(PART 1126)


Many kooky conspiracy theorists think that these pictures (also shown below) depict JFK posing with the people who murdered him.

The two pictures were taken in Newport, Rhode Island, on September 27, 1961, and they show President Kennedy with the newly-appointed Director of the CIA, John McCone, and the man who was fired by JFK as CIA Director, Allen Dulles.

These photos might seem somewhat eerie to many conspiracists who firmly believe, without a speck of proof, that one or both of the men whom President Kennedy is being photographed with in these two images were directly responsible for having JFK killed in Dallas in 1963.

There is certainly no shortage of people who think the CIA killed JFK, with the granddaddy of all conspiracy theorists being one of those people, Mark Lane.


"We know that no one has ever come up with any evidence of any kind that the CIA decided to kill Kennedy, and got Oswald or anyone else to do the job for it. Indeed, despite the admitted problems Kennedy had with the CIA over the Bay of Pigs invasion, William Colby, who was a ranking official in the CIA during the period of the assassination and went on to become CIA director, would later write, "The fact of the matter is that the CIA could not have had a better friend in a President than John F Kennedy. He understood the Agency and used it effectively, exploiting its intellectual abilities to help him analyze a complex world, and its paramilitary and covert political talents to react to it in a low key way."

And in 1996, the CIA released a study titled "Getting to Know the President, CIA Briefings of Presidential Candidates, 1952-1992," by the CIA deputy director for intelligence, John L. Helgerson. .... On the issue so dear to conspiracy theorists—the CIA's alleged animosity for Kennedy, and hence, its motive to kill him—it is very noteworthy that Helgerson's study reported that "the [CIA's] relationship with Kennedy was not only a distinct improvement over the more formal relationship with Eisenhower, but would only rarely be matched in future administrations."

And alluding, by implication, to the strained period with Kennedy following the Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961, the report goes onto say that "in November 1961, Allen Dulles had been replaced by John McCone, who served Kennedy as DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] for almost two years. In the early part of this period, McCone succeeded in rebuilding the Agency's relationship with Kennedy. McCone saw Kennedy frequently, and the President—more than any other before or since—would telephone even lower level Agency officers for information or assistance." "

-- Page 1190 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" by Vincent T. Bugliosi

David Von Pein
April 6, 2012

(PART 116)

NOTE -- Besides DVP and Jim DiEugenio, other people also contribute to the discussion below.


The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt.


Oh really? Then how do you explain the evidence that shows that Oswald did NOT fire the Carcano rifle that day?


You surely aren't relying on the wholly UNreliable paraffin (cheek) test, are you?


I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.


You'd better re-think that argument, Sandy. The NAA tests on Oswald's paraffin casts were certainly NOT negative. They were positive.

See this September 2015 discussion for more on that topic.


Say what? Even Bugliosi acknowledges that the NAA test came back negative on Oswald's cheek, when he wrote (on p. 165 of Reclaiming History):

"Predictably, the paraffin cast for Oswald's right cheek showed no reaction."

You do recall, don't you, that we are talking about the cast of Oswald's cheek?

The NAA test showed positive on the cheeks of seven control subjects who fired a Carcano. But not on Oswald.

EDIT: I suppose that when Bugliosi wrote the above he could have been thinking ONLY of the standard paraffin test, not the NAA test. But I doubt it. Why would he point out that the standard test failed, but not point out that the more sensitive NAA test tested positive... if it had indeed tested positive??

EDIT 2: I've done some further reading regarding the NAA test performed on the cast of Oswald's cheek. I discovered that SOME residues were found on Oswald's cheek cast. HOWEVER, the level was too low to indicate a positive result. In fact, the level of these residues on the OUTSIDES of the cast was found to be greater than on the part of the cast that made contact with Oswald's cheek.

(Source. Note: I quote WC testimony directly in this post.)


Go to Page 80 of Vince Bugliosi's Endnotes in "Reclaiming History". He talks specifically about the NAA test on that page.

Vince does make a mistake, however, when he implies that the NAA/Barium/Antimony test at Oak Ridge tested for "nitrates". I don't think it tested for the presence of nitrates at all. It only tested for barium and antimony. (See John Gallagher's WC testimony at 15 H 749 for confirmation of this.)


Nice one, Sandy.

And BTW, Redlich wrote an internal memo on this, when he got the report from the FBI.

He said words to the effect that the Commission, based on this, had little or no case that Oswald fired a rifle that day.

BTW, when you match up that memo with the April 27th memo by Redlich saying they have not the foggiest idea of any kind of how the shooting sequence was conducted in Dealey Plaza, well then you see just how lost the WC was. Simply because they could not mount any kind of case. And this is in late April, about 4.5 months after the first executive session meeting.

According to Sylvia Meagher, a lot of the staff was ready to quit. But that rat Willens got two newly minted law school graduates to join up and this shifted the case to what the likes of what an even bigger rat, McCloy, wanted: the WR would build its case through the social pathology of Oswald and Ruby, not the evidence.


The NAA analysis of Oswald's cheek paraffin cast came back negative.


No, it did not! Why are you saying such a thing, Sandy? Just read John Gallagher's testimony at 15 H 748. Here it is (emphasis is mine):

MR. GALLAGHER -- "The deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges. The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. No characteristic elements were found by neutron activation analysis of the residues which could be used to distinguish the rifle from the revolver cartridges. In view of the fact that the paraffin casts were not made until after the reported firing and handling of the fired revolver, no significance could be attached to the residues found on the casts other than the conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of an individual who has not recently fired or handled a recently fired weapon."


Now, how does that testimony by Mr. Gallagher of the FBI somehow translate to a NEGATIVE NAA result on Oswald's paraffin casts?

Answer -- It doesn't (of course).

And the probable reason for there not being MORE deposits of antimony and barium on Oswald's casts is because they had been washed prior to the NAA tests, thus removing some of the deposits before testing.

Here's a Jean Davison quote from 2002:

"I think I see now what happened here. The fact that the documents came from the ERDA [Energy Research and Development Administration] indicates that they deal with the results of the neutron activation tests done at Oak Ridge and NOT with the paraffin tests done by the DPD. Although the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative for nitrates, the NA test on the same cast was *positive* for barium and antimony, two elements found in bullet primer. [see WR, 562: "The paraffin casts of Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746] Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony. This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say, but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's no WC dishonesty here." -- Jean Davison; July 5, 2002




I have always said that DVP is even worse than the Warren Commission.

This is from Pat Speer's web site, and it summarizes a memo from Redlich to Dulles. Recall, this is an internal WC memo summarizing their own evidence....

"A 7-2 memo from Norman Redlich to Commissioner Allen Dulles, apparently written just after Redlich spoke with the FBI, gives a possible answer. Here, Redlich discusses the Reader's Digest article with Dulles without first explaining its subject matter. This suggests that Dulles, the former head of the CIA, had already known its subject matter and had in fact obtained the article himself--perhaps through "friends" at the Digest-- and had provided it to Redlich. The content of the memo is also intriguing. Redlich makes four basic statements: 1) “At best the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain;” 2) “There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle;” 3) "The presence of barium and antimony in the cheek cast is of no significance because Oswald might have touched his face with his hands after firing a pistol;" and 4) "barium and antimony are found on a variety of common substances." In other words, these tests are of no help in proving Oswald killed Kennedy."

[Quote Off.]

Did Redlich turn a positive into a negative? :)


Jim DiEugenio's last post is another great big "SO WHAT?" post.

Jimmy seems to want people to believe that the Warren Commission was HIDING the fact that the NAA and Paraffin/Nitrate tests were WORTHLESS for determining if Oswald had fired a rifle or a revolver.

Jim seems to imply that the ONLY place we are able to find out about the uselessless of the NAA/Paraffin tests are in memos distributed amongst the WC members. But that's certainly not true at all. Because, as I just pointed out (and linked to) in my previous post, the Warren Commission and the FBI were not hiding anything regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests. The WC says, right there on Page 562 of its public Report, that it is "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" on Oswald's paraffin casts.

Some cover-up there, huh?

Why is it the WC and FBI don't get ANY credit for their forthright HONESTY about what we find on Page 562 of the WCR regarding Oswald's paraffin and NAA tests, Jim? Why is that?

But the fact still remains that all CTers are wrong, and always will be, when they try to say that Oswald's cheek cast had a negative result for barium and antimony (the only two elements the NAA tests for, btw). Those results were POSITIVE, not negative.

But even with a positive NAA result, we still find the WC being completely honest about what that positive results MEANS --- they told us, on Page 562, that it really doesn't mean much of anything.



The mere presence of a chemical doesn't necessarily indicate a positive result. Chemicals are all around us. That is why it's often necessary to compare the chemical level found on a test subject to that on a control. If the chemical is present at the same level on both the test subject and the control, the test is considered negative. The test subject has to have significantly higher levels of the chemical than the control for it to be considered positive for the chemical.


But the PRESENCE of the substance means it is THERE.

Ergo, it's a POSITIVE result for the PRESENCE of the item being searched for.

Plus, Sandy, as I mentioned multiple times previously, Oswald's casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis!

What would you expect after the casts are WASHED, for Pete sake?

Of course there's going to be LESS of the chemicals present after such washing. That's only common sense. And the FBI's John Gallagher says so in his testimony (emphasis is my own)....

Mr. REDLICH -- Did the fact that these casts were washed prior to the neutron activation test materially alter, in your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- I can say that the washing did not remove all the antimony and barium.

Mr. REDLICH -- In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin casts remove substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony if they were present on those casts?

Mr. GALLAGHER -- Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses. But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.


You're clearly not a technically minded person. You need to be educated on scientific controls, and on absolute versus relative measurements.

I'll just say this... you are saying that the absolute measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is unnecessary. In contrast, I am saying that the relative measurement is what is important in the NAA test, and that a control is necessary.


I'm merely pointing out to you that you are wrong when you utilize the word "NEGATIVE" when describing the results of Oswald's NAA/Barium/Antimony cast tests. Some of those elements WERE present on the casts. Therefore, the casts showed a POSITIVE result. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that that positive result is proof that Oswald shot JFK. In fact, in 2015, I specifically made this clear to conspiracy hobbyist Ben Holmes....

"But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP; September 2015



Your contention that a positive test means merely that something (like a chemical) is present is just plain wrong. Suppose you buy an old house and have the paint tested for lead. Do you think the test result will come back positive if they discover a concentration of 1 PPM (part per million) of lead in the paint? Of course it won't.... even though the lead "is there."

There is some unsafe threshold above which the test will be considered positive. So please stop this nonsense talk about Oswald's cheek NAA test coming back positive.


Okay, Sandy, have it your way if you want.

But allow me to repeat these words uttered by FBI agent John Gallagher once again. And, again, I'm not saying this testimony PROVES Oswald fired a gun on Nov. 22. In fact, I have insisted that these tests are useless for that purpose. Please remember that. ....

"Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. .... The casts from Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. .... I found that there was more barium and antimony on the inside surface of the cast than you would find on the cheek of an individual who had recently washed his cheek. However, the significance of this antimony and barium on the inside of the cheek is not known." -- John F. Gallagher (FBI)

[End Quotes.]

Now, Sandy, if you want to say that all of the above testimony somehow equates to Oswald's cheek casts coming back NEGATIVE for barium and antimony, well, that's your privilege, I guess. But please excuse me if I disagree with you slightly.

Plus, the casts WERE WASHED BEFORE THE NAA TESTS WERE CONDUCTED!! Which is very likely why the levels of barium and antimony were so small on Oswald's face casts.


I just got done reading Pat Speer's very long essay on the paraffin and NAA tests for gunshot residue.

Because I wanted to find where DVP got the following quote:

"A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said."

He used this to pummel Ben Holmes and the rest of the non believers into thinking that somehow Guinn was denying the results of a test he himself had worked on. The reason this puzzled me was that after I had done research on this subject, I did not recall any such thing spoken by Guinn in any credible context.

Consider some of the following:

1. Guinn: We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two parallel tests. One person fired the rifle on eight occasions...it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks. (Early 1964)

2. Guinn: Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. (Same time period)

3. Guinn in 1964: An article by Guinn in the October 1964 Journal of the Forensic Science Society confirms that he felt there should have been gunshot residue on Oswald's cheek. After discussing the use of neutron activation analysis in detecting gunshot residue on men suspected of firing a handgun, Guinn states “Similar studies with rifles and shotguns are now being initiated, but to date the only such studies carried out have been with one particular type of rifle. These measurements, however, produced very interesting results, namely, that firing of this type of rifle deposited quite measurable amounts of Ba (Barium) and Sb (Antimony) on both hands and both cheeks of the firers.”

4. Guinn in 1967: In a June '67 article in Ramparts Magazine, and then again in his 1968 book on forensic evidence, Invisible Witness, former FBI man William Turner reports that Guinn admitted that he and a Los Angeles Police Department criminalist named Raymond Pinker had tested a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like Oswald’s and had found abundant gunshot residue on the cheeks of those firing the rifle every time.

Interesting, is it not? And by the way, all of these are from the same article, that same Speer article. Begin to see a characteristic Von Peinian pattern?

5. Now, further, Guinn conducted tests on this with former FBI agent Bill Turner. The results were printed in a forensic magazine called American Jurisprudence. Turner wrote that the gunshot residue expelled by the MC rifle was significant. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 88, based on a letter from the late FBI agent Turner to Gary Aguilar)

If you are counting, that is five instances which contradict the one instance Von Pein is utilizing. Hmm. But let us go back to Pat's essay. Which DVP knocks and discourages you from reading, and actually takes a personal shot at Speer for suspecting anything is up with the FBI.

6. Pat Speer: "It's also important to note that, as already discussed, Gallagher's sole test on a cheek proved the assassination rifle leaked residue, and that FBI Agent Cunningham's subsequent testimony was misleading."

7. Pat Speer: "As a result, we can understand John Gallagher's position when testifying before the Warren Commission. There was no way he could explain these results without casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, the scientific basis of his and Dr. Guinn's tests, their ability to run the tests without contaminating the evidence, or the competence and integrity of the Dallas Police. He had little choice but to act as though the contamination of the cheek cast made it impossible for him to come to any conclusions. He had little choice but to bury his test results in the FBI laboratory files, far, far, away from the Warren Commission and the ever-curious gaze of the public."

As Artie Johnson used to say on Laugh In, "Very interesting." And it is. Because of the obvious contradiction between the overwhelming majority of the references made by Guinn, and the one DVP chose to extract and use so indiscriminately while, James Phelan style, trying to cast aspersion on the source. Namely Speer. Is there some kind of unflattering explanation? One which Davey will not be candid about?

Yes there is.

Now, whenever someone on the other side does something like this, it immediately raises my antennae.

Because I have seen the technique used so often by the Dark Syde. I mention Phelan above. That is just one instance.

So why does the one instance that Davey used disagree with all the others? And why does he not tell us about the radical exception?

Because if you read Pat's essay--which Davey does not want you to do--you will read all the other quotes by Guinn that are direct and impeach this one. But you will also see that the one he uses is not a direct quote from Guinn.

It is a report in a newspaper from Dallas.

Who is the reporter? Phelan's good buddy, Hugh Aynesworth.

Case Closed.


Total BS (yet again) from Jimmy D.

I specifically LINKED to Pat's article at my website--TWICE--on this webpage! And I even referred to Pat's article as an "excellent article".

But I guess this REALLY is supposed to mean, per Jimbo, that I don't want anybody to read Pat's article. Even though I linked to it twice.


Then why did you write this:

"Pat Speer's lengthy Internet article, "Casts Of Contention", is a very interesting piece. But I can't really see how Pat's article changes the previously-linked "unreliable" determination reached by the Warren Commission on Page 562 of the Warren Report. Speer, however, thinks that there is something "suspicious" about the way the NAA cheek test was treated by the FBI and the Warren Commission. (CTers, of course, think that a lot of things are "suspicious" in the JFK case.)"

And then you left out the payoff of Speer's long and subtle analysis. Which he does not cherry pick, as you do:


Besides leaving that out, you also cherry picked the Aynesworth quote, without telling the reader about that source, and you left out all the other instances which impeach that quote, which are from Guinn himself.

​So who is dishing the BS?


It's just as I said ---- Pat Speer's article is, in essence, saying the EXACT SAME THING the Warren Commission says on Page 562 --- i.e., the NAA and Paraffin tests are not reliable and it's therefore "impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" (WCR; Pg. 562).

Therefore, with or without the nice article penned by Patrick J. Speer, we're still left with that "impossible to attach significance" conclusion reached by the Warren Commission.

IOW -- Pat Speer and the Warren Commission completely agree with each other on this point regarding the unreliability of the paraffin and NAA tests.

So, what's the beef, Jim? Or are you pulling a Tony Marsh trick on me here and arguing just for the sake of arguing?


Addendum regarding the NAA tests done by Dr. Vincent Guinn....

Please note that in the quotes used by Jim DiEugenio in this previous post of his, it would appear that a very important part of the 1964 newspaper article written by Hugh Aynesworth was omitted in other versions of the same story that were cited in other papers and newswire services.

Please note the critical part that is left out (via the "...") in the version of this story that was printed in the New York World Sun & Telegram on August 28, 1964 (compared to the 8/31/64 Aynesworth version that appeared in the Dallas paper)....

The Aug. 28 version:

"One person fired the rifle on eight occasions...it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks."


The Aug. 31 (Aynesworth) version:

"One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said. Then they repeated the experiment using radioactivity. 'It was positive in all eight cases, and showed a primer on both hands and cheeks,' he said."


So, it would seem as if the tests were both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. All of them being positive after the test was "repeated" for the NAA tests. But only one of the results was positive when tested ONLY for nitrates.

So citing only the August 28th story is misleading, because we're really talking about TWO different kinds of tests -- Nitrate & NAA.


What a pile of Von Peinian baloney. (or BS)

Do you know how to read? Pat wrote the following:

"Of course, if one rids oneself of the notion that the residue on the outside of the casts came from the inside, and instead considers that at least some of the contamination on the outside of the cast reached the inside part that touched Oswald's cheek, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that the tests on Oswald's cheek cast, prior to contamination, were negative."

Pat then went on to say:

"He [Gallagher] had little choice but to bury his test results in the FBI laboratory files, far, far, away from the Warren Commission and the ever-curious gaze of the public."

You completely distort the drift and intent of the article to somehow make it agree with the WR--which it does not.

How can it if Pat wrote this: "it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that the tests on Oswald's cheek cast, prior to contamination, were negative."

And you did the same thing with Holmes by cherry picking one part of his article based upon an unreliable source, Aynesworth, and ignoring every single other part of the piece where Guinn, or the rifle results, said the opposite. Which is why Pat also writes that Shaneyfelt misled the Commission.

​This is why I have said many times that no one should trust you with evidence. No one. And why your reputation as a con man proceeds [sic; precedes] you everywhere.

And it is a deserved one. As we can see from above.



Everybody go to Jim's Post #213 in this discussion thread.

After reading it (and my follow-up reply to it), it becomes fairly obvious that DiEugenio hasn't yet been able to figure out that I was talking about TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF TESTS when I quoted from Pat Speer's article (where he quoted from the Aynesworth article re: Guinn).

DiEugenio, naturally, wants to make it look like Aynesworth was misquoting Guinn (or that Aynesworth just flat-out lied in his article). But the other articles cited by Speer LEAVE OUT the part about Guinn "repeating" the tests -- with only the second tests (the NAA tests) resulting in all 8 tests being "positive".

No deception by anyone there. (Except maybe by the person who inserted the three dots [the ellipsis] in the August 28 article.) There were two different sets of tests with wholly different results.

And, in essence, just as I said previously, Pat Speer DOES agree with the Warren Report on the bottom-line issue --- i.e., the paraffin and NAA tests are not reliable enough to determine whether or not Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63.



It does appear that (gasp!) DVP is right in this one respect, that the Guinn quotes you posted all have to do with the neutron activation analysis, testing for barium and antimony. Yes, NAA was shown to be consistently reliable with controls. It was the chemical testing for nitrates that was shown to be unreliable. I don't know if DVP's "one-in-eight" statistic is correct, but I have confirmed my earlier understanding that tests were performed on nitrate testing and they showed that both false negatives and false positives were problems with this unreliable test.

Correct me if I am wrong about this, but that appears to be the case.



What I was saying is that the nitrate test is valid in the sense that that rifle does give off plentiful gases when it's fired. Therefore, the idea that Bugliosi and the FBI try to pawn off, that it does not, is false.

And Guinn admitted this many times.

What DVP did was he quoted Aynesworth, not a reliable source, to try and say to Ben that it did not.


What a load of BS by DiEugenio there. The ONLY reason I quoted from Aynesworth's article at my webpage here (after finding the Aynesworth piece in Pat Speer's article) was to emphasize the "7 out of 8 negative" results that Dr. Guinn got when he did the 8 PARAFFIN tests for NITRATES. (Not the NAA tests.)

I never even MENTIONED anything about "gases". And the excerpt from Aynesworth that I quoted doesn't mention that word either. You just made that up to make it look like I was being dishonest regarding the Aynesworth quote. Disgraceful, Jim.

You, however, Jim, WERE hiding some of the facts in Post #213 in this thread when you failed to mention that the Aug. 28 New York newspaper story didn't put in ALL of the Aynesworth quote. (Probably because you didn't even notice the "..." in the story and didn't even realize something had been cut out of it. I didn't notice it either, until looking further into it yesterday.)


Another addendum concerning Oswald's Paraffin/NAA Tests:

"Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater.

Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later.

The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater. .... And therefore, if true, could account for the lack of nitrates and the relatively low level of barium and antimony on his cheek."
-- DVP; September 2015


A NEGATIVE test result does NOT mean a ZERO AMOUNT. If the count is below the minimum required level, then as everyone has already told you, the result is NEGATIVE. If the cheek test results are negative, then the subject did not fire a rifle.

Once again, you are dead wrong, but unable to admit it!


So, Tom, you think it was absolutely impossible for a gunman, after he had shot at somebody, to have washed (or wiped off) his face in order to remove most of the barium and antimony deposits? Is that correct?


Pat Speer is over on the Education Forum saying the gunpowder residue test at the police station showed Oswald fired a hand gun and therefore likely shot Tippit.

This is a typical example of Speer's half-Loner Nutter mushy-ness.


Regardless of Pat Speer's analysis, we certainly don't need the paraffin test to prove Oswald was guilty of shooting Officer Tippit. There's a whole lot of better evidence to prove LHO's guilt in that murder, as everybody surely realizes (even Pat Speer).

FWIW, my opinion is that the paraffin and the NAA (barium/antimony) tests are essentially worthless and useless for attempting to determine if someone has recently fired a gun, mainly due to the fact that a positive test result can be attributed to so many OTHER things besides gunpowder residue and/or bullet primer.

But I will say this ---

Since we know from other (non-paraffin) evidence that Oswald positively shot J.D. Tippit, the ODDS that the positive nitrate result on Oswald's hands was caused by something OTHER than gunpowder residue are extremely small odds. (IMO.)


This thread has been hijacked by people who are ignoring that Guinn found bullet primer residue that was different than that of the Western Cartridge ammunition allegedly used by Oswald as claimed by the Warren Commission.


But Dr. Guinn did not do any tests with Lee Oswald's paraffin casts at all. Guinn only tested the paraffin casts of shooters who fired a rifle "similar" to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle.

Guinn confirms he never did tests on the actual "Oswald casts" in a scathing letter he wrote to the New York World Telegram & Sun on September 25, 1964, a portion of which is quoted on Pat Speer's website.

Quoting Guinn (emphasis is DVP's):

“In my opinion, the person who is responsible for the version that you published should be thoroughly bawled out--it is the worst job of reporting I have ever seen…Your version was shot full of atrocious misstatements. Worse yet, the writer had the gall to make up his own statements, then put them into alleged direct quotations attributed to me... All in all, I think your newspaper should hang its face in shame for publication of such garbled and erroneous nonsense. .... We at General Dynamic did not work with the FBI on the Kennedy case. We offered to, immediately after the assassination, but our offer was not taken up by the FBI. We did carry out test firings with an identical rifle, on our own, in conjunction with the Los Angeles Police Department, and made NAA measurements on paraffin casts from this study which yielded valuable information. This information was passed on to the FBI with the recommendation that they undertake NAA of the "used" Oswald casts, which by that time had apparently been turned over to the FBI. We understand that they acted upon this suggestion, but we at General Atomic had no hand in their measurements, and have no knowledge of their results. The statement, 'We found no barium but we found antimony...' is an almost accurate statement of what I said about the results we obtained from the test firings of a similar Italian rifle (not the one used in the assassination) following NAA measurements on hand and cheek paraffin casts after they had first been processed by the usual chemical test.” -- Dr. Vincent P. Guinn; Sept. 1964

David Von Pein
April 23-26, 2016
April 29-30, 2016

(PART 117)













(PART 1125)


I doubt very much that the agents standing on the running boards [of the Secret Service follow-up car] posed any kind of a serious obstacle for Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shooting at the President from the TSBD.



Where is the word "allegedly" in your statement above? He was never tried, let alone convicted. Once again your personal opinion becomes a fact.

Never let the truth stand in the way of the dissemination of propaganda, right?


I agree with William Manchester. Given the evidence that exists against Oswald, there's no "allegedly" about it.

Quoting Manchester:

"Lee Oswald has been repeatedly identified here [in the 1967 book "The Death Of A President"] as the President's slayer. He is never "alleged" or "suspected" or "supposed" or "surmised"; he is the culprit. Some, intimidated by the fiction that only judges may don the black cap and condemn, may disapprove. .... But enough is enough. The evidence pointing to his guilt is far more incriminating than that against Booth. .... He is the right man; there is nothing provisional about it. .... From the instant he dropped his mail-order rifle on the top floor [actually the next-to-top floor] and fled down the enclosed stair well--leaving a tuft of fibers from his shirt wedged in the butt plate and a profusion of finger and palm prints on the weapon, on the paper bag which he had used to conceal the gun during the drive from Irving with Wesley Frazier, and on one of the cartons he had stacked as a gun rest--there could be no doubt of his ultimate conviction. .... Because of Oswald's epic stupidity--and his panic; it is highly likely that he lost his head when Officer Tippit beckoned to him--the assassin's movements after the murder can be reconstructed with precision." -- William Manchester; Pages 278-279 of "The Death Of A President"


I'd like to see the Manchester defense at work if you were sued by Marina, June and Rachel. If you knew anything at all about the law, you'd know you would lose. He wasn't convicted, so legally he is allegedly guilty.

Even you must know that, but of course facts and legal issues are not in your MO, anyway. Nor is an admission you are wrong.


Geez, why so antagonistic, Tom? The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt, so why should I sugar-coat it?


My point, which you have missed entirely, is that you refuse to admit a simple fact that is unquestionable: LHO will forever be the *alleged* assassin. That is reality. However, in your universe you have tried and convicted him and he's guilty beyond any doubt...simply because you say so: "The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt..."


The evidence DOES clearly indicate his guilt. And there's NOTHING on this Earth that you or I can do to change that basic of all facts.



This displays your complete denial of the reality that the evidence does NOT *clearly* indicate LHO's guilt. What the evidence does CLEARLY indicate is that it has been tampered with to create the illusion of Oswald's guilt.


So, it must have been, in effect, The World Against The Patsy, is that correct? Because there's a LOT of evidence pointing to a certain Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald, which is evidence that was discovered in MULTIPLE places (hospital, limousine, TSBD, 10th Street, the Paine garage, Oswald's roominghouse). Was all of that stuff gathered up AFTER it was "planted", or was it gathered and then switched?

The idea that all of the evidence against Oswald is phony is beyond silly, and is an outrageous theory that should be embarrassing to anyone who suggests such a thing. And yet many Internet CTers are charter members of the "Everything's Fake" club. But don't expect me to join. It's way too embarrassing. And, besides, my bladder is far too weak to be a member of that fraternity.


Anyone who could accept reality as it is, would simply have replied; "Yes, legally he is the *alleged* assassin. This implies neither guilt nor innocence - it only indicates that he was never tried." However, in DVP's world, a *perfect* case against LHO exists. To accept ANY fact, even legally speaking, that LHO will never be declared guilty destroys your frail fantasy universe.


When did I ever state that the case against Oswald is "perfect"? Answer -- Never.

The case against Oswald is extremely strong, yes. But the world is never "perfect". Just ask your bumbling patsy framers for proof of that. They certainly weren't "perfect" either (according to CTers anyway). They decided to frame their patsy in the TSBD, but then went ahead and shot at the President from the opposite direction--from the Grassy Knoll. Brilliant!

Thank goodness your patsy-framing conspirators had the whole world of law enforcement jumping on board the "Let's Frame Oswald" train on Day 1 to help them out of this mess, huh? Because, per the conspiracists, the DPD jumped right on board and started switching/planting evidence, and so did the Secret Service and the FBI. And then the Warren Commission jumped on board to frame the patsy too!

Whoever planned that assassination must have had Lady Luck on his/their side on November 22, 1963 -- in spades! Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Neal?

David Von Pein
April 22-24, 2016

(PART 1124)


I was disappointed in James [DiEugenio's] & Len Osanic's interview from last night in that Mr. DiEugenio points out CBS left out the LHO sidewalk tree & the curve in Elm Street but forgot the most important detail of all......no representation for the SS followup car & its agents inside the car & outside on the two running boards was included in the re-enactment. IMHO, the public needs to focus on that issue of the vanishing guards & their car that was left out of the initial SS & FBI filmed re-enactments starting the week after the assassination & continuing into 1964.

Visit Mr. Von Pein's spectacular video collection & look for the SS followup car & actor stand in's for the agents in the Government re-enactments & those conducted by MSM in their TV specials, computer animators & TV mini-series & movies. You won't find them.

CBS used a portion of the SS film re-enactment & boldly told its audience that what they were watching was a filmed re-enactment of JFK's murder, when in fact what the audience was seeing was a car representing JFK's limo being driven as a solo target down Elm St. with no consideration for the big & taller obstacle that was directly behind it (Queen Mary) during the actual ambush.

Line of sight blockage wasn't a problem for an alleged assassin because Hoover & Rowley's boy removed it from an unsuspecting public that trusted them.

What Hoover's FBI & Rowley's SS did was like running an ad for a used car photo in the newspapers & not mentioning the other side of the car (not visible in the photo) is all smashed in.

I'm beginning to think some JFK researchers are afraid to discuss the missing SS followup car in the initial re-enactments & those that followed the past 53 years. I don't believe in tip toeing thru the tulips...I'm broadcasting it loudly here at the Ed Forum for those afraid to discuss it.

Someone needs to put a YouTube video on that subject out there. I'm emailing a couple visualists to help get the word out if the highest respected researchers are operating under some kind of gag order or fear.


Brad, IMO, the MSM will never ever do a true reconstruction of what the WR says Oswald did.

They will always leave out something or other.

The key point that I tried to make last night was that, unbeknownst to the public, CBS had enlarged the target to at least twice as large as it would be in real life.

So Brad, with all that out there I think anyone of average intelligence can understand why there has never been a true reconstruction. And CBS had a fine opportunity to do so.


Some of the public is gullible, James. They believe whatever the police & higher up the law enforcement food chain tells them.

The fast one Hoover & Rowley pulled by yanking the guards & their car out of their re-enactments that CBS & others in MSM followed their example is still played on the public today. Dale Meyers [sic] used it in his deceptive computer animation that so impressed Peter Jennings over a decade ago.

I've got some friends I know working on something for YouTube (I don't mess with videos).

It's the same with filmmakers....they'll show an actor portraying LHO firing off his carbine, but won't show the public the line of sight LHO allegedly had with replicas of the target car & the guards tailgating it historically & accurately positioned at key points on Elm Street (Z-313 being the most critical, because if there was blockage from the guards or their car, there could not have been a fatal headshot from that TSBD window).

All the public knows about the SS guards is what they saw in 'The Smoking Gun' or that Clint Hill appeared from out of nowhere to jump on the back of JFK's car to save Jackie. That's about it.


I don't think I've ever heard a conspiracy theorist complain about the Secret Service car being removed from any of the re-enactments. But that's an interesting theory indeed, especially since we know how close the Queen Mary follow-up car was to JFK's limo on Elm Street.

However, I doubt very much that the agents standing on the running boards posed any kind of a serious obstacle for Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shooting at the President from the TSBD. And, Brad, you're surely not suggesting that the follow-up car ITSELF was in any way blocking the view of an assassin who was shooting at Kennedy from the sixth floor, are you?

Here's the closest I could come to an actual "re-enactment" in Dealey Plaza with a car representing the Queen Mary Secret Service car also being used in the reconstruction. It's from a screen capture I took via the sixth-floor "Dealey Cam" on October 8, 2015, during the filming of Stephen King's mini-series "11/22/63". As we can see in this view from the "Oswald window", the Secret Service car does not get in the way of a shot at approximately the time of the fatal head shot. However, it's possible that the SS car should be a little closer to the back bumper of JFK's car here. The gap between the cars might be just a tad too big in the re-enactment done here. But it's not too far off. Click to enlarge:

More photos HERE and HERE.

And here's a video of the 2015 re-enactment:


That's pretty good work, David! I'll step aside & let others tell you if the cars are in the correct places or not on Elm Street. The Queen Mary can be seen at the Z-313 spot in the Nix, Muchmore & Bronson films.

The height of the Queen Mary & its bulky hood & fat front fenders specifications are of interest to several folks good with math (I'm not one of them). I figure that if Stephen King could locate replicas of the JFK parade car & Queen Mary, someone else should too & get measurements. Measurements in conjunction with angles & the decline of the street could possibly answer some questions about the shooting as time goes by.

Now I ask you, David. If someone is going to pay the bucks to put a replica of JFK's parade car & the Queen Mary & position them as they were 53 years ago, why is [it] so hard for them to show the public what that looks like from an assassin's line of sight from the sniper's nest? Wouldn't it help convince more people that the murderer was in that window if people could see what he saw?


Yes, Brad, it would be nice to see a view from Oswald's window with the SS car (and its occupants) in the exact place they were in during the shooting. But in the long run, I doubt very much it would make any difference from an "Assassin's Line-of-Sight" POV. The SS car wasn't blocking Oswald's view of any part of JFK's body. And I think the 2015 photo of the Stephen King reconstruction pretty much proves that fact.

Even if you move the SS car up a few more feet, to the point where it's almost touching the bumper of the President's limousine, I still don't think that would affect Oswald's line of sight to JFK's head or upper back. If you disagree, that's fine. But I can't see the SS car or the agents in it as representing any kind of an obstacle for Oswald to have to cope with at all. And you're the first person I have ever talked with who seems to think otherwise.

But, as I said, it is an interesting subject.


From what I can see, it appears there is clearance over the Queen Mary's windshield. I suspect Chris Davidson & other visual analysts are working your re-enactments photos over with a compass, ruler & protractor as I type this. That means that a shot over that obstacle was possible. It would have cleared the agents' heads in the front seat by mere inches or fractions. This demonstrates just how close the shooter came to killing more people than just JFK. Often the savageness of the crime is left out of the various theories on how the shooting occurred.

My interest from all this came from an on site visit to Dealey Plaza in the very early 1970s with a couple of Army buddies. We took turns standing, squatting or sitting at the Z-313 spot (there was no street X back then to point it out) while the others pretended to be the Queen Mary by standing a few feet back (closer to the TSBD). None of us could ever see the bottom of the sniper's nest window, regardless of what posture we used or what we sat or stood on (simulating car seats & running boards). Unscientific, yes, but it was all we had to use for visual tools.

Again, I commend you for creating your re-enactment photos. You corrected something that's been visually wrong for 53 years. Are you going to allow other researchers to use your photos if they give you proper credit?


Certainly. No problem. Use them all you want.

If I had known this topic would surface six months later, I would have created a lot more screen captures of the Stephen King re-enactments. (They did 17 total run-throughs on October 8th of last year.)

Here's another intriguing photo, which (I think) was taken from the 7th floor of the Depository (because the sixth-floor sniper's window is forever sealed off, as you know):


@David Von Pein...

Before the crickets set in, I wanted to finish this day off by stating to you that what you shared with us here at the Education Forum in your 6th floor Museum box cam JFK ambush re-enactment photos & video is monumental (in my book). For me personally, it settles an issue that began in late 1974 & has nagged at me ever since. Since that time I believed a shot from the TSBD 'sniper's nest' was impossible; now I can see that it was possible. That says it all for me.

By rolling up your trouser legs & wading in the water with us all (and checking out all sides of the body of water we splash around in from time to time), you have demonstrated to me that you are a man of high scruples. If apologies are warranted to you from anything & everything I have ever said to you in the past in a mean spirited kind of way, I humbly & sincerely apologize. The truth is all I ever sought in the JFK murder case; if it's deemed to be on your side of the fence, that's where I'll quietly graze with the matter kinda settled in my mind.

I wasn't the only one that thought there was more to it than Oswald. Mrs. Rodgers (my 5th grade elementary school teacher) stayed with the story for months & thought it all sounded 'fishy' to her. From her lead, it became 'fishy' for a lot of her young students as well.

The Donald needs to drop out of the race IMHO. I'm now voting for you, David.

Hat off & a salute to you, Distinguished Sir.

Brad Milch

PS: I can't let Dan Rather or CBS off the hook so easy. For a man who has a net worth of 70 million dollars, it wouldn't have killed him to put a replica of the SS Queen Mary behind the Lincoln used in the 1967 CBS TV specials & let us see what a sniper saw from the infamous window. Dan could afford it, he had the big bucks.



As much as I appreciate your kind words above very much, I can't help but think that my run for the Presidency in 2016 (after knocking Mr. Trump out of the race) might be a tad premature. :)

The truth is, Brad, when I captured that image of the motorcade re-enactment via the Dealey Plaza Cam last October, I was doing it merely for the sake of pure entertainment. I wasn't attempting to prove any theory about JFK's assassination. I just seized upon an opportunity to do a little rubbernecking as the Stephen King film was being shot in the Plaza. And that "Dealey Cam" is a perfect "spying" tool. So I utilized it.

I stayed at my computer all day long that day, watching President Kennedy get shot over and over again. And then watched as the limousine carrying the mortally wounded President circled the Plaza after each filmed re-enactment, slowly moving east on Main Street, then driving out of sight in front of the old courthouse as the car moved into position for another "take". It was nearly dusk when they finally wrapped up the filming in Dealey Plaza. It was both fascinating and eerie at the same time, watching that limo round the corner of Main onto Houston 17 different times during the filming of the Stephen King mini-series.

But if one of my screen captures has inadvertently helped you in any way, that's great. But the thanks should probably go to Stephen King....and also to the person who decided to place that permanent camera in the window of the old Book Depository Building. :)

David Von Pein
April 22, 2016

(PART 1123)


[Marrion] Baker had no intention of running into the TSBD when he began his mad dash, and didn't enter till later. As you will see, this is yet one more nail in the coffin of the Baker-Oswald second-floor lunchroom encounter myth.

The key to following the path taken by Baker is to follow his footsteps. As obvious as that sounds, it has surprisingly never been done. At least not seriously.


Marrion Baker was not headed for the TSBD. Not to go inside. No way.


The utter desperation of conspiracy theorists is astounding, as Sandy Larsen's ludicrous claim regarding Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in this forum thread clearly demonstrates.

Sandy thinks Baker told one lie after another FOR DECADES ON END after the assassination.

Now, all Sandy needs to do is to logically and reasonably tell us Why Marrion Baker would want to tell a bunch of lies about his movements on November 22, 1963.

Was he paid very handsomely for lying so much, Sandy? Or did the FBI threaten Baker's life if he didn't go along with the "LN" story?

Here's the proof that Sandy Larsen is dead wrong:


David, have you no eyes to see? The photographic evidence is irrefutable. Unless, of course, you believe the Darnell video has been altered.

I believe Marrion Baker initially told the truth, and after that was convinced by powerful people to be a Patriot and protect the nation from America's "enemies." And thus his lies -- as hard as they were for him to keep straight -- were justified.


Oh, for Pete sake. Get real, Sandy. The Darnell film doesn't come close to providing "irrefutable" evidence that Baker bypassed the Book Depository and was headed for the Dal-Tex Building instead. The film clip stops short of showing Baker actually reaching the Depository's front steps. So your "irrefutable" evidence is nothing but pure speculation and amateur photographic (film) interpretation on your part.

I, on the other hand, have Marrion Baker's own words and testimony, which make it clear that he immediately ran into the Book Depository after the shooting. And Baker's own signed affidavit, which he filled out on the day of the assassination itself, also bears out the fact that he went straight to the Depository after jumping off of his police motorcycle:

"I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building." -- Marrion L. Baker (Via Affidavit); November 22, 1963

And, by the way, Sandy, this statement you made in your thread-starting post is not accurate at all:

"The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- S. Larsen

Where on Earth did you get the "20 to 25 seconds" timing? Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the second-floor TSBD encounter between Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald occurred as early as "20 to 25 seconds" after the assassination. It is generally accepted by almost everybody (even most conspiracy believers) that the encounter in the lunchroom took place approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, just as Officer Baker estimated in his CBS-TV interview in 1964.


Great work, Sandy. You know that you're square on the mark when you've got DVP on your tail trying to shoot you down.

Someone is worried.

Note the obvious attempt at distraction as DVP appears to be "confused" about how Baker made it to the 2nd floor in 20-25 seconds. He knows darn well this time refers to Baker's claim as to how long it took him to reach the front door.


Can't you read, Bob? That's not what I'm talking about at all. I just posted the relevant (wholly wrong) quote written by Sandy on this matter. And Sandy wasn't ONLY talking about Baker's time to get to the TSBD's front door. Here's what Sandy said....

"The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- Sandy Larsen


So Sandy made a little mistake. Get over it, Davey.


Should I take that as an official apology, Bob, after you made a mistake when you accused me of being "confused" earlier?


Take it any way you want, Davey. And you know where you can put it.


And if I do put it there, what good would it do? You'd just accuse me of being "confused" as to which orifice I stuffed it into.


I knew what he [Sandy] meant.


So did I. He meant just exactly what he clearly said in Post #1. And he's dead wrong.

EDIT: As I knew Sandy would do (because I do not think he is a dishonest person), Sandy has changed his first post to read "90 seconds" instead of "20 to 25 seconds". But I wanted a copy of the original post, just to prove that I did not "invent" anything I attributed to Mr. Larsen, so I quickly saved Sandy's initial erroneous post by creating this screen capture of it.

But thanks for your honesty in changing the time to "90 seconds", Sandy.


I no longer believe that Baker was ever headed toward the west half of the TSBD entryway. In fact, I don't believe he was ever headed toward ANY part of the entryway.


It's amazing what a fertile imagination can do when a conspiracy theorist gets ahold of a GIF clip. Remarkable.

BTW, here's another of Marrion Baker's statements that Sandy Larsen is now forced to completely toss into the nearest gutter or trash can:

"I, Marrion L Baker, being duly sworn say:

1. I am an officer in the Dallas Police Department.

2. On November 22, 1963, upon hearing shots I rode my motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, parked the motorcycle, and ran 45 feet to the Texas School Book Depository Building.

3. On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot."
-- Marrion L. Baker; August 11, 1964



I appreciate the work you put into this, but I'm really not seeing the relevance. I mean, it's a great little slice of the event captured on film of him running into the TSBD. And the far more intriguing part of it is the Prayer Man figure still standing there at the top of the stairs.

There are people standing, looking, walking, and running amid the confusion of what just happened in that clip, but I just don't see how you can take such a huge leap to assume he's heading over to D-T [Dal-Tex], then cuts and runs into TSBD. And even if he did cut and run, what does it really matter anyway?


I agree with everything you just said, Michael.

Plus, I think one of the most intriguing parts of the GIF clip below is the fact that we can see TWO different people who appear to be looking UP toward the upper floors of the Depository -- "Stetson Hat Man" and the man in the dark suit on the far right:

In addition, when looking at the full-sized version of the GIF clip presented by Sandy (1024 x 613), it looks to me as if a pretty good argument could be made for Baker's last step in that GIF clip representing a bit of a "jump up" by Baker as he goes from street level "up" one step to the higher level of the sidewalk that is right in front of the Book Depository Building. (Click the above clip to enlarge it to full size.)

And if that is the case (Baker "jumping" up onto the sidewalk), that would certainly not be consistent with him continuing to run in the street toward the Dal-Tex Building.



Baker is about six feet away from the sidewalk in the last frame we see him in Darnell. We know that because his shadow (which happens to be about six feet long) just barely hit the face of the curb before the clip ends. So it is quite unlikely that he is jumping up on the sidewalk at that time. I'd say impossible.


I respectfully disagree. I see Baker taking a long stride in that last step, in order to step up onto the sidewalk. Looks to me like Baker is striding directly toward the sidewalk and the Depository (running directly into the shadow his body is casting).


You are respectfully blind. Not only is Baker six feet from the sidewalk, he is taking a big step parallel to its edge... thus maintaining his six-foot distance from it. Follow my blue line.


Your silly blue line is worthless and meaningless. You can't start drawing lines on photos or films and expect to extract perfect three-dimensional information, which is something Dale Myers has been trying to drill into the heads of you know-it-all conspiracy hobbyists for years:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can
be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional
images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information."

-- Dale K. Myers


In Officer Baker's early statements, he gives no account whatsoever of pulling a gun on Oswald, or even seeing him in the second floor lunchroom.


But what about Roy Truly's CORROBORATION of Baker's encounter with OSWALD (not some other unknown person) in the LUNCHROOM on the SECOND FLOOR?

We have TRULY corroborating BAKER.

Should I believe they BOTH lied?

Why should I believe such a thing, Sandy? Why?

And furthermore, WHY would they both lie about an encounter on the SECOND FLOOR? Such an encounter most certainly doesn't prove Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR shooting at President Kennedy 90 seconds earlier. So why on Earth would anyone create and act out such a charade, which, in effect, proves NOTHING?

~great big shrug~


Show me a first-day affidavit from Marrion Baker that is corroborated [by] a first-day affidavit from Roy Truly, where the topic of corroboration is Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.


Well, first off, there is no "first-day" affidavit by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly. He didn't fill out his affidavit until the next day (November 23). So does that mean I should think it is not an accurate statement by Mr. Truly? Is that it, Sandy?

It's certainly true that Officer Baker doesn't mention the "lunchroom" or "second floor" or "pulling a gun on Oswald" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, but if we compare the two affidavits — BAKER'S and TRULY'S — the reasonable conclusion to reach, despite Baker's error about the event occurring on either the "third or fourth floor", is that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter.

Another reason we can pretty much KNOW that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter with Oswald in their respective Nov. '63 affidavits is because each man described just ONE single encounter with ONE single man during their trek through the building on 11/22/63.

And if you want to believe that Baker really DID encounter a person on the "third or fourth floor" of the TSBD, then what possible reason would there be for anybody (including Roy S. Truly) to want to lie and change the location of the encounter to the SECOND floor, which is two additional floors further away from the sixth floor where the crime was committed? Does that make a lick of sense? It sure doesn't to me.


[Quoting] DVP: "It's certainly true that Officer Baker doesn't mention the "lunchroom" or "second floor" or "pulling a gun on Oswald" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, but if we compare the two affidavits...the reasonable conclusion to reach, despite Baker's error about the event occurring on either the "third or fourth floor", is that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter."





Well, Jimmy, it's either the SAME encounter, or Roy S. Truly was a big fat liar.

Now, guess which option I'm going to pick?


Sure is fun to watch the deniers coming out of the woodwork. It's just unfortunate that it distracts from serious discussion on this topic which is, of course, the primary purpose of deniers being on this forum.

I always measure how close a theory, such as Mr. Larsen's current theory regarding Baker, is to the actual truth by how frantic the opposition to it by DVP is.


Bob P.,

Do you really think Roy Truly was lying through his teeth here? Really? ....


Somebody had to be lying, why not Truly?

Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him [Roy Truly]?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.


Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.


Here is a question for you, Davey; was Baker invisible?


Just as invisible as Oswald, I guess, since nobody on the steps saw Oswald walk right past them at 12:33 either.* Funny, huh?

* Not counting Buell Frazier's 2002 story of seeing Oswald walking down Houston Street, which is an observation totally at odds with what Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.



First, I want to apologize for my earlier knee-jerk response (where I said, "You are respectfully blind.") Your constant disagreeing with me got the better of me. I actually value a lot of your posts because I want to be made aware when there is a problem with a CTer's POV, including when it is my own.

You are right, of course. Photo analysis is something the needs to be approached very carefully and is something best left to experts.

However, that doesn't mean that simple analyses cannot be made by people who aren't experts but who do understand the tricks that can be played by perspective, focal length, etc.

In my analysis, I chose to focus on where the feet of Baker (and the young woman) touch the ground. There is nothing ambiguous or that can be misinterpreted about these points. I then connected these points with a smooth line. Had Baker been walking, the straight-line may not have perfectly represent[ed] his path. But he was running fast and momentum would have prevented him from varying directions appreciably from my smooth line. Estimated locations of his foot-landings behind others are in support of my smooth line.

Only the very last footstep is up to any kind of interpretation. But 1) knowing the location of this step is not necessary in showing that Baker was not headed for the TSBD entrance, and 2) I'm confident the any impartial interpretation of the final step would indicate that Baker's direction at that point would be roughly parallel to the curb.

That Baker was running roughly parallel with the curb is verified by the fact that we see him from his side (and not his BACK side), whereas we see the BACK side of the nearby woman who is undoubtedly running toward the sidewalk. (And there is [a] second nearby woman walking to the sidewalk whose back side we see.) This is the clincher to the argument if you ask me.

As for Baker's distance from the curb/sidewalk at that point, it is easy to see in this clip, where Baker's shadow hits the face of the curb and quickly rises to the top of the curb. (Remember, the gray line I drew represents the base of the curb.) When that happens, we know that Baker is a distance from the curb that is equal to the length of his shadow. I haven't done a careful measurement, but on my monitor, with its aspect ratio, I can see that that the lengths of people's shadows are roughly the same as their heights. And so I conclude that Baker is roughly six feet away from the curb/sidewalk at the end of the clip.


But, Sandy, how can Baker's shadow "[hit] the face of the curb and quickly [rise] to the top of the curb" if he's not running TOWARD that curb?

If he's running parallel to the curb, then why do we see his shadow hitting the curb and rising, as if he's running right toward the curb/sidewalk?

Please explain further. Thank you.




That's a lot of nice technical talk, but....

From strictly a layman's point-of-view, Baker's shadow hitting the curb and RISING onto that curb would most certainly indicate that Baker was GETTING CLOSER to that curb and sidewalk. Hence, his body was moving toward the Texas School Book Depository Building.

IMO, your analysis is a lot of wishful thinking (which is not supported by Marrion Baker's shadow).

David Von Pein
April 18-20, 2016

(PART 1122)


"Mistaken" witnesses are much more likely to exist than a boatload of "Lying" witnesses.


"All of the shots came from the same place--from back over my right shoulder. They weren't in front of us; they weren't at the side of us. There were no sounds like that emanating from those directions." -- John B. Connally; 1967

"They [the shots] all came from the same direction...behind us, over my right shoulder." -- Nellie Connally; 1967


Do conspiracists, therefore, think John and Nellie Connally were "mistaken" or were they "lying"?

You see, conspiracy theorists are in the exact same boat as LNers in this "Lying Or Mistaken?" regard --- because CTers have to disregard a whole lot of witnesses too. Such as the Connallys, as I just illustrated. It's a two-way street when it comes to witnesses.

1967 interviews with the Connallys:


Why do you refuse to acknowledge that multiple witness statements have been provably altered?


Point me to an altered statement. Thanks.




IMO, those examples provided by Nick are pretty weak when it comes to PROVING any witness statements were actually altered.

There are plenty of statements, testimonies, and affidavits available which could lead (on the surface anyway) to a conclusion that a conspiracy existed. Seymour Weitzman's affidavit being one such example. And the Warren Commission testimony of witnesses like Jean Hill and Sam Holland.

So why would the FBI or the WC feel compelled to "change" a little bit of testimony here and a dash there, when they left so much other testimony "unaltered" (like Holland's and Hill's and many others)? Doesn't make any sense to me to do that.


Who cares what makes sense to you? It was done. Period. And the "little bit" of testimony here and "a dash" there, as you put it, were not innocuous statements. They were the entire CRUX of the case, which the FBI just "happened" to get wrong. Over and over again. Explain.


But when ALL of the witnesses are taken into account---many of which said things that lead a lot of people into believing a conspiracy existed---what actual bottom-line benefit would be served by altering just a few statements here and there?

Even with a "new" and "altered" version of a few statements, the FBI and Warren Commission still left dozens and dozens of statements untouched that tend to lead toward conspiracy.

So what the heck was the point of altering just a few random statements?

It makes no sense in the long run.

Or do you think that people are likely to see only the allegedly "altered" statements, while not reading any of the unaltered statements made by people like Jean Hill, Sam Holland, Seymour Weitzman, Eugene Boone, Roger Craig, Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, and so many others?


Laughable examples, since Weitzman and Boone stopped referring to the weapon as a Mauser (by the way, anyone notice how hastily Boone's testimony gets wrapped up as soon as the word "Mauser" is uttered?) The reputations of the others on your list have been so severely attacked so as to make anything they say automatically dismissed without cause.


So, you're actually referring to the 1963-1964 statements and testimony and affidavits of Jean Hill and S.M. Holland and Roger Craig as being "laughable examples" of witnesses who said things that many CTers prop up as proof of conspiracy? That's nice. Thanks.


Here's something that I'd be willing to bet DOES exist in the JFK case....

A witness (or two or three or more) who originally said something to the WC or the FBI that leads to a "Lone Assassin" conclusion, but then (later) that witness noticed that their statement had been "altered" so that it now reflects something that would lead to a conclusion of conspiracy. (IOW, just the opposite from what CTers allege happened with many witnesses.)

But the reason we've never heard about those type of "altered" statements is because no conspiracy author would ever even think to ask a witness whose published statements lean toward "conspiracy" if their statements had been "altered" or "changed" in any manner.

But I'd bet the farm that there are at least a few witnesses who fall into that category. Which, if it could be proven, would render all of the arguments made by conspiracy theorists about "altered statements" pretty much worthless (or, at the very least, substantially weaken such an argument regarding alleged "altered" witness statements).

I'd never even given it a thought until the idea crossed my mind tonight [April 16, 2016]. But I don't really care enough about it to take the time to look. Maybe somebody else does. If so, that'd be great. I'd love to be able to shove the "Altered Statements" junk down the gullets of the conspiracy hobbyists.

However, even without researching it, I think some of Charles Brehm's statements might come close to meeting the requirements I just discussed above.


Virtually everything from DVP is accompanied by a statement such as "Doesn't make any sense to me," or "I believe" or "it seems clear that" or "it's entirely possible."

In other words, virtually everything from him is sheer speculation.


Pot crashes head-first with Kettle --- yet again.

David Von Pein
April 14-16, 2016