(PART 602)


[For Lee Harvey Oswald]...to carry his rifle across town and try it [shooting at JFK] elsewhere would have been much more brazen--and with much less chance of success. The way things actually happened could not have provided a much better opportunity for Oswald.


Exactly, Peter.

You took the words right off of my keyboard.

Nobody can know for certain, of course, whether or not Oswald would have still attempted the assassination if he hadn't been employed in the TSBD. But my guess is --- He would not have.

Oswald could be pretty "brazen" at times, however. For example --- Holding on to the rifle with which he shot at General Walker. Oswald, incredibly, apparently actually felt no need or desire to get rid of the weapon with which he took that potshot at Walker.

For more than SEVEN MONTHS he held onto it, even though he almost certainly had to know that the bullet that he fired into Walker's house WAS recovered and could conceivably (for all Oswald knew) be linked to Carcano Rifle #C2766.

I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't toss Rifle C2766 in the trash after he shot at Walker on April 10, 1963 (or dispose of it in some other fashion). He ran a fearful risk by keeping that rifle in his possession for all those months.

Perhaps it was a sign of Oswald's miserly and penny-pinching ways. Maybe he just hated the idea of spending $21.45 for a weapon he would only be using once.

I also wonder this --- Would Oswald have disposed of his rifle if he had succeeded in killing General Edwin A. Walker in April 1963?

And I also sometimes wonder this --- If Oswald HAD trashed his Carcano rifle after the Walker shooting, would he have purchased another rifle at some point in time to use in another assassination attempt?

It's possible, of course, that even if Oswald had disposed of the C2766 Carcano, he could have still purchased another gun to use on President Kennedy. Oswald had enough time to get himself another gun between the time he could have learned for certain that JFK would be passing by the front door of the Depository and November 22 itself.

Which begs the follow-up question (which has been asked by many people too) --- Since Oswald had more than $170 and since he had at least 2 to 3 days to get himself another gun (possibly a non-traceable one in a gunshop someplace), why did LHO decide to use his traceable mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot the President?

Food for thought anyway.

In summary:

We can never know the answers to all these questions relating to Lee Harvey Oswald, his rifle, and the thoughts that might have been floating around in his warped brain. But the one thing that we do know beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT is this --- Lee Oswald took Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three shots from that weapon at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

David Von Pein
June 28, 2009










(PART 601)


>>> "The photo showing a bullet being dug out of the grass." <<<


There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.

If there was a bullet -- produce the damn thing! If you can't (or if you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut up about it.

>>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?" <<<

Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small dose of common sense) is -- A thru-and-thru transiting bullet went through JFK's neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common sense. (And everybody should know why.)

>>> "Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?" <<<

Speculation based on "common sense" isn't an evil, you're-gonna-rot-in-hell syndrome to be ashamed of in many instances regarding this case. Not EVERY single thing CAN be answered with ONLY "evidence".

Why in the world WOULDN'T you apply some CS&L [Common Sense & Logic] to the proceedings at hand? You seem to think it's illegal to do so. Odd. And silly. (See "The Crazy Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy Theory" for examples of how CTers fail to use "common sense"; it's blatantly obvious there.)

>>> "Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't..." <<<

Are you "speculating" here? That's a no-no, ya know.

Shotgun pellet?? LOL. Some great pro hit men you've got there. Using "shotgun pellets" on their Presidential hit. Hilarious.

>>> "And, in any case, the first and best medical evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?" <<<

The FIRST "speculation" regarding that wound was that of "entry", yes. So what? Dr. Perry said it could be "either" an exit or entry wound. He's a liar, right? Or a Govt. shill. Right? Right.

>>> "That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile to the BOH photo." <<<

Today's dictionary lesson for Ben-boy....


>>> "No, this [transiting wound] was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy, as you well know." <<<

Sure. So what? How does that make a transiting wound impossible or even improbable?

>>> "Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was performed"." <<<

So? Who cares what Dr. Robert Shaw said on an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a bullet found in JFK's lung?

Answer: No. End of story. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides, was Shaw one of KENNEDY'S Parkland doctors??

Answer: No.

>>> "Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the Houston Post that "The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone"." <<<

Ridiculous comments by Shaw (assuming you've got those silly quotes correct). He didn't have any more knowledge of JFK's wounds than I did at the time.

And your quoting CONNALLY'S doctor with respect to JFK's wounds and JFK'S AUTOPSY (which Shaw did not attend of course) is silly too.

But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable -- let's just totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE AT THE AUTOPSY and believe, instead, the word of a third party who was thousands of miles to the southwest at the time of Kennedy's post-mortem exam.

Yeah...let's do that, OK? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr. Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy (which he knew NOTHING about first-hand). Great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic there. Keep it up. You're doing fine.

>>> "So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted with far more explanation, and under oath?" <<<

Are you high on Groden Gas or something???!!!

Are you sure you're quoting the right doctor here? Shaw??? Who NEVER treated or even saw JFK at Parkland Hospital on 11/22? .....

Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render any aid to President Kennedy on November 22?

Dr. SHAW - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John B. Connally on that day?

Dr. SHAW - Yes.

>>> "Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those treating Connally, he could have been struck by as many as 3 shots... and Dr. Shaw didn't find it "monstrously silly" to so consider." <<<

Nor did he find it silly to state on Live TV on 11/22 that ALL of Connally's wounds were likely caused by "one bullet". If shot THREE times...where are the freakin' bullets? Naturally, they "vanished" into CT Smoke, right? Yeah, right.

>>> "The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear." <<<

Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?

IOW -- Prove it.

>>> "Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?" <<<

Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess. Nobody saw him/them.

>>> "It was burned in a fireplace... remember?" <<<

And please explain the logic of Humes ADMITTING to burning ANY documents if he were on a "Mission To Make DVP's Life A Living Hell & A Mission To Make Ben-Boy (Not Sherlock) Holmes Look Like A Grandiose Sleuth 40+ Years Later"??

IOW -- WHY would he say ANYTHING about "burning" evidence up in his home fireplace when he had no reason to do so in a strictly "cover-up" mindset?

Humes is being boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH regarding the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some COMMON SENSE when attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.

And Dr. Humes is also strung up by CT morons for merely placing into the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID AUTOPSY REPORT (post-Perry conversation).

>>> "With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other fragments." <<<

Nor was Oswald's C2766 weapon "eliminated" as the source of such smaller fragments. But you know that of course.

>>> "Yep...to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically-trained doctors on a topic that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory"." <<<

Would the above comment also apply to Humes/Finck/Boswell with respect to the "Only Two Bullets Struck President Kennedy" conclusion of their Official Pathological Examination on JFK?

And -- Would that argument also apply to Dr. Gregory with respect to the "micrograms" of bullet fragments left inside John Connally's wrist?

Or is that argument only valid when a conspiracy kook espouses it in feeble attempts to avoid the obviousness of Lee Oswald's lone guilt?

>>> "Quite probably [re: Ben's unsupportable belief that a bullet or bullets lodged in JFK's chest and/or lungs]." <<<

Oh, you must mean here that you are "speculating". Right? Which is something I'm not allowed to do it seems, ever. But you can do it when it suits your needs (and whims).

Nice double-standard. Thanks. I get it now.

>>> "Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest." <<<

Nothing mysterious there.....

"I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax." -- Dr. Malcolm Perry (to Warren Commission)

But at autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage to the chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura cavity, which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).

Wanna try another silly tack regarding this matter?

>>> "Untrue [re: bullets left in body], of course." <<<

OK. I'll bite. Produce those bullets you say were in his body.

>>> "Dr. Kemp [sic; LOL added here] stated at the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this." <<<

So? What does that prove?

Answer -- Nada.

(Think Dr. Clark might have been "speculating" there?)

BTW -- The doctor's name was "William Kemp Clark", not "Clark Kemp". ROFL.

But, then again, maybe "Clark Kent" was aiding "Clark Kemp" at Parkland on 11/22. Could be. Kent and Superman MUST certainly have been there....because nothing short of "Super Hero" status could have resulted in all those disappearing bullets and all the rest of that cloak-&-dagger stuff following the shooting.

>>> "You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line." <<<

And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE this "frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow) within Dealey Plaza in order to achieve that "BOH" (far-right-rear) wound on JFK's head that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.

Where was this killer? On the Overpass (amongst Holland, Dodd, Simmons, and TWO Dallas cops)? On the south side of Elm someplace? Perhaps James Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a theory I've never heard spouted before. You could write a new book!

>>> "Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts and medical doctors who disagree with it." <<<

And (hint) it's also a "theory" that has MANY, MANY ballistics experts, doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.

Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case alternate CT theory to replace it, the SBT is still (by far) the best explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm St. in Dallas. And everybody SHOULD know why this is.

>>> "When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to lie." <<<

The usual Ben-boy "Willing To Lie" mantra. I love it. Every time I see it, I love it more. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks.

>>> "Every [SBT] "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets fired into a cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia." <<<

All together now! -----


If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the viability (or at the very least, the "possibility") of the SBT....you're as goofy as The Comic Book Guy.

That re-creation verified virtually every aspect of the SBT's potential doability; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could easily see that was so.

And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory as closer to "factual" than "theory". And anybody with one eye who isn't buried a mile deep in books written by Marrs, Groden, Garrison, Mellen, Livingstone, and Fetzer could easily see that fact as well.

Apparently, Ben's stack of Fetzer and Marrs tomes is too tall to see around.
A pity.

David Von Pein
May 23, 2006







(PART 600)


>>> "You deal in obfuscation, David; that's your stock in trade." <<<


I deal in the verified, documented evidence in the case....and EVALUATE IT USING COMMON SENSE.

Try it sometime. Starting here is a good idea.

Conspiracists do not (and evidently cannot) evaluate the evidence and witness testimony properly. Your recent analysis of the Tippit crime being a prime example.

Again, wheat vs. chaff.
LN = Wheat.
CT = Chaff.

>>> "I say the statements made by Officers Craig and Weitzman (7.65 Mauser) are evidence." <<<

Sure. But is it the BEST evidence? What evidence came to light AFTER those initial, kneejerk observations made by Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone and Roger Craig?

IOW: Where's the Mauser? What Commission Exhibit number was the phantom "Mauser" given? Where is it?

>>> "You say the pictures show a Mannlicher-Carcano was found." <<<

Yes. [More HERE.]

>>> "I say dozens of people looked and ran to the grassy knoll." <<<

Switching gears fast now, huh?

OK, I don't deny this fact. Dozens of people DID run toward the Grassy Knoll.

But consider this, Ric:

If you just heard gunshots from a certain location, would you want to immediately RUN TOWARD A PLACE WHERE A KILLER MIGHT BE LOCATED?

If you answer yes, please tell me why??

And please note many of the pictures of the Knoll-Stormers....there are women and children and some old ladies with umbrellas (sans any flechettes in them I would surmise) running up the grassy slope:

Do you REALLY think all of those people (old ladies and 10-year-old kids included) had a desire to PLAY HERO and catch the assassin(s)?

Or -- were they merely confused, excited, playing follow-the-leader, and RUBBERNECKING?

And this "Two Directions" pie slice (which, in terms of exact numbers, amounts to only 5 out of 104 witnesses) virtually destroys the idea that any shots whatsoever came from the Grassy Knoll area on 11/22/63:

>>> "You say one guy saw Oswald in the window." <<<

Yes. And others [Fischer and Edwards] saw someone who looked generally like Mr. Oswald, too.

>>> "I say several witnesses to the Tippit murder saw two men." <<<

You're jumping from place to place, willy-nilly, it seems. Is this supposed to link to the previous remark about Oswald in the Sniper's Nest? If so, how?

Anyway, you're wrong about "several witnesses" seeing two men (i.e., co-conspirators) at the scene of the Tippit murder. AFAIK, Acquilla Clemons was THE only witness on record who stated that more than one person was involved. But Clemons did NOT see the actual shooting. She saw only the aftermath.

Clemons probably saw Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun, and thought Callaway (with gun in hand) had shot the officer. Callaway, who was a real hero on 11/22 in my book, rolled Tippit's dead body over and took his gun and went hunting for Tippit's LONE killer.

Please cite Mr. Wright too. I asked you to do that before. Got nothing but static in return. Care to do it now?

>>> "You throw out all evidence that doesn't support your pre-conceived notion that Oswald is the shooter." <<<

It's not a "pre-conceived" notion, you nitwit. It's a mountainous pattern of evidence of all types that leads inexorably to one man -- the man you seem to want to free from blame so much (for some reason) -- Lee Harvey Oswald.

Or, to put it another way....

"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as sin, and there's NOTHING [you] can do about it. ... Because there's not one tiny grain of evidence, not one microscopic speck of evidence, that ANYONE, other than Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; 1986

>>> "Worse still, you become belligerent when you're told what you do is obfuscation." <<<

Well, I never said I didn't have a fault or two. I grind my teeth occasionally too. You?

Of course, in this instance (i.e., being told by a conspiracy kook that I'm indulging in "obfuscation", it's hard not to become annoyed and testy, considering the fact that such an allegation is hilariously absurd...in a Pot-Kettle sort of way.)

>>> "You think your job is to discredit all information that doesn't support your pre-conceived notion." <<<

No, my job is to knock the wind out of a kook's sails. And I'm underpaid too. I've asked VB for a raise. But Bud just got a raise from the "WC Disinfo Agency, Inc."; so I might have to wait a few more months. Their budget isn't limitless, after all. (Damn you, Bud, for being so good at this; you stole my raise!)

>>> "You're not an assassination buff nor a "researcher." You're an institutional ideologue, a political hack, a party functionary." <<<

Leave anything out? Check your thesaurus again....surely you can add two or three more impressive, highbrow-sounding things there.

Oh, I'm a big Gregory Peck fan too...don't leave that out of the mix.

>>> "Know much about Earl Warren?" <<<

He's my grandpa.

>>> "Know what a despicable human being he was?" <<<

~gasp~ Which must make his grandson equally as despicable...knowing his evil genes. Shit!

>>> "Born and raised in Bakersfield, California..." <<<

Yeah, most people from Bakersfield are detestable indeed. (Or bakers.)

BTW, you didn't get this exactly right either. Warren was born in Los Angeles, but grew up in Bakersfield. (It's funny, though, that IMDB doesn't include "despicable human being" on his webpage there. I guess they should have checked with Ric before writing up this Warren profile.)

David Von Pein
March 21, 2007

(PART 599)


>>> "So you believe JFK being shot was a positive?" <<<


Huh? WTF?

You're off to a really great start with your rebuttal, Greg. ~smirk~

>>> "Less than 90 seconds, David [that is Greg's detailed timing of when Oswald was seen by Police Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly in the 2nd-floor TSBD lunchroom]." <<<

Oh, that's right! Greg Parker was in Dealey Plaza with his stopwatch on November 22nd and was timing every move made by Oswald, Baker, and Truly. I forgot about that.

>>> "Try within a minute [Oswald being seen by either Pierce Allman or Robert MacNeil]." <<<

That's based on your timing of these things with your own stopwatch again, eh Greg?

And I don't imagine that Greg finds it the slightest bit odd that Lee Oswald wanted to leave the scene of the crime only one minute (per Greg's clocked account of when Oswald left) after the U.S. President had just been shot outside LHO's workplace.

It was just another ho-hum, ordinary Friday around the Book Depository on November 22. Nothing big happening at all.

Right, Greg?

>>> "Yet you would have him in suicide mode inside the TT [Texas Theater]." <<<

Why would you say that?

You think Oswald's pulling a gun on police officers in the theater was a sign of him being SUICIDAL?


It's a sign of just the opposite, of course -- i.e., he wanted to kill the cops before they could kill him.

>>> "Then he [LHO] should have headed straight out of the state, no? [after I had earlier said that Oswald "probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the crime scene as soon as he could"]" <<<

He probably was headed "out of the state". But he never got that far.

Seeing as how he had to walk and use busses and cabs for his transportation, it's not surprising he didn't get very far after murdering the President. (Duh.)

Oswald's post-assassination movements are, of course, a very good reason to know that Oswald was performing a solo act on 11/22/63. But, for some reason, conspiracy theorists always refuse to use their common sense when talking about this case.

So, naturally, in the upside-down world of conspiracy-hungry kooks, Oswald's post-assassination actions (which undeniably are saying "I'm All Alone!") are interpreted as meaning something else entirely by the CTers.

Go figure the topsy-turvy thinking of conspiracists.

>>> "Is there anything in the WCR which is unreasonable, in your opinion?" <<<

Not very much, no. They investigated the murder of the President in great detail....and they arrived at the truth regarding that murder (and J.D. Tippit's murder and Lee Harvey Oswald's murder too).

I have a small quibble with the Commission, though when it comes to the reconstructions of Oswald's post-12:30 movements (see later comments). But that quibble, in the long run, only makes Lee Oswald MORE likely to be the killer of JFK, not less likely.

>>> "Timings established by ludicrous recreations... jogging for chrissakes.... were Baker and Truly in training for a Fun Run or chasing down an assassin?" <<<

During one of the re-creations, the Warren Commission should have had Secret Service Agent John J. Howlett SPRINT across the sixth floor and down the stairs, instead of merely doing two reconstructions at a "normal walking pace" and a "fast walk" [Warren Report, p.152].

I kind of doubt that Oswald was strolling along at a "normal walking pace" after having just shot the President of the United States in the head. A "fast walk"? Perhaps. But, IMO, the WC should have performed at least one re-creation test at a pace that was FASTER THAN JUST "WALKING". But they did not do such a test.

"A test was...conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the [TSBD] sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by [the] stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast. corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald’s rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test, at a “fast walk” took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run." -- WCR; Page 152

>>> "And yet, [after I said this: "The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr. Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses"] you will argue WHEN IT SUITS YOU, as does Bugliosi, that "time estimates given by, for instance, a single witness would often change every time the witness was interviewed and nearly always be in conflict with those given by other witnesses. All of this, of course, is normal and to be expected." [End Bugliosi quote] .... Your hero [Greg means VB, of course] shoots you down." <<<

Vince, of course, is correct. Time estimates should be weighed and balanced, and many times they should be discarded entirely, such as Helen Markham's time estimates for the Tippit murder. We know via other evidence that Markham was most certainly incorrect about her "1:06" to "1:07" timing for the Tippit slaying (and at one point she said she thought the murder occurred at around 1:30).

But many CTers think we should let Tippit's murderer (that was Lee Oswald, of course) off the hook because of Markham's timeline (and Bowley's), even though Oswald was positively identified by Mrs. Markham (and others) as Tippit's killer.

With respect to the Baker/Truly/Oswald timeline, conspiracy theorists always will totally ignore the fact that re-creations were done by the Secret Service, FBI, and Warren Commission....all of which favor the likelihood of Oswald being able to get from the sixth floor to the second floor in well under 90 seconds.

And, as mentioned earlier, it's likely that Oswald was moving much faster than Agent Howlett of the Secret Service was moving during Howlett's reconstruction of the event, making it much more likely that Oswald got to the lunchroom on the 2nd Floor in less than Howlett's best time of 74 seconds.

But it's best if CTers continue to ignore these realities. Otherwise, it might make the prized "patsy" look a lot guiltier.

>>> "Mary Bledsloe [sic; Bledsoe] was old and Oswald had only been a boarder for a very short time. Her memory was obviously not good as she needed notes to give her testimony -- and that on the suggestion of Secret Service. Let's be kind and say she was manipulated into her role, or was simply genuinely mistaken, but encouraged." <<<

LOL. Oh, good! More people being "manipulated" by the evil "Let's Frame Oswald" forces that were present in massive quantities in late 1963 in Dallas (and Washington...and New Orleans...and Mexico City...etc.).


>>> "McWatters was absolutely not a liar. He told the truth. He was under the impression he was brought in to ID the laughing boy." <<<

Could be. But so what?

>>> "[The paper bus transfer was] conveniently found [in Oswald's shirt pocket] after they got reports of laughing boy and wanted to make Oswald fit that role. In fact, the transfer was probably given to, and taken from young Master [Milton] Jones." <<<

You kooks are a riot.

You think that the cops even went to the trouble of lying about something totally meaningless -- like the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket.

Naturally, you have absolutely no good-enough reason to suspect the authorities of foul play with respect to the bus transfer (or anything else). But that won't stop you from planting a seed of suspicion against the Dallas cops. Right, Greg?

In a word -- Pathetic.

>>> "There is also this from a commission letter to the FBI re McWatters... "...changed his story to the effect that he was mistaken when he identified Oswald as the individual who rode on his bus on 11/22/63. McWatters stated that the person who was the subject of his testimony was a young teenager named Milton Jones." <<<

Big ol' LOL here! [In fact, I think two are needed in this instance.]

The conspiracy theorist named Greg Parker actually seems to think that the above statement by the Warren Commission regarding bus driver Cecil McWatters is something that can be utilized by kooks such as Mr. Parker to somehow paint the Commission and/or the DPD (et al) as lying, rotten crooks in some fashion. (You DO think that the WC was full of nothing but lying, rotten crooks who were bent on finding Oswald guilty, don't you Greg?)

In reality, that particular transmission from the WC to the FBI shows the HONESTY of the Commission in general. It's also called: GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT (which is something that CTers never seem capable of doing).

>>> "He [LHO] denied it [being on the bus] initially, and we only have the word of his interrogators that he recanted." <<<

And, naturally, those "interrogators" never would tell the truth. Would they, Greg?

>>> [After I said this: "Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you talk to a conspiracy kook.)" -- Greg Parker then uttered this batch of retarded idiocy:] "No. He was stopped. Just not by Baker and not on the 2nd floor." <<<

Good! More liars to add to a kook's list -- Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly.

>>> "LOL. After two days, this simple action of a bus ride had not been fully fleshed out???!!! Yet these were the genuises [sic] who got their man in record time? Come on." <<<

The "not fully fleshed out" conclusion is, of course, the only reasonable one to come to.

But to a conspiracy kook, it's MORE reasonable to think that a bunch of people were trying their darndest to frame an innocent man for TWO murders.

Sorry, Greg, but my scenario is just a tad more "reasonable".

>>> "The only valid conclusion is that it took time for these moroons to realise [sic] Oswald was not Laughing Boy Milton. But by then, they were not about to admit such an egregious error. Oswald had to be place[d] on that bus now just to save face." <<<

District Attorney Henry Wade (et al) merely were incorrect about Oswald being the "laughing boy". Simple as that.

All reasonable people know that Oswald was on Cecil McWatters' bus on 11/22/63. It's only the retarded conspiracy-happy kooks who want to try and deny that LHO was ever on the bus.

Per the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists, it evidently was "THE WORLD VS. THE PATSY" in November 1963, and everybody in officialdom decided to join in the frame-up of an innocent man.

Right, Greg?

>>> "[It was Milton] Jones' [bus] transfer. No mystery." <<<

So you think somebody planted Milton Jones' bus transfer in Lee Oswald's shirt pocket in order to frame Sweet Lee, eh?

LOL. The lengths you kooks will go to try and exonerate a double-murderer have no boundaries. Do they, Greg?

Didn't think so.

David Von Pein
June 26, 2009


JANUARY 25, 1961:

NOVEMBER 14, 1963:









(PART 598)


DVP, the use of a FULLY-loaded soft point bullet [in the 2008 program, "JFK: Inside The Target Car"] was a strawman. Anyone who's read anything about wound ballistics would know that a fully-loaded soft-point bullet fired from anywhere in Dealey, and striking Kennedy in the skull, would have left far more metal in the brain, and exited from the opposite side. As a result, it seems pretty clear they took that shot to mislead their viewers, and convince them such a shot--a shot no one really proposes--did not occur.


So, you think that most conspiracy theorists believe that the phantom "Knoll Shooter" shot JFK with a very LOW-powered gun and/or only a PARTIALLY-loaded bullet (vs. a "FULLY-loaded" one)?

IOW -- The stupid conspirators decided they'd give JFK a fightin' chance to survive by NOT USING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FIREPOWER THAT THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON.


The stupid conspirators were apparently as miserly and/or short of funds as Lee Harvey Oswald was on 11/22/63, so the "plotters" decided to use a crappy or semi-crappy weapon that fired bullets that weren't "FULLY-loaded" and that wouldn't even result in ANY metal fragments being found in the left half of JFK's head at all after the assassination, eh?

As can easily be seen via my comments above, it's very easy to defeat the conspiracists who reside in the "JFK Was Shot In The Head From The Grassy Knoll" club by utilizing common sense alone.

And when the actual EVIDENCE is thrown into the mix (along with the common sense that CTers lack), defeating these conspiracy advocates becomes a considerably easier task.


BTW, I also find it unlikely the head shot came from the front.


But, being very similar to a conspiracist named Thomas H. Purvis, you can manage to get to within shouting distance of the official lone-assassin truth of JFK's assassination, but you can't quite travel that extra few feet to reach the "LHO Did It All" endzone.

A very curious thing indeed. Not many CTers suffer from that odd affliction, but Mr. Speer and Mr. Purvis are certainly two that do.


My problem with the ["Inside The Target Car"] program has NOTHING to do with whether or not I disagree with their conclusion, and has EVERYTHING to do with its being a dishonest presentation.


It wasn't a dishonest presentation at all (at least as far as the meat-&-potatoes of the program are concerned; i.e., the three head-shot tests that were done and that ended up on the TV screen).

The program fired three bullets into test dummies and filmed the results. Simple as that.

You, Pat, I guess are upset at The Discovery Channel people for not using a much lower-powered weapon (or bullet) for the non-Carcano "Grassy Knoll" simulation.

But, like I said in an earlier post, since the Knoll shot is one that never occurred in the first place, the people doing the simulation of this non-existent gunshot had to make a choice of what type of rifle and ammunition to use.

And they chose a Winchester that fired a soft-nosed bullet (and why on Earth anyone would think that a group of conspirators would have chosen some type of weak-sister, half-assed, low-powered type of ammunition to achieve their goal of KILLING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in Dealey Plaza, is a CTer mindset that I cannot understand in the slightest).

BTW, Pat, your earlier post didn't even mention the non-Carcano (Winchester) test shot. You wrote that post as if the Carcano "Knoll" shot was the only one done during the "Target Car" program.

Why did you write your post as if you were totally unaware of the Winchester rifle test shot?

David Von Pein
June 23, 2009

(PART 597)


DVP, one of the mistakes of 'Inside the Target Car', as noted by myself and [James] DiEugenio, is that they test the grassy knoll shot using the wrong ammunition. Virtually everyone who believes the shot came from this direction believes some sort of specialized ammunition was used, so why conduct the test using standard M/C [Mannlicher-Carcano] ammo--which no one really even suspects?


Excuses, excuses.

You CTers are amazing.

Maybe you'd better watch the "Target Car" program again, Pat. Because apparently you missed the part where they shot a test dummy with a DIFFERENT (NON-CARCANO) TYPE OF AMMUNITION. [See video below.]

You surely know that the Discovery Channel people didn't utilize JUST a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle during their TWO tests that simulated a shot from the "Grassy Knoll" position. They also shot a test dummy with a soft-point bullet fired from a Winchester rifle....with that shot completely removing the test dummy's head.

And (obviously) since the "frontal shot from the Knoll" never occurred in the first place, the Discovery Channel people had to TAKE A WILD GUESS about any make-believe ammunition (and gun) that conspiracy theorists think was utilized from the Knoll.

Bottom line (again) -- ANY gunshot from the front would have resulted in damage to President Kennedy's head that was substantially different from the head damage that JFK actually sustained in 1963.

Plus: There's also the autopsy report and the autopsy photos and the autopsy X-rays, which ALL also confirm (beyond any and all doubt) that President Kennedy was not shot from the front.

It's time for conspiracy theorists to stamp this one MARK VII.

In other words -- It's a done deal. John F. Kennedy was NOT shot in the head from the front.

David Von Pein
June 23, 2009

(PART 596)


Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission, Posner or Bugliosi?


Why on Earth would ANY LNer ever even ATTEMPT to "support" their "side" without references to the first (and, by far, best) report and inquiry regarding the whole case -- The Warren Commission Report?

Seems to me that that would be the same as trying to confirm how to spell a particular word, but then deciding that a dictionary ISN'T the best place to go to confirm it. .... Or hitting a home run, and not bothering to touch any of the four bases. Just...silly.

The Warren Report is easily the best and most complete volume concerning the JFK case (including the 26 supporting volumes). It's not a perfect report, no. And not every witness who could have been interrogated was interrogated, true.

But the Warren Report reveals the very, very likely TRUTH about the events of 11/22/63. And it hasn't been undercut in any major (bottom-line) fashion in all the years since its 1964 publication. (And it's certainly not for lack of CTers trying to undercut its LN conclusions.)


Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?


I'll readily admit right now, I don't have nearly as much knowledge about the HSCA investigation as I probably should. (Probably due to the HSCA's basic and repeated "LN" conclusions that were already established by the Warren Commission. The acoustics debacle notwithstanding, of course.)

But let me ask Gil this:

Why do YOU completely ignore the pro-SBT conclusion of the HSCA panel? You obviously DO reject both the HSCA's and the WC's "versions" of the Single-Bullet Theory, because you think a frontal shot hit JFK in the throat.

And why are conspiracy theorists so willing and eager to toss out all of the "Oswald Was The Only Shooter Who Hit Anyone In The Limo With Any Bullets" conclusion that was reached by BOTH the WC and the HSCA? Why? ~cough~

Yes, I know that the two panels came to slightly different versions of the SBT (with differing probable Zapruder Film frame numbers for the SBT bullet strike), but COMMON SENSE was being utilized by both of those U.S. Government panels, because even though they wrestled with the EXACT Z-Frame that equated to the "SBT" -- both panels realized (based on the sum total of the evidence in the case that said they were right to realize it) that a ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME WITH A SINGLE BULLET TRAVELLING THROUGH BOTH VICTIMS *WAS* TO BE FOUND WITHIN THAT 26-SECOND AMATEUR MOTION PICTURE.

It's THERE! Positively. The HSCA and WC just had differing opinions as to WHERE on the film it was exactly located (with, of course, that damn freeway sign only serving to hinder both panels significantly -- and unfortunately).

But any reasonable researcher should be able to determine that a single bullet IS, indeed, going through both victims at just about Z-Frame #224.

Film analysis is subjective, yes. And there's no large black-lettered sign appearing on the screen during any of the frames in the Zapruder Film telling the world "THIS IS THE SBT FRAME, FOLKS!" -- but when evaluating the evidence in favor of the SBT being true (vs. the incredible and extraordinary things that must be accepted if the SBT is UNTRUE), plus when examining Zapruder's movie, a reasonable person has no choice, in my opinion, but to accept the Single-Bullet Theory as the correct scenario for the double-man wounding on Dallas' Elm Street in 1963.

And, of course, these four questions of Gil's [shown below] are really aimed at CTers, right? You can't fool me. These are questions for conspiracy believers only--without a doubt. ;) .....

"Do you ever get tired of trolling?"

"Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong?"

"Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW something about the subject matter?"

"Have you ever written any articles to support your side?"

David Von Pein
March 21, 2007

(PART 595)





Book Details:

Length: 480 pages
Publisher: Trine Day (November 1, 2009)
Language: English
Amazon.com Sales Rank [as of 1:00 AM EDT, 06/21/09]: #238,161 in Books
Purchase Link


Book Description:

Judyth Vary was once a promising science student who dreamed of finding a cure for cancer; this exposé is her account of how she strayed from a path of mainstream scholarship at the University of Florida to a life of espionage in New Orleans with Lee Harvey Oswald. In her narrative she offers extensive documentation on how she came to be a cancer expert at such a young age, the personalities who urged her to relocate to New Orleans, and what lead to her involvement in the development of a biological weapon that Oswald was to smuggle into Cuba to eliminate Fidel Castro. Details on what she knew of Kennedy’s impending assassination, her conversations with Oswald as late as two days before the killing, and her belief that Oswald was a deep-cover intelligence agent who was framed for an assassination he was actually trying to prevent, are also revealed.



Oh, good Lord. Another installment in "The Judyth Fables" is nearly upon us. Does the nonsense from this woman ever end?

Even the title is screwed up (grammatically). It should be "Lee & I". But I guess the rhyming words ("Me" and "Lee") are considered to be more necessary by the author than proper grammar. I'd sure hate to be the author of a book with such a grammatically incorrect title, though.

Is anyone here really going to wade through another 480 pages of Judyth Vary Baker's fantasies [and apparently a later edition has 624 pages]? Oh, the horror of it.

How on Earth that woman named Judyth was able to get THREE of her "OSWALD WANTED TO SAVE THE PRESIDENT!" books published is a bigger mystery than the JFK assassination ever was. Unbelievable! [And now a fourth.]



"The story Judyth [Vary Baker] came up with was so fraudulent on its face that even most conspiracy theorists have ganged up on her to debunk it.


Judyth's story started when she saw Oliver Stone's fantasy film 'JFK' in 1998 and decided she had an even bigger fantasy story to tell, partially through the technique of "recovered" memory. And as with so many of the fantastic tales told by nuts in the assassination saga, there's some small kernel of truth on which she built her fable: the fact that for a short period in the late spring and summer of 1963, she may have worked for the same company in New Orleans that Oswald did, William B. Reily and Company, Inc.


Before she got her job there, Judyth...was on the fast track to a bright and promising future flipping hamburgers at a small White Castle chain restaurant in New Orleans. But because Judyth had shown promise [in high school]...for her amateur work on cancer research...she says she was recruited...into a clandestine project funded by the CIA and Mafia: developing a bioweapon with which to kill Fidel Castro.


It was around this time that she met and fell hopelessly in love with Lee Harvey Oswald, who became a part of the project and with whom she had a torrid sexual affair. In an amusing footnote to the affair, Judyth said that their feelings for each other got "out of control," and they "were so desperate we even slept together in a red van that was being overhauled in Adrian Alba's garage."


But she said that when Clay Shaw learned about their lack of money forcing them to make love in such places, he felt sorry for them and started paying for their trysts at nice hotels in the city.


Just how does Judyth say she came by her knowledge? She claims she either personally met conspiracy icons like Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, et cetera, or Lee told her about them during pillow talk. So the remarkable 20-year-old, in just a few months, had more contact in New Orleans with the leading figures of conspiracy lore than perhaps any other known figure in the conspiracy community. I, for one, find this to be perfectly reasonable. [LOL]


Judyth claims the National Enquirer offered her $600,000 for her story (an amount the publisher might offer if Jesus returned and his agent promised an exclusive), but Judyth apparently wasn't interested. Only British producer Nigel Turner, who has made a fortune peddling phony stories, gave Judyth national exposure, devoting a full segment to her on his television show 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'.


It is an established fact that the CIA did do research...to develop some medical concoction to kill Castro. But what we didn't know until Judyth told us was that the CIA decided to also fund the motley group in New Orleans [consisting of Judyth, Oswald, and David Ferrie].


Judyth Baker has been called a "pathological liar." Although her story is a lie, this might be too harsh an indictment. From what I have read, she sounds more like a sick puppy to me.


If anyone even had the smallest doubt that Judyth is a gold-plated phony, all he or she has to do to remove that doubt is to read (if you can withstand the pain) Baker's book ["Lee Harvey Oswald: The True Story Of The Accused Assassin Of President John F. Kennedy By His Lover"; Volumes 1 and 2].


Baker's book is a total, embarrassing failure. Is there any way to stop Judyth from continuing to propagate her fantasy? Two volumes of nonsense, at this late date, show that the answer to this question is no."


With "Me & Lee" [and Baker's 2014 book "David Ferrie"] on the horizon for more gullible throngs of conspiracy theorists to lap up, it looks as if Mr. Bugliosi was 100% right when he said this:

"Is there any way to stop Judyth from continuing to propagate her fantasy? .... The answer to this question is no."

David Von Pein
June 21, 2009
January 26, 2014

(PART 594)


John [Canal] believes...that 13 different pathologists (not counting Dr. [Russell S.] Fisher himself) and various other people connected with THREE different U.S. Government investigations [Clark, Rockefeller, HSCA]...would have been willing to toss the truth aside regarding JFK's head wounds just in order to keep from contradicting Dr. Fisher.


Nobody cares about those panels, Von Pein.


Of course you don't. And that's because "those panels" paint your prized patsy as the guilty double-murderer he so obviously was.

So, naturally, all CTers hate "those panels", such as the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, the HSCA, and the Rockefeller panel.

Conspiracists are quick to totally dismiss everything "those panels" concluded (except, of course, for the HSCA's 11th-hour declaration of "conspiracy", despite the fact that even THAT declaration is completely contradictory to the scenario that nearly all conspiracy theorists hold so dear -- i.e., the scenario which has JFK hit in the head by a bullet from the FRONT, which is a conclusion that the HSCA did not come to at all).

You conspiracy kooks don't know what to believe. But those conspiracy kooks (somehow) know for a FACT that EVERY Government panel in charge of investigating the case got their conclusions all screwed up when they each said that Lee Oswald was positively guilty of TWO murders.

To the "Anybody But Oswald" idiots of the world, it's MORE REASONABLE to totally ignore the conclusions of BOTH the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations....and, instead, place our individual and collective faith in a bunch of amateur "researchers" who have decided that all of the evidence against Oswald is not to be trusted.

A lovely policy, isn't it? (If you're an idiot, that is.)

In the post-HSCA world, I'd put about as much faith in the "Anybody But Oswald" loons as I would in the notion that an alien spaceship from Neptune will be crashing through my front door tomorrow.

David Von Pein
June 19, 2009


On January 23, 2014, James DiEugenio and film director Oliver Stone were interviewed on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio program. And during that interview, which can be heard above, Mr. Stone said that slain Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit "was shot by an automatic", instead of Tippit being shot four times by Lee Harvey Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver (which is a gun that would not have automatically ejected the bullet shells after the bullets were fired from it).

As I usually do whenever I hear Oliver Stone speak about the alleged Government-sponsored conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, I had to simply shake my head in disbelief after hearing Stone's comment about the "automatic", and I also was asking myself this question -- Can Oliver Stone really be that naive when it comes to the Tippit murder?

Now, I know that most conspiracy theorists believe that it's people like myself--the lone-assassin advocates--who are the truly "naive" ones when it comes to examining and evaluating the evidence connected with JFK's and Officer Tippit's 1963 murders, but for Oliver Stone to actually believe what he said about Tippit really being shot with an automatic gun, it means that Stone also must believe one of the following two nutty things:

1.) The gunman who shot Officer Tippit four times with an automatic pistol fired those bullets while standing near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in Oak Cliff on 11/22/63. And therefore, the four empty bullet cartridge cases would have been automatically ejected from the killer's gun right there near the corner (which is where they were found after the shooting by three different civilian witnesses).

However, this first option has an additional problem for Stone, in that two of the four bullet shells recovered at the murder scene were picked up in the side yard of the apartment house on the corner of Tenth and Patton. Which would mean, if the gunman was using an automatic gun, that the killer needed to somehow shoot right through the side of the apartment building on the corner. But problems like this don't seem to bother conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone.


2.) The killer who shot Tippit with an automatic gun fired the shots from the location where ALL of the various witnesses said the shooter was located -- right beside Tippit's police car, which was parked in the street many yards away from the corner of Tenth & Patton. And then, after killing Tippit, the gunman picked up the four bullet shells that would have been automatically and immediately ejected from his automatic pistol onto the ground near Tippit's patrol car. The gunman would have then needed to carry those four expended bullet shells to the corner of Tenth and Patton, where he then proceeded to dump them on the ground near the front and side yard of the apartment building occupied by witnesses Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis (who were two of the witnesses who later positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the one and only gunman who was dumping bullet shells out of his gun as he fled the scene of the Tippit murder).

So, I ask Oliver Stone, or any other conspiracy theorist who doubts the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Tippit murder:

Are either of the above options truly reasonable things to believe, in light of the evidence which positively indicates that the ONE and only person with a gun on Tenth Street that day was seen emptying bullet shells--by hand--out of a revolver near the corner of Tenth and Patton on November 22nd?

And not only did witnesses Barbara and Virginia Davis positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the man they saw cutting across their yard carrying a gun [see 3 H 346 and 6 H 456, plus the affidavits linked below], but both of the Davis girls also filled out sworn affidavits on the day of the shooting (November 22, 1963), stating that the man they saw that day was "unloading" the gun he was carrying:

"Today, November 22, 1963, shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun."
-- Barbara Davis; 11/22/63 Affidavit

"I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."
-- Virginia Davis; 11/22/63 Affidavit

So, it seems to me that a conspiracist like "JFK" movie director Oliver Stone has no choice but to believe that BOTH of the young Davis girls were either severely mistaken when they each said the gunman was "unloading" a weapon as he crossed their yard....or that BOTH of the Davises were just flat-out lying in their 11/22/63 affidavits.

Plus, there would be the additional huge mistake (or lie) on the part of BOTH Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis when they each identified Lee Oswald as the gun-toting, shell-dumping individual who cut across their lawn right after Officer Tippit was slain just up the street.

The type of crap that Oliver Stone was spouting about J.D. Tippit makes me very angry, because it's so clearly B.S. coming from a person who (for whatever reason) refuses to evaluate the totality of the evidence and the witness statements in the light of reason and common sense. (And for some additional reason and common sense that explains the initial reports of an automatic pistol being involved in J.D. Tippit's slaying, go here.)

Because when Stone exclaims boldly--as if it were the undeniable truth--that Officer Tippit "was shot by an automatic" (a direct quote from Oliver Stone's 1/23/14 Black Op Radio interview), he is displaying a far greater ignorance of the evidence and the facts in the Tippit case than has ever been exhibited by any of the Warren Commission supporters that Mr. Stone so vehemently opposes.

Shot by an automatic, Mr. Stone? In my estimation, such a statement automatically disqualifies you as any kind of an authority on the events of November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
January 26, 2014

(PART 593)


DVP, you really need to do a little more reading on Fisher.


And if I do that reading, I guess I will then be expected to grab onto John Canal's coattails and therefore believe what John believes -- which is: That 13 different pathologists (not counting Dr. Fisher himself) and various other people connected with THREE different U.S. Government investigations (spanning more than ten years, from 1968 to 1978) would have been willing to toss the truth aside regarding JFK's head wounds....just in order to keep from contradicting Dr. Fisher.

Is that what is supposed to happen after I read up on Dr. Russell S. Fisher, Pat?

BTW, John Canal has never told us just exactly how many of the 13 different pathologists (not counting Fisher) who signed-off on the cowlick entry [JFK head wound] location truly were of the INDEPENDENT OPINION that the entry wound was located near the EOP.

John has said, in vague terms, that "they" (meaning some members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel and the Rockefeller Commission) actually "knew" (John's word) that the entry wound was in the EOP, even though "they" endorsed the cowlick entry location in their respective official reports. But I don't think John has ever said how many people make up the "they" he was referring to.

Here are John Canal's exact words:

"You find ridiculous, if not laughable, the notion that "experts" from the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA endorsed Fisher's cowlick entry and "No-BOH-Wound" conclusions, even though they knew the autopsists were correct about those wounds, either in order not to embarrass one of the most credentialed and prominent forensic pathologists in the country [Fisher] or to prevent the rather awkward situation where government panels (Rockefeller Commission and HSCA) would refute the conclusions of an earlier government investigation (Clark Panel) which had already refuted the findings published by an even earlier government investigation (Warren Commission)?" -- John Canal; March 31, 2009

Was it just Dr. Joseph Davis that John is talking about with respect to the HSCA particularly? Or was it ALL NINE members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel who decided to toss their collective integrity (and the truth) out the window in order to endorse an entry-wound location that ALL NINE of them "knew" was 100% false?

How about that, John? Care to enlighten us with the specific numbers regarding just who the "they" represents?

And then maybe you'd like to tell us how many of the other people from the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel [not counting Fisher himself, of course] really and truly thought the entry wound was near the level of JFK's "EOP", even though every one of those other persons endorsed the "cowlick" entry site as well.

David Von Pein
June 19, 2009

(PART 592)



>>> "They weren't trying to frame a lone patsy." <<<


Do conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone and Jim Fetzer (et al) know about this "THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO FRAME A LONE PATSY" discovery? I'll bet they'd be quite interested in it.

I'd hate to think that Oliver took the time and effort to make a huge blockbuster, multimillion-dollar motion picture and then discover that he's got it all wrong.

(Do you have any idea how much money it's going to cost Oliver and Warner Brothers to RE-FILM all of those "LONE PATSY FRAME-UP" scenes?? Months! You've just created a huge headache for WB and Ollie S.!)

>>> "They were trying to frame Castro." <<<

Did Fidel tell you that on your last trip to Havana?

>>> "The assassination was DESIGNED to look like a conspiracy." <<<

Great! Still more work for Oliver, as he re-adjusts his thinking on film...and re-adjusts history to meet the kooky demands of one Cliff Varnell (Not that Oliver's current theories aren't kooky enough, mind you.) ;)

>>> "There was no way he was going to get out of Dealey Plaza alive." <<<

Yeah, that's why "they" took the EXTRA risk of firing weak-sister projectiles at him ON PURPOSE (to "paralyze" him), instead of blowing him away with shot #1. Right?

>>> "That's why they paralyzed him first." <<<

Totally inconsistent with your previous "They MUST Have Him Dead By The Time He Exits The Plaza" mindset.

An extra non-lethal shot only INCREASES the likelihood the President will escape death. (Especially the FIRST shot!)

>>> "They didn't care if it was obvious that more than one shooter was involved." <<<

It appears "they" didn't care about a lot of things.

BTW, via your "THEY DIDN'T CARE" scenario, you must, therefore, NOT believe in the widely-accepted pro-conspiracy theories of:

1.) CE399 was planted in Parkland to frame ONLY Oswald.
2.) The Backyard Photos are fakes to frame ONLY Oswald.
3.) There were imposter "Oswalds" running all over Creation (including Mexico City) to frame ONLY Oswald.


>>> "The guys who covered up the crime by framing Oswald as the lone patsy weren't the same guys who engineered the assassination." <<<

Does Oliver know about THIS bombshell either?!

>>> "Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, and David Morales of the CIA engineered the assassination of JFK for the express purpose of framing Fidel Castro, to justify a U.S. military invasion of Cuba." <<<

I guess that little "Missiles" matter, which scared the living shit out of the entire population of the United States of America in mid-October of 1962, wasn't enough "justification" to invade Castro's territory, huh?

Were any alternate "invasion" plans considered?

IOW -- You say those three CIA guys hatched a scheme to kill the U.S. Chief Executive, instead of finding some "softer", less-desperate excuse to invade Cuba -- like, say, some kind of invented scenario (that nobody could possibly prove was "faked", given the CIA's power, right?) that has the CIA and the President thinking that the U.S. might be in further danger from Castro's Cuba due to the Missile Crisis aftermath from only a year before....and, therefore, we'd better invade Cuba now.

Was killing their own President the first, second, or third choice for Lansdale, Phillips, and Morales? Did any other possible "Cuba Invasion" plots cross their minds before making the following extraordinary decision in 1963?:

President John F. Kennedy MUST die in order to "justify" invading a country every American hated with a passion, circa 1962-1963.

>>> "That plan had to work perfectly -- or else it meant the gallows." <<<

Yeah, just ATTEMPTING to kill the President isn't nearly enough to get the plotters hanged, huh?

>>> "The big glitch in their plot -- Oswald was captured alive." <<<

And yet Oswald clams up and never says a word about any "CIA plot" that he's involved in. Right? He was just willing to take the rap alone, huh?

Plus: If it was so important to have Oswald dead right away, why didn't one of the "inside plotters" simply pump Oswald full of lead immediately? Why wait until he even has a CHANCE of being picked up by the cops? Where's Jack Ruby when they needed him on Nov. 22nd to bump off Oswald?!

>>> "FBI SA James Sibert's affidavit (quote on): Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely. .... I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize. (quote off) ===== FBI SA Francis O'Neill's affidavit (quote on): Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "ice" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. (quote off)" <<<

And you somehow think that the above comments represent a "conclusion" reached by the autopsists?

You earlier said this to me:

"The real irony here, David, is that this scenario, which you call 'foolish and idiotic', was the preliminary conclusion of the very autopsists upon whose testimony you base your case." -- Cliff V.; 03/19/2007

What Sibert and O'Neill said above were IN-PROGRESS POSSIBILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED regarding other ways that the autopsy doctors could possibly account for what they were seeing in that autopsy room on 11/22/63 (i.e., a dead President with bullet holes in him in various places but NOT A BULLET TO BE FOUND).

Why WOULDN'T the doctors have originally considered possibilities like Sibert and O'Neill discussed above? Sure they discussed those possibilities. And they dismissed them once the full facts concerning the throat wound were known the next day. Just like Humes dismissed the idea that a bullet had fallen out of JFK's back:

Mr. SPECTER - And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point "C" on Exhibit 385?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.

Mr. SPECTER - And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, have you since discounted that possibility, Doctor Humes?

Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have.

>>> "That's why Sibert called the FBI Lab: to inquire about blood-soluble rounds. This scenario fits the extant evidence like a glove. It is the only scenario to do so." <<<

Except for that scenario all CTers vehemently despise (but which fits the evidence even MORE "like a glove") -- the "Single-Bullet Theory", which is a scenario that needs no "soluble" type bullet at all.

The SBT fits the known evidence to a tee:

>>> "So Humes and Boswell were idiots?" <<<

Who said that? They CONSIDERED other possibilities to conceivably explain why President Kennedy had ZERO bullets and/or fragments inside his body (where those doctors KNEW there ought to be bullets present if a single bullet hadn't gone clear through the man).

They weren't "idiots"; they were smart to scratch their heads and look for other reasons why they were seeing what they were seeing. Once they got the information from Dr. Perry on November 23, everything made sense (which the autopsy report states, clear as day).....

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." -- VIA JFK'S AUTOPSY REPORT; NOV. 1963

>>> "You have observed JFK's obvious paralysis yourself, David." <<<

News to me. I always thought I was observing the Single-Bullet Theory in action....which is a theory that matches the Zapruder Film, again, to a "tee":

David Von Pein
March 19, 2007

(PART 591)


Look at the trigger guard here, with its sharp edged rear angle:


That trigger guard with a straight edge at the rear is NOT on the MC [Mannlicher-Carcano]!!!

So it is a different rifle altogether! Come on someone, name this rifle!


That trigger guard is definitely not right, IMO.

If it is not a re-enactment (or some other explanation), I am quite suspicious.

Good find.


Here is a capture from the Tom Alyea film:

…and the picture of the mystery gun (from the same film?):


It's merely the misleading angle seen in this picture of the rifle.

The video below shows several segments of Tom Alyea's film that (for some reason) are not included on Robert Groden's DVD "The Assassination Films". Groden's DVD only has a 1-minute segment from the Alyea film, but my video below includes approximately three additional minutes of Alyea's footage as it was being televised live on WFAA-TV in Dallas on 11/22/63, including the segment showing Lt. J.C. Day dusting the rifle for fingerprints.

During that "dusting for prints" segment, you can see as the rifle is being moved around by Lt. Day that the trigger guard does appear rounded (see the still photo provided below, just under the letters "LA" in "DALLAS"). It's not easy to see (the film quality is far from perfect), but it's fairly clear to me that the trigger guard is rounded (not straight).

Plus, to think that Lt. Carl Day is dusting a DIFFERENT rifle from the one Alyea filmed being taken from between the book cartons is just not a reasonable thing to believe at all, IMO. Lt. Day never handled TWO different rifles on the sixth floor on November 22nd. He handled ONE rifle---and that was Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.




Quite a few in the police department and D.A.'s office said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser when the alleged murder weapon was STAMPED "MADE ITALY" and "6.5 CAL". This means if the WC and its current day defenders are correct quite a few people could NOT read rudimentary English.

How likely do you think this is?



Anyone who repeated the "7.65 Mauser" identification was simply repeating the incorrect assumptions that were uttered by Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman. Very few people at the DPD actually examined (up close) the detailed markings on the weapon. I think that is fairly obvious.

A false piece of information can, as you know, spread like wildfire.

Plus, there were a variety of TV and radio reports that incorrectly labelled the rifle found on the sixth floor as all kinds of different types of weapons -- such as an Argentine Mauser, a German Mauser, a Japanese rifle, and a British .303 rifle. (See the video below.)


There's no way. Light can't create a hard straight line like that. The MC (and Mauser for that matter and Remington for that matter) has a smooth curve at the rear of the guard.

It is plainly evident in the photo that the trigger guard has a different design and what about that sliding bolt in front [of] it? The guy was obviously dusting another rifle. Either that or the photo has been retouched by a CT fanatic.



The two side-by-side photos you presented above are positively from the very same film taken by WFAA's Tom Alyea. The images were exposed through Alyea's motion picture camera just seconds apart.

Go to the 3:41 mark of the Alyea video I embedded above and freeze the video at that point. And then compare that frozen screen capture with the picture of this screen capture from the Alyea film:

They are identical. The still photo above has better quality and visual clarity than the freeze-frame at 3:41 in my Alyea video above, but even with the differences in quality, you can easily see how everything lines up in the two pictures -- e.g., Carl Day's pants leg, the brick wall on the left, the boxes on the right, Lt. Day's right hand just above the scope of the rifle, the dark shadow being cast on Day's pants leg, and the shadows on the boxes on the right.

And then if you start the video again and freeze it at 3:44 (just three seconds later), you can see that the trigger guard has seemingly changed from a "hard straight line" to a rounded configuration.

So, quite obviously, it's merely the perspective and the photographic angles involved that made it appear for a few seconds in Tom Alyea's film that the trigger guard had a sharp (or straight) edge on it.

You surely aren't going to now suggest that a portion of Alyea's film was altered or "retouched" when you can see for yourself that the "straight" edge on the trigger guard was caused by a photographic anomaly that disappeared in a matter of three seconds when you watch the film in real time.


David, you're right.


That "bolt" is an object behind the rifle and tends to bleed into the magazine housing.

False alarm!

What about the side strap attachment (seemingly absent from the backyard photos)?


It must be another one of those pesky "photographic anomaly" type of things, huh?

And I'll remind you of this conclusion reached by the HSCA regarding the backyard photos:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6, Page 146


"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66


Yes, there were many errors reporting the news in real time. That's why conspiracy theorists use this old info to distort the truth. 


These are not Errors but real fact...before the old Warren came in the portrait. Nice video.


Oh, so you (Frank) believe it's a fact that LBJ suffered a heart attack?

And it's a fact that LBJ was also shot?

And it's a fact that Officer Tippit was shot inside the Texas Theater?

And it's a fact that Jackie Kennedy was filmed going into the hospital from the parking lot?

And it's a fact that a Secret Service agent was killed on 11/22?

And it's a fact that JFK was taken to Parkland "by bus" (as Eddie Barker said on KRLD-TV)?

And it's a fact that Mal Couch's real name was Mal Crotch?

And it's a fact that some other people were also shot in Dealey Plaza (besides Kennedy and Connally), and those other injured persons were taken to Parkland "much later" (as reported by Dan Rather)?

And Lee Oswald's middle name was really "Harold"?

And Bill and Gayle Newman's last name is really "Nunnally" (per Jay Watson)?

And there must have been at least FIVE different rifles found in the TSBD -- an Italian "Mann-li-sher Car-chont-o" (per Walter Cronkite), plus an Argentine Mauser, plus a .303 British rifle, plus a German Mauser, plus a Japanese rifle?

And the shells were really found on the FIFTH floor, eh?

And then the assassin ran upstairs to hide the rifle on the sixth floor after the shooting (per Bob Clark of ABC)?

All of those things are "real facts", Frank? Or would you like to now pick and choose?


There are TWO AFFIDAVITS IN ANY FACT which state clearly that the rifle THEY FOUND was a 7.65 Mauser.

TWO AFFIDAVITS from a Deputy Sheriff and a DPD Officer [it was actually two Dallas County Deputies; neither Boone nor Weitzman were DPD officers], corroborated by a Detective and the Captain of Homicide.


DVP would have you dismiss these identifications, on a legally binding document, as a "belief" issue as opposed to an evidence issue.

Boone and Weitzman were not duty bound to describe the caliber and make of the rifle they found, that rifle was found on the 6th floor is more than enough, but they did not stop at "a rifle". They were very specific, one man selling rifles as a sideline and the other a sheriff with eyes and some level of intelligence.

And they did not wait days, weeks or months. These AFFIDAVITS were written the same day and the next...and signed.


It's truly amazing that there are still people who actually believe the Tom Alyea film is lying to them and that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor instead of the rifle that the Alyea film PROVES was being picked up off the floor by Lieutenant J.C. Day---a Mannlicher-Carcano.

I was recently watching the Alyea portion of Robert Groden's DVD ("The Assassination Films") and I heard Groden say something as the Alyea film was being shown on the screen that I had totally forgotten about. Groden claims that Billy Lovelady said at some point after Nov. 22 that he was up on the sixth floor when a rifle was first discovered and that the footage we see in Tom Alyea's film is merely a re-creation. It's all a staged/fake scene of Lt. Day pulling the rifle out from behind the book cartons.

Of course, the person who filmed all that activity which certainly shows a CARCANO and not a MAUSER, Tom Alyea, has never said a word about his footage only depicting a re-creation. So I guess Groden must believe Alyea was really filming the "staged" event much LATER in the day, right? Or did the DPD just happen to have Oswald's Carcano right there with them in the building, in order to plant it behind the boxes at about 1:30 PM and then "stage" the finding of a SECOND rifle. And apparently Will Fritz or J.C. Day must have acted as film directors and told Alyea when to start filming the fake/staged scene.

The whole notion that the police found two rifles on the sixth floor is nothing but the wild imaginings of conspiracy theorists (like Bob Groden). And btw, has anybody ever seen any statement or interview with the late Billy Lovelady which has Lovelady talking about the "staged" rifle scene in Alyea's film?

Or could it be that Lovelady was so certain in his own mind (for whatever reason) that a Mauser really WAS first found in the Depository that when he later saw the Alyea film that shows a Carcano, he (Lovelady) convinced himself that the film must be showing a staged or re-created event--because Lovelady is convinced a Mauser was really found? (Sounds like a plausible scenario to me, if in fact Lovelady ever said any such thing about the Alyea film depicting a "re-creation" of the rifle being found.)

In any event, with or without Bob Groden's and/or Billy Lovelady's silly idea that the footage we see in the Alyea film depicts a staged or re-created finding of the TSBD rifle, there is ample proof to show that Weitzman's and Boone's initial "Mauser" identification was nothing but a mistake on the part of those Dallas deputies.

First, there's the Alyea film above (which is not showing a Mauser, it's showing a Carcano).

And secondly, there are the later filmed (video) statements made by BOTH Seymour Weitzman (in 1967 on CBS-TV) and Eugene Boone (in 1986 at the mock Oswald trial in London). Both men said that they were mistaken when they said in 1963 the gun found on the sixth floor was a Mauser. Were both of these deputies being coerced by somebody else to say these things on television?:

Plus, we have the conclusions reached by the HSCA in 1978 regarding the authenticity of the Backyard Photos [previously quoted above]. Did the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel just make all of that stuff up out of thin air as part of a continuing cover-up?


I noticed Boone, at the mock trial, said he learned the rifle was a Carcano only after the FBI had their hands on it and said it was a Carcano. He did not know Lt. Day was parading the rifle in front of the press telling them it was an Italian rifle made in 1940 on the early evening of 11-22-63...I guess.


As far as I know, Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD never uttered a word while parading around holding the rifle over his head at 6:15 PM on November 22. Day was never interviewed by the press. He merely carried the gun in silence.

As I said in one of my forum posts recently, I don't think very many people at the DPD had an up-close look at the rifle at all on Day #1. Lt. Day, in fact, might have been the only person who had a really good look at it (and perhaps Captain Fritz too, who we can see via Tom Alyea's film was examining the gun up close in the TSBD).

But it was Lt. Day who took possession of the gun inside the TSBD, and it was Day who carried it out of the building, and it was Day who then locked it up in a lock box at City Hall for a few hours while he went back to the Depository to take pictures.

Lieutenant Day then went back to City Hall and started examining the rifle in greater detail. Then, close to midnight, he was told to stop working on the rifle and to turn it over to Vincent Drain of the FBI, which he did.

Ergo, the initial incorrect "Mauser" reports coming from Dallas County Deputies Weitzman and Boone became the "facts" as far as many people (and reporters thirsty for details) were concerned.


I've seen a couple clips of the rifle traveling through the DPD, but never see the whole thing like I wish we did. When asked what kind of rifle it was, Day said, "6.5, apparently made in Italy 1940".

I [saw] it aired, and heard him say it on a CNN show called "The Assassination of President Kennedy" on 11-21-13.

I recorded it and just watched it again.


I don't recall that clip with Lt. Day saying something to the press. I wonder if I have it in my video collection? I'm not sure, but I'm sure going to look for it. Thanks, Michael. And my apologies for saying that Lt. Day never spoke to the press in the DPD corridors. I guess you just proved me wrong in that regard. Thank you.


Why that is not included in the clips of this historic event, I do not understand.


Perhaps it is buried in my collection someplace. I don't know. But thanks for the info nonetheless.


I watched the CNN program he [Michael G.] mentions, and can verify that the quote of Day is accurate.


Thanks, Pat.

I just did a little digging into my video archives and verified for myself that at least one TV network (CBS) was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd.

In the video clip below, which was aired live on CBS-TV on the evening of 11/22/63, Dan Rather of CBS News clearly calls the rifle being held up by Lt. J.C. Day an "Italian 6.5-millimeter" gun. We can't hear Lt. Day say anything; we only hear Rather's narration in this clip, but it is clear from the video that Lt. Day definitely is speaking to the members of the press at the crowded City Hall. He's probably identifying the rifle in just the manner confirmed by Michael Giampaolo and Pat Speer:

6/8/2018 EDIT----

Also see the video below (at 54:10) for further confirmation that the press had just gotten word (via comments that were made by Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department at exactly 6:16 PM CST, according to the clock we can see on the wall behind Lt. Day in the video) that the rifle being held aloft by Lt. Day is a 6.5-millimeter Italian military rifle. In that video clip, just after Lieutenant Day gets into the elevator with the rifle, we can hear a newsman say the words "Italian-made" and "6.5". The newsman who said those things had obviously just seconds earlier heard those same words come from the mouth of Lieutenant J.C. Day:

6/9/2018 EDIT----

And also see the video below, which is the complete 2013 CNN documentary that Michael Giampaolo talked about earlier (entitled "The Assassination Of President Kennedy"). And included in that program (at 20:10) is, indeed, the voice of Lieutenant J.C. Day uttering these words --- "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940":

--- END 2018 EDITS ---

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that everybody on radio or television was labelling the murder weapon as a Mauser all the way through
Day 1 (November 22nd) are proven wrong (just as I was proven wrong on this issue too) by the above videos alone. And if CBS was reporting that the assassination weapon was a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle during the evening of November 22nd, you can bet that most of the other TV and radio networks were reporting the very same thing at that same time as well.

Thanks again to Michael and Pat. Your confirmation of Lt. Day's statements in the 2013 CNN program prompted me to dig further myself. And the digging paid off. Much obliged.



The original KRLD-TV video tape of Day holding the rifle is in The Sixth Floor Museum's permanent collection and it has been licensed to many documentaries over the years. The audio track includes Day's first words which were, "There's no name on it." From there, going by memory, he says, "6.5mm, made in Italy, 1940."

As Day said in his museum's oral history, he was taking the rifle back to his office and held it overhead so reporters couldn't touch it. As the clock shows, the scene happened at 6:16pm on Friday and both AP and UPI wire services soon fed his words around the world.

Boone and Weitzman, who both worked for the Sheriff's Department, never saw the rifle again after they or it left the TSBD. One of the two reporters present, either Tom Alyea/WFAA-TV or Kent Biffle/Dallas Morning News, presumably reported the ID information to their offices, so that must be how the Mauser story started.


Thanks, Gary.


By the way, the video of Day was not shown live; the scene was recorded at KRLD and fed to CBS soon thereafter for Rather to narrate on the network.



Yes, I know. It's obvious that Dan Rather isn't narrating a LIVE scene taking place at Dallas City Hall. That's why I phrased a portion of my forum post in this manner (knowing full well that the clock on the wall behind Lieutenant Day was showing a time of 6:16):

"CBS was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd."



By your own admission these men KNEW it was a 6.5mm Italian rifle the evening of the 22nd, yet Weitzman doesn't sign the typed version of his affidavit until the 23rd. Boone is also aware of the ID, yet both men specify the weapon THEY SAW as something else.


How do you know Weitzman and Boone were aware that the rifle was an Italian 6.5mm on 11/22 or 11/23? Neither man worked at the DPD/City Hall (which is where Lt. Day had the rifle in his possession). Boone and Weitzman were county officers, not DPD personnel.

That's not to say, however, that Weitzman and/or Boone COULDN'T have been present at DPD/City Hall at some point in time on both Nov. 22 and/or Nov. 23 (after all, it's probably true that Roger Craig, another of Sheriff Decker's deputies, was indeed present at City Hall on one or both of those days).

But give me some documentation that shows either Boone or Weitzman positively knew that the rifle was an Italian gun when they filled out their statements/affidavits. Is there such documentation to prove such a thing?

And how can you possibly believe a MAUSER was found on the sixth floor when we've got Tom Alyea's film staring us in the face every day which positively shows an ITALIAN CARCANO being lifted off of the floor and then examined by Lt. Day?

Do you think that the Alyea film represents a staged or phony scene on the sixth floor?

Bottom Line --- The totality of evidence coupled with the testimony of all of the police officers who were present when the rifle was found* indicates one thing for sure:

ONE rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63....and that rifle (as we can see in the Alyea footage) was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

* Excluding the later lies told by Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig. His post-1964 observations must be dismissed, because we know he was a liar when it comes to the identification of the rifle.


I can't believe that people insist upon arguing about what kind of rifle was found in the TSBD a whole 50 years later.

Newsman Tom Alyea filmed its discovery and examination. Police had sealed the building, so in order to get WFAA's exclusive film on the air immediately, he actually threw the reel of film out a TSBD window to a colleague waiting below.

A WFAA employee recalls that the station was in such a hurry to broadcast it that it was still wet from processing the first time it was aired that afternoon. Yet people still claim that the film is faked or staged, because they can't accept that the rifle found was Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, the exact same one he posed with in the world-famous photographs that some people still insist are ALSO forgeries. (The House committee's photographic panel concluded otherwise.)


No one called it a M-C [Mannlicher-Carcano] for some time.


The weapon was changed the next day when the Klein order was "found." That is what the evidence shows and it is the only scenario that explains everything that happened.


I love it when videos like this can destroy a conspiracy theorist's worthless claims (like Caprio's quoted above).

Now, it's true that Dan Rather doesn't use the words "Mannlicher-Carcano" in this video clip below. But I think you get the point anyhow.

This clip (which depicts an earlier videotaped clip of Lt. Day holding the rifle) was aired live on the CBS-TV network shortly after 6:16 PM CST on 11/22/63.....


Von Pein thinks silly pictures and photographs are going to save them. They aren't.

Despite this footage [embedded twice above], District Attorney Wade was still calling the rifle a Mauser nearly six hours later. If they realized they made a mistake, why was he still calling it a Mauser AFTER it was realized it was not a Mauser, per the WC and you?

Dave refuses to answer my simple question and that says it all.


The obvious answer that Caprio refuses to accept is that District Attorney Henry Wade was simply unaware of the fact that the rifle in evidence was an Italian Carcano.

Any statement made by Wade (or anyone else) to the effect that the rifle was a Mauser was a statement simply made in error. Such statements were merely the result of word-of-mouth and anyone who said the rifle was a "Mauser" was merely repeating the incorrect initial observations of Dallas Deputies Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone.

Hardened conspiracy theorists like Robert Caprio, naturally, will refuse to accept my perfectly logical explanation above. Well, so be it. I'm used to that.

BTW, shown below is Henry Wade's press conference from around midnight on 11/22/63. There are some cuts and edits in this film footage, so it's fairly obvious that not every word uttered by Wade during this press gathering is included in this video. And if Wade said the word "Mauser" to the press during this conference, you won't hear it here, which will probably prompt Mr. Caprio and Ralph Cinque (et al) to create a brand-new theory about how this film has been altered on purpose by members of the JFK conspiracy, in order to intentionally delete any reference to a "Mauser" being found in the Book Depository.

Somebody go get Dr. Cinque and ask him if he wants to add this news film to his ever-growing list of "altered" films and photos connected with John F. Kennedy's murder. This is the same conference, by the way, that includes Jack Ruby (among others) correcting Henry Wade about the Fair Play For Cuba Committee:


Doesn't it seem out of the ordinary that police would allow a news photographer to videotape the early moments of an evidence search? Alyea not only gets into the TSBD and is allowed onto the crime scene, but he photographs the critical collection/discovery of evidence. I can see a crime photographer from the DPD... but a newsman? And he is allowed to leave TSBD with his camera and film... and then it's broadcast on TV?

In contrast, others' cameras are purportedly being confiscated by the FBI and SS as key evidence (e.g. Z film)... some allegedly taken and destroyed.

I'm resisting seeing evil in everyone and everything associated with the case. But I cannot see police allowing that to happen in this day and age, much less at the scene of a presidential assassination.


Interestingly and ironically, I have previously used that exact same type of argument to EXONERATE the police of any wrong-doing or evidence-planting, etc.

Because if the cops were up on that 6th floor planting evidence and switching rifles around (and God knows what else), as many conspiracists seem to believe WAS happening shortly after 12:30 on November 22nd, then the LAST thing they'd want is a TV news cameraman FILMING all of this type of sinister activity. Does anyone think they'd WANT it on film?? That's kinda crazy.

I do, however, think it was a bit crazy to allow Alyea to stay on the sixth floor--smack in the middle of the crime scene. He was allowed access to everything on the sixth floor, it would appear. And the excuse used by reporter Kent Biffle (who was also allowed to roam freely in the building, along with Alyea) that the police "were stuck with us; what were they going to do, throw us out a window?" is totally ridiculous [see "JFK: Breaking The News"; PBS-TV; 2003].

All the police needed to do, even after the building was officially "sealed off", would be to escort those two gentlemen (Alyea and Biffle) to the front door, then open the door to let the men exit the building, and then lock the door again after the men had left. Why on Earth was that impossible to do? And yet they didn't perform that simple door-opening task. Or at the very least, the police should have kept Alyea off of the "crime scene" floor. But they didn't perform that easy task either. ~big shrug~

In summary, I do not believe for even a second that the Dallas police and Sheriff's officers were on the sixth floor monkeying around with the evidence connected to the President's murder. And therefore, I certainly don't subscribe to the unsubstantiated theory that Tom Alyea filmed merely a "re-creation" of the rifle being discovered.

It's particularly far-fetched to believe in such sinister and underhanded actions on the part of Dallas law enforcement officers when factoring in the SPEED in which such sinister actions would have been taking place.

Do conspiracists actually believe that the Dallas cops were so swift and effective (and downright evil) that they wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald within literally minutes of the assassination taking place? Again, that's fairy tale time.

Plus, do CTers think that the DPD just happened to have at their disposal Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to plant in the building very shortly after the shooting, so that Tom Alyea could film its discovery and then throw the film out a TSBD window so that the world would quickly be able to see that it was a Carcano being dusted by Lt. Day instead of the Mauser that many conspiracy theorists believe was first found on the sixth floor?

How far down "This Is Insane!" Avenue is a person supposed to travel before slamming on the brakes and restoring their common sense?


I cannot let DVP do this over and over and get away with it...

He cannot prove it was OSWALD's OWN rifle...

He can't prove or corroborate or authenticate ANY of the rifle evidence, yet you make such unbelieveably naive and insulting comments. Are you really this lost?

It is your place to get the rifle into the man's hands on the 6th floor David. Go back as far as you like, Italy for all I care, as there is nothing you can do other than manufacture evidence (like your buds the FBI) to support what you keep claiming to be true.

If you could do that you would... instead you ramble on about what SHOULD have been or COULD have been....instead of actually addressing what WAS.

HIDELL's coupon ordered a C20-T750, a scoped 36" TS rifle ordered by Kleins in Jan 1962, although they never got any TS rifles in January 1962... So the ads for a 36" scoped rifle starting in March 1962, BEFORE THE CANCELLED TS SHIPMENT... which rifles were shipped for those orders David?


You wanna guess whether the WC called Westra or Kasper? And maybe you heard of Feldsott and yet ANOTHER c2766?

Go back to bed Dave... your time has come and gone - all that's left is the comic entertainment you provide by defending the actual killers of the man.


David Josephs' nice little rant above [more of which can be seen here] doesn't change the basic "rifle" facts concerning Lee Oswald's purchase of Carcano #C2766.

In order for Oswald to NOT be the purchaser of Carcano Rifle #C2766, it would mean that ALL of the paperwork associated with Oswald's/"Hidell's" rifle purchase was faked and manipulated (right down to Oswald's "fake" handwriting on ALL of the various documents pertaining to said purchase).

And no conspiracy theorist (not even David Josephs of northern California) has ever come within six miles of being able to prove that ANY of the Klein's paperwork was forged or planted or tainted to frame LHO.

And believing that all of that CORROBORATIVE paperwork (including the
U.S. Postal Money Order made out in the exact amount needed to purchase the rifle [with scope] from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago) has somehow been falsely manufactured in order to frame an innocent man for the President's murder is--quite frankly--a very very silly idea.

And I always get a kick out of the conspiracy mongers who like to prop up Mitchell Westra's statement about Klein's never putting scopes on the 40-inch rifles. The CTers will always, invariably, leave out the part of Westra's statement where he says this:

"Undoubtably Klein's mounted some..."

But it's probably best if conspiracy theorists like David Josephs totally ignore that part of Westra's remarks in this 1978 report below:

So the very person (Mitch Westra) that the CTers love to prop up in their never-ending efforts to try and exonerate a double murderer is actually providing information that indicates that Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago DID "undoubtably" (usually spelled "undoubtedly") mount "some" scopes on the forty-inch rifles they shipped to customers in 1963.

The irony there seems to be quite thick....isn't it David J.?

"To say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?" -- DVP; August 2, 2012


With respect to the conspiracy theorists' persistent claim that Klein's Sporting Goods never mounted scopes on their 40-inch Italian Carcano rifles, THIS NOVEMBER 2013 ARTICLE goes a long way toward debunking such a notion, because in that article, the gunsmith who worked in the Klein's warehouse in 1963, William H. Sharp (now 82 years old), said that he told his boss right after the assassination in 1963: “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it”.

For more "rifle" common sense, go HERE.

David Von Pein
January 22-27, 2014
January 24-27, 2014
February 1, 2014
June 8-9, 2018