(PART 889)


The reason Oswald ran away was because he was a CIA operative who knew he was in the middle of something dangerous and had to escape in order to go to his failsafe rendezvous at the Texas Theater.


Just think folks -- Ralph actually thinks that the above imaginary cloak-and-dagger tripe is more believable than merely accepting the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John Kennedy and then also killed Officer Tippit after fleeing the scene of the President's murder.

To people like Ralph Yates, fantasy and the "fantastic" always seem to be preferred over true facts and logic.

Ralph probably also thinks Oswald never shot at General Walker. Right, Ralph?


David, the facts of the case are what lead Ralph to his belief, vs. the ease of believing the wholly unbelievable cover story you choose to believe.

You are the one who has juxtaposed fantasy and reality. "Fantastic" is not necessarily diametrically opposed to reality. In this case, it is "fantastic" to believe that Oswald was the lone gunman.

The facts of the case make the belief that Oswald acted alone and killed Tippet [sic], "tripe."



I choose to respectfully disagree with your assessment of what constitutes "facts" and "fantastic" in the JFK case.

I learned many years ago that a conspiracy theorist's version of the "facts" in this case are miles away from being proven "facts". Take the old standard of the "Malcolm Wallace fingerprint" as just one of many examples. For years, tons of conspiracists were touting that print as undeniable "proof" that Wallace was a shooter in the Sniper's Nest. Now we've even got other CTers coming forth to debunk that bogus theory.

Another example of an alleged conspiracy-related "fact" turning out to be complete hokum is the so-called "mysterious death" of Eddy Benavides (Domingo's brother). See pages 424-426 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" for more information about how the conspiracists have botched the true facts concerning Eddy's demise.

And then there's the stale tale of how Lee Oswald never ordered ANY rifle at all from Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. And dozens of additional myths that many conspiracy theorists to this day still erroneously regard as "facts".


The hardest thing for most people to believe is that a known mafioso was able to sneak into the basement of the Dallas Police Department and murder the patsy because "he felt sorry for Jackie". Later it came out that Ruby had worked for LBJ back in 1948. Coincidence? What's most interesting is that the transfer of Oswald was held up for an hour and didn't proceed until Jack Ruby appeared on the scene.

The Warren Commission had to concede that all of the sniper's shots took place in 5.6 seconds and that they've never found anyone who could duplicate that incredible feat.

Perhaps even more shameful is that the Warren Commission wants us to believe that a virtually pristine bullet had smashed through Kennedy's 3rd vertebra, exited his neck, penetrated Connolly [sic], broken his rib, smashed the radial bone of his wrist, cause a total of 7 wounds, left behind fragments of copper and lead throughout his body - YET THE BULLET WAS THE SAME WEIGHT AND HAD NOT BEEN DAMAGED! Sorry to shout.

If Oswald had been able to kill the President with a rusty, out of focus, single action Italian rifle from 100 yards while witnesses placed him in the 2nd floor lunchroom drinking a coke - I think he would have been bragging about it - not claiming to be the patsy that he obviously was. Funny that he should use those words and then get rubbed out in a Mafia hit the next day [sic; it was actually two days later].

Sorry, you've got to be a real sap to buy the government line on this obvious coup d' etat.


What was I just saying above about the so-called "facts" told by conspiracy believers? Well, "Brother Bruce" just provided several more:


Totally wrong, of course. The bullet (CE399) that went through both Kennedy and Connally was, indeed, "damaged". It was flattened somewhat and the base of the bullet shows quite a bit of damage:

And the bullet most certainly lost some of its original weight. It weighs 158.6 grains now. It started out in the area of 160 to 161 grains. So, once again, a CTer's "facts" aren't really facts at all.

Bruce incorrectly asserted:

"The Warren Commission had to concede that all of the sniper's shots took place in 5.6 seconds and that they've never found anyone who could duplicate that incredible feat."

Two more false declarations by Big Brother Bruce. The Warren Commission never boxed itself in to a "5.6 second" timeline for the three shots. Page 117 of the Warren Report proves that the Commission was acknowledging the fact that the three shots could have been spaced as far as 7.9 seconds apart.

And the notion that Oswald's shooting "feat" in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, was a marksmanship performance that could only be duplicated by God Almighty Himself is more pure tommyrot spouted by the conspiracy theorists. More on that HERE.

And Bruce's assertions about Jack Ruby and the alleged "Mafia hit" on Lee Oswald in the DPD basement are still more hunks of fanciful speculation without a granule of proven truth in them.

The fact is that when one examines the details of Jack Ruby's known movements and whereabouts shortly before he shot Oswald on the morning of November 24, 1963, it becomes nearly impossible for a reasonable and rational person to believe that a pre-planned "conspiracy" was involved in LHO's murder at all, as demonstrated HERE and HERE.

Bruce also stated:

"...witnesses placed him [Oswald] in the 2nd floor lunchroom drinking a coke..."

Dead wrong (again). Bruce, of course, is talking about the Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter. And neither man (Marrion Baker or Roy Truly) said that Oswald was "drinking a Coke" when they saw him on November 22nd. Just the opposite, in fact: BOTH men said to the Warren Commission that they saw NOTHING in Oswald's hands during the brief lunchroom encounter.

And in case Brother Bruce wants to bring up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 3076 (re: the Coke) ----> Oswald, Baker, Truly, & The Coke


You keep dreaming fella. The Government wouldn't lie to you. Oswald and Ruby were just a couple of lone nuts wandering around Dallas that weekend. Whatever you say. Just keep taking those pills and please stay out of my neighborhood.


No prob, Brother. I have no intention of ever visiting your neighborhood. I'd probably be immediately arrested by Jim Garrison and thrown in jail on a trumped-up charge of conspiracy to cover up the murder of JFK.

The great thing about this case is, for the most part, I don't need to rely on the allegedly evil and wicked "Government" at all. Oswald's and Ruby's own ACTIONS are telling us a good deal of the story. And those actions most certainly do not add up to "conspiracy".

Do you think the "Government" was controlling both Lee Oswald's and Jack Ruby's actions and movements on November 21, 22, 23, and 24, 1963?

Did the evil Government tell Ruby to lounge around his apartment until 11:00 AM on Sunday morning, even though Oswald was supposed to be moved at around 10:00?

As you said --- Keep dreaming, fella.


You're livin' in a dream world if you think that Lee Oswald stuck his gun out of the 6th floor of the book depository and managed to blow the President's head backwards onto the trunk of the limo from 100 yards.


You have fallen for yet another one of those slippery "conspiracy myths" again, Bruce.

What in the world is so difficult to believe about someone shooting a person riding in a slow-moving open-top limousine that's only 88 yards away? It was a very easy shot, Bruce.

You surely are aware that Oswald had been trained with a rifle in the U.S. Marine Corps, right? And that he was a pretty good shot while firing RAPID FIRE at up to 200 yards. And that he achieved scores of 48 and 49 (out of a possible 50) while firing his rifle in the Marines at targets that were 200 yards away.

And yet people still insist Oswald couldn't hit the broadest side of Mama Cass. Get real.


What was Oswald's motive? Tell me why Oswald would even want to shoot the President? If you can answer that I'll give you some respect.


Nobody will ever know for certain what Oswald's motive was. But the evidence of Oswald's guilt isn't going anyplace. It shall always be there (even for a silly LN "dreamer" like me to analyze). And only a person who is totally ignorant of the evidence could possibly say that LHO was completely innocent. Was all of the evidence against him fake? If you believe that, then you should hide your head in shame for saying that I am the one who is "livin' in a dream world". The evidence is what it is. And it's all pointing toward Oswald.

Author Jean Davison made this observation in her book:

"The reader [of conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game"


David, how you're portraying the kill shot is not factual...


You mean when I said this yesterday (which is nothin' but the truth)?....

"What in the world is so difficult to believe about someone shooting a person riding in a slow-moving open-top limousine that's only 88 yards away? It was a very easy shot, Bruce." -- DVP

And if you're talking about JFK's head snap to the rear, I'll have more to say about that a little later in this post.


...and you're managing to ignore Ruby's entire history and the connections he has with all parties involved.


That's a giant leap of faith on your part, Tom. You say "all parties involved", as if it were an established fact that other "parties" were unquestionably "involved" in President Kennedy's assassination. But it's not an established fact in the slightest. Not even close.

Plus, the idea that Jack Ruby was a bigshot in the Mafia is absurd. Just read the testimony of any person who actually KNEW him. They say it's laughable to believe that Jack was this big-time mobster who would have been entrusted with the important job of knocking off Oswald. But, you can believe that if you want to look silly. So go right ahead and believe it. But don't expect everybody to follow you down that goofy road.

Regarding Jack Ruby's motive for wanting Lee Harvey Oswald dead, check out my webpage HERE.


The cherry-picking you're doing to contort the truth here is necessary to believe what you believe.


Pot....meet kettle.


Amongst the undeniable truths are the physics of JFK's head movement...


And one of those "undeniable truths" regarding the movement of President Kennedy's head after Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet struck the back of JFK's skull is the fact that his head moved initially FORWARD by a couple of inches before it moved backward, indicating the bullet entered the President's head FROM BEHIND. Let's have a look in super slow motion:


...the autopsy...


Well, let's take a look at what the three autopsy surgeons had to say in their official report, which was signed by all three of those doctors--Humes, Boswell, and Finck (were they all liars?)....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Page 6 of JFK's Official Autopsy Report [Warren Report; Page 543]


...the bullet weight (which you are dead wrong about), etc.


When we have a look at what the FBI's Bob Frazier said about the weight of Commission Exhibit No. 399, you can see that the statement I made yesterday -- "And the bullet most certainly lost some of its original weight. It weighs 158.6 grains now. It started out in the area of 160 to 161 grains." [DVP; 1/30/15] -- is identical to the testimony given by Mr. Frazier in 1964. Here's what Frazier said in Warren Commission Volume 3, Page 430:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains."

MR. EISENBERG -- "How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed---160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains."


So, Tom, is Robert Frazier a liar too?


Bottom line: you are not going to be moved from your position, and that's fine. Plenty of people thought the world was flat. Plenty of people deny science to this day. You're one of them.


What a crock. The fact is, it's the conspiracy clowns who continue to "deny science" when it comes to the many newer scientific tests that have been done to simulate the JFK assassination. The latest hunk of "science" that CTers totally ignore are the tests done in the 2013 PBS program "Cold Case JFK".

And before that, the conspiracists totally ignored (or misinterpreted) the tests performed in the excellent 2004 Discovery Channel documentary "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

And before that, it was Dale Myers' fine computer animation work that was being ignored by the conspiracy hounds.

And as far back as 1964, the conspiracy crowd has always found some way to skew or mangle or misrepresent the findings made by the Warren Commission during its detailed re-enactment of the assassination in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964, which is a re-enactment that resulted in photographs like this one and this one being published in WC Volume #18, which are photos that fully support the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

But I'm accustomed by now to conspiracy theorists totally ignoring the autopsy report and pictures like CE903. CTers can better feed their fantasies if they just pretend those things don't even exist.


Typical of people your ilk, you set up a straw man. NO ONE said Ruby was a "big shot." NO ONE. Ruby's associations with the mob went back decades, he was a bag man/gun runner, and it was precisely the fact that he was not a big shot that he could be used in that manner. He was a minor functionary.

And as far as the "all parties involved," that is based upon a preponderance of the evidence. That you choose to deny that evidence, as I've stated, is your right. Several very good books (and I'm not talking about the fringe elements you want to cherry pick arguments with) have been devoted to Ruby's history, his connections with the Dallas mob and the local police, as well as his connections with Oswald.

Interesting that he was at the press conference and had some magical knowledge of the correct name of the Fair Play committee Oswald was associated with in New Orleans. Wonder how he got that scoop? Interesting that he wanted to be moved to Washington DC to testify in front of Warren. Why would a guy who wanted to save JFK's widow the stress of a murder trial, need to be moved just to testify to that? If that makes sense in your world sir, your world is, indeed, flat.


As is typically the case when talking with a rabid conspiracy theorist who seemingly believes in the "kitchen sink" approach to the massive elements of alleged "conspiracy" in the JFK case, almost every word uttered by such a conspiracy theorist (Tom A. included) needs straightened out, because each statement is the exact opposite of the truth.

Ruby wanted to be taken to Washington to specifically tell Earl Warren and President Johnson that he was NOT involved in a conspiracy--not the other way around. Ruby's mind was quickly leaving him in 1964. He thought there was a massive plot going on in Dallas to blame JFK's murder on the Jews. That's how unhinged Mr. Ruby was becoming as he sat in jail in 1964.

With regard to Ruby possessing "some magical knowledge" about the Fair Play For Cuba Committee during Henry Wade's midnight press conference, the provable answer to that is very simple, and that answer is --- By the time Wade gave that press conference late on the night of November 22nd, it was common knowledge that Lee Oswald had been affiliated with the FPCC in New Orleans. The name "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" had been broadcast on television and radio several HOURS before Ruby (and others) corrected Mr. Wade on the name of the pro-Castro organization.

Go HERE for the proof that the name "FPCC" was being heard on TV by approximately 3:30 or 4:00 PM (CST) on November 22nd.

Plus, it's quite possible (even probable) that since the various media outlets were broadcasting the name "Fair Play For Cuba" in the middle of the day on 11/22/63, then Ruby might have simply heard the reporters talking about the "FPCC" in the DPD hallways that afternoon or evening. There were multiple ways in which Ruby could have heard the words "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" without having to rely on any "magical" powers of any kind, and also without ever having known Lee Oswald in the past.

And, as I mentioned, there were OTHER people besides just Jack Ruby who shouted out the correct "FPCC" name during the Wade news conference. So why don't the conspiracists ever ask: Where did those OTHER people get their information about the FPCC?

But no CTer ever cares about the fact that other people also shouted out "Fair Play" besides Mr. Ruby, which everyone can easily hear for themselves by listening to the Wade press conference below:


You're admitting that the "magic bullet", which is the lynch pin for the Warren Commission's conclusions, lost only 1.4 - 2.4 grains after it was fired.

Buddy, they scraped 3 grains out of Connolly's [sic] wrist. More was removed for testing. There were additional grains left behind in JFK after smashing through his vertebra.



More outright lies being spouted by "Brother Bruce". The CE399 bullet left NOTHING inside JFK's body, and only left a very small amount of lead inside Governor Connally. More details here.


Wow, that bullet really was magic. It made seven wounds, smashed bones, took several turns, changed direction, went through clothes and ended up on an unoccupied gurney at Parkland Hospital in pristine condition.

And it was fired by a guy with no motive - using a rifle that hadn't been fired that day - and fired by a guy who the FBI proved hadn't fired a rifle that day.

You've got a great case there pal. Keep working it - someone will bite.


Oh Brother, "Brother".

It would take me at least another hour to correct all the falsehoods "Brother Bruce" just spewed in his last pathetic post. So I'll just suffice to say --- Nothing Bruce just said is anywhere near the truth (as per usual with CTers).


If it was so pathetic - why did it get you so flustered? You say that you could correct my interpretation of Warren's description of the magic bullet in "one hour"? If you really believed such tripe and could prove it in just one hour, why wouldn't you do it?

Are you afraid you'd just be digging yourself into a deeper hole of lies and obfuscation. If anyone deserves the label "conspiracist", it's you lone nutters who refuse to open your eyes to the truth.


Who's flustered?

The CE399 bullet was not "magic". And it didn't need to swerve right and left to hit both Kennedy and Connally. Only people who have fallen for Oliver Stone's B.S. believe in such silly things.

Also see:


I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's CIA relationship.


Oh goodie! Now Ralph thinks I deserve to be prosecuted for believing in Oswald's lone guilt.

Yikes! What a strange, mixed-up world Ralph Yates lives in.

(NOTE -- This will probably have to be my last post for a while, because I can hear some footsteps on my porch. The FBI has arrived with a warrant for my arrest. It looks like Ralph Yates' wish has become reality. The charge --- "Believing That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone". It strikes me as a curious and odd reason for having three husky FBI men escort me to the pokey. But there must be some new law on the books that makes it a criminal offense to believe in the **known and documented facts** of a particular murder case. Very strange indeed. I only hope my cell is next to Vince Bugliosi's so we can have some nice chats. You see, Vince was thrown in jail this morning on the same oddball charge.)


You lone nutters have never had to worry about being persecuted, arrested, strong-armed or murdered. History has shown that the folks who attempt to tell the truth about the assassination are the ones who've been silenced through threats and murder. Believing and espousing, as you do, that two lone nuts were involved in the assassination insures that you'll be coddled and supported by the murderers.


Whew! What a relief! Thank you, Bruce. Now at least I can be confident that the three burly FBI agents who just arrested me (thanks to good ol' Ralph Y.) won't be strapping me into a hot chair at any rate. I'll probably just get 10 to 20.


Does it please you to be in league with the liars and murderers?


If it in any way separates me from people like you, then yes, I'm pleased. Very pleased.


You told me that you didn't have the time to refute my contentions...


I never said anything of the kind. All I said was that one of your recent posts full of inaccurate information would take me "at least another hour" to address in any detail. I didn't say I didn't have the hour.


Instead of rattling on about how wonderful you are...


When did I ever say that?


...why didn't you just spend the time answering a few questions?


Yeah, right. Like I haven't been doing just that for the last two days in this thread.

You're not doing too well, Bruce. You're batting a perfect .000 so far. I hope you finally get a base hit sometime. But in looking ahead to your questions below, I fear you're destined to go hitless for the rest of this season. You seem to want to believe in every half-baked, already-debunked theory that every conspiracy author has ever put in print.


Here are [the questions]:

Why did Oswald purchase a rifle using a Money Order and his well known alias when he could have bought a rifle, anonymously, at any of a hundred gun shops in Dallas?


I guess those dastardly plotters who were setting up Oswald blew it (yet again) when they attempted to frame him with a mail-order rifle, because people like you, Bruce, can see through that little scheme like a lace curtain.

BTW, the stuff about being able to waltz into "a hundred gun shops in Dallas" and walk out with a rifle that could never be traced is very likely just one more in a long line of conspiracy-flavored myths that have been foisted upon America by clueless conspiracy writers.

It's highly unlikely that any brick-and-mortar store selling guns would have kept NO records at all of their gun purchases. In fact, there's evidence in the Warren Commission documents and FBI files to indicate that some Dallas gun merchants did, indeed, keep records of the people buying guns from their shops. (Which is only common sense that they would have some records of those purchases, of course.)


How do explain the Zapruder film which clearly shows the kill shot coming from the knoll?


The Zapruder Film shows no such thing. Didn't you see my earlier post about the initial FORWARD movement of JFK's head?

Plus, all of the visible blood spray is located to the FRONT of Kennedy's head, indicating the shot came from the rear. Ask any forensic pathologist, they'll say the same thing, with the possible exception of Cyril H. Wecht, of course.

And the large exit wound in JFK's head is in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP portion of the head---not in the rear of the head. Again, this indicates the bullet entered from behind and exploded out the other side--at the right-front.


How do you explain the finding of a Mauser on the 6th floor?


There was no Mauser at all. The police officers who said that a Mauser was found in the Book Depository were simply mistaken [see video below]. And that's because a Mauser does, indeed, look pretty much exactly like a Mannlicher-Carcano, as we can see here:

And here's the proof that a CARCANO, not a MAUSER, was found by the police on the sixth floor of the Depository on 11/22/63.


Why did it take 48 hours for the FBI to find a palm print on the alleged murder weapon?


You're mistaken. The FBI never found ANY palmprint on the rifle at all. And that's because the palmprint had already been lifted off the gun by Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63 before the rifle was turned over to the FBI at 11:45 PM CST that night.

Also see this document.


Now I just found out you're a real big shot with a lone nutter web site and all the trimmings, so those questions should be easy for you.


They were. Quite easy.


I don't think Oswald did it. Why don't you prove to me that he did.


The evidence (plus Oswald's own lies and actions) proves that Lee Oswald was a guilty double-murderer. But conspiracy theorists just simply refuse to believe that the evidence is legit and genuine. And CTers almost always completely disregard or misrepresent Oswald's movements and actions, which strongly indicate his guilt.

Just follow Oswald from November 21st through November 22nd and then tell me he was just an innocent "patsy". You'll look mighty silly if you do.


You don't have a motive. What have you got?


All of the physical evidence and Oswald's guilty-like actions. That's all.

What have you got (besides hundreds of conspiracy books filled with misinformation)?


These gents [Mel Ayton and DVP], especially Mr. Von Pein, who I had the pleasure of debating for 24 hours, are very sincere in their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Whatever your own feelings, you can be sure that the authors have done their due diligence and are "calling it as they see it". An all around compelling read that belongs on the shelf of all assassination researchers. No matter what your personal feelings are regarding the big event - this book will be a worthwhile addition to your library.


After a day's worth of back and forth posts, I realized how sincere David Von Pein is in his belief that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy. He has also concluded that Jack Ruby, acting alone, managed to sneak into the Dallas Police Dept. and murder Oswald.

Von Pein's sincerity impressed me and I took it upon myself to erase my initial negative review and replace it with a positive review; Not because I've become a "two lone nuts" conspiracist, but simply because I felt that his dedication to the subject (mis-guided though it may be) is worth, at the least, some kind of an "atta boy".

The funny part of the story is, the whole time that I was debating Mr. Von Pein, I didn't realize that he was one of the authors of the book in question. I figured him for a troll - looking to gin up the conversation a bit. Could be that a bit of senility is beginning to envelop the old grey matter (or it could be cataracts) - who knows?

We managed to conclude our posts last night with pleasantries all around. I sat down and glanced over at the book in question on my lamp table and noticed, for the first time, that the cat I'd been "conversing" with for the past 24 hours was one of the authors. I laughed out loud (at myself) for a good half an hour. When you get old, a good belly laugh is a very healthy and invigorating experience. We all have far too few of them these days. Funny! I'm still laughing.

Anyway; Do I wish that David would embrace new research that points to Lyndon Johnson as the man behind the assassination? Yes, of course I do. I've been studying the assassination since December of 1963 when I was a young adult and student in Massachusetts. A friend showed me a copy of Harry Truman's 12/22/63 editorial from the early edition of the Washington Post. Oddly, the former President's controversial editorial (which advocated the elimination of the CIA's operational capabilities) was not included in later editions.

In those early days, the only place you could find alternative assassination material was in the underground press. One of our professors brought the Sunday London Times to class every week during the Spring '64 semester. Europeans had already figured the assassination for a domestic conspiracy. Unfortunately, neither the European's opinions nor the LBJ exposes were being published on this side of the pond. I found that curious because people were frantically thirsting for information about the assassin but all we could get was Warren Commission propaganda.

Every couple of weeks we'd read about a prima facie assassination witness who'd died mysteriously, but no one dared to editorialize about it. Operation Mockingbird was in full swing here and there wasn't a mainstream paper or publisher in the Country that dared to point the finger at anyone but Lee Oswald. Those who did had a funny habit of turning up dead.

I'm convinced that Lyndon Johnson backed a coup that was put together by the same people who'd succeeded at regime change in Iran, the Congo, Guatemala (and attempted same in Cuba). JFK was roundly hated by many very powerful groups. None of them, working alone, would have dared to assassinate a President. However, knowing that the VP cum Commander in Chief was going to back their play - they endeavored to put "the big event" into action.

It's not my intent to initiate another debate. Von Pein and I agreed to disagree. .... I do recommend the book. It's important that folks on both sides of the assassination debate understand exactly what is in question and being debated here.

This will be my last word on the subject, so ya'll have free rein to beat up on me and tell me what a big fat chowder head I am. Peace out.


Thank you, Bruce.

David Von Pein
January 30-31, 2015
February 1, 2015