(PART 326)


>>> "You obviously, by your own admittance, have damaged your own credibility. You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical evidence." <<<


Somebody tell me that I'm dreaming and that a kook named Gil didn't write the above paragraph. Because that paragraph up there from Gil is just too darn deliciously ironic and hilarious to be believed. Even for Gilbert.

Let's bask in its Pot/Kettle irony once more.....

"You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical evidence."

As Rochester Van Jones was wont to say to Jack Benny -- Yep...he really did say that! He said it alright!

Gil evidently thinks that he never "absorbs unproven claims as fact".

What about the entire "Oswald As Patsy" claim, Gil?

What about the whole notion of those extra bullets entering JFK and Connally on 11/22/63?

What about the whole notion of the huge police and Warren Commission "cover-up" that you kooks believe is 100% true, Gil?

What about those "unproven claims"? (And a hundred more like them.)

Let's see what's next out of this kook's mouth that will undoubtedly make him look like a bigger idiot.....

>>> "Unlike the many Dealey Plaza witnesses whose word you WON'T take..." <<<

More stupid shit cherry-picked from Gil's own fruit trees, I see.

What about all the Dealey Plaza witnesses that you discard as being wrong and/or untruthful, Gil? What about Howard Brennan? Do YOU take his "word" as the truth?

What about Robert Jackson and Mal Couch and Charles Brehm and Jim Altgens and Harold Norman and Junior Jarman and many others that go against the "conspiracy grain" in many different ways? Are they to be discarded?

Gil doesn't practice what he preaches. He types a Pot/Kettle post...THEN thinks about it afterward (maybe).

>>> "I'm done with this thread David..." <<<

Wanna bet?

>>> "I'm letting you off the hook." <<<

If this post of Gil's gets any funnier, my bladder will not support the onslaught. (And everybody here knows of its weak status. So, if you have ANY mercy, Gil, you'll stop pretty soon.)

>>> "You've proven yourself to be a liar, a con-artist, a deceiver and a phony." <<<

You left out: "WC shill", "VB butt-kisser", "CIA disinfo agent", and "baby-killing psycho".....right?

>>> "You twist things around and put your own little spin on them. You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete evidence. You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without doing any background research." <<<

Oh....my bladder!

Can this "Pot Meets Kettle" post get any more ridiculous? Is that physically possible at this point?

A CT-Kook is actually telling an LNer these things, folks:

"You twist things around and put your own little spin on them."

"You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete evidence."

"You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without doing any background research."

It just can't get any better than this.

If everybody reading this isn't currently laid out on the floor from laughing so hard, it can only be because they died from laughing at having seen the first half of Gil's post.

>>> "The lurkers can see what a fraud you are." <<<

Pot...here comes a great-big Kettle (once again).

Now that Gil has stepped several inches deeper into his CT-Kook Quicksand via this latest post of his, I'd like to thank him for today's bawdy entertainment here at The Asylum.

My bladder burst several times during Gil's soliloquy, but it was worth the extra trips to the bathroom.

As for my never doing any "background research" -- Click Here.

David Von Pein
September 10, 2008

(PART 325)


>>> "Too bad Lattimer can't tell us himself which one asked him, Canal or Davison. They both seem to take credit for asking him." <<<


You're nuts. They do no such thing.

Where in this short thread does Jean Davison take any "credit" for having asked John Lattimer herself about the issue regarding the serial number?

Answer: Nowhere.

When Jean said: "It was I who asked, John...", she was responding to John Canal's comment in his first post, when John said: "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer...". She wasn't implying that it was she, herself, who had asked John Lattimer any questions. This is quite obvious when reading the two Canal/Davison posts back-to-back.

Gil can't even interpret a short three-post thread correctly. Incredible.

Anyway, this is just another "So what?" issue raised by Gil "Chaff Always Trumps Wheat" Jesus.

As if the person who initially did the asking regarding the serial number on Lattimer's rifle would have changed Dr. Lattimer's response of: "The book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late to correct it."

Gil is simply....well....amazing.

>>> "I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing?" <<<

Like I said....he's amazing.

And what did I tell you, folks....just one hour ago:

"This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004)." -- DVP; 09/09/2008; 8:03 PM EDT

In other words -- Somebody said something that a conspiracy kook doesn't want to hear, therefore somebody must be telling tales out of school....whether it be Lattimer himself, or maybe Canal just made the whole thing up about asking Dr. Lattimer the question about the serial number and then getting a response directly from the doctor.

A new fitting slogan:

"A conspiracy kook's mind is a terrible thing to waste (if it could only be located in the first place, that is)."

David Von Pein
September 9, 2008

(PART 324)


An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using that good ol' search engine. Thank you.

I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April 2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud [HERE].

"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the notation in his book that the serial number of the Mannlicher-Carcano he used for his tests was C-2766 (the same serial number as the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error: "...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004


This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004).

David Von Pein
September 9, 2008

(PART 323)


[Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2562, p.15:] "Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER APPEARS ON WEAPONS MANUFACTURED BY MORE THAN ONE CONCERN. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." .... Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix?


Yes, you're correct here (in a way), Gil. I'll admit that.


The above passage which you quoted from CE2562 can, indeed, be interpreted this way:

The exact same 5-character serial number can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, which would include the same prefix letter as well as the same four numbers that follow the prefix letter.

But I also think the above quote from CE2562 can be interpreted another way, which is probably the correct way of interpreting it, especially when factoring in these two things as a prerequisite:

1.) J. Edgar Hoover's comments to J. Lee Rankin on Page 1 of that 20-page document that makes up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2562, wherein Hoover is telling Rankin about two specific rifles of interest to the Commission, rifles which bear similar serial numbers, but not serial numbers that are exactly the same, because one of them doesn't bear the "C" letter prefix.


2.) The fact that nobody, to date, has produced a single example of another Model #91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that bears the exact same 5-character serial number as the one that was shipped by Klein's to Hidell/Oswald in March 1963. And, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever come up with ANY two separate MC 91/38 rifles that bear the exact same 5-character serial number, regardless of whether the number is "C2766" or some other number.

Given the above two facts, I believe that the above quote that you cited from CE2562 could reasonably be interpreted in the following manner:

The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0 through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number, while the other rifle will not have this prefix.

In my opinion, the above explanation is a reasonable one, given the comments by J. Edgar Hoover on Page #1 of CE2562. And it's also a very reasonable explanation when factoring in the following comments regarding this topic of serial numbers that were made by the FBI's Robert A. Frazier to the Warren Commission in 1964:

MR. EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."


David Von Pein
September 9, 2008

(PART 322)


Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?


Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind of shit you kooks love to focus on).

For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's [C2766] (which, as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?

[Quoting from Vincent Bugliosi's book:]

"William Suchur, the owner of International Firearms Company of Montreal, informed the FBI on March 12, 1964, per a letter from J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission of April 22, 1964, that “in the 1930’s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not” (CE 2562, 25 H 808).

"However, no other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has ever surfaced, although one with a serial number of 2766 without any prefix did. That Carcano was sold by a Montreal firm to a firm in St. Albans, Vermont, which in turn sold it on July 5, 1962, to a firm called Aldens in Chicago. The weapon’s history beyond this point was not determined by the FBI because Alden’s records were not available. (CE 2562, 25 H 801–803, 807–811)

"However, even if another Mannlicher-Carcano did surface with the same serial number as Oswald’s, C2766, it would be irrelevant since we know one with that serial number was sold and sent to Oswald, was found in the sniper’s nest*, and was proved to be the murder weapon."

* Slight error on VB's part here. Vince knows the gun wasn't found "in the sniper's nest". He obviously meant to say "on the sixth floor of the Book Depository" instead of "in the sniper's nest".

David Von Pein
September 9, 2008


The following video contains a 28-minute film taken during President John F. Kennedy's conservation tour through eleven U.S. states from September 24th to 28th, 1963. States visited by the President during this tour included Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Utah, Oregon, California, and Nevada.


(click each picture for more info):



(PART 321)


Gil Jesus and Tom Rossley, as usual, want to misrepresent stuff.

Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
the case in the December 2006 post linked here.

Footnote --- The 2006 post above was written mainly in response to Tom
Rossley's idiotic claim made on his ridiculous "Who Killed JFK?" website,
wherein he says this:

"He [Dr. John K. Lattimer] claims that he owns the same rifle [CE139]. REPEAT..."THE SAME RIFLE"."

Excerpt from my 2006 message regarding "C2766":

"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 re 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, 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"


Additional Footnote --- Jim DiEugenio, in his review of Vincent Bugliosi's
book, uses CE2562 (an April 1964 letter from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee
Rankin concerning rifles that had very similar, but not IDENTICAL,
serial numbers) as partial defense of his argument that there were,
indeed, multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles manufactured
with the exact same "C2766" serial number on them.

But CE2562 really doesn't buttress DiEugenio's argument (or anyone's)
at all in this "Same Serial Number" respect. Because in CE2562, as we
can plainly see spelled out by Mr. Hoover in his correspondence to Rankin
of the Warren Commission, Hoover makes reference to two different rifles
with DIFFERENT unique numbers on them -- one with the number "C2766"
on it (which was Oswald's), and a separate reference to a rifle with just
the number "2766" on it (lacking the "C" prefix).

CE2562 goes on to reveal that the same serial "number" might
occasionally be stamped on different Carcano rifles that were
manufactured at different MC plants, but the key is: These duplicate
serial numbers were not really FULL duplicate serial numbers at all,
because some of these so-called duplicates would have a "letter"
prefix in front of the four-digit number, while others would not have
the prefix.

I have yet to see anyone produce an exact duplicate of a Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle that has the exact same FULL serial number
that was stamped on Lee Oswald's rifle ("C2766").

Has anyone ever seen proof that such a second (or third) gun with that
FULL serial number ("C2766") ever existed?

To date, I have certainly not seen such proof. Nor, I doubt, will I
ever see such proof produced.

David Von Pein
September 8, 2008


The following audio clips were culled from a 1955 radio show called "Night Watch". What you will hear in this audio recording is a real police investigation being conducted by actual police officers and detectives in Culver City, California, in 1955. Included is part of the interrogation of a young suspect who was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery.

When listening to these radio clips, try to imagine the armed robbery suspect being Lee Harvey Oswald, after he was arrested on a charge of killing Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, instead of the suspect being a 16-year-old boy in Culver City, California.

Putting Oswald in this young suspect's shoes is an interesting thing to do. As I listened to this unique radio broadcast, and as the young boy in custody was being grilled by the police and was confronted by multiple eyewitnesses who saw him rob a liquor store, I was envisioning the very same type of police procedures and tactics and lineups being utilized in the case against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 when Oswald was questioned by the Dallas authorities regarding Tippit's murder (and President Kennedy's murder too, albeit with fewer eyewitnesses in the JFK case).

BTW, the young suspect in these clips did eventually confess to robbing the liquor store (as you'll hear in this audio recording), after steadfastly denying his guilt several times when he was being questioned by the police officers:

To listen to the complete "Night Watch" radio show from which the above excerpts were extracted, play the video below.


(PART 320)


I've taken a look at James DiEugenio's lengthy review of Vincent
Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book, "Reclaiming History". And although I
completely disagree with almost everything Jim has written in his
review, I must say that I did enjoy reading it.

DiEugenio is 100% wrong about a whole bunch of conclusions he has
reached with respect to the way John Kennedy died in 1963. There can
be no doubt about that fact.

Jim, possibly, could best be categorized as a "hair-splitter". And
then, to borrow a phrase from my favorite of all authors (Mr.
Bugliosi, of course), after Jim has split each hair, he then proceeds
to "split the split hairs", until the end result is a great big mess
of unanswerable questions and totally incoherent plots and reasoning.
(IMHO, that is.)

And here's just one of several examples of this (again, IMO, that is):

In his critique of Vince Bugliosi's book, Mr. DiEugenio seems to imply
that many, many different Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles (like
Lee Harvey Oswald's) were manufactured with the exact same serial
number (C2766)....which, according to Robert Frazier of the FBI (via
his Warren Commission testimony) is not the case at all.*

* = And by way of footnote, when ordinary common sense is applied to
this topic (i.e., the main REASON for "serial numbers" to be stamped
on rifles--or ANY piece of merchandise for that matter) it seems
fairly obvious to me that Frazier would be correct when it comes to
the fact that Oswald's "C2766" MC 91/38 rifle was the ONLY weapon of
that exact TYPE and MODEL to have been stamped at ANY factory with
that unique serial number.

Because, isn't the #1 reason to put specific serial numbers on
products this one: So that the product in question has its own UNIQUE
identifying mark on it for later easy tracing and/or identification?

If that's not the main reason for all of the long serial numbers I see
on a lot of products I own...then what is the #1 reason to have serial
numbers on these things? ....

SERIAL NUMBER (Merriam-Webster definition) -- "A number indicating
place in a series and used as a means of identification."

SERIAL NUMBER (Wikipedia, 2008) -- "...A unique number assigned for
identification which varies from its successor or predecessor by a
fixed discrete integer value."

SERIAL NUMBER (Wikipedia, 2013) -- "A serial number is a unique code
assigned for identification of a single unit."

But, let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several
different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of
"C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence
in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one:

So what?

Since we know beyond every speck of a doubt that the major pieces of
bullet evidence in the JFK case (CE399, CE567, CE569, and the three
shells found under the Depository's 6th-Floor window) can be
irrevocably tied and linked to CE139 (i.e., the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle that is in evidence in this case with serial number C2766 on it,
and with Oswald's prints on it, to boot), what difference does it
really make if OTHER rifles of the same make and model also sported
the exact same serial number?

Do the conspiracy theorists who like to occasionally bring up this
argument about possible "other rifles with the same serial number"
somehow think that any of those OTHER rifles bearing a "C2766"
identifier (which, btw, nobody has ever produced, at least as far as I
that the barrel of CE139 possesses?

It's really a huge non-issue in the first place.


The theorists who think there might be something "conspiratorial" or
"shady" connected with the issue of the Carcano serial numbers have a
pretty big "How Did They Do This, And When?" hurdle to climb (it seems
to me) when it comes to the detailed documentation of the "C2766"
rifle that was shipped by Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago to "A.
Hidell" of "P.O. Box 2915; Dallas, Texas" on March 20, 1963.

Do some CTers actually think that Klein's shipped a DIFFERENT rifle
with the serial number "C2766" to "Hidell"/Oswald?

In other words, via this make-believe "conspiratorial" episode I'm
concocting here just for the sake of concocting it, Klein's would have
shipped a rifle with the number C2766 on it to Oswald in March 1963
(which we know they did, via the internal Klein's document shown
below), but the rifle that ended up in evidence in the JFK murder case
(CE139) is a DIFFERENT rifle from the one that Klein's mailed to
Hidell/LHO....but they both JUST HAPPENED to have the exact same
serial number on them.

Because, lacking the above type of "coincidental" scenario, where can
the CTers take this type of argument at all? I guess they'd have to
believe that Klein's was "in" on a cover-up involving the rifle too.
And, apparently, the document shown below (Waldman Exhibit No. 7) is a
total "fake" of some kind, with the "C2766" that appears on this
document being written in after the assassination, in trying to link
the weapon to Oswald:

But when we get back into the world of "Reality" and "Common Sense",
it's fairly obvious (even to a half-blind individual) that CE139 is,
indeed, the very same "C2766" rifle that Klein's mailed to Lee Harvey
Oswald's post-office box in March of '63.

To believe otherwise is to dive into the bottomless pit of conspiracy-
oriented absurdity....a pit that has been dug by the conspiracy
theorists themselves.

David Von Pein
September 2008
February 2013






(PART 319)


>>> "When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle?" <<<


Gil, of course, is a mega-kook with the memory of roadkill.

Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
Oswald's rifle for a fairly limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
weapon over to the FBI in Washington.

Gil also knows this fact (or at least he should)....and this is a fact
he undoubtedly hates with a passion:

Lieutenant Carl Day did see the fingerprints on the rifle's trigger
guard (or trigger housing) on 11/22/63, and he thought the prints
probably were the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald, but Day didn't have
enough time to examine the prints in more depth in order to compare
them properly to Oswald's known prints.

Further, more-detailed analysis in later years concerning those
trigger-guard prints revealed that they almost certainly belonged to
Lee Oswald. (Which is another fact that kooks like Gil despise.)

Here's what J.C. Day told the Warren Commission in 1964. These are
comments that Gil, being a kook, will be forced to ignore completely;
or Gil will merely try to paint Lt. Day as one of the hundreds of
"liars" connected to the JFK murder investigation:

LT. J.C. DAY -- "After ejecting the live round, then I gave my
attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the
rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also
noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz
it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would
have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. ....
I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the
housing." ....

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you do anything with the other prints or partial
prints that you said you thought you saw?"

LT. DAY -- "I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them."

DAVID BELIN -- "Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the
two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720
and 721. I will ask you to state what these are."

LT. DAY -- "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--
of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun
No. C2766."

DAVID BELIN -- "Were those prints in such condition as to be
identifiable, if you know?"

LT. DAY -- "No, sir. I could not make positive identification of these

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these
pictures or not?"

LT. DAY -- "I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all
possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were,
but I could not positively identify them."

DAVID BELIN -- "What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose
they were?"

LT. DAY -- "They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger
of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."


Footnote --- Many people think Lt. Carl Day was nothing but a rotten,
evil liar, who told all kinds of lies regarding Oswald's rifle and how he
discovered a palmprint on the underside of the gun on November 22nd.

But if Lt. Day HAD, indeed, been the rotten liar that many CTers seem
to think he was in 1964, then why on Earth didn't he EXTEND his lies a
little more with regard to the fingerprints found on the trigger
housing of the rifle?

IOW--Why would Day, if his goal was to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as the
sole assassin, tell the Warren Commission this in '64?:

"I thought I knew which [fingerprints] they were, but I could
not positively identify them."

Why wouldn't Mr. Day have said this instead?:

"Yes, Mr. Belin, I can say definitely that those prints I saw on
the trigger housing of Rifle C2766 were positively the fingerprints of
Lee Harvey Oswald."

Conspiracy kooks should probably make up their minds with respect to
stuff like this regarding witness testimony -- Was Lt. Carl Day a liar?
Was he a truth-teller? Or was he only a PARTIAL liar, telling only a FEW
lies from time to time to further the "cover-up", but at other times he
decided to tell the unvarnished truth?

I'm sure Gilbert has all the answers, though. Most kooks usually
do...even though every answer they provide invariably reeks with
inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2008

(PART 318)


Kooks like Ben & Gilberto never run low on questions. It's a kook's trademark--asking questions that have all been handily answered in non-conspiratorial ways many times previously. But these CTers never supply any answers that they can weave into any semblance of the cohesive conspiracy plot they want so desperately to believe in.

But does that matter to kooks like Ben and Gil, though?? Nah. Never.

For, every time a kook's Q is answered, the kook asks 6 more inane Qs that also have already been answered -- like the six representative Kook Samples listed below (all of which are utterly-stupid questions being asked only to push the idiot's Q count even higher).

But, let's have a go at the "Representative Six" for the 1,239th time anyway (just for laughs):

>>> "27. Why didn't "psycho killer" Oswald just step off the curb and shoot Kennedy point-blank with his revolver?" <<<

Here's another of the million examples of a kook not being satisfied with the verified way that the murderer (Oswald) got the job done on November 22nd....so the kook will stomp his feet and ask meaningless "WHY DIDN'T HE DO IT THIS WAY, DAMMIT?" type of questions like Gil's 27th.

>>> "11. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?" <<<

The fact that Oswald positively shot the President with Rifle C2766 isn't nearly good enough for most conspiracy kooks. No. Peripheral sidebar questions MUST be answered...or else the kook gets to believe in stupid shit (like always).

If Oswald had run Kennedy over with a pick-up truck and was captured by Zapruder's Bell-&-Howell while doing so, the kook named Gil would need an answer to the following stupid question before believing in Oswald's guilt:

"Is there any evidence at all that Oswald ever purchased gasoline for the pick-up truck he allegedly ran over JFK with?"

A kook mindset isn't a pretty one....but it is a pretty funny one.

>>> "31. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 38SPL ammunition?" <<<

A reprise of kook insanity, I see. Nice.

Gil couldn't care less that Lee Oswald had five .38 Special bullets in his pants pocket when he was arrested.

And Gil can just sidestep the fact that Oswald had six .38 Special bullets IN HIS GUN when arrested in the Texas Theater.

Meh. To a kook, the above facts are trivial. Because the MOST important thing to try and find out is WHERE and WHEN Oswald acquired those bullets.

And if we can't discover the answer to the WHEN & WHERE, then Oswald gets to go free.

Don't ya love Kook Rules. It's like the play money in Monopoly. It's worth zilch. But it looks nice on paper.

>>> "33. How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable fingerprints on either the weapon or the boxes surrounding it?" <<<

Gil now wants to evidently pretend that no prints AT ALL of Oswald's were found on Rifle C2766.

Again, we're playing by Kook Rules here (naturally) -- therefore, the real evidence and the real facts of the case can get tossed out the nearest window, just as if these verifiable facts about Oswald's palmprint and fingerprints (near the triggerguard) on the rifle never existed at all.

I love kooks. Don't you?

>>> "34. Why don't the shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene match in number and manufacturer the bullets removed from Tippit's body?" <<<

Once more, a kook regurgitates an inquiry that's been explained (logically) hundreds of times before. Gil should read Dale Myers' "With Malice". It might do him some good (if only to show him what a book about the REAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE in the Tippit murder case looks like).

I think Oswald might very well have fired five shots at Tippit, instead of just four. This would explain the loose ends regarding the bullet/shell mismatch.

"I heard what sounded to me like five pistol shots." -- Ted Callaway

>>> "35. Why did a Dallas Police car pull up to Oswald's rooming house while he was there and give a little "tit-tit" on the horn?" <<<

Here's an example of a question that surely must be included only to inflate Gil's Q count. Because if that's not the reason to ask this silly question, Gil apparently must think that Earlene Roberts was a rotten liar too, when she testified that several times PRIOR to November 22 a police car would routinely stop by the roominghouse on Beckley and toot the horn softly, just exactly in the "tip-tip" manner she described in her Warren Commission testimony.

Or is Gil of the crazy opinion that the cops, in preparing for the big day on the 22nd, went to the trouble of pre-arranging the several OTHER horn-honking incidents in front of Roberts' house, just so that a pattern of horn-honking episodes could be established in the days, weeks, even MONTHS, leading up to the assassination?

Can anybody possibly believe that? Even a CT-Kook like Gilbert?

Or was it just a mere coincidence that some rogue cops who were "in" on a conspiracy with Oswald just got lucky when it turned out that other police cars would occasionally ALSO toot their horns in front of that residence on days when Presidential murders weren't being carried out in Dallas?

BTW, I can't wait for the "Holmes Hundred". That kook might have to start digging into Marina's family background to get the number of "Kook Kwestions" into triple-digits.

And when he gets around to suspecting little Junie of being a co-conspirator, the forum won't have enough bandwidth to support Ben's idiotic inquiries.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2008

(PART 84)



You know it's funny about Davey.

He has never done any real field investigation on any aspect of this case.

If I am wrong about that issue, please correct me, you indefatigable, peripatetic modern day Harold Weisberg.


Don't ya just love watching an Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy clown like DiEugenio get all worked up about a person (that'd be me) whom he thinks isn't worth even one second of his ultra-valuable time?

What a pathetic (albeit hilarious) sight to behold.

And anyone who thinks it's a compliment to be compared to that God among Gods, Harold Weisberg, should listen to this hilarious audio clip featuring Weisberg from the 1980s:

After hearing such outrageous silliness from the lips of Mr. Weisberg himself, it's no wonder DiEugenio puts Harold up on a mile-high pedestal. After all, Jimbo (like Weisberg) thinks Oswald never fired a shot, and also thinks it's quite possible that NO SHOTS AT ALL were fired from the Depository's sixth floor:

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

Tell me again, Jimmy, why anyone in this world should take anything you say seriously after reading the mind-numbing hogwash that exists in that quote printed above?


I have sworn you [Cliff Varnell] off as not worth arguing with.


The same way you swore me off several times in the past as not being worthy of your attention?



That's are [sic] really dumb move on your part Davey, but no one ever praised you for your intelligence.


And nobody is ever going to praise you for your ability to write Internet posts which are free of fat-finger (and other) mistakes in nearly every one of them.


Because without me, you are a big zero.


Yeah, that must be why I get e-mails on a regular basis from people who say they enjoy my Internet posts and websites (even the stuff that doesn't involve the great James DiEugenio).

You really do require a huge hat for that big head of yours, don't you Jimbo? (I think that last quote above from you proves it.)


The reasons I ever took you on were:

1. To show what a paper tiger your [sic] were.


Only a person who desperately WANTS Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent (as you evidently do, Jim) could possibly examine the body of evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases and conclude (as you do) that Oswald never fired a shot at EITHER President Kennedy or Officer Tippit on 11/22/63.

I am constantly presenting evidence that shows Oswald to be a double murderer. You are constantly sidestepping or distorting that evidence in an effort to exonerate that double killer.

And yet I am a "paper tiger" when it comes to a JFK assassination discussion? Once more, we're treated to a glimpse into the topsy-turvy universe of a conspiracy theorist from California named James DiEugenio.



2. To make your name known as a fungus to be avoided everywhere.


And so you engage me in Internet debates for almost three solid years to prove that someone like me should be "avoided everywhere", is that right Jimbo?

Hypocrisy at its finest. I love it!

Do you suppose Jimbo ever even bothers to think at all before typing some of the things he types into his (fat-finger) keyboard? I wonder.


3. Because I developed a lurker following by pounding you so badly, especially on your idolatry of your icon VB [Vincent Bugliosi]. Many, many people really enjoyed that.


And many people have also enjoyed the way I trashed your two-part 2010 CTKA article about me (see Parts 1-5 of this series).


But if that's they [sic] way you want it, fine. Bye bye.

But if I am in Indy, how about a free chicken dinner?


Free?? Are you crazy?! I'm charging you double.

Besides, wouldn't you be afraid I'd poison it?

Or could it be that even you, Jim, a person who isn't shy in the least about calling all kinds of innocent people liars, conspirators, cover-up operatives, shills, and accomplices in the assassination of an American President, aren't willing to think of me ("Disinformation Dave", as it says on your website) as a murderer who would want to poison the food of someone like you?

I'm flattered.


On second thought, forget it. You would probably take a photo and put it on your site.


Good idea. I could then write this caption under the picture of you:

"James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California -- the JFK assassination researcher who is delusional enough to think that all 22 of these things
are true."

That should provide an ample number of laughs for my website visitors.

Thanks, Jimmy.

David Von Pein
February 9, 2013

(PART 317)


...Like it's a Xmas party and a birthday party for one individual because they were born near Xmas.


Yeah, I suffered through that a lot as a young'un. I was born on December 27th. It sucked.

But, please, continue on, Curt (and other assorted conspiracy kooks). I'm enjoying watching the spectacle of a batch of conspiracy-happy clowns (who possess absolutely zero pieces of physical evidence to support their amazing claims of the incredibly complex plot against JFK that they have dreamed up), as this batch of conspiracy loons tries to tackle and undermine the rock-solid, simple, and plain-as-day facts that Bud has presented.

A Quick "Fact" Checklist (just for the fun of tormenting the rabid CTers with these irrevocable facts):

1.) A witness IDed Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's killer (Howard Brennan).

2.) Multiple witnesses IDed Oswald as Tippit's killer or the ONE MAN who was fleeing the scene of the crime with a GUN IN HIS HANDS (Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, V. Davis, B. Davis, Tatum, Callaway, among others).

3.) Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

4.) Oswald's rifle was determined to have been the weapon that killed President Kennedy.

5.) Oswald was arrested with a revolver on him while trying to kill policemen within the Texas Theater.

6.) The gun on Oswald when he was arrested was positively determined to have been the gun used to murder Officer Tippit.

7.) Oswald told a string of provable lies about important, substantive issues relating to the assassination of the President, the murder of Tippit, and the two guns used to kill those two men.

8.) Oswald had absolutely no believable or provable alibi for either of the two murders he was charged with committing on November 22, 1963.


What do you suppose the odds are of having all of the above eight points being even remotely possible (let alone being PROVEN AS FACTS in this case, which, of course, each one is) if the conspiracy kooks are correct and if Lee Oswald was nothing but a totally innocent "patsy" for TWO murders that were carried out by other non-Oswald people on 11/22/63?

I wouldn't trust those odds at a friendly neighborhood card game....let alone in Vegas.

Would anybody?

David Von Pein
September 2, 2008

(PART 316)


>>> "It is not necessary to link them [CE567 & CE569] to the head wound to prove that they were fired from Oswald's rifle. They were ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle. They could have come from a different shot. Maybe Mark Fuhrman thinks that they came from the bullet which exited Kennedy's throat and hit the chrome topping. I think they came from the bullet which hit Connally's wrist." <<<


You're both wrong.

The front-seat fragments had NO CHOICE but to have come from the bullet that struck JFK in the head. There is no other alternative given the ballistics evidence in this case (coupled with common sense and a grip on reality):

1.) John Connally was hit by just ONE bullet.

2.) The bullet that hit Connally was CE399 (beyond all reasonable doubt).

3.) Since #1 and #2 are certainly true, it means that the front-seat bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) never touched the body of John B. Connally Jr.

4.) The bullet that split into fragments 567 & 569 hit something FIRST before ending up in the front seat of the limo (this is unquestionably true, because if Oswald's bullet had hit the windshield or chrome strip at full velocity, that bullet would have gone clear through the windshield glass and/or the chrome strip -- per Robert Frazier of the FBI).

5.) The limousine was completely undamaged, except for the crack in the windshield and the dent in the chrome strip.

6.) No limo occupants other than JFK and John Connally were hit by bullets during the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

7.) There were no obstructions (e.g., trees) between the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle and the back of John F. Kennedy's head at the time when JFK was struck in the back of his head by the fatal bullet at Zapruder Frame #313.

8.) Since #3 through #7 above are true, then the only possible source for the fragmentation of the bullet from Rifle #C2766 that produced fragments #567 and #569 was the head of President Kennedy.

~~Mark VII~~

Perry, your witness.

(You have no case, Perry, but that never stops a conspiracy theorist from trying, does it now?)

>>> "The two large fragments did not have to go through Kennedy's head in order to have been fired from Oswald's rifle." <<<

Yes, they most certainly did. And I just succinctly proved that fact (via logic and common sense) in my eight-step chronology above.

>>> "How do you get an intact bullet leaving Kennedy's head on a DOWNWARD trajectory to fall into the front seat?" <<<

Why on Earth would you think the bullet would have to be "intact" after having just passed through and destroyed a large chunk of John Kennedy's skull?

And: Why on Earth would you think such a bullet, after having smashed through a human skull, necessarily had to stay on the exact same 17.43-degree downward course that it was on when it left Oswald's gun an instant earlier?

(Geesh. Tony's making this easier than usual today.)

>>> "Are you Houdini?" <<<

A better question to ask Tony Marsh at this point would be --- Are you kidding??!!

>>> "Answer this question. The base fragment was only the jacket. The lead core was missing. Where did that lead core go? Prove it. Show it to me." <<<

And if I can't "show it" to you, then you get to believe in a bunch of stupid, off-the-wall shit.

Right, Anthony?

Thought so.

David Von Pein
August 31, 2008

(PART 83)



Hoover and Johnson then switched to the back up plan: scare the heck out of Warren with threats of atomic annihliation. Therefore pressuring him to go with the Krazy Kid Oswald portrait.

Warren did so in spades. To the point that Liebeler told Odio that heck, even if we find evidence of a conspiracy--which she certainly was--Warren told us to shove it under the rug.


Anyone who could possibly believe that Wesley J. Liebeler said any such thing to Sylvia Odio is a bigger fool than the fools who think Greer shot Kennedy. (And that's a pretty big fool.)

Can anyone even imagine (for even one second) Liebeler being so stupid as to say something like that to a witness like Odio? It's insane, absurd, and downright ridiculous. It never happened. But DiEugenio is just gullible enough to believe that it did. (What a surprise.)


...this necessitated Plan B for Edgar and Lyndon: Oswald as the misfit loner.


No need for any "Plan B" in this regard, Jimbo. Oswald was a misfit loner.

I wonder how telling the truth about the assassin somehow equals: Hoover's in on a cover-up?

Only in the wacky and wonderful world of JFK conspiracy theorists could such an equation be justified.


When Simkin let the fruity Von Pein on this site, it was a signal that he wanted bread and circuses for all.

Anyone who reads my book will know that this passage about Liebeler saying this is footnoted to Sylvia Odio's interview with Fonzi for the Church Committee. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 352) Fonzi replied to her, "Liebeler said that?" Odio then said, "Yes sir I could swear on that."

Now, if you follow this footnote the reader will see that I backed this up with a second source. When I was writing the book I practiced what I preach. I tried to follow the journalistic rule that for any major claim I would have two independent sources. Well in my footnotes you will see the following: "Liebeler was referring to a speech Warren gave the Commission staff at their first meeting of January 20, 1964. In a memo by Melvin Eisenberg, he writes that Warren said, "This was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles....He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculations such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln." (Ibid, p. 446)

So, in other words, when DVP launches into his usual invective over a fact he does not like, he is really calling all these names about Odio, whose credibility was even vouched for by his icon, Vince Bugliosi. And this is backed up by Eisenberg's memo.


That passage in Eisenberg's memo, of course, doesn't even come close to justifying or confirming this ridiculous "Sweep All Conspiracy Under The Rug" spin put on it by conspiracy clowns like Jimmy DiEugenio:

"To the point that Liebeler told Odio that heck, even if we find evidence of a conspiracy--which she certainly was--Warren told us to shove it under the rug." -- Jimmy D.

It's just one additional example (among hundreds) that illustrates how totally inept many conspiracy theorists are at being able to reasonably and properly evaluate ANY of the evidence or statements connected with the JFK assassination.

The very last people in the world who should be examining the JFK murder case are the members of the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, such as James DiEugenio. The members of that silly club should be thoroughly embarrassed to even show up at any JFK forum. But, amazingly, they aren't embarrassed in the slightest.

Regarding Earl Warren:

Vince Bugliosi said it very nicely when he made this rational observation (which DiEugenio and company will, and have, totally ignored, of course):

"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch rumors that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the facts of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that only false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public? How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"


Bugliosi writes in his introduction that he will state the case as the critics would like. Yet he did not include this [Eisenberg] memo nor the memo of Fonzi's interview with Odio. Why?


It's quite possible that Bugliosi didn't even know about Fonzi's interview with Sylvia Odio. But even if he did know about it, Odio's statement to Fonzi about Liebeler coming right out and telling her (a witness in the case) that Earl Warren had given the Warren Commission staff instructions to sweep all evidence of conspiracy under the carpet is just too absurd to believe for more than one millisecond. And Mr. Bugliosi would undoubtedly agree with me on that point.

But the Eisenberg memo is most certainly mentioned by Vince in "Reclaiming History", in multiple places. Maybe you should have read Vincent's tome a little better yourself, eh Jimmy Boy?

Let's have a look:

"Except for the moments right after the assassination when no one knew who the killer or killers were or whether a massive domestic or international conspiracy was involved, the closest reference to national security being an issue is a February 17, 1964, memo to the file (far, far less known than the Katzenbach memo) by Warren Commission assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg about the first meeting, on January 20, 1964, that Chief Justice Warren had with his staff.

Eisenberg quotes Warren as telling his staff that when President Johnson first asked him to head up the investigation (November 29), Warren said that the president spoke "of rumors of the most exaggerated kind...circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which would cost forty million lives. No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility."

Of course, there is nothing in Warren's address to his staff about suppressing the truth to avoid a war. Indeed, as indicated earlier, Eisenberg goes on to say that Warren "emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be."

Naturally, as with his surgery on the Katzenbach memo, Mark Lane, in Plausible Denial, told his readers only about the "war" part of the Eisenberg memo, deleting all reference to Warren telling his staff they had to find the truth whatever it might be."
-- "Reclaiming History"; Page 367


There is also the following passage in Vincent Bugliosi's book, which also deals with the Eisenberg memo. And everyone please note the fact that Jim DiEugenio, when he quoted from the Eisenberg memo earlier in this Education Forum thread, has done the exact same thing that Mark Lane did in his book (as Bugliosi said). Jimbo has conveniently omitted the last sentence in this quote below (the part in italics, which is also in italics, for emphasis, in Mr. Bugliosi's book), although DiEugenio does mention it in this post, but Jimmy then goes on to completely dismiss it as merely being "CYA" on the part of Earl Warren (yeah, right, Jim):

"On January 20, 1964, Chief Justice Warren met with the Warren Commission staff at their first formal staff meeting. In discussing the role of the Commission with the staff, "Warren placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding further speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be." * -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344

* The above text in Bugliosi's book is followed by source note #118, which leads to this source reference:

118. JFK Document 015041, Memorandum to the file of Warren Commission staff member Melvin Eisenberg, February 17, 1964.

Here is the Eisenberg memo for everyone to see (and for everyone to see what DiEugenio decided to leave out when he first brought this memo up).

And there is also this important excerpt from Page 2 of the Eisenberg memo that I doubt you'll ever see written in any conspiracy book:

"He [Earl Warren] therefore set a target date [for the release of the Warren Report] of June 1, with the understanding that the Commission could not issue a report until it was satisfied that it had reached the truth."

To repeat:

Melvin Eisenberg's last words on Page 1 of that two-page 2/17/64 memo are these words:

"He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be."

Those words throw a monkey wrench into DiEugenio's theory that Eisenberg's memo somehow corroborates and supports some kind of half-baked idea that Earl Warren was the chairman of a cover-up Commission, bent on NOT finding the truth. Doesn't it, Jimbo?

Jim DiEugenio and Mark Lane should team up. They seem to be birds of a feather.

David Von Pein
February 2013





I'm a bit confused about the Z film in this video from 1964. Was it just for the Warren Commission and the government? I thought the Z film was not seen by the public until years later...correct?



You bring up a very good point about the Zapruder Film that I had never thought about before today [June 12, 2017]. This Secret Service film must, indeed, have only been available to certain "Government" people for many years. Although, as I understand it, "Government" films are in the public domain from Day 1 and can be obtained and used by any ordinary American citizen. I got my copy of this SS film by just scouring the Internet and downloading it. But I have no idea when the public first had access to this film.

But since it's a "Secret Service" film, it is also a "Government" production and should have been readily available and in the public domain for anyone to see back in '64 (I would assume). Good question, though, CB. It now makes me wonder why many more regular citizens hadn't seen (and reacted to) the Z-Film being shown (in full motion) in this film well prior to the ABC-TV showing of the film in 1975.

My guess would be that since this Secret Service film wasn't shown on TV or any other place where the public would have easy access to it, it simply was never seen by the average American until the "Internet" came into existence. But now almost everything (including Government films like this one) are readily available with the click of a mouse. If this film had been produced in the Internet era, then everyone would have been able to see Mr. Zapruder's film (in motion) immediately, instead of having to wait 12 years for a bootleg copy to be shown on Geraldo Rivera's TV show.

Thanks for your good comments, CB.


A follow-up to my comments above....

Since we can see that the Zapruder Film is being displayed in full motion (and in real time) in this 1964 Secret Service film [8 minutes in], such an occurrence (within a U.S. Government filmed production) would certainly tend to debunk the notion that many conspiracy theorists continue to endorse to this day—i.e., the notion that Abraham Zapruder's motion picture film of JFK's assassination was being deliberately suppressed or hidden from the general public until 1975 (or at least until 1969, when the Zapruder Film was shown in open court at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans).*

Although I am not positive, I would assume that this Secret Service reconstruction film was available to the public shortly after it was completed sometime in late 1964. It possibly was made available at certain libraries, schools, and universities around the country. And if that was the case, then the conspiracists who think the U.S. Government was attempting to hide the Zapruder Film from public view for many years are just simply dead wrong. Because this Secret Service film, although probably not seen by very many people prior to the age of the Internet, would have still been out there and available to view by anyone who had an interest in doing so many years prior to 1975 (or 1969).

* With New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison being one of the conspiracy theorists who has over the years suggested that the Zapruder Film was being deliberately kept under wraps and out of the view of the general public by sinister forces, as we can see when author Vincent Bugliosi quotes Garrison in his book "Reclaiming History":

“The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors, that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power—the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film." -- Page 504 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (2007)

Further comments, concerns, observations...?


Doesn't mean they are public domain.


If it's a UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT film, then, yes, it's definitely in the public domain. (Click Here for more info.)

And, of course, the U.S. Secret Service IS a "Government" entity.


You want to try to seriously claim that the Zapruder film wasn't suppressed by the government?


Yes, I certainly do want to claim that.

For Pete sake, the Warren Commission even published 160 still frames from the Zapruder Film in Volume 18 of its hearings and exhibits (see Commission Exhibit No. 885).

Some "suppression" there, huh?


I just now looked at the date that is attached to my raw file for my digital copy of the 1964 Secret Service film, and it shows that I downloaded that video file to my computer on June 27, 2011. So it's been on my system for 6 years now, and yet (prior to yesterday) I never once slapped myself on my forehead and said, "Gee, the Zapruder Film is actually being shown in real time within this Secret Service film! And this SS film was produced way back in '64! That seems strange!"

Also -- I labelled the film with a "1964" date on my websites (and at YouTube) mainly due to the "post-Warren Commission" information that is being revealed in the film by narrator Jim Underwood of KRLD. But I now see, after probing into this matter a little bit more today, that my "1964" caption for the SS film is, indeed, entirely accurate. I confirmed that fact by way of information posted on the "Zapruder Film Timeline" page at the Sixth Floor Museum's website....


See the entire Z-Film Timeline HERE.

The above information doesn't say exactly WHO had access to the '64 SS film, but further down in that "Z-Film Timeline" it does state that when the Zapruder Film was shown in a New Orleans courtroom at the Clay Shaw trial on February 13, 1969, it marked the "film's first public showing".

An intriguing word is used, IMO, in the Sixth Floor's Z-Film Timeline concerning the description of the '64 SS film when it is referred to as an "educational" film. That is, btw, exactly the same word—"Educational"—that has been floating around in my head for the last two days as well, which prompted me to write this in my post yesterday --- "It possibly was made available at certain libraries, schools, and universities around the country."

So, if the Secret Service film was produced as an "Educational film", then WHO was it intending to educate? Just people inside the U.S. Government? Or the American people in general? My guess would be the latter. ~shrug~

BTW, the date of "March 1964" shown on that "Timeline" page at the Sixth Floor website has to be incorrect. There's no way the film was made that early in the Warren Commission's investigation, because the SS film contains details and images from the Commission's May 24, 1964, re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. So it must have been produced after at least May of '64, and probably was made after the Warren Commission closed up shop completely in September of '64.

EDIT --- Just a few minutes after I wrote the paragraph above, I dug up an older version of the Sixth Floor's Z-Film Timeline (which I saved about a year ago via Archive.org's handy "Wayback Machine"), and this older version confirms what I said above---that the SS film was not produced until AFTER the Warren Report was released in late 1964 (click the image below to see the older "Timeline" with this different—and more accurate—description of the Secret Service film)....


Well, this question that I asked just a little while ago....

"So, if the Secret Service film was produced as an "Educational film", then WHO was it intending to educate?"

....is a question that perhaps can be answered by simply watching the first minute of the '64 SS film, where these words appear on the screen: "For the United States Secret Service" (screen capture below)....

Now, perhaps the words "For the Secret Service" could also be interpreted as "On behalf of the Secret Service", as someone suggested to me in an e-mail yesterday, rather than meaning the film is being made exclusively "For" the SS. I guess that could be possible. I just do not know, but I'm still wondering if perhaps the SS film was available to ordinary citizens who weren't part of the Secret Service. Obviously, it is available to everybody now. But the question is, was it commonly available to the public back in 1964 or 1965, via possibly a FOIA request? Or was it shown in classrooms around the country as an "Educational film"? I have no idea. But it's interesting to ponder the possibilities.

David Von Pein
June 12-13, 2017