(PART 768)


The easiest way to approach this crime is to first determine if it was possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots.


Yes, Robert, I agree with you on this. That is a very good starting point.

And a reasonable person, after considering all of the BEST AND MOST RELIABLE EVIDENCE in the case, can only come to one logical conclusion concerning that important starting point. And that conclusion is:

Yes, it definitely was possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired all of the shots that were fired at President Kennedy's car in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.


Fortunately, it is ridiculously easy to prove that he couldn't.


Now Bob Harris goes off the "logic" rails by insisting that his unique subjective analysis of the Zapruder Film (in conjunction with witness statements) gives him the freedom and the luxury of declaring with certainty that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots.

This puts me in mind of another conspiracy theorist who is either pulling the collective legs of everyone here at the ACJ newsgroup or is genuinely retarded and/or crazy -- a certain Mr. "Nobody" -- who insists in this post that he has seen a photo taken at Love Field that actually shows a bullet in mid-air after it supposedly went through JFK's body.

Yes, the kook known as "Nobody" actually claims that President Kennedy was shot BEFORE HE LEFT LOVE FIELD! And "Nobody" also claims that every film that was taken after JFK left the airport has been "altered".

"All films are faked." -- "Nobody"; 11/24/09

That's how utterly insane some conspiracy theorists can be when talking about the assassination of JFK. (Of course, it's quite likely that Mr. "Nobody" is scamming everyone here and is merely pretending to believe in something totally ridiculous in order to smear other "CTers". But with some conspiracists, you just can never be sure if they're serious or not when they dive off the CT diving board of absurdity. So, who can know for sure?)

Robert Harris, however, isn't nearly as insane and nutty as Mr. "Nobody", of course. But I just wanted to point out the parallel concerning "subjective analysis", which is the type of analysis on which Mr. Harris is basing his determination that a gunshot was fired at Zapruder Film frame #285 (a determination that Harris says, in effect, is "ridiculously easy to prove").

I'm guessing that Mr. "Nobody" would probably say the same thing about his analysis of a particular photograph taken at Love Field, which is a photo "Nobody" claims depicts a "bullet exiting [JFK's] neck...the bullet is shown in midair about two inches from his neck" ["Nobody"; 11/20/09].

Such is the difficulty with analysis that is wholly subjective. Such conclusions about a "BULLET IN MIDAIR" [fired at Love Field] or a gunshot at Z285 that is "RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO PROVE" are conclusions that can easily be dismissed by other JFK researchers as being nonsense for a variety of logical reasons.


"Looks like Brian David Andersen (the kook who believes that JFK was wearing a "pyrotechnics device" on his head on 11/22/63) has competition for "Conspiracy Retard Of The Year" here in 2009." -- DVP; 11/20/09

David Von Pein
November 21, 2009
July 31, 2014

(PART 767)


[William] Whaley's family believes he was born three years later than he claimed.


Who cares? Please tell me why this matters.


This jives nicely with consistent info in consecutive US census records, and with the year his parents were married.....1907. Why did he change his birth year?


Again, who cares? It means nothing, and you know it. You're just being silly.

There's controversy over Doris Day's year of birth too....

Maybe you can find some way to tie Doris into the JFK plot too? She was, remember, the mother of the man who previously rented the same house that Sharon Tate was murdered in. And Vince Bugliosi wrote books about both the Sharon Tate/Charles Manson murder case and the JFK assassination. Surely any good conspiracy kook can work that into something conspiratorial.


Why did he [Whaley] claim heroic service off the Iwo Jima beaches and the honor of receiving the US Navy Cross. There is no record of his service, heroic accomplishments, or of the award of the Cross.

You are not interested. You need reliable testimony from him. I do not.


You're just inventing idiotic reasons to disregard William Whaley's positive identification of Oswald as his cab passenger.

You're one of the last people on this planet who should be looking into the death of the 35th U.S. Chief Executive.


Even in the 1940 census, this [John] Bowen was listed as age 60. He is the Bowen, David. How and why did his birth year get pushed back two years?


I'm straining my meager brain to try and find a single small speck of a reason why I should give a damn about what you just said, Tommy. But I can't find that speck. Sorry.

But I'm glad you've found a reason to trash somebody else (Bowen). Who's next? Dave Powers? Buell Frazier? Judy Garland?


He [Bowen] has no Social Security record, but may have a Railroad Retirement account, Those records are not accessible. This Bowen is the man who possessed I.D., birthplace, and names of parents who the Bowen the FBI interviewed in February, 1964 claimed to have. Why would the real Bowen cooperatively change his own birthdate before he died on January 31, 1962?


Keep reaching for that chaff, Tom. Pretty soon, the list of "suspicious characters" will reach 5 digits I'm sure.



You are not interested in answering any of these questions. They do not trouble you.


Nope, they sure don't trouble me. And that's because it's all meaningless chaff. Even with such discrepancies of the sort you're talking about, how can those types of anomalies possibly have any meaningful or substantial effect on the investigation of JFK's death? Any idea?


BTW, the death years on the two grave stones seem spot on.


Hooray! Something that hasn't been faked by the Goon Squad! How utterly refreshing.


Sleep tight!


You too. (And don't forget to take your nightly dose of chaff pills. They're right there---next to your paranoia medication.)

David Von Pein
July 31, 2014

(PART 766)


["JFK: The Ruby Connection"] will be another disinformation piece, like the Discovery Channel has become famous for. I'm betting they will claim that Ruby went to the Western Union office to send money to Karen Carlin, but forget to mention what she said that same day when she was interrogated by the Secret Service:

"...Mrs. Carlin was highly agitated and was reluctant to make any statement to me. She stated to me that she was under the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and other individuals unknown to her were involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if she gave any information to the authorities. It was only through the aid of her husband that she would give any information at all. She twisted in her chair, stammered in her speech, and seemed on the point of hysteria."



What do Karen Carlin's erroneous "impressions" about a Ruby/Oswald connection have to do with anything at all?

Answer: Nothing.

Carlin's nervous and agitated state on 11/24/63 when she spoke with the authorities doesn't change any of the following facts, which are facts that certainly do not lead down the road marked JACK RUBY KILLED LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS PART OF A PRE-PLANNED CONSPIRACY PLOT:

1.) In order to obtain a $25 advance from her employer, Karen Carlin called Jack Ruby at Ruby's apartment after 10:00 AM CST on 11/24/63.

2.) Ruby, as a result of Carlin's phone call, went to the Western Union office in downtown Dallas, a very short distance from the Dallas City Hall where Oswald was being held.

3.) Ruby took his "wife" (his dog, Sheba) with him when he went downtown.

4.) Ruby wired $25 to Karen Carlin at 11:17 AM CST.

5.) Ruby then strolled to the nearby City Hall (DPD) basement after exiting the Western Union office.

6.) Ruby couldn't have been inside the DPD basement garage for more than one minute (tops) before he shot and killed Oswald.

None of the above occurrences change in any way (or suddenly take on any kind of a "conspiratorial" meaning) just because the person who made the telephone call to Jack Ruby on the morning of November 24th was "highly agitated" and was "reluctant to make any statement" to the authorities after Ruby killed Oswald.

And none of the above six facts change in any way at all just because Mrs. Carlin was "under the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and other individuals unknown to her were involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy".

It's quite obvious that Karen Carlin was merely taking a wild stab in the dark when she said she was "under the impression" that Ruby and Oswald were "involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy".

But it's only AFTER Ruby kills Oswald that Carlin gets scared and starts to think that Ruby might have been involved in the killing of JFK.

But so what? A whole lot of people around the world had the very same kind of "impressions" and thoughts going through their heads right after the assassin of the President was himself murdered. Who WOULDN'T have had such thoughts of conspiracy at that point in time?

But how does Carlin's being scared and afraid to talk change the above six facts?

Or would Robert Harris now like to slap handcuffs on Mrs. Karen Bennett Carlin and pretend that she, too, was a co-conspirator in the murders of both JFK and Lee Oswald?

Some conspiracy theorists have, indeed, pointed an accusing finger of guilt at Carlin. In fact, they are almost FORCED to point a finger of guilt at Carlin, because if they don't, and if Carlin was merely an innocent stripper who needed 25 bucks to pay her rent, then Jack Ruby's actions on November 24, 1963, begin to look more and more like exactly what they really were -- the spontaneous actions of a man (who happened to own a .38 snub-nosed revolver) who was distraught over the murder of a President he greatly admired, with those actions playing out in a manner that can only be deemed pure happenstance, not conspiratorial planning.

"The "happenstance" and "mere coincidence" trail is significant here. It's either happenstance, or the most remarkable hunk of conspiratorial coordination I've ever encountered (including little Sheba being left in the car to make things look spontaneous in nature)." -- DVP; March 2007

David Von Pein
November 15, 2009

(PART 765)


I have repeatedly made the point that on the floor diagrams of the depository there is another lift apart from the two side by side, and say that that other lift is never considered as a possible escape route, and ask why it isn't.



The "lift" (elevator) that was situated near the front of the Depository Building could only be used by people on the first, second, third, or fourth floors. There was no way to board that elevator from the 5th, 6th, or 7th floors.

And according to the TSBD schematics found in Commission Document No. 496 [see the three links below], the shaft of that elevator only went up to the fifth floor. But the diagram for the fifth floor says "No opening to elevator shaft on this floor".




So, obviously it could not have been used to aid an escaping assassin who was shooting from the sixth floor (unless that assassin walked down two flights to the fourth floor and then utilized the elevator at the front of the building to take him the rest of the way down to the first floor).

Side issue on this "elevator" topic.....

Considering the fact that a passenger elevator was located in the front of the Book Depository Building which could be accessed from the fourth-floor offices, I wonder why Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles didn't use that elevator to go from their 4th-floor office to the first floor after the assassination, instead of walking all the way to the back of the building to use the stairs? That question was never asked of Miss Adams by the Warren Commission. I wonder if author Barry Ernest asked Adams that question? ~shrug~

David Von Pein
July 30, 2014

(PART 71)


http://jfk-archives/Henry Wade Interviews Arranged By Jack Ruby













(PART 764)


Tell me, David - how badly do you want to discover the truth? Bad enough to admit that the evidence envelope for ce842 contained forged initials and that additional information was written on it by someone other than nurse Bell?


Here we have a kook named Harris going off half-cocked on another "Everything Must Be Faked Or Forged" binge, while offering absolutely no proof, as always, of such a vile allegation.

Bob Harris' attempt to interject "conspiracy" into the JFK case at every turn in the road is truly pathetic, and surely even he himself knows how pathetic it is.


Or do you prefer to just mindlessly continue to pitch a lot of drivel to support your theory that a single assassin carried out this attack by himself?

What these people did was criminal, David. I cannot understand how any decent human being would want to shield them.


The only thing "criminal" here is that certain conspiracy-loving clowns have been looking into the assassination of President Kennedy for way yonder too many years now, armed with their always-forever-unprovable accusations of evidence-tampering, fakery, coercion, and various other nefarious misdeeds supposedly engaged in by members of the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, and the multiple official committees who were assigned the job of investigating the assassination.

In short, these conspiracy-giddy clowns are the very last people on the planet who should be looking into the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

A couple loose ends:

1.) IMO, Bardwell Odum of the FBI was wrong when he said he never showed bullet CE399 to O.P. Wright. I think Odum most certainly did take that bullet to Wright at some point after the assassination. Odum just doesn't remember doing it. Any other explanation regarding that particular topic makes little to no sense.

2.) The fact that various witnesses could not say positively whether CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET they saw on 11/22/63 certainly does not prove that 399 was not the bullet they saw that day. 399 most certainly WAS the bullet they saw and handled on Nov. 22 at Parkland Hospital. And a big reason we can be confident of that fact is this fact:

CE399 is corroborative of OTHER BULLET EVIDENCE in the JFK murder case that is linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 rifle.

If CE399 was the ONLY piece of ballistics/bullet evidence connected with the case, then the conspiracy kooks would have a better argument for "fakery", "forgery", "planting", "substitution", or whatever.

But since the three empty bullet shells (from Oswald's rifle) in the Sniper's Nest ALSO exist....and since CE567 and CE569 from Oswald's rifle (the two largest bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine) ALSO exist in this case....then the likelihood that CE399 is a fake or fraudulent piece of evidence is reduced substantially (being reduced to pretty close to ZERO, in my view).

Ask yourself this -- With those 3 bullet shells from the TSBD and those 2 fragments from the limo being in the evidence pile against Lee Oswald, WHY ON EARTH would anybody feel any need or desire to insert an additional piece of bullet evidence into the pot? Just....why? It just doesn't make all.

Also -- Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA had no problem whatsoever in accepting Bullet CE399 as a REAL AND LEGITIMATE PIECE OF EVIDENCE in their respective investigations into the assassination of the President.

Now, Robert Harris, were the Warren boys AND the House Select Committee boys who accepted CE399 as a legit piece of evidence ALL liars and rotten, deceitful crooks in your book?

Of course, I already know the answer to that last inquiry. People like Bob Harris think they know MUCH more about the verification and legitimacy of the evidence in this case than did the very organizations who were tasked with investigating the crime--such as the WC and the HSCA, etc.

Ain't it a shame that people like Robert Harris and James DiEugenio and James Fetzer and John Armstrong (et al) weren't a part of any official investigative body which looked into the JFK case? If they had been, we could now all be talking about the "Kook Version Of The WC And HSCA Reports", which would have undoubtedly been a version of those reports where conspiracy-tinged supposition, conjecture, and subjective analysis totally trump and invalidate the true facts and evidence associated with the events of November 22, 1963. My weak urinary bladder would have been given quite a workout had that version ever been published.

David Von Pein
November 12, 2009

(PART 763)


We don't know when Ruby arrived at the Western Union office, but we do know that his timing was perfect. It had to be because he did not have a press badge and would likely have been thrown out if he got there early.

There were no cell phones back then, so a great place to hang around waiting for a call was a Western Union office, with lots of phones on the wall. My suspicion is that someone with DPD phoned him to let him know that Oswald was OTW. That same person could have phoned him at home to let him know there would be a delay and to suggest when Oswald would be moved.

To think that this perfect timing was another one of those miraculous coincidences is just too much. It seems far more probable that he was told when to go in.


Only a rabid conspiracy theorist, bent on believing in a "Ruby conspiracy" at all costs, could possibly utter the things Robert Harris just uttered above. And this comment from Harris just reeks of crazy, backward thinking:

"To think that this perfect timing was another one of those miraculous coincidences is just too much."

In reality, of course, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

I.E. -- the "perfect timing" is much more indicative of pure happenstance and NO CONSPIRACY PLOT than it is indicative of Jack Ruby being sent to the Dallas City Hall basement to "rub out" Lee Oswald as part of a pre-arranged murder scheme.

And Bob Harris must also believe that Karen Carlin was a very big part of this last-minute Sunday-morning plot to rub out Oswald too. Because it was Carlin's telephone call to Ruby at about 10:20 AM that prompted Ruby to leave his apartment when he did on 11/24/63.

In short -- People who think ANY of Jack Ruby's actions on November 24th, 1963, spell out "I'M A HIT MAN FOR THE MOB AND I'M GOING TO SILENCE LEE OSWALD THIS MORNING" are simply not thinking straight, and are attempting to fit a square conspiracy peg into a perfectly-round no conspiracy hole.

David Von Pein
November 12, 2009

(PART 762)


We're not arguing that CE399 was PLANTED at Parkland. Try and get that out of your head and we might start to inch a bit closer to the truth.


Hey, I was just trying to help out you conspiracy theorists a little bit. Because believing that Bullet CE399 was "planted" sure makes a heck of a lot more sense than claiming some OTHER bullet was "planted" on the WRONG PARKLAND STRETCHER (which is what many, many CTers firmly believe occurred).

And if you want to now say that some "pointy-tipped" bullet (per O.P. Wright) was a REAL bullet fired during the assassination that actually hit John Connally (in lieu of CE399 hitting him), then you've got a whole boatload of "common sense" problems with that theory. One of which is: Why would any boob plotters/assassins be firing any pointy-tipped bullets at JFK when Oswald The Patsy's gun didn't fire such bullets? That's just flat-out insane. (And you surely believe Oswald was being framed as the lone "patsy", don't you? Of course you do.)

Plus: If the "pointy-tipped" bullet (per O.P. Wright) was a bullet that actually went into John Connally's body on Nov. 22, then CTers are going to have to jettison TWO of their favorite long-standing idiotic theories:


2.) And the theory about the stretcher bullet being found on a non-Connally stretcher.

So, which will it be.....

A "pointy" bullet that went into Connally?

A "pointy" bullet that was planted on the wrong stretcher?

A "pointy" bullet that went into Connally and then magically JUMPED from Connally's stretcher to Ronnie Fuller's?

A "pointy" bullet that was totally unconnected to the assassination at all?

A "planted" CE399?

Or perhaps CE399 was already in the hospital PRIOR to the shooting in Dealey Plaza? (Maybe Oswald shot somebody else besides JFK & Connally that day. That'd be a new twist for the conspiracy kooks of the world to dredge up.)

Or....just maybe....the evidence is what the evidence purports to be -- i.e., Oswald fired CE399 into Kennedy and Connally, with that bullet falling out of John Connally's leg and onto his stretcher in Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63.

I'll choose the latter option (and so will William of Ockham). The other options are too hilarious to even contemplate for more than three seconds.

BTW, conspiracists are dead wrong when they insist that Darrell Tomlinson positively found the bullet on a stretcher that wasn't Connally's. He told the Warren Commission (plain as day) that he "was not sure" which stretcher he found the bullet on. Let's have a gander:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."


MR. SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

Worth a replay (or twenty):

"I can't be positive. .... I really didn't pay that much attention to it. .... I'm not sure of it. .... I am definitely not sure." -- Darrell C. Tomlinson

David Von Pein
November 11, 2009

(PART 761)


We both know (or think we know) that one bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally.


Of course one bullet passed through both men. And that one bullet had no choice but to be bullet #CE399. (Notwithstanding a conspiracy theorist's unfounded speculation about that particular bullet being a fake, of course.)

1.) The autopsy doctors determined that one bullet passed through JFK.

2.) The Warren Commission determined that one bullet "probably" passed through both JFK and John Connally. They were being soft on the terminology, of course, in order to keep from saying that one bullet POSITIVELY passed through the victims.

3.) The HSCA determined that the SBT is true.

To believe that the SBT is untrue and that the back-wound bullet to JFK did not exit, a person has to throw all logic out the window and pretend that TWO bullets went into Kennedy (with neither bullet exiting the President's body) and then both of those bullets vanished. And that's just plain silly.

And to believe in some weird alternate "SBT, But Not The WC's SBT" (which is what a kook named Bob Harris believes), a person must get within about an inch of accepting the obviously-true "WC/CE399" version of the SBT, but not quite accepting it, and instead make up a bunch of junk from whole cloth to postulate an "Anti-SBT SBT" theory (as Robert Harris has done). And that's just plain silly, too.


But the problem is that nobody heard that shot, not even Connally who was wounded by it. Instead, they heard the next shot that most of them thought hit Connally and that Mrs. Kennedy thought hit her husband.


Let's take a look at things from the standpoint of RAW FACTS and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

1.) Three shots (and only three shots) were fired at JFK's car on 11/22/63. (This fact is based on the 90%+ of witnesses who heard THREE OR FEWER shots fired; plus #2 below.)

2.) Exactly three empty shell casings were found beneath the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

3.) No bullets were found inside JFK's neck or upper-back regions.

4.) No substantial damage was done to JFK's upper back or neck that would cause anyone to believe that ANY bullets could have suddenly stopped dead in their tracks after entering the President in these areas of his body (let alone having TWO bullets stop their flight paths for no apparent reason whatsoever, which is what almost all conspiracy theorists firmly believe, save Robert Harris and maybe three other CTers in the world).

5.) This verbiage appears in JFK's autopsy report:

"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." [Warren Report; Pg. 543]

6.) Robert A. Frazier of the FBI, after looking through the scope of Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the vantage point of the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window during the WC/FBI 5/24/64 reconstruction of the shooting in Dallas, said this to the Warren Commission:

"In my opinion, the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car itself or an occupant of the car. .... In fact, I is obvious when you look at the photographs themselves that the crosshair of the telescopic sight actually would give you the point of impact of the bullet if the weapon is sighted in and if there is no change in the line of sight the bullet had to strike the cars [sic] shown in each of these photographs, which is frame 225 on this end of this series, and frame 207 on the other end of the series. It shows that there would be no chance for the bullet to miss the car at all if it deflection in its path."
[5 H 169]


The question is, what did Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally, and the others hear that made them mistakenly believe that one of the victims was wounded at that instant. I'm sure you are as eager as I am to figure that out. So, when do you think Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy suffered an hallucination, thinking their spouses were hit? I think if we pool our analytical skills, we can solve this mystery David!


In short -- There is absolutely NOTHING in the collective testimony of Jacqueline Kennedy, Nellie Connally, John Connally, Roy Kellerman, and William Greer that would definitively eliminate the possibility of one bullet striking both President Kennedy and Governor Connally at Zapruder Film frame #224.

And I think I make a pretty good case to back up that last paragraph in the October 2007 Internet message linked here (at least as far as Nellie Connally's and John Connally's observations are concerned).

Robert Harris has elected to elevate the testimony of the limousine's occupants to ridiculous levels of ASSUMED ACCURACY. But such an exercise is, again, just plain silly.

Witness testimony can, indeed, be very helpful. No question about that. Such as the stat I cited earlier regarding the "90%-plus" of the Dealey Plaza earwitnesses who heard three shots or fewer, which is an ironclad fact that, surprisingly, even very few conspiracy promoters seem to dare ever challenge.

But to think that the limo occupants (or any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza) are going to each recall those unexpected, horrific few seconds with pinpoint precision and accuracy when it comes to specific, detailed timing issues relating to the shooting is just too much to hope for.

But, since Robert "Z285" Harris has a specific (subjective) theory to peddle, he needs to rely on certain things that were said by the limo witnesses. And Bob needs to place a great deal of faith in his wholly subjective and unique analysis of the silent Zapruder Film too. Otherwise, Bob's "Z285" theory goes sliding down the drain (which is where it deserves to reside, of course).

David Von Pein
November 9-10, 2009

(PART 760)


David, the difference between being human and human sewage lies in whether you genuinely believe in your position. And if your belief is that you cannot defend your position but intend to pitch it anyway, then you fall squarely into the latter category.

And when you compound your lie by falsely claiming that you are capable of refuting an argument but will not do so because your adversary is a "kook", then you are not just a liar, but a joke.


Just to set things a little straighter:

Robert Harris thinks he is BETTER at finding the truth concerning the JFK assassination than all of the following official organizations:

The Warren Commission.
The Clark Panel.
The Rockefeller Commission.

The above four official organizations are all pure garbage and are totally worthless and useless, according to a person like Robert Harris. Because:

1.) Robert Harris thinks that a conspiracy existed in JFK's death (and Bob certainly doesn't believe in the HSCA's "4-shot" type of conspiracy, because the HSCA said that Lee Oswald was the only gunman to strike JFK with any bullets in Dealey Plaza).

2.) Robert Harris thinks that David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello were two of the key conspirators behind the assassination (which can never be proved, naturally).

3.) Robert Harris thinks that a frontal shot hit JFK in the head (which is a stance that is dead wrong, and provably so).

4.) Robert Harris thinks he has SOLVED the case.

Therefore, because of the above laundry list of unprovable conspiracy-oriented silliness, it's quite easy to label Mr. Harris a "kook", because he is a person who is forced to totally IGNORE virtually all of the BEST EVIDENCE in the case in order to promote his nonsensical theories and suppositions. And that "best evidence" is, of course: The autopsy report, the three autopsy doctors, and (most importantly) the autopsy photographs and X-rays of the late President Kennedy.

As for Harris' theory about a missed shot occurring at precisely Z285 of the Zapruder Film....

Bob has convinced himself, via totally-subjective analysis, that a gunshot did occur at Z285. And he is happy with that subjective analysis (which can never ever be proven, of course). Well, good for him.

So, Robert Harris sits up on his high horse of conspiracy and crows to anyone who will listen (on YouTube or any available Internet forum) about how he has solved the JFK assassination case, as he implies with glee that David Von Pein is nothing more than "human sewage", a "joke", and a "liar".

I always get a kick out of the CTers who claim mightily and superiorly that they have SOLVED the case, even though they've "solved" the case on nothing more than a whim, a fancy, pure speculation, and a digital copy of the Zapruder Film. Not a lick of hard evidence, of course, enters into Robert Harris' "solving" of the case. How could it, since every single piece of solid evidence, of course, points only to Oswald?

Such conspiracy theorists are the true "jokes" of the "assassination research community". It's just too bad they will never realize that fact.

Vincent Bugliosi said it very well when he said:

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

This portion of the above Bugliosi quote is always worthy of an instant replay (because of its 100% spot-on accuracy):

"The conspiracy community regularly...leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB

As far as this comment made by Mr. Harris....

"And when you compound your lie by falsely claiming that you are capable of refuting an argument but will not do so because your adversary is a "kook", then you are not just a liar, but a joke."

....Harris knows full well, of course, that he and I have battled several times online in the past (concerning his "Z285" theory and his "Marcello/Ferrie" theory and his "Two Head Shots" theory).

Apparently the one dozen Internet battles linked in this post must have vanished completely from his memory. I guess I'm supposed to refute Bob's arguments anew on every single forum I visit from now until doomsday, otherwise Mr. Harris will continue to pretend we've never fought these battles in the past.

But, you see, this is exactly why I prefer to archive all of my past posts and messages in an easy-to-reach location for future reference, so that I won't have to spend untold hours rewriting a bunch of stuff that I've already written months or years ago.

David Von Pein
November 7, 2009

(PART 759)




And then the multiple bullets that pelted the bodies of John Kennedy and John Connally just disappeared into thin air, eh?

Allow me to once more ask the question that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to reasonably and believably answer since 1963:


Related Note:

I was recently re-watching Robert Groden's DVD, "JFK: The Case For Conspiracy", and I took note of Groden's absurd theory that has FOUR bullets replacing CE399 and the SBT.

Groden has Kennedy being hit in the throat from some undefined location on the grassy knoll (with the bullet never exiting JFK's body), and then he has Kennedy being hit in the upper back (with this bullet, too, never exiting his body, even though both the throat and back bullets do not strike any hard objects in Kennedy's body at all). Go figure this oddity. I can't.

And then Groden, via Mark Crouch's narration on the video, has Governor Connally being hit by TWO additional bullets, with one of these missiles striking Connally in the upper back and presumably exiting his chest (although Groden/Crouch never really spell out what happened to this bullet). And then, a little later in the Zapruder Film timeline, Connally gets hit in the right wrist by yet another bullet.

Groden apparently feels a second Connally shot is required due to the fact that Connally still has his Stetson hat in his right hand many frames after Groden says Connally was hit the first time (at Z224, which is a Z-Film frame that Groden, somewhat amazingly, actually gets correct).

Groden, of course, is wrong when he says that Connally couldn't possibly have held onto his hat after the radius bone in his wrist had been fractured. We know Groden is 100% wrong about that, because Connally held onto that hat (in his right hand) during the entire drive to the hospital.

Groden, although he doesn't say this during his "Case For Conspiracy" program (via Crouch's narration), almost certainly thinks that ALL FOUR of those bullets that entered the bodies of JFK and JBC completely disappeared right after the shooting, because we know that Groden certainly doesn't believe that the separate "wrist" bullet that he has invented from whole cloth was CE399. 399, per Groden, was a fake bullet all the way around.

And since we know that neither of Groden's make-believe JFK bullets in this anti-SBT scenario could possibly be CE399 either (since neither JFK or his stretcher was ever in the area of Parkland Hospital where Darrell Tomlinson found the bullet), this must certainly mean that Groden believes that all four of his mystery bullets miraculously vanished, with none of those bullets entering the official record of this criminal case.*

* Unless Groden wants to believe that his made-up "upper back-thru-chest" Connally shot ended up in JBC's thigh and then turned out to be stretcher bullet CE399.

So, what we have (per Bob Groden and other CTers as well) are FOUR separate bullets going into two different victims. And then, in 1964, those four bullets and seven wounds, incredibly, were turned into a very nice-looking ONE-bullet scenario by the Warren Commission, via CE903:

But, as usual, such an amazing "SBT"-like coincidence existing in this case doesn't seem to wrinkle Mr. Groden's brow one bit. He merely shrugs off the remarkable SBT similarities within his ridiculous FOUR-bullet substitute theory, all the while never bothering to ask himself these two logical questions:

1.) How likely is it that multiple gunmen could have struck the TWO victims on Elm Street with FOUR separate bullets in just such a way so that the Warren Commission, on May 24, 1964, would be able to connect those various bullet holes in order to FAKE a very nice-looking SINGLE-BULLET EVENT?

2.) Since JFK suffered no major (bony) bullet damage in the upper-back and throat regions of his body, how could TWO separate bullets just stop inside John Kennedy's upper back and throat without either one of these missiles exiting the other side of his body?

David Von Pein
September 28, 2009


A 24-year-old young man born in 1939 by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald murdered two individuals in the early 1960s in Dallas, Texas, USA.

Oswald assassinated 46-year-old then-President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on November the 22nd, 1963, and that very same day Oswald also fired several bullets at a 39-year-old Dallas police officer named J.D. Tippit, resulting in the officer's death as well.

John Kennedy was the father of two young children when his life was brutally cut short on a Dallas city street in late 1963. Tippit was also the father of young children. He left behind three of them when he was shot in cold blood on 10th Street in Dallas a mere 45 minutes after the President was slain.

Many conspiracy theorists have, for decades now, tried to establish their case that Oswald didn't kill anyone that Friday in Dallas. But such efforts have fallen pitifully short of proving any such thing.

Instead, what is left behind, is quite literally a trail of physical evidence that leads right straight to that 24-year-old young man named Oswald.

I'm still waiting for some super-skilled conspiracy believer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody else besides Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy and Officer Tippit. But, to date, such a thing has never been accomplished. Nor will it ever be, I surmise, given the dozens of pieces of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases that bear the unmistakable signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I fully realize that those "LNers" who favor Oswald's lone guilt in the murders in question have the burden of proof with regard to establishing Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (which the "LN" side HAS indeed accomplished without a shred of a doubt, in my opinion).

But the conspiracy ("CT") side, if they want to continue to chant "Oswald is innocent" from the rooftops must then prove (also beyond the proverbial reasonable doubt) that the LN "case" against Oswald is flawed and therefore totally inadequate and incorrect. And that, IMO, has never been done.

And (again in my opinion) if the pro-conspiracy side wants to stomp its collective feet and insist Oswald is innocent of killing JFK (and, in many CT circles, innocent of murdering J.D. Tippit as well, which is even more foolish on their part given the existing evidence to say they're dead wrong), then some crackerjack conspiracist(s) somewhere should be able to piece together enough evidence to tell the world who DID kill John F. Kennedy that Friday in Dallas.

It seems to me that that task should be able to be accomplished, via the same cunning investigative skills that led those same conspiracy theorists to their current firm conclusion that the "Lone Nut" case against Oswald isn't worth a pile of cow chips at round-up time. But, alas, not one conspiracist to date has done so...and, thusly, the most reasonable conclusion to reach in the case is still this one -- Lee Harvey Oswald killed both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

In short, if nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that all (or most) of the physical evidence that shows Oswald to be a double-murderer was somehow "faked" or manipulated after the fact, then any reasonable, honest, and straight-thinking man or woman who has studied and examined the physical evidence associated with the JFK murder case literally has NO CHOICE (to paraphrase my favorite author and lawyer, Vincent T. Bugliosi) but "to return to this courtroom with a verdict of 'Guilty' against the defendant Lee Harvey Oswald!"

PROVE (definition) -- "To show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc."

David Von Pein
May 2005

(PART 758)

Subject: Thanks
Date: 11/4/2009 2:04:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard Corcoran
To: David Von Pein



I would like to thank you for the many articles, videos, etc. that you have contributed to making certain that truthful and objective materials relating to the murder of JFK are freely available on the internet.

I am an amateur historian and although JFK and his assassination is not my area of expertise (in fact, I learned so much from your blogs and links to other sites, I don't claim any extensive prior knowledge other than being convinced the WC [Warren Commission] had it right), I thoroughly enjoyed the videos you posted, especially the "real-time" CBS/NBC/ABC footage.

The videos, particularly watched in real time (and as you had stated in one of your blogs), are so compelling as to how much was correct initially (number and direction of shots, description of gunman, wounds the president suffered), from so many witnesses even before anyone knew who Oswald was, that it defies reason that anyone could suppose an actual multi-gun, frame-the-patsy scenario could be set up in real time.

As a matter of fact, comparing how much information was conveyed and had actually held up (because it was true) in the brief period of time after the event, before it was even certain the President was dead, and in the technical limitations of 1963, to some of the errors reported in the first hour of the
9/11 attacks is quite remarkable to me.

This crime and the evidence was not "cooked up, planted and solved" in the bowels of the Dallas PD with the conspirators connivance, there literally was too much accurate information collected and reported in the first hour for a vast and omnipotent fakery campaign.

In fact, short of some "men-in-black" characters employing some kind of mind control device not only on the large number of witnesses interviewed in the first few minutes, but also employing that same device through the airwaves of all three networks to erase the memory of everyone who saw the first couple of hours of TV coverage (again before Oswald came to light, although he was by this time in custody), there is no way a monumental fakery campaign could work.

Nor could such a campaign survive even one of the fakers deciding at some point in time to "cash in" with an "I was involved in planting the pristine bullet" tell-all book to supplement their retirement (or better yet on their deathbed). Or were all the "fakers" subsequently iced?

When you put together the voluminous physical evidence linking Oswald (and only Oswald, or at least someone who was in the TSBD at the exact moment, and looked just like him, whom no one ever saw entering or leaving the building, and using the rifle delivered to Oswald's PO box) to Kennedy's murder, such a spectacular "frame up" is just not possible.

In fact, CT'ers who claim Oswald did not murder JD Tippit might as well just go on and claim Jack Ruby did not kill Oswald, as the amount of physical evidence in the two murders are roughly comparable, Ruby's crime just happened in front of TV cameras. In fact, you don't actually see Ruby's hear it.... the AP picture could have been faked placing the revolver in Ruby's hand... LOL. That scenario is just as plausible as the multiple killers of Tippit scenario placed in Stone's shameful fantasy tale.

Anyway David, I just wanted to thank you for your efforts and I very much enjoyed the living history materials you have made available to anyone with a desire to find out the truth. There are too many panderers out there peddling some nonsensical drivel to support financially an unsupportable thesis.

Richard Corcoran


Subject: Thank YOU
Date: 11/4/2009 6:11:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard Corcoran


Hi Richard,

Thank you so much for your exceptionally well-written e-mail that you sent me today. I enjoyed reading it very much. .... [It] is one of the best messages about the JFK case I have ever received.

Thanks again, and take care.

David Von Pein


Subject: RE: Thank YOU
Date: 11/4/2009 10:39:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Richard Corcoran
To: David Von Pein




I can appreciate that your posting of the evidence of the case is not designed to sway the usual CT'ers, but to reach the people (an incredible number now, thanks to Oliver Stone and co.) who have been bombarded with so-called "evidence" that is anything but and have been confused by the continual misdirection and fabrications proferred by the CT industry. Your logical arguments cut through the bullshit most effectively.

I count myself among those who over the years were confused by unsubstantiated drivel and outright lies (our own congress did no favors with this "acoustical evidence" bs, and Oliver Stone did incalculable damage with his irresponsible fantasy picture), to think that perhaps there was something not right about the WC and that the Dallas PD rivaled the keystone cops for comedic value.

But when you actually get down to the bald facts of this case, and plow through the actual detailed evidence (and anyone who thinks the WC did a slipshod whitewash does not know what they are talking about, the murder of JFK has to be the most documented and detailed evidentiary disclosure ever made available to the public), there really is very little reason for a critically thinking person to conclude that anyone other than LHO killed the president (and officer Tippit).

There is also no evidence that anyone was in league with LHO and indeed the mountain of physical evidence as well as circumstantial and behavioral evidence (such as fleeing the scene, going home to get a handgun, murdering the first police officer that questions him, ducking into a dark movie theatre to get out of sight, and attempting to shoot the arresting officer) points only to Oswald as the killer.

The sheer weight of additional physical and testimonial evidence that not only exists, but also was uncovered by law enforcement and reported by the media very quickly (before Oswald was even apprehended or his name was even known in most cases) precludes anyone else taking an active part in the assassination or that any subsequent large-scale frame-up existed.

It's interesting that many CT's (not just JFK ones) often rely on an omnipotent and malevolent power short-circuiting established rules and procedures and rest frequently on the fatalistic feeling of powerlessness of believers (elections don't matter, economic power is concentrated in some cabal) and in a set of received wisdom and insight into a mystery that "initiates" (who buy the book, natch) feel the removal of powerlessness by being privy to the almighty secret.

CT's also overestimate both the competence and power of the conspirators as well as the close-mouthedness of the same. Why is it that CT proponents assume all sorts of nefarious motives, supreme cunning, and superhuman competence in carrying out some criminal sleight-of-hand, yet the conspirators themselves honorably keep the secret to the grave, even when it would be financially a bonus to "reveal the great secret", even from some beyond-the-grave tome?

Even the mafia had trouble keeping secrets that involved more than a few individuals and many of those eventually got out. And anyway it was financially a benefit for a mafioso to keep quiet (especially in the good old days), it was only when a mafia member was faced with a potential benefit for spilling the beans (usually when they were facing death anyways) that they did. There was really no romantic adherence to a code.

Any large-scale conspiracy cannot hold up for very long and even if it could, human beings are simply not supremely competent in arranging things. This is a fact that law enforcement relies upon. Actual criminals (even pros) do make mistakes even when everything is on the line. How much less likely is a conspirator acting under orders with limited skin in the game able to perform demonstrably criminal acts with perfect precision without mistakes?

This is why I believe CT's rely on some supremely compelling motivation for the perpetrator (even some of the more way-out ones even dispense with this) but fall completely apart with any critical scrutiny in direct proportion to both scope and complexity. Because human beings are not perfectly competent and cannot perfectly (and permanently) keep secrets and human omnipotence (in this day anyways) does not exist.

Yet scope, complexity, and inherent powerlessness is exactly what CT's generally sell. As I believe Hitler said, the bigger and the more complex the lie, the more the masses will believe it.

Anyway, It appears you've seen nearly every crackpot CT on JFK, so I'm certain you know more about it than I do. I haven't got around to reading the one where aliens perpetrate the JFK assassination, but I must confess that one sounds more plausible than most other CT's. I mean assuming an alien race with more or less omnipotent powers and assuming they buggered off of earth (with their abducted human co-conspirators) after the deed, they certainly would fulfill the requirements needed for perpetrating a wide-ranging, complex, and secretive conspiracy. It would be rather weak on motive though. (Although I'm sure some super CT guru could come up with one - Aliens wanting to suppress knowledge of area 51 and Roswell perhaps?)

Actually I better stop, I might concoct a story someone might actually believe - given the stuff floating around the CT community, that would not be hard.

Take care.



Subject: The JFK Assassination
Date: 11/4/2009 11:09:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Richard Corcoran


Wow. That was quite a response, Richard. Thanks.

Your articulations regarding "conspiracy" are very interesting and illuminating (and a breath of always-welcome fresh air concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy).

One of the silliest things associated with the type of conspiracy plot that many, many conspiracy theorists in the world today currently seem to believe (i.e., the "Oswald Was Being Set Up As A Lone Patsy In Advance Of The Assassination" theory) is that those CTers apparently have no problem at all with the pre-November 22 plotters/conspirators placing assassins in FRONT of President Kennedy's vehicle (supposedly on the Grassy Knoll), even though a big part of this perceived plot was to frame ONLY LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who was located in the TSBD, which was to the REAR of the President during the entire time of the shooting.

I've repeatedly asked conspiracy theorists on the Internet to explain the LOGIC of such a pre-planned shooting scenario. But I have yet to hear a reasonable and believable explanation for WHY the plotters would have wanted to place assassins in locations that could not possibly in a million years be traced back to the one and only so-called "patsy" if ANY of those frontal gunmen were to strike John F. Kennedy with ANY of the bullets that conspiracists insist were being fired from the Grassy Knoll (or any other frontal shooting location).

But, since Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison have said that such an insane MULTI-GUN, MULTI-DIRECTIONAL, ONE-PATSY plot was afoot in Dallas in November of 1963, I guess a lot of gullible people must have just tossed their hands in the air and said, "I guess Ollie Stone must be right; after all, he made a movie about such a one-patsy, multi-shooter plot, didn't he?"

But if the conspiracy theorists who are currently in bed with Mr. Stone and the late Mr. Garrison would just STOP AND THINK about the inherent illogic that is built-in to such a crazy assassination plan, surely at least a few of those conspiracists would awaken from their Oliver Stone-induced slumber and realize that they've been brainwashed by the slickness of a Hollywood movie. (Wouldn't they?)


Thanks again for writing. I appreciate it. Write again anytime.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein
November 2009





It's remarkable how much "JFK-related stuff" out there gets lost or buried under a mountain of other things. A good case in point (at least for me personally) cropped up today [July 22, 2014] as I decided to scour some of my older MP3 CDs containing the JFK coverage from various radio stations. I have had this 11/23/63 KLIF material [see the video embedded above] for several years and yet I never used it on my video sites until today.

It's a video I put together which contains two interviews with Dallas D.A. Henry Wade that were aired on KLIF-Radio in Dallas on the morning of November 23, 1963. And both of these interviews were arranged, amazingly, by Jack Ruby, who would thrust himself into the spotlight the very next day by murdering Lee Harvey Oswald.

And Ruby even gets his name mentioned on the air by Russ "The Weird Beard" Knight. Amazing.

The fact that these two interviews with a very important person (the Dallas District Attorney) were both, in large measure, engineered and arranged by Jack Ruby, tends to show just how much Jack liked to be where the action was happening after a big news event.

I'll also add that Ruby really was responsible for THREE separate interviews with Henry Wade being conducted on radio stations during the first 12 hours after JFK was shot, with the third one being Ruby's partial involvement in helping to arrange the WNEW-Radio interview for Ike Pappas at City Hall.

And as if all of the above stuff wasn't impressive enough, Ruby was also apparently responsible for prompting Russ Knight to ask Wade the question about whether or not Wade thought accused Presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was sane or insane. If not for Ruby, it's very likely that Knight wouldn't have asked Henry Wade the Sane or Insane? question. That information was brought out at Ruby's murder trial during the testimony of KLIF's Glenn Duncan [see Duncan Exhibit No. 2 in Warren Commission Volume 19, at 19 H 634].

All in all, a very productive day for self-appointed "reporter" Jacob Leon Rubenstein (aka Jack Ruby).


I remember reading about Ruby's role in [Vincent Bugliosi's book] Four Days in November. It's really cool to hear the interview for the first time. Thanks David.


Right, Michael. Vince Bugliosi does an incredible job of relaying all the information about Jack Ruby's movements and activities on Friday night/Saturday morning (November 22/23), right down to telling the reader the flavors of the soda pop Jack purchased at Phil's Deli -- eight black cherries and two celery tonics. (Celery tonic soft drinks? Sounds terrible, but two people at KLIF ended up drinking them that night.)

Ruby getting mentioned on the radio is also part of the 1978 TV movie "Ruby And Oswald", in which there's a scene that has Ruby hearing his name mentioned on the radio while he's driving in his car.

I had always wondered, after watching that '78 film, whether the part about Ruby's name being spoken on the air by a KLIF announcer was really true or not. And as it turns out, I had the proof in my very own audio collection for years and either just totally forgot about it or I had somehow overlooked or missed the part where Russ Knight says "on a tip from Jack Ruby" on the KLIF tapes.

Anyway, I'm glad I decided to dig into my KLIF archives again today, because I think the Ruby/Wade stuff is fascinating.


Warren Commission Document 1342 also proves that Ruby's name was mentioned on KLIF too. But these "Commission Documents" are like needles in haystacks. Who the heck even knows they're there? I was able to dig this one up [CD1342] after doing a search for "Glenn Duncan" at the fabulous Mary Ferrell site.


The sandwiches were there when I arrived [at the KLIF radio station]. I had not eaten. And I was very happy to have a sandwich. It was quite good, also. And I had a bottle of pop, and I said, "This is terrific, where did you get all this?" And the person I spoke to said, "Oh, some guy brought them up." And I said, "Great."



(PART 757)


It is a FACT that Howard Brennan did NOT describe Oswald. DVP acknowledges this fact when he says Brennan described the man with the sniper's rifle as being in his 30's and weighing between 165 and 175 pounds. (Caught you lying again DVP.) DVP KNOWS that Howard Brennan DID NOT describe Oswald, and yet the stupid bastard tries to twist the facts.


Pot/Kettle moment here. I love it.

Howard Brennan described the person he saw shooting from the sixth floor as best he could to J. Herbert Sawyer prior to 12:43 PM CST on 11/22/63. And that description was a decent approximation of the owner of the gun that was later found on that SAME SIXTH FLOOR.

Walt (being a conspiracy kook), of course, wouldn't even be satisfied if Brennan had nailed every detail concerning Oswald's physical appearance. In such a case, Walt would insist that Brennan's description was TOO GOOD or TOO PERFECT, and thus there's no way Brennan could have nailed all of those details.

But here in the world of reasonable people (which doesn't include Walt Cakebread), the reasoned-thinking people of Planet Earth all realize that a witness probably isn't going to be able to perfectly nail every single physical attribute associated with a particular individual that the witness only saw for a brief period of time and from a distance.

Howard Brennan made REASONABLE GUESSES as to the description of the man he saw shooting at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. And those reasonable guesses certainly do not rule out Walt's favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas:

"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 11/22/63 affidavit

"To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10...from 160 to 170 pounds." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 1964 Warren Commission testimony
[3 H 144]

Now, on what crazy planet filled with kooks could the above two descriptions of the sixth-floor sniper completely eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald as a suspect?

The answer to that last question is fairly simple --- It's on the planet called "EVERYBODY IS A SUSPECT IN THE KENNEDY AND TIPPIT MURDERS EXCEPT LEE HARVEY OSWALD". (That planet is located just beyond Uranus. The ghost of Jim Garrison rules that universe. And Jim Fetzer and Bob Groden are Garrison's right-hand men.)

FYI (for anyone who might not know this fact):

Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker, who we know for an ironclad FACT saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor of the TSBD very shortly after JFK was assassinated, provided the following information about the man he encountered in the second-floor lunchroom on November 22, 1963 (note the similarities in age, height, and weight when comparing Baker's description with the data provided by Brennan):

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." -- Marrion L. Baker; 11/22/63

David Von Pein
November 2, 2009

(PART 756)


The FIRST lineup, viewed only by Helen Markham:

Mrs. Markham's description of the Tippit killer as given to Officer J.M. Poe was a white male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair, medium build. (7 H 68)

So how did the physical attributes of the participants in the Markham lineup compare to the description given by Mrs. Markham?

Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair (7 H 235).

Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair (7 H 239).

Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair (7 H 242-243).

Two of the three police employees were too old and too tall to even come close to the description given by Mrs. Markham and the third was too heavy:

Mr. BALL. Was the man, is it your memory now that the man who shot Tippit was short, a little on the heavy side?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir. He wasn't too heavy.
(3 H 317-318)

Oh my....there's another "slam dunk". That's two slam dunk lineups (# 1 & # 4) out of four.

Guess what?

They used these same police employees for lineup # 2.

That's 3 out of 4.

Wanna know about the fat guys they used in lineup # 3?

They all had 20-30 lbs. on Oswald.

That's 4 out of 4.

" would be very unusual if we had a showup and .........if they put anything other than men that fit their approximate size and age in there with them......because we just don't operate that way." --- Dallas Detective L. C. Graves (7 H 253)

These are the lying criminals that the LN liars support.


Gil actually thinks that these physical attributes aren't even close to LHO's attributes of 24 yrs. old, 5'9", 150 lbs. (keeping in mind that both Howard Brennan AND Marrion Baker described Oswald as being in his 30s and weighing up to 165 pounds):

34 yrs. old, 5'11", 150 lbs.

31 yrs. old, 5'11", 177 lbs.

26 yrs. old, 5'9", 165 lbs.

So, we have only a 2-inch height difference (at most), with the third man matching LHO's height precisely, and the weight difference is minimal, with one of the men matching Oswald's estimated weight at autopsy perfectly (150 lbs.) and another one of the men matching a weight estimate given by two witnesses who we know saw Oswald (Brennan and Baker).

Looks like the nitpicking kook named Gil wouldn't be satisfied unless every single man in each of the police lineups weighed exactly 150 pounds, was exactly 5-feet-9, and looked exactly like Lee Oswald (right down to LHO's trademark smirk).

It's time to repeat something that's always worth repeating.....

The ridiculous and laughable conspiracy-happy jokers who populate Internet forums are the VERY LAST PEOPLE on the planet who should be looking into the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

I wonder why so many people are so eager and willing to toss a double-murderer named Oswald a lifeline at every single turn in the road?

I know that kooks like Gilbert Jesus desperately want and need a conspiracy in this case, but even so, why the desire to turn Oswald into a totally innocent dupe? Do these CTers think they need to follow in the footsteps of Jim Garrison or something?

But since Garrison, who was one of the first charter members of the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, was so obviously one of the biggest frauds and charlatans of all time, I'm at a loss to figure out why so many conspiracy theorists since the late 1960s feel the need to imitate him.



What qualifies you to determine that the lineups were fair?


Once more, we're bearing witness to a person (Gil) who will chuck 1,000 pounds of wheat in order to hang onto 3 ounces of chaff.

A dozen (or more) witnesses all identified Gil's favorite patsy as the ONE & ONLY person who either shot Tippit or as the ONE & ONLY person who fled the Tippit murder scene carrying a gun.

And the gun that was used to kill Officer Tippit was IN OSWALD'S HANDS only thirty-five minutes after Tippit was slain.

And Oswald fought wildly with the police in the theater just 35 minutes after Tippit was killed.

And Oswald said one or two very incriminating things when he was arrested in the theater just 35 minutes after Tippit was killed -- "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Show me an INNOCENT man who would utter EITHER of those two things WHILE WAVING AROUND A REVOLVER AT THE VERY SAME TIME!

The morons who continue to pretend that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit are the worst kind of frauds. They're right up there with another one of their heroes -- Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison.


Every time you can't answer a question you try to change the subject.

The subject is the police lineups. I've supplied testimony that indicates that they were conducted in such a way as to facilitate the identifcation of Oswald.

You claim that they did not, but you've failed again to supply any evidence, other than your opinion that a couple of inches doesn't make a difference.

Now what qualifies you to determine that the lineups were conducted fairly?


You, yourself, provided ample proof that the lineups were conducted fairly (at least as far as the one lineup that you provided detailed information for, supplying the stats of the three people in the lineup with Oswald).*

* Of course, I'm taking Gil's word for those stats of the three men in the lineup (I didn't bother to double-check Gil's data), which is probably not a wise thing to do, since it's never a good idea to take anything stated by a conspiracy nut like Gil on face value.

But if the physical data of those three guys is accurate, you YOURSELF have demonstrated that that particular lineup wasn't designed so that the witnesses would be forced to pick out Oswald (which is obviously what you think the DPD was doing with their lineups--i.e., trying to make Oswald stick out like a sore thumb).

But tell me, Gil, how Oswald (age 24, 5'9", approx. 150 lbs.) sticks out like a sore thumb when placed in a police lineup with three men who have the following physical features/stats?:

34 yrs. old, 5'11", 150 lbs.

31 yrs. old, 5'11", 177 lbs.

26 yrs. old, 5'9", 165 lbs.

If you think this lineup makes Oswald the "odd man out", so to speak, you're crazy.

David Von Pein
November 2, 2009