(PART 874)


Hello DAVID! You do have some pretty interesting videos and whatnot on the JFK assassination. I have a lot of that stuff myself. But Oswald acting alone killed JFK!?! Please! Not a chance! You ARE kidding, right?


Hi Kevin,

Why would I be kidding? The lone-assassin scenario is quite obviously the truth (based on the evidence in the case that fully supports that conclusion--which includes ALL of the physical evidence).

Is there any particular reason you want to toss every last piece of "Oswald Did It" evidence in the nearest trash can, Kevin?

I'm sure that you and all of your super-sleuth brethren think you can (or already have) debunked all of the following evidence that I lay out at the webpage below, but in reality you haven't refuted any of this evidence, not a shred:


We now know scientifically there were at least two shooters, to a degree of certainty of 96.3 percent. Here’s a surprisingly honest 2001 Washington Post article on the infamous police audio tape, written by one-time rabid Warren Report defender George Lardner: check this out...[kook article excised]...


Anybody in 2001 who was still placing an ounce of faith in the silly Dictabelt/Acoustics nonsense from 1978-1979 should have his head examined, because that person is ignoring the best analysis of that Dictabelt recording (the one done by the NAS in 1982, which determined that the "4th Shot" and all the other "gunshots" supposedly heard on the DPD recording cannot possibly be gunshots for a variety of reasons).

Why is it that certain conspiracy theorists cannot accept the fact that their precious Dictabelt recording is filled with nothing but static instead of gunshots?

And what I find humorous about the people who still have faith in the Dictabelt evidence is the fact that even the vast majority of THOSE conspiracy theorists completely disagree with the HSCA's final conclusion regarding the "4 shots" that they said were fired in Dealey Plaza.

Those conspiracists (or at least 99% of them) don't believe for one second that the HSCA got it RIGHT with respect to the 4-shot shooting scenario. Those conspiracy theorists don't think that the only "Grassy Knoll" shot completely missed JFK's body on 11/22/63 (which is what the HSCA concluded).

Those theorists think that a Grassy Knoll gunman KILLED the President with a rifle bullet to his head, despite the fact that there isn't a speck of physical evidence to support such a conclusion.

But, as we all know by now, a lack of evidence never stopped a good conspiracy kook, because when faced with the stubborn reality of ZERO witnesses seeing ANY GUNMAN on the Grassy Knoll (and Jean Hill doesn't count; she decided to make up her lie about SEEING a Knoll killer years later, when Oliver Stone came into view), and the additional very stubborn reality of there being NO AUTOPSY EVIDENCE at all that would indicate that JFK was shot from the front....the merry band of conspiracy-seekers that has taken an interest in this murder case has decided to, in essence, say "Fuck The Evidence!", as they invent make-believe "gunmen" all over Dealey Plaza. Like "Badge Man", to name but one "make believe" example.

But regardless of the silly theories that are continually put forth by the amateur sleuths, the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and the AUTOPSY REPORT are not going to suddenly change after all these years. And the physical evidence all points to a loon named Oswald; while the pesky autopsy report that conspiracy nuts have attempted (but failed) to discredit for decades is not going to miraculously change into a document that supports multiple gunmen killing the President.

In short, the conspiracy-happy quacks of the world who have attempted to rewrite the history of President Kennedy's death will never succeed in accomplishing that goal, except in the minds of other conspiracy theorists (which, granted, is a large number of people).

But, as the Warren Commission's David Belin said very nicely in March of 1992 -- "The truth has a long fuse, and ultimately it prevails."


I assume you also are among the six percent of the public who thinks the moon landing was faked??? Funny, isn’t it, because that’s about how many still believe the Warren Report –- six percent! Or that the earth is flat...or that there is ‘global warming’!


Why on Earth would I believe such things, Kevin? I think you're a little mixed up (as most CTers are, of course). It's not the LONE-ASSASSIN BELIEVERS who tend to believe in OTHER RETARDED CONSPIRACY THEORIES -- it's the JFK CONSPIRACY THEORISTS who tend to also believe in other half-baked, idiotic CONSPIRACY THEORIES too.

Maybe you should start your e-mail over again, Mr. Nienhuis. You're not doing too well so far.

But, let's see what other gems await me as a conspiracy theorist named Kevin tries to tell me that I'm all wet....


Good old Allan [sic] Dulles knew where the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ was pointing, and it sure as hell wasn’t to Oswald. As he said to his nervous Warren Commission colleagues in the infamous Jan. 27, 1964 Commission meeting:

‘In this country, the public only reads the headlines. If the headline says Oswald did it, that’s what they’ll believe...’

You know the rest. Which is why the Commission avoided telling us who Oswald really was, but DID provide Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental charts! Wow, now there’s a key piece of evidence in the crime of the century!!!!!


Anybody who actually thinks that the "preponderance of the evidence" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases did NOT lead straight to Lee Harvey Oswald is a person who simply has no idea what that "preponderance" consists of. Are you in that category, Kevin? Or are you in the following category (occupied by many conspiracy nuts these days)? It's the category labelled:


When it comes to the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case, the BEST that any conspiracy theorist can possibly hope for is that ALL of that evidence (dozens of pieces of it) was, indeed, somehow "faked" to make Lee Oswald seem like the sole gunman who shot down both JFK and Officer Tippit.

Because if that physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, bullet shell casings, fingerprints, fiber evidence, and even the "direct evidence" known as witness testimony) wasn't fake or fraudulent, then Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing on November 22, 1963.

It's as simple as that.

So, Kevin, do you really think that ALL of the physical evidence was "faked" in the Kennedy/Tippit murder cases?

If you do believe such an extraordinary (and nonsensical) thing, then I pity you.


Good thing Arlen Spector [sic] wasn’t on the 911 Commission. He would have had us all believe that the plane that hit the first tower at 8:46am simply continued on, hung in mid-air for 17 minutes before hitting the second tower! Sadly, I’m only half joking...but our good friend Bugliosi would fall for that!


Oh, good! Kevin didn't disappoint me! He's going to drag Conspiracy Myth #3 out of his stale CT closet once again -- i.e., the ridiculous myth about how the Single-Bullet Theory is false because the bullet had to "pause in mid-air" for XX number of seconds, per Oliver Stone's fairy tale of a motion picture.

Regarding the SBT....

The Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously the truth, it still amazes me to this day as to WHY so many devoted conspiracy-happy kooks around the globe feel the need to attempt to undermine it. For, even if those kooks were to admit that the obviously accurate SBT is the truth, those same kooks could still pretend that the totality of evidence in the case supports a shooter firing from the infamous Grassy Knoll.

So why the need to rewrite yet ANOTHER portion of the case too--the SBT?


To believe in ANY other theory besides the SBT, a person must rely on numerous things that are far more unbelievable and "magical" than is the single-bullet conclusion. And WHY conspiracists don't seem to realize that fact is something else that continually elicits another one of these from this writer:


For a pretty decent "SBT" lesson, go to my blog below. It will never convince hardcore CTers of the SBT's obvious truth, of course, but the common sense and logic that exists within these SBT articles cannot be denied:


Speaking of the infamous Mr. B [Vincent T. Bugliosi], can you or that most esteemed blowhard prosecutor explain how the ‘magical mystery bullet’ got on the stretcher?

Did Connally shake his pants leg before going into the operating room, or did the bullet hurl itself through the same small hole in his pants and land on the stretcher all by itself?


All of the important "SBT" questions are answered at the previously linked blog page. And even if a particular specific point isn't addressed on that webpage, why aren't you smart enough to put the "SBT" pieces together YOURSELF? It's not that hard. It's quite simple actually. Vincent Bugliosi, in fact, was 100% right when he said this in his JFK book:

"The single-bullet theory...was so obvious that a child could author it."

Extension of the above VB quote (just for good measure):

"From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.

Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it?


When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed, Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."

When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg.""
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (Endnotes)(c.2007)


One of the best arguments against the Single Bullet Theory is that the bullet was not removed from Connally on the operating room table. If it had been, that might at least lend some credibility to it...


The path of Bullet CE399 through both Kennedy and Connally makes perfect sense. And given the fact that Connally's left thigh only suffered a very minor superficial wound, it means that WHATEVER OBJECT HIT HIS THIGH DID NOT PENETRATE VERY DEEPLY.

Hence, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Bullet CE399 (which was fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) could have worked its way out of the shallow thigh wound Governor Connally sustained before he was operated on.

To place the burden back onto the anti-SBT kooks, I want to now ask this:

If the SBT is not true, then WHERE DID THE BULLET (OR BULLETS, PLURAL) GO that struck Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63?

No bullets were found in his body at all, which is one of the things that mystified one of Connally's doctors (Dr. Gregory) the most:

"We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified--or found, rather." -- Dr. Charles F. Gregory (Warren Commission Testimony)

Dr. Gregory also said this, BTW:

"That bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing."

Of course, the bullet wasn't found in Connally's "clothing", but the main point is still intact in the above Gregory excerpt, with that point being: one of Governor Connally's very own physicians testified under oath that it was his opinion that Bullet CE399 "could very well have struck" Connally's thigh and then "dislodged" itself from his body before any medical personnel could retrieve it in the operating room.


It [the SBT] is as phoney as the now-discredited Oswald ‘backyard’ photos!


Oh, yippee! Another conspiracy myth brought to the surface yet again--the myth about the Backyard Photos being fake.

I guess Marina Oswald is a liar then, huh Kevin? Because she has ALWAYS said she took the photos of LHO standing in their Neely Street backyard.

But I somehow doubt that you want to call Marina Oswald a liar, because later in this e-mail message you say that Marina thinks "the official version [of the assassination] is crapola". And that's obviously a sentiment you share as well.

Also: The photographic negative to one of the backyard pictures was proven to have conclusively come from Oswald's very own Imperial Reflex camera. But I guess you want to throw that piece of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE out the window too, right?

Or: perhaps you'd like to invent some more unprovable cloak-and-dagger theories, such as this silliness:

Somebody stole Oswald's camera, took a picture with it while standing in the Neely St. backyard, and then the photo-fakers used that real pic from the Reflex camera to create the so-called fake montage image that we see here:


Oswald had no desire to kill JFK or anyone else.


You couldn't be more wrong here if you tried. Oswald obviously DID have a "desire" to shoot and kill President John F. Kennedy in late 1963 -- because we know from the evidence that Oswald DID kill President Kennedy. And I kinda doubt he was totally unaware of WHO it was he was aiming his rifle at that day.

Plus -- The attempted murder of General Edwin Walker on April 10th, 1963, is too often overlooked or dismissed by members of the now-seemingly-popular "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy club. Oswald certainly had an additional "desire" to kill somebody else (Walker) seven months prior to JFK's assassination.

We KNOW from the evidence that Oswald had such a desire, because Oswald DID take a shot at General Walker on April 10th (just days after he received his Mannlicher-Carcano weapon in the mail from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago).

The precise motive(s) that Oswald had for taking shots at both Walker and Kennedy can never be determined with definitive accuracy (since Oswald was killed by another fruitcake named Ruby), but the evidence cannot be ignored.

Let me rephrase those last six words -- The evidence SHOULD NOT be ignored. It certainly HAS been ignored and/or misrepresented and distorted for decades by conspiracy theorists, but it shouldn't be ignored.


Someone who wanted the limelight as much as you guys insist he [Lee Oswald] did would have taken credit for it! He denied it to the bitter end...actually, he EMPHATICALLY denied it to the end as the record shows!!!


Well, Kevin, it's kind of hard to argue with success, isn't it?

Are you saying that by merely DENYING that he killed John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald DIDN'T achieve the fame and notoriety he likely sought?

Oswald probably did want to become "famous" for something in his lifetime. But whether or not he confessed to his evil crime or not, Oswald knew that the EVIDENCE he left behind (in TWO murders!) would convict him twenty times over. He simply HAD to know that.

In any event, no matter how you want to slice it, Lee Harvey Oswald DID gain quite a bit of "limelight" and fame in November 1963 -- even though he insisted he was "just a patsy".


I’ve met Marina Oswald, talked to her for 45 minutes. Equally emphatically, she also says the official version is crapola.


But she only started believing that the official version was crapola many YEARS after 1963. In early 1964, she said this:

"Facts tell me that Lee shot Kennedy." [Complete interview is HERE.]

But after hearing all of the self-proclaimed experts talk about her murdering husband being only an innocent "patsy", Marina decided to jump on that bandwagon of silliness too. And that's a shame, because she had it right in the beginning when she thought her husband was a killer.


Anyway, Oswald or not, there was more than one gunman.


And TO HELL WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that says otherwise, right Kevin?


But keep posting those videos (and audio). Very informative for the kids at least.


Thanks. (I guess.)

"For the kids at least"??



KEVIN in Canada


Limited Regards,
DAVID in the United States

David Von Pein
February 17, 2010