(PART 1181)


Hi Dave,

This email is in response to your writings about Oswald and JFK [at the website below].

First, thank you for your input, I know it took a lot of time to write.

Prior to about two months ago, I thought that Oswald was the only culprit and acted alone. I rationalized that it is kind of far-fetched to think the government had anything to do with it. I finally got a chance to visit Dallas and decided to visit Dealey Plaza.

After I got done viewing the area, I moved to the conspiracy booth and watched the presentation. What really hit me is that someone believed in the conspiracy theory so much, they would put up a free exhibit and man it, 50 years after it happened.

I decided they, as well as myself, deserved an objective analysis on the subject. I am clearly not an expert. After I finished viewing the presentation, I walked away thinking "What is the catch? For someone to think that this was not a conspiracy, there must be a push back."

I then went home and did an internet search. To me, there was not a reliable push back, anywhere. For some reason, I have only just run into your points for Oswald. I did not get through most of them, due to a time constraint. Please let me give you some constructive suggestions on getting your points across:

Most people thought Oswald was into it up to his eyeballs in this deal, hence they call it a conspiracy. If you believe the CIA organized the killing, it makes sense that they would employ a fall guy like Oswald. Hence, proof that the gun belonged to him, that he was bringing a gun and not curtain rods, that him shooting the cop adds to your point, should be taken out as it does not prove one way or the other that he committed the crime.


There's no way in the world I would ever want to sever the Tippit murder from my laundry list of points leading to Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy murder. To do such severing would be to cut out a very critical murder, which occurred just 45 minutes after SOMEBODY WITH OSWALD'S GUN shot President Kennedy FROM OSWALD'S WORKPLACE.

The tie-ins are numerous and inescapable (and obvious). The two murders go hand-in-hand, without question. Nobody should sever one from the other, IMO, because Oswald's murder of J.D. Tippit shows "flight" from the scene of the murder that had just been committed in front of Oswald's own working establishment.

I understand why conspiracy promoters like to sever the Tippit crime from the JFK murder -- because to admit that Oswald killed Tippit is to admit that he was very likely involved in shooting Kennedy too. And most "Internet" conspiracists don't care for the idea that Oswald shot ANYBODY on November 22, 1963. That's the type of craziness I deal with online.


Another issue I caught right away is the eyewitness [issue]. The total time the shooter was in the window in sight of the eyewitness could not [have] been any more than eight seconds. Most of that time, the shooter had a gun butt to his frontal. People understand the lack of reliability of witnesses and even if the witness is fairly sure, he can be completely off.

The second point is if the CIA was trying to put the blame on Oswald, they most likely would pick a shooter that looked a bit like Oswald. This point you have made should be removed.


It should not be removed because it buttresses and tends to support all of my OTHER points that lead inexorably to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.

And you need to read Howard Brennan's testimony again. Brennan not only saw the shooter (whom he later assured the Warren Commission was, indeed, Lee H. Oswald) while he was firing a gun at Kennedy, but Brennan also saw the SAME man in the window (sans any gun) several minutes prior to the assassination, which is very likely how he was able to estimate the shooter's height and weight in later statements and affidavits.

Brennan had a perfect spot to view the sixth-floor gunman. And he did observe that gunman both before and during the shooting.

The other witnesses who saw the man in the corner window, with the exception of Amos Euins, saw a man whose general description did fit that of Lee Oswald (white male, slender, in his early 20s).

Yes, eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. But given the OTHER physical evidence left behind by that killer on the sixth floor, coupled with the witness statements of people like Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards, the chances that the gunman WASN'T Lee Oswald are mighty small indeed.

And I do not believe that any of the evidence was planted by anyone. Too many conspiracy theorists use the "Planted Evidence" theory as their fallback position. They HAVE to argue that ALL of the evidence was planted or tampered with to frame "Patsy" Oswald. Because if they don't, then Oswald is almost certainly guilty and they have lost their innocent "patsy".

In short, there is NO proof that any evidence was planted in this murder case. None.


The odds that everything would come together for Oswald to obtain his goal would be huge. He would have had to get a job in the exact location he needed, which does not mean this could not have happened. He would have had to have been so committed to his goal as to research the exact route of the limousine and a close proximity to the time Kennedy would have been there. He would have had the weather going for him. He would have had to have Kennedy ride in a convertible.

All of these things would have had to come together--which is astronomical. All other assassinations or assassination attempts have been made by the killer going to the victim and performing the act, not just per chance. The plan Oswald had, acting alone, would have to most likely been spontaneous and does not fit the profile.


And just because Oswald does not fit into a niche or "profile" of other pre-1963 assassins, this is supposed to mean Oswald is innocent?

Sorry, but that's not a reasonable position at all--especially in light of all of that evidence I discuss at my websites (more links below, if you'd like to view them; and tons of additional articles can be found HERE on why Oswald was 100% guilty of the two murders he was charged with)....

Six Things Made To Order For Lee Harvey Oswald

Everything Oswald Did Says "I'm Guilty"


Your point that in 90 seconds he could have stashed a gun and went down 4 floors and be casually sitting there like nothing happened does not seem reasonable, but I guess it could have been done.

What you did not address is how he got by two eyewitnesses, especially in that time limit. So, now you have a guy who has planned an assassination in a reasonably short period of time, had it all come together, been able to stash a gun and move 4 floors in 90 seconds, who was observed drinking a coke, cool and calmly as if nothing happened. All the while enjoying a casual day's work in his job place.


You are misinformed on several things here. Oswald was never seen "sitting" in the lunchroom after the shooting, nor was he seen "drinking a Coke". That's a myth that has endured for 50 years.

Plus, the two female witnesses you spoke of (Adams and Styles) were almost certainly on the stairs only AFTER Oswald had already descended those same stairs. Click Here.

And here's where you went wrong about the Coke.


Your point that 3 shots were fired and three cartridges were found in the shooter's nest is irrelevant. The CIA can put any amount of cartridges they want in the shooter's den.


Oh come now, Greg. You've been reading too many conspiracy tales. Nobody from the "CIA" was ever up on that sixth floor. The Dallas Police collected those bullet shells--and all three were fired in Oswald's rifle. There is no doubt about that fact.

Sure, evidence COULD be planted. But it COULD be planted in every murder case ever investigated in the history of mankind, right? So what's your point? Should we ignore the evidence of Oswald's guilt simply because somebody COULD have planted it there? Then what's the point of ever having any evidence introduced at any murder trial--ever?

All the defense needs to do is to say to the jury -- This evidence, you know, MIGHT have been planted by somebody to incriminate the defendant. And since none of us in this courtroom was there when this crime was committed, we must therefore assume that it WAS planted and let the defendant go free.

See how silly such an argument sounds? And yet, every day, I do indeed hear many conspiracy theorists making very similar arguments on the Internet. They've got no PROOF that any of the evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders was planted or manufactured. All they've got is an inkling in their guts. But an inkling isn't very persuasive in my book. Evidence is.


How did a guy who was such a shooting expert as Oswald, that could hit that kind of a target like the way he supposedly did, completely miss not only Kennedy but the whole car on one of his shots. And many say this was the first shot.


Yes, Oswald's "miss" was the first shot. More on that here.


On his head shot, if Oswald shot Kennedy from behind, the left front of the head should have a huge hole in it, with the right back, only a small entry wound. The film does not support the fact that Kennedy's head is turned.


I'm not sure what your last sentence means at all. But there WAS only a small wound of entry in the back of the head.

I've argued about the head wounds for years on the Internet with various people. Some articles you might want to peruse regarding JFK's head wounds can be found here and here.


Another huge thing -- why would Jack Ruby, a small-time gambler and criminal, care so much that he would kill Oswald?


You've got to get to know Ruby better in order to understand his motives. And the same goes for Oswald too. You need to get inside of the MEN who committed these crimes (Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby).

Those men, particularly Oswald, have for too long been cast aside as just scenery or pawns to move around the conspiracy chess board by people like Mark Lane and Oliver Stone, et al.

But when you read about WHO Oswald and Ruby were, the idea that they each acted alone in 1963 becomes much easier to understand--and accept.


JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Jack Ruby

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/How Did Ruby Enter The Basement?


Why would Johnson secure everything for such a long time so we cannot get to the information?


He didn't. Lyndon Johnson didn't seal or "secure" anything. That's another conspiracy myth that needs to go into the trash can.

The National Archives had a rule that said all leftover documents following a Governmental investigation (like the Warren Commission inquiry) must be sealed for 75 years. It wasn't Earl Warren or LBJ who sealed any records. It was the National Archives.

Plus, that old rule has since been abolished by the creation of the JFK Act (sparked by Oliver Stone's film) in 1992.

So nearly all records (except a very tiny percentage) are out there for everybody to see. And most of them are even online (for free).

Thanks for writing.

David Von Pein
November 6, 2013