(PART 779)


Hello everybody,

Some of you may remember me. I've been a JFK-assassination researcher for about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of some newsgroups a few years ago.

I am a defender of the Warren Commission conclusions. I firmly believe that Lee Oswald acted alone, that he was the sole assassin of John Kennedy, and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.


Over the years I have come to know some conspiracy theorists rather well, either by meeting them or exchanging messages with them, or even just reading their books or articles or posts. I have learned that some of them are just stubborn and highly proud people who are just unable to admit they had been wrong all along, and who will sadly waste their whole life chasing conspirators who never existed in the first place.

Anyway, after Gerald Posner, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi published wonderful and enlightening books, we have to acknowledge the fact that the fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of people's minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet finished.

I have bought and read John McAdams's book and must say I was disappointed by it. I found it too superficial, and not powerful enough in its display of Oswald-did-it evidence.

Anyway, I want to say this: the very very very best person to defend the truth and logic and sound reasoning and critical thinking is by far David Von Pein. I have spent the last years reading his articles and posts and am a big fan of his.

He is the best, no question.

He is very good at debunking conspiracy theorists' nonsense.

He has a unique style, very simple, direct, straight-to-the-point, logical, bright, clever, intelligent, enlightening, right-on-the-spot, and most of all so very true!

This message is a public call to him, an appeal.

Please, David, write a book on the JFK assassination. I'm serious. You must do it. I am sure it would be a marvelous book. I am convinced it would be a great work, that would be a blow to the conspiracy theorists and at the same time a springboard for the truth.

I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a book on the Kennedy assassination.


Thank you, Francois.

It would be virtually impossible for anyone to write a "lone assassin" book on the JFK case that could possibly go beyond the scope and sheer common sense of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".

But I am certainly flattered that someone would actually think that some nobody in Indiana named David Von Pein would be capable of writing a book on the Kennedy assassination that anyone would want to read (and pay money for). That's flattering enough all by itself. So, thank you, Francois.

I've always thought of my Internet websites on the subject of JFK (and a little bit about Jackie Kennedy too) as kind of a "virtual book" in a way. And as you might know, Francois, I've recently created a "Table Of Contents" on one of my main sites ("JFK Archives") that I think is useful [linked below]. It serves as some of the "Chapters" of my online JFK "book".


And the nice thing about having an Internet "book" is that chapters can be added to the book at any time in the future (unlike a physical book, which can't be altered once it's been published; unless a "2nd Edition" comes out later).

I'll tell you something that I find myself doing frequently since Vince Bugliosi's book came out in 2007:

I like to just grab the book and open it up to a random page -- it doesn't matter what page it is -- and then I'll just start reading.

I have found this to be a fascinating exercise, because (invariably) each and every time I open Vincent's book to a random page, I find myself totally immersed in Mr. Bugliosi's style of writing and his inevitable common-sense approach to everything connected with the Kennedy case. Which, in turn, makes me want to re-read the entire chapter (and sometimes I do, even though I read the whole book when it came out in '07). And when re-reading the chapter, I also often remember something that I had totally forgotten since I first read it a few years ago.

So, I find that the "Random Page" exercise is very good as a "memory refresher" too. More people should try it. (Although it's doubtful that any Internet conspiracy theorists would want to try it, however. But most of those CTers on the Web are a lost cause anyway, as we all know.)

David Von Pein
December 19, 2011

[EDIT: In 2014, the book featured at the link below was published.]


The services you [DVP] provide on the internet might be of more value to the truth than Bug's [Bugliosi's] book. Most people have stopped reading newspapers because they get the information they need from the internet. Having the really important information available (and not the silly things the conspiracy retards obsess about) serves two important roles, it makes the information available for those who want to truly know what happened, and secondly it is a bitter pill for the retards to swallow when this information they would rather ignore is highlighted.


Thank you, Bud.

The conspiracy theorists would, of course, say that Bud's last sentence above is a classic Pot/Kettle statement, with the CTers always saying that it is the LNers, not the CTers who would "rather ignore" information associated with the JFK murder case.

But when we analyze the things that the CTers say are often "ignored" by LNers, it's pretty much always something that GOES NOWHERE for the CTers in their futile but non-stop efforts to prove that any conspiracy existed in JFK's death (let alone proving that Lee Oswald was an innocent patsy who never shot anyone on 11/22/63).

For example, off the top of my head, the kind of chaff that some CTers like to highlight (which the CTers think the LNers have essentially ignored or swept under the rug):

The claim that Lee Oswald could not possibly have taken a commercial airline flight from London to Helsinki in October 1959 when Oswald was en route to Russia.

That one above is chaff of the first order, mainly because it occurred 4 years prior to JFK's death (meaning it can't really GO ANYWHERE in trying to prove Oswald was innocent of shooting Kennedy four years later).

But even THAT hunk of chaff WAS dealt with by the Warren Commission. They went into some depth, in fact, in attempting to reconstruct Oswald's route to Helsinki, and they DID find a possible way for Oswald to get there via commercial airline flights.

But the CTers never want to talk about the Commission's own findings regarding that subject. They'd rather stick to their theory of it being impossible for Oswald to have gotten there via any non-sinister means.

Another thing the CTers totally distort is the "5.6 seconds" timeline that they (the CTers) will insist the Warren boys were married to from Day 1. But that just is not so. The Commission fully acknowledged the possibility of either the first or third shot being the one "missed" shot in the shooting sequence, thereby expanding the total timeline for all three shots (up to as much as 7.9 seconds, which is fully laid out on Page 117 of the Warren Report, my favorite page in the whole WCR, which is a page the CT kooks stay away from as though it's a terminal disease).

CTers also totally mangle the Warren Commission's precise location of President Kennedy's upper-back wound, with the CTers insisting that Gerald Ford verbally "moved" the wound up several inches, into JFK's neck.

But as anyone can easily see in CE903, that allegation is just flat-out dead wrong....because the wound in JFK's upper back (as depicted in CE903) is just exactly where the real wound in Kennedy was located--in his UPPER BACK, not in the "NECK". And as CE903 also vividly shows, the SBT works perfectly with the wound being in the UPPER BACK of the JFK stand-in, and not in his NECK.



I wonder how many CTers still think that Eddy Benavides died in 1964 (prior to Domingo's Warren Commission testimony)?

As was proven beyond all doubt in 2010, that 1964 date is incorrect, with Eddy really dying in 1965, a year after his brother testified in front of the Warren Commission. [More on that HERE.]

And then there's the recent debate I have had on The Education Forum concerning Darrell Tomlinson's comments to Ray Marcus during a 1966 telephone interview.

It was, once again, the work of Jean Davison which steered me toward this interesting fact: Tomlinson told Marcus that he (Tomlinson) was shown a bullet by an FBI man at Parkland after the assassination, and Tomlinson definitely told Marcus that the bullet he was shown looked the "same" as the bullet Darrell found on a stretcher on the day of the assassination.

There is some confusion about which FBI agent showed Tomlinson the bullet, and a question about just exactly when he was shown the bullet, but the key fact is still intact -- Tomlinson said that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet. (And now CTers want to pretend that the FBI man probably didn't show Tomlinson CE399 at all; they'll now claim it was a different bullet that the FBI displayed to Tomlinson. Note how the goal line must change locations whenever a conspiracy theory becomes challenged.)

In three of the above topics, I have Jean Davison to thank (again). She provided some very good information (and ordinary common sense) when discussing some of these issues.

I'd love to see Jean write another JFK book. It could be called "JFK Assassination Common Sense".

Or, maybe my "Quoting Common Sense" website would make a good book. I think it might, seeing as how I've included (so far) ten excellent quotes from Jean Davison, plus several more from people like Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Bud too. It's a potpourri of common sense when examining a large number of issues surrounding JFK's assassination.

David Von Pein
December 20, 2011