(PART 1202)


I find it rather humorous to note that Bob Harris is of the opinion that the Moorman photograph shows the back of JFK's head completely "intact", which is exactly the opposite of what many different CTers believe.

A lot of conspiracy kooks love to paint in their interpretation of a huge "blow-out" hole at the rear of JFK's head within the Moorman photo (which, of course, is a hole that isn't there at all...but it never stops a good conspiracist from drawing a great-big hole into the picture).

So, we've got one CTer (Bob Harris) telling us to believe him regarding the Moorman picture (i.e., that there's no hole at all visible at the back of Kennedy's head in Moorman's pic)....but many other CTers want the world to believe THEM when they claim that the Moorman picture is depicting a large chunk of JFK's head missing at the back of the head.

Nice consistency amongst the conspiracy theorists, huh?

BTW, if anybody gives a care, it's my own opinion (and has been for some time) that Mary Moorman's B&W Polaroid photograph (below) was taken just a split-second or so BEFORE President Kennedy was hit in the head:


If the head shot had ALREADY occurred before Moorman snapped that shutter on her camera, I have a hard time believing we'd see no effects of that head shot whatsoever within Moorman's picture. And there's no "spray" visible, no visible blood or brain particles (which, of course, are very, very visible from across the street via Mr. Zapruder's film).

However, I'll also admit that the Moorman photo is of very poor quality to begin with, so any details are hard to discern within the image. Which, of course, is one of the main reasons why the "Badge Man" theory is so ridiculous. Researchers are relying on a super-duper blow-up of an already crappy Polaroid to "find" assassins in the far background of the degraded imagery. Impossible, IMO.

David Von Pein
February 13, 2008



Here's a 2011 interview with assassination eyewitness Mary Moorman:

Here are some random thoughts regarding Mary Moorman's belief that the FIRST shot (of 3 or 4 total that she said she heard) hit JFK in the head:

If the first shot had been the head shot, then (logically) it would not make very much sense for there to have been any more shots AFTER the fatal blow to the President's head--let alone MULTIPLE additional shots being fired into the car.

And here's another point to be made on this (probably even a better logical point than the one I just made above) -- As we can see via the Zapruder Film, right after JFK was struck in the head, his head is moving around violently (which, it would seem to me, would have presented a difficult situation for any gunman at that exact point in time, because his head would have been very difficult to keep in the gunman's sights because of its violent movement backward after Z313).

And we can also see in the Z-Film that JFK crumples OUT OF SIGHT of ANY gunman in Dealey Plaza within just seconds of the Z313 head shot.

So my next logical question for Ms. Moorman (or anyone else who contends that gunmen were still popping away at President Kennedy by firing MULTIPLE SHOTS after Z313) -- What were those gunmen shooting at at that point in time? Jackie? Roy Kellerman? James Tague? Because if it was more than just a second or two after Z313, and shots were still being fired in Dealey Plaza, then those gunmen were certainly not going to have a very clear shot at John F. Kennedy. That's for sure.

David Von Pein
May 28, 2011



Anybody else ever wonder why Mary Moorman waited until after President Kennedy's limousine had gone past her on Elm Street to take her now-famous assassination photo?

Since Mary's camera was a Polaroid, she could only take one photo every ten seconds, but for some reason she waited until the car completely passed her position to snap the shutter, so that she got a picture of the back of JFK's and Jackie's heads.

She could have just as easily snapped the picture a few seconds earlier and she then would have had a much better image of JFK's face and Jackie's face, rather than capturing the back of their heads. (Of course, if she had snapped the shutter a few seconds earlier, Moorman would have captured an injured JFK and a bewildered Jackie.)

As things turned out, of course, Moorman's picture is great for conspiracy theorists, who have turned her grainy black-and-white image into a springboard for their "second gunman" conspiracy theories. CTers have combed the background of the picture and have "found" numerous mysterious plotters and gun-toting assassins who aren't really there at all.

But from Mary Moorman's photographic point-of-view on Elm Street in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, I haven't been able to logically figure out just why in the world Mary preferred a picture of the back of the head of the President of the United States instead of a photo that would have looked something like this one below (perspective-wise and angle-wise):


A few seconds earlier the limo would be too far away [from Mary Moorman].


Therefore, it was much better to wait until the car passed her by, so that all that she is going to get is a nice picture of the back of Kennedy's head???

You're hilarious, Tony.


She TRIED to take her photo when the limo was the closest to her, but it takes a few milliseconds to press the button.


Hilarious #2.


Simple facts.



I was merely pointing out and attempting to emphasize this "simple fact" in my thread-starting post:

Mary Ann Moorman had a choice of when to take her Polaroid photograph on 11/22/63 (the assassination notwithstanding)---

1.) She could have chosen to take the picture while the President's car was still to her right (east), which would mean very likely capturing an image of JFK's and Jackie's faces (plus the Connallys too).


2.) She could wait and snap the shutter after the car has gone past her (to her left/west), which means she cannot possibly capture a "face" shot of anyone in the car (unless JFK or Jackie would be nice enough to turn sharply to their left and smile at her after the car has already gone by her).

Mary chose option #2. And, in my opinion, that's just kind of strange.

Those are the "simple facts" I was trying to stress, Tony. But, as always, Marsh has his "argue" button in the permanent "On" position, even for an unimportant thread like this one.

I only started the topic because it's something I've always wondered about when thinking about Mary Moorman's photo.

Here's another way to look at it:

If JFK had not been shot and killed right in front of Mary's camera lens, then her Polaroid picture would probably have been regarded as a pretty lousy photo (which it is, perspective-wise, when the assassination is removed from the equation).

If JFK had not been shot in Dealey Plaza, I wonder if Mary would have said this to her friends after taking the picture she took on November 22:

Look at this great picture I took on Friday of the back of President Kennedy's head! Isn't this a great angle I got of the President? And just look at that great view of Jackie too! That pillbox hat is terrific, isn't it? And the back of her head is simply stunning!


How many hours did it take the press to publish the Moorman photo? Do you think the CIA Ultra Top Secret photo lab in New York could have altered it before the press published it? Even using the fastest spy jet then to transport it back and forth?


That's got nothing to do with this thread at all. Why did you even bring up photo alteration here?


She [Moorman] chose to take the picture when the President was right in front of her.


Then she missed.

Also, listen to what Mary said to CBS-TV in 1964 (fast-forward to 1:30):

"I took the camera and aimed it--focused it--and stood there and looked through it for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they were looking at me." -- Mary Moorman; 1964

In Summary:

This thread that I started is totally meaningless. I admit that. It's just something that had been going through my head for some time, and I wanted to put my thoughts about it down on "e-paper" (for my archives--naturally). So I did. Nothing more elaborate than that.

I just think it's kind of odd that Mary Moorman chose to snap her now-famous photo of JFK at the time she did choose to take it, because from all of the available comments made by Miss Moorman herself that I have been able to obtain, it would certainly seem (even with the mandatory 10-second interval that her Polaroid camera required between pictures) that Mary could certainly have taken her photo of JFK's car prior to the time when she did take it.

David Von Pein
June 9-12, 2012



[The Moorman] photo proves there was no huge hole in [the] back of [JFK's] head.


The exact instant the Moorman photo was taken is critical to that argument.

We know it was taken ABOUT the time of the head shot, but we don't know precisely when it was taken.

JFK began rocking backward one Z-frame after his head exploded. Since we don't see that rearward lurch in the photo, the latest that photo was taken would be 1/18 of a second after the head shot struck. Most likely it was taken a split second before the head shot, so there is no reason to think a blowout in the BOH would show in that photo.

The blowout extended all the way along the upper right side of the head, from the occipital to the temporal regions. Had Moorman taken her photo a split second later, we would see JFK rocking back and we may or may not see the blowout that extended to the BOH.



I agree with this observation made by John Corbett:

"...Most likely it [the Moorman photo] was taken a split second before the head shot..."

I've always thought that Mary Moorman's picture was probably snapped just an instant before the fatal shot struck JFK's head. Because it's always seemed logical to me that if that picture had been taken an instant after the head shot, then I would think we would see at least a little bit of proof of that fact in the photograph, such as a flap of scalp on the President's head that is out of place....or perhaps at least a hint of the blood spray which we know was surrounding Kennedy's head between Z-frames 313 and 314.

But in addition to the fact that President Kennedy's head looks undamaged and undisturbed in any manner in the famous Moorman Polaroid, there's also not a trace of "spray" visible in the air around JFK's head in the picture. (Although, granted, the Zapruder Film does, indeed, verify that the blood spray had dissipated completely by about Z317. So if Moorman's picture was taken, as some believe, a fraction of a second after Zapruder frame 315, then no blood spray would likely be visible.)

It's just too bad that Mary Moorman had such a crappy (Polaroid) type of camera, which was not capable of capturing a very high quality image through its inexpensive lens.


To take a Polaroid photo, you have to hold the camera with both hands. In observing the Zapruder film frame by frame, it does appear that Moorman starts to release her left hand from the camera at 311. At 313, it appears that her left hand was completely off the camera, meaning she would have had to take the photo before then.


That's an interesting observation concerning this Moorman topic that I don't think I've heard discussed before. Thanks, Allan.

Click to enlarge each frame:


I don't see it. What is his source material?

In frames 311 to 313, Mary Moorman can only be seen in the sprocket hole area. Two problems with that. It will look a little darker, so it's not so easy to see her hands clearly. And because of the double exposure in the sprocket hole area, you do not have a CLEAR view. And there will be jiggling in the sprocket hole area versus the main frame and vice versa. A lot of people see optical illusions in the sprocket hole area.


I didn't say I necessarily agreed with Allan Johnson's above comments, Tony. I merely said he made a unique and interesting observation.

I, myself, can't tell whether Miss Moorman's left hand is still touching her camera in Z313 and Z314 or not.

David Von Pein
October 31—November 3, 2016




(PART 1201)


DVP's reluctance to accept the photographic evidence for JFK being shot before he went behind the sign is to me a bit strange.


Why in the world is it strange to you, Pat?

For one (very big!) thing: A shot from Oswald's window in the Z190s means that Oswald was SHOOTING THROUGH THE OAK TREE! And that, IMO, is just silly (even though LNer Mark Fuhrman promotes such nonsense in his 2006 book, and the HSCA, incredibly, thought Oswald was shooting through the tree too).


Bugliosi, after all, successfully pushed this evidence on the jury in the televised mock trial of Oswald. Is he now trying to claim Bugliosi deceived all those jurors?


That's easily explainable, Pat. And you surely know the answer to this:

At the mock trial in England in 1986, Vincent Bugliosi was in kind of a tough spot regarding the photographic expert he put on the stand--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA.

It's possible that Vince, HIMSELF, as of the time of the London trial in July 1986, might very well have accepted as fact Kirk's explanation about an early (circa Z190) SBT shot that Kirk presented to the jury in London.

But as Vince studied the Zapruder Film later on (after the trial), my guess would be that he "wised up" in a sense (at least partially), and grew to believe that the SBT shot had occurred quite a bit later than the Z190s. (Although Vince still gets it wrong in his book, saying that the SBT occurs at around Z210, but he never mentions an exact frame. So, after the 1986 London trial, at least VB got closer to the actual SBT frame of Z224 than he was in '86.)

But even if Bugliosi had truly believed, in July 1986, that the SBT occurred at a time other than the Z190s, Vince was still on a spot as prosecutor of Oswald at the London trial -- because he could not subpoena witnesses, and he could not force anyone to testify at the docu-trial against their will.

So, in effect, Bugliosi was pretty much stuck with accepting the witness he was able to get regarding the photographic (Zapruder Film) evidence--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA, who endorsed the early (and silly) Single-Bullet Theory timeline of around Z190 (although no specific Zapruder frame numbers were ever mentioned for the SBT shot when Kirk was on the stand; never once does Kirk say that he was talking about Z190 or Z200, or whatever, during his mock trial testimony; but we all know he was talking about a circa Z190 SBT hit).

If Bugliosi had been able to get any witness he wanted for this "SBT timing" aspect of the case at the London trial, I'm guessing he would have selected Robert Frazier, who performed extensive tests with Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest during the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964.

Whether or not Bob Frazier was ever asked to participate in the London court proceeding, I have no idea. But he certainly would have been my first choice, instead of Cecil Kirk.


I do think Vince Bugliosi should have explained to his readers in "Reclaiming History" why he was no longer supporting Kirk's earlier timeline regarding the Single-Bullet Theory. I don't think, however, that Vince says a word in his book about this discrepancy. And I think he should have. And if he had done so, I'm pretty confident that the explanation I just laid out above would have been Vincent's explanation as well.

Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 television mock trial can be seen below:

David Von Pein
August 5, 2010

(PART 1200)


You can't really discuss the JFK Assassination without discussing the role of the media and academia in the cover up of the assassination of John Kennedy. A perfect example of that is the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas which promotes the Big Lie as they protect the murderers and conspirators of John Kennedy.

Currently Nicola Longford and Gary Mack are the ones who are using the Sixth Floor Museum as a propaganda tool to promote the Big Lie.


This is undoubtedly another of the hundreds of silly myths started by conspiracy theorists.

I've never been to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, but I'd be willing to bet the farm that there are plenty of displays and exhibits (etc.) within the museum that talk about "conspiracy" and the various conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists connected to the JFK assassination.

I know that the Sixth Floor Museum rotates its visual displays and exhibits that visitors can see there, and it's highly likely that "conspiracy" works its way into some of those exhibits and displays throughout the museum.

I'm just wondering if many of the conspiracy theorists who continually love to ramble on and on about how "one-sided" and biased the Sixth Floor Museum is have ever even been there to see the displays and exhibits?

My guess is that a whole lot of those whining CTers have not been there at all. And even if they have, they probably have no idea what type of exhibits are being rotated in and out by the Museum's staff.*

* Yes, I know I just said that I myself have never been to the Museum either, which is true. So I'll admit that what I just said about the conspiracy theorists never having been there (and, hence, having no idea at all as to the content of the exhibits that are available at the Museum from day to day and week to week) is nothing but sheer guesswork and speculation on my part, and I want to identify it as such before going any further.

And in addition to the physical museum itself at 411 Elm Street in Dealey Plaza, the Sixth Floor Museum also runs this Internet website -- http://jfk.org -- which includes multiple "Oral History" interviews that definitely contain comments that lean toward "conspiracy", such as the interviews with Bill and Gayle Newman and Gordon Arnold.


I also always get a big kick out of the whining conspiracy theorists who take great pleasure in calling Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack just about every derogatory name this side of Hitler and Charles Manson.

It's utterly ridiculous, particularly the way "Black Op Radio" host Len Osanic tears down Mr. Mack on almost a weekly basis on his Thursday-night Internet radio program. Truly despicable behavior, especially due to the fact that Gary Mack is not really a so-called "Lone Nutter" at all. He's more of a "Fence Rider".

Gary M. certainly believes Lee Oswald was a gunman firing his Carcano at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD, that's true enough. (But, given the undeniable evidence of Oswald's guilt--what else COULD a reasonable person like Gary Mack believe when it comes to the topic of "Lee Harvey Oswald" and his participation in the crime on Elm Street?)

But Mack, as far as I am aware, has not discounted ALL notions of a possible conspiracy in the case either. And why some (or most) of the Internet conspiracy whiners seem to think Mr. Mack is "All LNer" is a mystery to me.

I guess perhaps we can chalk that one up as Conspiracy Myth #2,119.


There is a teeny tiny ghetto for conspiracy theory [at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza]...And attention and weight and credence is given to the...HSCA report [which is a U.S. Government Committee that endorsed a CONSPIRACY in the assassination of President Kennedy].


Thanks, Robert, for confirming what I always thought to be true:

"Conspiracy" is a part of the Sixth Floor Museum's world.

Thank you.


They have this radio report playing OVER and OVER again: "3 shots fired in Dallas", "3 shots fired in Dallas", or something like that.


Well, it would be a little difficult to find any of the first bulletins that DIDN'T say "Three shots were fired" -- because every one of those initial radio and television reports said that 3 shots were fired.

In fact, I always encourage people to listen to (or watch) the first-day radio and TV coverage -- because when you perform that task, you will be saying to yourself (as I always do):

Where in the heck do the conspiracy bozos like Oliver Stone get the crazy idea that SIX SHOTS were fired from THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS in Dealey Plaza?! That's nuts! And this original, as-it's-happening 11/22/63 footage that I've been watching proves that those conspiracy-happy bozos are nuts!

Everybody should try it. It works wonders for curing the "Oliver Stone Triangulation Of Crossfire Disease" that many people currently are afflicted with:

David Von Pein
August 5-6, 2010

(PART 1199)


I don't believe he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever owned one [a revolver]. I believe it was planted 100% on him in the theater. I know Duke and Greg are in disagreement over which Police Officer or Detective "planted" the gun. Greg thinks it was Nick McDonald. Duke thinks it was Gerald Hill.


Good lord! What a load of crap this is.

There are actually conspiracy theorists who think Oswald DIDN'T OWN A REVOLVER?? Even with Commission Exhibit No. 790 available for everybody to see (which, of course, has Oswald's writing all over it)? Was his handwriting supposedly "planted" on this order form too?:

Plus: To believe that the gun was "planted" on Oswald in the Texas Theater, you've got no choice but to call civilian witness Johnny Brewer a liar. Brewer saw Oswald pull out a gun and attempt to shoot policemen with it.

Is Brewer lying here?:

And a whole bunch of different police officers would have to go into the "liars" pool too, who each testified that Oswald pulled out a gun and grappled with the police as he tried to shoot cops with that gun.

Are Nick McDonald and Paul Bentley telling one lie after another here too?:

Is there any end to the number of people that conspiracists are willing to call liars and cover-up agents? Or is the sky truly the limit?

David Von Pein
August 2, 2010

(PART 1198)


Somebody picked up the rifle in the package at the Post Office where it was delivered to PO box 2915, but it wasn't Oswald, who was working that day at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval [sic].


He [Oswald] was at work...on the day and the time he reportedly mailed and had postmarked the money order for the rifle - March 12, and the day it was picked up - March 25.


We have no idea exactly what day Oswald picked up his rifle at the post office. Why are you pretending to know this type of unknowable information, Bill?

We know that Klein's shipped the rifle to Hidell/(Oswald) on March 20, 1963. And we know that Oswald had the rifle in his possession by at least Sunday, March 31, 1963 (for the backyard photo session).

But that's all we know about the precise dates (and even the March 31st date is a little bit up in the air; Marina was able to pin it down somewhat during her Warren Commission testimony, and the Commission thought that the pictures were most likely taken on 3/31/63).

So, please inform the masses, William Kelly, as to how you are privy to such detailed information about the pick-up date at the post office for Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Somehow, Kelly's crystal ball is telling him things that nobody else on Planet Earth has been privy to in 46+ years. Amazing indeed.


The REALISTIC choice is that someone other than Oswald picked up the rifle and pistol at the Post Office.


Oh, sure, Bill. Sure. Even though both of those weapons were positively ORDERED BY LEE OSWALD, which means (obviously) that LEE OSWALD HIMSELF would have been expecting them to arrive at the P.O. Box that HE HAD THEM MAILED TO....you still think that it's more "realistic" to believe that "someone other than Oswald picked up the rifle and pistol at the Post Office".

Brilliant deductive reasoning there, William. Just brilliant!

So, if I order a gun from a mail-order house, and have it shipped to a P.O. Box at my local post office here in Indiana (a P.O. Box that I am renting at the time and a P.O. Box that I specified for the gun to be mailed to), according to William Kelly's logic and reasoning, it's much more likely that SOMEBODY ELSE went to the post office and picked up that gun instead of the person who ordered it and would have been expecting it to arrive at his P.O. Box within just a few days.

Gotta love CTer reasoning. It's always weird. And dead wrong. But it sure provides the humor.


Okay, Dave, I'll back off the March 25 date to pick up the rifle and pistol packages. I'm only using that date because it's the one that is used in the official chronology and generally accepted by LNs.


What "official chronology" has "March 25" as THE EXACT DATE that Oswald picked up BOTH the rifle and pistol? I've never heard or seen such an "official chronology" in my life.

(You wouldn't be pulling stuff out of your hat, now would you Bill?)


So you acknowledge that...there is no evidence, witness or record of Oswald picking up the weapons, right?


There's no "witness" or "record", no. To that I agree. Naturally.

But there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to establish as rock-solid FACT that Oswald did pick up Rifle C2766 from HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX. (I emphasize those last words for a reason--because just ordinary common sense and ODDS are going to suggest that the person who ordered and paid for the rifle and pistol and had them mailed to his own P.O. Box, is probably also the person who fetched them from HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX.)

Oswald was photographed with the Carcano within days of it being mailed to Oswald's post office box.

Does a person need to be an expert in high mathematics to figure this one out, William? I think not.

P.S. -- You're obviously a sharp man, Bill. So let me ask you this -- Why on Earth do you spend so much time trying to prove something that is so obviously stupid--i.e., the notion that Oswald himself did not pick up the rifle and pistol, even though those two items were positively ordered and paid for by LHO and were positively shipped by two separate companies to LHO's own P.O. Box?


David, I just wanted you to know that on your Ruth Paine page [Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com] you have the wrong date—11/22/63—twice of when she went into the garage on the night before the assassination and found the lights on, evidence used to indicate that Oswald went to Irving that night to pick up the rifle. That had to be 11/21/63, right?


Thank you for noticing that error, Bill. (It's nice to know that someone is actually reading some of my JFK ramblings on the Internet.)

I have corrected the mistake about the date, although I only found one such error in my Ruth Paine blog, not two. If you could point out the second error, I'll fix that one too. The one I fixed is in this passage (which has the corrected date here):

"And here we have some additional deeply-detailed data and info being revealed by way of Albert Jenner's "in Ruth's house" WC session with Mrs. Paine -- this segment of testimony dealing with the precise wattage of the light bulb that was left burning in Paine's garage on the night of 11/21/63..."


I say there is no evidence Oswald actually picked up the weapons at the Post Office, not that he didn't do it, though it is certainly a possibility that someone else did. Say Gary Taylor. His address is on the PO box application, and whoever took the note from the box and went into the back of the Post Office to pick up the packages and hand them over the counter - that person would have to give the packages to Oswald posing as Hidell, or someone else posing as Hidell, or someone with a key to the PO Box who Oswald had asked to pick up the packages - which could be done if the PO clerk just thought that if the guy had a key to the box to get the notice, he had to be okay and didn't ask for any ID.

What other possibilities are there, especially any non-conspiratorial possibilities, like Oswald at a different time, Gary Taylor - or even Marina?


Okay. But by far the MOST LIKELY answer is that the person who ordered and paid for the guns and would have been expecting those guns to arrive in late March 1963 AT HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is probably the person who went to the Post Office himself to pick them up.

Why bring Gary Taylor into the mix needlessly? He didn't order and pay for the rifle and the revolver. Oswald did.


I believe the back yard photos are real. I don't think the Z-film has been altered, and I don't blame the government for anything.

JFK was killed by individual human beings with names, not generic government acronym agencies.


Congrats, Bill! Welcome to the world of LNers!

Via your last comments above, it almost looks like you've been converted (except for the pluralization you utilized when you said "individual human beings with names"). There's no need for the plural to be used there, of course. Oswald was only ONE single person. Not two or more. :)


They don't really have to fake anything. All they had to do was name Oswald the suspect and kill him before they [he?] went to court.

Once JFK got to Dealey Plaza, all they had to do was kill JFK and blame Oswald, and whatever happened, happened.


But why the need to complicate the uncomplicated, Bill?

It was OSWALD'S rifle, OSWALD'S shells, OSWALD'S bullet fragments in the limousine, OSWALD'S prints deep inside the Sniper's Nest, OSWALD'S lies that he told to the police, OSWALD left the building within minutes of the shooting, OSWALD shot Tippit, OSWALD was acting "funny" in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store, and it was OSWALD who pulled a gun on Officer McDonald in the theater.

If those are the actions of an innocent patsy, please wake me up when sanity has been restored. Because given the above laundry list, OSWALD is as guilty as he can possibly be.


Lee Harvey Oswald was not a double-murder[er]...


Oh, shucks! Just when Bill Kelly was making a little headway toward seeing the obvious truth, he goes and says something silly again.


The questions are whether or not Oswald was an assassin or patsy, and whether he acted alone or with others.

I can accept Oswald was the lone assassin, but if he was, I reject your profile of him being a lone nut loser, because he must have been really good to fool so many people all by himself.


I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Bill. Oswald didn't "fool" anybody. (Except perhaps a bunch of conspiracy theorists; Oswald certainly fooled them into actually believing him when he said he was "just a patsy".)

But he certainly didn't "fool" any of the authorities or investigative committees that looked into the murders. Far from it. Oswald signed his name to both of his murders by leaving his popcorn trail of evidence for both the JFK and Tippit slayings.

So, besides the gullible CTers, who was it that you think Oswald was "fooling" in November 1963?

Or are you possibly referring to Oswald being able to mask his identity as "Future Presidential Assassin" in the days/weeks/months leading up to 11/22/63? Is that what you mean by Oswald being able to "fool so many people all by himself"?


What a goofy hobby CTers have.


Not a hobby, a civic duty.


You have a civic duty to embrace silly ideas?

That's weird, Bill.


And I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist.


You could've fooled me.


I hate CTs more than you do, especially those who claim the Cubans, the Mafia or the CIA is behind the assassination.

There are endless possible scenarios one can imagine, but it only happened one way, and that is what should be detected and determined.


That's already been done -- back in '63 and '64. You just don't want to believe that the DPD, FBI, and WC got it right. You prefer your own explanations over the perfectly reasonable ones supplied by the Dallas Police, FBI, and Warren Commission.

Right, Bill?


Hi Dave,

Maybe you can answer my question. If Oswald ordered the pistol in early January, why was it shipped on March 20, the same day as the rifle, from a different company in a different city?

What was the delay, did anyone bother to find out?


I don't have a definitive answer to your question there, Bill. But I will offer up this possibility (which I think is a reasonable answer to this mystery):

I think it's quite possible that Oswald mailed the order forms for both the rifle and the revolver at about the same time--possibly mailing them on the very same day (March 12, 1963).

Just because the Seaport Traders order form [CE790] has a "January 27" date written in by Oswald, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he mailed that order form on that exact day in January. Maybe he waited and mailed it in March. We can never know for sure.


And who was the witness again, D. F. Drittle [sic]? Was he pals with A. J. Hidell?


Oh, come now, Bill. You're tugging at my lower extremities here, aren't you, you jokester you? :)

You and I both know that "D.F. Drittal" is another invented name that was created out of thin air by Lee H. Oswald. Just as "A.J. Hidell" was created out of thin air.

So, Drittal and Hidell were pals with nobody--except their inventor, Lee Harvey.


And another thing, if Oswald could have bought the pistol and the rifle with cash from any sporting goods or department store in Texas without a record, why did he buy them through the mail?


I doubt very much that Oswald could have walked into any store in Texas and bought a gun without any record being left behind. I'm pretty sure that's Conspiracy Myth #884, and is one that Oliver Stone propped up as the truth in his 1991 fantasy film too.

Just recently, Jean Davison posted some interesting information [HERE], which deals with this very subject regarding tracing guns that were purchased in brick-and-mortar stores in Texas in 1963.

As Davison mentioned, Albert Yeargan's July 1964 affidavit certainly indicates that RECORDS WERE KEPT of the sale of firearms at the H.L. Green Sporting Goods store in 1963 [see 11 H 207].

This whole topic is something that I very recently started thinking about more and more, and via Jean Davison's post linked above, it certainly looks to me as though Oliver Stone (and other CTers) have been peddling a myth regarding Texas gun shops, circa 1963.

I first brought up this topic just last month in fact, in this post (excerpted below):

"I'd like to know if conspiracists are right when they say that Oswald could have walked into any gun shop or department store in Texas in 1963 and bought a gun that could never be traced?

No paperwork was required at a gun shop in Texas in '63? No signature from the purchaser? Nothing? Just grab the gun and run?

I'm not saying that perhaps that wasn't how it worked in Texas gun stores, circa 1963, but I'm just wondering if it really was that cut-&-dried--even back in '63? I've never really ever seen that confirmed anywhere (that I can think of).

Could that be just another of the many conspiracy myths that we've been saddled with since the JFK assassination--with Oliver Stone giving it a handy push in his blockbuster movie too? I just wonder.

~~Thinking about the "Benavides' Brother" myth that was destroyed recently, with Domingo's brother really being killed in 1965, not 1964~~"
-- DVP; July 21, 2010

David Von Pein
July 14, 2010
July 19, 2010
August 2, 2010

(PART 1197)


David...you PROVED Lee's point. You itemized reasons [in this essay] to believe Oswald did it. You DID NOT look at the whole. It's an entirely different way of thinking than that engaged by most CTs.



Conspiracy theorists never look at the "whole". Ever. (Especially the “Anybody But Oswald” CTers.) They chop out, whittle down, and misrepresent each "bit" of the evidence, until it's the "messiest case ever" (to use the words of Patrick Speer).

But it's only the messiest case ever because of the conspiracy theorists--and everybody knows it.

Take the examples I previously cited (and I didn't cite every part of the "Oswald Did It" whole, of course, in my thread-starting post; I just talked about a few things that are part of the "whole" that CTers always ignore or misrepresent; so I must disagree with Pat Speer when he says I proved Lee Farley's point by citing just a few things; I was merely using those items as an example of the parts of the "whole" that CTers want to misrepresent and "isolate" all the time):

It's utterly foolish to believe that just ONE of the three spent bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest couldn't have been fired on November 22 (due to the "dented lip" argument). That shell was right there with TWO OTHERS from Oswald's rifle. And over 90% of the witnesses heard THREE SHOTS.

Shouldn't those two things--in tandem--be a pretty big hint as to how many shots really were fired in Dealey Plaza? And those two things in combination with one another--i.e., the THREE spent shells and the incredibly large number of THREE-SHOT witnesses--are certainly part of "the whole" too.

Is it truly reasonable to "isolate" that ONE bullet shell from the other two and pretend that that one shell couldn't be fired on the day of the assassination, but the others could have been...even though ALL THREE of the shells are right there near each other in THE VERY SAME SNIPER'S NEST?

No. Frankly, that argument is just plain silly. And furthermore, as John McAdams pointed out to Jim DiEugenio during their radio debate last year, the argument made by CTers about the dented lip is just a flat-out lie too, because Professor McAdams HIMSELF said he fired a Carcano rifle and got a dented lip on a cartridge case after firing a round.

Do CTers think McAdams just made that up?

(Don't answer, CTers. I know what the answer will likely be anyway.)

Bottom Line: If conspiracy theorists really did look at "the whole", they couldn't possibly REALISTICALLY believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Because the "whole" tells any rational-thinking person that Oswald had to be the killer of BOTH Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Tippit.

David Von Pein
July 13, 2010

(PART 1196)


Dave, could you help Dick [Russell] and Joan [Mellen] and Jim [Marrs] and myself spread the word.

Thank you.

John Barbour


You must be kidding.

My sites:



Have you seen 'The Garrison Tapes?'


Oh, sure. I've had the program on VHS for many years. It's a pack of nonsense.


The evidence that shows Lee Harvey Oswald murdered two people (JFK and J.D. Tippit) on November 22, 1963, is a mile high and is conclusive, in my opinion.

And while I can never say with 100% certainty that Oswald acted completely alone when he killed Kennedy and Tippit, I am satisfied in my own mind that he had no accomplices....not Ferrie, not Banister, not Shaw, and he didn't use an Umbrella Man standing out on Elm Street to aid him either. :-)



Dave, thanks for your prompt reply.

That you're not sure Oswald acted alone means there might be room for you to think there might have been more than one shooter.

The fact that Oswald failed a paraffin test is not nonsense. It's not nonsense that the press conference at Parkland indicated a shot to the right temple. And it's certainly not nonsense that NBC tried to frame Garrison, which resulted in his getting airtime. That's the reason Reagan scuttled The Fairness Doctrine.

What is nonsense is The Warren Report, looking at drawings instead of x-rays and photos. The list of nonsense there is endless.

It's as nonsensical as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or building 7 falling from heavy smoke.

As Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled."


Thanks for your reply as well.

But I totally disagree with you about the paraffin test and the "right temple" and about multiple gunmen firing at John F. Kennedy.

Paraffin tests, as you probably know, are wholly unreliable and can be totally misleading. Do you realize the FBI conducted a test with Oswald's own rifle, and the agent who fired three shots with that gun tested NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face AND both of his hands?

Do you think the FBI faked that test which proved beyond doubt that a person can fire Oswald's rifle and still have a NEGATIVE paraffin result? [See David Belin's 1973 book for more details on that test.]

And I assume the "right temple" Parkland conference you referred to is Malcolm Kilduff's conference to announce JFK's death. Correct?

But you surely cannot believe that when Kilduff casually pointed to his temple that he was inferring that he knew precisely where the bullet entered, can you? That's absurd. Kilduff was merely pointing to his head in a general way to indicate that the President was killed by a bullet through his head/brain. Nothing more than that. And AFAIK, Kilduff was never a conspiracy believer (but I could be mistaken about that).

And when I said I could never be 100% sure that Oswald acted alone, I wasn't in any way talking about the number of gunmen. Because even if someone else aided LHO (which is highly unlikely given the evidence), I'm 100% sure that Oswald was the only gunman in Dealey Plaza. That fact couldn't be any clearer (esp. after the HSCA's "4th shot" is discarded, as it must be for all reasonable people after looking at the facts gathered by the National Academy of Sciences in the 1980s).

When you said the Warren Commission's "list of nonsense" is "endless", I have my doubts if such an alleged list could possibly be as endless as Jim Garrison's laundry list of suspects over the years....

Homosexual thrill kill...
Military Complex...
The CIA.

God knows who else. (I lost my Garrison scorecard. But apparently as long as you were alive and breathing in November 1963, you were a suspect in the JFK case at some point in time.)

But I do agree with you about the silliness of the Warren Commission relying on the awful Rydberg drawings instead of utilizing the X-rays and autopsy photos. That was probably the biggest mistake made by the Commission.

But in the long run, it didn't make a bit of difference, because you and I (and everyone) CAN now examine those X-rays and pictures to see for OURSELVES where the wounds were on the President's body.

And those wounds do NOT suggest conspiracy. Not even close. Two entry wounds--both in the rear portions of the body. And the 2 exit wounds were in the frontal area of the body, perfectly consistent with Oswald performing a solo act with Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766 from his sixth-floor sniper's perch.

So, even without the full use of the autopsy photos, the Warren Commission got it right anyway....right down to the obviously correct Single-Bullet Theory, which I dissect in detail at my SBT website [Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com].

Nice talking to you. I have no interest in promoting your conspiracy program, but good luck with it anyhow. There are still plenty of sheep out there who like to graze on conspiracy conjecture. After all, the latest polls still show that 59% to 70% of America believes in the make-believe conspiracy to kill JFK.

Best wishes,
David Von Pein



Thanks for taking the time to write your critique late last night. But, take a peek anyway. When we come to the Q&A session, we'll be happy to take a question from you, and even plug your site.



Thanks, John. That's very kind of you.

David Von Pein
January 14, 2014

(PART 1195)


Tell us why Bugliosi PROVABLY lied about the Katzenbach memo on page 364.

My crystal ball tells me that you'll refuse to even admit that Bugliosi lied about what Katzenbach wrote.


Page 364 of 'Reclaiming History' shows Bugliosi lying... not his best lie, but a lie nonetheless.


Where's the "lie", Ben?

Are you saying that Bugliosi misquotes the Katzenbach memo?

Or are you saying that Vince was lying when he said, on page 364 of his book, that conspiracy theorists such as Mark Lane (who is referred to by Vince on
Page 364 as the "original dean of distortion"; LOL) have cited Katzenbach's 11/25/63 memorandum "out of context" (which I, too,
believe they have done)?

I have a feeling that Ben Holmes is equating SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION with LYING.

Gee, you'd think that Vince would have earned at least a bonus point or two from the conspiracy theorists when, on the same Page #364, Vince refers to Nicholas Katzenbach's famous November 25th memorandum as being "clumsily written".


Holmes probably thinks Bugliosi lied when Vince didn't write out the ENTIRE first sentence in the Katzenbach memo, which says:

"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."

Holmes and other CTers no doubt think that Katzenbach's words "in a way which will satisfy people" indicate that Katz was up to no good and that Katz couldn't have cared less what the true "facts" were--he was only interested in pinning the whole thing on Oswald.

But I would disagree with such a mindset. To think that Katzenbach had such a "cover-up" mindset is just silly, particularly since he worked so closely with his boss, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Does anyone really believe that Nicholas Katzenbach would have wanted to aid or assist, in any way at all, a plot or cover-up that would have allowed the real killer or killers of RFK's brother to get away unpunished? Katzenbach merely wanted to keep FALSE rumors about Oswald and conspiracy from spreading.

Quoting Bugliosi some more on this matter:

"You can 't suppress evidence of a conspiracy if you release "all of the facts" to the American people. It was obvious that Katzenbach believed (and he, of course, was correct) that there was no evidence at that time, nor has any surfaced since, supporting the rumor of a Communist conspiracy, and the best way to dispel that rumor with the American public was by releasing all of the true facts then known." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 365 of "Reclaiming History"


Nick [Katzenbach], don't you think it's important that all the facts be made public without any thought as to how the public will regard it? If the public is not satisfied with the facts, so be it, but facts are facts. It's not really our job to put out the facts while worrying about whether the public will be satisfied with those facts, don't you agree? This is not a political issue, it's a criminal investigation.

I suggest you rewrite the first sentence of your memo. If you don't, it leaves you open to criticism that you have an underlying motive for revealing the facts and thus might want those facts tweaked to attain your motive.

I am glad you let me see this before you sent it. I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea.


Good post, Garry. And very good points indeed.

As Vincent Bugliosi said in his book, Katzenbach's memo is "clumsily written". The way it was written can most certainly be interpreted by many people as being the words of a man who really DIDN'T want "all the facts" to come out.

But, as I said in my last post, I find it impossible to believe that Deputy AG Nick Katzenbach had any thoughts in his head of "cover-up" or suppressing the facts when he wrote his memo on 11/25/63.

Interpretation is everything when we attempt to evaluate Mr. Katzenbach's "clumsily written" memorandum. CTers look at it and see signs of whitewash and cover-up in every paragraph. But I see the words of a man who doesn't want a bunch of FALSE rumors to start spreading to the public.



Thanks for your compliment. I guess the satire was too subtle, though, huh? That's the trouble with satire sometimes.

I believe Katzenbach knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it. I'm willing to bet that never in his life did he write a "clumsily worded" memo. Guys like him just didn't operate that way.


So, Garry, you're suggesting that Nick Katzenbach was promoting the following idea:

*** I don't care if the real facts indicate that twelve other people were involved in the assassination of JFK, I think the American public should be told that it was Oswald who did it ALONE. And I don't care what my boss, Bobby Kennedy, might think. I don't care if the killers of Bobby's brother get away and are never caught. I'm only concerned about pinning the whole thing on Lee Oswald--and to heck with the facts and the truth. ***

Is that about the size of it, Garry? It sure sounds as if you are saying Katzenbach had the exact frame-of-mind that is spelled out above. And I couldn't disagree more.


I certainly agree that he wanted unfounded rumors to stop. That's pretty clear. But something he wrote goes to the heart of the debate that's been going on for 50+ years now:

"Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.)."

That's how everything seems to us, David: too pat. All the "evidence" against Oswald is too pat, too obvious. Has it never struck you that way?


I guess I can see how some conspiracy believers might think that way.


Oswald's ties to Russia (via his attempted defection);

Oswald's love for Cuba and Castro;

Oswald's ties to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee;

Oswald happens to get a job along the eventual motorcade route;

Oswald leaves the bullet shells in the TSBD Sniper's Nest after killing Kennedy;

Oswald then just happens to physically dump some more bullet shells out of his revolver at the Tippit murder scene 45 minutes later;

Ruby just happens to sneak into the City Hall basement with a gun (and a grudge); etc.

But when each of these alleged "too pat" items is examined and properly evaluated, the notion that a conspiracy was involved in ANY of those things vanishes....unless, for example, you want to make the unfounded accusation that Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle were somehow involved in some kind of plot to "plant" Lee Harvey in the Depository in October for the purpose of framing Oswald for the President's murder (as many CTers do claim).

Or, in the Ruby instance, if you want to suggest that people like Karen Carlin and Harry Holmes were part of some plot to kill Oswald.

Or, in the "Tippit shells" example, if you want to theorize that all of the various witnesses at or near the Tippit murder scene were later coerced into identifying Lee Oswald as the man who shot J.D. Tippit (or as the one and only man who was fleeing the murder scene with a gun in his hand).

Because without those people like Carlin, Paine, Holmes, and those several Tippit witnesses being involved in SOME way in a plot, then the way things played out on November 22nd and November 24th in Dallas can't be anything but ordinary happenstance. Ergo, "too pat" becomes "real-life chance occurrences".

Back to Katzenbach for a moment....quoting Bugliosi again:

"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch rumors that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the facts of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that only false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public? How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Congressman Gerald Ford, Senator John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein
January 13, 2014

(PART 1194)


David V Pain [sic] is a poor judge of character. He truly believes that all those people working for the government were honest and interested in facts. Of course, people like him, Bugliosi, McAdams, Posner, et al. only believe that under the condition that their "facts" point to Oswald's guilt only.

They ignore witnesses that contradict their claims, and completely dismiss honest witnesses such as Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig who had no reason to lie. His honesty and refusal to change his story cost him dearly, his life included.

I would like to know what Mr. David the Pain [sic; how cute] thinks about Roger Craig's testimony.


It's truly hilarious hearing "M" defend such an "honest" witness like Roger D. Craig.

Evidently, ol' "M" doesn't even realize that Craig's lie about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle was proven to be a lie by Craig's own words — via this 1968 newspaper article ("RC" is Roger Craig).

So much for "Honest" Roger.


Where did you get that photo? Where is the original article? Who wrote it?

Show me the original newspaper clip of Craig's interview where he claims the Mauser was found [on] the roof. Otherwise, you have nothing but lies and fraudulent evidence. But what's new?

I'm looking forward to what you have to offer in the form of proof.


The photo seen below depicts a newspaper page from the March 1st, 1968, edition of the Los Angeles Free Press:

Naturally, "M" thinks the above newspaper scan is "fraudulent" and is a fake. (Gee, what a surprise.)

Here is another page from the L.A. article. The initials "PJ" in the article, btw, stand for Penn Jones, who was also being interviewed for the same article.

Also see:




Here's a PDF file for the Los Angeles Free Press article, including a picture (albeit a fuzzy one) showing Roger Craig and Penn Jones at the L.A. Free Press offices.

Is that whole newspaper a fake, "M", including the three Peanuts comic strips on page 26?




Here's Page 1 of the L.A. Free Press paper for March 1, 1968, including the name of the person who wrote the Craig/Jones article. Her name is Jeanne Morgan:

David Von Pein
January 12-13, 2014



Who is telling the truth? You judge…

Roger Craig:

Seymour Weitzman’s affidavit.

“From a glance” can you guess at the rifle caliber? Especially since most Mauser calibers were 8mm and not 7.65mm? From a glance can you know the power of the scope?

Seymour Weitzman interview---watch his body language/eye contact:

Who’s lying?


That's an easy one to answer, Brian. The liar is Roger D. Craig. Without a doubt. And here's the proof (in Craig's own words even).


If you can answer me this question, maybe I'll start rethinking this: where is this "article" from? It's not sourced, it appears in a blog. How do I know it's real? Also, why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser? Why?


You need to look at my three-page PDF file which shows more of the 3/1/68 edition of the "Los Angeles Free Press" newspaper with the Roger Craig interview. Here it is....


As for "Why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser?" -- Well, I cannot answer that, because I can't get inside Craig's mind. But the facts are pretty clear that he DID lie in the Mark Lane film "Two Men In Dallas" when he said he saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle that we see being taken off of the floor by Lieutenant J.C. Day in Tom Alyea's news film. And Craig's OWN WORDS in that 1968 newspaper article provide the proof that Craig later lied to Lane in the 1970s.

As for the L.A. Free Press being a "real" publication, there's this link about that newspaper.

But, then again, maybe Wikipedia (or its contributors) are part of a "JFK Assassination" plot too. (I'm sure some conspiracy theorists might think so. You aren't one of them, though, are you Brian?)


When I studied political science for my undergraduate work and public administration in grad school, we weren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a source because it's an open source encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. In other words, it isn't a trusted source of information in academia, so why should I trust it now? Is not taking an open source encyclopedia as gospel somehow inappropriate even though academics won't do it either?


Yes, Brian, I can fully agree with you about Wikipedia not always being a great source of information. But I have found it to be quite useful for quickly gathering information on some things I need to know. And within that Wikipedia article about the L.A. Free Press are OTHER sources of useful info on the given subject matter, such as the item linked below, which is a page about the "Los Angeles Free Press" that comes from the Library Of Congress website. Would you call
this site trustworthy?


John McAdams already lost all credibility in the first five minutes [of this 2009 debate against conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio] talking about the Mannlicher Carcano vs the Mauser.

Mr. McAdams, I would love to debate you on this one issue.


There is FILMED PROOF that a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser, was found in the Book Depository on 11/22/63. Here's the proof.

Let's now see the silly conspiracists claim that Tom Alyea's film has been faked.


What does that prove? We're talking about a cover up. How did Weitzman mistakenly identify the brand of rifle because he "glanced" at it, but he was able to identify the caliber as 7.65mm? How do you glance at the caliber? This is especially interesting because most Mausers were 8mm and not 7.65mm.

Once more, how did he identify the magnification of the scope (4x18) by––again––merely glancing at it? I'm a gun enthusiast, and I don't find his claim reasonable.

Weitzman swore on a notarized affidavit that it was a 7.65mm Mauser with a 4/18 scope. How do you do that merely glancing at the gun? Especially when Weitzman used to own a store where he sold guns?


Weitzman's detailed affidavit IS, indeed, very strange. I cannot deny its strangeness.

But do you REALLY think Weitzman was lying in my "Mauser Or Carcano?" video? He admits he was mistaken about the rifle type. And, btw, Eugene Boone, who was the very first police officer to see the rifle in the Book Depository on November 22nd, also admitted later that he was mistaken when he too originally said he thought the rifle was a Mauser. [See Boone's testimony at the 1986 television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", below.]

Plus, also see Tom Alyea's film, which many gun experts have analyzed and have determined from the markings on the rifle that Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz are handling a Mannlicher-Carcano weapon in the Alyea footage, not a German-made Mauser weapon.



So what time did the camera roll on the sixth floor? 1:22 PM? Or sometime after that? Did the press follow the police upstairs and tag along as they went over the crime scene???


Yes, Brian, that is exactly what happened. Two newsmen (Kent Biffle and WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea) got into the Depository before the police had sealed it off, and for some idiotic reason, Alyea was permitted to go up to the sixth floor and start filming everything that was going on.

Some job of a "cover-up" there by Will Fritz and his DPD police force, huh? They just let a TV news cameraman take a film of all of the (alleged) conspiratorial and sinister activity that the Dallas Police Department was engaging in right after the President's assassination. (At least there are many conspiracy theorists who think the cops were up there on the sixth floor tampering with all the evidence.)


I don't think you're getting my point. We have two "lies" going on here. One that involves a discrepancy between a sworn––signed––and notarized affidavit and a CBS interview where Weitzman appeared under duress, and a second "lie" where Roger Craig is said to have lied by corroborating Weitzman's original testimony, although he appears completely comfortable when delivering his account of what happened.

In the first discrepancy I have given you facts that can't be refuted that call Weitzman's changed account of the rifle first found into question (i.e. 7.65 vs 8mm Mauser & scope magnification). The only thing you've given me to support Weitzman's CHANGED testimony––where he couldn't even look the interviewer in the eye when asked when he first saw the rifle––is what you said about the film and the newspaper article.

The problem with the former deals with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because the footage was taken after the rifle was found doesn't mean it's the rifle which shot JFK. The problem with the newspaper article wouldn't be so much of an issue if we were talking about a low level crime, but when we're talking about a successful cover up of the assassination of a president, and the forces that have been at work for half a century to cover it up, a poorly scanned article with no name of its author doesn't quite satisfy my curiosity. I don't care if the Library of Congress can somehow substantiate a now defunct "news" publication, especially when Operation Mockingbird is a matter of record.

So we're back to my original inquiry. Does it seem reasonable that Seymour Weitzman is telling the truth when he contradicts his sworn affidavit? The answer is no because I have reasonably demonstrated that he couldn't have possibly identified certain characteristics at a "glance".

If he mistook the Carcano for a Mauser, and if he didn't see 7.65 as stated by Roger Craig, then why would he provide 7.65 in his affidavit when Mausers sold in the U.S. and Germany were 8mm? Why would he provide such additional specificity like the 4/18 power objective lens of the scope? Neither of those things could have possibly been seen at a glance, yet they were stated in the affidavit.

I know guns, and I defy anyone to show me how that kind of mistake could happen, especially when another police officer is corroborating what was said in the affidavit. What are the chances? It's not like Roger Craig made up some hairbrained BS account of what they found, it's backed up by Weitzman's affidavit, and Weitzman clearly looks nervous as heck on video compared to the calm and cool policeman of the year Roger Craig. Wouldn't you agree? 


There is filmed proof that the rifle being lifted up by Lt. Day is a Carcano, not a Mauser. Isn't that enough?

Or do you think there were TWO rifles placed in the Depository that day in order to frame Lee Oswald? (Not very smart of the plotters to do that, was it?)

A Mauser looks like a Carcano. No question about it. Take a look:

Both Boone and Weitzman later said they were mistaken. The Alyea film shows a Carcano, not a Mauser. Lieutenant Day took ONE rifle from the building on 11/22/63 -- a Carcano. The HSCA examined the photos of Day carrying the rifle and determined that CE139 (Oswald's Carcano) was the same weapon being taken out of the building by Lt. Carl Day of the DPD.

Captain Fritz never mentioned a SECOND rifle being found in the Depository either. Nor did ANYONE else who was there.

So, what does the sum total of evidence tell a reasonable person, Brian? Does that sum total add up to both a Mauser and a Carcano being found in the TSBD (which would mean we've got many more lying police officers that just Seymour Weitzman)?

Or does the sum total add up to a Mannlicher-Carcano ONLY being found in the building, with a few policemen being mistaken about the exact make and model of the gun?

Guess which option I'm going to choose.


You should have read that first Google Newsgroup link I gave you a little more closely, because in that link I provided another link to Page #1 of the L.A. Free Press newspaper for March 1, 1968, including the name of the person who wrote the article featuring Roger Craig and Penn Jones. Her name is Jeanne Morgan.


Was Roger Craig in the [Alyea] video? I noticed you didn't answer my question about what time the video was taken. .... I mentioned 1:22pm, that was the time on the affidavit that Weitzman said they found the gun. Was the camera up there five minutes later? Ten? 20? A half-hour? An hour?


I agree. At a "glance", they [a Carcano and a Mauser] do look similar. Upon closer inspection, however, a guy who used to own a sporting goods store would know. He'd also look close enough at the weapon that killed the President to know it was a 7.65 Mauser with a 4X18 scope. He would not, however, know that if he only glanced at the rifle.

A guy interested in sporting arms would have wanted to take a good look at that gun, and the specificity in the affidavit supports that, and it also supports Roger Craig. It does not, however, support looking at the weapon and misidentifying it at a glance.


I have no idea why Weitzman thought the Carcano was a Mauser of exactly "7.65 mm". But, as you correctly pointed out earlier, Deputy Weitzman WAS a gun buff who had a sporting goods store. Ergo, he would be JUST the type of informed and knowledgeable "gun enthusiast" to KNOW that there were not just "8 mm" Mausers, but also "7.65 mm" Mausers too.

As for why he chose to place in his affidavit the detail about "7.65 Mauser", I cannot hazard a guess---other than to speculate that his familiarity with guns afforded him the luxury of GUESSING as to the exact "7.65 mm" size of the weapon that he assumed was a Mauser (but it wasn't). Couldn't that be a possible explanation, Brian?

As for the remainder of the details in Weitzman's affidavit -- Well, those things are accurate as far as OSWALD'S 6.5-millimeter Carcano are concerned. It DID have a 4-power scope on it, and it DID have a "thick leather sling" attached to it. So there's no problem there that I can see. Weitzman merely observed the correct scope and sling details, but he guessed wrong on the make and model.

As for when Tom Alyea took his film of the rifle being lifted from its hiding place by Lt. Day --- No, of course it wasn't as early as 1:22 PM. The gun wasn't even first discovered until that exact minute--1:22 PM CST. So, obviously, Alyea filmed the rifle a little bit later, probably about ten or fifteen minutes later, I would guess, because J.C. Day and Will Fritz had not yet arrived on the sixth floor as of 1:22. So it took them a little while to get up there after the gun was found.

But what difference does it really make WHEN Alyea filmed his footage? We know he did film it, and he then had to toss the undeveloped film out of a Depository window in order to get it to a co-worker on the street so it could then be quickly processed and put on the air in a "wet" form on WFAA-TV a short time later. (See my WFAA-TV video series if you want to see the initial airing of Alyea's film on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.)


You have a serious problem to contend with. I submit that they were able to ultimately coerce Weitzman to change his testimony.

They weren't, however, able to change the mind of one of Dallas' finest (literally). And that is what brought us to this discussion. Everything Roger Craig said about the weapon itself is consistent with both Weitzman and Boone's original observations. Both men made the mistake?

At least three people identified the weapon as an obscure 7.65 Mauser, and that's a problem, especially when both Boone and Craig met with an untimely death. 


The way I see it, Brian, you have an even bigger problem to contend with when it comes to the subject of the identification of the rifle. Because you've got to believe that not only were Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone liars when they each later said they were mistaken about their initial remarks about the TSBD rifle being a Mauser --- but you've got to ALSO believe that several other police officers also lied their eyes out in their official reports and in their subsequent testimony in front of the Warren Commission, including Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz and Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD's Identification Bureau.

Neither Capt. Fritz nor Lt. Day ever said a word about there being TWO rifles seen in the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63. Many conspiracy theorists like to use Captain Fritz, however, to bolster their claims that a Mauser really was found in the building, because according to those conspiracy theorists, Fritz made a comment shortly after seeing the rifle to the effect that he too thought it looked like a Mauser.

As for Boone and Weitzman both saying the rifle was a "7.65" Mauser, my guess on that would be that one of those officers simply heard the other officer casually mention that he thought it looked like a "7.65 Mauser", and therefore the second officer agreed and started referring to it by that exact (inaccurate) description himself. A follow-the-leader type of thinking.

And Roger Craig--who was a proven liar, as I demonstrated previously via his 1968 newspaper interview--had plenty of time (about TEN YEARS) to rearrange his tall tale about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the gun. By the time Craig told his bald-faced lie in Mark Lane's film in the early 1970s, he undoubtedly had studied the affidavit of Seymour Weitzman carefully, and therefore he crafted a large part of his "7.65 Mauser" lie around Weitzman's 11/23/63 affidavit.

Ergo, Craig's story in the 1970s is not really corroborative of Weitzman's affidavit in the slightest---particularly since we have Craig's own words from the 1968 Los Angeles Free Press article, where he says these words about the rifle that was found between boxes on the sixth floor of the Book Depository --- "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

There were several mistakes made by various people (including police officers and the news media) immediately after President Kennedy's assassination, and one of the most widespread, and somewhat diverse, errors that spread throughout the world on television and radio on 11/22/63 was the topic we're discussing now—i.e., the question of "What kind of rifle was found in the Depository?"

And the errors regarding the rifle's identification weren't limited to just "German Mauser" either. As you can see in the above video, there were a lot of other erroneous reports concerning the make and model of the rifle, with some reporters referring to it as a gun made in Japan or Argentina or in Great Britain. The identifications were all over the map on Day 1. But they can't ALL be correct, can they? And somebody must have been supplying the news media with all of those false reports.


Fritz also denied that Roger Craig was at the [police] station when they interrogated Oswald, but a picture later emerged that showed he was there.


But the photos of Roger Craig don't show him inside Captain Fritz' office. Craig (or someone who looks like Craig) is seen in the outer office of the Homicide & Robbery Bureau. Big difference. Oswald was being interrogated INSIDE Fritz' private inner office. There is no corroboration of Craig having been in that inner office where Lee Oswald was.

And, again, the best evidence (by far) for the rifle being a Carcano is Tom Alyea's film, which you evidently want to pretend was taken at some much LATER time, even though we can see Carl Day picking the rifle up off the floor in the film.

[Photo from the Alyea Film:]

In other words, the rifle had not been touched by anyone prior to Alyea shooting that section of his film. If you want to think otherwise, have at it. But don't expect to drag me down that murky "Everything's Fake And Phony" rabbit hole with you.

I guess you must believe Bob Groden's tale about Alyea filming a "re-creation" of the rifle being found--after the rifles were switched, right?

So that means more fakery, and more collusion, and more covering up. Heaps of alleged plotters, but no proof by any of the conspiracy theorists of the world. Merely unsupportable speculation. Like always.

In the final analysis, there is just too much evidence (including the important Alyea Film) which indicates that just ONE RIFLE was found in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, and that gun was a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.

David Von Pein
September 2014
October 2016



Why would Roger Craig lie?


That's a good question indeed. And I won't pretend to know what was going through Roger Craig's mind when he said (at some point after April 1964) he saw the words "7.65 MAUSER" stamped on the barrel of Oswald's Carcano rifle.

Interestingly, however, you won't find the word "Mauser" mentioned even ONE time during Roger Craig's semi-lengthy April 1st, 1964, session with the Warren Commission, even after Craig was asked this open-ended question by David Belin:

"Anything else happen up to that time [i.e., AFTER the rifle had been found on the sixth floor, which Craig had just described before Belin asked this very question] that you haven't related here that you feel might be important?"

The next word out of Craig's mouth was: "No."

And I won't pretend to know exactly why Deputy Sheriff Craig would say that the bullet shells that were discovered in the sniper's window were "lying three in a row, not more than an inch apart, all pointing in the same direction" (direct quote from Roger D. Craig via the video program "Two Men In Dallas").

But this picture proves Craig to be just flat-out wrong with respect to the sniper's-nest bullet shells:

Given the sum total of all the evidence, I feel confident in saying with a good deal of firmness and finality that Roger D. Craig, for whatever reason(s), DID DELIBERATELY LIE about at least one very, very important piece of evidence (the rifle) associated with the JFK murder case.

And there's ample information and evidence to support the notion that Craig lied about some other things besides just the rifle as well. But the "7.65 Mauser" comment that came out of Craig's mouth is a provable "lie", without a shred of a doubt.

David Von Pein
November 8, 2007



The fact is that authorities had identical reports, independent of each other, from Deputy Roger Craig, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who all reported seeing a man resembling Oswald run down the grassy slope in front of the TSBD and enter a Rambler station wagon, just moments after shots were fired.


A man almost certainly did get in a Rambler around 12:40 on Elm Street. But that man could not possibly have been Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not physically possible for that man to have been Oswald, given his known whereabouts several blocks east of the building (getting on a bus) at that very same time.


This was a solid lead, but the authorities never followed it, because they weren't interested in investigating anything.


It's pure mush and balderdash when you ask yourself the key question of: COULD RAMBLER MAN HAVE REALLY BEEN LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

And one of your "Rambler" witnesses--Roger D. Craig--is a known liar when it comes to at least one other major ("7.65 Mauser") issue connected with this same murder case. A great guy for CTers to trust for sure.

David Von Pein
March 20, 2008



Roger Craig testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine.


You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st, 1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. ....

DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect [Lee Harvey Oswald] say?"

ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now.""


I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 Warren Commission testimony is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later accounts of what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on 11/22/63....all EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC that it was, indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the station wagon, and not Oswald.

And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it was testimony being given just a little over four months after the assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words "station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later however.

BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out by Will Fritz, wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man [Craig] or to me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember it." ....

"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald leaving the building. I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember it. There were other officers in my inner office at the time, and I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked about." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)


A related note about Craig and Oswald:

I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) --- "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)

It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know, via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office, which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22) comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.

All the way up through the Midnight Press Conference on Friday night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT."

And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight press gathering) certainly seems to know what the situation is all about, via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences --- "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald. And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz' office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might very well have been in that office with Oswald.)

But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And no conspiracy theorist alive can ever change those two basic facts.

David Von Pein
November 13, 2007





Roger D. Craig was one of the few people connected with the JFK murder case who I am very confident referring to as a "liar". Without any doubt whatsoever. (Another one being Jean Hill.)

It can be proven that Roger Craig was a liar by typing out just the following words:


Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him a liar. And there's NOTHING that any conspiracist can do to UNDO Deputy Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

And Craig also told another whopper of a lie when he said that the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than "an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by the police.

This is hilarious silliness on the part of the plotters who supposedly planted this evidence, isn't it? I guess they WANTED people like Craig to immediately think the shells were planted, so they arranged them in a nice, neat little row.

Here's what author Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Roger Craig's little
shell game:

[VB Quote On:]

"In their bid to exonerate Oswald, critics have [suggested] that the three cartridge cases were neatly planted to frame the hapless ex-marine. The suggestion that there might have been hanky-panky with the three hulls arose during a 1968 interview with former Dallas deputy sheriff Roger Craig, who told the 'Los Angeles Free Press', "The shells found on the floor in front of the window—I saw 'em—they were laying, all the shells were facing the same direction—there was not one of them more than 3/4 of an inch apart, and I've fired many a bolt action rifle and I have never had two shells land in the same place."

Craig embellished the tale further in his unpublished 1971 manuscript, "When They Kill a President ": "Luke Mooney and I reached the southeast corner at the same time. We immediately found three rifle cartridges [actually, cartridge cases] laying in such a way that they looked as though they had been carefully and deliberately placed there—in plain sight on the floor to the right of the southeast corner window. Mooney and I examined the cartridges very carefully and remarked how close together they were, the three of them no more than one inch apart and all facing the same direction, a feat very difficult to achieve with a bolt action rifle—or any rifle for that matter."

Roger Craig's embellishments could have easily been exposed early on had anyone bothered to look at his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964. When asked whether he saw the cartridge cases at the time they were found, Craig said that he was at the far north end of the building when someone yelled across the room, "Here's the shells!" Craig said that after "a couple of minutes" he went over to the sniper's nest and saw three shells lying about a foot away from the window. Craig said that he didn't get "too close" and went back to where he was because he didn't want to bother the area. Asked if he recalled any of the shells being up against the wall, Craig replied, "No, I don't. I didn't look that close."

So much for Craig's immediate discovery and careful examination of the shells. It should be added that when the FBI conducted tests to see where shells ejected from the Carcano at the window would land, the test landings were found to be "consistent" with where the three shells were found after the assassination, all at right angles from the ejection port on the rifle and all ricocheting in a random pattern within a forty-seven inch circle. And Luke Mooney, the Dallas deputy sheriff who first discovered the shells, said they "appeared as though they had been ejected from the rifle and had possibly bounced off the cartons of the books to the rear.""

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 805-806 of "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein
April 13, 2010
October 22, 2016



Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was searching the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, when a rifle was discovered. Craig wrote, “...At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 PM.”


The above info regarding Roger Craig only further shows what a liar Craig was concerning various aspects of this murder case (assuming, that is, that John Armstrong has quoted Craig accurately). Just have a look at this other version of Craig's story pertaining to how he first found out about the shooting of Officer Tippit (which totally contradicts what Armstrong quoted above). The excerpt below comes from the 1968 L.A. Free Press article ("RC" is Roger Craig)....

David Von Pein
January 1, 2019