(PART 432)


Allow me to pick up where YoHarvey left off, with an additional "Reclaiming History" quote:

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display
an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving
Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the
branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually
all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at
each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to,
and in the context of, all the other evidence."



"You [a conspiracy-giddy kook] think that one piece outweighs
all the other evidence. The WC didn't. Their opinion mattered, as they
were tapped to investigate this matter. The opinions of kooks are
-- Bud; October 27, 2005


"The SBT, in addition to being grounded in the known evidence
surrounding the case, is also based on a whole lot of regular,
ordinary common sense as well. No "Anti-SBT" scenario has ever come
close to matching the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Conclusion in
the "Evidence" department. Nor has any alternate theory come close to
equalling the SBT in the "Reasonable", "Workable", "Believable", and
"Common Sense" categories as well.

The Single-Bullet Theory FITS. The Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
The Single-Bullet Theory is RIGHT."
-- David Von Pein; March 2007


"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a
theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the
Single-Bullet Conclusion."
-- Arlen Specter; 1967


"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."
-- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK
Myths" (c.2005)


"Question --- How many brain-dead plotters does it take to rub
out just one simple-minded patsy before the bastard can talk?? Answer
--- A good-sized number, per the CT-Kooks. [Marrion] Baker failed,
[Gerald] Hill failed, Ruby failed on his first attempt (probably). The
Patsy Crew finally had to go with Plan 9 From Kooksville, and kill the
bum in the police station on LIVE TELEVISION. THAT did the cover-up a
lot of good, huh?"
-- David Von Pein; February 19, 2007


"Obsessing about conspiracy, and seeing evidence of conspiracies
everywhere, has become a major part of many people's lives. .... None
of these things have anything to do with whether Oz took his rifle to
work and shot JFK. I could give far more examples of unstable human
beings doing unstable things than you could ever produce examples of
-- Bud; August 23, 2004


"Any assassins who would have needed only Oswald fingered for
the two murders on 11/22/63 must have all (to a man!) been under the
influence of large quantities of hallucinogenic drugs when they
decided to place a variety of different shooters throughout Dealey
Plaza (and on 10th Street for Tippit's killing), as many CTers
advocate. And these powerful drugs they must have been on I guess must
have had a crazy type of "Miracles Are Possible" effect on all of the
shooters and behind-the-scenes schemers -- because only a "miracle"
could have rescued such an inane multi-shooter "Patsy" plan from
certain failure on that 22nd day of November back in '63."
-- David
Von Pein; April 7, 2006


"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us
he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he
had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell
us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt. If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it
necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store
in Chicago? Why did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he
find it necessary to do that if he's innocent?"
-- Vincent Bugliosi;
July 25, 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"


"If CE399 had been plucked from inside Connally's or Kennedy's
body, the CTers would still find some reason to bark "No way; it was
PLANTED there!"
-- David Von Pein; March 4, 2006


"Instead of focusing on the important issue -- that Oswald in
fact ordered the weapon that was delivered to his P.O. Box, the CTs
focus on the "capillaries," nitpicking the P.O.'s faulty record-
-- Jean Davison; January 17, 2006


"Conspiracists fail to outline the scenario that would be
necessary for the bag to have actually been as short as [Wesley]
Frazier and [Linnie] Randle describe it. It would require that the
"phony bag" be forged in absolutely record time, in exactly the right
length, and carried from the Depository even before the Dallas cops in
the Depository knew that Frazier was saying that Oswald had carried a
bag in to work! And somehow they got Oswald's prints on it. You've got
to admire the foresight of those cops. They really lucked out when
Frazier said that Oswald had carried a bag just like that into work
that morning."
-- John McAdams; July 16, 2000


"I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-
slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch
empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled
rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was
in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-
floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that
sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation
for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the
assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on
it. Can you?"
-- David Von Pein; 2007


"There is nothing new to be unveiled concerning the way John F.
Kennedy died on November 22, 1963. JFK was shot by a lone loser named
Lee Harvey Oswald. And that lone loser who hated America and its
"representatives" just happened to own a cheap mail-order rifle and he
also just happened to work in a building that overlooked the very last
portion of President Kennedy's motorcade route through Dallas.

The combination of things I just mentioned above was a lethal
combination. And it's also, whether you want to believe it or not, a
combination of circumstances brought about by nothing except pure
garden-variety coincidence and happenstance."
-- David Von Pein;
January 2008


"I'm wondering why so many people who have adhered themselves
permanently to the silly notion of a "JFK Conspiracy" think that their
opinions (seemingly based on nothing but the direction of the wind, or
a "motive" they think such-&-such a person might have had, or a hunk
of pure speculation) are worthy of NOT being ridiculed? That's always
had me scratching me head."
-- David Von Pein; September 14, 2007



David Von Pein
January 27, 2009

(PART 431)


SS A[gent] Richard Johnson [sic][,] interviewed by [Vince] Palamara[,] had no recollection of ever receiving a bullet from the parkland [sic] staff.


Please provide documentation for this incredible claim.

[HERE'S information that tends to refute what the conspiracy kook named "Laz" just said.]


Obviously the damage would be greater from CE399 if it did what it was alleged to have done.


Then how do you explain the fact that a POINTY-TIPPED bullet supposedly did do a lot of damage to John Connally, per the beliefs of many conspiracy theorists, and still ended up with its tip "POINTY"?

Isn't it the contention of the anti-SBT crowd that NO BULLET in the world could have ended up looking anything like CE399 (i.e., in a whole, unfragmented condition) if it were to have caused Governor Connally's wounds?

No anti-SBT conspiracist EVER wants to discuss the "How Did A Pointy-Tipped Bullet REMAIN Pointy-Tipped After Hitting Connally?" snafu in the kooks' case.

The conspiracy kooks have no easy escape hatch when answering the above question either. Because if they answer with: "Well, the pointy bullet was actually a planted bullet" .... then the same kook has to believe that some idiot plotters PLANTED a bullet from a non-Oswald gun. And that same kook undoubtedly also wants to believe their continued fantasy about Lee Oswald being "set up" as the proverbial "patsy" too. So that makes the idea of a plotter PLANTING a pointy-tipped bullet at Parkland a very stupid theory.

And if the kook wants to think that the pointy bullet really did hit Connally....then they are forced to forget about TWO of their cherished myths....which are:

1.) The stretcher bullet found by Darrell Tomlinson did not come off of John Connally's stretcher at all.


2.) A bullet couldn't possibly have ended up in one piece and in good shape after smashing into Connally's rib and wrist.

Unless the kook wants to invent a SECOND bullet that supposedly hit Connally and then vanished. Via that unsupportable 2nd-bullet scenario, the kook can then have a different (never found) bullet doing the major damage to Connally's body, while the "pointy-tipped" missile from the stretcher would have been the bullet that struck only Connally's thigh (or maybe just his rib and thigh, but not the wrist).

Any way an anti-SBT nut elects to go with the "pointy-tipped" bullet theory, they're in for some disappointment....because no matter what avenue they choose to go down with such a theory, it can only result in a three-word response from any reasonable person who examines such a theory:

This sounds stupid!

David Von Pein
January 27, 2009

(PART 430)


A researcher has asked for information on David Von Pein.


Why doesn't the researcher go to alt.assassination.jfk and ask him directly?


Every chance Lone Nut-Wing Nut Von Pein gets to promote Vinnie Bugliosi's tome Reclaiming History, Von Pein blathers on.

His foolishness, and his minions, can be found on alt.conspiracy.jfk too! DVP never announced at any public function that he is indeed David Von Pein. Never participated in a public JFK assassination forum, seminar, symposium, anniversary and/or function as David Von Pein.

Some speculate David Von Pein and David Reitzes are one in the same, as was recently discussed on Black Op Radio with Jim DeEugenio [sic].

Frankly I'm surprised anyone cares who the hell he is, or what he does.


Von Pein is nothing more than a glorified copy & paste artist with zilch to offer.


No one that I know of has met or even seen a David Von Pein at any public JFK assassination function, with ANY of the big names within the research community.


I am not a fan of Von Pein at all. I believe him to be a troll. But in his defense, a big name to you (David [Healy]) is one that has more than three letters in it, so what was your point?


Has anyone met DVP? Has anyone met Reitzes? Is the question of whether he is an actual person or a persona the reason the question is being asked here?


I'm curious to find out who Von Pein actually is [I'm assuming it's a nom de plume], and I don't need another thread to ignore because of the juvenile squabbling.


Yea, even though he's a nitwit, there's no need to be insulting him by implying he's one and the same as David Reitzes, as I can attest they are two different nitwits who don't have the gonads to sign on here and talk honestly about the assassination of President Kennedy.

And indeed, instead of rising above mere debunkers and generating new and useful knowledge and research, they decided they liked being nitwit schmucks and distractions. They could have been contenders though...if they only had the gonads.


Indeed. In my experience, the Peinster [that'd be me--DVP ] always puts up a fight no matter how lame and fact-free it is. [Varnell is nuts, of course.]

Dave Reitzes always curls into a ball and never engages the discussion. "That's my opinion, Cliff" -- is as far as he ever got in rebuttal with me.

Two different clowns. Same circus.


I am also curious about Von Pein's identity, and suspect he's somebody else. Most LN's are more than happy to tell you their qualifications. Not so Von Pein, who won't even post a picture of himself.

That said, I don't consider him a total troll. He's posted a lot of early news footage on his Youtube channel; these are definitely worth looking at. He's also posted links to interviews with his hero, Bugliosi, which prove that Bugliosi was working pretty much from a script, repeating the same lines from city to city, much as a stand-up comedian. Call VB the anti-Bill Hicks.


I would also like to know who the guy is because he is one of the most biased people I have ever seen post and no one, not even Oswald, was always right or wrong. Pein [sic] seemed bent on propaganda.


I do not know David von Pein [sic], but I have emailed Dave Reitzes a few times, and always found him to be a very polite and sincere person. While I do not agree with alot of what he says, the level of discussion is always done with great respect.

I have read that he is not interested in joining this forum, because he believes all that will occur from his posting will be alot of namecalling, and to tell you the truth, he is probably right.



There is a point when David von Pein [sic] and Dave Reitzes reached where they could have become legitimate independent researchers and knowing the basic background of the case, forged new information, unearthed new documents, find a fresh witness, and expanded our knowledge of the assassination. Instead they decided to become debunkers and one of Prof. Rahn's coincidentalists.


The one place I've found Mr. von Pein [sic] 24/7 is the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) on the Oliver Stone movie "JFK". He and his cronies are on there all day, all night blasting anyone who even asks the most innocent question.

Some on there say he and about 6 others are all the same person. The all agree with each other that anyone who questions the official version is obviously nuts. He posts there under "DVP-1" and probably other names as well, such as "NickSlickReturns".

I know the JFK movie discussion board on the IMDB isn't for serious researchers, but I worry about younger people who's [sic] first exposure to the assassination discussion is that board, and they end up falling right into his (and others) lone nutter grasp.

[DVP INTERJECTION --- Oh, those poor, poor youngsters who are unfortunate enough to fall into my evil "lone nutter grasp". ]


"DVP" is just chock full of excuses for not providing any information that can be verified. There seems to be an agenda. Unfortunate, as he appears to have a bit of a following who might appreciate more concrete interactions with him, such as talking by phone or even actually meeting in person. However, this is not likely to happen as he is too busy trying to stay on the tightrope he has created.


This guy is never seen publicly.

He won't post a picture of himself or any bio info.

Sounds like an alias for someone we would all recognize.


David R. Vonpein [sic]

Mooresville, IN


Hi Antti,

Yes. It was a simple matter to find this name on the White Pages. I asked DVP last night on alt.assassination.jfk (before your post) whether he had ever been to Mooresville. :-)

But DVP hasn't been hiding that location. It is included in many of his Amazon reviews. Just do a search.


Pam [Brown] & friends gossip about me & DVP:



Well, they spelled your name right, Dave [Reitzes]. What more can you ask for? Of course, they also suggest you're David Von Pein, which can't be good news because it would double your work load. Gotta love these people. I'll bet they check under their beds every night and are disappointed when they don't find a CIA or FBI agent there.


What a bunch of wackos!


Typical McAdams. Ignore the context and make a blanket accusation.

The question about whether DVP was Reitzes was raised because it was discussed on Black Op Radio. It was asked as a question. Nobody has met DVP. So far, his identity is unverified.

Since McAdams is so big on documentation lately, why not provide some documentation for who this person actually is, and give us info on what contact McAdams has had with him? Where does DVP live? Who has actually met him? That would have some value; knee-jerk sputterings do not.


You stole my whole response, John ["What a bunch of wackos!"]. Now I don't need to post it. :)

BTW, I'm also supposed to be an LNer named Steve Keating (per one of those "wackos").

Three...three...three mints (er...LNers) in one! (Remember that commercial?)


There are three levels of Conspiracy Theory researchers.

The highest level tries to tie the assassination to the CIA or Mafia or the KGB.

The second level tries to tie in the Judyth Baker story.

And the third level tries to prove that Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein are really the same person with ties to the CIA.

To be fair, Von Pein does sound like the name of someone who used to work for the East German Security and Intelligence Service.


Well, it's the name I was born with on Wednesday, 12/27/61 (while JFK was serving as President, btw). So, I guess I'm stuck with it--German Intel Service jokes and all. ;)

I considered changing my name to "Vincent Moore Posnerelli", but I figured that such a moniker would be too "obvious".


So Dick Van Dyke was already on TV when you were born?


Yep. That CBS-TV program was, indeed, on the air at that time. It debuted 2+ months before I was hatched. :)

BTW -- For trivia buffs, the premiere episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" was filmed on the same day JFK was inaugurated (1/20/61).



I predict that in the coming year some good progress will be made in the "Grand Unification Theory" that proves that Reitzes, Von Pein, Myers and McAdams are really the same person.

Note, to be fair, Pam [Brown] does not seem to buy into the theory that Reitzes and Von Pein are the same person.


The fourth level [of Conspiracy Theory researchers] tries to prove that Whisky Joe is the new alias of Brandy Alexander. Notice how the WC defenders love to use aliases? They are to embarrassed to use their real names.


Bob Harris thinks I'm at least two people. Someone at the Nuthouse [aka alt.conspiracy.jfk] once asked him if I and a certain LNer who used to post here were the same person. He responded, "I don't know if [name deleted] is posting through that account or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that people of widely varying writing skills are. The long-winded stuff is definitely coming from a pro. If that is the David Reitzes we all know and love, then I would expect that he is published somewhere. But the guy who writes most of the day-to-day stuff is nowhere near that level."

He's accused me of some other interesting things (including a novel claim about how three well known JFK researchers and I spend the holiday season), but I don't want to tax the moderators' patience too much. \:^)


JFK Assassination Arguments (Part 429)


Are you refusing to acknowledge that there are some people who are wondering if you are an actual person or a persona?



Of COURSE I "acknowledge" the fact that some people (all CTers, naturally) think that I'm posing as several different individuals on the Internet. It's fairly obvious that some CTers have jumped to that wholly unwarranted conclusion.

But do I need to officially "acknowledge" those suspicions from atop an orange crate in the middle of Town Square or something?


Don't you want to clear that up fast?


Actually, no. I love watching conspiracy theorists make fools out of themselves on a daily basis. And this issue of "DVP aliases" has been extremely entertaining from my end of the computer. I hope it continues. I enjoy it immensely. It's especially enjoyable since I know every one of those conspiracy theorists is 100% wrong.

So, no, I have no real desire to "clear that up" anytime soon. If the silly CTers who think I'm really several other people want to think that....let them. Heck, a CTer or two in the past actually alleged that I was Vincent Bugliosi in disguise. And what's not to like about that?!

There's probably nothing I could do to make those people stop believing that fantasy anyway. After all, most of those same CTers actually think that a THREE-BULLET substitute for the Single-Bullet Theory is a MORE REASONABLE and accurate explanation for the wounding of JFK and John Connally than is the SBT.

So, as you can see, that's the type of conspiratorial mentality I'm up against here. And who can fight imagination? It almost always trumps reality in a conspiracist's world.


You have managed to continue to be evasive.


Yeah, I've been "evasive" by forthrightly answering every single question that was asked of me.

See what I mean? I can't win even when I answer everything that's put to me. I love it!


So far, you have not presented any documentation to the fact that you are not an alias.


Another one of these needs to go here (for sure) --->

And just exactly what kind of "documentation" do you (or anyone) possess to show that the "He's Using Multiple Aliases" and "DVP Is Reitzes" rumors are correct? Anything at all?

IOW -- Is the burden of proof on ME here? Or should it be on the ill-informed people who make the accusations?

I guess nothing short of a birth certificate will suffice here, huh?

Oops. No, that won't be good enough either. Because somebody could say that all I did was swipe this guy's birth certificate.


There are now TWO threads about DVP at the Simkin forum [The Education Forum].

Not bad for someone who doesn't even exist.


That other Education Forum thread was started by Tom "I Can't Say It Here At AAJ Because The Post Will Certainly Be Rejected If I Call Him This Name" Purvis back in September '08.


Crackpot Simkin and his flying monkeys really do give Nixon a run for his money in the paranoia department. During my brief stay there, the locals were *obsessed* with my listed occupation, demanding to know more about my work. More than a few suggested that I might be a government "plant."

Thank God I didn't submit my real photo (they had no right to that anyway; that goes double for my real name). The vast majority of them are unhinged, Bush-hating leftists who bewailed things like FISA and the Patriot Act to no end, yet didn't think twice about compromising MY privacy. A pox on all of them.


Here's a little something that indicates that certain people at The Education Forum can't even follow the progression of a simple forum thread, and are unable to identify the people who are making the posts. (It's either that explanation, or Bill Kelly just simply cannot read....or he thinks that Mr. Slattery [aka "slats"] is another one of the many fake names I'm supposed to be using on the Internet, per the conspiracists.)

William Kelly of The Education Forum said this in the post linked below:

"Apparently Von Pein is not his real name and he's so afraid of the truth he won't post a picture of himself, so he's disqualified on two points. He's concerned about his "privacy"? He calls Simkin a crackpot and me a flying monkey but doesn't have the balls to join the debate?" -- William Kelly; February 1, 2009

Kelly (as well as Pat Speer) seem to think that I wrote this post.

Somebody should teach William Kelly how to read forum posts. Because it's quite obvious that the post which Kelly/Speer credit as being mine was written by "slats", who used to post common-sense stuff at The Edu. Forum, which is why the kooks hated his guts there too.

Another interesting (and deceptive) thing that Kelly did in the above Education Forum post was to add in the web address to my JFK Blog at the bottom of that message. Kelly added that weblink HIMSELF. Because that link does not appear in either my original post to which "slats" was responding or in the post "slats" made.

Seems to me as though Mr. Kelly is trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes there at the Edu. Forum by ADDING IN something that never appeared in the aaj posts he was quoting from, making it look as if I (DVP), myself, had "signed" that post with my blog address. That's pretty darn deceptive, IMO.

Anyway, maybe I should thank Mr. Kelly for the free advertising, since I have no way of posting a link to my JFK Blog on that Edu. Forum myself. [As of early 2009, that is. But since that time, I have rejoined The Education Forum as an active member.]


I did not refuse to post a picture of myself during my short-lived stay at The Education Forum in July of 2006. I told Mr. Simkin that I did not have any picture to post (which was the absolute truth; I had none at all available). [I did, however, find a very tiny picture to use as my Profile photo when I rejoined that forum in August of 2010.]

I was in the process of trying to work out some kind of a compromise regarding my adhering to the Forum rule about all members putting a picture in their profiles (even though, as I pointed out to Mr. Simkin at that time in 2006, there were several long-time members in mid-'06 who were not fulfilling that requirement as well), when Mr. Simkin decided to cut off my membership after only four days of posting. Therefore, no such "photo compromise" could be worked out.


More excuses from "DVP" to attempt to justify his not posting on the Ed Forum and instead complaining about it here. Guess this is the kind of mishmash one can expect from a died-in-the-wool WC apologist.


Or -- it's the kind of raw truth you can expect from a person who posted for four days at a forum that detests the likes of lone-assassin believers.

Your choice.


If I remember correctly, the Education Forum requires registration and that you use your REAL name.


Yes. Correct. Which I did.

So what's your point?


I feel sure John Simkin would find a way for "DVP" to post if he were to pony up bio info and photo; especially since it was John who initiated this thread.


I have no problem with revealing "bio" type info (e.g., location, age, e-mail address). In fact, I almost always "pony up" such info on websites where a "Profile" is made available to the world [such as here].

And I don't really have a problem with providing a photo either. It's just that (in 2006) I did not have a photo available.

I have discovered, however, a very small picture that I could use as a profile image (although it will probably show up way too blurry and indistinct if it's blown up much at all).

But I'm certainly willing to sign up again as an active member at The Education Forum (if John Simkin hasn't banned me completely after my dismissal three years ago). Does he allow people to re-join after they've been previously kicked off? I have no idea about that. ~shrug~

Anyway, I'm game.....if John S. is.


It's always interesting to read Pam's interpretation of what someone says. The way she reads what is written explains the conclusions she draws. How could she not be a CT?


You have to use your real name "DVP"...


I did. (Your disbelief notwithstanding, of course.)


...and you have to provide bio information connected to it.


Does such mandatory info stop at "locale, age, race, sex, favorite cereal, and shoe size"? Or do I have to provide my blood type and last 12 employers as well in order to satisfy Mr. Simkin's hunger for useless data?


Plus, you have to post a photo, which you refused to do.


Incorrect. (As usual.)


Get real.


I have.

Maybe you, though, should learn to read (and comprehend correctly), Pam. That'd help greatly.

Plus, it would probably help if you would refrain from hanging a label of suspicion on people when you have so little reason to do so.

But, hey, maybe I'm just being totally unreasonable to expect such restraint from a conspiracy believer.


If you [Pam] really wanted to "get real" you'd acknowledge that the only reason they started enforcing the photograph requirement was to contrive a reason to kick DVP out. If it wasn't for him posting there, it would have never been an issue, as it wasn't strictly enforced prior to his participation in that forum (and as far as I can tell, there are still members who haven't provided a photo, but these mostly lurk without posting).

The "real" reason they wanted him gone is that he keeps bringing up that pesky evidence that gets in the way of the silly things they want to believe.


You also have to have a photo as your avatar [at The Education Forum] and a bio that provides some information about you. Hard for a persona to do that.


Why? Anyone who can create a "persona" can come up with a pic and create a bio to go with it.

You seem obsessed with ragging on DVP as being a "persona" ... yet you created several fake ID [e-mail] addreses a few months ago to attack me and a couple others. Not knowing what an IP address is, you got outed immediately.

But isn't it more than a tad hypocritical for you to make it such a pursuit to rag on someone else who you accuse of creating a persona ... when you don't have any proof it's true in the first place ... and when you have done the same thing yourself?


Simkin started the thread to find out if "DVP" is an actual person. You figure it out.


When you get right down to it, what difference does it make? What any of us have to deal with are the words others put out....regardless of who, or what, they are.


You, Pam, do little else but distract from discussion of actual research on evidence and issues with nonsense like this on DVP and others ... particularly those who don't buy Judyth [Baker's] story.

Is that your goal?


Three Von Pein threads at the Simkin forum . . . and counting.


He must be seen as an effective threat on something to garner so much interest and attention??


One Nuthouse psycho [at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup] is even calling upon people to bomb DVP's home residence.

It's a swell class of people over there.


A researcher has asked for information on David Von Pein.


Also See:
DVP Vs. Various Individual Conspiracy Theorists

David Von Pein
January 24—February 4, 2009
August 6, 2018




Those Lone Nutters who believe Oswald killed JFK by himself who seem to have time on their hands, having already wrapped up the case, should be able to answer the following questions. I started out shooting for 50, but have come up with a few more.

50+ Questions that can and should be answered about the assassination of President Kennedy....

1.) How many shots were fired, which one missed, and which one was the head shot?


Three shots were fired (total). All of them were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The weapon used: Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (serial number C2766).

Shot #1 @ Zapruder frame 160 (approx.) (the missed shot).

Shot #2 @ Z224 (the SBT shot hitting both Kennedy and Connally).

Shot #3 @ Z313 (quite obviously). The fatal head shot.

2.) From what direction(s) did the shots come?


All three shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. The evidence to support this conclusion is overwhelming in nature (despite the opinions to the contrary expressed by conspiracy proponents).

Only four or five witnesses said they heard shots coming from more than one single direction/location (that's less than 5% of the total witnesses). And more than 75% of the witnesses heard EXACTLY three shots. And THREE expended shells were found under the sniper's window in the Depository. That's pretty decent "Three Shots Were Fired" corroboration right there, sans anything else at all.


Note -- In 2013, John McAdams compiled updated charts regarding the earwitnesses, with even more witnesses now falling into the "three shots" pie slice. Here are the 2013 charts:

3.) Where did the bullets come from? [Vincent] Bugliosi says that Oswald bought them, but there's no evidence of that. Where did they come from? You can’t buy one bullet, you buy bullets like cigarettes in packs and cartons and boxes, each of which has a tracking number that can tell you where and when it was sold and shipped. There were three shell casings found on the floor of the Sixth Floor Sniper’s Nest window and one unused bullet in the chamber.


The only answer to this question is: Nobody knows.

But does that answer have to mean that Lee Oswald did not obtain any bullets to go into his newly-purchased mail-order rifle in March of 1963? Answer--of course not.

After all, common sense would tell a reasonable person that if somebody buys a rifle, then it's logical to assume that the purchaser of that rifle probably would want to get some bullets to put into that rifle. And I think it's fairly obvious that Oswald did, indeed, obtain some bullets (from somewhere) to put into his Carcano rifle prior to his shooting at General Edwin Walker with that gun on April 10, 1963, and (of course) also prior to taking that same gun to work with him on November 22, 1963, and firing three bullets at President Kennedy.

A logical question I could throw back in the face of the CTers would be this one.....

Since many many Internet conspiracists actually believe in the fairy tale theory that has Oswald being set up and framed as the "patsy" for JFK's murder (with many of those same CTers also believing that the entire paper trail that links Oswald with the Carcano rifle is a phony/fake paper trail)....then why didn't those patsy plotters take the additional step of phonying up some documents that would provide a paper trail for LHO's bullet purchases too?

Did the plotters just figure nobody would ask the question Bill Kelly just asked: Where did Oswald buy his bullets??


A final common-sense inquiry....

Who buys a rifle and then never purchases a single bullet to go into it?

Food for Carcano thought....isn't it?

4.) Where did the rifle come from? How come nobody at the post office recalls handing the weapons over the counter to Oswald?


The rifle came from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago. It was shipped to OSWALD'S known alias (A. Hidell) to OSWALD'S own post-office box in Dallas. Why this question is even asked over and over again by the conspiracy crowd is a huge mystery to me, because Oswald's ownership of the Carcano rifle could not be any more solid, firm, final, and irrevocable.

OSWALD'S handwriting is on the money order that paid for the rifle.

OSWALD'S writing is also on the order form for the rifle...and on the envelope mailed to Klein's.

And OSWALD'S P.O. Box number is the address that Klein's definitely shipped the rifle to on 3/20/63 (per Waldman No. 7 below). And the serial number is on this internal Klein's order form too. How much more proof is required than this to prove that Rifle C2766 found in the TSBD was OSWALD'S/"HIDELL'S" own rifle? Is this document supposedly a fake too? Was Klein's Sporting Goods part of the "plot" to frame Oswald too? IOW--how far down "Everything's Fake Avenue" is a sensible person expected to travel?

And why would you expect a postal employee to remember a transaction from many months earlier? It was undoubtedly just another package being picked up by another P.O. Box owner. Nothing more. Nothing less. And detailed records for every package that is picked up at the post office aren't kept.

Put yourself in the shoes of the post office clerk -- After eight months have passed, do you think you could recall handing a particular package to a particular person when, at the time of the transaction, you would have had no reason at all to say to yourself: I'd better make a mental note of THIS particular package pick-up, because this guy picking up this package just might shoot the President eight months from now?

The proof that Oswald ordered and paid for (and, logically, took possession of) Rifle #C2766 (as well as Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210) is a mile deep. Here's how deep it is (including, in the first link below, new information that I obtained recently about the "12" that appears in the postmark on the envelope that Oswald mailed to Klein's):




5.) Where did the leather strap come from? A USAF military sidearm holster strap that had to come from somewhere, from someone who knew the owner of the rifle.


This very peripheral question ranks as #5 on your list, Bill? Geesh. (This laundry list of yours must not be in order of importance, huh?)

Anyway, I'm not sure why you say this: "From someone who knew the owner of the rifle."

Huh? Why did you jump to such a conclusion?

Anyway, just like the "Where Did The Bullets Come From?" inquiry, this question is also in the "Unanswerable" category. AFAIK, we can never know exactly where Lee Oswald obtained the homemade-like sling that was attached to his rifle. He very likely could have gotten it from any number of places. Nobody can know for certain.

But, again, just like with the bullets, where does this type of question go anyway? Does it necessarily have to lead down "Conspiracy Road" or "Patsy Boulevard"? No, it does not. And anyone who thinks that just because there are no definitive answers to questions like these (regarding the bullets and the leather strap), it therefore means something sinister and that Oswald is innocent---is wrong. It means no such thing.

As a parallel, do you think it's necessary to know where and when O.J. Simpson bought the knife he used to kill his two victims in 1994? Heck, the murder weapon was never even found in that murder case--but Simpson's guilt is blatantly obvious nonetheless--and has been proven scientifically.

But in the JFK case, we DO have the murder weapon--and the verifiable murder weapon that killed John F. Kennedy belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. The bullets that struck the President came from OSWALD'S very own gun. Shouldn't that fact be at least a little bit pertinent to the conspiracists of the world?

6.) Why is there a scope attached that wasn’t used by the Sixth Floor Sniper?


Why are you assuming something you can't possibly know or prove, Bill? You don't know for a fact that the sixth-floor sniper (Oswald, of course) did not use the telescopic sight when he was shooting JFK. And I don't know either. It's another one of those "unanswerable" questions--Did he or didn't he use the scope? We can never know for sure.

But there's one thing about the rifle that is not debatable -- bullets from OSWALD'S rifle were definitely fired at JFK's limousine on 11/22/63. (And you surely don't want to claim that the two front-seat bullet fragments that came out of Oswald's gun were "planted". Do you, Bill?)

7.) What fingerprints were found on the rifle, shells, boxes, soda bottles, windows, doors, other locations within the TSBD/fingerprints that could be connected to Oswald or others?


I don't know the answer to this question as it relates to "windows", "doors", "soda bottles", "shells", and "other locations". And I don't really know if some of those items were even checked for fingerprints, such as doors and windows.

But we do know that your resident "patsy" had his prints lifted off of various objects that were obviously used by the assassin of JFK -- e.g., the Sniper's Nest boxes and the rifle and the paper bag found in the corner of the Nest (and multiple police officers DID testify that they DID see that paper sack [CE142] on the floor in the Sniper's Nest after the shooting--Robert Studebaker, Lt. J.C. Day, Marvin Johnson, and L.D. Montgomery all said they saw it there on the floor).

Perhaps more things on the sixth floor should have been checked for fingerprints. I don't know. But I do know that the person who owned the weapon that killed JFK had his prints on a lot of stuff on that sixth floor on 11/22/63. And yes, he worked there on a daily basis since October 16th. I don't deny that fact. And yes, he was up on that sixth floor probably every day that he worked there, giving him the opportunity to place his prints on any number of boxes and other objects on that sixth floor.

But the RIFLE and that empty 38-inch-long PAPER SACK were certainly NOT things that Lee Oswald would normally be touching on any other day except November 22, 1963. And the prints of Oswald's on the boxes (deep inside the Sniper's Nest), IMO, serve as corroborating evidence which only further bolster the idea that Oswald was, indeed, present at that sixth-floor window when Kennedy drove through Dealey Plaza.

Those "box prints" themselves don't prove Oswald shot the President. But when we ADD those prints to the OTHER things linked to Oswald inside that very same sniper's lair, then I think those box prints become more significant. How could a reasonable person examining ALL of the Sniper's Nest evidence simply toss aside the fact that Oswald's own prints were also located on two of those boxes inside that Nest? And his fairly fresh prints at that (according to the FBI fingerprint expert).

8.) How did the rifle get into the building without B.W. Frazier recognizing it?



It would appear that now Mr. Kelly is inventing dumb questions just in order to inflate the number of inquiries on his laundry list. Because this one is really strange (and silly).

Of course, the answer is: Buell Frazier didn't recognize Oswald's rifle because Oswald had it wrapped up in this handmade paper bag:

Was Frazier supposed to wrestle the bag away from Oswald as Lee carried it to the building, with Frazier then ripping open the package to see what was inside?

Will the rest of Bill's questions rise above the level of silliness exhibited in question #8? Let's see....

9.) What became of the “confession” that the DPD tried to get B.W. Frazier to sign and what did it say?


This is yet another "unknowable"/"unanswerable" question. But I've got an opinion about this (which, I'll admit, is an opinion that might be dead wrong, but this is my feeling on this matter).....

Buell Wesley Frazier has recently said in multiple interviews that he was treated in a pretty rough fashion by DPD Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz on 11/22/63, with Frazier even saying that Fritz raised a hand to physically strike Frazier at one point when he was being questioned at City Hall. And Frazier also has said that Fritz was practically FORCING him to sign a "confession" of some kind that would indicate he was part of a conspiracy with Oswald to kill the President.

But I for one think that Mr. Frazier is overstating these occurrences. I don't believe for one second that Captain Fritz became violent or raised his hand as if to hit Wesley Frazier. I just do not think that happened. And I doubt very much that Frazier was TOLD to sign any "confession" either.

However, I suppose it's possible that Fritz did, indeed, exert some degree of pressure on Frazier during his interrogation. After all, the DPD had no idea at that time whether this guy Frazier was a part of a plot with Oswald or not. For all they knew, maybe Frazier was supposed to be Oswald's getaway driver or something. After all, Frazier DID drive Oswald (and the rifle) to work that day. But as far as the threats that Frazier alludes to, I'm quite skeptical.

10.) Who else besides Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting, and why didn’t Oswald prepare for JFK like he did for Walker – taking photos of the scene, keeping notebook, leaving note with instructions for Marina, etc.?


There is no hard evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in the shooting of Edwin Walker on April 10th, 1963. If you'd like to speculate that the witness (or witnesses) who saw various vehicles outside of Walker's house at the time of the shooting indicates a "plot" to kill Walker--well, I guess you're free to speculate about such things. But it's not going to get you very far.

And can anyone with one good eye possibly deny that these two bullets are very similar (CE573 is the Walker bullet)?:

As for Oswald's preparations for killing Kennedy, once again, in order to answer this type of unanswerable question, we'd have to possess the ability to get inside the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald very likely didn't make any advanced plans to kill JFK simply because there really wasn't very much time for him to do so anyway. He couldn't have possibly learned about the exact Houston-to-Elm motorcade route until November 19 (at the earliest). And from his behavior and his remarks made to Marina on November 21st, I think his plan to shoot Kennedy was still a tentative and undecided one. Yes, he definitely went to Irving on Nov. 21st to retrieve his rifle (the "curtain rod" lie he told to Buell Frazier on Thursday morning pretty much proves this fact), but as far as his murderous plan being fixed in concrete as of Thursday night, I doubt that it was.

More on that here.

11.) Did George diMohrenschildt [sic] mention Oswald to the CIA officers he met in NYC two weeks after he identified Oswald as the Walker shooter?


I don't have the slightest idea.

12.) How did a German magazine learn of Oswald’s connection to the Walker shooting before the DPD?


I haven't the foggiest. But I'd be willing to bet that this is another one of the hundreds of mangled "myths" associated with the JFK case. But I've never heard about this one myself.

But there were some American reporters who were right on the ball regarding a possible connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting. As early as Saturday afternoon, November 23rd, during one of Chief Jesse Curry's many hallway interviews, a reporter asked Curry this question (which certainly was a good question indeed):

"Is there any connection yet between this and the firing at Major General Walker?"

Curry's reply was "I do not know."

13.) Who were the McCurley Brothers – who allegedly assisted Oswald in distributing FPCC leaflets in New Orleans, and did they know a man named Hidel [sic]?


Beats me. Moe, Larry, and McCurley perhaps?

14.) How did the rifle get from Dallas to New Orleans in April of 1963 and back again in September 1963?


Ruth Paine transported the rifle back to Dallas/Irving in her station wagon in Sept. '63. Ruth drove Lee Oswald and some of his possessions to the bus station in April of '63 when Lee moved from Dallas to New Orleans. I think it's fairly clear that Oswald's rifle was among those possessions he took by bus to New Orleans.

We know that Lee had the rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63. Marina testified as follows:

J. LEE RANKIN. When did you first notice the rifle at New Orleans?

MARINA OSWALD. As soon as I arrived in New Orleans.

Mr. RANKIN. Where was it kept there?

Mrs. OSWALD. He again had a closet-like room with his things in it. He had his clothes hanging there, all his other belongings.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle in a cover there?


Mr. RANKIN. Did you notice him take it away from your home there in New Orleans at any time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle.

15.) Why weren’t Ruth and Michael Paine called to testify under oath by the HSCA or ARRB or today?


HSCA: I have no idea.

ARRB: There was no reason for anybody to testify in front of the ARRB. Their job was to release documents, not to re-investigate the case. If it weren't for Doug Horne's bagful of idiocy regarding the medical evidence, there wouldn't have been ANY testimony taken by the ARRB at all. Nor did there need to be any taken, given the ARRB's mandate and responsibilities. Horne's conclusions, as we all know, were a joke and an utter embarrassment to Mr. Tunheim's Review Board.

TODAY: Huh? You think President Obama should re-open the case to satisfy the whims of you conspiracy theorists? And then Ruth Paine should be called to the witness stand again? What for? Another investigation will only give you yet another "official" committee to snub your nose at. So what's the point? Or maybe you think the next investigation should be headed up by the "Alteration Brothers" perhaps -- David Lifton and Doug Horne. (That'd be some farce, wouldn't it?)

16.) Who were the twin Hale brothers, sons of Dallas FBI agent, seen by FBI agents breaking into the apartment of Mob moll and JFK mistress Judyth Campbell Exner [sic], one of whom would later kill John Connally’s daughter?


I haven't the foggiest. Nor do I care.

17.) If Oswald killed JFK to obtain notoriety, as alleged, then why did he deny committing the deed?


But you'll have to agree that Oswald DID achieve a whole lot of "notoriety" by doing things his way (i.e., by not admitting he killed anyone). Right, Bill?

So, either way, he gained the fame he sought. And by denying guilt, and if Jack Ruby hadn't intervened, Oswald would have been the front-page news for months at his high-profile trial. That's something he would certainly relish. That's better than confessing.

18.) If Oswald was seen on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:15 pm, then who was the person seen with a rifle on the Sixth Floor at that time?


Oswald was the person holding a gun on the west side of the Depository at approx. 12:15 (per Arnold Rowland's account). Oswald wasn't on the second floor at 12:15. Carolyn Arnold's story is full of inconsistencies and time discrepancies.


19.) If Oswald was seen by Baker on the other side of the closed Second Floor lunchroom door at 12:31 pm, if he went through that door as he would have to do if he was the assassin, how come that Roy Truly, ahead of Baker, didn’t see him, as he should have?


We're talking about a matter of a few seconds in real time. And those few seconds could have made the difference here. Oswald must have just barely slipped through the lunchroom door a matter of seconds before BOTH Truly and Baker got to the second floor.

Now, tell me how my above scenario is totally out of the realm of possibility.

20.) If Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed Second Floor Lunchroom door, isn’t it more logical that he entered the three door vestibule through the south door, as he said he did, and therefore was not the Sixth Floor Sniper?


Not when we factor in all of that "Oswald Did It" evidence that he left up on the sixth floor.

Plus, I've theorized in the past that the slender Mr. Oswald might very well have opened that vestibule door only a fraction of the way. You don't need to open a door all the way in order to get to the other side. I think Oswald realized that fact and only opened it as far as he needed to, in order to slide his slender frame inside the door. Therefore, the door didn't take nearly as long to close.

21.) If Oswald was on the second floor when Baker and Truly encountered him at 12:31 pm, who was the man in the Sixth Floor Sniper window moving boxes around a few minutes after the last shot?


There was no man in the window "a few minutes after the last shot". It's a ridiculous theory to begin with. Why on Earth would anyone have felt any need to move boxes around right after the shooting? It's dumb.

John Mytton has created a really nice gif clip which merges the Powell and Dillard pictures together, and the merged montage indicates that no boxes were moved at all. It's all a matter of perspective. Here's Mytton's montage gif:

22.) If Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper, then who was the man in the white shirt and bald spot on the top of his head who shot at JFK from that window and how did he get out of the building?


Oswald was, of course, the sixth-floor sniper, so the person with the "bald spot" that Amos Euins talked about in his testimony is Lee Harvey Oswald--without doubt. Euins was mistaken about the bald spot, of course. But he also had a hard time figuring out whether the sniper was black or white too. So we should take his descriptions of the assassin with a good-sized grain of salt.

23.) How come Oswald, if he had just shot the president, deposited the rifle behind boxes and ran down four flights of steps to get to the Second Floor Lunchroom before Baker – 90 seconds after the last shot – how come he wasn’t out of breath from running and hyper from having just blown JFK’s brains out, but instead his demeanor was cool, calm and collected, just as he was 30 seconds later when he encountered Mrs. Reid. After the Walker shooting, Oswald was still hyper and excited hours later. Was Oswald the “cool” assassin, or wasn’t he the killer at all?


But you don't really think Oswald shot at Walker either, do you Bill?

Anyway, here again we are faced with an unanswerable type of question. Who can know these things for sure? Nobody can. But this type of question does not magically ERASE all of that evidence with Oswald's name on it that's on the sixth floor. That evidence is still going to exist no matter what Oswald's demeanor was like when he encountered Marrion Baker.

And his cool demeanor is just as indicative of guilt, IMO. Because any truly INNOCENT person would probably NOT be cool and calm and TOTALLY SILENT when confronted at gunpoint by a police officer. An innocent person would probably have been rattled, startled, scared, and would have said SOMETHING to Baker, like: "What did I do? Why are you pointing a gun at ME?"

But Oswald says nothing. You know why? Because he didn't NEED to say those things--because he, and he alone, was the only person on the planet at 12:31 PM who knew exactly what had just happened out on Elm Street in front of the Book Depository. Ergo, he expected the cops to be crawling all over the building in very short order. Which is one of the main reasons he scurried down four flights of stairs in a very short amount of time right after the shooting.

Surely, even conspiracy theorists wouldn't expect ANY assassin to just loiter on the sixth floor playing dominoes for a half-hour after having just killed the President. Would they, William?

24.) Why do those who believe that Oswald killed the President all by himself also claim he was a no good, crazy loser rather than the very good and successful assassin he had to be?


Why can't both descriptions apply to Oswald? I think they can.....

He WAS a very successful Presidential assassin. (The evidence proves that fact beyond doubt.)


He was "no good". (Most Presidential assassins can--and should--be classified as such, don't you agree?)

He was "crazy". (Again, to be a Presidential assassin, you've got to be at least a tad bit bonkers, right?)

He was a "loser". (Most everybody agrees on this point to describe Oswald, whether they belong in the Conspiracy camp or the Lone Assassin camp.)

Therefore, both of the descriptions laid out by Bill Kelly above are most appropriate to describe Lee Harvey Oswald.

25.) What became of the Coke bottle? What became of the Dr. Pepper bottle found on the Sixth Floor? And what became of the photos of the broken soda bottle at the base of the park bench on the Grassy Knoll?


Are you referring to the Coke bottle which is sitting atop the retaining wall in some of the photos taken in Dealey Plaza? Or do you mean Oswald's Coke bottle? In either case, I have no idea. But is it really important?

As for the broken soda bottles (and I think Marilyn Sitzman said there were two bottles that were broken by the young couple on the park bench), again, I haven't any idea. But what difference does it make?

And the Dr. Pepper bottle has no relation to Oswald. We know this bottle on the sixth floor belonged to Bonnie Ray Williams:

26.) What became of [the] black couple who were sitting on that park bench eating lunch and drinking the soda when they witnessed the assassination [and] accidentally broke the bottle. What did they see and why haven’t they come forward?


Lots of witnesses have never been identified. In fact, how many of the women lining the north side of Elm Street have ever been officially identified (other than Mary Woodward)? How many of those women gave statements to the police and/or gave testimony to the Warren Commission? Any idea? My guess is: very few.

And these women (who are believed to be nothing but "cardboard cutouts" by the Jim Fetzers of the world) were actually some of the closest witnesses to the President when the shooting occurred. Were all these women kept under wraps because of what they knew?

27.) What became of Ms. McKinnon, who claims to have witnessed the assassination from the Grassy Knoll and has since disappeared?


I've heard recently that Ms. McKinnon is not really Ms. McKinnon at all. The "cowering" woman believed for years to be named McKinnon is actually another person altogether. (Or so I heard.) The woman's daughter (Karen Moore) came forward in just the last few months to make the claim that it was her mother, and not the McKinnon woman, who is seen crouching on the Knoll in films after the shooting.

Whether the new story is accurate, I have no idea. But, again, as I stated in my last post, MANY witnesses in the Plaza were never identified and never gave statements. Why single out THIS person or THAT person, when we know that dozens and dozens of different people all belong in that same "Never Identified" category?

28.) Why hasn’t the HSCA acoustics study been followed up on and the acoustical evidence evaluated properly?


You don't think the NAS/NRC study in the early 1980s produced a "proper" evaluation of the acoustics evidence, Bill? Why not? What's wrong with the NAS study?

BTW, here's a rare interview with one of the scientists who studied the Dictabelt evidence for the National Academy of Sciences in the 1980s (Charles Rader).

29.) What is the provenance of CE#399?



30.) What’s the real story behind the DNA testing of CE#345?


I'm not familiar with this subject at all. And CE345 is a photo of the back of the limousine. Did you get the right CE number?

31.) Why wasn’t the TSBD building secured immediately by the three DPD officers out front?


Yes, the building I suppose could have been sealed off a little sooner than it was. I think the official "sealing" time was 12:37 PM, seven minutes after the shooting and about four minutes after Oswald escaped the building.

So, in hindsight and in a perfect world where everybody does everything perfectly and in a timely manner, it would have been better if the police had sealed the building at 12:31 instead of 12:37. But that's the way it was. You don't think the seven-minute delay was deliberate, to allow the "real assassins" to escape, do you Bill?

32.) Why did so many witnesses believe the shots came from the Grassy Knoll and run there afterwards if no shots came from there?


Better question --- If you had just seen the President murdered by rifle fire and if you had truly thought the killer was located on the Grassy Knoll, would you have any desire to run directly toward the source of the gunfire? IMO, that's nuts. I'd be wanting to run in the OPPOSITE direction--AWAY from the assassin--not run right into his arms.

Most of the witnesses who ran up the Knoll probably didn't know exactly where the shooter was located, and they just followed the crowd. Yes, Jean Hill would be an exception there, because she WAS, indeed, crazy enough to want to chase the gunman up the Knoll after thinking the shots had just come from the place she was running toward. And she admitted in a radio interview that she "didn't have any better sense, because I started running up there too".

But more than half of the witnesses thought the only shots they heard came from the Book Depository.

IMO, the sound played tricks on the "Knoll" witnesses' ears. The sounds of Oswald's TSBD shots were such that many witnesses thought those shots came from a point further WEST than they actually originated.

Call me a silly little "WC defender" (like Tony Marsh constantly does), but that's my opinion nonetheless. In fact, given the overall weight of the evidence that convinces me there was no Grassy Knoll shooter at all, the opinion I just gave HAS to be my opinion about this matter. How could I possibly buy any other explanation?

33.) How come – if Brennan and Eunis [sic; Euins] and other witnesses told DPD and Sheriff’s officers that they saw a sniper with [a] rifle in the SE corner window of the TSBD sixth floor at 12:31, how come it wasn’t located and secured until Sheriff’s deputy Luke Mooney “discovered” it after 1 pm?


That's not a bad question, Bill. And I do not have the answer to that question. And I, too, have pondered that same thing myself.

But the fact remains that an APB bulletin was definitely put out on the Dallas Police radio at 12:45 PM concerning the description of the TSBD sniper. There's no doubt that such an APB was broadcast on the DPD radio at 12:45 PM.

And even if that 12:45 PM description of the sniper didn't come from Howard Brennan, who we know saw a gunman in the sixth-floor window, then it would mean that yet ANOTHER witness saw pretty much the same thing that Brennan did -- i.e., a slender white gunman in the TSBD who was about 5-10 in height and weighed about 165 pounds. That description matches Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit too--don't forget that.

So, I can't see how you can create anything sinister or conspiratorial out of this topic at all. Because you can't just ignore the fact that several witnesses did see a gunman and/or a rifle in the sixth-floor window when the assassination was occurring. So, despite any delay in finding the Sniper's Nest, those witnesses still do exist and they saw what they saw. But for some reason, the word didn't spread to the investigating officers (such as Mooney) who were searching inside the Depository. ~shrug~

34.) Who was the man in the Sixth Floor Sniper window with a rifle, standing at port arms with the rifle, the one in a white shirt and bald spot on top of his head? And who was the man in the brown sports coat who was seen on the Sixth Floor with the man in the white shirt and rifle?


The only gunman was Oswald (of course). Not every single witness report was correct. You surely can appreciate that fact, can't you? How many assassins with rifles do you think were firing at JFK from the Depository anyway? Two? Three? More?

35.) Who was the man in the white shirt who ran down the Grassy Knoll and got into a Rambler station wagon?


Yet another unanswerable question. Nobody knows who the Rambler Man is. But there's one person we know it wasn't. Can you guess who that is?

Somebody got in a Rambler at about 12:40 PM, yes. But it wasn't Oswald. He was getting on Cecil McWatters' bus at about that same moment. And the bus transfer ticket proves it. (Don't tell me THAT was planted on Oswald too?)

36.) How come there is no film or photo of Oswald leaving the front door of the TSBD, as there should be? Or is there?


Why do you say "as there should be"? Why do you think a photo or film MUST exist of Oswald exiting the building? Quite obviously you're wrong when you say "as there should be", and here's the logical reason why you're wrong about that....

Since you think Oswald should definitely have been photographed if he left the TSBD at about 12:33 PM on November 22, then that certainly must mean you also think that both Robert MacNeil and Pierce Allman should have been photographed as they entered the building that day too (and as they each possibly encountered and spoke to Lee Harvey Oswald on their way into the building).

But as far as I know, no photo or film exists showing either MacNeil or Allman near the entrance of the Depository at about 12:33 or 12:34 PM. And we KNOW for a fact that both of those reporters did enter the building at about that time through the front entrance.

And there are no doubt many other witnesses who were near the TSBD on November 22 shortly after the shooting who were not captured in photos or films taken that day either.

Plus, your argument goes nowhere (really fast) when we approach it from another angle too:

Even without having Oswald on film as he departed the Depository, we KNOW he definitely DID leave the building very shortly after the shots were fired at the President. You surely don't deny that the following two facts are 100% true, do you Bill?....

1.) Lee Oswald was INSIDE the Book Depository Building at about 12:31 to 12:32 PM when he encountered Marrion Baker and Roy Truly on the second floor.

2.) Lee Oswald hurriedly entered his roominghouse on Beckley Avenue at about 1:00 PM. (Earlene Roberts confirms this fact.)

And since Oswald was not capable of flying the 2+-mile distance between the Depository and 1026 N. Beckley in Oak Cliff, then he obviously utilized some means of transportation to get to his roominghouse within roughly 28 minutes of encountering Baker in the TSBD.

Ergo, Oswald had to have departed the Depository very shortly after 12:32 PM. Wouldn't you agree?

So what's your point? What are you trying to prove? Are you implying that Oswald really wasn't Oswald and never left the building shortly after 12:30?

37.) Why did Oswald walk seven blocks east of the TSBD and then get on a bus going back to the scene? And why did he get on a bus that would take him away from his rooming house when the bus behind it went directly to it?


I think the answers to these questions are obvious, Bill. Basic common sense and logic provide the best answers:

After having just shot the President from his workplace, Oswald certainly wasn't going to just hang around the Depository's front stoop and shoot the breeze with Wes Frazier, Bill Shelley, and Billy Lovelady.

Oswald naturally wanted to get the heck out of Dodge as quickly as he could, and since he had no car to take him anywhere, he utilized his own two feet to walk several blocks east of the murder scene, in order to quickly put as much distance between himself and the Depository as he possibly could.

And the fact that he boarded a Marsalis Street bus instead of waiting to board his usual Beckley bus is a real good indication that November 22nd wasn't just an ordinary day for Lee Harvey Oswald. He got on Cecil McWatters' Marsalis bus because it was very likely the first bus he saw as he walked east on Elm Street that day.

And he probably wanted to get off the street as soon as he could too. So he hopped on the first bus to come along (which was, of course, travelling back toward the Depository; but there's no other direction McWatters' bus COULD be travelling, because Elm Street was a one-way street going west; so Oswald had no choice of directions at that point, if he chose to board a vehicle on Elm, which he did).

And the fact that the bus was moving toward the scene of the shooting was probably not a big deal to Oswald at that time. After all, how likely would it be that the police would be stopping and searching every bus and car and cab that was travelling down Elm Street? Not very likely. So Oswald felt safe aboard that bus, even though he knew it would have to pass right through Dealey Plaza (if the traffic jam hadn't impeded its progress).

Now, let me reverse the tables for just a moment here and ask you these questions:

If Lee Oswald had been the totally innocent patsy that so many conspiracy proponents truly believe he was (i.e., he shot nobody on 11/22/63 and was completely unaware of the assassination plot that swirled all around him, which is indeed the type of "innocence" that some CTers advocate for Mr. Oswald--with one of those CTers being veteran Internet forum participant J. Raymond Carroll)....then how can Oswald's actions right after the assassination be explained away?

Why does he do such out-of-the-ordinary things on November 21st and 22nd if, as J. Raymond Carroll and a few others believe, he was a complete and total unwitting patsy/fall guy?

How can a conspiracy theorist like Carroll possibly explain Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving to get those nonexistent "curtain rods"? And the large package that LHO took to work with him on November 22nd? How is Oswald's brown paper package conveniently and "innocently" explained away by the conspiracy theorists (particularly when we KNOW that Oswald told a lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about that package containing curtain rods)?

And what about Oswald leaving the TSBD building within just a few minutes of the assassination? Why did he do that if he's totally snow-white innocent?

And, as you asked, what about the fact Oswald walked several blocks east on Elm right after the shooting took place? Why wouldn't he have just stayed there at the corner of Elm & Houston (at the bus stop on that corner) and waited for his usual Beckley bus to pick him up? Why walk further AWAY from his Oak Cliff destination?

And, indeed, as you also asked, why would he get on the WRONG BUS if he wasn't in a big hurry to get off the streets of Dallas? Why would he do that if he had done nothing he wanted to run away from that day?

More food for "Patsy Oswald" thought, don't you think?

38.) Why did Oswald offer his cab to an old lady if he was escaping the scene of a crime, and why did he take it five blocks past his rooming house?


The answer to the first part of your question is, of course, another unknowable. Who knows why Oswald offered to give up the cab? Nobody can know. But, after all, Oswald WAS right there at the Greyhound taxi stand. And there were bound to be more taxis coming and going from that taxi stand in a very short time. And, in fact, we know that another cab pulled up right behind William Whaley's cab when the lady stuck her head in the window.

As to why Oswald took the cab three blocks beyond his roominghouse (it wasn't five blocks beyond, because Oswald was dropped off at the corner of Beckley & Neely, which is the 700 block of Beckley), I think the answer to that is two-fold:

He didn't want cab driver Whaley to be able to tell anybody later exactly where he lived. And, probably of more critical importance to Oswald at the time, he wanted to check the area of his roominghouse for police activity. Oswald would have had no way of knowing how quickly the police would be on his trail, and he certainly didn't want to walk right into the arms of a waiting policeman on his Beckley doorstep.

Yes, it's true that Oswald wouldn't have to have driven three whole blocks beyond his room in order to see if some police were at 1026 N. Beckley, but he might have been thinking that anybody who wanted to surprise the Presidential assassin probably wouldn't be advertising himself by parking his marked police car right in front of 1026 Beckley. Therefore, he wanted to "case" the neighborhood a few blocks away from his room. (IMO, that's what he did.)

I'll once again reverse the tables regarding this question:

If Lee Oswald didn't have anything to hide and wasn't worried about being picked up by the authorities on 11/22/63, then why indeed did he tell William Whaley to drive a few blocks beyond his roominghouse that day?

In the final analysis, doesn't this type of strange behavior on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald on the day the President was shot from Oswald's own workplace lead much more toward Oswald's GUILT than it does his INNOCENCE?

39.) Who gave the DPD the description of the assassin that was broadcast over the police radio at 12:45pm?


I touched on this topic in answering Question #33. It was very likely Howard L. Brennan who provided the description that was broadcast on the DPD radio at 12:45. But even if it wasn't Brennan--so what? In fact, I've always kind of liked the idea that maybe it WASN'T Brennan who was responsible for that APB broadcast. Because in that case, as I mentioned before in Question 33, it means that there was yet another (unidentified) person in Dealey Plaza who described the sixth-floor TSBD assassin virtually the same way that Howard Brennan did. Here's the verbatim words that were broadcast over the Dallas Police radio at 12:45 PM CST on November 22, 1963, just fifteen minutes after President Kennedy was shot:

"Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, 5 feet 10 inches tall, 165 pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45."

Let's compare that description with what Howard Brennan wrote in his 11/22/63 affidavit:

"He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds."

Notice any similarities?

Of course, the part about the suspect being armed with a "30-30 rifle" probably didn't come from Brennan, because Brennan didn't know guns at all. So that part of the 12:45 DPD broadcast must have come from a different source entirely. But the description of the assassin is identical to the way Brennan himself described the assassin just a short time later on November 22nd in his Sheriff's Department affidavit.

40.) Who was in the DPD cop car outside Oswald’s rooming house while he was there?


Bill, you probably should change the title of this list of questions, because the current title of "50 Questions that Can and Should be Answered" is certainly not accurate when it comes to many of the unanswerable questions you've been asking so far -- such as this 40th entry.

Your thread title suggests that this question "can" be answered. Well, it cannot be answered. Nobody knows the answer to it, and it's very likely that nobody will ever know the answer to it.

But when this topic about the police car stopping in front of the Beckley roominghouse comes up, I always like to mention this fact (copied from an earlier Internet post I made on the subject):

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

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

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

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

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

-- DVP; April 17, 2008

41.) Who was Tippit calling from the Top Ten Records shop phone ten minutes before he was killed?



Once again--unanswerable.

How the heck am I supposed to answer these unknowable questions, Bill? How can anybody possibly answer them? How?

42.) Who was the “Oswald” patron at the Top Ten shop and the beer drinking Oswald with the drivers license ID?


Once more--unanswerable. (I'm detecting a pattern here.)

43.) Why did Tippit stop his assailant?


This question also falls under the heading of "unanswerable" (since J.D. Tippit would be the only person who could possibly answer this question, and he was killed by Oswald). But it is an interesting question nonetheless. And I think the probable answer is:

Officer J.D. Tippit, for some reason, was somewhat suspicious of Oswald's movements. And Tippit had certainly heard the radio broadcast about the description of JFK's assassin....and in a general way, Oswald matched that description (slender white male; 5-feet-10, 165 pounds).

I don't think there's any reason whatsoever to think that Oswald was stopped by Tippit for any reason other than the one I just suggested.

44.) Whose wallet was found at the scene [of J.D. Tippit's murder] and examined by officers?


It was probably J.D. Tippit's wallet.

More in this 3-part series ---> JFK Archives / Wallets

45.) Who found the jacket under the car and where did the cleaning tag come from?


Don't know. But we know that Oswald left his roominghouse zipping up a jacket, but he didn't have that jacket on when he was seen about 35 minutes later lurking in the entrance to Johnny Brewer's shoe store. And the jacket was found along the route that was taken by J.D. Tippit's killer.

The math isn't too hard to figure out here, is it?

46.) Who were the IBM employees at the shoe store when Tippit’s assailant came by?


Is there some reason anybody should care about this?


47.) Who was the “Oswald” guy who entered the theater at around 1 pm who bought a ticket and popcorn?


Gee, lookie here! Another unanswerable question.

But maybe John "Multiple Oswalds" Armstrong knows the answer. Go ask him.

The remainder of Bill Kelly's laundry list of questions aren't very meaningful or intriguing, and most of them, once again, reside in the "unanswerable" category, and therefore I can't possibly answer them. Except perhaps the question about the disappearance of JFK's brain. The answer there, while unknowable, is that Robert Kennedy, just as the HSCA concluded, very likely disposed of his brother's brain in 1965, in order to keep it from possibly becoming a freak show exhibit at some point in the future.

William Kelly was obviously straining his brain to come up with additional questions to befuddle weak-minded lone-assassin believers like myself. HERE are Bill's remaining questions if anyone wants to see them.

Amazingly, Bill didn't want to ask a single question about the Single-Bullet Theory or JFK's head snap to the rear after the fatal shot. And nothing about the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest. And not a word about the Parkland Hospital doctors who said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. Not a word about Jim Garrison either.

Oh well. Maybe Bill will include those questions when he expands his list to 100 someday.

And I guess Bill's question about the IBM employees at the shoe store and the question about where Oswald's leather strap came from and the one about the "McCurley Brothers" are far more important things to ask than any of those things I just mentioned.

~big shrug ~

David Von Pein
September 2013