(PART 1141)


That you and Mr. Mack believe history was accurately and fully recorded by the Warren Commission does not make it so. It published a history that was both incomplete, and at times, misleading.


You conspiracists just can't get it through your heads that Mr. Mack is NOT an "LNer". He thinks there WAS a conspiracy. Why do you guys always totally ignore that fact when it comes to discussing Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum?

As for the Warren Commission's investigation being "incomplete", let's face reality here -- for a conspiracy theorist like yourself, Greg, no history of this case could ever possibly hope to be "complete", because you keep piling on more and more stuff (aka: chaff) that only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to the basic bottom-line facts concerning Lee Oswald's guilt.

A great example of such muddying activity can be found in your posts in this thread. You've got enough six degrees of separation junk to cover a dozen murder cases. Does it ever end? And do you really think that stuff like the stuff quoted below (quoting you, Greg Parker) is relevant to who murdered JFK? Does any of this really change the physical evidence in the case--which is evidence that conclusively proves LHO's guilt in TWO murders in 1963?:

"At the same time young Lee lived with him, John Pic worked in the intelligence branch of the Coast Guard (The Port Security Unit) alongside the FBI and ONI chasing commie subversives out of the ports.

Lee's truancy commenced when he turned 13 and ended at the same time Pic left the PSU.

While all this was going on, research was being done into the Korean POWs and what made some "turn".

A Harvard graduate was inside the consulate office with the former Harvard CIA spotter when Oswald attempted to defect. His name was Ed Keenan. He was an expert in Soviet and Russian history, language and society. The same year that Oswald left the USSR, Keenan was kicked
out as a spy. His name is missing from your "history" and he is not mentioned anywhere in the 26 volumes. Why is that?"

[End Parker Quotes.]

Oh, brother, what a bunch of nothin'.

The single biggest thing that has made the JFK murder case seem so endlessly complicated (even though it's really a very simple crime to solve) is the fact that so many conspiracy theorists like Greg Parker, James Fetzer, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and John Armstrong (et al) have spent thousands of hours heaping more and more "suspects" and "connections" and minutiae and unsupportable theories onto the conspiracy table, making it absolutely impossible to make the record "complete".

As Vincent Bugliosi has said many times (and he's right): The JFK case is endless; there is no bottom to the pile.

And the only reason it's endless is because of the conspiracy theorists' never-ending quest to be right about some element of their perpetual conspiracy theories in the John F. Kennedy case.

But when an LNer on the other side takes time to examine some of these theories and "connections" more closely, the theory always turns out to be bogus.

Here are just a few examples:

1.) The subject of this very discussion -- the postmark on Oswald's envelope (CE773). There's now good reason to conclude that the "12" on that Dallas postmark doesn't have anything to do with any postal zone within the city of Dallas at all.

2.) The death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Eddy. For years, outer-fringe CTers were saying that Eddy Benavides was murdered as part of some continuing conspiracy plot in the JFK assassination (i.e., to send a message to Domingo prior to his giving his Warren Commission testimony). But recently it's been learned (via Dallas newspaper clippings) that Eddy Benavides didn't die in 1964, he died in 1965, a full year AFTER Domingo gave his WC testimony.

3.) The three tramps, whose arrest records were discovered years later (by a pair of conspiracy theorists, of all people), with the tramps turning out to be nothing but...real tramps.

4.) The "backyard photos are fake" theory, which, amazingly, many CTers still embrace to this day, even though we now know (as of 1977) that Lee Oswald himself personally signed one of the photos and gave it to George DeMohrenschildt.

5.) The people who scream that "The Single-Bullet Theory is physically impossible" should now be hiding their faces in shame and embarrassment here in the 21st century, due to the fine work done by people like Dale Myers, Failure Analysis, and the Discovery Channel -- all of whom have pretty much verified that the SBT is a workable and reasonable conclusion (especially when considering what the silly multi-gun anti-SBT alternatives have got to be if the SBT is untrue).

Give me a few more minutes and I could come up with lots more theories that have deservedly been flushed down the toilet since 1963.

I'll close with a few relevant and astute quotes from the great Jean Davison:

"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy is interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one may glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are disconnected scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close examination, many of these scenes evaporate." -- Jean Davison; Page 277 of "Oswald's Game"


"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game"


"Instead of focusing on the important issue -- that Oswald in fact ordered the weapon that was delivered to his P.O. Box, the CTs focus on the "capillaries," nitpicking the P.O.'s faulty record-keeping." -- Jean Davison; January 17, 2006


"The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's character and background interacting with circumstance." -- Jean Davison; Page 297 of "Oswald's Game"

David Von Pein
August 7, 2012