrunk the distance between the two men, a fact which is quite obvious, and requires no extrapolation whatsoever..." Mr. Harris explains that "...But what is really great about debates on graphics is that you don't have to rely on the *words* of either Mr. Myers or myself. Look at the images, pause the video, and hold a ruler up to your screen. Decide for yourself, who is full of crap here..." [End Harris quote.]

For Mr. Harris, proof of deception is as simple as holding a ruler up to a computer monitor. Even a child of five could accomplish this task, right? Yet, Mr. Harris has conveniently and methodically avoided the central scientific principle pointed out in my original response -- the principle of photogrammetry -- which effectively proves (to anyone of even the simplest mindset) the fallacy of "holding a ruler up to your screen" to prove anything.

I pointed out that Jack White, a leading conspiracy advocate, made the same mistake thirty years ago (as revealed in testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations). Mr. Harris not only ignores this fact, but continues to make false and malicious statements about my work base[d] on the same false methodology used [by] White three decades ago.

I don't know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results.

Mr. Harris claims to be able to do what is scientifically impossible using images of my computer work as broadcast on the Discovery Channel. It has already been pointed out to Mr. Harris and others that the Discovery Channel sequences were filmed from a computer monitor that was situated at a considerable angle to the camera (this can clearly [be] seen by looking at the images themselves).

These filmed sequences were mixed with other sequences which originated directly from the computer renderings. Consequently, there are multiple compound angles present in the broadcast sequences which prevent anyone -- especially Mr. Harris -- from holding a ruler or protractor up to a computer monitor and gleening [sic] anything that remotely resembles the truth.

Mr. Harris has proven in this latest outrage to be incapable of dealing with the truth. The best he can hope to do is play the martyr to an audience largely ignorant of basic scientific principles. None of this is new.


Finally, Mr. Harris is wrong about the trajectory line in the original rendering terminating at the inshoot point of Kennedy's back wound. The line does extend through Kennedy and into Connally's back. Mr. Harris makes the mistake of using compressed imagery from secondary sources which effectively hides the rendered trajectory line to draw his fatally flawed conclusions.

One final note, in a thread entitled "Dale Myers", Mr. Harris writes: "...Dale and I go way back, to when I emailed him in 1995 in response to his article in Toaster magazine. To this day, I am still waiting for him to reveal the angles he used to conclude that a line through the known wounds in JFK and Connally pointed directly back at Oswald...."

The angles that Mr. Harris is "still waiting for" were published long ago on my website detailing the results of my computer work (see, www.jfkfiles.com). The relevant passage reads: "The result shows the bullet moving at a 10 degree angle, right to left, relative to the midline of the limousine. The angle of declination is about 20.5 degrees below true horizontal. Accounting for the three degree slope in the road, the bullet is moving downward at an angle of about 17.5 degrees relative to the limousine. These figures are comparable to those determined in previous trajectory analysis conducted by the FBI in 1964 (WR106) and the HSCA's Photographic Panel in 1978. (6HSCA46)"

I don't for a minute believe that Mr. Harris will stop his malicious and disparaging remarks about myself or my work on this case. His record of ad hominem attacks and personal insults is long and easily accessible to anyone willing to indulge in a search of the newsgroups.

My refusal to engage him and his ilk over the years has, I'm sure, emboldened him to some degree. However, I believe that most people are smart enough to realize that the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones worth listening to.

Frankly, if Mr. Harris had any bullocks, he'd yank his latest video voodoo off YouTube and apologize for being such a dope for so many years."
-- DALE MYERS; 08/20/2008

Full article by Myers linked here:


I have no doubt whatsoever that a single bullet passed through both victims.


But you just can't take that extra small (and logical) step toward believing the only "official SBT" that's on the table right now (i.e., the one involving bullet CE399 from Lee Oswald's gun going through the two victims). Right, Bob?

In other words, folks, Mr. Harris can get to within shouting distance of the Warren Commission's version of the SBT, but he just can't quite bring himself to endorse it entirely. So, he'll place a non-existent gunman in a different building and he'll invent a new version of the "SBT" -- the "Harris Version".

The only problem for Mr. Harris' version, however, is that it's not really supported by ANY evidence at all! None. Nothing. It's only supported by the mind of Robert Harris himself! And nothing more than that.


And if I had to place a bet, I would say that Oswald was involved in the attack and very likely fired the fatal shot at 312-313.


Gee, I wonder how Bob could ever come to a wild and fantastic conclusion like that one?

Could it be the fact that every scrap of evidence in the whole case points to ONLY OSWALD as the culprit?



The truth is, David, that I believe a great deal of what Myers and you believe. In fact, I agree with you on everything that is properly supported by the evidence. But the difference between you and I is, that I form my conclusions on that evidence while you and Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite.


~LOL Break~

Yeah, Myers and I (AND the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee) formed our opinions about the Single-Bullet Theory on nothing but pure 100% guesswork and conjecture and NON-evidence....right?

Such as:

1.) CE399 being the ONLY bullet connected to this murder case that was found inside Parkland Hospital (and on a stretcher that was most certainly occupied by Governor Connally, NOT President Kennedy's stretcher, which is a key and critical fact that many CTers want to ignore, mangle, or misrepresent).

2.) CE399 was positively a bullet fired from Lee Oswald's rifle.

3.) The gun which fired CE399 was found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository.

4.) Governor John B. Connally was struck by just ONE BULLET on November 22, 1963.

5.) The wound on Connally's back was almost certainly caused by a bullet that HIT SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE IT STRUCK THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS (per almost all of the expert witnesses who testified about this particular matter). And the ONLY object that that "something else" could have possibly been was the body of President John F. Kennedy.

Also -- For the benefit of other anti-SBT CTers, I'll offer up the following audio clip featuring Warren Commission assistant counsel member Albert Jenner. This clip, which relates directly to my #5 point above, isn't really meant for Robert Harris' benefit, however, since Bob does believe that one bullet did travel through both Kennedy and Connally via his unique (but totally evidence-empty) alternate version of the SBT:

"At that angle, no matter WHERE [the bullet] came from [that hit Connally], it HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- ALBERT E. JENNER, JR.; 02/11/1967

6.) JFK had no bullets remaining inside his body when he was autopsied on the night of 11/22/63.

7.) JFK's upper-back wound and throat wound line up very nicely to form a DOWNWARD (back-to-front) path, perfectly consistent with the WC's version of the SBT. And this is true even if JFK had been sitting RAMROD STRAIGHT in his limo seat at the time when Oswald's CE399 bullet struck him in the upper back, as we can easily see via the turned-sideways autopsy photo shown below (the crazy HSCA determination about an "11-degree upward bullet trajectory" through Kennedy's body notwithstanding):

Addendum: Commission Exhibit 903 is also worth another look at this time too (and take notice of the "SBT"-like perfection of everything exhibited in this photograph, right down to Arlen Specter's pointer being placed in the bullet hole in John Connally's jacket; and yes, the man portraying JBC in CE903 was, indeed, wearing the same jacket that Connally was wearing when he was shot on 11/22/63):

The above seven points of fact provide a good short lesson as to the main reasons why the Single-Bullet Theory is an ironclad fact, instead of just a mere possibility (or a mere "theory" that isn't based on any "evidence" at all, as many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe).

Fact #8 (for good measure):

Both the Warren Commission in 1964 and the HSCA in 1978 concluded that ONE BULLET (bullet #CE399 from Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle to be specific) passed through both victims in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, with that bullet entering President Kennedy's upper back and exiting the front of his throat, and then proceeding to cause all of Governor Connally's injuries.

In short -- The official record in the JFK murder case TWICE fully supports the validity and workability of the Single-Bullet Theory (via the conclusions of both U.S. Government investigative bodies who looked into the assassination -- the WC and the HSCA).

And yet Mr. Harris has the Kong-sized gonads to utter these words to me about the SBT:

"I agree with you on everything that is properly supported by the evidence. ... I form my conclusions on that evidence while you and Mr. Myers do exactly the opposite." -- Robert Harris; 08/24/2008

Unbelievable, Bob.

So, apparently then, Robert Harris is of the odd opinion that BOTH the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (which were separate Government entities entirely, and were formed 14 years apart) actually reached their conclusions regarding the validity of the SBT based NOT on the evidence in the case, but based on something else entirely.

Maybe a voice from heaven was heard by ALL of those members of BOTH the WC and the HSCA who favored the likelihood of the SBT being the correct explanation for the double-man wounding on Elm Street in '63. And this voice said the following to both Government entities -- "Believe The SBT! Believe The SBT! Don't Follow The Real Evidence In The Case To Where It Leads You! Believe The SBT Instead!"

Because if BOTH the WC and the HSCA based their pro-SBT conclusions on something OTHER than the actual "evidence" in the JFK case....what was this "other" thing that the SBT was being based on?? A gut feeling? A hunch? Tea leaves? Tarot cards? What?

What was it that persuaded TWO Government panels to endorse a theory that almost all conspiracy theorists say is a pack of lies? And what kind of arm-twisting devices could have possibly been used on so many different investigators who looked into this matter in '64 and '78, so that virtually all of these people would be willing to swallow WHOLE a theory that the conspiracy community thinks belongs in a book written by Aesop?

You're amazing, Bob Harris. A work of conspiracy art.

David Von Pein
August 25, 2008

(PART 309)


>>> "Warren Commission Apologist Dr. John Lattimer states in his book "Kennedy & Lincoln" that his Manlicher-Carcano [sic] has the EXACT SAME serial number as CE-139." <<<


This crap has been discussed before here, and has been reasonably explained. But Tom The Kook, two years later, thinks that everybody's forgotten. [Let's look at the past posts on this topic....]


>>> "John Lattimer OWNED the M-C Rifle with serial number 2766." <<<

Nowhere on that page [of Dr. Lattimer's book] does Lattimer claim he owned the SAME CE139 rifle. He mentions the serial number "C2766". But that is obviously an error, however, because the WC determined there were NOT two MC rifles with that same serial number. But the other comments made by Lattimer on that same page indicate he's obviously NOT talking about the SAME weapon as Oswald's MC (CE139).

Naturally, a kook overlooks all the other remarks (like "exactly as on the rifle from the same lot, WC Exhibit 139...") that clearly indicate Lattimer's rifle was NOT the exact same rifle as CE139.

Plus -- Only an outright idiot/kook could possibly think that Lattimer ACTUALLY meant that he (Lattimer) owned the SAME rifle as CE139, which resides in the National Archives.

But, then again, a conspiracy kook will believe anything I guess. (As long as it can lead to something that smells fishy.)

David Von Pein
August 18, 2006


...Only a "total fool" could believe, after reading ALL of Dr. Lattimer's book "Kennedy And Lincoln", that Lattimer was in possession of Oswald's exact Carcano rifle.

There are several references in the book that indicate Lattimer was utilizing the same MODEL of Carcano (91-38), but not the exact same gun.

The "C2766" reference in Lattimer's book is quite obviously an innocent error, because there were not two rifles in existence with that exact same serial number (as the WC said in its report, which, naturally, is info that a kook named Tom [Rossley] will totally disregard out of hand).

Lattimer, in fact, acquired FOUR different Carcano rifles for his experiments in the 1960s and 1970s....and ended up using one of those rifles more often than the rest of them. (I'm not entirely clear on how many times, if any, he utilized the other three Carcanos he obtained during his vast number of tests and re-creations he conducted. But it's quite obvious from the totality of text in his book that Lattimer was not using Oswald's rifle at any time.)

David Von Pein
November 18, 2006


>>> "Lattimer destroys himself with the bullshit in his book." <<<

I love the kook mindset regarding Dr. Lattimer....

It would seem that the mere fact that Lattimer misspoke re using "C2766", Oswald's exact rifle (CE139), completely negates EVERY SINGLE THING that Lattimer did concerning his JFK experiments in a certain kook's mind.

Just because JKL misspoke about "C2766", NOTHING he ever does again is to ever be trusted or believed by a nut named Rossley. Amazing short-sidedness.

And Lattimer's mention of C2766 was obviously an innocent error. Why? Because he proves it was merely an innocent error in the very same book ("Kennedy And Lincoln"). This is proven by way of several other mentions of the rifle he used in his tests NOT being the same rifle as CE139! That's brought out multiple times in that same publication. I guess Tom doesn't realize that, huh?

Or Tommy just ignores those additional rifle references because Lattimer said, ONE time, that he used "C2766", which, btw, was during a passage regarding the rifle's other detailed "specs" too -- e.g., "MC; Model 91-38; Italian; 6.5mm; bolt-action; etc.". Lattimer obviously put in the specs for LHO's weapon without realizing the exact serial number was being mentioned too.

But it's obvious from other mentions that Lattimer did not mean he was shooting with Oswald's exact gun, CE139.

But, let's just assume for the sake of kooky argument that Lattimer WAS using CE139, LHO's C2766 rifle. What real difference would THAT fact have made ANYWAY?!

Would using Oswald's exact weapon have suddenly CHANGED any of the WC-favoring experiments that Dr. Lattimer performed with said weapon (or any other similar MC weapon)?

So, as can be seen, Tom-Kook is arguing just for the sake of arguing (about nothing, really).

Because REGARDLESS OF EXACT CARCANO BEING USED -- Lattimer's tests WERE conducted WITH A CARCANO RIFLE, and ALL of those tests favored the "single-assassin-firing-from-the-rear" scenario. Period.

So, get a new "Lattimer Line", Mr. Rossley. The stupid one you're using now is just too flimsy to hold an ounce of H20.

David Von Pein
December 19, 2006


>>> "[Dr. John K. Lattimer] states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano [sic] rifle model 91-30 [sic] with Serial Number 2766 [sic]." <<<

As I said before, Lattimer's "C2766" remark was obviously an error....because (as I shall provide below) Lattimer tells us MULTIPLE times elsewhere in his book "Kennedy And Lincoln" that he was NOT using Oswald's exact rifle. Heck, even the very page cited by Tom R. (Page 250) contains info that contradicts Tom's "C2766" claims.....

"...Exactly like Oswald's. This [scope] was mounted exactly as on the rifle from the same lot (Warren Commission Exhibit 139) that was demonstrated unequivocally by the Warren Commission to have been used to fire both of the bullets..." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 250 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

The overall language used on the VERY PAGE TOM R. SAYS PROVES LATTIMER IS A LIAR shows a reasonable person that Mr. Lattimer was merely in error regarding his one "C2766" remark.

And when coupled with the following FOUR additional rifle references scattered throughout Lattimer's K&L publication, it's quite clear that Lattimer wasn't using Oswald's exact rifle.....

"I used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine of the same model as that used by Oswald (model 91-38)..." -- JKL; Page 232

"I had examined Oswald's rifle at the National Archives..." -- JKL; Page 292

"We had procured four rifles of exactly the same type used by Oswald. .... We then selected, from our four sample rifles, the one that most closely resembled his [Oswald's], in both condition and ease of operation, for use in our firing tests." -- JKL; Page 295

"Although we had to be content with four rifles of the same model as used by Oswald, the FBI used his actual rifle, and always with the same results: none of the bullets ever tumbled [unless they struck something else prior to striking a simulated Connally target]." -- JKL; Pages 271 & 276

Tom R.,

What do you have to say about the above-referenced passages from Dr. Lattimer concerning the rifle that you claim that Lattimer claimed was Oswald's exact C2766 weapon?

Based on those additional quotes from "Kennedy And Lincoln", do you honestly still think Lattimer was insisting he was using "C2766" for his experiments?

BTW, Tom (incorrectly) said "model 91-30" above, when referring to the MC rifle. I think this error gives me the right (per Tom's own rules) to call Tom a "liar" and a scheming "cover-up agent", seeing as how he said "91-30" instead of the correct model number of "91-38".

Right? Right.

David Von Pein
December 21, 2006


David Von Pein
August 20, 2008

(PART 308)


>>> "The total lack of any proof and evidence is what shows LHO shot no one. .... How about proving for once he ordered and received the rifle. Then prove he practiced with it and used it." <<<


I think I'll go into "Analogy 101" mode for a moment (so excuse me as I drift)......

Per Robby's kooky crime-busting methods, if a man was physically seen by 14 total witnesses (equalling the number of witnesses who actually saw Lee Oswald either physically shooting his two 11/22 victims or saw him flee the scene of the Tippit murder, gun in hand) robbing a bank and escaping in his getaway car --- all kinds of secondary, lower-level things would be REQUIRED to be proven in court at the man's trial in order for the robber to be convicted. Such as:

Where did the bank robber buy his gun?
When did he buy his gun?
Did the robber ever practice with his gun?
Where did the robber purchase the bullets he placed in his gun?
When did the robber buy those bullets?
Where did the robber purchase the getaway vehicle?
When did he buy that car?
Did he ever practice parallel parking while driving the getaway car?
Did the robber ever eat meat on Fridays?
Was the robber ever seen in the company of gay men in New Orleans?
Was the robber ever married to Liz Taylor?
Has the robber ever seen the 1964 movie "The Patsy", starring Jerry Lewis?

And on and on to obscure infinity.....

It wouldn't matter to a Rob-like kook that FOURTEEN PEOPLE physically saw and positively identified the bank robber (again, matching the Oswald scenario from 1963). Because if the laundry list of chaff-laden questions cannot be answered beyond all doubt, then the guilty robber MUST go free (per the kook's rules of law).

Quick Tip Of The Day:

Best way to get away with a crime --- Make sure Robert Caprio is sitting on the jury at your trial. Then you're home free. Because via Robby's oddball rules of law and evidence, no criminal could ever be locked up.

David Von Pein
August 19, 2008

(PART 307)


Oh, goodie, 23 questions from a kook [Gil Jesus] who seems to think those 23 Qs have never, ever been answered or addressed by LNers in the past.

That's another definition of "Conspiracy-Loving Kook" --- A person who has a 6-minute memory.

I especially love #11 from Gilbert -- "What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?"

IOW -- In Gil's strange mind, if lone-assassin believers can't prove exactly WHERE and HOW and FROM WHOM Lee Oswald purchased his Carcano bullets, then there's simply no other choice but to declare that Oswald didn't shoot President Kennedy with that Carcano rifle (despite the fact that all of the bullets lead straight back into that Carcano rifle, which was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald prior to 11/22/63).

But it should be quite obvious to every reasonable-thinking person (in a "common sense" sort of fashion) that if Lee Oswald purchased a rifle via mail-order (which we know beyond ALL doubt that he did, using his alias "A. Hidell"), then it probably stands to reason that he planned on getting SOME BULLETS TO PUT IN THAT GUN AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

And it also stands to reason that if mail-order houses (like Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago, Illinois) were selling 1940-era Mannlicher-Carcano rifles through magazine advertisements in 1963, then the ammunition for such a gun would be readily available for the consumer to also purchase.

In fact, Klein's sold boxes of 6.5mm Carcano bullets (108 per box) for $7.50/box via its magazine ads in 1963:

Now, it's true that Oswald apparently didn't order any of his bullets through Klein's when he ordered the rifle and scope (at least there's no record of any such ammo order from LHO using Klein's), but it just shows that the type of bullets that Oswald needed for his Carcano rifle could easily be purchased.

Perhaps Oswald found a better deal on his bullets in a different magazine ad from a company other than Klein's. Who can know for sure? Nobody can. But just because there's no specific paper trail marked "Oswald's Receipts For Every 6.5mm Bullet He Ever Purchased For Rifle #C2766" doesn't mean he didn't obtain some bullets for his weapon.

I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with firearms is to be considered Not Guilty if it can't be determined beyond a reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained the bullets that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?

Plus: Is there any other case in history where a Guilty verdict required a definitive answer to the question "Where did the defendant buy his bullets?"?

I'm not positive, but if I had to go out on a limb, I'd wager to say that the answer to that last silly inquiry is "No".

David Von Pein
August 19, 2008

(PART 306)


>>> "It is the hypocrisy which is delicious. Myers and his sycophants love to call conspiracy researchers kooks when they get the details of the limo wrong, such as placing Connally and Kennedy at the same height. He says of course the SBT cannot work when you start with the wrong data. Then he himself proceeds to make his SBT work with HIS wrong data? How did he do that trick? Again, by lying." <<<


Of course, it doesn't matter at all to Tony Marsh that Dale K. Myers has LOCKED IN and SYNCHED his computer model to the ZAPRUDER FILM ITSELF. Does it, Tony?

Tony apparently must think that even though Myers has done this extensive, painstaking overlay ("Key Framing" as it's called), whereby each frame of the Z-Film is placed "in sync" as much as humanly possible to Dale's computer model, Myers then (evidently, per Tony Marsh) went OUTSIDE that Key Framing process for some of the culled imagery we see of Myers' animation on TV shows, and CTers think that Myers has skewed all kinds of data for those individual SBT clips that the CTers (for some reason) think are TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what can be seen in Dale's complete version of the animation project.

Is that about the size of the deception you think Mr. Myers has performed here, Tony?

Or did Myers just LIE altogether on this webpage, wherein he talks in great detail about how he lined up his computer animation model as close as humanly possible to the Zapruder Film via this Key Framing method?

If the Key Framing is accurate (and why would anyone believe Myers has deliberately skewed it, except for diehard conspiracy nuts?), then it doesn't matter how many "inches" a person SAYS Connally was from JFK in the car, or how much taller one man was than the other, etc., because the Key Framed computer model is going to be accurate anyway and will show John Connally in just the places he was located in relation to JFK throughout the entire Z-Film sequence on Elm Street.

Which, of course, is why Dale Myers' computer method of Key Framing is so accurate. It, in essence, IS the Zapruder Film placed onto a computer in three-dimensional space.

David Von Pein
August 19, 2008

(PART 82)



Is this affidavit a lie, James DiEugenio? If not, then you conspiracy mongers are cooked. And regardless of what the Warren Commission did with William Whaley, this affidavit still exists, which was filled out by Whaley months before Whaley gave any WC testimony:



Can you walk five blocks in four minutes?

I would like to see you try.

This is why they changed the destination where Whaley dropped off Oswald. See, the first time it took nine minutes to get Oswald to where he was going. But once this was changed, the five minute question was solved. .... Dave is hemmed in by the testimony of the landlady [sic; actually the housekeeper] Earlene Roberts. She said Oswald came in around one, and then left after 3-4 minutes.

~post snipped~

[To see DiEugenio's complete post of fantasy, GO HERE.]


Incredible. The things CTers believe.

BTW, I'm not at all "hemmed in" by Earlene Roberts' timeline. Here's why.

BTW #2: Whaley took Oswald approximately three blocks past his roominghouse, not five blocks. Oswald lived in the 1000 block, and Whaley dropped him off at Neely & Beckley, which was the 700 block. How does 1000 minus 700 = 5 blocks?


Again, Davey does not know of what he speaks.

1. Because this is what it says in his [cab driver William W. Whaley's] original notation and this is what he said at first. See 10-5 is equal to 5.


Sure. But why would anybody still be foolish enough to be married to the "500 block of North Beckley" statistic? We know that Whaley DIDN'T take Oswald all the way to the 500 block of Beckley, even though Oswald initially told Whaley when he got in the cab that he wanted to go to the 500 block and even though Whaley did write "500 No. Beckley" on his trip sheet.

Did you even watch Whaley's two re-creations (for David Wolper's film and then for the CBS News documentary)?

Whaley also told the Warren Commission [at 6 H 429] that Oswald got out of the cab near the intersection of Neely and Beckley, which is the 700 block of Beckley, not the 500 block.

Whaley was just lying to the Commission there on page 429 of Volume 6, right Jimmy? And Whaley continued his lies during the two re-creations he did for the Wolper film and for Eddie Barker and CBS-TV in 1964. Right, Jimbo?

Get real.


2. And yes you are wedded to one o'clock with [Earlene] Roberts.


Bullshit. ALL times related to Oswald's post-assassination movements are merely "estimates" and "approximations", and all reasonable people know this.

You seem to think that every time estimate mentioned by every witness is rooted in concrete as the truth and couldn't possibly be a little bit off one way or the other -- like T.F. Bowley's "1:10" timestamp that you conspiracy theorists love so much; along with Helen Markham's "1:06" time for J.D. Tippit's murder, which has become the holy grail of timelines for Tippit's slaying for many conspiracists over the years. Balderdash and Humbug! (Not to mention "bullshit"!)

Plus: Let's listen to something else Earlene Roberts said during her Warren Commission session in 1964 [at 6 H 440], which is a quote that came out of Mrs. Roberts' mouth precisely ONE SECOND after she said "3 or 4 minutes":

Roberts said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".

Now, tell me, Jimmy, how long does it take you to take a jacket off a hanger and put it on? Three minutes? Four minutes?


Give it up will you?


The person who should be surrendering is you, not me. You should be embarrassed at even suggesting that Lee Oswald wasn't in Whaley's cab. Good heavens, even your very own patsy, Oswald himself, said he took a cab to his room on November 22nd.

But let me guess -- you don't believe Oswald ever said anything of the kind about the cab ride, do you Jimbo? You think the Dallas Police Department's cover-up crew, which was filled with nothing but rotten cops, just lied their asses off about Oswald saying he had taken a cab to his roominghouse. Correct?

Of particular note is DPD Captain J.W. Fritz' Warren Commission testimony at
4 H 223, where we find these words spoken by Mr. Fritz (which are words that James DiEugenio probably believes are nothing but a web of lies being spun by the veteran homicide captain):

J. WILL FRITZ -- "When I asked him [Oswald] about a cab ride--if he had ridden in a cab--he said yes, he had."


JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you ask him if he went directly to his home?"

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; he said he went straight home."

MR. BALL -- "Didn’t you learn from the cabdriver that he hadn’t taken him to 1026 North Beckley?"

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "I knew he had taken him near there, but I am telling you what he told me. He told me he had taken him home."


When you accepted those 57 witnesses, you hinted you were really a WC critic after all.


You're goofy, Jimmy. When I said this on January 5, 2013....

"There's only one liar on Jim's list in his last post -- and that's Roger Craig. None of the others are liars though." -- DVP

....You seem to think I accept AS TRUE everything each of those witnesses said. But quite obviously, I do not think those witnesses are accurate with respect to much of what they have said. But I do not think they are liars either. I think they are wrong, yes. But that doesn't mean they qualify as liars (except Roger Craig, of course, and possibly Rose Cherami).


Instead of getting more pies in the face, just come out of the closet.


You want me to accept your foolish idea that Lee Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963? Is that what you mean by "come out of the closet"?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather be trapped aboard the Titanic or on the top floor of the World Trade Center on 9/11 than to join James DiEugenio's Anybody-But-Oswald circus of conspiracy clowns.

David Von Pein
January 2013

(PART 305)


[Quoting Dale Myers:]

"I’ve gotten more than one email in the last few days asking
about a video posted on YouTube over the weekend claiming to debunk my
computer animation work on the validity of the single bullet theory.

This latest video posting, entitled “Dale Myers or Voodoo Geometry
101,” arrives courtesy of conspiracy advocate Robert Harris who
manages to prove how little he knows about my computer work,
photography and geometric relations, and the Kennedy assassination in
general in less than six minutes.

The crux of Mr. Harris’ argument is that yours truly (that’s me)
falsified the geometric positions of Kennedy and Connally in order to
make it appear that the single bullet theory was valid and that the
single bullet shot traced back to Lee Harvey Oswald’s firing position
on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In short,
according to Mr. Harris, my computer work is a transparent lie.

Never mind that Mr. Harris’ charges have been made numerous times in
the past by equally ignorant detractors and rebutted in detail on my
own website (see, FAQ: Computer Reconstruction of the JFK
Assassination) and here in this forum (see, Con Job: Debunking the

The modern day pied pipers of the YouTube generation count on the
short attention spans and general ignorance of their audience to sell
their own brand of snake-oil and promote themselves as reliable
purveyors of truth via video on the Internet.

Of course, anyone can point a webcam at their own mug a pretend to be
someone of knowledge and responsibility. Hence, the wisdom of the
ancient axiom, “You get what you pay for.”

In this case, those who buy Mr. Harris’ free offerings are getting a
pig in a poke.

For instance, Mr. Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a
two dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the
presidential limousine and it’s occupants (as culled from the
Discovery Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine
the angle of a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest.

Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying
principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is
impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two
dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and
angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human
science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.

Conspiracy guru Jack White found out the lessons of photogrammetry the
hard way when he took a beating in 1978 while trying to convince the
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that multiple press
photographs of Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle depicted multiple
rifles of differing lengths. The “proof” Mr. White offered of the
multiple rifle cover-up were measurements he made on two-dimensional
press photographs.

As the HSCA photograph experts called to rebut Mr. White rightly
pointed out, the former advertising photographer failed to take into
account the relationship between the camera making the photograph and
the tilt of the rifle in three dimensional space. In fact, White had
never heard of the principle of photogrammetry.

Apparently, Mr. Harris never heard of Jack White’s boo-boo, because he
makes the same error. And he makes it more than once.

For instance, Mr. Harris claims that a comparison of a photograph of
the presidential limousine made early in the parade route with a
computer rendering of my limousine model shows that “Myers has jammed
the two men much more closely together than they really were.” Mr.
Harris claims that the distance between the back seat where the
president was seated and Governor Connally’s jumpseat were compressed
in my computer model by “a little over fifty percent.”

What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the dimensions
of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory?

Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise
at visually aligning two different photographs made from two
completely different angles in three dimensional space – [a] virtual
impossibility – along with an unsupported declarative statement:
“There is no way JFK’s legs could have been up against the back of
Connally’s car seat.”

In fact, Mr. Harris’ credibility on this last point is effectively
destroyed by the existence of numerous photographs taken throughout
the motorcade (a photograph on the back dust jacket of Bill Sloan’s
JFK: Breaking the Silence to name one) which shows exactly the
opposite to be true – Kennedy’s knees were comparatively tight to the
back of Connally’s jump seat.

In addition, Mr. Harris’ claim that “when the House Select Committee
on Assassinations depicted the victims they had to move Connally
considerably [more] to his left” than he appeared to be in other
photographs suggests that Mr. Harris doesn’t know that the HSCA
Photographic Panel mistakenly based Connally’s position on a line of
sight as seen in a photograph made by Hugh Betzner and that the HSCA
analysis failed to take into account the fact that Connally’s right
shoulder was below Betzner’s line of sight (as proven by the Altgens’
photograph) and hence Connally might have been seated further right
than the HSCA believed. My three dimensional analysis of the Zapruder
film bares this fact out.

Most importantly, Mr. Harris states, “The next scene from [Mr. Myers’]
presentation includes an amazing sleight of hand or pixels or
whatever. Watch closely folks, as Mr. Myers tries to hide the evidence
of his deception by slipping the victims back into a proper position.”

Here, Mr. Harris shows a clip from the Discovery program which
features my computer work in which the moment of the single bullet is
shown in wireframe and in solid form as the camera circles the
limousine and its occupants.

Mr. Harris then adds this, “Okay, notice two things here. First the
car and the background are all wireframes. Also, he still has Kennedy
and Connally close together, so that 18 degree bullet trajectory looks
pretty reasonable. But as the car rotates, notice that something
happens. The wireframes disappear and right in the middle of the
rotation, Mr. Myers switches to a totally different video. In this
video he positions President Kennedy and Governor Connally correctly.”

What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and
solid form) depict THE SAME MODEL.

That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been
“jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and
perpetuate the cover-up, is the exact same model (and in the same
position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts
Kennedy and Connally correctly.

For you tech junkies, the model of the single bullet moment was simply
rendered in a 360 degree rotational view multiple times with a variety
of surface settings (wireframe, solids, etc.), and then combined with
simple dissolves pulled between the various layers.

At the end of his presentation, Mr. Harris proudly boasts, “People
like Myers have been playing this same game for years, misconstruing
the positions of the President and Governor Connally to make it appear
that the shot was fired from the sixth floor of the depository. But
the angles from there just don’t work.”

Of course, the only game players in this case are the conspiracy
diehards like Mr. Harris who refuse to accept the reality of what
happened in Dealey Plaza and prefer instead to prey on the young and
naïve who are more than happy to follow any video pied piper willing
to tell them whatever they want to hear about the Kennedy
assassination – truth be damned."

Dale K. Myers
August 18, 2008


David Von Pein
August 18, 2008

(PART 304)


>>> "It leaves the Body Alteration theory front and center. You're basically arguing that the conspirators wouldn't make mistakes. Actually, if you talk to any police officer or prosecuting attorney, they'll tell you that killers make mistakes...big mistakes...when they try to cover up their deed. It's nothing new. In fact, it happens almost every time." <<<


Oh, come now, my good kook-man! You think your make-believe "Body
Alterationists" would ever make a MISTAKE??? Rue the day! Never!

But what's more amazing is the fact that Mr. Lifton has actually
gotten so many different people to believe that ANYONE in their right
mind would even begin to ATTEMPT the kind of crazy, off-the-wall, half-
assed "Body Alteration" on JFK's mangled head in the first place.

And to do all of that altering of the body within an hour or two of
the President's death, and then expect everything to look just
perfect, so as to fool everybody at the autopsy.

Or did the never-identified and proverbial "they" think they could
easily coerce Humes, Finck, Boswell, Ebersole, Stringer, Burkley, et
al, into just "going with the LN flow" even if things didn't go well
at the Conspiracy BatCave where the "alterations" took place?

And if that's the case, the next logical question is -- WHY THE NEED
TO ALTER THE BODY AT ALL? Why not just fake some pictures and X-rays,
coerce all the autopsists, and file all kinds of false, misleading
reports and documents? (Which is what you kooks think occurred anyway,
isn't it?)

So what possible purpose would it serve to alter the body? Just FAKE
everything instead. And it's a "Mark VII". You kooks are cool with
that, right? Right.

Don't ya love the contradictory mindset of the Kook Faction, kids? A
lot of fun, indeed. And for laughs--they're better than Jack Benny.
And for those kids too young to know him, Jack was damn funny.

David Von Pein
August 18, 2008

(PART 303)


>>> "Do you think it was because of something he did or did not do, or do you think that it was simply a power grab?" <<<


Mainly because Oswald had a gun at his disposal, he worked at a place
where he knew JFK would be passing on Nov. 22, he hated America (in a
general sense), and he had "murder" in his veins (as evidenced by the
Walker shooting, which is probably the #1 reason he bought the rifle
in the first place--to kill Gen. Walker).

Add up all of the above and it equals a dead President in Dallas
(caused by one lone nutcase).*

* = Plus there are the additional factors of: Incredible luck for LHO
to have the whole 6th floor to himself at exactly the right time to
get the job done;

...And the fact that JFK happened to tour Dallas in an open car on a
weekday (when Oswald would be working in the TSBD building and could
easily blend in with all the non-murderous employees there);

...And the fact that JFK just happened to come by Oswald's building
right at lunchtime, which made it much more likely that fewer people
would be up on the 6th Floor (or any upper "warehouse" floor) to see
Oswald with his gun and to spoil his fun of murdering the President of
a country he hated.

David Von Pein
August 18, 2008

(PART 302)


Robert Harris' attempt at debunking Dale Myers' animation work [via a YouTube video of Harris' that no longer exists, so I can't link to it] can itself be completely trashed when we realize that Mr. Myers utilized the ORIGINAL BODY DRAFT of the Kennedy limousine throughout all of his animation project.

Myers didn't just suddenly stop relying on the limo body draft (for victim placement in their seats) only for the close-up shots [that were used in TV documentaries in 2003 and 2004]. (Or does Bob Harris really think Mr. Myers DID do just that very thing?)

IOW -- The whole "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project by Dale K. Myers is based on rock-solid, verifiable PHYSICAL data with respect to the TSBD, the angles from the TSBD to the limo, Dealey Plaza as a whole, and (most importantly for this post in response to Mr. Harris' argument) the body draft from Hess & Eisenhardt for JFK's 1961 Lincoln limousine [Myers' animation is on top]:

Moreover, Mr. Myers didn't simply MAKE UP (from whole cloth) the measurements he used to position JFK and Connally in their respective seats. He relied on photos and, as mentioned, the actual body draft of the limo. Here's a photo of the specific layout of the car in which the victims were riding when they were shot (and this comes not from Myers, but from the HSCA volumes--from 30 years ago). And just look at the amount of "leg room" for the back-seat occupants (which would have been JFK and Jackie on 11/22/63 in Dallas). Not very much room there, per my perception of things.

The exact numbers are hard to read, but it looks like it says 8.80 inches between the front of the (JFK) back seat and the back of the (Connally) jump seat. For comparison, my Size 10 shoes are about 10 inches long. IOW, there sure wasn't much room between those seats (as the 11/22/63 motorcade photo shown below demonstrates):

David Von Pein
August 18, 2008

(PART 81)



This is really rich.

DVP's main mantra is "All you nuts say everyone is lying."

So here he quotes two people who are --well--liars.

I mean the HSCA wrote a long report trying to reconcile all the conflicting statements Marina Oswald had made through the years. They couldn't do it.

Read the section in my book on Ruth Paine. You will find more than one instance where she was telling tall tales.


Davey, with the info in my book, the cat's out of the bag with Ruth and Michael Paine. You won't ever be able to use them again.


Naturally, this is the type of response I would expect from someone like DiEugenio, because Jimbo believes really silly things when it comes to the JFK case -- like his belief that Oswald carried no large bag at all into the Book Depository on November 22. That's how far afield from reality Jim DiEugenio has strayed regarding the evidence in this case.

How anyone can possibly even begin to take DiEugenio seriously when it comes to the JFK assassination is a real mystery to me. And that's because Jimbo believes in all of the following outlandish things:

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.

4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature.

9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker.

12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".

13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. And in addition to the individuals mentioned above, DiEugenio thinks a lot of other people lied about many other things pertaining to the JFK murder case too, including Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Howard Brennan. Two of DiEugenio's most hilarious quotes can be found below:

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 2015

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 2010

15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said).

17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.

18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)

19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)

22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.


I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list above, but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now.

And yet despite the above laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.


David Von Pein
January 4, 2013
May 3, 2016




In the book ["Killing Kennedy"], [Bill] O'Reilly actually declares, with laughable solemnity, words to the effect that "Either Oswald would win Marina's love again that night or he would kill Kennedy the next day. That was the choice." .... It's an utterly laughable theory based on lame armchair pseudo-psychology.


It's not a laughable theory at all. Not in the slightest. It makes perfect sense--from the point-of-view of Lee Harvey Oswald on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963.

I, too, think that the assassination would almost certainly have not occurred had Marina and Lee agreed to get back together on November 21st.

Marina Oswald said that Lee, on November 21, offered to go look for an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if Marina would agree to come back and live with Lee right away. Quoting Marina Oswald:

"He said that he was lonely because he hadn't come the preceding weekend, and he wanted to make his peace with me. .... On that day [11/21/63], he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas. He repeated this not once but several times, but I refused. And he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him, and that I didn't need him." -- Marina Oswald; Warren Commission testimony; February 3, 1964 [1 H 65-66]

Therefore, given that testimony from the lips of Marina Oswald herself, is it likely Lee would have had thoughts of taking his rifle to work with him the next day and killing JFK at noontime just before he went to look for a new apartment for his family after work? I kind of doubt it.

The fact that Marina rejected Lee on November 21 is, in my view, a key event that allowed Lee Oswald's plan of attempting to assassinate President Kennedy to go forward uninterrupted.

When Lee went to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21st, he had, of course, already been thinking about shooting the President with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning, November 21 when he made up his lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the nonexistent "curtain rods".

So Marina's rejection on the night of the 21st was certainly not an overriding motive of Lee's in his decision to take his gun to work the next day and shoot the President of the United States. Obviously, he must have had a motive for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon. And the proof of that fact rests in the provable "curtain rods" lie he told Frazier on Thursday morning. So Lee Oswald had a motive for shooting the President even before he saw his wife on November 21, although we will never know for sure what that motive was.

But Lee Harvey's assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night. If Marina had responded differently to Lee's request to get an apartment in Dallas right away, I think history would have been different on November 22, and John F. Kennedy would very likely have lived to make his speech at the Trade Mart that day.

And Vincent Bugliosi thinks so too. Let's listen:

People are, of course, free to disagree with the above assessment of Lee Harvey Oswald's perceived thought processes. Is it a guessing game? Sure it is. It can't be anything else, given the fact that the President's assassin was himself killed just two days after JFK was slain. But in my view, the above evaluation is a reasonable one when trying to get inside the head of Lee Harvey Oswald on the night of Thursday, 11/21/63.

Ruth Paine also made a good observation about Lee Oswald that deserves to be replayed occasionally. She said this:

"I do think for the historical record it's important that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that people can kill a President without that being something that shows on them in advance." -- Ruth Paine; July 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (London Weekend Television)

David Von Pein
January 4, 2013