(PART 782)


David, you cannot accept as valid evidence ANYTHING that the perps had control over.


And, of course, Mr. Robert Harris gets to decide who the "perps" [aka: plotters/conspirators] were. Right, Bob?


The other shooter on the sixth floor may have been using the same kind of rifle, which required the same ammunition.


Of course, there was only one shooter on the sixth floor, which makes your above comment kinda moot and meaningless, doesn't it Bob?

Bob Harris, though, has decided for HIMSELF that there were TWO gunmen on the sixth floor of the Depository. And Bob has made that determination without a single scrap of reliable/useful/provable evidence to support such an assertion. But will that stop him from purporting such a fantasy about 2 TSBD shooters? Take a guess.


Of the three shells, one of them was probably in the chamber before the attack and was ejected in the depository.


Notice how Bob attempts to maneuver the known evidence to suit his needs. Those needs (in this instance) being an attempt to support this theory: Lee Oswald only fired ONE single shot from the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, with that shot being a DELIBERATE MISS at precisely Z-Film frame #285, a shot that Harris claims sailed 15 feet over the top of the limousine and struck a manhole cover on Elm Street.

Such fantasies (sans one single ounce of proof) are worthy of Aesop, but are not worthy of serious consideration when discussing the JFK murder case.


And Oswald might have had a shell or two in his pocket and decided that if he was stopped and searched, it would incriminate him. So, he tossed them on the floor before he left.


Did I just read what I think I did?!

This one's a howl, Bob!

So, per this theory, Oswald was carrying around ("in his pocket") some spent bullet shells, eh?

We're not talking about NEW/UNFIRED/WHOLE BULLETS. We're talking about SPENT shells that had positively already been fired in and ejected from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano weapon!

Why on Earth would Lee Oswald have been carrying around USED, SPENT, AND WORTHLESS bullet shells "in his pocket" on the morning of November 22, 1963 (the very same day that he was planning to shoot the President with the gun that could be linked to those shells)?!

You see, this is what happens whenever a conspiracy kook tries to put forth a bunch of nonsensical, piecemeal theories concerning the way John Kennedy died in Dealey Plaza -- we are invariably treated to silliness like the above ridiculous theory purported by Bob Harris about Oswald carrying around spent bullet hulls in his pocket for no reason whatsoever.

But when conspiracists are cornered with hard evidence that they don't like at all (i.e., evidence which doesn't fit their individual conspiracy theories regarding the JFK case, such as the evidence I pointed out to Mr. Harris in a recent Internet message, repeated below), those conspiracists are then inevitably forced to twist logic into a big Mister Salty pretzel (just as Harris has done via his theory about Oswald possibly carrying around useless spent rifle cartridges in his pocket on the day of the assassination).

"So, as usual, Robert Harris' subjective theories fall flat, especially when weighed against the BEST PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the JFK case -- i.e., THREE spent bullet shells FROM OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE being found in the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY (not in the Dal-Tex Building), coupled with the important corroborating "THREE SHOTS" fact that more than NINETY PERCENT of the earwitnesses heard THREE SHOTS OR FEWER during the assassination in Dallas' Dealey Plaza." -- DVP; 11/30/09


Or they [the 3 bullet shells in the TSBD] might have been placed there by the other shooter, hoping to make it appear that Oswald fired all the shots.


Yeah, it's always a good idea to ignore the "ordinary" and most-likely version of events (i.e., Oswald fired three shots at JFK and that's why three shells from his gun were found in the Sniper's Nest) and instead invent an "extraordinary" version of events to explain the evidence away (i.e., Bob's make-believe "other shooter" in the Depository, who planted the shells in the Sniper's Nest).

William of Occam would just love Bob Harris (and all other JFK conspiracy nuts). Not!


But whatever happened, it cannot trump the conclusive evidence which proves that shots were too close together to have all come from Oswald and that early shots from his rifle could not have gone unnoticed at the time they were fired.


Here we are treated to another distinctive trait of conspiracy theorists -- they get to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES exactly what certain people would (or should) have done at a particular point in time. In this instance, Bob has decided that the Dealey Plaza witnesses would have had NO CHOICE but to have reacted quite noticeably to Oswald's "early shots" (shots prior to Z285).

Bob evidently thinks that all of those witnesses were standing right next to Lee Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD (vs. those witnesses being located a considerable distance, relatively speaking, from the muzzle of Oswald's Carcano rifle).

In any event, Bob insists that the witnesses HAD to react in a certain way after hearing the concussion of Lee Harvey Oswald's "early" pre-Z285 rifle blasts.

In short, folks, Bob Harris is nuts to think such a thing. Simple as that.

But, we must remember that we're dealing with a conspiracy monger who could also be labelled: "The King Of Subjective Thinking".

And when you've got that badge pinned to your chest, then ANYTHING is possible when it comes to evaluating the events that occurred in Dallas on November 22, 1963.


I'm sorry this makes you go into another ad hominem tirade, totally misrepresenting my position. This is NOT how reasonable men figure things out David.


"Mr. Subjective" now considers himself to be a "reasonable" man when it comes to his analysis of the JFK assassination.

Unbelievable, isn't it?


But it says a LOT about how you came to believe as you do. :-)


It does? How so?


I will say this -- Bob Harris, in just the last several days alone, has provided more laughs and more totally subjective and unprovable analysis regarding John F. Kennedy's assassination than I have seen around these parts from one single person in quite a long time.

I even e-mailed Vincent Bugliosi's secretary about Harris' recent barrage of conspiracy-flavored silliness (knowing full well that Vince's secretary, Rosemary, would fax my e-mail to Mr. Bugliosi, so that Vince, too, could get as big a chuckle out of Mr. Harris' subjectivism as I have been getting recently).

And, sure enough, Rosemary faxed my e-mail to VB. The mail (reprinted below) contains some stuff about Vincent Palamara too, in addition to the recent kooky stuff concerning Robert Harris):

Subject: JFK Articles
Date: 12/2/2009 3:37:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi Rosemary,

How are you, my friend?

I'm writing today in order to provide you links to a couple of recent online articles I've written concerning the never-ending battle with the conspiracy kooks concerning JFK's murder.

These are articles that I thought Vince Bugliosi (and you) might enjoy reading (as I attempt to destroy a particular conspiracy theorist's crazy theories; the theorist's name is Robert Harris, who has been posting conspiracy-oriented junk online for many years).

In one of the articles I mention Vincent Palamara's name. It seems that Palamara has now decided to stab Mr. Bugliosi in the gut (so to speak) via his admission that he still believes in a conspiracy in the JFK case (despite his apparent total switch to "LNism" in 2007 after reading Mr. Bugliosi's book).

To tell you the truth, Rosemary, I always knew that Palamara wasn't really ever completely "converted" into a lone-assassin believer. This became obvious to me when I saw that Palamara was continuing to write 5-star reviews at Amazon.com for pro-conspiracy books many months after he went on record endorsing Bugliosi's book (such as Palamara's glowing review in 2008 of Jim Douglass' book).

It's just a shame that Mr. Bugliosi placed so much faith in Palamara's supposed "turnaround" into an LNer. I winced when I saw Palamara's positive review for "Reclaiming History" appear in VB's 2008 follow up volume, "Four Days In November". Because now, as of late 2009, that pro-LN blurb for "RH" appears to be totally phony.

I've known for several years now that Palamara (in my own opinion) appears to be a person who seemingly doesn't know which side of the JFK fence he wants to reside on. His #1 goal, it seems, is to have his name show up in as many JFK books as possible. And I fear that was his main motivation for vigorously supporting Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" in 2007. That's kind of sad, but probably true.

Again, that's just my own personal opinion about Mr. Palamara's possible motivations. I admit, I could be 100% wrong about that. But that's the feeling I get from reading his non-stop self-promoting articles and blurbs that appear at many Internet locations.

Anyway, I just wanted to share these articles with you and Vince B. (as I recall, you told me a couple of years ago that Vince B. wanted me to "keep him informed" on anything new that might come up on the JFK-related Internet forums, so I'm doing that now).

Thanks. And Happy Holidays to both you and Mr. B.

Here are the links:



Best wishes,
David Von Pein

P.S. -- One more link....this is a blog I recently created, devoted exclusively to Vincent Bugliosi's June 2007 radio debate with Dr. Cyril Wecht:




Subject: JFK
Date: 12/2/2009 4:24:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

It was great hearing from you again. I faxed Vince your e-mail which I'm sure he'll find interesting. Vince, as you may know has been busy with the documentary that has been made of his latest book. It's due out sometime in February. I'm sure there'll be a great debate, pro and con, regarding the subject matter.

Please keep in touch and have a great holiday season (even though the mood of the country seems to be Bah Humbug).

Regards, Rosemary


David Von Pein
December 4, 2009