(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