(PART 909)


I was looking for opinions as to where Oswald was heading after leaving his rooming house and before his fatal encounter with Officer Tippit?

Some CTs suggest he was headed for Jack Ruby's apartment (obviously not my idea, since I don't believe they knew each other).

Some have suggested he was on his way to kill Edwin Walker in a final act of defiant violence that afternoon.

Some (including Warren Commission counsel David Belin) have even suggested he was headed for the nearest Greyhound bus stop, as he had just enough money on him to buy a bus ticket to Mexico, perhaps planning to confess to the officials at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, hoping this would lead them to grant him passage into Cuba.

I was just wondering what everyone else thought?


You pretty much covered all the bases, Aaron. I, myself, think Belin's "He Was Going To Catch A Bus To Mexico" theory might be correct. But we'll never know for sure (unless someone wants to dig up LHO at Rose Hill Cemetery and ask him).


LOL. I thought someone else might have a novel idea, David.


Lee Oswald might just have been winging it. (Who knows.) His assassination plan, as we know, was practically done at the last minute. I think he was probably extremely surprised that he was actually able to have that 6th floor of the TSBD all to himself long enough to get the job done and fire those three shots at JFK --- because given all the obstacles and potential witnesses that could have caused him to abort his assassination efforts, I just don't see how Oswald's state of mind on the morning of November 22nd could have been anything other than this one ----

"Since I'm not on a suicide mission today, and since so many things could happen that could cause me to change my mind about pulling the trigger on the President (including the weather and the actions of other people in the building), I'm not too confident of being able to pull this assassination off. If I'm able to do it, fine. But if not, that's fine too."

Now, given such a mindset leading up to 12:30 PM on 11/22/63, it's quite possible that Lee hadn't put any thought at all (or very little thought) into what he would do afterward. Therefore, after he did the dirty deed and was able to escape the building, his mindset could very well have been --- "Gee, what the f**k do I do now?!"


Yeah, I honestly think he might have changed his mind the night before if Marina had agreed to get back together with him.


I agree. CLICK HERE.


Once committed, though, I think he did see it as a suicide mission; I think he expected to go out in a blaze of glory that afternoon. He probably expected the Secret Service to spray the window and was surprised he was able to walk away from it.

Then, in the theater, I think he expected the police to open fire on him when he tried to kill McDonald. That could have contributed to his general combative attitude all weekend; he may have been disgusted by the fact that he had been taken alive.


That's possible, Aaron. But the fact he tried to escape the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza (and succeeded), and the fact he murdered Officer Tippit while in full flight, and the fact he put up such a wild struggle with the police in the Texas Theater, are things that strongly suggest to me that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely wanted to live another day.


Just a side question, David and Aaron -- Did anyone see LHO carry the paper bag that carried his gun on the Thursday back to the Paine house?


No, but being an empty, handmade paper bag, Oswald could have had it folded up in his jacket pocket or hidden elsewhere on his person.


Not that I know of, Mark. And that's always a point the CTers like to bring up too. They'll ask:


But I think Oswald folded it up and somehow concealed it in his jacket or clothing. We can see the folds in the bag (CE142) in the pictures....

(I see that Aaron posted the same thing as I was typing.)


It could have folded up easy I think after looking at that picture.

I was thinking more Marina or the Paines that never noticed it either. Then again, the Paines didn't know he had the rifle hidden in the garage.


I know there are some kooks who now say that Oswald had NO BAG AT ALL on November 22. But aside from those off-the-wall conspiracists, I want to know what the other CTers think the odds are of Oswald carrying a shorter (27-inch) bag into the TSBD (per the length estimates made by Buell Frazier & Linnie Mae Randle), and then having THAT bag (the 27-incher) just disappear, and then having a longer, 38-inch bag (empty!) with OSWALD'S PRINTS on it show up in the Sniper's Nest on the same day when Oswald's rifle also shows up on that same 6th floor?

The CTers, I suppose, will just resort to saying: "Well, Dave, it's obvious the cops deep-sixed the 27-inch bag and replaced it with the 38-incher."

To that type of speculation, you know what I'll say --- Hogwash!

More about the paper bag HERE.


I was going to ask how long is the rifle assembled, but I forgot--I do have one in my garage.


The rifle, when fully assembled, is 40.2 inches long.

Disassembled -- 34.8 inches.

The paper bag -- 38 inches.

A nice fit indeed for the disassembled Carcano.


Lee could have gone quickly into Ruth's garage after arriving there on 11/21 (even before Ruth got home from the grocery store at about 5:30). He could have hidden the paper and dry tape in the garage without anyone noticing.

I'm wondering where Lee put his coat/jacket that night too? If he took it, along with the paper, into the garage right away, then I don't see why anyone would have to notice the paper.

Also: I think Lee took the tape completely OUT of Troy West's "wet" dispenser mechanism to avoid getting the tape wet. I'm not so sure about the "cutter" marks though, but I'm betting there was a way for Lee to take a hunk of DRY tape and cut it off in the dispenser before it got wet.

I think it's logical to assume that Lee didn't just stand there at Troy West's packing table in the TSBD and construct his 38-inch-long paper bag that he planned to use to hide his rifle in. For one thing, how would he know how long to make the bag? He'd have to have his rifle right there to KNOW for certain how long to make his homemade bag. And I doubt he had memorized the exact measurements of his disassembled rifle.

This, of course, might lead to the question of: "Well, okay Dave, but if that's the case, why didn't Ruth Paine or Marina ever notice the leftover pieces of brown paper and tape that Lee probably had to discard at the Paine house after he cut his handmade paper bag down to the right size?"

Fair enough question, I guess. My response would be:

A few bits and pieces of leftover paper and tape could have easily been wadded up and discarded discreetly (and compactly) inside one of Ruth's household trash cans, with Lee possibly even making sure to tuck the paper under some of the other garbage that was already filling up one of the trash cans in Mrs. Paine's home.

Lee could have even taken measures to conceal the leftover paper scraps by placing them inside a discarded cereal box or other food container that Ruth had thrown away some time earlier. The possibilities are plentiful to explain how Lee could have discarded some small bits of paper without anyone noticing.

David Von Pein
March 1, 2015

(PART 908)




Gil still doesn't get it! He must have taken a double dose of idiot pills today.

Let's go through this again....

1.) Oswald WAS Hidell (although this fact is meaningless when it comes to this particular discussion regarding Oswald's Dallas PO Box).

2.) Oswald, quite obviously, WAS "entitled" to take mail out of his own box--#2915 in Dallas--regardless of WHO the mail was addressed to.

3.) As mentioned multiple times previously, Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago evidently was at fault for not including the proper "firearms form" (or whatever it was officially called) on the "Hidell" rifle package in March 1963. (Or maybe the form somehow became detached from the package; maybe it simply fell off; who knows? But, in any event, there's no indication, AFAIK, of that extra form being attached to Oswald's/Hidell's rifle parcel, which would likely have required a signature from the addressee.)

4.) Since #3 is true in this particular case regarding A. Hidell's rifle package, there would have been no questions asked by the post office clerk who handed Lee Oswald the "Hidell" package after Oswald handed the clerk the slip of paper that LHO retrieved from inside his PO Box (which is a slip, btw, that had NO NAME OR NUMBER on it whatsoever, according to Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes):

HARRY HOLMES -- "The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it."

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Yes, sir."

MR. LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in this case?"

MR. HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened."

5.) End result -- Lee Harvey Oswald walks away from the Dallas post office with a rifle package addressed to "A. Hidell".

6.) All of the above points are totally irrelevant in the long run.


Because even if some postal regulations were broken somewhere along the line (by either Klein's or the postal authorities in Dallas) that enabled Oswald to receive his rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods more easily, the FACT remains (based on the rock-solid evidence that indicates it DID happen) that Lee Harvey Oswald positively DID take possession of Rifle #C2766 in late March 1963 (i.e., LHO received the very same rifle that was shipped by Klein's on 3/20/63).

Therefore, even if we were to make the wild and silly assumption that a kook named Gil J. Jesus is TOTALLY CORRECT with respect to his continual arguments about the postal regulations and the PO Box applications, etc., it simply DOES NOT MATTER HERE. And that's because Lee Harvey Oswald obviously DID take possession of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that the super-kooks like Gil have tried so desperately to keep out of the hands of President Kennedy's assassin.

David Von Pein
March 13, 2010

(PART 907)


What is the political ideology of David Von Pein?

As most McAdams sycophants, I am convinced that Von Pein hates Obama.

Can anyone confirm/deny?


And, uh, Ramon... Now just what self-seeking, parasitical reason would you have for this?


I have a very accurate model, which I am refining. It starts simplistically:

— All Liberals know that the Far Right murdered Kennedy in 1963. It was a partisan hit and the divide persists, to this day.

— Conservatives (McAdams and sycophants) are Lone Nutters.

This obviously needs some revision. We have:

(a) Liberals who knows that the official version is a lie. See the Kennedys, Clintons, Gore, John Kerry, Oliver Stone, Tony Marsh, Jim Garrison, Jeff Morley, etc.

(b) Liberals who are terrified at the possibility that LBJ was involved in the murder. Pres. Carter, Jean Davison and Edward J. Epstein fall in this category.

The Conservative situation is far more interesting and is -as usual- based on hatred:

(c) Those Conservatives who hate Democrats more than anything are motivated by schadenfreude: "It was a freaking commie!!! One of your own!!" McAdams and -I suspect- von Pein [sic] are in this group.

(d) Those Conservatives who, above all, hate the government. Those, like Will Rogers, have never met a conspiracy they didn't like. See Birthers, Truthers, InfoWars, Breitbart, etc.


Jason: Based on your comment, your motivation is clearly hatred: Are you (c) or (d)?


I think Von Pein is more a moderate. He's not an arch conservative.


Mr. Von Pein necessarily hates the Kennedys, since he is allying himself with the people who murdered JFK. I am sure that America's most important political family does not approve of what he does while using that revered image, in the most hypocritical manner.

What DVP does with that avatar can be compared to primitive, savage tribes, carrying around the head of the enemy that they decapitated.

At least John McAdams does not attempt to dissimulate his hatred towards the Kennedys, president Obama and liberal ideas and people in general.


Hilarious stuff there. Herrera's nonsensical explanation for my wanting to use an image of President Kennedy on the Internet can only elicit fits of laughter from reasonable and rational people.

Herrera evidently likes the idea of placing people he knows nothing about into his cozy little predefined cubbyholes -- like "Conservative", "Liberal", "Kennedy Hater", and "Hypocritical". I, for one, hate such labels. I always have. Fact is, I'm none of the above. And never have been.

But just keep on talking as if you know me inside-out, Ramon. I don't mind. I'm enjoying the show, as I watch you make a complete fool out of yourself.



What is the political ideology of David Von Pein?


I have none. None at all.

What makes you think I have any "political ideology", Ramon? Tea leaves? A Ouija board? I've never EVER talked "politics" on any Internet forum or on my own blogs.

Maybe you, Ramon, should stop trying to paint (i.e., smear) people with "ideologies" that do not apply at all.

I couldn't care less about politics. Never have. And if you're goofy enough to think I "hate" John Kennedy after visiting all my websites devoted exclusively to Mr. Kennedy and his family, then you're in dire need of a reality check.


Would the Kennedys approve of your activities? Attempting to insult and ridicule people who loved Jack and Jackie and are still in pain, due to (what they consider to be) a miscarriage of justice?

The answer is a resonant "NO".

A psychiatrist could clarify your motivations better. It is fascinating how you claim not to have any political ideology. That could be a good start.


BTW: My motivation is quite simple: as a computer specialist, I always try to categorize and simplify. .... The problem is that you are the odd man out, an outlier. Now you tell us that you are not even in the group with Jean Davison and J. Edward Epstein.


Attempting to classify somebody as Liberal or Conservative is hardly a smear. Notice the question mark in the subject line.

Do you vote?


Nope. Never have.


Who did you vote for in 2008 and 2012?




What is your opinion about our president Barack Obama?


I have none.


Ah, Ramon will attempt to smear ya anyway.
Oh, sorry. "Classify" you.


He'll probably just conclude that I am a liar....because he'll probably say something like this:

How can an American citizen, living in the state of Indiana (USA) in the year 2015, possibly not have any opinion at all about the current President of the United States?

But, as JFK liked to say with relish in many of his speeches, "the fact of the matter is..." ..... I have absolutely no opinion (be it good or bad) about Barack H. Obama.

And the reason is: I'm too ignorant of the facts surrounding anything to do with his Presidency to have an informed opinion about him. For the most part (99% or so), I haven't the slightest idea what Obama has done in his six years in office. Not the slightest. So I can't possibly offer up an informed opinion about the man as President.

I live almost exclusively in the 1960s. And have for years. I find it's much nicer there. ....

David Von Pein
February 24 & 26, 2015

(PART 906)


As Harold Weisberg used to say, there are only two ways to defend the Warren Commission: ignorance or dishonesty.


Oy Vey! Weisberg, you say? That's the same guy who said this....

"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor."

Yeah, he's a really great source to prop up, TLR.


JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Harold Weisberg


The 6th floor was the decoy "sniper's nest," created for the police to find, for witnesses to see, while the real shooters were elsewhere. Anyone up there pointing a rifle out the window was also part of the ruse. The real shooters got away, the patsy was caught.

You really don't know much about military/covert operations, do you, David?


You really don't know much about the facts and EVIDENCE in the JFK murder case, do you, TLR?

Weisberg said he had no reason to think ANY shots came from the sixth floor. After hearing such malarkey, why would anybody take ANYTHING else uttered by that guy seriously?


Which "facts and evidence," David? The ones the government finally settled on with the Warren Commission?

Are you really that ignorant about the ever-evolving official stories from late 1963 to the summer of 1964? And it didn't stop. The Clark panel moved the President's wounds AGAIN. The HSCA medical panel moved the wounds AGAIN. Then we found out in the 1990s that the HSCA lied.

The autopsy witnesses' testimony was classified by the HSCA in 1978. When the evidence was finally released to the public in the 90s, it revealed that rather than 26 autopsy witnesses testifying against the large hole in the rear of the head, the HSCA had taken evidence from only 12; those 12 witnesses at the autopsy had actually agreed with the earliest, best evidence of the witnesses in Dallas: the wound extended into the back of the head.

Thomas Buchanan interviewed Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach in March 1964. He stood by the official description of JFK's wounds AT THAT TIME (that the back wound was a separate shot from the throat wound, and the throat wound was caused by a fragment dislodged from the head shot): "he said that it was based on an exhaustive study of the President's autopsy, and that there could be no doubt about it...He felt certain any person who had studied this autopsy would have reached the same conclusions. I asked him if I could see a copy of it, but he said that he could not release it...when the President's Commission issued its report, the explanation of the wounds had changed completely..."

One example of the early official story (from official sources, either in the White House, FBI or Secret Service):

12/18/1963 -- Washington Post reporter Nate Haseltine broke the story on the results of the autopsy....

"The second bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy, the source said, entered the back of the skull and tore open his forehead...The pathologists at Bethesda, the source said, concluded that the throat wound was caused by the emergence of a metal fragment or piece of bone resulting from the fatal shot in the head."

Clint Hill, despite his defense of the official story, is STILL insisting he saw a large hole in the back of JFK's head. Four times he describes it in his 2012 book, Mrs. Kennedy and Me. Page 290:

"...blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the president's head. The president's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me--on my face, my clothes, in my hair."

Page 291:

"His eyes were fixed, and I could see inside the back of his head. I could see inside the back of the president's head."

Page 305:

(at the autopsy) "the wound in the upper-right rear of the head."

Page 306:

"It looked like somebody had flipped open the back of his head, stuck in an ice-cream scoop and removed a portion of the brain..."

I could post pages and pages of stuff like this: official sources quoted in late 63/early 64, and numerous eyewitnesses. You KNOW all of this real evidence, David, but you choose to ignore it for some reason.

People who support the official story have a problem with the truth. Look at Bill O'Reilly's recent claims about being at de Mohrenschildt's house when he committed suicide. LOL!


Not a bit of what you just said above about the autopsy and JFK's wounds trumps the BEST evidence -- with that "best evidence" in this regard being, of course, the actual autopsy photos and X-rays of President Kennedy's body. Those photos prove for all time that anyone who ever said there was a blasted-out wound in the back (occipital) area of JFK's head was simply dead wrong. Period. End of story.

Re: photo fakery -- Try reading HSCA Volume 7.....

"The committee did...subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- 7 HSCA 39

Almost all conspiracy theorists love to spit all over the above conclusions reached by the House Select Committee. Because if they don't spit on it and disbelieve it, then those CTers can't continue to believe one of their favorite theories/myths---the one about the autopsy photographs being forgeries.

But regardless of how much the CTers whine and gripe about the words found on pages 39 and 41 of HSCA Volume #7, these words will still be there, in print, for everyone to see from now until doomsday.....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41


LBJ Did It. Even Ben Barnes of Texas, LBJ's political godson, thinks so as well.


And that [quote cited by DVP from 7 HSCA 41] is garbage and yet more proof the HSCA was yet another pitiful cover up of the murder of John Kennedy.


Yeah, right, Bob. Everybody was out to nail Oswald to the wall....from the autopsy doctors to the Dallas Police Department to the FBI to the Warren Commission to the Clark Panel to the Rockefeller Commission to the HSCA and on and on to infinity. Right, Bob?

According to many conspiracy believers, it was "THE WORLD VS. THE PATSY". And still is that way here in 2015, per many conspiracy clowns.



HSCA - not a lot of credibility with me.


Gee, what a surprise! An "LBJ Did It" conspiracy clown thinks the House Select Committee on Assassinations lacks "credibility".

But Roger Stone, another "LBJ Murdered JFK" conspiracy nut, has lots and lots of "credibility" in the eyes of Robert P. Morrow....right Bob?

Here's an example of how desperate Roger Stone is to put Malcolm Wallace on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63:

"Six eyewitnesses see a man who meets his [Wallace's] description in the windows in the Texas School Book Depository Building." -- Roger Stone; November 21, 2014 (during a radio debate against John McAdams)

I guess Mac Wallace must have somewhat resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, eh? Anyway, that was a nice sneaky trick by Stone, to turn the Oswald-like figure in the windows of the Depository into Malcolm Wallace.

Hear more of Stone's fantasies HERE.


Dave, this might surprise you, but I don't spend a lot of time on your web page and my speciality is JFK research.

Maybe I should go there more...



I'd like to think that my specialty is "JFK Assassination Evidence" (e.g., guns, bullets, shells, prints, fibers, jackets, a paper bag with Oswald's prints on it, etc.).

And after studying THAT kind of stuff, it becomes impossible to believe Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent "patsy".


Seriously, you want to get into the autopsy photos and x-rays? I really wonder how much you keep up with the current research, David. It's kind of sad. You can keep copying and pasting from official government reports, but it tells only a small (deceptive) part of the story.


If you want to believe the pictures below are fraudulent and were created just to fool the gullible American public, well, that's your choice (despite what 20+ photographic experts for the HSCA said; they ALL lied?). But don't expect me to follow you down into that sewer of absurdity....


http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How 5 Investigations Got It Wrong

"For, whereas the HSCA boasted of the authenticity of JFK's autopsy photographs, a new document reveals that in fact those images flunked a key HSCA authentication test: the pictures failed a test intended to link them to the camera in the Navy morgue that was supposed to have taken them. The images never were, therefore, authenticated. Nor, apparently, will they ever be. The morgue camera that the Navy sent to the HSCA for the tests disappeared sometime after the examination."


The autopsy photos that were taken of the late President Kennedy exist in STEREO PAIRS, which is impossible if they were all fakes and forgeries (as most CTers suggest).

Quoting from Vince Bugliosi's book....

"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images.


The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible."


The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.

It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)


The HSCA lied...


Yep. Just like I said before -- "The World Vs. The Patsy" -- even decades later.

And you guys actually believe that?


Also --- You think the HSCA "lied", and yet they concluded (based on faulty evidence, of course) that a conspiracy DID exist in Dallas on 11/22/63.

So, they're LIARS and yet they reached a conclusion that belies their LIES. Right?

And you actually believe that?


When a conspiracy theorist comes along and says something that makes some semblance of coherent sense, give me a call. To date, no CTer has come close to performing that task. And the reason is: Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and no conspiracy existed at all. When you try to jam off-the-wall conspiracy tales into that equation, you end up looking like Robert Morrow and "TLR"---silly.


Another fact-free, hyperbole-filled Von Pein response.

Yes, the HSCA's conclusion was based on the acoustic evidence, which I've never found very credible either (especially the idea that the grassy knoll shot missed). But some staffers and investigators on the HSCA did a good job (Edwin Lopez's Mexico City report, for example). They also determined that Jack Ruby was indeed involved with organized crime and likely did have help getting into the DPD basement. On some other Amazon thread I posted a lot of evidence for a Mexico City Oswald impostor, which you didn't even attempt to refute, David. You abandoned that debate completely.

I know, it's all "silly kook stuff" by "conspiracy clowns." Your blogs are loaded with that kind of language. But that's not what real investigators and historians do.


And pretty much all of the world's "real investigators" and "historians" have concluded that Oswald acted alone. You, TLR, obviously prefer "historians" like Jim Fetzer, Jesse Ventura, Richard Belzer, and Roger Stone.

Pretend all the evidence is fake if you want to. (Which you obviously do.) But, in my opinion, the evidence against Oswald could not possibly exist in the abundant quantities it exists in if Lee Oswald had been an innocent patsy.

In addition, Oswald's own actions are telling us a lot. Do you think Oswald's own actions and movements are "fake" too? Like when he twice lied to Buell Frazier about "curtain rods". And when he left the TSBD within minutes of JFK's shooting. And when he shot Officer Tippit within 45 minutes of JFK's murder. And when he fought like mad with the cops in the theater, while uttering things that drip with his guilt.

Those are actions I'm supposed to either ignore...or interpret as things that add up to Lee Harvey Oswald's INNOCENCE? Is that right? Come now. Nobody could examine Oswald's actions on BOTH November 21st and 22nd and come to the conclusion that Oswald was merely being used as a fall guy. Oswald's actions incriminate OSWALD, and no one else.


The "Mexico City Impostor" fairy tale can be debunked by taking just one quick look at the MANY items of evidence which prove the REAL Lee Oswald went to Mexico in September '63. The hotel register and Commission Exhibit No. 15, to name just two. In fact, CE15, all by itself, proves Oswald went to Mexico City. It's got Oswald's own signature on it. (Let me guess....you think CE15 is a fake too?)


You mean government non-investigators and establishment historians. .... Excuse me, exactly what credibility [do] these folks have who can't see the obvious that JFK's head is knocked backward and the back shot in JFK's coat and shirt is low enough to make the Magic Bullet theory a fantasy?

However, I have noticed a change in historical scholarship. Many historians now prefer to avoid talking about the JFK assassination because they know too many people know the ugly truth about it now.


Keep propping up those stale conspiracy myths, Bob. We never want the "back and to the left" fallacy to die, do we? (Even though everybody can easily see JFK's head move FORWARD at the key moment of impact.)

And CTers never want the junk about the holes in JFK's clothing to die either (as if the President's clothes trump the autopsy photos, which show a bullet hole in Kennedy's upper back that is above the throat wound, when looking at these two pictures side-by-side; the HSCA was wrong on this topic, as these pics amply illustrate)....


You see? You know nothing about me. You lump all Warren Commission critics together. I'm not a fan of Fetzer, Ventura, Belzer or Roger Stone. Fetzer, in fact, makes my head hurt.

My JFK list shows the researchers I think highly of. I know they won't impress you, either. And frankly, I don't care.

Read David Josephs' recent articles about Mexico City:
http://www.ctka.net/Mexico City Part 1


The problem with all those books, they leave out the most important ingredient in the JFK assassination: LYNDON JOHNSON.

It's like making a list of the great Chicago Bulls basketball players of the past 25 years and not putting Michael Jordan's name on the list.


Yes, you're right, TLR. I was guilty of some "lumping" in an earlier post. My previous list of CT mongers is more appropriately suited for Bob Morrow instead of "TLR". Sorry about that. All of the people on that list make my head hurt too.

And why on Earth do I need to read what some conspiracist named David Josephs has to say about the question of whether LHO was in Mexico? I don't need anything more than the PRIMARY SOURCES and evidence to determine that fact. CE15 finalizes that topic forever. Not to mention the many details in Marina's testimony about Lee's Mexico trip; plus, of course, the SIGNED visa application that Silvia Duran handled at the Cuban Embassy. (Another fake document---with LHO's signature AND photo on it?)

I've tangled with David Josephs on numerous occasions. He's a guy who apparently is convinced Oswald never ordered ANY rifle at all from Klein's. IOW, Josephs is not a good source for rational thought, as we can see here.

I provide some much-needed reality (and sanity) on the subject of Oswald's rifle purchase here.


I already posted a great deal about MC on another thread, and you ignored it.

The problem I see is that you're only willing to look at the government's official evidence, and only the small bit that ended up in the Warren/HSCA reports. Weisberg and Meagher demonstrated a long time ago how much of their own evidence the WC ignored. We know so much more about that today. The amount of evidence ignored, altered, destroyed or suppressed was simply staggering. And we see the same pattern with many other high crimes and cover-ups in our history since the 1940s.

But you can remain in the bubble created by the corporate media and the official opinion makers. I was for many years; it took me a long time to wake up from it.


As already mentioned, CE15 -- all by itself! -- destroys the silly notion that Oswald was never in Mexico City. Why ignore by far the BEST evidence for Oswald's Mexico trip?

And CE2564 might even be BETTER evidence. It's Oswald's visa application which was produced by the Cuban Embassy officials (Duran, Azcue, etc.).

I'm supposed to believe Oswald's signature was forged on both of those documents? And the reason again is....? To make it look like LHO had gone to Mexico in September of 1963--two months before JFK was killed in Dallas?? Insanity. It's a non sequitur that desperate conspiracy theorists like to pretend is somehow an important connection to President Kennedy's assassination.


Von Pein is ignoring the fact Sylvia Duran [sic] insisted the man at the Cuban Consulate was not Oswald. CIA then got the Mexican police to arrest and torture Duran who then came out of prison telling the [Warren] Commission that it was indeed Oswald.

There's no doubt somebody impersonated Oswald in Mexico as Hoover noted in the margins of a memo. Mark Lane got David Atlee Phillips to admit history will prove Oswald never visited Mexico. A proven conspiracy by definition Von Pein is in contempt of.

This is the kind of honest dealer and arguer of evidence David Von Pein is.


As already pointed out multiple times previously, CE15 and CE2564 PROVE Oswald went to Mexico in September '63. But Yates will continue to ignore this irrefutable evidence until the cows come knockin' on his trailer door. Goodness only knows why he ignores both documents---but he does. As do most other CTers.

And the "CIA then got the Mexican police to arrest and torture Duran" is nothing short of hilarious.

Here's the "LHO Was In Mexico" proof for conspiracy clown Yates to ignore for a 50th time. Because that's the kind of honest dealer and arguer of evidence Ralph Yates is.....




Von Pein is a professional troll, and so are the rest of the lone-nutters on the internet. They are only here to waste everyone's time. They are not interested in honest discussion.


By the way TLR, I have dealt with DVP and his alias S.V. Anderson much on Amazon. DVP has multiple "sock" puppets and I think we are talking with two of them here. It is like a guy in a padded cell conjuring up multiple imaginary "little friends" to talk to.



I have never used an "alias", and I never will. But if you want to think I do, knock yourself out. We can just mark it down as one additional thing in a long list of items you are 100% wrong about.


No actually DVP, you nailed yourself in that non-review of The Grassy Knoll Witnesses that got taken down [by] Amazon. You were double posting your aliases, quite hilarious to watch. Like an insane juggler.


Oh, good. We get to add one more thing Morrow is wrong about. I have no idea what he's babbling about in his last post. Maybe Bob's psychiatrist can give us a clue.

I do, however, thoroughly enjoy watching CT clowns like Robert P. Morrow make continual fools out of themselves--year after year--as they go on and on about how they think there are only 2 or 3 "LNers" in all of the Internet world, with those people then choosing to post under dozens of different "aliases".

Over the last few years, various conspiracy theorists have alleged that I have posted under many different monikers, including Vincent Bugliosi and Dave Reitzes.

Vince and Dave R. will be glad to know that they never really existed. Maybe that also means that I really wrote "Reclaiming History" too. Cool! I hope I can receive some royalties on it soon as well.


Royalties from "Reclaiming History" ...now that is a laughable concept. What would you do with them? Buy 1/2 a candy bar or pay someone for the rest of a half eaten tuna fish sandwich?

No, actually you need to get are the million dollar ADVANCES that are hilariously doled out to Bugliosi and James Swanson, that is where the real money is before the lone nutter book falls flat on its face.


Morrow actually thinks Mr. Bugliosi's book is NOT making a cent in royalties. Hilarious, Bob.

Vince's book has often had a sales rank at Amazon that is 75,000 or higher -- and that's seven years after it came out.

And at $52 a pop....well, that's gonna add up to some bucks.


Here are two of DVP's sock puppets that were posting the exact same comments on Amazon years ago. It is a little game DVP plays. God knows how many "imaginary little friends" he is running on Amazon.

Those messages were Amazon posts that got sent to me via email... all within minutes of each other, exact same post (one post quickly deleted).


I have no control over what other people do. If you received the same message from people named Anderson and Folsom, that's fine. But I didn't write them.

What makes you think I am Anderson or Folsom? Are you just desperate for amusement?

An "Alias" Addendum.....

[Quoting from a post I made at a Usenet JFK newsgroup in 2011:]

"I'd sure love it if somebody would prove that I'm this S.V. Anderson guy. That would mean that I have truly gone over the edge, because I've talked to him on the Internet several times. I noted that after conspiracy nutcase Bob Morrow mailed me a $100 check following a bet I won regarding this "DVP Is Anderson" hilarity, Morrow has now gone BACK to believing that I'm Anderson. Maybe he'd like to lose another hundred bucks." -- DVP; June 4, 2011


I guess some people see conspiracy behind everything. I am my own man, with my own opinions and am blessed with a healthy skepticism about most everything. When it comes to this subject, however, I just don't see a strong case for conspiracy or that anyone but Oswald and Ruby did what they did.

DVP has no reason to hide behind any aliases, he puts everything out there for anyone to consider and decide for themselves. CTers just don't want to accept the fact that there are more people that have his grounded sense of what's right and what's wrong than they want to believe. I actually admire his patience and willingness to correspond with anyone with such nonsensical and opposing viewpoints.


"Alias" Addendum #2....

From a 2012 Usenet discussion -----> CLICK HERE.

David Von Pein
February 2015
March 2015

(PART 89)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/BRD Book Reviews

http://jfkfacts.org/Reporter's Tape Exposes Bill O'Reilly's Fib
http://jfkfacts.org/“Reliable Sources” To Look At O'Reilly's Story
http://box.com/Telephone Call With Bill O'Reilly & Gaeton Fonzi

http://dallasobserver.com/Aynesworth Talks About O'Reilly




http://jfkfacts.org/"I Work In That Building"/comment-919542








(PART 905)


New large photographic alteration discovered ----> CLICK HERE.



Ralph Cinque is the biggest "LN" asset to come along since the invention
of the Internet.

Thank you, Dr. Cinque.


Now I know why they did it. It was for the cover of TIME
magazine ----> CLICK HERE.


The picture below was taken just a few seconds before the other photo that Ralph Cinque thinks has been faked. I wonder if Ralph will now say that Jackie's left arm is really her right arm in this picture too....


Don't you already know the alterationist game? No matter what you cite, they will claim it is a fake.

Maybe they'll even claim she had two right arms. Don't underestimate their kookiness.


Nice photo. Can you tell us when and where it was taken? And what's up with that black fez the woman is wearing? Is that some type of super secret Masonic symbol? (for Pamela [Brown])


Turtle Creek.

More here.


That's actually useful, DVP, because that is a valid image, and everything is accounted for: her shoulder, her upper arm, and her forearm. But not so with the disputed photo. I have done a detailed comparison. And once again, I'm making you famous. But this time you did good. You helped me.



You're something else, Ralph. I don't think we in these parts have ever encountered an "EVERYTHING WAS FAKE" conspiracy theorist quite like you. You're in a league of your own. So much so, you are playing ball with yourself (and your extraordinary imagination).

Helpful Hint ---- The reason we can't see the upper part of Mrs. Kennedy's left arm in the picture you think is a fake is simply due to the angle of the photograph. And this fact is blatantly obvious to everybody else on the planet--except Dr. Ralph Cinque.

We're looking at Jackie almost directly from the SIDE in the picture below. So why would you expect to see Jackie's upper arm from that angle?

As I have said in the past, Mr. McAdams and Mr. Fokes have the patience of two saints to put up with some of the outlandish theories and garbage that pass in front of them every day at this aaj forum. But Ralph can also be thankful that those men also firmly believe in freedom of speech.


Oh, David. You are going to rue the day that you put up those photos from TIME magazine, because it is all over for them now. They have been caught red-handed, and I can't imagine what you, McAdams, or anyone else is going to say to deny this. Maybe Anthony Marsh will think of something, but you know how that goes.

Anyway, read it and weep:



I'm weeping alright, Ralph. But not for the reason you think. My cheeks, as usual, are soaked with tears of hilarity after reading your "Fakery" posts. And I know I'm not the only person here with moist cheeks.

And now I see Ralph has "found" additional fakery in the Time Magazine photos. (Gee, what a surprise, huh?)

And just to help Ralph out, I'm going to give him one more thing to chew on. Let's see if he runs into the CT Endzone and spikes his ball after seeing this one----

Why does this woman in the yellow circle seemingly have no thumb on her right hand? Another hunk of needless and useless "fakery" by Time Magazine, Ralph?....


She's got one. I circled it for you.


But I'd be willing to bet the ranch that if it had been you, Ralph Cinque, to "discover" the thumbless lady first, you'd be racing to your computer to type more posts about more fakery in the photo.

Does anyone here have any doubt about that? I sure don't.

But since I found the lady without the thumb, naturally Ralph sees the thumb. But I sure don't. (And the reason is, of course, the blurriness of the person in the image, which can distort all kinds of things in photographs.)



What I'd like to know is.....

Even if Time Magazine did "add an arm" to Jackie for a photo --- so what?

Where does Ralph go with his argument even if it is true (which it isn't, of course, but I'm just pretending it could be true for the sake of this argument)?

It's a picture taken before the shooting of JFK. So why does it matter at all what was done to any photo of Jackie taken prior to the assassination? There can't be any "assassins" to airbrush out of that picture.

Does Ralph think Time Magazine murdered JFK and then went around altering all the films and photos---even a picture of Jackie taken miles away from Dealey Plaza?




Actually, the best thing we can use this photo for is to once again demonstrate the "bunched up" nature of JFK's jacket....

David Von Pein
February 2015


More fun with conspiracy nut
Ralph Cinque can be located HERE.


(PART 904)


Fact check:

Did Richard Nixon say the Warren Commission report was a ‘hoax?’

No. Jean Davison sets the record straight on this Internet legend [in
this comment made by Jean at Morley's "JFK Facts" website on
February 15, 2015]

You’ll find the alleged cited occasionally in online JFK debates:

“It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”

President Richard M. Nixon supposedly said this while discussing the Warren Commission on May 15, 1972, the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot.

In fact, Rex Bradford has noted, this “quote” was the result of a “grave error” on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated,” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society.

Even casual students of the assassination will note that the Warren Commission did not reach such a conclusion, instead declaring that Oswald acted alone. Bradford apologized on his site, History Matters, for passing along the BBC’s mistake. The CNN transcript is still online.

“Keep relying on secondary sources, folks, and you’ll learn lots of things that aren’t true,” Davision observes.



Thanks for posting [HERE] yet another JFK myth — Nixon supposedly saying, “Oswald did it by himself scenario is the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”

You’ll find it on the quote page at History Matters, along with a correction:


“It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.” — President Richard M. Nixon, discussing the Warren Commission on May 15, 1972, the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot.

CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society. Even casual students of the assassination will note that the Warren Commission did not reach such a conclusion, instead declaring that Oswald acted alone. My apologies for passing along the BBC’s bizarre mistake.



The CNN transcript is still online:


Keep relying on secondary sources, folks, and you’ll learn lots of things that aren’t true.


RICHARD NIXON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "Why don’t we play the game a bit smarter for a change. They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated. And I respectfully suggest, can’t we pin this on one of theirs?”

Too bad nobody asked President Nixon to elaborate and clarify, because that statement has two opposite logical interpretations.

One of them is “Since it was the greatest hoax ever, and they could get away with blaming a patsy, why can’t we be smart and do something equivalent? Hey, it has been done!”

Nixon was clearly skipping words, inferring, talking to people who did not need every one of them.


Too bad we don’t have a psychiatrist or expert on communication in the audience, one who could settle this.

That is a general problem in this matter, THE most important vacuum: We need real, world-class experts in Physics and many other matters. The universities have been restrained from entering the investigation or have decided to abstain themselves.


The key to that Nixon comment is this:


Now, does anyone here think Nixon REALLY meant to say: “Oswald was innocent, and the Warren Commission FRAMED a Communist”?

Nixon clearly was implying that he thought Oswald was GUILTY, not a patsy.


In a word ‘Yes’, that is exactly what I think.

It goes beyond even that David, the Warren Commission framed someone set-up to be a Communist, as a mole to infiltrate the anti-Castro Cuban exiles and the intelligence group organizing the exiles.


Uh, no, Dave, that’s not what Nixon said at all.

“It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”


Beautiful, Bob.

Leave it to the JFK conspiracy theorists to mangle yet another topic.

Only in a CTer’s mind could these plain-as-day words…..


…..somehow indicate that Nixon REALLY meant that it WASN’T done by that Communist (with the “Communist” being Lee Harvey Oswald, of course).

It couldn’t be more obvious that Nixon was saying in that “hoax” quote that he thought Oswald (the “Communist”) was guilty of assassinating President Kennedy.


Well, Dave, I don’t know where you went to school but, where I went to school, using “it” twice in the same sentence usually means you are discussing one topic. So, “It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated” kinda makes me think ol’ Tricky Dick is referring to the assassination when he says “it”.

Now, as no one I know has ever heard of the John Birch Society being blamed for JFK’s assassination, I would say THAT hardly qualifies as the “greatest hoax ever perpetuated”.

Maybe, with you being so wise, you can explain to all of us just what this hoax was.



The “hoax” Nixon is referring to in his 1972 quote is quite obvious, in my opinion. It’s this one….

“They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers.”

So, Nixon apparently doesn’t agree with you at all, Bob. Nixon seems to feel that the unnamed “they” have “pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the Birchers”.

Who the “they” is that Mr. Nixon was referring to, I have no idea. But he obviously was of the opinion that some “they” was attempting to blame the “Birchers” for JFK’s murder.


Puh-lease David. He admits later that ‘Texas’ murdered JFK.

The phrase “It was done by a Communist” is emphasizing metaphorically, that the assassination was blamed on a left-winger.

Nixon did not specifically say that LHO killed JFK.

This is in the context of his later comment about pinning it on them (Liberals).


I disagree, Gerry. I think Nixon is clearly stating his belief that “IT WAS DONE BY A COMMUNIST [meaning: Oswald]”.

If you disagree, fine. But that’s the way I interpret that quote.

David Von Pein
February 2015

(PART 903)


The WC created a comfortable myth for the citizens at the time.


How can presenting the raw facts be considered a "myth"?

Even if the Warren Commission had never existed, the evidence would still be there. The WC didn't collect or invent the evidence. They merely evaluated it. And that evidence supports Oswald's guilt. Nobody can possibly deny that fact. (Do you deny that, Pam?)

Nothing's changed since 1963 as far as the core physical evidence in this case goes. If you watch or listen to any of the real-time television or radio coverage from the weekend of the assassination, it's plainly evident as of the evening of 11/22/63 that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of killing both President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

Or do you, Pam, think the Dallas Police Department had a routine habit of charging people with TWO MURDERS within 12 hours of the crimes being committed without a stitch of evidence to back up those serious charges?

And the "Everything Was Fake" mantra used by conspiracy promoters is just a cop-out, and always has been. It's a sign of pure desperation on a CTer's behalf.

In reality, it's the conspiracists, in a sense, who are constantly attempting to "alter" the evidence and pretend it adds up to something it most certainly does not add up to. And nobody has created any "myths" other than the conspiracy theorists (like these). But in the "CT" world, a myth can easily (and quickly) become a hardened fact. Fortunately, however, the "CT" world has no relationship to this "Real" world that most people reside in.

It's just too bad more people can't see through the parlor games engaged in by the conspiracy theorists for what they truly are---games being played by people who evidently have a strong desire to disbelieve every single piece of evidence that's on the table in the JFK and Tippit murder cases.

Pamela, answer this for me if you would....

Do you truly think that even ONE piece of the evidence in the JFK and/or Tippit cases has been PROVEN by anyone to be fake, manufactured, altered, substituted, or otherwise tampered with by the authorities in an effort to frame a man named Lee H. Oswald?

If your answer is "Yes" to my above inquiry, please tell me what pieces of evidence you feel have been PROVEN to be fraudulent.

Thank you.

David Von Pein
February 21, 2015

(PART 902)

Subject: Mark Lane
Date: 3/5/2010 8:44:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton (Vincent Bugliosi's secretary)


Hi Rosemary,

The link at the bottom of this e-mail message contains a short 10-minute audio interview with conspiracy kook Mark Lane. The interview, which took place on March 4, 2010, is one that I thought Vincent Bugliosi would want to hear. (Maybe you can bookmark the link so you can cue it up for Vince the next time he comes to your house, since he doesn't have a computer to access it himself.)

In this brief interview, among other assorted unflattering and laughable comments he makes about Vince B., Mark Lane says that Vincent Bugliosi--are you sitting down?--"knows nothing about the Kennedy assassination".

And this is a guy (Mark Lane) who threatened to sue Bugliosi a few years ago because of the so-called "lies" that Vince said about Lane in "Reclaiming History". It sounds to me as if Vince might be able to turn the tables on Mr. Lane when it comes to slander and/or libel lawsuits.

Can you just imagine the monster-sized gonads it takes to go on an Internet radio program (in the year 2010, three years after "Reclaiming History" was published!) and make the outrageous claim that Vincent Bugliosi "knows nothing about the Kennedy assassination"? It takes some oversized family jewels to do something like that indeed!

Mr. Bugliosi is a person who worked for over 20 years writing the definitive book on the JFK case, and now, three years after that book was released, we hear it from Mark Lane that Vincent "knows nothing" about the JFK case at all!

There oughta be a law on the books to keep such outright nonsense off of the radio (or anywhere else).

In my opinion, what it boils down to is this -- the conspiracy-happy nuts in America (including Mark Lane) are blowing off steam and are getting hotter under the collar with each passing day due to the fact that Tom Hanks and Company are going forward with their "Reclaiming History" Home Box Office mini-series [which was ultimately reduced to the 2013 feature motion picture, "Parkland"]. And the fact that such an "Oswald Did It Alone" movie project is being worked on is simply driving the conspiracy theorists crazy.

And, you know what? I'm loving it! These JFK conspiracy nuts (like Mr. Lane and many others) have had their undeserved moment in the sun for too long. It's time that these charlatans and evidence manipulators are taken down a peg or two (or 152)!

I say BRAVO to Vincent Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Gary Goetzman, and Home Box Office for bringing the TRUE FACTS of Lee Harvey Oswald's LONE GUILT in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to the doorsteps of all Americans....which is where that truth should reside--for all time.

And if Mark Lane objects -- that's just tough s**t!

Here's the link to Lane's hilarious and ridiculous (but thankfully brief) Internet radio appearance from March 4th, 2010.

Should Mr. Bugliosi want to make any kind of a reply or statement after listening to the above-linked tripe that was spewed forth by Mark Lane, I would (as always) be happy to relay any such message via the "Internet" airwaves.

Best regards,
David Von Pein


Subject: Mark Lane (Addendum)
Date: 3/5/2010 10:46:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi again Rosemary,

Upon listening again to the March 4th Mark Lane radio interview, I noted Lane saying:

"There is nothing in the Bugliosi book which relates to reality."

Again, I hope you were seated when you gazed upon that last Lane quote, because the idiocy within that single statement is enough to knock all reasonable people right off their feet.

Mr. Lane also referred to Tom Hanks as "a horse's ass".

And Lane also embarrassed himself further by saying this about Vincent Bugliosi and Vince's book "Reclaiming History":

"He probably never even wrote the book."

It's that dreaded "ghostwriting" rumor coming back to the surface once again, I see. And this keeps cropping up occasionally, even after you yourself, Rosemary, chopped it down to size [HERE] in July of 2007 when you thoroughly trashed that rumor, which was started by David Lifton in May 2007.

So, it would appear that I haven't been giving Mark Lane nearly enough credit in the past -- because he's a much bigger kook than I had originally thought he was before today.

Congratulations, Mark, on getting the promotion.

Thanks again, Rosemary, for reading my mails.

Yours truly,
David V.P.


Subject: Mark Lane
Date: 3/5/2010 1:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for your e-mails. Incredible! I faxed them to Vince and I'm sure he'll see the light about his erroneous slant of the assassination. Perhaps Tom Hanks (aka "a horse's ass") will too.

Regards, Rosemary

P.S. I have more patience with my six-year-old grandson.




It's also very funny to note that apparently Mark Lane's BIGGEST GRIPE (i.e., Bugliosi's BIGGEST ERROR) concerning the very little that Lane read of "Reclaiming History" is when VB got the name of a New York STREET wrong.

Two or three different times on Black Op Radio Mark Lane has brought up that sinful and horrible "STREET NAME" error of Bugliosi's.

Out of all the things related to the complex details surrounding everything in the JFK case, Mark Lane has focused on VB's tiny error about the name of a street and has propped up that mistake as a springboard to disregard a whole bunch of other stuff in Vincent's mammoth book.

Kind of gives you a clue at how deep Mr. Lane had to search to find something FACTUALLY INCORRECT in "Reclaiming History". Of course, Lane thinks the whole "RH" book is factually incorrect (naturally). But virtually everything else (except the silly "street name" error) is stuff that Lane, in his own conspiracy-oriented mind, only THINKS Bugliosi has got all wrong.

But when weighed against the TRUE FACTS of the case, a conspiracy kook's speculation and guesswork (sprinkled with a few lies and half-truths along the way) couldn't possibly matter less in the long run.

David Von Pein
March 5, 2010
March 6, 2010

(PART 901)


[Quoting from the Warren Commission's Final Report:]

"Speculation. -- Gordon Shanklin, the special agent in charge of the Dallas office of the FBI, stated that the paraffin test of Oswald's face and hands was positive and proved that he had fired a rifle.

Commission finding. -- The paraffin tests were conducted by members of the Dallas Police Department and the technical examinations by members of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory. The FBI has notified the Commission that neither Shanklin nor any other representative of the FBI ever made such a statement. The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly."
(WCR 647)

The commission certainly didn't look too hard, for Anthony Lewis wrote a story in the New York Times of November 25, 1963 (pg 11 cols. 6-8) which specified Gordon Shanklin as the source of information that a paraffin test "showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands."

Do you suppose that the vast investigative power of the WC managed to miss a New York Times article??

Once again, the Warren Commission simply lied.


Gee, Ben, since you think the Warren Commission "lied" about approximately 6,679 things in their Final Report, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were going to "lie" about the paraffin result on Oswald's cheek, they'd lie in the OTHER direction -- i.e., they'd probably be telling a bunch of lies that would lead the readers of their Report to falsely believe that the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek had, indeed, been POSITIVE to indicate he fired a rifle?

But in the instance of alleged "lying" by the WC cited by conspiracy sensationalist Ben Holmes above, the Warren Commission is telling a "lie" that leads in the OTHER direction, leading readers to think that it was NOT likely that the paraffin test on LHO's face was positive at all.

So, per Hound Holmes, the Warren Commission lied in many instances to make Oswald look MORE guilty. And the Warren Commission lied, per Hound Holmes, to ALSO make Oswald look more INNOCENT too.

The irony is thick and rich, isn't it?

Holmes no doubt thinks the Commission lied on Page 647 of its Final Report just to keep from having to call Gordon Shanklin the actual liar. Right, Ben?

It's also interesting to note how deep into his Pit Of Absurdity that Ben Holmes now has to dig in order to find more make-believe "lies" that he claims were told by those evil and rotten-to-the-core members of the Warren Commission. Holmes is now down to digging out alleged "lies" that support his own theory of Oswald being INNOCENT.

The irony of it is hysterical.

Thanks, Benji, for today's chuckle. Your desperation to find ANY kind of malfeasance on the part of the Warren Commission is duly noted.


The DPD lied, then the Warren Commission lied to cover it up.


Holmes thinks the Warren Commission wanted to lie in order to "cover up" something that (if not "covered up") would make it seem MORE LIKELY that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty, even though Mr. Oswald was, of course, the WC's designated "patsy", per conspiracy sensationalist Ben Holmes.

The (il)logic is astounding. But apparently it somehow makes perfect sense to Holmes. ~shrug~


What they "covered up" was the fact that Oswald was being framed with lies.

The Warren Commission then LIED about that particular lie.

The fact that you can't explain it is amusing, nothing more.

No "illogic" involved at all... the Warren Commission lied to protect the public from seeing how Oswald was being railroaded with lies.

What's so hard to see about that?

And why are you lying about it?


And if the Warren Commission was doing THE EXACT SAME THING (railroading Oswald with one lie after another), as you seem to think they were doing every step of the way in the WC's investigation, then why would the Commission have wanted to lie about somebody ELSE who was also railroading Oswald with lies?

Geez, what convolution.

(Somebody give me an Anacin. Holmes' logic has my head aching from "Imaginary Conspiracy Overload".)


It's important to note that all Ben is doing is parroting the claims of Mark Lane from Chapter 12, "The Paraffin Test and the Latent Palm Print", from Rush To Judgment.

He's also confusing evidence with hearsay. He (and Lane) cites the hearsay reported in a newspaper article as evidence, but it's not. It never will be.

And somehow people think RUSH TO JUDGMENT is a good book. Only if they themselves rush to judgment and skim over these arguments without putting much thought into them.

I once had an exchange with a conspiracy theorist (and I'm pretty sure David has too) where that person alleged the police made up Oswald's claims in custody to frame him...

But when asked why the police would make up DENIALS by Oswald (like he didn't own a rifle or like he didn't bring a long sack to work that day), instead of admissions (like he did own a rifle and did bring a sack), the conspiracy theorist fell silent.

Their claims make no sense if you give it just a little thought.

Which apparently CTs seldom if ever do.


Good point, Hank.

If the Dallas Police Department was going to blatantly LIE about Lee Harvey Oswald's statements made behind closed doors, why not put GUILTY statements in the resident patsy's mouth, rather than "No, I never owned a rifle" and "No, I never said anything about curtain rods to Wesley Frazier"?

Why not tell lies that fit the actual evidence? But, per many CTers (and yes, Hank, I've encountered several of them online), the DPD lied in the OTHER direction--similar to the kind of "paraffin test" lie that Ben claims the Warren Commission told--making it seem that Oswald is more INNOCENT (if the alleged "lies" told by the DPD are believed by the public to be truthful).

So, I guess the conspiracy theorists must therefore think the DPD's desired end result of all of their lies regarding LHO's statements would be to have the public NOT BELIEVE a single one of the so-called lies. Because the DPD, after all, was framing Patsy Oswald, right? So the DPD couldn't actually want the public to fall for the lies the police were putting in the patsy's mouth, right?

Again, good point, Hank. Thanks.


This is simple, Davey...

Did the DPD lie about the paraffin results?

Yes or no?

Did the Warren Commission then lie about what the DPD had done?

Yes or no?

Cite for your answer... or run like a coward again...


No and no.


Yep... just proving yourself a coward again. (or perhaps you're too illiterate to read the part about citing for your answer...)

You REFUSED to cite for your assertions, nor will you ever do so...

Presumably, you're asserting that the New York Times writer lied... and that the Warren Commission just didn't have the investigative ability to read the #1 newpaper of record in the United States.

Tell us Lil Davey - why do you have to lie to support the Warren Commission?

You understand, I hope, that you're simply revealing for everyone to see just how weak you think your case is.


You're just plain silly, Ben.

The very simple explanation for The New York Times quote attributed to Gordon Shanklin is that Shanklin (who didn't perform the paraffin test and was not with the DPD at all in 1963, he was FBI) simply OVERstated the "positive" results of Oswald's paraffin tests.

I don't doubt that Shanklin probably DID say what he is quoted as having said in the NYT on 11/25/63, but I can also easily envision a perfectly logical and reasonable (and NON-conspiratorial) type of answer to explain why Shanklin would make such a statement.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if similar incorrect statements concerning Oswald's "cheek" test were made by other people around the same time of Shanklin's statement.

But Shanklin's statement is really only HALF wrong, because Oswald DID test "positive" for nitrates on his HANDS. It's just that Shanklin must have lumped the "cheek/face" test in with the "hands" test, and he inaccurately reported to the NYT that BOTH the hands and cheek tests came out positive, when in reality only the HANDS of Oswald tested positive.

But, IMO, the "cheek" portion of Shanklin's remark is still not a "lie". He was merely misinformed about the nature of a portion of the paraffin tests. He lumped both tests together, when he should have kept them separate.

Yes, the above is just a guess on my part as to why the head of the Dallas FBI office, Gordon Shanklin, would have made such a statement about both paraffin tests being positive on Oswald. But I doubt very much that Mr. Shanklin, of ALL people in the world, would be wanting to lie about the paraffin tests so that the public would (falsely) think that it was MORE likely that the man who a lot of people think should have been watched more closely by SHANKLIN'S OWN FBI prior to the assassination was guilty of the President's murder.

Shanklin and his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, should have been anxious to EXONERATE Oswald under such circumstances, not going around deliberately saying false things to INCRIMINATE him in the eyes of the public. The FBI certainly wouldn't be the people who would have had a desire to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald. Such a notion is just plain silly from the FBI's point-of-view in November 1963.

Plus, if conspiracy theorists want to think the Dallas Police Department lied about the results of the cheek test on Oswald, they don't have much of a leg to stand on there, because the DPD's J.C. Day told the Warren Commission that "The test on the face [of Oswald] was negative" [4 H 276].

So, as we can see from those words spoken by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day in 1964, the Dallas Police certainly wasn't LYING and claiming to the Warren Commission that the paraffin test on Oswald's face was POSITIVE. Lt. Day said just the opposite--that the cheek test was "negative".

So where do conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes go after being confronted with those words I just quoted above by Carl Day? Will Holmes continue to claim the DPD "lied" about the results of the cheek test, even though Lt. Day made it clear in his WC testimony that the test turned out NEGATIVE on Lee Oswald's face?

Good luck with that one, Ben. You'll need it.


Now that you're admitting that Shanklin was wrong, let's deal with the other question you lied about... you stated "no" to the question: "Did the Warren Commission then lie about what the DPD had done?"

Granted that it was FBI rather than the DPD (although this information was coming out of the DPD), explain to everyone why you said "no".

The ONLY credible way that the Warren Commission was not lying is that they were too incompetent to read the New York Times.

Feel free to offer another credible explanation.

Or run away again.


Quite obviously, Ben, the Warren Commission must NOT have been made aware of the NYT Shanklin statement. Simple as that.

You, of course, think that such an oversight is totally impossible. But I know that the Warren Commission was comprised of HUMAN BEINGS. And human beings sometimes make mistakes. And human beings sometimes overlook things -- even some things that are in plain sight, like the FBI not being able to figure out that the Single-Bullet Theory was the proper and correct conclusion to reach, instead of the "3 Shots & 3 Hits" conclusion they reached in their 12/9/63 Report.

I'm human too. I make lots of mistakes. In fact, I'm making a whopper right now---I'm wasting my time talking to Ben Holmes.


Good of you to finally be honest.

The Warren Commission was so incompetent that they were unable to track down this information - and FBI Agent Shanklin MUST have lied... the Warren Commission stated that "The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly."

Now can you imagine any situation where someone would make such a statement WITHOUT asking Shanklin?

So Shanklin lied, and the Warren Commission was too incompetent to catch him at it.

And, as we see, YOU lied about the statement being made... even if you were correct that it was the FBI, rather than the DPD.

And you've shown FBI Agent Shanklin a liar, unless, of course, you can [credibly] explain away the Warren Commission statement WITHOUT them ever asking Shanklin.

Run Lil Davey... RUN!!!

You're getting schooled here! (and none of this will appear on your website...)


I'm putting all of it on my website, Benji. (So you lied about that, didn't you?)

And I just gave a plausible explanation for Shanklin's statement about the cheek test. He incorrectly lumped both tests together. A very easy mistake to make.

And, as I also previously said, I'd bet that other people made the same mistake. They heard about A PARAFFIN TEST on Oswald being "positive" -- ergo, some people might have incorrectly reported that ALL of the paraffin tests turned out "positive".

See how simple and logical a non-sinister explanation can be, Benji? Try it sometime. It can't kill ya.

(Chalk up another mistake on DVP's part --- I'm still conversing with a fantasist named Holmes. What's the matter with me? Would the analogy about "not being able to stop after just one peanut" be appropriate here? I think it might---especially the "nut" part.)


You've admitted that the weight of the evidence shows that Shanklin STATED that the cheek caste [sic] was positive - BUT YOU HAVEN'T EXPLAINED WHY HE LIED ABOUT IT.


Why do you think EACH AND EVERY mistake or piece of misunderstood information HAS to be labeled a "lie"? Why? So many other explanations are equally as credible, and even probable.

And as I already mentioned, Shanklin would have been one of the very LAST humans on the planet to want to tell tall tales that would make Oswald look GUILTY. And surely even you know why, Ben.

If the Shanklin quote is 100% accurate (which I haven't checked, and it's certainly not a good idea to take anything uttered by Mark Lane as being truthful in every facet), Shanklin likely got wind of some (partially) incorrect information re: the paraffin tests. Why is that not even on the radar of possibilities in the world of Ben Holmes? Or are you too infatuated with the idea that everybody under the sun was a liar?


Or why the Warren Commission lied about it.


You haven't proved the WC lied. Your ASSUMPTIONS that the WC was telling lies all over the place don't count for squat. There was no reason to "lie" about this paraffin thing. Lt. Day is ON THE WC RECORD stating the facts---i.e., the cheek test was negative. End of story.


They either lied, or there's a credible explanation.

We've not heard the credible explanation yet. All I've heard is denials.


You've not dented the facts at all.

You've not explained the facts at all.

All you're doing is denying.



All I'm saying is that there ARE explanations other than bald-faced LIES. But you don't even leave room for MISTAKES, MISCOMMUNICATION, INACCURATE QUOTES IN NEWSPAPERS (which happens all the time), and other possible reasons why things happen that you are calling "LIES".

In Ben Holmes' world, everything uttered that isn't 100% accurate concerning the JFK case must be a LIE WITH INTENT TO DELIBERATELY DECEIVE.

Why would you think such a silly thing, Ben?


I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for Shanklin's quote (assuming it's a spot-on accurate NYT quote, that is). But Ben Holmes just doesn't like that explanation, and therefore he'll pretend that I've never supplied any kind of credible explanation at all (just like he always does about matters that have already been answered).

"Talking to them [conspiracy theorists] about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1438 of "Reclaiming History"

Vince, as usual, is right.


Now, if this blatant speculation were even a SMIDGEN true, you'd be able to cite the evidence showing that the FBI was making even SOME SMALL EFFORT to exonerate Oswald.

But, of course, you're simply lying. You know for a FACT that the FBI was hell-bent on proving Oswald's sole guilt RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING.

And Shanklin had EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD to shaft Oswald as hard as he could, consistent with Hoover's very clear direction.

You claim that "I know" why Shanklin wouldn't be willing to shaft Oswald - but I know no such thing. I do NOT accept your speculation - particularly when IT'S CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN EVIDENCE.

Now - either cite some evidence that the FBI was making an effort to exonerate Oswald, or run away again.


Ben's too slow to grasp the obvious point I've made multiple times now re: the FBI/Shanklin/Hoover, so I'll write it out in kindergarten form for Benji....

1.) The FBI knew Lee Oswald was in Dallas AND working at the Texas School Book Depository PRIOR to 11/22/63.

2.) President Kennedy is killed from the TSBD with Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63.

3.) The FBI did not track any of Oswald's movements on 11/22/63.

4.) ***ALARM BELLS OF CONCERN GO OFF AT THE FBI*** -- (People might start to blame us, the FBI, for the President's assassination. So, Mr. Hosty, get rid of that note.)


Given the above set of facts, can anyone in their right mind imagine Hoover or Shanklin wanting to FRAME an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's death?

Such a thought going through ANY FBI agent's mind following JFK's assassination is too ludicrous to contemplate. And yet, many many CTers actually DO think that is what happened. They think Hoover's boys DID want to frame an INNOCENT Oswald and thus bring extra heat down on Hoover's FBI (by some people) for not watching this goofy bird named Oswald more closely.

Understand now, Ben?

Footnote ---

The reason J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI touted Oswald as President Kennedy's murderer is quite plain and obvious....

They knew Oswald was guilty of that crime BASED ON THE EVIDENCE before their eyes.

Who the heck ELSE was Hoover supposed to say did it---Anthony Perkins? Tallulah Bankhead? Charlie Weaver? The Supremes?

~Mark VII~


Now, care to give ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for your crazy theory?


The FBI theory of mine is not the kind of theory that I can provide any "evidence" for. It's just basic common sense (two words you aren't familiar with).


So your theory is that despite the FACT that the FBI never did a SINGLE THING that would accrue to Oswald's benefit, this is actually what they wanted to do.



Let me try this one more time.....

My FBI theory was laid out from the POV of the goofy things that the conspiracy theorists believe are true -- such as: Oswald was innocent; and Hoover framed Oswald after the shooting; and the FBI planted evidence against Oswald.

But since NONE of those above three things is true at all, it means the FBI actually didn't attempt to frame LHO and the evidence in the case is just what it suggests---Oswald was guilty.

But IF those things HAD been true (as CT kooks believe), then it's my contention that the FBI would have been totally nuts. They would have been framing an innocent man that the FBI had an open file on in Dallas in November '63. And they would, therefore, be opening themselves up to severe attacks from the public for not monitoring the President's assassin on the day the murder occurred.

Now, yes, they STILL were subject to such attacks from the public even though the FBI DIDN'T frame Oswald. But those attacks were inevitable and could not be controlled by Hoover and his men -- and that's because Oswald DID kill Kennedy. So there was NOTHING the Feds could do about that after it occurred.

And since there is no physical evidence in this whole case that can be used to effectively "exonerate" Lee Oswald, the FBI obviously had nothing at all to work with in that regard (even if they were to actively seek it out).

Ergo, the FBI declared Oswald the lone assassin. And that's because of this fact ---- All of the evidence suggests that LHO was the lone assassin.

So, again, what was Hoover supposed to do? Just PRETEND the evidence against Oswald didn't exist?


Lil Davey is claiming that it's simply "common sense" that the FBI would have no interest in doing everything within their power to nail who they thought was a guilty perp.


But that's NOT what most "Internet CTers" believe, you goof. You're turning it upside-down. Most CTers like you think Hoover and the FBI wanted to frame an INNOCENT man named Oswald--not a GUILTY man named Oswald. Big difference there.

You don't think there's ANY solid evidence of Oswald's guilt, do you Ben? The only evidence is stuff that was PLANTED or FORGED to make Oswald LOOK guilty -- and the FBI was a big part of that charade, correct?

I'm saying that if the FBI engaged in such a foolish charade with the evidence in this case, it would have been suicide for the FBI's own reputation. But you think they went ahead and framed AN INNOCENT OSWALD anyway---despite Jim Hosty's open file on LHO and his visits to Ruth Paine's house, etc.

Now, if Oswald is GUILTY (which he is, of course), there's really no way to "frame" him for two murders he never committed, is there? So the FBI can't do anything about their tarnished reputation if he was guilty (which he was). So the Feds will just have to live with their embarrassment.

But in a situation where Hoover KNOWS Oswald was INNOCENT, you really think Hoover--of all people--would be wanting to put his own Bureau's reputation right into the frying pan?

(Am I going to have to repeat this a 5th time, Ben? Or do you understand me now?)


He [J. Edgar Hoover] knew of evidence for Oswald's innocence - and did everything in his power to bury it.


And you think it's LOGICAL for J. Edgar to have wanted to do that in this case, even though the Bureau was Hoover's "baby" and he hated the idea of its reputation getting soiled?

If you DO believe Hoover engaged in such behavior in November 1963, you're further out in the Twilight Zone than even I had suspected.

So, to recap....

Per Ben Holmes, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover KNEW Oswald was innocent....and he had evidence to show he was innocent....and Hoover knew there was an open file on Oswald at the Dallas FBI office before the assassination (or are you suggesting that Hoover--the FBI's head man--wasn't aware of this open file on LHO?)....and Hoover loved his treasured "Bureau" dearly....but he went ahead and "did everything in his power to bury it" [the LHO-exonerating evidence] anyway.

Is that the situation as it exists in your fantasy-filled mind, Benjamin?


David Von Pein
February 18-19, 2015 [This forum link is no longer available.]