(PART 926)


Martin Hay's review of David Von Pein's book...

I've read a lot of book reviews and a lot of articles on the Kennedy assassination, and Martin [Hay] has written one of the best, IMO. He identifies the cognitive dissonance so prevalent in the LN community, and makes a fine argument for the possibility of conspiracy.



What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers.

And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.

I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity.

Lots more HERE.


It seems to me that conspirators assassinating the president of the United States would manufacture, destroy, or tamper with all the evidence necessary to create a patsy and cover their own tracks. There is sufficient evidence that this was done. All they needed was the power to do it, and they obviously had it. That gives us a good idea of who they were without positive identifications (i.e. the case is still unsolved).

Yet Von Pein considers such evidence tampering to be a "fairy tale," and thinks it's the CTers who don't use "common sense."


It is a fairy tale, Ron. Especially when we factor in ALL of the evidence. And most conspiracy believers I've ever talked to DO indeed think that EVERY last piece of evidence leading to Oswald was tampered with in some fashion -- bullets, guns, shells, prints, the paper bag, the backyard photos, the autopsy photos, the autopsy itself, every incriminating document with Oswald's handwriting on it, everything.

And other than the prints on the TSBD boxes, I'd like to have some CTer explain to me (in a believable way) just how Lee Oswald could be innocent if all of the remainder of the evidence is truly legitimate. That'd be a neat trick. And I notice that Martin Hay hasn't come forward with any response after I said this to him a few days ago:

"Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate? .... You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct?"


You miss the point, David. Martin's review was not a well-constructed review because he presented a different viewpoint, but because he demonstrated why your book was flawed. You presented old old arguments while ignoring much of the evidence. It's a lawyer's brief, written by non-lawyers who twist the meaning of the term "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" to suit their own agenda.

I know you love Vince but c'mon, the people buying your book deserved better than a summary of his book.

If you want to defend your book, the best way to do so is to present some well-rounded detailed arguments from your book in which you present new evidence, or acknowledge weaknesses in the Oswald did it proposition. Failing that, it would seem to me that Martin's review will stand as the definitive statement on your book by anyone who knows enough about the case to write a review.


Well, Pat, to tell the truth, I wanted to include a whole lot more conspiracy-debunking stuff in the book, but I wasn't allowed to do that because of space restrictions. The book's primary author, Mel Ayton, told me that the book shouldn't be more than 100,000 words in length. (Mel says that the publishers he has dealt with frown on manuscripts that are too much longer than that.)

So it's a bit like being caught between a rock and a hard place. The problem then becomes: What should we include and what should we leave out?

But prior to becoming fully aware of the "100,000-word limit", I had actually submitted to Mel a total of (gulp!) 27 appendix sections (totaling 24,000 words), in the hope that ALL of that material would end up in the finished book. After Mel then told me that we had a fairly strict limit as to the book's length, I was quite embarrassed for having flooded him with so much material that could obviously not be used in the finished manuscript.

But if anybody has any suggestions on how to write a "Lone Assassin" book of a limited length (approximately 100,000 words or so) and still cover every last thing that conspiracy theorists think should be covered in an "LN" book, I'd be pleased to hear their suggestions on how to do that. Heck, Vincent Bugliosi's mammoth 2,800-page behemoth still doesn't come even close to satisfying the requirements of most CTers. So a book that is one-fifteenth the size obviously doesn't have a prayer of meeting the requirements of the world's demanding conspiracists.

But "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" wasn't written with the "Internet Conspiracy Theorist" in mind. Both Mel and I know full well that the "Internet CTer" who posts regularly on JFK forums will never be satisfied with ANY lone-gunman book---regardless of its depth and breadth. (Bugliosi's 20-year, 2800-page effort is the proof of that.)

"BRD" is aimed more at the "middle of the road" person or the person who is "on the fence" about the JFK case, with the book presenting the raw facts and evidence relating to the murders of Kennedy and Tippit without resorting to speculation (except for the topic of Oswald's motive, which can't be discussed without "speculation" entering into it).

Here's what Mel Ayton said....

"There are hundreds of books on the market that rely on rumour, innuendo and the promotion of a particular conspiracy theory without any credible, factual and documentary evidence to back their claims up. I became aware that Vincent Bugliosi’s 'Reclaiming History', which I consider to be the definitive account of the assassination, had not had the impact on the American public it deserved. It had not satisfied a great many Americans about the truth of the assassination. The authors [of 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'] do not claim to surpass Bugliosi’s work, but complements it by telling the true story of the assassination in a comprehensive way which Bugliosi failed to do. Essentially, our book seeks to show the general reading public that the conspiracy theorists’ claims do not hold up under close scrutiny." -- Mel Ayton; 2014



The weakness in your approach is to ignore or disparage wholly the notion that certain government officials acted to obscure the facts of the assassination. If one admits this possibility, one must concede the possibility these officials did everything in their power to obscure the facts.

Conversely, if the central facts of the assassination are obscured by being debatable, one must assume those who had the power to reveal the facts chose not to do so.

The mere fact there is debate over the location and nature of JFK's wounds...is proof that powerful U.S. officials obfuscated the facts. There is no satisfactory explanation, for example, why the autopsy materials are not utterly clear, convincing, and beyond any question whatsoever. None.

If nothing centrally important about the JFK assassination was debatable, one could feel sure the government had done its job in revealing all the important facts of the assassination. In which case, neither this site nor your book would exist. The mere fact you and Ayton authored "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is proof of the weakness of your approach. You have to maintain nothing is debatable about the JFK case contrary to the fact that almost everything about the case is fiercely debated.



Everything in human life can be "debated" in one way or another. I saw something the other day on the Internet about a debate that was going on concerning the color of someone's dress. Is it black or is it gray or is it blue? A whole article and video spot on that "debate".

So every single thing we humans do (or SEE--like the color of a dress) can be subjected to scrutiny and some level of debate and controversy. But in the JFK case, the "debate" reaches absurd levels concerning topics that, IMO, are not really debatable at all. Such as (off the top of my head):

...Did Oswald take a package into the TSBD?

...Did Oswald pull a gun on Officer McDonald in the theater? (Some CTers are now insisting that even THAT fact is "debatable".)

...Could Oswald (or ANYBODY) get down to the second floor of the TSBD from the sixth floor in less than 90 seconds? (This is another thing that many CTers refuse to let go of, despite the many re-enactments done by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, in which that journey was accomplished in less than 80 seconds at a WALKING speed. And the HSCA did it in, I think, about 46 seconds.)

...Was Oswald "planted" in the Depository Building by Ruth Paine (or others)?

...Was Oswald standing in the TSBD doorway at the time of the assassination?

Those "debates" have been settled, in my view. And many others have been settled too. But CTers disagree. So, we have "debates". It never ends and never will. But I'm glad to have helped Mel Ayton put together a book that includes a concise look at the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases which both Mel and I feel is the "real" and accurate evidence in those cases. Others will, naturally, vehemently disagree. And so the cycle continues...



There are opinions, and there are facts. Opinions are debatable. Facts are not.

Matters of perception partake of both fact and opinion. The color of a dress, for example, is arguable I've learned.

Facts are facts. What's lacking in the JFK assassination are facts on which everyone agrees. Pat Speer, for example, argues that there was no blow-out to the back of JFK's skull; that the blow-out was to the top of the skull. Others here, on the same side of the fence as Pat, disagree. They argue with Pat. Pat argues back. There is a debate.


The mere fact there are such debates is consistent with your position everything in life can be debated. But certain things are not debatable. Vital facts and records are not debatable. In the JFK case, vital facts and records are debated, as if they are pliable. You may argue they're debated for no good reason. The mere fact of debate debases your contention there is no good reason. Good reason exists because humans disagree. Humans shouldn't have to disagree about how, or even why, JFK was killed.


If one accepts [Jon G. Tidd's] suggestions here, then NO evidence can ever be trusted to be 100% genuine.


Which if true I guess means that LNers as well as CTers (like me) must "cherry pick" the evidence we use to support our theories.



Everybody cherry-picks. It can't be helped. It's done by LNers and CTers alike. It's impossible to avoid.

In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff".


There are facts, and there is evidence. The two are different.

That today in Simsbury, Connecticut, the temperature reached 67 degrees is a fact.

That a prosecutor attempts to introduce into evidence a letter the prosecutor maintains was written by Oswald is a different matter.

The prosecutor has a burden. The weather report is what it is. A fact.


How do we KNOW for a "fact" that the temperature was 67 degrees in Simsbury, Jon? Just because you say so? Or just because a disk jockey on the radio said so? I heard another report that said the temperature in Simsbury got up to 69 degrees. So who should I believe?

See there? I just started a debate about the Simsbury weather.

There's nothing that can't be debated. Even "facts" are debated all the time. Because somebody will always come forth to claim that the thing you say is a rock-solid "fact" is not really a "fact" at all. It's merely a "manufactured fact". (That sounds familiar to JFK researchers, doesn't it?)

For instance, I maintain that it's a "fact" (proven by the various documents in evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in March 1963. But many conspiracists will argue with me all day long about how that "fact" isn't a fact at all. Far from it, they'll say. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a complete fraud, they'll say. And Oswald's handwriting was forged on all the documents relating to the rifle purchase.

I, however, will still maintain until the world comes to an end that it's a "fact" that Oswald ordered that rifle and was shipped Rifle #C2766 by Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963. But CTers will always disagree. Hence, what I consider to be an undeniable "fact" becomes the subject for a "debate".

As I said, it never ends. And do you think it ever will? And do you think it ever COULD?


This book ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] is BS.....If you want the truth read my 8000 different conspiracy books filled with 100% truth.


We can see how much the "truth" matters to Jim Marrs. He just told the whopper about writing "my 8000 different conspiracy books".

In reality, Jim Marrs' "truth" is most likely based on the latest crackpot conspiracy theory. Otherwise, how could Jim have filled up those "8000 different conspiracy books" that he just invented?

David Von Pein
April 17, 2015
July 13, 2015