(PART 831)


Here's an interesting e-mail conversation I had with Gary Mack on
January 8th, 2010:

Subject: Yet ANOTHER camera original Zapruder film
Date: 1/8/2010 2:44:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Hello Dave,

I am continually astonished at how little the alterationists know about the Zapruder film and its history. Now, led by Doug Horne and others, they are whining about needing a test film from the Zapruder camera to see if its images have the same camera artifacts as the assassination film. Their “thinking” is that the test film won’t match and that will prove the original film is a fake. But many such original reels exist and most, if not all, have been available at the National Archives for decades!

The alterationists didn’t know, until I told Duncan MacRae, that the Zapruder camera was used by the FBI for re-creations in Dealey Plaza on May 23-24, 1964, and that the resulting film reels are at NARA II in College Park, MD. The films presumably contain similar intersprocket images and artifacts as those in the assassination film. (The extremely poor quality You Tube version of one of the reels is not an accurate representation of its image quality.)

How could the alterationists not know that? The man the FBI assigned to investigate and analyze the assassination films, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, testified that he used the original Zapruder, Orville Nix and Marie Muchmore cameras. There are news films and photographs showing those cameras sitting atop the Zapruder pedestal the day of the test!

Nor, apparently, do the alterationists know about other test reels shot with the Zapruder camera within days and years of the assassination. As noted in The Sixth Floor Museum’s Zapruder chronology, the FBI first borrowed Zapruder’s camera on December 4, 1963, for testing. “On December 20, the bureau concluded, ‘This camera when operated at normal ‘run’ speed operates at 18.3 frames per second.’ This ‘clock’ was later used to determine the timing of specific events as seen in the film.”

The timing test, which was duplicated by Bell & Howell in December 1966, involved loading the camera and filming a clock with an accurate second hand, then counting the number of frames that were exposed over specific times. Barring any peculiarity with the lighting on the clocks, all such test reels will certainly reveal the same intersprocket images and artifacts as Mr. Zapruder’s famous film.

What all this means is that when Zapruder’s camera was still in the same condition as the day of the assassination, and when Kodachrome II film and processing were easily available, government and private company investigations of the operating characteristics yielded multiple test reels that can be studied and measured.

There was no need in 1996 for the ARRB to borrow Zapruder’s camera for use in Dallas, nor was there a need in 2000 for Rollie Zavada to use it for his follow-up study of the original film. There was no need because test films already existed and they are available for examination in one form or another.

And yet, the alterationists remain completely ignorant of their existence. Amazing!

Gary Mack


Subject: Re: Yet ANOTHER camera original Zapruder film
Date: 1/8/2010 10:19:39 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack



Thanks--yet again--for another detailed e-mail message. Your knowledge regarding various aspects of the JFK assassination continues to astound me.

But, like you said, it's rather remarkable that the "alterationists" who think the Zapruder Film is a fake and a fraud wouldn't have taken the time to find out about all of the various test films that were shot with Abraham Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera.

And equally as remarkable is something that occurred just this week (on January 3, 2010) when conspiracy theorist extraordinaire David Lifton posted this message at John Simkin's Education Forum, with Lifton saying he was not able to find any reference at all to the test films shot with Zapruder's camera when he (Lifton) looked up Lyndal Shaneyfelt's Warren Commission testimony. And Lifton was SPECIFICALLY SEARCHING for references to Zapruder's camera when he was going through Shaneyfelt's testimony, too!

It wasn't until I posted this follow-up message on Duncan MacRae's forum regarding Zapruder's camera positively being used by Shaneyfelt for test films, which is a message that Duncan was nice enough to paste into this thread at the Education Forum, that Lifton finally was able to confirm for himself that Zapruder's camera was, in fact, utilized for test films in Dealey Plaza in May 1964.

And it took me less than 30 seconds of searching time to find that reference to the Zapruder test films in Shaneyfelt's testimony (at 5 H 162), too. (Perhaps Mr. Lifton has never heard of "Internet word search tools" before.) ~shrug~

Anyway, Gary, thanks again for the e-mail. I always appreciate and benefit from the information you pass along.

David Von Pein
January 8, 2010

(PART 830)


I've just finished a video about a man looking like Ruby in the WFAA studios just minutes after the JFK assassination. [See photo below, with arrow pointing to the "Ruby look-alike".]


Denis, that is Bert Shipp and Jay Watson of WFAA, where Karen and I both worked.

Ruby was at the DMN [Dallas Morning News] but not at WFAA-TV (Channel 8).


Would be nice if you identify the Ruby look-alike.



I do know Jay Watson and my longtime friend Bert Shipp. I also know Ruby was not at Channel 8 WFAA-TV at that time.

Did you verify the time on this, Denis?

My wife, Karen, who also worked there, says she doesn't know who the guy on the left is either.


I don't know the time yet. But I'm satisfied it is not Ruby.


I can pinpoint from my WFAA videos almost exactly when that image of the "Ruby"-like person appears in the WFAA footage. The time is 1:11 PM CST. And he does look a lot like Ruby. (It's amazing how many times people think Ruby and Oswald pop up in various pictures and videos.)

26 minutes into this video:


Do we see him anywhere else in this TV coverage?


Denis, I looked for the Ruby look-alike elsewhere in the newsroom in my WFAA video and I didn't see him.

He's visible for about five seconds 26 minutes into the Part 1 video (looks like he's talking on the telephone), and then he gets up from his chair and moves out of camera range. I didn't see him again in the newsroom.


I think what we see there in the WFAA footage is Jack Ruby receiving a call from his handler. I have a transcript of the call (supplied by Jim Garrison in 1968). The conversation went like this----

HANDLER -- "Is that you, Jack?"

RUBY -- "Yeah, yeah, it's me."

HANDLER -- "What the hell are you doing, Jack?! Where are you?"

RUBY -- "I stopped off at WFAA-TV to talk to my friend Mr. Peppermint."

HANDLER -- "You idiot! We need you at Parkland--now!! You've got work to do there, remember?"

RUBY -- "Oh shit, you're right! I forgot!"

HANDLER -- "You've got the bullet, don't you?"

RUBY -- "Wait. Let me double check. Yeah...yeah...here it is. A 6.5mm. bullet from some rifle a guy stole from somebody's garage a couple days ago. I think he got the rifle in Irving. He told me that this Oswald guy was staying there with somebody named Paine, or Von Pein, or Von Paine, or somethin' like that."

HANDLER -- "Yeah, yeah. That's right. So you've got the bullet, great. Are you sure you know what to do with it, Jack? We don't want any foul-ups."

RUBY -- "Yeah, yeah. Leave it to me, Mr. X. I know what I'm doing."

HANDLER -- "Well, just be careful. Don't do something dumb like putting it on the wrong stretcher or something like that."

RUBY (Laughing) -- "Oh, come on! What do you take me for? An idiot like David Ferrie? That guy is still in New Orleans, and he's supposed to fly into Redbird to get Mac Wallace out of the country, remember? What a douchebag!"

HANDLER -- "Okay, Jack. But remember---don't screw this up. The big boys in Washington are counting on you. And remember that we're going to need you on Sunday morning in the City Hall basement too. Is that gun of yours working alright these days?"

RUBY -- "Yeah, yeah. It's fine. I checked it out just last week by firing three rounds at Garland Slack's target at the rifle range. I only hope he didn't recognize me."

HANDLER -- "Okay, Jack. You'd better move your butt. Time's a wastin'."

RUBY -- "Yeah, yeah. I'm leaving WFAA right now. See ya later when I bring over the sandwiches."

David Von Pein
October 30, 2014


(PART 829)


The two Tomlinson videos posted by David [Von Pein] show how unreliable witness memory can be -- in 1967 he was sure it was found on the elevator stretcher, years later it was the other one:

In the first interview he said that after he looked at the bullet he put it in his pocket -- which would mean that he was the only person who actually saw it as it lay on the stretcher. The two stretchers were side by side. Suppose he misremembered which one from the very beginning and pointed out the wrong stretcher to Wright? In that case, it wouldn't matter what articles were on the stretcher.

I agree with David that however it went down it's much more likely that the bullet was found on the stretcher that came off the elevator from the second floor, where we know a gunshot victim had just been taken and where the surgeon was puzzled because he couldn't find a bullet:

Dr. GREGORY -- "I would say that that [thigh] wound was about a centimeter in diameter, much larger than the identifiable fragment of metal in the thigh. I might add that this prompted some speculation on our part, my part, which was voiced to someone that some search ought to be made in the Governor's clothing or perhaps in the auto or some place, wherever he may have been, for the missile which had produced this much damage but which was not resident in him."


How can you possibly assess probabilities on this? Have you done any research on the comparative likelihood of a bullet's being placed on a stretcher versus the likelihood it would be overlooked by numerous employees before being spotted on a stretcher? Of course not.


I'm not talking about a statistical probability, Pat, I'm stating an opinion (as are you, right?). People overlook all kinds of things when they're focused on something else. (Have you seen the gorilla on the basketball court video?) Tomlinson might have missed it too if it hadn't made a noise when it hit the rail.

The improbable part to me is someone finding a bullet in the limo and then moving it. Why on earth would anyone do that? What was he thinking? A bullet in the limo is clearly connected to the shooting -- but on a stretcher in the ER? What's the point?


The bullet's being found in the limo is only one possibility. Seeing as we know Kinney and Hickey partially cleaned up the limo, and then stopped, and then failed to admit they'd done so in their reports, I don't think it's at all far-fetched that they would not want anyone to know they'd found the bullet.


Why use the word "admit"? Do you think they were knowingly doing something wrong? Many details were left out of the lawmen's reports, especially "gory" details.

What I really don't understand is, why move the bullet, why not just leave it there? Could you explain that to me?


But there's plenty of options should one find that unlikely that are nevertheless still far more likely, IMO, than the "official" story of the bullet's going unnoticed while Connally was stripped naked, moved upstairs, and lifted from the stretcher, and then still going unnoticed while a nurse rolled up the sheets.


Here's another possibility. At about 2:50 into the Tomlinson video [embedded above], one can see that the pad slides easily across the metal stretcher. Suppose that when Connally was being lifted the pad was pushed all the way to the rail, covering the bullet -- until Tomlinson shoved the stretcher against the wall, the pad shifted again and out it came.

Works for me. Or as I like to say, "Shift happens"!


You know what they say about "great minds". .... ~grin~ .... Here's something I said in 2007 in this article/post that I entitled "The Odd (But Almost Certainly True) Journey Of Commission Exhibit 399":

"The bullet, now almost totally spent, travels its last few inches into Connally's left thigh, barely breaking the skin, but not hitting his femur beneath the skin.

The bullet is then jarred loose from the shallow thigh wound at some point, falling (probably) into his pants leg for a period of time...eventually ending up on his stretcher...where it rolls/slides under the stretcher's rubber mat (partially hiding it; hence, nobody sees the damn thing in the ER or in the OR).

It's quite possible that Connally's position on the stretcher at the time the bullet did its little dive under the mat was such that the weight of Connally's large frame possibly PUSHED UP a portion of the end of the rubber mat, leaving a gap between the metal stretcher and the mat. And when Connally was then removed from the stretcher, the mat (now free from the weight of Connally's body) falls flat and even again with the metal stretcher, covering (at least partially) Bullet #CE399.

Yes, that above scenario is just a guess on my part (quite obviously). But it seems like a fairly logical guess, given the sum total of evidence that indicates Bullet 399 DID, indeed, fall from Connally's thigh wound onto his stretcher while he was lying on that stretcher inside Parkland Hospital that Friday afternoon. And also given the fact that not a single person saw the bullet on the stretcher prior to Tomlinson (or heard the tinkling of metal rolling against the metal parts of the stretcher as it was being moved from the OR to the second-floor elevator area).

The stretcher (with bullet under mat) is pushed out of the 2nd-Floor Operating Room and into an elevator being operated that day by Parkland's Senior Engineer, Darrell C. Tomlinson.

Tomlinson takes the stretcher down to the first floor, where it's taken off the elevator and placed in the hallway next to young patient Ronnie Fuller's stretcher.

Tomlinson then returns to his elevator and hospital duties for a period of time....making at least 2 additional trips up to higher floors in the hospital before finally noticing that one of the two first-floor stretchers has been moved by someone who entered the men's room located off of that same hallway.

Tomlinson pushes the stretcher up against the wall again to clear it out of the middle of the aisle/hallway, and hears a metallic sound on the stretcher he's just pushed against the wall.

Out rolls Commission Exhibit #399, out from under the pad/mat on the stretcher, where it was partially hidden (or possibly completely out of viewable sight for a time)....and the never-ending controversy surrounding this little piece of metal and lead had begun."

-- DVP; September 15, 2007


Wow, you're right, David. I may well have read that in 2007 and by now didn't realize you'd thought of it first. Sorry. But I'm glad we agree.


I doubt that Tomlinson lied, but we have to keep in mind that the FBI was caught many times lying about what a suspect said. Even in this part of the case they lied. You might not be able to keep your dinner down, but there is evidence that was tracked down by Aguilar and Thompson that shows the FBI lying about the bullet in question:


The article has a great deal to do with the 'magic' bullet, and some of the shenanigans the FBI got into with it. Including breaking the chain of custody, and lying about the bullet and what witnesses said about it.


It hasn't been shown that the FBI lied, only that there are conflicts and gaps in the record which many CTs interpret as the FBI lying.

Tomlinson remembered it differently at different times. When he told Specter it was not the elevator stretcher, Specter said he'd told the SS that it was. Since CTs typically believe witnesses and doubt the WC/FBI, Specter has been accused of making that up. But now Pat has found a document showing that Specter was right, after all -- Tomlinson's story had changed.

The essay you linked to argues that since the authors couldn't find a specific FBI report about showing the bullet to witnesses, the FBI must have lied. That doesn't necessarily follow. Pat's discovery shows that not being able to find something doesn't mean it never existed.

Tomlinson told CT researcher Ray Marcus that he was shown a bullet by an FBI agent (he thought it was Shanklin) and that it "appeared to be the same one." [p.6 here].

"Appears to be the same one" is exactly how the FBI quoted him in CE 2011, the report that's supposedly a lie.

You shouldn't let suspicion fill in the blanks when there are other possibilities you may not have thought of.


Jean, please don't forget Nathan Pool, the Otis repairman.


I don't believe Pool was there. His testimony conflicts with Tomlinson's, and no one mentioned him. I think he's one of those would-be witnesses like Beverly Oliver who are either inserting themselves into the event or are mentally confused. That's my opinion.


Tomlinson's testimony corroborates Pool's testimony.

In several places Tomlinson uses the word "we" when describing taking people up in the elevator.

Mr. 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."

And later Pool says:

"Prior to his discovery of the bullet, Pool recalls that he and Tomlinson gave another person a ride up to either the second or third floor."

Specter never asked him who "WE" were. If he had, the WC would have discovered the identity of the person who was working with Tomlinson.

So we have this dangling "WE" that needs to be resolved.

This is not my opinion, this is a fact.


Who did Tomlinson mean by "we" here:

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, we received a call in the engineer's office, the chief engineer's office, and he requested someone to operate the elevator.


Can't be Pool because Pool worked for an elevator company. He claimed that someone had called him to come over and operate the elevators.


Pool was probably there in the hospital on Nov. 22, but where's the proof he was right there by the stretchers when the bullet was found -- other than Pool saying he was?

Tomlinson's testimony has always been pretty clear on this point -- it was HE (Tomlinson) who first found the bullet on the stretcher. (Not on the FLOOR, which is the story I think Nathan Pool has told, but on the stretcher.)

RAY MARCUS -- "The bullet didn't actually fall to the floor, did it?"

Raymond Marcus' Interview With Darrell Tomlinson


I suggest you read Pool's complete testimony [available HERE].


And when you read Nathan Pool's testimony, make sure to pay attention to this remark made by Pool concerning the stretcher bullet he says he saw on 11/22/63:

"It was more round-nosed than a .303 or a 30.06 or anything like that."

That's a quote that the conspiracy theorists must hate. They like the idea of the bullet being "pointy" in nature. But Pool says "it was more round-nosed".

I have doubts, however, that Nathan Pool was even there when Darrell Tomlinson found the bullet. But after looking over Tomlinson's very brief Warren Commission testimony once again, I now have fewer doubts about Pool being there than I did before. (And also after looking at Pool's HSCA testimony that Mike provided above.)

Nathan Pool could have indeed been there with Tomlinson when the bullet was first discovered. Tomlinson's Warren Commission testimony certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility of Pool being there too.

And since Tomlinson's testimony doesn't include anything about O.P Wright, who we know took possession of the bullet from Tomlinson, then the name "Nathan Pool" not appearing in Tomlinson's testimony doesn't seem unreasonable either. Arlen Specter just didn't ask Tomlinson a lot of things he could have asked him.

And if it could be proven that Pool was there when the stretcher bullet was found, then Pool's "round-nosed" quote would take on added significance.

There are, however, definitely some inconsistencies and contradictions in Pool's two interviews with the HSCA. In a telephone interview in January 1977, Pool described the bullet as "pointed". But in his longer interview with the HSCA in July 1978, Pool made the previously mentioned "round-nosed" comment.

However, I suppose Pool's "pointed" and "round-nosed" remarks wouldn't necessarily have to be totally contradictory, because in his 1978 testimony/interview, he merely said that the stretcher bullet was "more round-nosed than a .303 or a 30.06". Which I guess could conceivably mean that Pool thought the bullet was sort of "pointed" at the tip, but not as pointed as bullets would be that were used in .303 and 30.06 rifles.


To read what author Vincent Bugliosi has to say in his book about Nathan Pool, CLICK HERE.

David Von Pein
October 2014

(PART 828)


The Gene Daniels photos were taken the next day, according to Daniels, who was interviewed by researchers in the 60s and 70s. Confirmation comes from Gladys and Arthur Johnson (the people in the photo) in their WC testimony and also from Fort Worth Star-Telegram photos I found at a local university. They appear on pages 50, 52 and 53 of Dale Myers' With Malice.


Oh really?

Like I trust anything that Dale Myers says. .... I used to trust what Gary Mack said. I also used to have a lot of respect for Gary Mack until he decided to insult me and claim I know nothing about the assassination.

And the fact that it's in the WC report means nothing. I'm sure Dulles or someone made them think they took the pictures the next day, or cut them off mid sentence when they were saying what day the pictures were taken on.

Why in the world would they be replacing curtain rods the day after the assassination? [HERE'S the answer to that question.]

Why would you take Gary or Dale's word for it? I know, because you are a LNer and whatever is said to back up your LNer position must be true.



What a surprise! A conspiracy theorist who thinks the Warren Commission was covering up the truth (with the conspiracy theorist offering up no proof whatsoever to support his vile allegation...as usual). Will wonders ever cease?

Here's what Lee Oswald's landlady, Gladys Johnson, said about the curtains and curtain rods in LHO's room (this testimony doesn't address the issue of the photos that were taken of the Beckley room, but this testimony is important when it comes to the issue of whether Oswald's room was properly outfitted with curtains and rods):

Mr. JOE BALL. How is this room furnished that Oswald rented?

Mrs. GLADYS JOHNSON. A very small room; it had an old fashioned clothes closet that had a place to hang your clothes and drawer space for your underwear, your socks and everything, and then it also had a cabinet space anyone could have stored food or, well I mean bundles of things, you know, and then I had a dresser and a bed and a heater and a little refrigerated unit.

Mr. BALL. A refrigerating unit?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; a window unit.

Mr. BALL. You mean it cooled the room?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.

Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.

Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.

Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?

Mrs. JOHNSON. No; he didn't.

Mr. BALL. The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; sure did.

Mr. BALL. Also curtains?

Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.


Another question that no conspiracy theorist ever bothers asking regarding the "curtain rod" issue is this one:

Since we know that Lee Oswald had no intention of living in his shoebox-sized room on Beckley Avenue for very much longer, then why in the world would he want to put up some new curtains and curtain rods in the Beckley room? It makes no sense.

And we can know that Oswald certainly had it in his mind to vacate the Beckley roominghouse fairly soon after November 22, 1963, because of his behavior on 11/21/63 at Ruth Paine's house when he pleaded with Marina to come back to Dallas with him. LHO also told Marina on November 21st that he would rent an apartment "tomorrow".

And I somehow doubt that Lee had it in his mind to take his wife and two children back to the walk-in closet he called home on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff. Per Marina, Lee had every intention and desire to LEAVE HIS BECKLEY ROOM AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 22! That's an important point that shouldn't be overlooked or ignored when the subject of Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" fairy tale is discussed.

In short -- Oswald invented the curtain rod story. He lied to Buell Wesley Frazier about the curtain rods to cover up the fact he was going to Irving to get his rifle on November 21st. And he lied again to Frazier about the curtain rods on November 22nd to conceal the fact that he was carrying his rifle to work. It's as simple as that.

Anyone who actually believes that Lee Harvey Oswald had any curtain rods with him on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination is a person who probably also believes that a political fanatic (Oswald) had absolutely no motive whatsoever for murdering a President (Kennedy) who was the chief representative of a country that the political fanatic (Oswald) had grown to despise.


Another thought occurred to me recently with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual Thursday-night trip to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21:

Oswald's visit to Irving on 11/21/63 was the only time that LHO had failed to call Paine's house to let either Ruth or Marina know he was coming. And this could be another key point when reflecting upon Oswald's actions that day.

In Lee Oswald's mind, a call to the Paine house prior to his November 21st visit could have been a bit risky. Because: what if Ruth or Marina, for some unknown reason, had told Lee not to come to Irving that evening? What would Lee have done then? Would he have obeyed Ruth/Marina and stayed in Oak Cliff, thereby eliminating any chance he had of fetching his rifle from the Paine garage before JFK's Friday arrival in Dallas? That's not very likely, granted. But Oswald would have had an additional layer of explaining to do if he had called Ruth's house and was told not to come, but went there anyway.

But the way Oswald planned it (with no call being made to Irving), he doesn't run the risk of being told to stay home. So he simply went to the Paine house unannounced, which gave him easy access to his rifle. And once he arrived in Irving, what were Marina and/or Ruth going to do--throw him out in the streets or tell him to turn around and go back home? Not likely, especially since Lee has no car.

And while it's likely that Lee would have gone out to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday night even if he HAD called Ruth or Marina and had been told NOT to come, it was still a wiser decision by Lee to NOT call the Paine house prior to his Thursday arrival.

And if Oswald had REALLY only been wanting to retrieve some curtain rods from Ruth Paine's home, then the fact that he did not call Ruth or Marina prior to his Thursday visit is even more bizarre and unexplainable, especially considering the fact that he had ALWAYS called Ruth's house prior to all of his other weekend visits.

And THIS particular November 21 visit in question, via such an innocuous and innocent reason for going there on a Thursday (to get some curtain rods), should have certainly elicited an advance telephone call from Lee -- BECAUSE HE WOULD BE COMING TO IRVING ON A THURSDAY, SOMETHING HE HAD NEVER DONE BEFORE.

More food for thought regarding Lee Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on 11/21/63, isn't it?

David Von Pein
January 8, 2010


(PART 827)


Watching two conspiracy-happy theorists throw mud on each other is quite enjoyable to see at times, such as some of the recent battles between Josiah Thompson and Jim Fetzer at The Education Forum, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Thompson wins each round, but only because nobody in the world can rival Dr. Fetzer in the "Kookiest Of The Conspiracy Kooks" category, whether it be this year or any other year.

I particularly enjoyed the strained logic of Dr. Fetzer during one portion of his persistent argument in favor of the Zapruder Film having been altered, with Fetzer apparently thinking that during the very brief 1.6-second interval when Jean Hill and Mary Moorman are visible in Mr. Zapruder's home movie, ALL of the following things should be seen in the Z-Film:

"I advance an 11-page study of Jean's [Hill] interview with Len Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in her testimony with that of Mary Moorman, which not only indicates they were in the street at the same time but that, if the Zapruder [Film] were authentic, it would show (a) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (b) Jean coating them with fixative, (c) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back onto the grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (i) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film."
-- James H. Fetzer; March 27, 2009

Hilarious stuff there, Dr. Fetzer!

For those who want the exact statistics on this, here they are:

Assassination eyewitnesses Jean Hill and Mary Moorman first become visible in Abraham Zapruder's home movie in frame #287, when the right half of Hill's body comes into view:

The very last frame that shows any portion of either of the two women is frame 316, which is a frame that depicts a very small part of Moorman's left arm:

This means that the two ladies are visible (either individually or together) for a total of only 30 frames of the Zapruder Film (inclusively; Z287 through Z316), which in "real time" equals 1.639 seconds.

But Jim Fetzer, incredibly, seems to think that an unaltered version of the Zapruder movie should show ALL of the events he mentioned above--even the post-assassination event of Moorman tugging on Hill's coat or leg (as Mary encourages Jean to get down on the ground to avoid the gunfire, which is an event that obviously did not occur until Mr. Zapruder had panned his camera further to his right and well out of the view of either of the two women).

Does Dr. Fetzer believe that the "real" and "unaltered" Zapruder Film is focused on Jean and Mary for more than just 1.64 seconds? Fetzer must certainly believe that is the case, because otherwise how could ALL of his laundry list of Hill's and Moorman's actions have possibly been captured in just 1.64 seconds by the CONSTANTLY PANNING motion of Mr. Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera?

There's only one truly accurate word to describe such nonsensical and impossible beliefs on the part of James H. Fetzer --- Crazy!

David Von Pein
January 8, 2010

(PART 826)


Why did [Police Officer Marrion] Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC [Warren Commission] dishonestly move Baker's time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was this needed?


You are just making stuff up.

The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from the 6th floor.

Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a Coke in his hand don't change any of that.


Actually, the time involved in purchasing the Coke makes the WC scenario impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.


But Baker saw Oswald entering the second floor lunchroom. If Oswald had a Coke, he purchased it quickly before Baker himself got into the lunchroom.

You are assuming that "different versions" means "lies."

No responsible historian would assume that. In fact, Baker crossed out the "Coke" business in one of his statements, apparently because it had been recorded in error.


The truth, of course, is that the WC did everything in their power to speed SS Howlett, and to slow down Baker in recreations. They got the 'meet' that they needed, but didn't account for the REAL facts that day.

And when the timing was so incredibly tight, EVEN WITH THE 'SHADING' GOING ON BY THE WCR, it leads reasonable people to understand that Oswald simply wasn't where the WCR tried to place him.


A lie, of course.

Howlett did not move quickly in the recreations. And the recreation times are worthless, since no attempt was made to determine the fastest Oswald could descend. That is what is required in order to say what could or could not occur in time.


Hell, I could have put the rifle where it was found and met Baker at the front door when I was 23.


I agree that it would have been nice if the Warren Commission had done a re-creation with Agent Howlett moving much faster than the two tests that were performed at "normal walking pace" and "fast walk" speeds [Warren Report; p.152].

But even without a "really fast walk" or a "running" re-creation, Howlett's two re-creations are still certainly worthwhile and meaningful, because those re-creations establish as rock-solid FACT that a person could definitely descend from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunchroom in 74 to 78 seconds WITHOUT EVEN MOVING VERY QUICKLY.

And since we can reasonably assume that Lee Harvey Oswald (after killing the President) was moving a wee bit faster down those Depository stairs than John Howlett was moving, it becomes glaringly obvious that Oswald could certainly have made it from the sixth floor to the second floor in well under 74 seconds, which was Howlett's fastest time [WR; p.152].


For the purpose of determining whether it was possible for Oswald to reach the lunchroom in time to be confronted by Baker, the estimates developed by the WC might be adequate.

But for CTer purposes, if they wish to RULE OUT that Oswald could have done so, they would need the fastest possible time Oswald could achieve to do this.

That was the point I was trying to make, that the information needed to show that Oswald could not have made it is not in evidence.


The kooks who belong in the "OSWALD COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MADE IT FROM THE 6TH FLOOR TO THE 2ND FLOOR IN TIME TO SEE BAKER" club are actually proven dead wrong by Howlett's two test runs all by themselves....since we know that Howlett DID make it to the 2nd floor within as little as 74 seconds, which is a time that beats either one of Marrion Baker's test runs (which were 90 seconds and 75 seconds).

So we really don't need a "running" test performed by Howlett and the WC at all in order to positively disprove the persistent conspiracy myth about Oswald not having enough time to get to the second floor.


David, we don't need to reply to conspiracy kooks at all, so what we "need" doesn't apply. The conspiracy contingent has been arbitrarily adding time to Oswald's trip for tasks they see him needing to perform, and likewise subtracting time from the estimates for Baker's time to get to the second floor lunchroom. My point is that no matter how much adjusting they do, they can't rule out Oswald getting there in time unless they can establish the fastest time Oswald could have gotten there.

Keep in mind that the estimates require memory, and a lot of factors come into play, but a fairly accurate fastest time could have been arrived at, but this was never attempted. To get this information, you'd need to get a young skinny guy, have him perform the tasks as Oswald would have had to do, run down the steps as fast as he could, and clock this time. No such test was ever performed, so no such approximate "fastest time" exists in evidence. Such a "fastest time" is necessary to support CTer absolute claims about what Oswald could or could not have done.


Oh, come now, Bud! You're surely not actually suggesting that the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy kooks of Planet Earth would ACCEPT a "fastest time" re-creation (had such a test been performed by anyone in "officialdom"), are you? You know better than that, Bud.

Any such "fastest time" test would have been completely ignored or misrepresented by conspiracy kooks, just as the Warren Commission's 74- and 78-second tests are totally ignored by those kooks (which, as mentioned, are two tests that prove for all time that Lee Harvey Oswald could have descended to the second floor before Officer Marrion L. Baker).

I suppose if Jim Garrison or Mark Lane had been the ones with a stopwatch in their hands during such a Depository re-creation, and a skinny 24-year-old lad similar to Oswald had fled down the stairs in 50 or 55 seconds, perhaps then conspiracy retards might (begrudgingly) have accepted it.

But if such a re-creation test had been engineered by the WARREN COMMISSION--forget it. If that had occurred, the CTers would merely be spouting the same worn-out myth they repeat over and over again today: i.e., The Warren Commission cannot be trusted about anything, and there's no way Oswald could have beaten Baker to the lunchroom in the time available to him.

It's a shame that so many conspiracy myths have taken on lives of their own, and they cannot be killed in the minds of many people who have convinced themselves that such myths are the absolute truth.

Such as:

1.) The one discussed in this post about Oswald not having nearly enough time to reach the lunchroom.

2.) And there's the similar myth about Oswald not having enough time to reach the scene of the Tippit murder.

3.) And the myth about the Mannlicher-Carcano being "the worst rifle ever made".

4.) And the myth about how Oswald was "a terrible shot", therefore he couldn't possibly have killed the President.

5.) And the myth about "back and to the left" indicating a shot from the front hit JFK in the head.

6.) And the myth about how the Warren Commission was boxing itself in to a timeline of "5.6 seconds" for the three shots fired by Oswald, even though the following words appear on page 117 of the Warren Report (which is a Report that has been in print for 45 years for everybody to see and read, and for conspiracy theorists to totally ignore and/or dismiss) --- "The three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."

David Von Pein
January 6-7, 2010

(PART 825)


Why do conspiracy theorists insist on focusing on all the wrong things?

We know Lee Oswald was seen carrying a long brown bag by both Linnie Randle and Wesley Frazier.

We know (or least I do) that a long brown EMPTY bag with two of Oswald's prints on it was found near the window where JFK's assassin was located.

And we know that Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage and the rifle was found on the TSBD's sixth floor.

But Colin Crow would rather discuss exactly when Linnie Mae Randle knew that Oswald's name was Oswald.

Colin is also implying that Buell Frazier is a liar concerning the "curtain rods" too.

In other words, conspiracists feel it's their obligation to place some degree of blame or suspicion on everybody except the murderer.


How precisely do "we" know this?

In her testimony, Marina said that she saw (once) what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle.

Only a few hours after the murders she was shown the MC rifle found at the TSBD and, according to her affidavit, she could not identify it as Oswald's rifle.

So, how do we know (which obviously is something very different than assuming) that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one) indeed belonged to Oswald and that it was in fact the MC rifle later found at the TSBD?


Still fighting the evidence, aren't you, Martin?

Why do you fight it so hard?

....Marina saw a RIFLE in Ruth Paine's garage in approximately October 1963.

....Lee Oswald (based on everything that is known) owned only ONE rifle in 1963.

....Oswald takes a long paper bag into work on 11/22 (after making his first-ever Thursday-night visit to Ruth's house and his first-ever unannounced visit).

....The rifle was missing from Ruth's garage on 11/22.

....Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD at 1:22 PM on 11/22.

Add 'em up.

This is kindergarten math.


Martin, you ARE fighting the evidence. And you know it.

The huge pile of evidence against Oswald just sails over your head like a gorgeous Boeing 747 taking off from Heathrow.



Nope... I am questioning the evidence you so readily and blindly have accepted.

But, let's not get sidetracked here.... you still haven't answered my question;

You said:

And we know that Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage and the rifle was found on the TSBD's sixth floor.

And I asked you:

So, how do we know (which obviously is something very different than assuming) that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one) indeed belonged to Oswald and that it was in fact the MC rifle later found at the TSBD?

Why don't you just simply answer my question?


There is, of course, some degree of "ASSUMPTION" involved in connecting the dots concerning Oswald, the rifle, the Paine garage, and the assassination.

There HAS to be some "assuming" involved. How can there not be?

But given the rifle/garage/Marina facts I laid out in brief form previously, is it really MORE reasonable to "ASSUME" that the rifle that we know (from Marina) was in Ruth Paine's garage was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one with the number C2766 on it that was found in the Depository?

How can that possibly be MORE reasonable than the conclusion that the "Paine Garage Rifle" and the "TSBD Rifle" are one and the same?

Why does this even need to be explained to any veteran of these JFK wars?

And once again I'll ask --- Why do CTers fight the evidence (and the obvious) so hard?


Regarding whether or not a rifle had ever been wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage, I'll also add this WC testimony from Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers.....

MR. WALTHERS -- "...and we also found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it had been wrapped in it."

MR. LIEBELER -- "You could really see the imprint of the gun?"

MR. WALTHERS -- "You could see where it had been--it wasn't completely untied--one end had been untied and the other end had been left tied, that would be around the barrel and you could see where the gun had rested on the inside of it. .... You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it, but what kind---you couldn't tell, but you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it."


What is this? Comedy hour?

You can't be serious! Are you really so desperate, David?


What's so funny about Walthers' "assumption" regarding the rifle impressions in the blanket, Martin?

It looks like a fairly nice piece of "assuming" to me, which corroborates Marina's "assumption" that she saw the stock of a rifle in that same blanket in October.

Was Walthers in cahoots with Marina, Martin?


Actually, Marina wasn't even there when the police picked up the blanket. Michael Paine was! You remember him, don't you? The guy that left work (mid-day) and drove to Irving (where he did not live) when he heard about the shooting and he just did so to see if he could help..... Help with what?

And it wasn't Marina who told the police about the blanket, it was the "translating" Ruth Paine who did that! You remember Ruth, don't you? The woman who greeted the police by saying something like "I was expecting you"...... Huh?

Besides, and more to the point, how can anybody remove a rifle or any other object from a wrapped up blanket in such a way that the imprint of that object is retained in that blanket? Can parts of a blanket float? For crying out loud, a blanket collapses completely as soon as you remove whatever was contained in it. That's why Walthers' testimony is funny.

For you to even use something so silly is actually quite sad and pathetic.


You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, Martin.


Wow....... So, now your opinion becomes a strategy to combat my comments?

Just tell the other guy he doesn't know what he is talking about, and because I, David von Pein [sic], say it he will run and hide.... Was that the plan? Sorry, it ain't working....

Could it be you have run out of arguments? Was the magic blanket (let's call it that, shall we) really the best you have got?


You're lost in a world of perceived conspirators and plotters.

Sad and pathetic indeed.

But it's nice to see Martin's list of liars growing, post by post. He's now added Eddy (Buddy) Walthers to the LIARS list.

Martin has also implied today that Ruth Paine was a liar, along with Michael Paine, plus Howard Brennan. And Marina, of course. Did I miss anyone on today's Liar's List, Martin?


Is this the way you deal with everything in this case, David? If so, I'm beginning to understand how you can be so misguided and confused.

First you confuse assumptions for evidence and now you claim falsely that I have accused Walthers of lying. I never did any such thing. Walthers may well have believed that he did see an imprint in the blanket but common logic should tell you that blankets simply do not retain their shape when something that was wrapped up in it is removed.


I don't know why you say this, Martin. An object wrapped up in a blanket, especially if it had been wrapped quite snugly in the blanket and had been there for an extended period of time, it seems to me could certainly leave behind an imprint in the blanket after the object is removed. Particularly if the person removing the object took measures to make it want to appear as if the object was still inside the blanket, with that person very carefully removing the object so that the imprint pattern in the blanket remained (which is probably what Oswald did when he took his rifle out of that blanket).

Anyway, Deputy Walthers said he saw the outline of a rifle when he looked at the empty blanket. If you want to dismiss that testimony as crazy and cockeyed, you're free to do so. I, however, do not wish to do so.


I had a feeling I'd find at least one other police officer saying (on the record) that he saw the outline of a rifle in the blanket. And, sure enough, it took me about five seconds to find one. It's in Detective Guy (Gus) Rose's Warren Commission testimony.....

MR. ROSE -- "...and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle."

MR. BALL -- "You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, it did."

So, that's Walthers and Rose who said they saw the outline of a rifle in the empty blanket in Ruth Paine's garage.



Marina wasn't even there when the police picked up the blanket.


Huh? Why on Earth are you saying something so obviously incorrect, Martin?

Marina Oswald was most certainly there at Ruth Paine's house when the police found the blanket in the garage and when it was picked up by Detective Rose.

Who do you think it was who told the police that Lee's rifle was kept in a blanket in the garage? It wasn't Ruth Paine who provided that information. It was Marina. Ruth didn't even know there was any rifle ever stored in her garage. Yes, Ruth translated Marina's Russian for the policemen. But it was MARINA, not Ruth, who was providing the "Rifle in blanket" information. And Detective Rose's testimony verifies that fact....

MR. ROSE -- "I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle."

MR. BALL -- "You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, it did."

MR. BALL -- "Was it tied at one end?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it."

MR. BALL -- "You brought that in?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, I did."


There is also this quote from Dallas Deputy Sheriff J.L. Oxford, another one of the six police officers who searched Ruth Paine's house on the afternoon of November 22, 1963:

"We found a blanket in the garage. This blanket looked like a rifle had been wrapped in it." -- J.L. Oxford; 11/23/63 Sheriff's Office Report


This entire "I could see the outline" stuff is just selfserving rubbish.


And yet we've got three different officers (Rose, Walthers, and Oxford) saying a rifle imprint was in the blanket. Why would they all lie?

And Harry Weatherford's Sheriff's report says the same thing....

"...and a blanket which looked to have been wrapped around a rifle." -- H. Weatherford


Oh boy.... I can't believe that you did not understand what I was saying. Anybody who knows anything about this case knows that Marina was at Ruth Paine's house when the police came. But she wasn't there (i.e. in the garage) when the police picked up the blanket..... Michael Paine was. Read his testimony.


Please point me to that testimony, because I sure can't find it at all.

But even if you're correct on this point---so what? What difference does it make?


Why would they ask [Michael] Paine whether it was a rifle, when all they needed to do (if she was there) is ask Marina whether this was the blanket that contained the rifle?


Big deal. They asked Marina TOO, of course. We know that. But they also asked Michael Paine about the blanket as well. Just as they should have.

You, like all CTers, are making large mountains out of nothingness.


Micheal Paine is suffering from "very fuzzy impressions", but his testimony clearly indicates IMO that he was in the garage when the blanket was picked up, Marina was not.


I guess that's why Michael Paine said this, huh?.....

MR. LIEBELER -- "And your wife was with the police officers further in?"
MR. PAINE -- "Yes, I think she was."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Was Marina Oswald there?"
MR. PAINE -- "Failure of recollection, I would say, yes. But it is a very fuzzy recollection."

But as I indicated previously----who cares?


As to your comments about the police officers seeing a shape that looked like a rifle:

Mr. PAINE - It doesn't really make sense as to why they would still leave the blanket there, and these things would have been discussed at that time, but I kind of remember a kind of silhouette situation, a police officer either lifted up or kicked this blanket, which was in exactly the same location that the rifle, the package had been, underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust. And I think he put it back there.

Isn't it just amazing how a blanket can retain its shape not only after a rifle was removed, but also after it was picked up or kicked and then put back in its place.


Nobody said it retained a rifle shape AFTER it was picked up by Detective Rose. It had been picked up earlier by Rose and it hung limp over his arm (per Ruth Paine). But that, of course, would have obviously occurred AFTER both Rose and Walthers (and possibly Deputy Oxford too) took note of the rifle shape in the blanket.

Try again, Martin.

And whatever you do, keep avoiding the obvious regarding Oswald, the blanket, and the brown paper bag.


Please go back to Micheal Paine's testimony and you will read that the wrapped up blanket was "underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust"...

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you tell us where the blanket was found?
Mr. PAINE - It doesn't really make sense as to why they would still leave the blanket there, and these things would have been discussed at that time, but I kind of remember a kind of silhouette situation, a police officer either lifted up or kicked this blanket, which was in exactly the same location that the rifle, the package had been, underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust. And I think he put it back there. He may have asked me at that time, "Did you know what was in this?"

In other words, nobody could have yet disturbed it earlier. So, this must have been the first time the officers laid eyes on the package... and according to Paine they kicked it or lifted it up....

Now, do you really want us to believe that these officers first went into the garage, looked at the blanket and saw the outline of a rifle but nevertheless left it alone, in order to come back moments later with Michael Paine and then kick or lift the blanket? Really?


This is ridiculous, Martin. Michael Paine wasn't even there at Ruth's house yet when the police first arrived. And they went almost immediately to the garage to search (per Ruth Paine's testimony), after Ruth told them that most of Oswald's belongings were kept in the garage.

Michael Paine arrived later, at about the time when Buddy Walthers and other officers were transporting some of LHO's things out to the police cars. (See Walthers' testimony on this.)

So Michael almost certainly was not present in the garage when Detective Rose first picked up that empty blanket.


You are not making any kind of sense.


No, the person who doesn't make a lot of sense is the person whose memory about the events at Ruth's house was, as he said, "fuzzy" -- and that's Michael Paine.

We know the cops went almost immediately to the garage after they arrived at Ruth's house. And they saw the blanket on the floor at that time. And that's when Rose picked it up off the floor.

Michael Paine came in a little bit later -- per Detective Rose, the police had been there just "a few minutes" before Michael arrived. And per the DPD's Richard Stovall, the police had been there for "approximately 15 minutes when Michael Paine came out".

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the police had already been in the garage and seen the blanket prior to Michael Paine's arrival.

Plus, Ruth Paine said nothing about her husband being present when the garage was first searched. Ruth said....

"Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage."


The way things stand at the moment, I do not believe there ever was a rifle stored in a wrapped up blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and I have already given you my reasons for reaching that conclusion.


Then where do you think Lee Oswald stored his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle--if not in Ruth Paine's garage?

Did he keep it in his room on Beckley?

Or do you want to travel down the road marked "Lee Oswald Never Owned Any Rifle At All"?


You don't know what happened to the rifle Oswald was photographed with in April 1963, David. All you have is two statements from Marina to base your entire case on. Everything else is pure and utter assumption.


Wrong. There's the HSCA Photographic Panel and their conclusions regarding the rifle seen in the backyard photos. Let's see what they had to say about it:

"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." -- HSCA Volume 6, Page 66


Very well... all this proves is that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos is the same one as the rifle found at the TSBD.



But you don't think that particular "Backyard Photo/TSBD Rifle" connection is important at all in trying to decide whether it was OSWALD'S rifle that was used to fire bullets at President Kennedy on November 22nd?

To borrow your own words --- What is this? Comedy hour?

You've just admitted (which is incredible for a conspiracy theorist to do, so I tip my cap to you for this stipulation, because you're probably the first CTer that I've talked with during the last five years who has ever admitted this) that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald is holding in this backyard picture is, indeed, the very same weapon that was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on the day of JFK's murder. (And we know that THAT exact gun definitely was being used to shoot JFK on 11/22/63.)

So, I guess it must be your contention that Oswald got rid of Rifle C2766 during the eight-month period between March 31 and November 22, 1963, right?

Because if he didn't, then the TSBD rifle belonged to Lee Oswald. And you don't want to entertain that crazy idea--do you, Martin?


Oswald was photographed holding a rifle in April 1963. According to the WC he used that same rifle in his attempt to kill General Walker. He then moved to New Orléans and allegedly took the rifle (he had just used for an attempted murder in Texas, of all places) with him on a public bus. We know all this only because (here we go again...) Marina said she had seen Oswald dry-fire the rifle in New Orléans. That's it.... that's all there is.

So, then he wrapped that same rifle (the one he used for an attemted murder) in a blanket (hardly a reliable way of packaging) and let a woman he hardly knew [Ruth Paine] transport it back to Texas, where it was completely out of his control. All of this is of course assumption, yet again, because (here we go again...) Marina said she had seen what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle wrapped in that blanket in late September 1963.

What is this? A comedy of errors?

If Oswald had used that rifle to shoot at General Walker, the last thing he would have done was surrender it to Ruth Paine. It just doesn't make sense.


I have asked myself the question, Why would Oswald have kept that rifle after using it to try and kill General Walker?

Here's what I said about that topic at another forum in 2009:

"Oswald could be pretty brazen at times. 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."
-- DVP; June 28, 2009


Without Marina's statements, can you show Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans or that he surrendered that rifle to Ruth Paine for transport back to Texas? You wouldn't be once again assuming that he did, right?


Well, I don't know why Marina's testimony about seeing Lee dry-firing the rifle on the porch in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 isn't good enough, but since you want to disbelieve just about everything uttered by Marina Oswald, that's your prerogative, I suppose.

But there is the testimony of Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, who said that she saw a rifle in Lee Oswald's closet in the Neely Street apartment in Dallas shortly after the Walker murder attempt. Now it's true that this is a "rifle sighting" that occurred prior to the time the Oswalds moved to New Orleans in the spring of '63, but it is testimony that links a RIFLE to LEE HARVEY OSWALD in the year 1963....

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?"

MR. JENNER -- "You say..."


MR. JENNER -- "A rifle, in the closet?"

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything."

MR. JENNER -- "Standing up on its butt?"


MR. JENNER -- "I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw?"

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "It looks very much like it."


A little bit of "bottom line deduction" (coupled with some ordinary common sense).....

....Lee Oswald positively ordered and paid for Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in March of 1963.

....On the day of JFK's murder, Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was found in the building where Oswald worked.

....It was determined by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA that Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was the gun that killed President John F. Kennedy.

....It was determined by fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice in 1993 that Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints ARE on the trigger guard of Carcano Rifle No. C2766.

Is it not, therefore, fairly reasonable to assume (yes, I'm "assuming") that the package that Lee Oswald took with him into the TSBD on 11/22/63 contained Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766?

And therefore, is it not also reasonable to assume, based on the above set of facts, that Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was stored in Ruth Paine's garage in November of nineteen hundred and sixty-three?

If that's NOT a "reasonable assumption" on my part, then we must live in a topsy-turvy world.


What if George DeMohrenschildt was the one who was setting up Oswald and who had him take those pictures? Ever considered that possibility?


You think George DeMohrenschildt was actively "setting up" Lee Oswald for JFK's murder EIGHT MONTHS before the assassination? That is six months before anyone even knew Kennedy was coming to Texas.

Or do you think DeMohrenschildt was setting him up in a "general" way to take the fall for the President's murder which really hadn't even been mapped out yet by the team of conspirators who were going to frame Oswald for the crime--whenever the time came to assassinate Kennedy?

In other words, the pre-planned "patsy" plotters would do whatever was necessary AFTER the backyard photo session of March 31, 1963, to make sure Oswald would go wherever he was needed in order to be set up to take the fall for the murder of John Kennedy.

Is that the idea?

Vince Bugliosi made a similar point in his book:

"The Garrison devotees have apparently never been troubled by the question of why Shaw and Ferrie would select Oswald, of all people, as their hit man (in view of the fact that these very same devotees strongly believe Oswald was such a dreadful shot) or patsy when they had no way of knowing that the president would even come back to New Orleans, where Oswald lived at the time. Or were they planning to finance Oswald as he traveled, Carcano in his violin case, all around the country stalking Kennedy for a good opportunity to kill him or be the patsy for someone else who would? If the latter, aren’t they troubled by the fact that we know, from Oswald’s known whereabouts, that he never did travel around the country?" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Footnote on page 847 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


You say that at least four officers saw the outline of a rifle in the blanket, after the weapon had already been removed, right? If those officers are to be believed, then surely the outline of the rifle must even have been more clear to see when the rifle was still wrapped inside it. Yet, Michael and Ruth Paine both saw the package up close frequently during nearly two months and Michael actually carried it and moved it around several times in the garage, but neither sees the outline of a rifle.......

Can you provide a logical explanation for this mystery, David?


Perhaps when Lee Oswald handled the blanket and the rifle in the Paine garage on the night of November 21st or the morning of the 22nd, he unintentionally manipulated the blanket in such a manner so that after he extracted the rifle from the blanket, the outline of the weapon remained behind.

That might not be a "logical" enough explanation for anyone who resides in the conspiracy camp, but such an explanation cannot possibly be ruled out.

After all, we know (or least I do) that Oswald DID handle that rifle AND that blanket in Ruth Paine's garage at some point in time on either November 21st or 22nd. It is therefore unlikely that the precise shape of the blanket would be exactly the same after Oswald got through with the blanket (when compared, that is, to the precise condition of the blanket PRIOR to Nov. 21 or 22, which is when Michael Paine was handling it).

Another possibility--however unlikely this might seem--is that Oswald took deliberate and precise steps to make sure that anyone who would see the blanket after he removed the rifle would still think the rifle was inside the blanket--particularly Marina, who knew that Lee owned a rifle.

Can we completely rule out a scenario in which Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 21 or 22, intentionally created the alleged "outline" that the police officers said they saw in the blanket?

I think the answer to my last question is --- No, we cannot.


Can we rule out that Oswald intentionally created the outline?.......... Really?

But you are right of course, it is so far fetched IMO that it is utterly ridiculous, but we can not rule that out. Anything is possible in this crazy case, but is it likely or even remotely plausible? I doubt it very much.


Well, Martin, I probably wouldn't have mentioned the idea of Oswald intentionally creating the rifle impression in the blanket, except for the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers. His testimony could conceivably indicate that whoever took the rifle out of the blanket was trying to make it appear that the blanket still contained the object:

"It wasn't completely untied--one end had been untied and the other end had been left tied. .... You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it...you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it." -- B. Walthers

Anyway, I was just trying to reconcile ALL the evidence and testimony, so that nobody has to be called a liar (except Lee Oswald, of course--we all know he was a lying machine after he was arrested).

And I really don't think it's "utterly ridiculous" to believe that assassin Oswald would have had a desire to try and fool some people into thinking that the rifle he had just taken out of that blanket was still inside the blanket--at least for a limited period of time anyway, prior to the police searching the Paine house and picking the blanket up off of the garage floor.


So, here's Lee, sneaking into the garage to get the rifle. The light in the garage is on and he runs the risk of being caught at any moment by either Marina or Ruth Paine. So, I'm guessing he wants to be in and out as quick as he can, but he nevertheless takes the time and thus increases the possibility of getting caught to intentionally create a rifle impression in the blanket.

Why would he even consider doing that when nobody had paid any attention to that blanket for the better part of two months? It simply does not make sense.


How in the world would Oswald have known that "nobody had paid any attention to that blanket for the better part of two months"? You wouldn't be speculating, would you Martin? (I know how you hate speculation and assumption.)

For all Oswald knew, everyone in the house might have noticed the blanket roll in the garage between September and November. Do you think Oswald asked Marina and Ruth: "Have you two paid any attention to that blanket in the garage lately?"


And again I ask... if the officers could so easily see the outline of a rifle in the blanket, why did Michael and Ruth Paine fail to notice it completely?


I don't know. But lots of things don't get noticed by people if they aren't really focused on them. Take the paper bag that Oswald left in the Sniper's Nest, for example. Five or six officers noticed it on the floor, but several others didn't see it at all. So even trained police officers don't always observe everything they probably should. Go figure.


As for the rifle impression being left in the blanket.....

I fail to see why such a thing is utterly impossible. (You wouldn't be speculating again, would you Martin?)

Anyway, this question is a pointless one anyhow, because four officers stated they thought it looked like a rifle was in that blanket. You can call all of their testimony and reports about the blanket "selfserving rubbish" if you want to (and you did), but their statements will still be in the official record nevertheless.


If somebody had been paying particular attention to the blanket, don't you think they would have asked Lee or Marina about it?


Not necessarily. If Ruth Paine had noticed that a rifle was in the blanket, via an outline or impression in the blanket or for some other reason that made her aware a rifle was being stored in her garage, she might have indeed mentioned it to Marina or Lee, because Ruth has said in interviews that she would not have wanted a rifle in her house.

But the fact that Ruth was NOT aware that the blanket contained a rifle is a further indication of what I said previously (especially if the rifle outline had, in fact, been visible in the blanket prior to 11/21/63) --- "Lots of things don't get noticed by people if they aren't really focused on them." [DVP]


Your claims seem to contradict each other. On the one hand you argue that the blanket had retained the outline of a rifle, even after the weapon was removed, to such an extent that the police officers could easily see it, yet on the other hand you seem to believe that the same package, with such a clear outline of a rifle, would not have attracted any kind of attention from the people who saw it there for nearly two months.


I offered up an alternate possibility for the outline/rifle impression in the blanket. Oswald, either intentionally or unintentionally, could have possibly created the rifle impression when he handled the blanket on Nov. 21 or 22. And that's an explanation that would have had a rifle impression in the blanket for the police to notice on November 22nd, but NO impression in the blanket prior to November 22nd.

Such a scenario might not be likely, but IMO it could have happened.


Nobody said anything to Oswald about the blanket...ever.


I sense the faint odor of "assumption" and "speculation" in your last statement, Martin.

You might be right....but maybe not.


No need to speculate. Just try it yourself. Do it 10 times and see what the result is. If it is not utterly impossible, then it is at least very extremely unlikely that you can ever get the blanket to retain its shape.


Depending on the thickness and the stiffness of the blanket, I wouldn't think it would be difficult at all to get a blanket to retain the outline of an object that has been stored in that blanket and then carefully removed. I can easily envision such a thing happening. Why you think such a thing is totally impossible is a mystery to me. ~another shrug~


By your logic, the whole JFK discussion is pointless, since we already have the official record. Unfortunately for you, the official record doesn't bother me much, since there is so much more in there that is rubbish also that it has lost all credibility to all except for a few die hard believers. The mere fact that it is part of the official record doesn't make it true.


And the constant protestations and gripes of thousands of die-hard conspiracy theorists won't make the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases disappear either. Like it or not, you're stuck with the evidence as it is. And you're also stuck with the "rubbish" known as the "official record" too.

And there hasn't been a single conspiracy theorist on this vast planet (to date) who has managed to PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence in this case was planted, manufactured, or tampered with. (Speculation and assumption that all of the evidence is phony doesn't cut it, btw.)


Those cops came to Ruth Paine's home with a mindset of looking for a rifle. When Marina pointed them to the blanket they IMO just saw what they wanted to see.


What made Rose, Walthers, Weatherford, AND Oxford (in unison) "want" to desperately see a rifle in that blanket?

You wouldn't be hinting that all four of those Dallas city and county police officers were on a mission to convict (or maybe frame) Lee H. Oswald for John Kennedy's murder, are you?

It kind of sounds like you are leaning in that direction via this part of your last statement -- "They...just saw what they wanted to see."

Now, if they weren't on a mission to convict or frame Oswald, what would make those four officers so anxious to see a rifle impression in that blanket if there really was no such impression there at all?


Since you are the one defending the official record, the onus of proof is on you and you sure as hell are not going to convince me with a magical blanket that retains its shape after the content is removed.


Go ask Rose, Walthers, Weatherford, and Oxford if the blanket had any magical properties or not?

(Oh, that's right -- you think all four of them just made it all up. Sorry.)


Isn't it just amazing how many unlikely scenarios there are in this case?


With the following two being the most unlikely of all (by far)....

1.) Shooting at JFK from the front when the designated "patsy" is in the rear.

2.) All the evidence against Lee H. Oswald has been faked.


I think that the package would no longer have been there on 11/21/63 if anybody had ever said anything to Oswald about that blanket. Let's not forget that the blanket allegedly contained a rifle that allegedly had already been used once in an attempted murder. I just do not see Oswald leaving the package there if anybody had talked to him about it. That would have been way too risky, wouldn't it?


No more risky than Oswald keeping possession of the rifle after shooting at General Walker with it.

And Marina knew about Lee having the rifle AFTER the Walker murder attempt. She saw him with the gun in New Orleans in the summer of '63. (Yes, I know, you don't trust Marina any farther than you can throw her. But her testimony is there just the same.)

And since nobody else at Ruth Paine's house had any knowledge of Lee's attempt on Walker's life, then I see no great risk for Oswald to store the rifle at Ruth's house. Lee seemed pretty confident that Marina wasn't going to spill the beans about Walker. So, where's the risk?


What made several police officers say in their reports that Oswald was arrested on the balcony of the TT?


A very minor mistake really. Not important. He was arrested IN the theater. Just not "in the balcony". But we know the initial DPD radio call said they thought the suspect was "hiding in the balcony". This early erroneous speculation could have been repeated by some of the officers.

Some errors get repeated from one person to the next, yes. But in the "blanket" situation, we've got at least two officers (Walthers and Rose) specifically saying in their WC testimony--independent of each other--that they each saw a rifle imprint in the blanket.

It's harder to tell from the statements of Oxford and Weatherford whether they were merely repeating something they heard through the police grapevine, or whether they too saw the imprint. But they put similar statements in their individual reports at any rate.


What made Bentley say on television that he had found a drivers license and a credit card in Oswald's wallet?


That one's easy. Detective Paul Bentley was using loose terminology and speculation as to what other cards Oswald had in his wallet. He wasn't sure at all....and that fact is obvious when you listen to his 11/23/63 WFAA-TV interview.


Why was a paper bag found at the TSBD instantly considered to be the means by which the rifle had been brought in, hours before anybody had spoken to Frazier or Randle?


Another easy one. I think you even alluded to the answer earlier. The police had just found the shells in the Sniper's Nest and the boxes stacked up to form the barrier around the Nest. It was only logical for the police to connect that EMPTY brown bag with the rifle they found on the other side of that same sixth floor.

Sometimes the police CAN utilize regular common sense, you know? There's no law against it.


All it took was for those four men, standing around that blanket, to decide and agree there and then that there had indeed been a rifle stored in that blanket. Only one man saying that he had seen the outline of a rifle would have been enough for the others to go along with it.


And yet I am scolded for "assuming" things. But you've been assuming a lot of things in this latest round of discussion, Martin. Aren't you ashamed?

David Von Pein
October 25-27, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]
November 7-8, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]