(PART 110)


WHY would any of the conspirators have even WANTED to risk the whole "patsy" ballgame by utilizing two, three, or four gunmen in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?


I don't even know what the heck this question means.


Oh, for Pete sake.

Jimbo knows exactly what my question means--and it's a perfectly reasonable question, and one that no conspiracy theorist can possibly answer in a reasonable, believable way.


Such a multi-gun, one-patsy scheme would not have been attempted by even the most bumbling of conspirators.


I think he means that somehow Oswald was the shooter or one of them, and that it would be stupid to put other gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

If I am right about this, then its his usual Von Peinian solipsistic view of the universe. Once you step out of the solipsism, the answer is simple. Oswald would not have tried to kill JFK since he liked him and worked for him.


But the plotters who were framing him didn't know this about Oswald, eh? They just hoped that nobody else would find out that Lee Harvey Oswald admired and liked JFK, is that it?


And the "worked for him" crappola was a nice touch, Jimbo. It's pure BS, of course, but it's the first time I've ever heard one of you guys state it in such a fashion.


Even if somehow you could have snookered him into it, why do it? The guy could not have hit Kennedy in ten run-throughs under those conditions.


More bullshit from Jim D.

The shooting "feat" by Oswald was not that difficult at all. The "feat" was accomplished on camera by multiple CBS marksmen in 1967. Naturally, however, DiEugenio will dismiss those CBS tests...because CBS is part of the "MSM cover-up".


The shooting was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot. Just ask Craig Zirbel or Carlos Hathcock.


Yeah, right, Jim. That's why your bumbling patsy-framers decided to FRAME OSWALD AS A SOLO PATSY, even though the shooting in Dealey Plaza "was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot".

Hilarious. Benny Hill was never funnier than the JFK conspiracy theorists.


Yes, you're right, Jim, about the 30-foot-high shooting tests done by the Warren Commission, vs. the proper height of 60 feet. And Vince Bugliosi does a little WC-bashing in his book when the topic comes around to those WC rifle tests.

And the "MSM" that Jim D. thinks was bending over backwards to convict Oswald also raked the WC over some hot coals too in 1967, when Walter Cronkite ridiculed the Commission on that "30 foot vs. 60 foot high" topic.

Paraphrasing Cronkite from the 1967 CBS-TV program "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report":

CBS built a tower to match the height of the sixth floor; so surely it wasn't beyond the capabilities of the FBI to do the same.

But the FACT is that some of the CBS shooters (from a 60-foot-high perch) were able to duplicate (and beat) Oswald's Dallas shooting performance. One shooter (which I think was Howard Donahue) got off three shots in 4.1 seconds, but he only got 1 hit on the silhouette target.

And another CBS marksman achieved three hits on the target in just 5.2 seconds.

So it CAN be done.

And Monty Lutz of the HSCA Firearms Panel also beat Oswald's performance.

So, perhaps it's time for the conspiracy theorists to stop peddling the "IT CANNOT BE DONE AND HAS NEVER BEEN DONE" myth when it comes to the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald's so-called "impossible" shooting feat in Dealey Plaza.

Don't you think that's a good idea, Jim?


Jim, if you were to change the timing for the three shots to the accurate time of approximately 8 seconds, I'm all for it.

But your "6 seconds" time is too short and you (of course) know it.

Oswald's shots:

Shot 1 -- Z-frame 160 (approx.).
Shot 2 -- Z224.
Shot 3 -- Z313.

Total time = 8.36 seconds.

Actually, I'd very much like to see a test like that performed, Jim. And in Dealey Plaza too.

Of course, there's one major stumbling block to the kind of test you're proposing, Jim. And Gary Mack informed me about the roadblock in an e-mail he wrote to me in July 2009.

Gary's e-mail was in response to this question that I had asked about the "Inside The Target Car" documentary:

"I'm wondering why the test shots couldn't have simply been done in the best possible place to perform such a test -- right in Dealey Plaza itself (and from the 6th-Floor window inside the Book Depository itself)?

The Discovery people already had arranged for the police to completely close off Elm Street and Dealey Plaza for a period of time for their initial "looking through the rifle scope" tests (to see whether certain angles within the Plaza were feasible ones or not for the head shot), so I wonder why they didn't just go the whole nine yards and perform the actual test shots that were fired into the surrogate skulls from Dealey Plaza as well?

I know that Oswald's Sniper's Nest window is now technically "off limits" to visitors of Mr. Mack's Sixth Floor Museum. But surely an exception could have been made to allow Mr. Yardley to use that corner window to fire just that one shot at a dummy's head.

If the test shots could have been fired right at the scene of the crime itself (Dealey Plaza), I think it would have been better all the way around, and mainly to silence even more critics of the lone-assassin conclusion.

But by doing the actual shooting tests in California, the naysayers can now argue that the tests weren't set up right...or that the distances cannot be confirmed...or that the height of Oswald's window wasn't measured with accuracy...etc., etc.

But I'm guessing that some legal restrictions (or some kind of roadblock anyway) prohibited the shooting tests from being done right there in Dealey Plaza. That's too bad, too, because unless I miss my guess, a head-shot test performed from the actual crime scene would have been even MORE powerful and conspiracy-refuting."
-- David Von Pein; November 2008

Gary Mack then said:

"As for why the test shots weren't fired in Dealey Plaza, there was no reason to do so. Such actions would be dangerous, pure exploitation and probably against the law, since the Plaza is a city park and a National Historic Landmark."
-- Gary Mack; July 4, 2009


I knew you would back out, but not in world record time.

We are doing what the WC says happened.


If you're talking about the Warren Commission saying that Oswald positively did the shooting in 5.6 seconds, you're wrong. That was their best guess, yes. But the WC wasn't confining itself to only "5.6 seconds" as most conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe. Just read Page 117 of the Warren Report and see for yourself:


Further, you just said that CBS did it in less than six seconds. So why chicken out right after you said it could be done?


Oh, it certainly CAN be done--even by a Marine sharpshooter who scored a 212 on the U.S. Marine rifle range in 1956. We KNOW it can be done--because your favorite patsy DID IT in 1963, James.

BTW, who's chickening out?

Perhaps you missed this comment by me in an earlier post:

"Actually, I'd very much like to see a test like that performed, Jim. And in Dealey Plaza too." -- DVP

That comment means I'm "chickening out"?


If we were on a school ground in high school or JHS right now, I would be flapping my arms like wings and making chicken sounds at you.


And watching you performing that childish task (even though I said I'd LIKE to see such a rifle test performed in Dealey Plaza) would do wonders for your stellar reputation, James.

So, please, borrow some plastic chicken wings and have a ball.


He [Gary Mack] does not get many letters from people like you or me, let alone co-signed.


As I said previously....I'm all for it. Such a test would be excellent.

But it'll never happen in Dealey Plaza. Didn't you read this part of Mr. Mack's reply?:

"As for why the test shots weren't fired in Dealey Plaza, there was no reason to do so. Such actions would be dangerous, pure exploitation and probably against the law, since the Plaza is a city park and a National Historic Landmark." -- Gary Mack

Or do you, Jim, have a lot of pull with the city managers in Dallas?

There are two more problems with DiEugenio's proposed "test firing" in Dealey Plaza (as Jimbo tries to make things harder and harder for anyone who might try to duplicate the "feat" that Lee Harvey Oswald positively did perform on 11/22/63):

Jim D. said --- "Getting a rifle just like the MC the WC says Oswald had. Then misaligning the scope, making the bolt very difficult to work, and then making the trigger pull a two stage process."

The part about the "misaligned scope" is pure guesswork on Jimmy's part.

I'm not denying that Oswald's scope on Rifle C2766 was misaligned (and it fired high and to the right) AFTER the assassination. But there is no proof whatsoever that the scope was misaligned when Oswald was using it to shoot at President Kennedy.

The scope might very well have been damaged and misaligned only after Oswald threw the rifle on the floor behind the box stacks in the northwest corner of the sixth floor. Nobody can ever know for sure how roughly (or smoothly) Oswald placed his rifle on the floor that day.

And I think even most conspiracy theorists will agree that if that rifle had bounced on the floor a time or two before settling (scope up) on the floor between the book cartons, such rough handling of the weapon could very possibly have jarred the cheap telescopic sight out of alignment.

Jim D. said --- "Do not let him live practice in advance at all."

You don't know whether Oswald ever practiced with his C2766 Carcano or not, Jim.

Of course, I realize you want to pretend that LHO never had that gun in his hands AT ALL in the year 1963, but as all reasonable people know, that idea is just a flat-out silly one, given all of the firm evidence that indicates he did ORDER, PAY FOR, WAS PHOTOGRAPHED WITH, and therefore TOOK POSSESSION OF Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 in early 1963.

Plus, we do know for a fact that Oswald definitely "practiced" dry-firing the rifle on his porch in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Now, that's not the same thing as practicing with live ammo in the gun, that's true. I'm not saying it is the same thing.

But via that front-porch dry-firing, I'm guessing that Oswald probably knew the ins and outs of working that bolt and "two-stage trigger" that you claim were ultra-crappy. And I'll bet he knew how to work that rifle pretty well too. After all, it WAS his gun (despite DiEugenio's constant whining to the contrary).

So, Jim, you're going to have to remove those two biased requirements from your letter to Mr. Mack.


Frame 210 to frame 313 is 113 frames [sic]. The WC said JFK was hit sometime behind the sign.

It's just short division Davey, so even you can do it.


Yeah, I can. But you seem to be having some math trouble, Jimbo. You can't even subtract 210 from 313. You think it's 113. (It's only 103 frames, Jim. 104 inclusive.)

And, yes, Z210 to Z313 is 5.6 seconds. But didn't you read Page 117 of the Warren Report, where the WC said the shooting could have taken as long as "7.9 seconds"? Let's take another look, shall we?:


As per the guesswork on the misaligned scope, you are the one who is blowing smoke. Look at the photo in Groden's book, and you will see it was not misaligned after, but before. It was resting with the scope up.


Who needs Groden's book? I've got the picture in question in my photo archives on the Internet--right here:

And you actually think that just because the rifle ended up on the floor in a SCOPE-UP position, that means we can positively eliminate the idea of the scope being damaged or misaligned by way of Oswald's possible rough handling of the gun when he shoved it between those boxes?

Surely you jest. The scope could very well have received some rough treatment as Oswald was hurriedly throwing it down on the floor amid those boxes. You're reaching far into your conspiracy cookie jar on this silly one, James.


There is absolutely no evidence of Oswald live-firing a rifle, let alone that one in 1963. Pure BS on your part.


Nobody can say for sure whether he ever practiced with his Carcano or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. This argument is a CT/LN wash, and always was.

[More info about LHO possibly practicing with his rifle can be found HERE.]


See, now I know why you don't want to co-sign the letter [to Gary Mack about a proposed rifle test in Dallas' Dealey Plaza].


WTF? I've said multiple times in this discussion that I would LIKE to see such a rifle test. Are you not reading my prior posts at all, James?

Actually, such a test with a Carcano rifle in Dealey Plaza (which, as I explained to Jimbo twice previously, will never happen just because a couple of guys from California and Indiana have signed a letter and mailed it to Gary Mack, because Gary already explained that such on-site tests in Dealey Plaza would not be permitted) would really be a win-win situation for an "LNer" like myself -- and that's because even if the Gomer Pyle-like Marine didn't hit anything with his Carcano from the Sniper's Nest, such a failure by Gomer wouldn't suddenly WIPE OUT all of the physical and circumstantial evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination.

Does Jim DiEugenio really believe such a failure (if a failed test did occur) WOULD wipe the slate clean and result in the Government suddenly ready to declare that the man to whom ALL OF THE 1963 EVIDENCE STILL POINTS is now totally INNOCENT of the shooting?

Come now, James.

But, of course, if such a test with Gomer (or even his cousin Goober) was successful, and Gomer/Goober fired three shots from a Carcano in 6 or 7 or 8 seconds, with two hits on the target, it certainly should make a lot of Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists shut their traps for all time. (But, of course, it wouldn't. We all know that, don't we Jim?)


Any true test under real conditions is impossible.


Spoken like a true-blue Anybody But Oswald conspiracist.

Call Jim Fetzer and have a beer together. Fetzer thinks that Oswald's rifle wasn't even a "rifle". (Go figure.)


[Quoting from the Warren Commission Report:]

"...the evidence indicated that the President was not hit until at least frame 210 and that he was probably hit by frame 225." (WR, p. 105)


Sure, that's 100% accurate too. JFK and Connally WERE, indeed, hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet between frames 210 and 225. The Single-Bullet Theory shot occurred at Z224, IMO, which falls between those two points.

BTW, I think the Warren Commission was very wise to bracket the SBT timing, too. It was wiser to do that than to try and pinpoint ONE specific frame and label it as the definitive "SBT frame". And Vincent Bugliosi does that same type of bracketing in his book, "Reclaiming History", too. And I can appreciate and understand that kind of approach to the SBT shot.

Yes, I know that I myself HAVE pinpointed a specific SBT frame in my Internet writings (Z224). But we also have better digital techniques and gif clips, etc., with which to examine the Zapruder Film today than the Warren Commission had back in 1963 and 1964.

And I'll also admit that I could be wrong about the exact "Z224" SBT hit, because it's true (as the Warren Commission points out) that JFK was almost certainly struck by the SBT bullet while he was hidden by the road sign, which makes any kind of a definitive timing for the SBT shot very difficult indeed.

But I also feel that it's really JOHN CONNALLY that pretty much determines the SBT shot occurring at Z224. Because we can see all of Connally BEFORE he's hit by a bullet.

And since the only REASONABLE and rational conclusion, given the sum total of evidence connected with the initial wounding of both victims, is that one bullet positively did strike both men at the same time....then it becomes fairly simple to determine at what point on the Zapruder Film the SBT is occurring -- and the involuntary reactions and movements of Governor Connally in the frames immediately after Z224 are unquestionably telling me (and other reasonable people who have studied Mr. Zapruder's home movie) that Connally has just been hit by a bullet an instant prior to Z225.

But the Warren Commission's analysis of when JFK and Governor Connally were hit by the SBT bullet (between Z210 and Z225) doesn't negate the WC's words that we find on Page 117, which is where the WC is admitting that they really DO NOT KNOW when the "missed" shot occurred. The Commission was allowing for ALL possibilities, and they say so right on Page 117. They allow for a FIRST-SHOT miss, which, naturally, would stretch out the timing of the whole shooting. The Commission also allows for a SECOND-SHOT miss and even a THIRD-SHOT miss.

The Warren Commission also allows for the possibility that the Main Street curb damage could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. And, hence, the WC is also allowing for the head shot to be a cause for the wounding of James Tague as well.

Again, that's all spelled out, clear as day, on Page 117 of the Warren Report. But Jim DiEugenio, who has his "Conspiracy Only" hat firmly affixed to his cranium 24/7, apparently thinks that the Warren Commission was just lying through its collective teeth when it was giving a whole range of possibilities on Page 117.

Gee, you'd think that Jim would be giving the WC a few extra points for being above-board and honest by ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL POSSIBILITIES concerning the shooting.

Jimbo, however, evidently thinks that by allowing for other possibilities (instead of being hard-headed and sticking to a specific scenario that the WC knew it could not prove with total certainty), the Warren Commission was STILL being as crooked as a dog's hind leg on Page 117.

I guess with some CTers, the Warren boys couldn't win....no matter what they did or said.

David Von Pein
September 22-23, 2010