(PART 1071)


Why so many books supporting the official theory of JFK’s assassination?

Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor ask a good question in WhoWhatWhy, but the implication of their headline that all books supporting the official theory of JFK’s death are “disinformation” does no service to the truth....

[Quoting from the "WhoWhatWhy" article:]

"More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was."

[End Quote.]

This I totally agree with. If the official theory of JFK’s murder was true, the extent of the subsequent malfeasance, the failure to investigate, and the continuing secrecy a half century [later] are inexplicable.

But if a reporter like Phil Shenon, with a track record of quality journalism about national security matters, writes a book that reaches a different conclusion than I do, that’s not disinformation. That’s a difference of opinion. Ditto for Vince Bugliosi and Max Holland.

I see no basis for the insinuation—embodied in the word “disinformation”—that these authors are deliberately making arguments they know to be untrue. Baker and Cranor present none in their article.

There’s a different way to look at this:

The many books and movies supporting the official theory are a sign that many people want reassurance that JFK was not killed by his enemies. They want reassurance because that is such a disturbing and destabilizing possibility.

Cultural mythmakers like Tom Hanks and Stephen King are not drawn to this interpretation of November 22, 1963, because they are intent of deceiving the American people. They are drawn to it because they are in the business of selling fantasy, and reassuring fantasies sell better than destabilizing fantasies.

In other words, the persistence of books and movies supporting the official theory is a measure of Americans’ continuing desire for reassurance in the face of the still-accumulating disturbing evidence.


I couldn’t disagree more strongly, Jeff. I think what you said in the last three paragraphs of your post above is total B.S., in fact.

The SUM TOTAL of the evidence positively proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt in *BOTH* the JFK murder and the Tippit murder. It's not “fantasy” that Tom Hanks and Stephen King are “selling”, it's “evidence”. And all reasonable people who have the basic capacity within them to properly evaluate and assess that “Sum Total” know this is true—including Tom Hanks and Stephen King.


A look at the evidence in this matter leaves this reasonable person thinking the DA wouldn’t even have been able to get an indictment against Oswald, much less a conviction. And there are a lot of people like me.


Then you’re not “reasonable” enough, Fearfaxer. :)

Because if all of this stuff is fake, phony, manufactured, and fraudulent (including Oswald’s VERY OWN ACTIONS), then miracles really are possible.


An actual member of the Warren Commission, Richard Russell, said: “We have not been told the truth about Oswald”.

I’ll take his word over yours.


And yet Richard Russell affixed his signature to the Warren Report too, didn’t he?

In other words, Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia thought Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.


David, one of the great things about this site is it allows opinions from both sides of the argument. Even though it is frustrating when one side is allowed to try to overwhelm the other.

How many lone nut sites, yours included, would allow a commenter to say what the editor says is total BS? I guess Jeff has skin of leather and all this just rolls off his shoulders. He’s certainly more forgiving than I. I’d give you a verbal warning and ban you for a week or two at least.

I don’t think all lone nut writings, or for that matter other forms of media presentation, are planned disinformation. Some are simply based on blind faith and ignorance. However, I do believe Operation Mockingbird is still alive and well. Sometimes on this site, yours and many others.



BS is BS, regardless of who says it—editor or not.

And what Jeff Morley said above about Tom Hanks and Stephen King is, in my opinion, “total BS”.

And I think Jeff Morley will survive. He’s a big boy. He can handle the arrows tossed at him.

And I’ve posted a heck of a lot more stinging insults than “B.S.” at my site. Hundreds of them. “B.S.” is a nice term compared to some of the things I’ve been called (and which I have voluntarily added to my site).

I’ve been called a “gutless liar”, a “coward”, a “CIA disinformation agent”, and lots of other really stupid things by conspiracy hobbyists. And you can find all of those lovely terms on my site right now.

Earlier this year [in a discussion I archived here], a conspiracist named Albert Doyle actually suggested that I should be “prohibited” from using the Internet because of my outlandish belief that Oswald acted alone. Here’s what Al said:

“I’m beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?” -- Albert Doyle; February 6, 2015


And then there’s a clown named Ralph Yates (who infests Amazon like the plague). Yates went Doyle one better when he said that I should be prosecuted for thinking the way I do about the JFK case:

“I’m against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald’s CIA relationship.” -- Ralph Yates; January 31, 2015


That’s “Quote Of The Week” material there, don’t you think?

Either that, or a definite candidate for “Laugh Of The Century”.

So, from my POV, being told I’m full of “B.S.” is practically a compliment.



Hanks is an actor. King is a Fiction writer, as opposed to a Historian. As Jeff [Morley] alluded to, they are in the entertainment business of selling non factual stories.



With respect to his JFK-related movie project (“Parkland”), Tom Hanks was not an “actor”. He was the co-producer of the film.

And Mr. Hanks was most certainly not attempting to “sell” a “non factual” story when he co-produced “Parkland” in 2013. He was putting on the screen nothing but FACTS, based on the facts found and thoroughly documented in Vincent Bugliosi’s book.

So it is entirely unfair to claim that Tom Hanks is “in the entertainment business of selling non factual stories” when it comes specifically to Hanks’ “Parkland” film.


For a more realistic perspective on Hanks…read Reclaiming Parkland by Jim DiEugenio.


I haven’t read DiEugenio’s smear piece on Bugliosi and Hanks (“Reclaiming Parkland”), but I’ve seen some of Jimbo’s comments relating to Tom Hanks
on the Internet, and his attempts to besmirch Mr. Hanks are pathetic (and laughable), in my view.

And I can’t for the life of me see how anyone could possibly justify the following statement made by James DiEugenio in 2013. This type of over-the-top remark is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted....

“What a complete jerk Hanks is.” -- Jim DiEugenio; July 21, 2013



I see it all the time. Anytime LN’ers are faced with problems with the evidence, like for example, the discovery of CE399, they fall back on the old “so are you suggesting a bunch of people lied to cover up a conspiracy?” line.

People who are unwilling to accept that government officials might’ve lied or omitted important information (whether it was to cover up a conspiracy or cover up their own incompetence we don’t really know) are the types who look for reassurance in the official narrative.



But it’s not JUST “Government officials” that you need to be liars and cover-up operatives. You need a good-sized portion of the Dallas Police Department to ALSO be part of a fairly massive “Conceal All The Real Evidence” operation too.

I’ve asked this before — How likely is it that the DPD, the Sheriff’s Department in Dallas, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Warren Commission, and even (years later) the HSCA would ALL possess the very same desire to want to frame Oswald and hide the real facts of a Presidential assassination?

The odds of that actually happening in this case (or ANY case) would be—what?—do you think?


“The SUM TOTAL of the evidence positively proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt in *BOTH* the JFK murder and the Tippit murder.” ~David Von Pein

You have been proven wrong on these very [JFKFacts.org] pages, Von Pein. And you did not acknowledge that commentary that proved you wrong on the page the argument was made. Instead you wait, and then reappear on a new page as if you were never confronted with that proof of your error. And THAT is the sure sign of a disinformant.


What a joke your last post is, Willy. Nothing you posted makes me quake in my boots. And nothing you posted up there means Oswald was innocent of shooting Tippit, and nothing you posted in any way debunks the Single-Bullet Theory.

You apparently want to “isolate, isolate, isolate” (like most CTers do), instead of properly evaluating the entirety of the evidence and testimony.

The Single-Bullet Theory and the murder of J.D. Tippit are THE two easiest things to figure out in the whole JFK case–by far. And yet CTers still struggle with both of those “mysteries” — even though neither topic is the slightest bit mysterious or hard to reconcile at all.

Heaven help you, Willy, when something crops up that is really tough to figure out — like: Where did Willy Whitten put his car keys?


Von Pein,

You still have not made a serious attempt at rebuttal on those points I made on the other thread and reiterated here.

You simply made a spew of general rhetorical squattle and then posted a link to your propaganda pages again.

I “isolated” nothing Von Pein, the quotes from the WC testimonies were fully in context with the findings of the ballistic experts being questioned. I gave links to the entire testimonies for anyone to judge this for themselves.

You cannot rebut those points specifically point by point, so all we get from you is more generica and tap dancing.


Yes, Willy, you HAVE “isolated” things. CTers never want to put the pieces together to form a reasonable and logical conclusion. It’s a built-in flaw among CTers everywhere. They refuse to look at the “Pattern” of evidence (as Ed Cage wisely refers to it), or the “Totality” of the evidence (as I usually call it).

Given that “Totality” in the Tippit case, no other human being other than Lee Harvey Oswald could POSSIBLY have killed Officer J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.

And this is based, in large part, on the FACT that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the Texas Theater at the time of his arrest at approximately 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, just a mere 35 minutes after that SAME GUN was responsible for ending the life of Officer Tippit a short distance from the theater.

Keep living in the “Anybody But Oswald” fantasy world if you choose to, Willy Whitten. But I choose to reside elsewhere—such as here on Earth, where “Reality” prevails.



More help:

[William] Law: "Were you surprised you weren’t called before the Warren Commission?"

[James] Sibert: "I was at the time, but now I can understand why."

Law: "Why do you think you weren’t called?"

Sibert: "Why? In other words, with that single-bullet theory, if they went in there and asked us to pinpoint where the bullet entered the back and the measurements and all that stuff, how are you going to work it? See, the way they got the single-bullet theory, was by moving that back wound up to tile base of the neck."

Law: "I’ve talked to Mr. [Francis X.] O’Neill quite a bit about this and asked him about his belief in the single-bullet theory, and he said, 'Absolutely not, it did not happen!' "

Sibert: "Well, you can put me in the same category! .... I told them before they asked me to come up for the [ARRB] deposition, I said: 'Well, before I come up, I want to tell you one thing: I don’t buy the single-bullet theory.' And they said, 'We don’t expect you to.' "


Big deal. An FBI agent doesn’t “buy” the SBT. Whoopee! Who cares? James W. Sibert didn’t perform the type of detailed re-creation the Warren Commission performed on 5/24/64 in Dealey Plaza.

And I’ll bet Mr. Sibert never laid eyes on Commission Exhibit No. 903 either.

CE903 is one of my favorite exhibits, in that it destroys the persistent myth about how the “evil” Warren Commission required JFK’s back wound to be located way up in the neck, when no such “neck” placement was required (or needed) at all to make the SBT work—and CE903 proves it for all time....

But Jim Sibert is a good voice of reason when it comes to dismantling a couple of other conspiracy myths. And I doubt you’ll ever see any conspiracy theorists linking to any of this material.


It may not have been needed or required but Gerald Ford did it anyway. Which speaks volumes to anyone willing to listen.


The reason for Gerald Ford’s change in the “back/neck” verbiage in the Warren Report is almost certainly because the way it was originally worded makes no sense, as Jean Davison has fully (and logically) explained in past Internet posts (such as here).

Excerpts from the webpage I just linked above....


If CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound (and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they’d realize that Ford’s moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more HARM than it does good! I hadn’t really realized that fact until just recently….with this fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by Jean Davison.


Ford didn’t need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn’t, since the phrase he revised put the wound on “his back at a point slightly above the shoulder.” It can’t be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.)


I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn’t possibly be right since there’s nothing “in the back slightly above the shoulders.”

By definition, above the shoulders is “neck.” Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse.



Why should I just pretend (as CTers do), sans any real proof, that virtually all of the evidence that hangs Oswald was faked by conspirators—versus believing the evidence is genuine?

And that evidence was not collected in just ONE small place. It was recovered in MANY places — the TSBD, the hospital, the limo, on 10th Street, and some circumstantial pieces of evidence were found in Ruth Paine’s garage.

That’s a lot of coordination on the part of the plotters, wouldn’t you agree?

In any event, one thing is a rock-solid FACT that even conspiracy-hungry individuals cannot possibly deny — the evidence on the table in the JFK/Tippit cases all points towards Lee Harvey Oswald’s (double) guilt.

Now, conspiracy believers can pretend it’s all been forged or faked if they want to. I, however, don’t choose to travel down that silly (and rocky) road.


So Mr. Von Pein,

Would you like to discuss Mrs. Helen Markham, the so-called “star witness” to the killing of JD Tippit?

Surely you are intimately familiar with Mrs. Markham’s testimony when questioned by Joseph Ball, senior counsel to the Warren Commission.



I will gladly GIVE you Helen Markham—free of charge. Just pretend she never existed as far as seeing the Tippit murder.

And even if that had been the case, do you think that all of the OTHER “non-screwball” witnesses are going to suddenly disappear?

And if Markham never existed, do you think the ballistics evidence of Oswald’s guilt (the bullets shells) will somehow vanish into thin air as well?

Well, think again.

And if you’re in league with Mark Lane and think that cab driver William Scoggins doesn’t even qualify as a “Tippit murder witness” (merely because his view of the shooting was blocked by the shrubbery on the corner of 10th and Patton), then you’d better re-think that position. Because Scoggins is a witness who identified Oswald as he fled the scene of the crime (and as he passed within just a few feet of Scoggins’ cab).

Then, just seconds later, Oswald was in sight of Ted Callaway, who is another rock-solid witness who positively IDed Oswald as the man with a gun who was leaving the Tippit murder scene just seconds after Tippit was shot.

And as I have often asked Jim DiEugenio:

If, as many CTers seem to believe, it was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gotten to 10th & Patton in time to kill Tippit, then explain to me how that same man (Lee Oswald) managed to make it to a position on Patton Avenue in order to be seen by eyewitness Ted Callaway within just seconds of Tippit being shot?

Apparently CTers like DiEugenio think Callaway (and the other “car lot” witnesses on Patton Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard) must have seen merely an “imposter” Oswald—who just happened to look identical to the real Lee Harvey Oswald—as he fled the scene of the Tippit murder, gun in hand.

Yeah, right.

David Von Pein
December 3, 2015