(PART 102)


If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? -- E.G., pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Those two verbal statements -- all by themselves -- are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.

How can conspiracy theorists who believe in Oswald's complete innocence possibly explain those words that Oswald was said to have uttered within a theory that has Oswald shooting nobody at all on November 22, 1963?

And the Cops All Lied About What Oswald Said dodge is hardly a convincing argument in light of what arresting officers M.N. McDonald and Paul Bentley had to say the following day (11/23/63)....


Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, it's McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? It's ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?


Good job, Jimmy. Just keep piling on those liars. Gerald Hill, Nick McDonald, Johnny Brewer. (In addition to Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Ruth Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Will Fritz, among dozens of others.)

Who's next on your Liars List, Jim? Julia Postal? Or is she already part of your "Let's Frame Oswald At All Costs" fantasy plot?

Good gravy, even Oswald himself admitted that he had a gun on him when he was arrested [WR, p.601].

But maybe Lee was trying to frame himself as the patsy, eh Jim? Or you can always pretend that Captain Fritz was lying again on page 601 of the Warren Report. But if you go down the "Fritz lied" road, you're going to have to deal with the report written on 11/22/63 by FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout, which says....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

More liars, right Jimmy?

It's never a slow day at the "Let's Pretend Everybody Was Lying In Order To Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" factory, is it Jimbo?



I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover-up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Jimmy D. is ready to declare Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald an outright liar. It's just silly.

McDonald was the officer who was the closest to Oswald (and to Oswald's MOUTH) when Oswald made his statement (or statements, if he did, in fact, make both of the statements, which is not 100% clear; but LHO certainly made at least ONE statement, per Officer McDonald, that indicates a guilty state of mind, that's for sure).

And WHY would McDonald feel the need to lie about ANY statement that came out of Oswald's mouth? Just....why?

Yes, I myself have said that either of those two statements attributed to Oswald "reeks with guilt", that's true enough. But even WITHOUT such verbal statements coming from Oswald's lips, the facts are pretty clear that Oswald fought wildly with the police after pulling a gun on Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater.

And that gun Oswald was waving around (which was seen during the struggle by civilian eyewitness Johnny C. Brewer as well) was proven to be the exact same gun that ended the life of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And, try as he might, there's nothing James DiEugenio can do to change those basic facts.

So keep piling on those liars, Jim. Every time you do, you look much sillier than the day before.


I am not calling McDonald a liar, the evidence is doing it.

You never answered my question, did you?

Why did you not check the evidentiary record before submitting another of your tall tales?

Further, you have absolutely no respect for:

1.) The works of the critical community which have demolished every aspect of the Warren Report many times over,

2.) The legal process. As I said, in a court of law, McDonald would have been, to put it kindly, impeached nine ways to Sunday. But somehow, you cannot countenance that fact. Can you? So you leave out all the facts that would detonate his story--including the other cops and the FBI!


Nobody has "detonated" Officer M.N. McDonald's story. You're cracked in the head if you think they have.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, McDonald's account of what happened in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 is solid as a rock -- i.e., as McDonald approached the suspect in the theater, Oswald punched McDonald in the face and pulled a revolver from his waist and tried to shoot some policemen with that gun. During the struggle that ensued in an effort to disarm Oswald, Officer McDonald suffered this scratch on the left side of his face....

Do you think Nick McDonald himself caused that scratch on his face? Did he cut his own face just to make the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot look a little more genuine and authentic?

I think James DiEugenio knows, deep down, that M.N. McDonald was telling the truth about the theater scuffle. But Jim just can't pass up yet another opportunity to label another person a liar.

Right, Jimmy?


Oh really Davey?

Then why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.

Even the Warren Commission worried about what happened to this list.

John H Ely: "Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of everybody in the theater, and you also stated you did not have this list. Do you know who has it?"

Westbrook: "No."

The Warren Commission then told the FBI to try and find the list. They could not.

Hmm. Wonder why? Maybe the incorruptible DPD just made a mistake and misplaced it, right?

Now, would an attorney have made a big deal of this in court? Yep.

Does Davey: Not a peep.

PS: Davey, doesn't Oswald have a bruise on his face also? What did they do? Duke it out one-handed with guns drawn?


So, Jim, is it your contention that Oswald never even pulled a gun (ANY gun) out of his pants in the Texas Theater? Is that what you think?

Or do McDonald's lies extend only as far as Oswald's alleged utterances inside the theater and the pinched hand that McDonald said kept LHO's revolver from firing?

Are you ready to state right here on this forum that it is your belief that Lee Harvey Oswald never brandished a firearm while inside the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963?

But, remember, if you do admit such a belief, you've got to add Johnny Brewer to your Liars List. Are you prepared to do that? (Silly question, I know. Jim's always got room for one more on that list. But I think Jim has already got Brewer on his Liars List anyway.)


It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team.


Those two sentences above speak volumes.

In other words, to hell with common sense and to hell with reasonable interpretation of some minor inconsistencies in the record concerning Patrolman M.N. McDonald's account (and the accounts of other officers) of what happened in the theater during Oswald's arrest.

"I am part of the defense team" -- which means it is merely my job and my obligation to get Oswald off the hook if I can do so -- regardless of how many people I have to call liars.

Is that last sentence a fair assessment of what you've been doing to the John F. Kennedy murder case for the last 20+ years, Jim? I think it is. I'm just glad you admitted it with this bold statement (which indicates--to me anyway--that you're more interested in Oswald's DEFENSE than you really are in getting at the TRUTH)....

"I am part of the defense team."
-- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015


I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling McDonald a liar when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?


No officer "lied", Mark.

Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording.

Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars?

That's crazy talk.


Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING."


When have I ever "insisted" anything of the kind? Please cite.

Or do you think "WRONG" and "LYING" have the exact same meaning?

In actuality, I have called very few people "liars" when it comes to the JFK case. Very few. Far fewer than Jim DiEugenio, that's for certain.


Was anyone disputing that a scuffle of some sort took place?


Who can tell with Internet CTers. They simply utilize whole cloth speculation to supplant the facts, as DiEugenio has done so many times, such as the examples quoted below....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells. And I think the odds are that Sean [Murphy] is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos--about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015


So it wouldn't surprise me the least little bit if tomorrow Jim DiEugenio declares that no fight involving Lee Harvey Oswald occurred at all in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63. Such a declaration of nonsense is just exactly what I have come to expect from Internet conspiracy hounds.

And Jimbo is just a whisker away from accepting Oswald as "Prayer Man" in the Depository doorway too. So, nothing would surprise me at this point. Because it couldn't be more obvious here in 2015 that retiring schoolteacher James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California, can be very easily swayed and influenced by just about any conspiracy theorist---just as long as that CTer is a member of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" frat club.

I mean, DiEugenio still thinks Jim Garrison, John Armstrong, Sean Murphy, Martin Hay, and Gil Jesus are convincing sources for factual information. And that's pretty sad company to be in. Yikes!


Like his mentor Vince Bugliosi, Davey has a real problem with quoting testimony and acknowledging evidence that counters what he says happened. So let me repeat what I wrote above....

Why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.



Perhaps you are aware of a witness by the name of George J. Applin Jr.

Mr. Applin filled out this official affidavit on the day of the assassination, wherein he stated the following:

"On Friday evening [sic], November 22, 1963 at about 1:45 p.m., I was seated on the main floor of the Texas Theater on West Jefferson in Dallas, Texas. As I watched the movie I saw an officer walking down the isle [sic] with a riot gun and about that time the light came on in the theater. One of the patrolmen walked down to the front of the theater and walked back up the isle [sic] and I got up and started walking toward the front of the theater. I saw the officer shake two men down and then asked a man sitting by himself to stand up. As the officer started to shake him down, and when he did, this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once. Then I saw a large group of officers subdue this boy and arrest him." -- /s/ George Jefferson Applin Jr.


So, as we can see in the above affidavit, George Applin, a 21-year-old civilian who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested, confirms all of the basic points brought out in Officer M.N. McDonald's account of Oswald's arrest. And Applin told the Warren Commission essentially the same things he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit (starting at 7 H 88).

So, Jim, should we now add the name of George Applin Jr. to your list of liars? Or is George on that list already?


How good of a witness is Applin?

He later said Ruby was in the theater. Good going Davey. You sure can pick them.


Well, you claim Ruby knew Oswald. And you also claim that Ruby killed Oswald as part of a conspiracy.

So I guess nobody's perfect, huh?


PS The WC interviewed 2 of the 24 patrons.


And I've already supplied ample information concerning one of those two Texas Theater patrons--George Applin. The other would be a Mr. John Gibson, who said this to the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964:

JOHN GIBSON -- "Oswald was standing in the aisle with a gun in his hand. .... He had this pistol in his hand."


JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you see any officer grab hold of Oswald?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Which one can you describe where he was and what he did--just tell us in your own words what you saw him do?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Well, just like I guess you have heard this a lot of times--the gun misfired--it clicked and about the same time there was one police officer that positively had him."

MR. BALL -- "What do you mean--"had him"?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Well, I mean he grabbed ahold of him."

MR. BALL -- "Did he grab ahold of him before you heard the click or afterwards?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Gee, that's a question that's kind of hard to answer because I would say possibly seconds before or a second--maybe at the precise time the gun clicked. It happened pretty fast and like I say, I just went in to eat a hot dog for lunch and I wasn't expecting any of this."


MR. BALL -- "Did you hear anybody say anything?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Well, I heard the officers, but I don't remember what they said--I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it."

MR. BALL -- "Did you hear Oswald say anything?"

MR. GIBSON -- "No."


So, Gibson also heard the pistol "click". Just like Applin (with Applin using the word "snap" instead of "click"). And Gibson also saw the fight between Oswald and the policemen. And, of course, Gibson also testified that he saw a gun in Lee Harvey Oswald's hand in the theater.

Do you think Applin and Gibson were "planted" or "coerced" witnesses with respect to their similar testimony about seeing a man in the theater (Oswald) holding a gun and hearing that gun "snap" or "click" during the struggle with the police?


The WC were advocates for the prosecution of Oswald.


And DiEugenio says that even though he knows that several of the Warren Commission lawyers said exactly the OPPOSITE, i.e., lawyers such as David Belin and Burt Griffin and Joseph Ball have said that they WANTED to find evidence of a conspiracy, but they couldn't do it.

But, naturally, Belin, Griffin, and Ball (et al) were just lying through their collective teeth when they made such statements---right, Jim?

Was there even ONE lawyer on the entire staff of the WC or the HSCA who was honest, Jim? Anybody at all?


Davey, do you really know nothing about the WC?

The junior counsel, and even the senior counsel, were nothing.


Yeah, right, Jimmy. They were merely the ones doing almost all of the heavy lifting (i.e., the investigating and interrogation of witnesses). And yet they were "nothing"? That's a crock, Jimmy.

Maybe you should go back and learn a little more, Jimbo. (Start with Page 334 of "Reclaiming History".)


It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing.


More smelly garbage from DiEugenio---proving nothing.

"Troika". and .


And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work.


Hoover's agents at the FBI did a lot of the work, yes. But the WC staff and counsel did tons of investigative work on their own too. ....

"And the Commission didn't limit itself to taking testimony, which would alone immunize it from the total-reliance-on-the-FBI argument. Its staff went beyond this, going out into the field, mostly in Dallas. Assistant Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball said, "As lawyers, we investigated the case thoroughly. We got some leads as to who to talk to from the FBI. But we went into the field, we talked to every witness that we reported on. We took depositions. We took people before the Commission. We handled this like we would handle...any lawsuit." " -- Pages 333-334 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi


In the intro to the WR, on page xii, "Immediately after the assassination more than 80 additional FBI personnel were transferred to the Dallas office on a temporary basis to assist in the investigation. Beginning November 22, 1963, the FBI conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews...and by September 11, 1964, submitted over 2,300 reports totaling approximately 25,400 pages to the Commission."

Now, in the next sentence they cite stats which show the SS was a distant second with 1,550 interviews.

The idea that the WC staff was going to even approach those kinds of stats is so ludicrous only in the pages of RH could it exist.


I never said the FBI didn't do a whole lot of work on the Kennedy case. I'm just pointing out that the WC staff ALSO did a lot of investigating too.

And Vince Bugliosi never suggested that the Commission's investigative work actually surpassed that of the FBI's input either. Vince, in fact, was always trotting out the "25,000 FBI interviews" fact during his radio interviews. And, of course, Bugliosi highlights that figure in the Introduction section of "Reclaiming History" as well....

"The FBI alone (there were also companion investigations of the assassination by other agencies) conducted an unprecedented 25,000 interviews as the investigative arm of the Warren Commission, and submitted 2,300 separate reports. Eighty additional FBI agents were ordered into the Dallas area alone, and a great many more agents around the country worked on various parts of the case. A total of 3,154 items of evidence were introduced before the Commission in its investigation of the assassination." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page xxxiii of "Reclaiming History"


DVP wields a sword he calls "evidence". In the law, where "evidence" is defined rigorously, evidence can be a mighty sword. How mighty is determined by the jury in a jury trial. In a jury trial, the judge determines the law, the jury determines the facts.

I'd like nothing more than to argue with DVP here. But I can't. Because I know the law's definition of "evidence" but I don't know DVP's definition. So argument is not possible, because a key word lacks agreed definition.


Easy, if the WC or Vince Bugliosi says it, then to DVP, it's evidence. Don't worry about its authenticity, its origin or its chain of custody, or even a differing description.


You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

I ask: Is that a reasonable thing to believe? Especially when the evidence was collected by MULTIPLE agencies and was found in MULTIPLE places (TSBD, Parkland, and the limo itself).

Get real. (CTers are anything but. Real, that is.)

And I suppose Vince B. is just lying some more when he said this on page 442 of the Endnotes (on the CD-ROM) in "Reclaiming History"....

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi


[Quoting DVP:] "You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured."

Support this statement, please?


Why pretend otherwise, Glenn? You have surely got to know that a lot of Internet CTers DO, indeed, think that ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald is fake/phony evidence. Because if it's not all fake, then Oswald is very likely GUILTY, correct? (How could he not be?)

And there have been several CTers at The Education Forum who have said they think all of the evidence against LHO is fraudulent (or words to that effect), with the comments by Neal and Drew below certainly leaning in that direction, wouldn't you say? Granted, Ken Drew's comments are just flat-out weird, idiotic, and Twilight Zone-ish in nature, but I kinda doubt that Ken is suggesting that the evidence against Oswald is legit....

David Josephs said:
"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC."

Tom Neal said:
"JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence."

Kenneth Drew said:
"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero."


Davey is absolutely hysterical isn't he?

He is an expert in CYA.

First there is the CT label. When, in fact, no organization of government ever practiced a theory more than the WC.

I mean, what do you call the Single Bullet Fantasy? The WC was so theory based on that that they had to lie to their own members to get it through i.e. Richard Russell. Neither Davey nor Vince liked to talk about that. VB actually tried to say he's not sure that happened. Well, maybe one of these years the transcript will show up, eh Davey.

Second, he then says that all of the critics think ALL OF THE EVIDENCE is faked. Which takes in a lot of space. And a lot of people.

And it's simply Von Peinian goofiness. Let me now list some critics who do not think there is wholesale fakery in the evidence:

Randy Robertson.

Tink Thompson.

Cyril Wecht.

The late Roger Feinman.

Mark Lane.

Jerry Policoff.

Pat Speer.

Martin Hay.

Don Thomas.

Sherry Fiester.

But they all think Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. And about half of them wrote books about it. So, "all you critics think all the evidence is faked", this is just nonsense.


Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?

And while Jimmy ponders the above question (which he likely will never answer, because Jim has said "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team"), let me also add this....

The evidence, btw, is also perfectly consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilty-like actions displayed by Oswald on 11/22/63 and also perfectly consistent with the out-of-the-ordinary things Oswald did on 11/21/63 (e.g., first-ever Thursday-night trip to Irving and telling Buell Frazier the lie about "curtain rods").

But CTers never bother to add the EVIDENCE to OSWALD'S ACTIONS in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. Conspiracy theorists, instead, will forever separate LHO's odd and guilty-like actions from the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And it couldn't be more obvious why CTers want to keep those things separate and isolated. Because if they don't, then it becomes much more difficult to pretend that all of the physical evidence was manufactured in order to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald.

Somebody prove to me that the last paragraph I just wrote isn't 100% accurate. I bet nobody can. Because it is accurate. And CTers know it.


What Mr. Von Pein is missing--willfully, I'm sure--is that he's twisting what has been said.

Nobody is saying the evidence does not exist.

What has been stated over and over ad finitum is that the provenance of much, if not most, of the evidence does not meet the most rudimentary standards required to be accepted in a court of law. The three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? While they were from a 6.5mm Carcano, it cannot be established that they were fired ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963. THAT is the quality of much of the evidence being used to "convict" Oswald.

It's not that CTers need to "prove" the shells were planted; it's that the prosecutors needed to prove that those shells were fired ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION. As of August 1, 2015, no tests were run that would determine that those shells were fired on the day of the assassination. Had they been tested and had it been concluded that the shells had been fired on the day of the assassination, the provenance of that particular piece of evidence [the shells] might be valuable to the prosecution in a court of law.

It's NOT up to CT'ers to "prove" who, when, where or why else those shells may have been fired. It's up to the police and the prosecution to prove those exact shells were the ones used on the date and time of the assassination.

"Anyone can see..." is not provenance for the evidence.

And THAT is the problem with the evidence. It's NOT that the CT'ers all claim it's faked; it's simply that provenance and chain-of-custody are not well documented enough for your average murder case involving your average citizen...much less the President of the United States.

But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case. In the paragraphs above I have pointed out the distinction between the CTer position, as I understand it, and Mr. Von Pein's interpretation of the CTers' position on the evidence.

I don't believe I'm "talking over his head" here; I think Mr. Von Pein is likely a reasonably intelligent person. I just think he chooses to ignore the same nuances that cops and attorneys must consider daily when presenting a case in a court of law.


In short -- The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent.

The only way around that belief is to theorize about an "Oswald look-alike" who shot Tippit with the real Oswald's revolver and a gunman in the TSBD Sniper's Nest who also looks a lot like Oswald who fired shots at the President while using the real Oswald's rifle.

And then, on top of those wholly speculative and nonsensical theories, the CTers would need the real Oswald to act like the guiltiest person in Dallas in the Texas Theater as he waves a gun around while trying to shoot some policemen just 80 minutes after somebody else blew away the President while using the real Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Whew! Somebody call the Baloney Police to allow that BS story to get off the ground.

So, yes, whether they admit it or not, it's a pretty good bet that each and every member of the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" society is also a charter member of the "Everything's Fake" club as well.

Now, the few vocal Internet CTers who actually have the common sense to realize that Oswald shot both Kennedy and Tippit will fall into a different category. They can easily believe that the evidence against LHO is legitimate, but also believe that the CIA or some other agency hired Oswald to kill the President. But as I look around the Internet here in 2015, there aren't many CTers who seem to fall into that category. Most Internet conspiracists want to have their Patsy cake and eat it too. God knows why, but that's the way it is.


The above is pure Von Pein.

"Geez, I just got proved wrong. Better backpedal and reposition myself before anyone notices."


I haven't backpedaled on anything, Jimmy. Take another Excedrin for your headache.

Obviously, I have never ONCE suggested that a CTer who WASN'T in the "Oswald Shot Nobody" club believes that "all the evidence is fake". Why would I suggest such a stupid thing in the first place?

If a CTer actually has the brains to realize Oswald DID shoot some people on 11/22/63, then that CTer probably also thinks at least SOME of the evidence that hangs LHO is legit. Otherwise, what would make them think Oswald was guilty in the first place? Tea leaves? A Ouija board? They might think some of the evidence was fake, but not ALL of it, which would still be a silly notion under such "Oswald did it" circumstances, because if he really DID shoot JFK and Tippit, then there would be no need for anyone to run around and start faking MORE evidence that suggests the same thing that the LEGITIMATE evidence also proves.


LHO was never proven guilty in the court of law.


So? Does that make the evidence against him disappear?

Should we just ignore the evidence against him because Ruby put a gun in his gut?


He [DVP] now asks me what I personally think of the authenticity of the evidence. That is irrelevant to the argument as he propounded it. My point is that the evidence is so weak and dubious that one can use a variety of arguments against it to show it's not probative.


Yeah, I knew you'd duck the question and refuse to answer it directly. The precise question, btw, was this one (in case you forgot the exact wording):

"Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?"

But you actually have already answered it in a variety of posts and hundreds of Black Op Radio appearances, in which you have attempted (and failed at, of course) to trash and invalidate virtually every single piece of evidence in the whole case -- e.g., the rifle, the paper bag, every bullet, every shell casing, the Klein's paperwork, the backyard photos, the fingerprints and palmprints, the autopsy photos and X-rays, the autopsy report, the V510210 S&W revolver, every witness who fingered Oswald, and even the 5 unfired bullets that were taken out of Oswald's pocket after his arrest.

I doubt that a single piece of evidence has been left "undamaged" by DiEugenio The Evidence Expert in the Black Op shows plus your online handiwork of fantasy regarding the evidence. So you really HAVE already answered my question---you think all the evidence is fake. And, like always, that's a really silly thing to believe.

Here's a suggestion for Jim DiEugenio's new forum signature (it fits like a glove)....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio


Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet [CE399] did.


Australian SBT test ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"); October 2004....

Now we'll hear all the lame arguments about how the above test bullet didn't even come CLOSE to mimicking CE399. It's much more deformed. It bounced off the mock thigh, etc.

But that test bullet is COMPLETELY INTACT after taking a course through TWO mock-up torsos that was very similar to the path purportedly taken by CE399. And Don Jeffries surely knows it.

And yet we are still constantly hearing comments like this one from the anti-SBT camp....

"Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did." -- Don Jeffries

Apparently the only thing that will satisfy CTers is to dig up JFK and Governor Connally and put them back in the limousine on Elm Street and shoot them again with CE399.

Even Dr. Fackler's ABSOLUTELY PRISTINE bullet doesn't faze or wrinkle the brow of any SBT critic one tiny bit. And this bullet here broke a human wrist in 1992, yet looks like an unfired missile....


What DVP did not tell you is this: in that docudrama, and that is what it was, there was a big problem. The dummies they used did not have arms. Therefore, the bullet did not demolish any wrist. Also, the bodies were nowhere near what a human would be.


Yeah, you're right, Jim. The Australian team should have sacrificed two real humans to serve their testing purposes. Nothing less will suffice, right?

Keep pretending that a perfect "SBT" re-creation is even possible (it isn't, of course, since any test has to SIMULATE the human nuances of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally).

And keep pretending that the 2004 Australian test didn't come anywhere close to simulating the Single-Bullet Theory (even though it did).

52 years---and 52,000 excuses. That's the lasting legacy of conspiracy theorists.


That program was pretty awful, David. But, to their credit, they didn't hide the awfulness. They showed us one thing, and claimed another. For one, they tried to recreate the wounds but couldn't get the bullet to tumble and re-create Connally's back wound. So they then added some rope to the neck to get it to tumble.

Well, this was deceptive enough, because there had been nothing with the consistency of rope in Kennedy's neck. But when the bullet went through the rope, it slowed the bullet too much, so that it now bounced off the thigh. And even then the bullet was far more damaged than CE 399.

So, no, they didn't re-create the single-bullet theory. Not even close.


Total bullshit, Pat. They fired a 6.5mm. Carcano bullet through two mock bodies, with that bullet taking a general path very similar to the SBT/399 bullet. And the bullet ended up in pretty good shape. A very good SBT re-creation.

CTers just look for excuses to dismiss it. And they refuse to acknowledge the remarkable "SBT-like" similarities.

Amazing, isn't it, how ANY re-creation could come THAT close to mimicking an event (the SBT) that CTers think was a complete fabrication on the part of the Warren Commission?

Incredible indeed.


BTW/FYI, Glenn Nall, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo.

And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.


That's because it's my signature and not Jim's, David. .... I made it my signature because you told him to put it in his. I figured it'd get to you.


It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all.

This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his forum signature that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter.

And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case.

I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats.

David Von Pein
July 26-28, 2015
July 31-August 2, 2015
August 2-4, 2015