(PART 1176)


This is just some more information from Carlos Quiroga, member of DRE who also knew Oswald. He informed me that he did infiltrate Oswald's FPCC. We had a nice conversation over the phone some time ago. He tried to inform the government that Oswald is innocent of shooting President Kennedy. But do you think the government wanted to listen?

Also, according to Quiroga, he said he had written several letters to the WC asking them if he could testify on the information he was aware of. Guess what? No one at the WC requested for his testimony, knowing full well of what Mr. Quiroga knew. Now, with Mr. Quiroga's permission, I plan on getting his testimony out very shortly.

Thanks for reading my information.


I wonder how anything Carlos Quiroga says could manage to erase all that evidence up on the sixth floor of the Book Depository? And how can Quiroga wipe away Oswald's own incriminating actions and lies? Any ideas?


You mean all the evidence that the DPD planted there? Yeah, okay, I guess you don't know Carlos. .... Why don't we go head to head. I don't use that research stuff, and I'm no researcher, so what do you say? I'll use what I have and you can talk about Oswald's gun and all that crap, okay?


You wouldn't stand a chance against the evidence, Scott. Better stick with good ol' Carlos. After all, Carlos KNOWS exactly what happened, right? And Carlos KNOWS that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, right? (No wonder the HSCA didn't want to interview him.)

And it's good to know that you think ALL of the evidence against Oswald was "planted" by the DPD. But I wonder how the DPD got the FBI and Secret Service to JOIN IN the planting festival against that sap named Oswald? Any idea?

Because the DPD didn't initially handle CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments--which ALL came from Oswald's rifle. I guess the DPD just got lucky when the OTHER agencies decided they wanted to frame Oswald too, huh?


What evidence?

I'll leave it up to you--any place and time. But if you want to find a way out now, just say so. I won't hold it against you, nor will your fans, so don't worry.


Just keep ignoring the evidence, Scott. It's what all good conspiracy quacks do. Why should you break the tradition?


Come on, Dave, give me a break! I'll accept that as a no. No hard feelings, man.

BTW, I don't know how many times I have to tell you...I'M NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST...UGH!!!!!


So, Scott, you think there WASN'T a conspiracy then?


No, what I'm saying is that Oswald was not the shooter. In order to believe a conspiracy, one has to seek the truth out of that conspiracy. A conspiracy is a plot generated by two or more people. I do believe in conspiracies. I'm just not a conspiracy theorist. There is a difference there, Dave. Believe it or not.

Take my father for example. He was a part of many conspiracies to assassinate Fidel Castro. The fact that Castro is not dead is a reason why many of the conspiracies did not work. That's the truth, and the fact that Castro is still alive proves it.


Scott, if you think Oswald was NOT the shooter, you therefore DO believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case. You surely can't argue with that statement, can you?


Allow me to clarify myself, so that even a second-grader can understand what I'm saying. This is as clear as it gets -- I do believe in conspiracies. However, I am NOT a Conspiracy Theorist. Those are two very different nouns and pronouns.

I'm what you call more of a verb kind of guy, and since I like action, I'm a truth seeker. A person who seeks the truth out of a conspiracy. Do you understand me now?


Okay, Scott. Whatever. Do you think Oswald shot Tippit? (Just curious.)


No way, no how, unless he is the fastest man in the world and he got from point A to point B in the time the WC says he did, there is absolutely no way.

Then the fact that there were bullets that could not be found, then the fact that bullets didn't match his gun. But we're not talking about Tippit, or are we? I thought we were talking about the president. Let's stick with one topic before we jump to the next. You asked if I believed if Oswald was the shooter. The shooter of who--the president or Tippit? Please clarify.


20 minutes ago, when you said "Oswald was not the shooter", I assumed you were talking about the JFK murder. So I then asked about Tippit separately.

And Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder couldn't be any clearer. You seem to
have fallen for every conspiracy myth in the book, including the one about Oswald not being able to get there in time to shoot Tippit, which is just flat wrong. (Click Here.)

Plus, what do you do with all the "Oswald Was There With A Gun" witnesses---like Callaway, Scoggins, Davis, etc.?


You're better off joining me rather than providing information that is only provided by the DPD or the WC. You are better off joining me, and then I will provide you with all my material that is opposite of the DPD and the WC. Come into the light, and the truth shall set you free.


You want me to join you in IGNORING all of the evidence? Come now my good man. Don't be absurd.


David, that is what I'm trying to save you from. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no evidence. There is no evidence. There is no evidence. Other than the fact that Oswald could NOT have killed the president.


Scott, now you're just being silly. You think you can sweep away the guns (counting the Tippit murder weapon, which was ON OSWALD'S PERSON when he was arrested), the bullets, the shells, the prints, LHO's actions and lies? You think you can just magically make all of that stuff vanish with a wave of your hand and a triple exclamation of "There is no evidence"?? It's not that easy Scott. And it's difficult to believe you could be so gullible. (Even with a guy named "Carlos" in your hip pocket.)


David...I don't know how you can continue to try to reason with these people. You have more patience than I could even dream of.


Well, Ray, it's a slow day here at Langley. (What with the Government shutdown and all.) I guess I just got bored.


And just so you know, LBJ didn't believe the WC.


LBJ told Walter Cronkite he had some doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusions, yes. But I always like to use those doubts in MY favor -- because many people think Johnson was BEHIND the assassination. So would he go on TV and say he thought there WAS a conspiracy?

Or do the "LBJ Did It" theorists think that Johnson said that just as a ruse? (No need to answer if you're not in the "LBJ Did It" fraternity.)


Here, you may want to do some further reading on Oswald and his guns. Enjoy! Get back to me after you fully understand what you've read...

http://jfk.hood.edu/Oswald Paraffin Tests


Oh good Lord. Scott's bringing up the paraffin tests. As if Oswald testing negative on his cheek positively means he didn't shoot Kennedy. ~sigh~ (MORE HERE.)


Don't you just love how the DPD goes back and forth on Oswald. Why? Because the WC had to establish that Oswald was the only shooter [of] both the President and Tippit.

They had to establish Oswald acted alone. Why? To avoid a conflict with Russia. Cuba was no threat, but the anti-Castro [exiles?] were. You above all people should know that.


What "back and forth" do you mean, Scott? We all know a paraffin test is pretty much useless. So you've got no choice but to toss that aside (or, at the very least, look at the test results in a skeptical manner--regardless of WHAT they show).

And the DPD had no doubt that Oswald was a double-murderer long BEFORE the Warren Commission was ever created---six days before to be exact. Jesse Curry stated on live TV on 11/23/63 -- "I think this is that man that killed the President."

And why do you think Curry said that if there was no evidence against LHO as you say there isn't?


I'm gonna chime in for a second, then leave the debate to you guys. I won't say I have all the answers, or that there definitely was no one involved except for Oswald, but saying Oswald wasn't firing from the Book Depository or that he didn't kill Tippit is just turning a blind eye to reality.


What Ray said.

I truly think Scott Kaiser might benefit from my website on the JFK case. I'm not saying that every last thing is included on my site, but a lot of info and facts are included. And I didn't just make up the source material I often cite. Just like the Warren Commission didn't just make up any of the evidence against Oswald.

Many people seem to want to link the EVIDENCE to the WARREN COMMISSION, which is just dumb. The WC boys didn't collect ANY of that physical evidence that hangs Oswald. They merely evaluated it.


DVP has been posting his debate with Jim DiEugenio, but for some weird reason I can't get him to go head to head with me.


We could save a lot of "debating", Scott, by just simply saying this --- DVP thinks all the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases is legitimate....while Scott R. Kaiser thinks it's all been faked and planted.

[End of debate.]

Of course, to be fair to Scott K., my above debate shortcut could also just as easily apply to almost every Internet conspiracist in the world--including James DiEugenio. Because he, too, thinks all the evidence is phony. And I've gone 92 rounds with him [as of October 2013].


Please do not confuse me with DiEugenio. I have not said any of the material you, the WC or the DPD provides is phoney. And you may quote me on that. I do however want my fair debate as to whether or not Oswald was in fact the lone assassin you claim him to be. That's all. Please do not provide me with quotes such as, "You and every other conspiracy theorist do not have all the evidence" or "I'll just keep ignoring your evidence Scott" or "The DPD didn't initially handle CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments--which ALL came from Oswald's rifle". Or my personal favorite, "You wouldn't stand a chance against the evidence".

Just let me know if you are up to the challenge. If so, I would like to introduce a few rules, if you don't mind, and if that's okay with you.

Okay, your turn.


Eight hours ago, Scott R. Kaiser said this to me --- "You mean all the evidence that the DPD planted there?"

And now, 8 hours later, Scott said this --- "I have not said any of the material you, the WC or the DPD provides is phoney."

Scott doesn't even seem to know what he was advocating just eight hours ago--that the Dallas Police Department planted a bunch of evidence. Given the above contradictory quotes, I fear that a debate with Scott Kaiser might be akin to a debate against a chameleon.


DVP, I'm not into he said, she said, or the past. I'm into here and the now. You are either up to my request for a challenge or you are not. Stop with the excuses, it's getting old. People are starting to yawn. Your answer should be easy. I couldn't make it any simpler for you. It's a yes or no answer. That's it, nothing else. All this alibiing and extended crap is just that--crap. And frankly, I'm starting to get tired myself.


What people are yawning? It's you, me, and maybe Ray and Ed Cage that are reading these posts [which originated on Facebook]. Nobody else cares. And you don't even know what YOU yourself believe (evidently).

My answer: No thanks.

I'm not interested in debating someone who apparently is more than willing to change his stripes every 8 hours (as I proved you did today regarding the DPD).

And if you're "starting to get tired" of my presenting evidence after just a few hours, God help you after I present ALL of the evidence to show Oswald was a double-killer.

Good night. You look worn out.


That's okay David, a simple yes or no answer would have been [enough], without all the added alibiing.

Thank you. I still respect you and your work. I know you have put a lot of time, money and effort into it. And don't worry, I will challenge any person who is a lone assassin believer under certain rules, of course. I do also appreciate you taking your time to discuss a possible debate with me. You're a good man, DVP.


Scott, no offense, but your knowledge of 11-22-63 is astonishingly shallow, coupled to an inability to apply common sense. There were 3 shots, 3 shells on the floor of the TSBD sniper's nest. It was proven to be Oswald's rifle with his prints on it, the SN [Sniper's Nest] box, the bag and he was seen doing the actual shooting.

Further, LHO was the only one to miss the TSBD roll call and 5 people saw him kill Tippit. He was captured with the pistol proven to have killed Tippit on him.

I have dealt with hundreds of cHucKLe-heADs, but you may take the prize. The "evidence" you have was debunked decades ago.

Additionally, the bullet fragments and CE399 all matched Oswald's rifle, which was in the Paine garage.

Question for you: Who took Oswald's rifle from the Paine garage?


Hi Ed. Thanks for the prize. It always feels good knowing who the winner is. But can you please tell me what evidence I have that has been debunked decades ago?

BTW, Ed, you say, "There were 3 shots, 3 shells on the floor of the TSBD SN." But I'll tell you that there were five (5) shells there, in total.

Ed, you seem like the kind of guy that needs to hang around folks who do nothing all day but call other folks names. You try to put them down and insult them. So you hang around folks like DVP. That sets a bad example. I'm sorry you don't have a better choice of friends, or perhaps you just don't know how to select them, but what you and DVP do to people by bulling [sic?] your way and push your information off on people by your strong language doesn't work on me.

I'd like to first say you don't know me, so I suggest you stop busting my balls; it could be very hazardous to your heath. Secondly, because you don't know me, I also demand respect. I'm not asking, I'm telling you before you get a little too comfortable with your name calling and prize giveaways. You want to challenge me in a debate, let's do it. But if you think you're going to push me around, call me names and give out prizes, you have another thing coming.

My advice to you is: don't tread on thin ice, it may break.


Respectfully, Scott, my claim; "your knowledge of 11-22-63 is astonishingly shallow coupled to an inability to apply common sense" .... was factual. Sometimes the truth hurts on JFK conspiracy buffs who attempt to call it "name calling."

Further, your claim: "there were five (5) shells there" is false.


Scott believes a lot of stuff that is uttered by conspiracy theorists. And that's ALWAYS a bad sign.

Where on Earth Scott gets the "5 shells found in the SN" business is anyone's guess, but it sure didn't come from anything in the official records--nor from the man who first discovered the Sniper's Nest--Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney. Mooney circled the THREE shells in this Commission Exhibit (CE510). Was Mooney a liar, Scott?---


You just don't get it, do you? I'm telling you there was [sic] five shells there. Two of them were picked up by one of the police officers. He never mentioned to anyone about the two shells he picked up. You will have to do the research and look into it yourself, but you both don't know what you're talking about. All you seem to do is collect evidence from what you find on the DPD reports. So sad.

Mr. Cage, you have no argument to say that my evidence you said has been debunked years ago, yet you fail to provide the evidence you say I have. And, you go on to say, "your knowledge of 11-22-63 is astonishingly shallow coupled to an inability to apply common sense".

Yet, your argument holds no water. I suggest that you speak to folks who have families that were killed over the situation, and perhaps you may learn sometime.


What is the police officer's name who picked up the 2 extra shells, Scott?

It's interesting, too, to note the differences between the conspiracy theorists (CTers) regarding the number of shells found. Many CTers are adamant in their belief that only TWO total shells were recovered, with those CTers totally ignoring Captain Fritz' June 9, 1964, affidavit, in which Fritz said he intentionally kept one shell in his office and released the other two to the FBI. But now we get Scott Kaiser, who claims FIVE shells were in the Sniper's Nest.

Scott also will need to reconcile the witness testimony, which has about 75% of the earwitnesses hearing precisely THREE shots--no more/no less.

Plus: Harold Norman's account of hearing exactly THREE shells drop to the floor above him. (And Norman was situated directly underneath Oswald's window.) And Norman heard THREE shots as well.

But, Scott's got a cop who says he picked up two more shells. And I wonder WHY the idiot cop did that? Did he tell you why, Scott?


Great points, DVP.

Now Assassination Curator Scott R. Kaiser is going to have to make up a fictitious name straight out of his head.


I'm telling you there were five [bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest]. And you don't believe me--why? Is it easier to just insult me? You have surely read what is written in the DP reports? Therefore, you only believe what you read. But you refuse to believe what I say, why?

I'm telling you the truth that there were five bullets and yet that is not enough? Your collection is good, but not good enough. You should stop copying what everybody else says only to use their words for your own benefit.


Because you say so does not make it true. You need [more] than that, Scott.


This is from J.C. Day's affidavit about the shells (dated June 23, 1964)---

[Quote on:]

"Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963."

[End J.C. Day Quote.]


I don't get it. Why would someone put themselves through all that research [and] contact the National Archives [and] provide all that information [and] spend his time putting together a video [which Barry Krusch did in October 2013--Click Here] only to find out that everything he said is false? I just don't get it. Why?


Scott, if Day needed a magnifying glass to find his markings in 1964, why would or should we see them with the naked eye 49 years later? You must admit those shells are battered and have deteriorated.

Barry's photos are interesting, but do not prove a conspiracy. They really don't. Nor does the paper work show there were 5 shells. Barry is cherry picking his documents, IMO.


I understand, Michael. Thank you for helping [me?] see things in a different light. You're the man, Michael.


Scott, the reason your nutty theory can't get any traction is because it takes fragments of the truth, the actual truth, and then sophomorically attempts to create artificial "linkage" that simply does not exist.


Ed, first let's clear up a few things here -- you say it's "my theory". I say it is not my theory. I have not posted that information anywhere.

Secondly, Mr. Michael Giampaolo hit the nail right on the head when he posted this video.

That is where I got the information from. So for you to say it's "my theory", you're wrong. I have repeatedly posted my bonafides many times in the past. What are yours? In fact, I'm quite sure I made mention of it here on this thread. I thought you were reading it. Please allow me to spell it out for you as slowly as I can, so a man of your intellect will understand me:

I have never, ever, claimed to be a JFK researcher. I do, however, enjoy reading both sides of the assassination. I do make up my own mind without the help from those who wish to do nothing else but shove and/or push the information down someone's throat. I like to deal with people who are a bit more rational, who have their head on straight, down to earth. I have no need to deal with folks who believe they are all high and mighty.

I do not appreciate it when someone, a person like you, tries to cram information down my throat. And then praise someone who has spent hours, days, months, years collecting JFK information and displays it on his website as though he's the GOD of JFK research.

You may, however, worship whomever you like, but IMHO I believe you have taken it over the top. If I may, I would like to inform you that DVP is merely a man, not a God. It is, of course, your decision as to where you want to plant your lips. As for mine, I prefer to kiss a girl.


Wrong again, Scott. Here's your actual quote; "I'm telling you there was five shells there two of them were picked up by one of the police officers."

Facts are stubborn.


Why can't you man up? When Mr. Giampaolo posted that video and explained it to me, I accepted his point of view. As a man, I also knew that being wrong meant to accept it, one thing my father taught me. How in the world can you not accept the fact when you're wrong, you're wrong? Suck it up man, and take it like one.


But, Scott, did you read the 1964 quote I posted from J.C. Day, where he confirms he SAW his own initials on ALL THREE of the shells that Barry Krusch in his video insists are not there?

I guess you can always say the shells in the video are different ones from the ones Lieutenant Day talks about in his June '64 affidavit. But I'm not going to go down that "Everything's Fake" road. Are you?


Yes, I did read it.


Is Lt. Day lying?


How would I know? That is his testimony, statement and affidavit. All we can do is go by what he says, right?


I'm confused now ---

Scott, in a post a few minutes, seems to "accept" Michael's interpretation regarding the battered shells and the "magnifying glass", but then Scott continues to berate and scold Ed Cage for not accepting when he (Ed) is wrong. But based on Scott's latter post, it would seem Ed is not wrong at all.

Scott, you are a confusing person.


Now you're confusing me. But it appears you know how to make things appear and disappear just how you want them to appear for your own benefit--like a magician.


OK, maybe I'm confused when I said Scott was confused. ~grin~

Maybe Scott can still think Michael's previous point about the magnifying glass and the shitty-looking deteriorated shells (which is something I also mentioned in one of my posts earlier too) is a valid point....but Scott still thinks Barry Krusch in his video is right about the cops playing a "shell game" with the shells.

But I still would like an answer to my prior question, Scott. You never answered this -- What was the name of the policeman who you say picked up two shells in the Sniper's Nest and kept quiet about it for decades? What's your source for that info--another conspiracy believer? A book? A personal conversation with the policeman? What? That's kind of important you know, given your allegation of it actually happening.

Another important point Scott Kaiser should realize is this one --- The shells picked up in the Sniper's Nest (CE543, 544, 545) are CORROBORATIVE of other evidence found in TWO other locations (Parkland and the limousine).

In other words, everything fits together perfectly in those THREE locations, all coming back to Oswald's Carcano rifle.

So even if you want to throw out the shells entirely from the evidence pile in this case, you've still got to deal with the fact that OTHER bullet evidence coming from Oswald's rifle was discovered (or do you want me to say "allegedly discovered"?) in the hospital AND (even more importantly) in the President's limousine itself.

Forgive me, Scott, if I treat you as a novice on this point---but did you know that two bullet fragments that were conclusively proven to have been fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle were, in fact, recovered from the front seat of JFK's car after the shooting?

Therefore, Oswald's rifle WAS being fired into President Kennedy's car on 11/22/63. There is no way around that ironclad fact (with or without the shells in the TSBD). Or do you think the front-seat bullet fragments were planted there by somebody?

HERE is my brief article on those very important limo fragments, which are often ignored entirely by some of the conspiracy theorists. And I can understand why they want to ignore them. Because if those fragments aren't "fake", then Oswald's gun fired at least one shot at JFK in Dallas.


David, stop already, please stop. You are becoming worse than a woman. No offense to you women, but I can assure you no one is reading our post, so please don't tell me what I should or should not realize. Stop trying so hard to get what information you have with your theories out there. I really don't care man, am I making my point?

You may now have your last word. I think I've made my point, and I really don't care man, so say what you will after this, I will no longer be posting on this thread. I hope that I have made my point.


Scott made a point?


Just when I was beginning to think Scott R. Kaiser just MIGHT not be such a bad conspiracy kook after all, he goes and says what he just said. A shame.

Scott refuses to answer my simple, straightforward question -- Who was the cop?

Scott obviously has no desire to look at the facts and the evidence in the JFK case. That's quite apparent by these words of Scott's -- "I really don't care man."

Unbelievable. Scott "doesn't care" that evidence proving Oswald's guns killed J.D. Tippit AND John F. Kennedy is littered all over Dallas and Oak Cliff. He said it -- "I really don't care."


And please note the hypocrisy when Scott said something that I also mentioned the other day about Facebook threads like this -- "No one is reading our post". Isn't that precisely what I said just yesterday--only to have Scott come back and assure me that there are, indeed, a whole lot of lurkers out there reading this stuff?

What I said yesterday about Scott being a chameleon is now bolstered even further today. He doesn't know what he's saying. And he remembers even less.

David Von Pein
October 19-21, 2013