(PART 126)











http://jfklibrary.org/video/JFK At White Sands (June 5, 1963)




(PART 1228)


CE573 [the "General Walker bullet"] looks just like a Carcano bullet. Anybody can tell that just by glancing at a picture of CE573:

I've always been surprised that no firearms expert could link it to Rifle C2766, because it sure looks like it's got plenty of undamaged surface area to make a positive identification. But evidently not.


No one's saying that CE 573 isn't a MC bullet. I'm suggesting that based on the observations of General Walker, CE 573 is not the bullet they found. It's substituted evidence. Can't any of you nuts read?


So, does this mean you think CE573 IS a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano? Or do you think the evil cops used a different Carcano to create the phony Walker bullet?

BTW, who placed that fake bullet in the record?

And another question:

If Oswald didn't shoot at Walker, then why did LHO write out this note for Marina, indicating he might be killed or taken into custody? Or is that note a fraud too?

You see, it isn't JUST the Walker bullet that ties Lee Harvey Oswald to that shooting. There are other things too. Weren't the cops lucky that their patsy confessed to the shooting you say he never committed?


Oswald confessed to shooting at Walker? Funny I can't find that in the report.



He confessed to Marina.

So, unless Marina was a bald-faced liar in December 1963 (in a Secret Service report; CE1789), and again in February 1964 (in her Warren Commission testimony), and again in 1978 (in her HSCA testimony), and again in November 2000 (in an interview with Vincent Bugliosi), then Oswald confessed to shooting at General Walker. Period.


HUH!??? What the hell are you babbling about? Lee Oswald was already decaying and pushing up daisies when the authorities learned that he had been involved in the shooting at Walker's house in April of 63.


Yes, of course.

But when I said this yesterday....

"Weren't the cops lucky that their patsy confessed to the shooting you say he never committed?"

....I was obviously talking about the fact that Marina Oswald later told the authorities and the Warren Commission that LHO had, in effect, "confessed" to shooting at Walker.

In fact, the way things came to the attention of the police makes it much LESS likely that anyone was "setting up" Oswald for ANY murders or murder attempts in 1963.


Because the cops didn't know about Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting until AFTER OSWALD WAS DEAD. The authorities had no idea that Lee Oswald was involved in the Walker incident until many days after 11/22/63.

Therefore, if the cops were really framing Oswald for both the JFK and Tippit murders on November 22, 23, and 24, 1963 (as many conspiracy theorists believe), then the Dallas Police Department sure got a big break when they found out, many days later, that the man they were in the process of framing for the Kennedy and Tippit murders had, in fact, really tried to kill another political figure seven months earlier.

I think even most CTers will admit that a made-to-order patsy like that doesn't fall into your lap every day of the week. How lucky can a patsy-framer possibly get?!

Or, given the above-mentioned circumstances, a better question would be:

How on Earth can anyone in their right mind truly believe that the Dallas Police and the FBI were trying to frame Lee Oswald for the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit?

The conspiracy theorists love to sidestep (or just totally ignore) Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting. Because if they don't ignore it or distort it, then the CTers will have to admit that the man they think never fired a single shot at anyone on November 22, 1963, HAD MURDER RUNNING THROUGH HIS VEINS just seven months before President Kennedy was assassinated. And that is something that conspiracy theorists simply do not want to admit.

I think the following passage from the Warren Commission Report is rather interesting too. This passage is referring to the evidence that Lee Oswald left behind after he shot at General Walker in April 1963, but it also parallels Oswald's actions and the evidence he left behind after he shot JFK and Officer Tippit in November:

"Marina Oswald's testimony indicates that her husband was not particularly concerned about his continued possession of the most incriminating sort of evidence." -- Warren Report; Page 405

I also want to point out the following section of testimony from Marina Oswald. Marina told the Warren Commission this:

"He only told me that he had shot at General Walker."
-- Marina Oswald (1 H 16)


They [the Dallas Police] COULD have asked him [Lee Oswald] about his involvement in the Walker shooting (and we don't know that they didn't) on the evening of 11/22/63 because "someone" (Jack Ruby?) in the crowd called out to Chief Jesse Curry...."Chief, is this connected to the shooting at general Walker back in April?". ("THIS" was referring to the murders of JFK and JD Tippit.)

Any thinking person would immediately ask themselves....Who was this man who attempted to tie Oswald to the Walker incident and the assassination of JFK? How would anybody know that Oswald was involved in the Walker incident?? That case was unsolved and there wasn't a hint that Oswald had been involved and yet some "reporter" tried to tie the two crimes together.


Yes, a reporter did, indeed, ask Chief Jesse Curry if JFK's murder had any connection to the Walker shooting. The reporter asked Curry that question on 11/23/63, however, not on the 22nd. Curry's answer was: "I do not know" (go to 6:13 in the video below).

I, too, thought it was rather interesting when I first heard that clip of the reporter asking about any Walker tie-in. But to suggest that the reporter was really Jack Ruby, and that Ruby was attempting to frame Oswald in some way by bringing up the Walker incident during a press conference with Chief Curry, is simply more naked and unprovable speculation on the part of CTers.

Many people in Dallas knew about the unsolved Walker shooting. So it certainly isn't beyond imagination to think that a crackerjack reporter might have tied the two things together as of November 23rd. And that, in fact, is precisely what did occur -- the reporter made a good guess and tied the Walker shooting to the JFK assassination. Simple as that. And, furthermore, his guess on 11/23/63 was absolutely correct.


Here are some related excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book concerning Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina Oswald, and the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker:

"Since we know that Oswald attempted to murder General Walker because he confessed to his own wife that he did, nothing further is required to make the point. But in addition to his letter of instructions to Marina, which has survived, and has been confirmed to be in Oswald's handwriting, as well as the photos Oswald took of Walker's residence, there is some other independent evidence, though not conclusive by itself, connecting Oswald to the attempted murder of Walker.

The Dallas police took the slug found at the Walker residence to the Dallas City-County Investigation Laboratory at Parkland Hospital on April 25, 1963, to see if lab technicians could determine the type of gun from which it was fired. Within a few days the lab reported back that it could not do so "because of the battered condition of the bullet."

On November 30, 1963, the FBI, thinking there possibly could be a connection between the Kennedy assassination and the Walker shooting, requested the bullet from the Dallas Police Department for examination, and the local office of the FBI sent the slug by registered mail to the FBI lab in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963.

Robert Frazier, the FBI firearms expert, testified before the Warren Commission that because of the mutilated condition of the Walker bullet, he was "unable to reach a conclusion" as to whether or not the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, the one he determined was the weapon that killed President Kennedy. However, he said that "the general rifling characteristics of the rifle 139 [Commission Exhibit No. 139, Oswald's Carcano] are of the same type as those found on the bullet, [Commission] Exhibit [No.] 573 [Walker slug]," and therefore, at least on this basis, "the bullet could have been fired from the rifle."

The general rifling characteristics on the Walker bullet and the barrel of the Carcano were "four lands and grooves" with a "right" twist. Frazier said the Walker bullet was fired from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle or one with similar barrel characteristics. Frazier also said the "remaining physical characteristics of this bullet, 573, are the same as Western [Cartridge Company] 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullets...made for this rifle, 139."

When Dr. Vincent Guinn made his neutron activation analysis of the bullet for the HSCA, he determined that it was "extremely likely" that the Walker bullet was a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company, the same as the ammunition used in the Kennedy assassination (1 HSCA 502, HSCA testimony of Dr. Guinn on September 8, 1978).

The Dallas Police Department's "General Offense Report" on April 10, 1963, its first report on the Walker shooting, described the bullet as a "steel-jacketed bullet" (CE 2001, 24 H 39), whereas the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullets were copper-jacketed. Frazier told the Warren Commission that "some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper alloy jacket" (3 H 439).

Although the bullet was too damaged to find the essential "microscopic characteristics" (markings) to match up with the barrel of Oswald's Carcano that would enable Frazier to connect the Walker bullet to the Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons, importantly, Frazier said he found NO microscopic characteristics on the bullet that would indicate it was NOT fired from the Carcano."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 694-695 of "Reclaiming History"


"When she [Marina Oswald] insisted on Oswald's innocence [during a personal interview that Vincent Bugliosi had with Marina on November 30, 2000], suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew this because "Lee told me he did." But she hastened to add that the president was different because "Lee liked Kennedy." And Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"


General Walker was sweating his balls off. He was scared to death that Oswald was going to reveal that he and Walker and [George] De Morhenschildt [sic] had conspired and plotted a hoax that would have been beneficial to Walker in his quest for publicity, and beneficial to Oswald by making him appear to be a radical communist revolutionary who had tried to kill one of Castro's most vocal foes. Walker wanted to nail Oswald's coffin shut just as soon as possible.



Can it get any goofier than this, folks? I ask you.

And, yes, it's obvious that the reporter just guessed when he asked Curry about any potential tie-in between the events of 11/22 and the Walker shooting in April. To believe that it was anything but a guess and speculation on the reporter's part would be to engage in the kind of absurdly over-the-top speculation that Walt has engaged in above concerning a wholly unsupportable theory that has Edwin Walker knowing Lee Oswald and participating in some silly charade in April '63 which had Oswald only PRETENDING to want to kill Walker.


FWIW, here are some excerpts from the 1964 Warren Commission testimony of Major General Edwin A. Walker (re: George DeMohrenschildt):

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any other information that you think the
Commission ought to have that we haven't already talked about?

General WALKER. Yes. I think the Commission should look into George
DeMohrenschildt, if it hasn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. What do you know about Mr. DeMohrenschildt?

General WALKER. I know that my information indicates that he lived
next door to the professor that was supposed to have burned up.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any information that would connect
DeMohrenschildt to the assassination of President Kennedy in any way?

General WALKER. I have the information the paper had that connected
him with the Oswalds.


General WALKER. Of course, it is common knowledge that DeMohrenschildt
was associated with Oswald now.

Mr. LIEBELER. Other than that, do you have any information to indicate
that DeMohrenschildt was involved in any way with the assassination of
President Kennedy?

General WALKER. Not directly.

General [Clyde J.] WATTS. Do you have any indirect evidence?

General WALKER. I am tired of them blaming the rightwing, and I have
had enough of this, and it is about time that the Commission cleared
the city of Dallas.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, do you have any indirect indication or
evidence that would associate DeMohrenschildt with the assassination
of President Kennedy in any way?

General WALKER. I think it is very important that DeMohrenschildt knew
Oswald. I think it is very interesting. My information is that
DeMohrenschildt went to Haiti. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, is there anything else that you think the
Commission ought to know that we have not already mentioned here this
evening? It is now 7:15.

General WALKER. Where am I at?

Mr. LIEBELER. I didn't mean to suggest--I just wanted to let the
record show we are both working very hard.

General WALKER. I will stay here all night.

Mr. LIEBELER. If you have anything else that you think the Commission
should know or that you consider to be of material importance, I want
you to say so, General Walker, because...I hope you realize that the
Commission is trying to do the best job that it can with the situation,
and that if you can be of help to us, or if anybody else could be of help
to us, we want your help.

General WALKER. That is my approach to the problem. We certainly want
the truth. We want the truth to come out.


Marina lied to everybody.

The FBI, the SS and the WC.

Read the documents and testimony.


And you think she was still lying in November of 2000 when she said the things she said to Vince Bugliosi and Jack Duffy?

E.G. (paraphrased),

"I took the backyard photos"; and "Lee told me he shot at Walker."

Why would she still be lying about those things 37 years later? You can't possibly use the worn-out "deportation" excuse in the year 2000.

David Von Pein
January 10-13, 2012

(PART 1227)


Vincent Bugliosi [claims on Page 955 of his book "Reclaiming History" that Lee Harvey] Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. November 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.


In fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov. 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.


Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.

It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.


You failed to show that Bugliosi's assertion is untrue.


You need evidence that establishes that Oswald stayed at the Paines on a weekday prior to 11-21.


That fact is, in fact, established in this Warren Commission testimony of Ruth Paine, where she confirms that LHO stayed over at Ruth's house on Monday, October 21, after Marina gave birth the night before.

And Vince Bugliosi fully acknowledges LHO's 10/21/63 visit to the Paine home, in a footnote on Page 798 of "Reclaiming History":


As for Ben Holmes' paper-thin argument about Lee Oswald going out to Irving on a Thursday in late October or early November (via Mrs. Tarrants' FBI interview), that topic is also fully addressed and covered by Bugliosi in his book, as I discuss here.


Nicely done, David. I did skim through Marina and Mrs Paine's testimony looking to see if either mentioned weekday stay overs.


For Ben's information....

Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by Bugliosi himself in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted this excerpt from Vincent's book).

So, obviously, Vince himself knew that the remark on page 955 was not entirely accurate. That's part of the problem with such a huge, long book that is written over a number of years (even decades). Some things that Vince might have written in the 1980s or 1990s end up needing modifications or corrections by the time the book finally gets published. And on a few occasions, these corrections just never got done in VB's book. And I think that (very minor) error that crops up on page 955 might be one of those occasions.


He [Bugliosi] either told an INTENTIONAL lie, or you're simply speculating on what he "knew".


Well, Ben, I can tell you that it's almost certainly true that Vincent Bugliosi, as of July 1986 (the date of the filming of the mock trial in London, England), had no knowledge of Oswald's excursion to Irving on Monday, October 21st.

Why do I say that?

Because of the questions Vince asked Ruth Paine while Ruth was on the witness stand during the 1986 mock trial. Have a look and listen to the words Vince uses when he's asking Ruth questions regarding the days of the week when Oswald would visit the Paine home (fast forward to 4:33):

Now, you can argue (if you want to) that Bugliosi was just doing what he was hired to do by London Weekend Television in 1986---he was just playing the part of a prosecuting attorney. And you can argue (if you desire) that Vince knew full well (even in 1986) that the way he asked Ruth Paine the "invariably on Friday night" question was not the proper way to ask that question. And you can surmise that Vince, even in 1986, knew darn well that Lee Oswald had, indeed, visited Ruth's dwelling on a day other than a Friday, but he asked the question the way he asked it anyway, regardless of what he knew the truth of the matter to be. (Do you want to suggest that?)

But if you do argue such points, I'll beg to differ with you. And the main reason I would be inclined to differ with you is because of something I said about Vince in 2011:

"I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth. If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said." -- DVP; July 14, 2011


#8 [on Vince Bugliosi's list of "53 Things Pointing To Oswald's Guilt"] [paraphrased] -- On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone??? Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???

Lurkers: Watch carefully as not a *SINGLE* [Lone Assassin] believer will acknowledge the obvious - and will all try to defend the fact that if someone walks ahead of another person, they are guilty of committing, by themselves, a murder.


As Bud has pointed out so many times, and it deserves repeating in every single one of Ben's silly threads where he has deluded himself into thinking he has "refuted" Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Things".....

Conspiracy theorists (particularly "Internet CTers") are the very last people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the JFK assassination---because virtually none of those CTers have the slightest capacity for properly and reasonably and rationally examining the evidence (and Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements) associated with the events on 11/22/63.

And Ben just proved that point yet again with his post above.

Hint for Ben --- Did you ever once ask yourself this: WHY does Lee Oswald, for the FIRST TIME EVER, decide that he wants to walk well AHEAD of Buell Wesley Frazier as they walk toward the Book Depository Building on November 22nd, 1963?


What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat [if it wasn't caused by a bullet exiting his throat]? And where did that bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy?


The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest.

It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm.


This is why [DVP] is too much the coward to post [at Ben's deserted forum]. He knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.


Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:

Ben thinks that this statement....

"That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Ben is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)

And, incredibly, Ben also seems to think this statement too is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE"....

"It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm."

This one's even more hysterical than the first part about Ben's nonexistent bullet that "ranged downward" into Kennedy's body. Ben has now invented a second autopsy from whole cloth and pure speculation (and more desperation). And he's also invented (from whole cloth, of course) a scenario which has some conspirator digging a whole bullet out of JFK's chest/throat. And that, too, per Delusional Benji, is supposedly "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in the JFK case as well. (Can it get much funnier than this?)

Of course, it wasn't Ben's idea to invent the "pre-autopsy autopsy" nonsense. That idea was hatched by David Lifton in the late 1960s for Lifton's book
"Best Evidence". Ben has merely latched on to Lifton's (and also super-kook Douglas Horne's) coattails and has decided to declare as a FACT the notion that JFK's wounds were altered at some kind of covert "pre-autopsy autopsy" on 11/22/63.

Now THAT'S desperation with a great big capital D, folks.

I've got a good idea for a new Internet series. The title: "Refuting A Kook Named Holmes". I'll start it off with a whole bunch of stuff HERE.



You [Ben Holmes] said you were going to refute Bugliosi. I'm just waiting to see if you can do this. So far you have been very disappointing.


And Ben will continue to disappoint, and that's because virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.

Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing his trousers).

More of my thoughts about "The VB 53" here.


Ben Holmes has been on the Outer Fringe Conspiracy Team for many years now. We can't expect him to suddenly become a reasonable individual, now can we?


You're lying again, Davy...

I'm quite midstream in views. You cannot point to any "outer fringe" assertion I've ever made.


I can't? Let's try this one on for size then....

"That bullet...wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- Ben Holmes; January 18, 2017

Now, if the above statement about a "pre-autopsy autopsy" isn't to be considered "outer fringe", then what would be, Ben? In fact, nothing I can think of could possibly be more "outer fringe" than what you said in that January 18th quote I just cited above.


A "pre-autopsy" autopsy has been fairly standard among critics since Lifton first made it well-known.

The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.

This is hardly "outer fringe" material.


You're hilarious, Ben! You're actually going to sit there (or kneel) next to your life-sized statue of Mark Lane and tell me that a belief in a covert "pre-autopsy autopsy" (and body alteration on JFK's corpse) is NOT an "outer fringe" theory?

That's hilarity at its finest!


"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1057 and 1066 of "Reclaiming History"


If I told you that President Trump had decided on a new Judicial appointment, I'd reference the one tweet that he gave on that issue, and that would be the definitive source... nothing else would matter... I don't need to provide tweets on his selection criteria, his immigration policy, or anything else.

That you clearly don't understand this is truly funny!!! I quoted & cited Dr. Clark providing the evidence you claimed I didn't have.


That's one of the big problems with JFK conspiracy theorists --- they always want to ISOLATE certain things and prop those things up ALONE as some kind of "proof" to win their case.

You, Ben, KNOW that there was no bullet dug out of JFK's chest. You KNOW, of course, that no bullet actually did "range downward" into JFK's chest. You know those things from the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence. But you want to PRETEND that something nefarious was happening to JFK's body, so you'll invent a way for a bullet to have "ranged downward" --- i.e., you'll just IGNORE the actual autopsy findings (which verify for all time that no bullet "ranged downward" into the President's body), and you'll hang on for dear life to the WORST possible "evidence", which is the testimony of Dr. Clark and/or Dr. Perry, who were simply using precaution when they inserted the chest tubes in JFK's body.

In other words, those doctors at Parkland Hospital had NO KNOWLEDGE of any "downward ranging" bullet(s).

Ergo, their actions (and resulting testimony and statements) are most certainly NOT "evidence" that a bullet REALLY DID range downward into Kennedy's chest.

You, Ben Holmes, will never acknowledge that I am right on this issue, and you'll never admit that there really is no evidence at all (not even Dr. Clark's testimony) that any bullet "ranged downward" into JFK.

And I fully understand what you're doing. Everybody understands it. It's a game you like to play. It's what "Internet JFK CTers" do --- they pretend and they speculate and they make up absurd theories, such as this one....

"The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest. It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." -- B. Holmes; Jan. 2017

You have no "EVIDENCE" at all that ANY of the above things really happened. None. And you know it! But that won't stop you from calling me a liar ten times a day just so that you won't have to face reality. And that reality is....

You have absolutely no capacity for properly and fairly evaluating the facts, evidence, and testimony associated with the events of November 22, 1963.


They [the Parkland doctors] SPECIFICALLY treated JFK ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BELIEF THAT A BULLET HAD RANGED DOWNWARD. The chest tubes were inserted for that express purpose.


Not exactly, Ben. Try reading this section of Dr. Kemp Clark's Warren Commission testimony again (at 6 H 28-29):

MR. SPECTER -- "Is the deviation of the trachea and the presence of bleeding on the strap muscles of the neck and the other factors which you have recited equally consistent with a wound of exit on the neck?"

DR. CLARK -- "Yes, sir. Furthermore, let me say that the presence of the deviation of the trachea, with blood in the strap muscles, are by no means diagnostic of penetration of the chest, and the placing of the chest tubes was prophylactic had such an eventuality occurred."

MR. SPECTER -- "Was there any external indication that there was a missile in the chest?"

DR. CLARK -- "No, sir."



You can keep lying all you want - and I'll simply keep quoting the evidence you claim doesn't exist.


Just look at the words Holmes totally ignores in Dr. Clark's testimony....

"Might have"

In addition, let's have a look at a portion of Dr. Malcolm Perry's 1998 ARRB testimony (DVP's emphasis)....

"That's when I asked that a chest tube be put in place because I didn't know how many times he'd been shot or from what direction. And, of course, the assumption was that he might have a chest wound as well...I asked the chest tubes be put in because once you start pressure-assisted respiration, if he had a chest tube he might have a tension pneumothorax. And not knowing the extent of his head injury with any certainty, as Dr. Jones said, we didn't look at that. We were busy trying to get an airway. And so as it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity, but I didn't know that at the time." -- Dr. Malcolm O. Perry; August 27, 1998

How, Ben, does the above testimony of Dr. Perry (and the other testimony of Dr. Clark) add up to "evidence" of a bullet that really did "range downward" into JFK's chest (which is what you say you actually believe DID happen--i.e., a bullet really did go down into JFK's chest and was then dug out of him later by covert plotters)? Particularly the 1998 testimony of Dr. Perry when he said (after having 35 years to reflect back on his sum total of knowledge that he had garnered about JFK's wounds):

"As it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity."

Some people saw Lyndon Johnson holding his own arm as he walked into Parkland Hospital on November 22nd, and subsequently the rumor began to spread rapidly that LBJ, too, had been the victim of an assassin's bullet that day. So would you now (years later) try and utilize those early false rumors and reports as "evidence" that LBJ really was shot?


The HSCA lied about the medical evidence largely in response to Lifton.


And just what "lies" did the HSCA tell the world, Ben?

Cites and links please. Not just your half-baked accusations that "lies" were being told.


They lied about the medical testimony. Full details can be found here.

Simply skip to the section titled: HSCA Refutes Dallas Doctors on JFK’s Head Wound.

You'll find it right under the McClelland drawing of the BOH wound.

And allow me to predict right here and now - you'll either refuse to defend the HSCA's lies, you'll CERTAINLY refuse to state that they ARE lies, and you'll run like a squawking chicken from addressing this issue.


So let me get this straight, Ben....

According to you and other conspiracy fanatics, the HSCA decided to "LIE" about the medical evidence....but then, in their final report, they decided to TELL THE WORLD THAT THEY THINK A CONSPIRACY EXISTED TO KILL THE PRESIDENT.

Is that about the size of the goofy contradictory situation as it exists in your eyes, Ben?

Talk about convoluted.


You didn't claim that my ["bullet ranged downward"] statement was false, YOU CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE" FOR MY STATEMENT.


Ben is a riot, isn't he? He can't figure out that my comment (which I'll repeat in full below) was a teeny-tiny indicator that I might just think his statement about the "bullet ranging downward" was, indeed, a FALSE statement.

Ben, as we can see, is desperately trying to move those goal posts some more.

Here's my quote....

"Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:

Ben thinks that this statement....

"That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Ben is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)"
-- DVP; January 28, 2017

[End DVP Quote.]

Now, after having reviewed the above comment written by me, can anybody in their right mind actually think that I was NOT asserting that Ben's "ranging downward" comment was a FALSE STATEMENT?

I used such words as:

"Please note the multiple lies..."

"Ben is lying..."

"Such a desperate theory put forth by Ben is most certainly NOT supported by the evidence in this case at all..."


"Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more."

And yet Ben comes back and says: "You didn't claim that my statement was false."

Yeah, you're right, Ben....I merely called you a liar (twice) in that quote of mine because I must have been of the opinion that your "ranged downward" assertion was the GOSPEL TRUTH, right?

(Oh, my poor weak bladder!)


Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.



If the individual elements are garbage, they don't add up in the aggregate to be something more.


But the individual elements are not garbage. (Only a rabid conspiracist could possibly even suggest that all of Vince Bugliosi's 53 items of evidence are "garbage".) They are perfectly reasonable items. And they are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly use and consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.

The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements is weighed to reach a final conclusion.

That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.

It's only by isolating each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.

But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do to change that basic fact.


#13 [on Vince Bugliosi's list of "53 Things Pointing To Oswald's Guilt"] [paraphrased] -- During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.

This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as [Carolyn] Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.


Cite the actual evidence that shows that Oswald "slipped up" and placed HIMSELF on the 6th floor AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.

You won't be able to do it, no such evidence exists.

Bugliosi simply lied.


Since Bugliosi is unable to cite actual source evidence that supports his claim, it's based solely on his statement. Bugliosi IS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR HIS CLAIM.

I can therefore refute his statement with MY statement: Bugliosi is lying.


Vincent Bugliosi is most certainly NOT "the only source" for his "slipped up" claim. And Ben has Bugliosi's book, so he's got to know what the TWO sources are for Vince's claim. Plus, I even told Ben what those two sources were in two separate posts at the aaj forum on 12/21/16 and again on 1/21/17.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with Vincent Bugliosi on his claim that Oswald definitely "slipped up" and placed himself on the sixth floor at the precise time of the assassination (see this discussion for more of my thoughts on that particular topic), but Ben is certainly dead wrong when he suggests that Vince had no source at all (other than himself) for the "slipped up" claim. Vince used TWO sources (both leading back to Harry Holmes), which Ben Holmes apparently has just totally ignored.

Ben, of course, will now insist that neither of the 2 sources that Bugliosi utilized for his "slipped up" claim place Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR AT EXACTLY 12:30 PM ON 11/22/63. Well, Ben could possibly be correct on that point. But when we add in Vince Bugliosi's REASONABLE INFERENCE* that he applies to those two sources, then it definitely does add up to Oswald possibly "slipping up". And that "reasonable inference" is this:

"WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM? The sixth floor." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 957 of "Reclaiming History" [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]

So we have to ADD UP some things in order to reach the conclusion that Oswald "slipped up" and placed himself on the sixth floor. We have to factor in Harry Holmes' statements about what Oswald said he did right around the time of the assassination, and then we have to ADD TO THAT INFORMATION the other important info that Vince Bugliosi mentions in the quote from page 957 that I just quoted above -- the fact that we KNOW from other testimony (Charles Givens' testimony) that Lee Oswald was most certainly ON THE SIXTH FLOOR just before noon on November 22nd.

When putting those pieces together, instead of doing what conspiracy theorists like Ben Holmes always do (keeping the pieces isolated and apart from one another), we can see how Mr. Bugliosi arrived at his conclusion that "Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination" (another quote from page 957 of Vince's book).

* Footnote -- When I said to add in Bugliosi's "reasonable inference" above, I could have also said "add in an additional FACT". Because it's not really even an "inference" Vince is making there. He's just adding in ANOTHER FACT (Charles Givens' testimony), which tells us that Lee Oswald was, indeed, on the sixth floor at the time he asked Givens to send an elevator back upstairs.

So it's really a matter of adding an additional FACT to Harry Holmes' statements about what Lee Harvey Oswald said. And then inferring WHERE Oswald was when Oswald said what he said in the presence of Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes.


Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens' testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination???


As I said before, you have to ADD THINGS UP, Holmes. You never ever do any "adding up". You like to isolate and keep things separate. The "isolation" trick, of course, is the only conceivable way that you (or any rabid conspiracy theorist) can possibly even begin to justify your claim that LHO is innocent.

And because of this penchant for separating and isolating everything related to Lee Harvey Oswald, you are therefore not qualified to evaluate any of the evidence associated with JFK's murder. You are a total disgrace, in fact, when it comes to piecing together relevant evidence and testimony.

Such as....

You know perfectly well what I was talking about in my previous posts regarding Bugliosi PUTTING TOGETHER Harry Holmes' statements and Charles Givens' testimony, but you're too deeply invested in your silly "Oswald Is Innocent" policy to reasonably evaluate the sum total of all the evidence.

But as I also said, I'm not entirely convinced by Bugliosi's 13th item on his "53 Items" list. I think Vince might be inferring too much when he said Oswald "slipped up". But I do think it's quite POSSIBLE that Mr. Bugliosi was, indeed, correct too. I'm perched on the fence about that particular item.

However, I do know that Ben Holmes is wrong when he said that there's no evidence AT ALL to support Bugliosi's Item #13, as I clearly have demonstrated in my previous posts in this discussion.

But no matter how many times Ben Holmes is reminded that he needs to ADD THINGS TOGETHER, he'll continue to keep every piece of evidence isolated from all the other things that ADD UP to Oswald's blatantly obvious guilt.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but....well, you know....



You can have all the fake trees you want, they'll never add up to a forest of real trees.


So, Ben, are you willing to go out on your shaky limb in that vast forest of "fake trees" and say right here and now that you think that EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO THE GUILT OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS A "FAKE" PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

Please confirm your belief that NONE of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is real or genuine or legitimate, Ben. Please. I want you to say it "on the air" here at an open forum, just for the record (and for the benefit of my funny bone too, of course).

Thank you.

[Ben never answered me. I knew he wouldn't.]


As I've demonstrated, none of Bugliosi's bits of evidence mean very much at all, and you've run from them like the yellow coward you are.

The fact that you cannot defend Bugliosi shows that you know full well just where the truth lies.


You should try collecting football cards or joining the chess club instead of embarrassing yourself with this JFK thing you're doing day after day, Ben. You have no capacity for properly assembling evidence whatsoever.

Oswald did a whole bunch of odd and unusual things on both Nov. 21 and 22, which, when strung together, add up to his guilt without question. And yet that super sleuth named Ben Holmes can't admit that even ONE of those things was odd or unusual at all. Can you, Ben?

Let's try this one on for size (and then we'll watch Ben bob and weave all over the ring)....

How about Lee Oswald's behavior as he was spotted by shoe store manager Johnny Brewer shortly after Officer Tippit was killed? Do Oswald's actions in the lobby of Brewer's shoe store signal anything "unusual" or "odd" to you, Ben?

It will be interesting to see how Ben turns Oswald's "scared" and "funny" behavior (per the testimony of Johnny Brewer) into the actions of a snow-white innocent "patsy".

Ben could, of course, resort to calling Johnny Calvin Brewer a big fat liar. Will he choose that road? Let's see.


Your ad hominem attack simply demonstrates that you know you've lost. If you were capable of defending Bugliosi, you would.

But you can't.

So you simply insult me instead of actually addressing the evidence and logical argument I provide.

And each and every time you evade the points raised, and merely insult me, you prove to any thinking man that you've understood that you lost.


As I've demonstrated, [Oswald] did quite ordinary things... and Bugliosi simply presumed his guilt, then used everything he could think of to support that "guilt."

When you can explain how reading a newspaper, or not reading a newspaper, is evidence of guilt in a murder case, then you might be on to something.

Until you do, you're simply a dishonest coward.


It's up to YOU to prove that Bugliosi & the Warren Commission aren't liars.


Why not cite the cross-examination of Johnny Brewer? .... His cross-examination will show the truth, won't it?

And until you cite the cross-examination, you'll have to get back to actually defending Bugliosi from my refutations...

Or run like the coward you are...

Your choice!


Yeah, that's what I thought. Ben Holmes is so buried in his silly "Oswald Was Innocent" dung that he can't even admit that Oswald's actions while he stood in front of Brewer's shoe store were odd or suspicious. Ben is as predictable as a rainstorm after a car wash.


The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399.


Did this testing consist of shooting bullets through JFK first?


And not only didn't the Warren Commission's "wrist" test bullet [CE856] NOT
go through a mock JFK body first, it also didn't go through a "mock Connally torso" either! So that bullet most certainly cannot be used by Ben Holmes or by Dr. Cyril Wecht or by anybody else to support this false statement uttered earlier by Mr. Holmes:

"The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399." -- Ben Holmes

The above quote is just a flat-out lie, and Holmes surely has to know it.


David Von Pein asks a simple question....

"How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?" -- DVP

It didn't NEED to be handled by anyone at Klein's.

It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.

The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.

Do I have to explain this in any more detail?

Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?

Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?


But you see, Ben, you have a different way of approaching and evaluating evidence in the JFK case than I have. You and many other conspiracy theorists approach ALL of the evidence in this entire case with a jaundiced eye and a feeling that every piece of evidence is probably fake or manipulated by somebody (the FBI or whoever).

I, on the other hand, knowing that each and every piece of physical evidence in this case FITS LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT LIKE A WELL-TAILORED GLOVE don't feel the need to put on my "Jaundiced" and "It Must Be Fake" hats every time I discuss a piece of evidence -- like Oswald's money order, for example. That particular piece of evidence perfectly blends in with all the other pieces of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder investigations. And that simple fact alone, IMO, makes the money order much more likely to be a genuine and "real" (i.e., non-faked) piece of evidence in this case.

1.) That U.S. Postal Money Order has got LEE OSWALD'S writing on it (as indicated by the testimony of multiple handwriting experts).

2.) That money order was made out for the exact amount of money ($21.45) that we find on Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which is the Klein's internal invoice for the sale of a rifle to "A. Hidell".

3.) "A. Hidell" was a known alias used by LEE OSWALD.

4.) The "C2766" rifle was shipped to "P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas", the same exact post office box we know was rented and used in 1963 by LEE OSWALD.

5.) The Waldman #7 internal invoice has the notation "M.O." on it, indicating the person who mailed in that rifle order to Klein's paid for it with a money order.

6.) The money order has a "Pay To The Order Of" ink stamp on the back side of it, with the words "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." included within that stamped marking, indicating that Klein's Sporting Goods definitely DID have that money order in their possession, resulting in it being deposited into their First National Bank account in Chicago.

7.) And finally, that money order has a "File Locator Number" stamped on the front of it in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on PAID checks and money orders only AFTER they have been received by the Federal Reserve Bank. That Locator Number is the absolute proof, in my view, that indicates that the CE788 money order did go through the proper banking and processing channels prior to ending up in the place where we would expect an ordinary (i.e., non-faked) U.S. Postal Money Order to end up --- in a building in Alexandria, Virginia (7 miles outside Washington, D.C.) where many such federal documents are normally stored for a period of time after they have been cashed and processed.

Now, Ben Holmes and other conspiracists apparently want to believe that all of the various things I just discussed above are phony or fraudulent or suspicious in some manner. Well, they can believe that if they want to, but don't expect me to travel down that rocky road, because I'm never going to.

Much more on "The Money Order" debate here:



If this is really your approach, I can only say you [Ben Holmes] suck at every aspect you just outlined.


Boy, you're sure right about that, Bud. In spades!

Ben and other CTers will take a CONCLUSIVE FACT--such as Oswald positively buying and possessing the C2766 rifle--and totally mangle and misrepresent the evidence associated with that conclusive fact to the point where it's utterly laughable and comical. The way CTers are now ignoring the File Locator Number and pretending that that number was faked on the money order too is a prime example of CTers in complete denial.

A while ago, I asked some of the conspiracy clowns at The Education Forum this question (and maybe Ben would like to answer it as well):

"At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the [money order] make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?" -- DVP; Circa 2015

Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission, during a debate in 1964 against Mark Lane, summed up the situation regarding Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle very well when he said this to Lane:

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64

But it seems as though hard, documented "facts" mean very little to CTers. Like that pesky File Locator Number on the money order. When something like that crops up for the first time (as the FLN did when Lance Payette discovered it in 2015), the conspiracists will just move their goal posts and simply claim: Well, Dave, a File Locator Number can be faked too!

That leads me back (yet again) to the question I posed above.


If YOU wanted to fake a money order - would you do so by trying to do the best you could to duplicate a real one?

Or would you intentionally foul it up?

You won't answer, because an HONEST answer demolishes your faith asserted above.

Forgeries are not intended to be discovered.

This is why virtually no original paperwork still exists that tied "Oswald" to the "rifle".

It's difficult indeed to forge something so well that it cannot be judged for what it is with modern science... let alone whatever science will figure out in the future.


So, let me understand your position, Ben....

You think the FBI stole a rubber stamp off of William Waldman's (or somebody's) desk at Klein's in Chicago and it was the FBI who stamped the CE788 money order? Is that what you want me to believe instead of simply believing that the "Pay To The Order" stamp got there in March 1963 by way of a Klein's employee doing his job after receiving LHO's money order in the mail?

Please provide some PROOF (even a HALF-proof) that the FBI stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of a Klein's employee. I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, Ben? Thank you.


Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.

This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)

Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.

I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.

(But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)


Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).

And you must have been half crocked when you said this:

"Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI."

Hilarious stuff there, Ben. Only a rabid CTer in the "Everything's Fake" club could possibly make such a ludicrous statement. The fact that there is a Klein's inked stamp on the back of the CE788 money order in the first place is, all by itself, at least the "HALF-proof" (if not more than "half") that indicates it was placed there in the course of the normal business practices engaged in by someone employed by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. That's the most logical explanation to begin with, of course, so therefore it's also THE MOST LIKELY TO BE TRUE explanation as well.

To suggest that it's JUST AS LIKELY as not that the FBI stamped the money order (or even more likely that the FBI stamped it, as Ben Holmes believes) is outrageous and irrational thinking. And such a wholly unproven and unfounded claim against the Federal Bureau of Investigation merely demonstrates, yet again, the degree of desperation exhibited by CTers like Ben who are always anxious to pretend that certain pieces of evidence connected to the JFK case are fraudulent and untrustworthy. Such overzealous thinking regarding alleged fakery and fraud in the Kennedy murder case can more accurately be labelled with the following word --- paranoia. Because, let's face it, that's precisely what it is.

And it continues to amaze me (to some degree) that many conspiracy theorists can continue to argue (with a straight face) that Lee Harvey Oswald never owned or possessed EITHER ONE of the murder weapons that Oswald ended up using to kill President Kennedy and police officer J.D. Tippit, even though we know for an absolute fact that representatives from BOTH of the mail-order companies involved in the two Oswald gun transactions (William Waldman of Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago and Heinz Michaelis of Seaport Traders in Los Angeles) verified via their testimony that their companies each shipped a gun to the post office box in Dallas that we know was being rented in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that both Klein's and Seaport Traders each mailed guns to Oswald's P.O. box in March of '63 is not even a disputable or debatable point. It's a proven, undeniable fact that each of those companies DID mail those guns to P.O. Box No. 2915 in Dallas, Texas. And P.O. Box 2915 was, without a doubt, Lee Oswald's post office box.

How can any CTer continue to dispute that fact about the two guns being mailed by separate companies to Oswald's post office box? Do the CTers want to now claim that both William Waldman and Heinz Michaelis were liars and were part of some kind of plot to fake all of their paperwork in order to frame Mr. Oswald? It's absurd.


MY assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,


The fact that it's so reasonable that Klein's did it, and so "ludicrous" that anyone else did, simply shows that you actually DO realize how bad your position is.


What does this corroborate? If the paperwork is missing, you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn't.


I'm confused about what "paperwork" Ben thinks has "disappeared" at the hands of the evil FBI. As I understand Klein's policy, they always destroy the "original" items they receive from a customer in the mail (e.g., the order form and the envelope) after Klein's photographs those items on microfilm, which was done in this case with Oswald's order form and envelope (CE773).

So Ben can't be perplexed about why the "originals" aren't available for those items---it's because we know that the normal policy of Klein's Sporting Goods is to get rid of such paperwork immediately after receiving a customer's order (obviously in order to save space).

And the same thing apparently applies to Waldman Exhibit No. 7 too (the internal Klein's invoice for Oswald's rifle order). That form that exists today is a copy produced from Klein's microfilm reader for the Warren Commission. William Waldman confirmed that fact in his WC testimony (at 7 H 366):

DAVID BELIN -- "Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is."

BILL WALDMAN -- "This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of Dallas, Tex. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine."

MR. BELIN -- "This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the microfilm negative which we just viewed upstairs; is that correct?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct."

Therefore, once again, this likely means that the "original" piece of paper for Waldman #7 evidently was never available for the Warren Commission or the FBI to view and examine because the invoice was placed on microfilm after it was originally generated by Klein's in March of '63. So why would Ben even expect any "original" to exist when it comes to Waldman #7 (or the other items mentioned above)?

As far as the "original" microfilm records are concerned, I'm guessing those items were returned to Klein's after the Warren Commission and/or FBI created the photographs of the items they needed for their exhibits in this case.

Why wouldn't that have been the case here? Seems logical to me to do that, since those microfilm strips contained a lot more orders on them than just the "Hidell/Oswald" order information. So, very likely, the microfilm records were simply given back to Klein's after they had served their purpose to the U.S. Government in this case.


You're a liar, David. You know quite well that I'm not speaking of one or two pieces of paper.


Why don't you simply produce the original microfilm from Klein's?



You're a liar, David. Speculation isn't evidence...

Speculation cannot replace the evidence either... you either produce paperwork from the FBI showing that they returned the missing microfilm - OR TELL THE TRUTH MINUS YOUR SPECULATION.

The microfilm is missing... PERIOD.


It was an ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL bit of evidence.

Those are FACTS.

You lose!


There would be paperwork generated *for* the government showing that they'd returned the microfilm.

No such paperwork has ever been discovered...

You clearly know this... it's clear that you're aware that the microfilm simply disappeared, yet you're too dishonest to simply state the facts.

You have to speculate.



As John Armstrong has noted, and NEVER BEEN REFUTED:

"All original records, the original microfilm, and the original money order used to pay for the rifle, disappeared while in FBI custody."

There's no reason that you can offer for this fact.



I have no idea why John Armstrong would make this claim:

"The original money order...disappeared while in FBI custody."

Is Armstrong trying to imply that the original money order "disappeared" way back in the 1960s "while in FBI custody"? Or does he think it "disappeared" many years after the Warren Commission went out of business? ~shrug~

Anyway, the original money order (CE788) most certainly DID exist in its "original" form as recently as 1978 when it was examined by various questioned documents experts for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, of course, was some 14 years after the WC had also examined the original money order. Here's the HSCA testimony pertaining to that topic provided by handwriting expert Joseph McNally [at 4 HSCA 355]....

MR. KLEIN -- "Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?"

JOSEPH McNALLY -- "They did."

MR. KLEIN -- "What was that conclusion?"

MR. McNALLY -- "That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm."

MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?"

MR. McNALLY -- "It was; yes."

MR. KLEIN -- "And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?"

MR. McNALLY -- "That is right."


You're lying again, David.

Anyone who has the resources can look up HSCA 8, pg. 234, 239 - where it's EXPLICITLY STATED that the money order was a "Xerox copy".



But that's not what McNally told the HSCA "explicitly" at 4 HSCA 355, is it Ben?


It's *YOUR* problem to explain the obvious contradiction - not mine. Someone was clearly lying. Or perhaps no-one bothered to tell McNally that he was looking at a Xerox.


You believe the original still exists - IT'S UP TO *YOU* TO PROVE IT.

Run David... RUN!!!


The handwriting expert HIMSELF (McNally) said he examined the original M.O. in 1978. That's part of his testimony. Sure, there's a contradiction elsewhere in the records. But contradictions happen a lot in real life, don't they? It doesn't mean McNally DIDN'T examine the original. His own testimony trumps the contradiction, IMO. (YMMV.)

Plus, since there is a contradiction in the record, why is it up to only ME to reconcile it? Why don't YOU (i.e., the CTers) have to do any reconciling of the contradiction to prove that you're on the correct side of the issue?


On what basis?


Be careful with your answer, because I'm going to use it to examine what other witnesses said.

Your inability to prove that the original money order still exists is quite damning, isn't it?


Well, just in a general sense, I would think that a handwriting "expert" would know whether he was looking at an original item or a Xerox photocopy. That just seems pretty basic and routine for his line of work. And McNally seemed pretty sure he examined the original document.

Plus, the HSCA questioner (Kenneth Klein) certainly seemed to think that the M.O. was an "original" document, otherwise he would never have asked McNally this question in this manner....

MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?"

So, were Klein AND the expert examiner (McNally) BOTH duped into thinking a Xerox copy was really an original document?

CLICK HERE to read more about the "Original vs. Xerox" contradiction regarding the money order.


Waldman Exhibit No. 7...is a copy produced from Klein's microfilm reader for the Warren Commission.


Produced by WHOM?

No, it was *NOT* produced at Klein's, as you rather desperately try to imply.


You're wrong, Ben. I suggest you look at Commission Document No. 75 (Page 667), which is an FBI FD-302 report filed by Chicago Special Agent Robert J. Dolan on November 23, 1963, in which he wrote these words:

"William J. Waldman...made available from a safe in his control one reel of microfilm contained in a cardboard box bearing the following identifying information:

Filmfill number 83
General Files

This microfilm contains photographs of numerous business documents including one Klein's Sporting Goods "ORDER BLANK" bearing a stamped date of March 13, 1963, on transaction number 270502 showing the purchase of one Italian carbine, 6.5 with a four power scope, control number VC 836, and serial number C 2766 which was shipped to the purchaser on March 20, 1963.


Mr. Waldman was furnished a receipt for the above identified microfilm, which receipt was dated November 23, 1963, at Chicago, Illinois. The described cardboard container containing the microfilm reel was sealed in the presence of Mr. Waldman, dated, and initialed. Mr. Waldman also at this time affixed his initials thereon."
-- CD75 (p.667)

Also see Commission Document No. 7 (Pages 187-188), which is another 11/23/63 FBI report, saying this:

"William J. Waldman...made available for review records of his firm regarding the purchase, sale, and inventory control of merchandise handled by that concern.

[Next page...]

Upon location of these records, described reel of microfilm was placed by Mr. Waldman in a sealed envelope in a safe in his control. He advised that same would be maintained in his control only as long as desired."

-- CD7; Page 187 and Page 188

Do you still want to maintain that Waldman Exhibit No. 7 "was *NOT* produced at Klein's", Ben?

Of course, since Ben doesn't trust anything written in an official FBI FD-302 report because he distrusts the FBI so much, all he now has to do is claim that SA Dolan of the Chicago FBI office just MADE UP all the information we find in those FBI reports. Right, Ben?


#38 [on Vince Bugliosi's list of "53 Things Pointing To Oswald's Guilt"] [paraphrased] -- Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.

It's possible. I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it.

But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.

Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.


This 38th item on Ben's relentless list of Vince Bugliosi-bashing idiocy shows, perhaps more than any other item on Ben's pathetic list of supposed "refutations" of Mr. Bugliosi's points, just how deeply rooted in his "State of Denial" Ben truly is.

To even SUGGEST this is beyond being just wrong or mistaken, it's a flat-out lie (and totally misrepresents the true facts)....

"Owning a pistol that...could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol." -- Ben Holmes

Holmes knows, of course, that the above statement is nothing but a bald-faced lie. But Holmes doesn't care. His job here is to try and exonerate a double-murderer named Oswald---and it doesn't matter WHAT the real evidence shows the truth to be. If it points to Oswald (as the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases certainly does), Ben will find some way to dismiss ALL of it --- like those 4 bullet shells that Oswald was seen by multiple witnesses dumping on the ground near the corner of Tenth Street & Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff just after he shot down Officer J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.

Ben will pretend, as all Internet CTers do, that there's a big problem with those 4 bullet shells. He'll pretend they were planted (or "switched") by the evil DPD to frame Oswald for yet another 11/22/63 murder.

Holmes will cite the "problem" regarding J.M. Poe possibly not marking 2 of the shells. And then Holmes will probably tell us some baloney about one of the Davis girls possibly being involved with Jack Ruby in some manner (via some goofy "six degrees of separation" connection with a relative of Ruby's, or some such garbage that only a desperate person would dare use in a feeble effort to explain away all the incriminating evidence against the real killer).

Ben belongs in the law firm of Cochran, Scheck, Bailey, Douglas, Neufeld, and Dershowitz. Holmes would fit right in with that band of defense attorneys. They all have the same goal --- Get the defendant off the hook, regardless of his obvious guilt.

In short, anyone who knows the core evidence in the Tippit case in any detail at all who still attempts to defend Lee Harvey Oswald for J.D. Tippit's murder is a person who should not be trusted. Because that person is either a deceitful liar....or just flat-out stupid.




This is what happens, folks, when a desperate conspiracy theorist tries to explain away ALL of the evidence that points to Lee Harvey Oswald (which, of course, is ALL the evidence). The CTer ends up looking very silly when attempting to square away everything into a nice little "Conspiracy" package (with Oswald being featured as the make-believe "Patsy" in the conspiracy theorist's imaginary plot).

My favorite gut-buster delivered by desperate Mr. Holmes in his post linked above is this little gem below, in which Holmes was answering my question "Where did those two bullets go [that entered JFK's body but never exited]?"....

"My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- Ben Holmes

Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got enough evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in the imaginary conspiracy and cover-up. Needless to say, Holmes actually has NO evidence whatsoever to back up such an outrageous accusation against Dr. Humes.

But having no evidence at all never stopped a determined JFK conspiracy theorist.

Just ask Ben Holmes.


David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions.

All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to answer the questions I raised in response.

Why are believers such cowards?

Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions, when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?

Why'd you run away, David?



Your answers in this post are just exactly the type of speculation, guesswork, and NON-evidence that I have come to expect from conspiracy theorists. You, Ben, have offered absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever in your feeble attempt to reasonably and sensibly answer my eight inquiries. (The key words there, of course, being "reasonably" and "sensibly".)

Anybody can easily pull a pile of half-baked speculation and forever-unprovable theories out of their rear end (as Ben Holmes has done in the post linked above) to try and explain away all the evidence which inexorably leads to the guilt of Lee Oswald. But when it comes to reasonably answering those questions, conspiracists always end up looking silly (and desperate)---as Ben Holmes does in this post, which is a post that contains about as much TRUTH and as many REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS as a Donald Trump campaign speech.

Let's have a gander at just a few of Ben Holmes' laughable answers to my questions concerning JFK's murder (and some of these half-baked theories gushed forth by Holmes contain outright lies):

[Holmes' Quotes On:]

"Any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply held not to be part of this case."

"Any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply disappeared."

"My guess would be
[that the two bullets that CTers think entered JFK's upper body but never exited went] into Dr. Humes' pocket."

"The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in the very Autopsy that David references."

"Because they only needed a single patsy."

"The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence."

"CE-543...shows alteration in the evidence in this case. David knows quite well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in evidence, and even photographed."

[Lee Oswald] was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent."

"The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far. When you control the investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly."

"Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David."
[Irony Alert!! LOL.]

[End Laughable Quotes.]

And just think --- Ben thinks his above answers and explanations, which have absolutely NO evidence or foundation in fact to back them up, are MORE reasonable than to just simply believe the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases is REALLY pointing toward the guilty assassin named Oswald.

Such is the (strange) mindset of JFK conspiracy theorists.

And Ben's non-answer to my #4 question about the SBT is a typical lame non-response from a CTer who simply has no reasonable shot-by-shot alternative to the perfectly logical Single-Bullet Theory. And that's because even most CTers probably realize there simply is no reasonable alternative to the single-bullet conclusion, but they refuse to admit it.

For the record, my #4 question was this....

"If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?"

To which Ben Holmes replied....

"Multiple shooters... and more than three shots. Simple. So simple, that I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend that his question's never been answered. David's a liar."

Boy, that was a great detailed rebuttal to the SBT, wasn't it? "Multiple shooters" and "More than three shots".

That's it, Ben? A second-grader leafing through a Harold Weisberg book could do better than that.




What response?

You claimed I never answered you.

Now you're admitting that I did.

So which is it, David?


See if you can tell the truth...


Are you REALLY this dense, Ben? You RESPONDED to my Feb. 3rd post with a NON-ANSWER to the question I asked. But you didn't ANSWER THE QUESTION at all. Not even close to an answer. You think THIS is an answer to my question?....

"Why are you trying desperately to get me to say something? WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER WHAT I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN POSTING EVERY DAY???" -- B. Holmes

And you got the post times all mixed up. You referred to 2 posts that had nothing to do with my post in question. Why did you do that?


Then why did you assert I had not answered AT ALL? ("Ben never answered me.")


Because you DIDN'T answer, you silly stump. You merely responded with a non-answer.

Do you actually need to have the words "RESPOND" and "ANSWER" defined for you?


Does a reasonable person get the impression from reading your website that I never answered the post?


Of course. Because you didn't ANSWER it, Mr. Potato Head.

Anyone who clicks on this link can easily see that you didn't answer my question about the alleged "fake" evidence at all.

And now you want to play silly mind games (and semantics games) regarding the terms "RESPONDED" and "ANSWERED". As Bud has said many times recently, you like to play silly games, don't you Ben? It's evidently the only thing keeping you here.

As for my answering every conspiracy-tinged question you raise --- that's probably never going to happen. I answer the stuff I choose to answer. If you don't like the response percentage I provide, tough toenails.

That doesn't mean, however, that your questions have NO ANSWERS from the LN side. Of course they all have reasonable answers---and you know exactly what those answers are even if I haven't immediately rushed to my computer to answer you in this [alt.conspiracy.jfk] forum two seconds after you demand a reply.

But I'd bet the farm that I HAVE answered all (or certainly most) of your questions at some point in the past in prior posts at either this forum or my websites or somewhere else online.

I've catalogued most of the major sub-topics pertaining to the JFK case in my JFK Archives Index for quick reference to those subjects. And additional advanced site searches on my site will usually bring up positive results for nearly all of the topics related to the Kennedy case, even very minor ones.

But you'll just hide in your conspiracy cocoon and pretend that your inquiries have never once been reasonably answered by any Lone Assassin advocate. (That's called "Denial", folks. And it's a CTer's middle name. Just ask James R. Gordon at The Education Forum. He's probably even changed his middle initial to "D" by now [Click Here].)


#53 [on Vince Bugliosi's list of "53 Things Pointing To Oswald's Guilt"] -- Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.

This is another one of those twisted tales... first let's look at Fritz' testimony:

Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was arrested, did you question him about that this morning?
Mr. FRITZ. That morning?
Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him where he got it.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further about the pistol.

So how can declining to state where he purchased the gun be transformed, in Bugliosi's mind, to a definite statement that he purchased a gun in Fort Worth???

Fritz' testimony makes clear that Oswald didn't say this. So it's simply not true that Oswald said he'd purchased the gun in Fort Worth. Indeed, he may have purchased A GUN while living in Fort worth. But let's check Fritz' notes:

"Says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what place"

Again, supporting in this case Fritz' testimony that Oswald wouldn't say where he got it. Note that in Fritz' testimony, he says "he wouldn't tell me where he got it" - but in his notes, it was merely "didn't know what place".

But, let's double-check Fritz' memory... let's go to the FBI's written report on this interrogation, and see if they support the fact that Oswald did NOT state what Bugliosi claimed:

"Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about 6 months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it."

So everyone agrees that Oswald either "declined to state", "wouldn't say", or simply didn't know where he'd bought it. It was, after all, actually 10 months later... he may not truly have remembered where he got it.

And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol.

But it's an outright lie on Bugliosi's part to claim that Oswald had lied about where he purchased the pistol.


Ben's response to Vince Bugliosi's 53rd item only shows the level of incredible desperation that has been reached by Ben Holmes in his non-stop (pathetic) efforts to try and knock down every one of Bugliosi's 53 items.

And this one about where Oswald said he bought his revolver is certainly destined to be ranked quite high on Holmes' "Desperate Arguments" list, because the record couldn't be clearer that OSWALD HIMSELF told Captain Fritz that he (OSWALD) had purchased the gun IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS [see Page 606 of the Warren Report, plus the WC testimony of Captain J. Will Fritz at 4 H 230].

And we know that Oswald was telling a big fat LIE to Captain Fritz when he said he had purchased that revolver in Fort Worth. We all know that was a lie. And Oswald himself, of course, HAD to have known it was a lie as well when he was telling it. Which indicates a definite effort on Oswald's behalf to try and distance himself from even the revolver he used to kill Tippit, even though Oswald knows he was caught red-handed with that very same gun in his hands when he was arrested!

Oswald's blatant lie about where he bought the Tippit murder weapon is very powerful "consciousness of guilt" circumstantial evidence. Because if Oswald had been innocent of shooting anyone with that particular Smith & Wesson revolver, then logically he would have had no reason whatsoever to lie to the police about where he purchased that gun.


The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.

He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.

Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.

Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.

Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.

Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) to make his case.

The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.

David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.

And that fact tells the tale.


To repeat yet again....

"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing his trousers). More of my thoughts about "The VB 53" here." -- DVP; January 25, 2017


With respect to this comment made by Ben Holmes....

"And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol."

....I can only say that Robert Oswald's statements that he made to a reporter in 1993 about buying two handguns off of his brother, Lee, are certainly not consistent with the testimony that Robert gave to the Warren Commission in 1964 concerning the topic of Lee Oswald being in the possession of any firearms at various times throughout his life.

Now, perhaps Robert did, indeed, purchase a couple of pistols from his younger brother, Lee, at some point in time. That's always possible, I suppose. But if he had done so, I would think that that topic would have arisen when Robert was asked this question by the WC's Albert Jenner:

"Had, to your knowledge, Lee gone hunting or used firearms or played or been interested in firearms with you or with your brother?"

If Lee had, at ANY time during his youth, sold a couple of guns to his brother, then why would Robert Oswald have answered the above question in this manner (which is, indeed, the way he did answer it, at 1 H 295)?:

"No, sir. To my knowledge I don't remember any time he went hunting with myself or my older brother John. As I stated, there was no firearms in the house. He liked cap pistols, like any other kid. And to the extent that we didn't even own a BB gun."


We've had a number of times where evidence was newly released to the public, and I cannot recall a *SINGLE* instance in which the new material didn't present real problems for Warren Commission believers.

Can any believer document the release of ANYTHING after the Warren Commission volumes that *helped* the Warren Commission's case?


Sure can. Lots of stuff. (Watch Ben now move the goalposts. He asked above whether there was "ANYTHING" that was released after the WC volumes that has "helped" the Warren Commission's case. But the following list of "ANYTHINGS" probably won't count in Ben's bizarre world.) ....

"In the final analysis, the committee based its finding that the shots that struck President Kennedy were fired from the Texas School Book Depository on the quantity and quality of the evidence, to wit: The findings of forensic pathologists that the shots that hit the President came from behind." -- Page 51 of the HSCA Final Report

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7

"The decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm. to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- 1968 Clark Panel Report

"Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side." -- 1968 Clark Panel Report

"On the basis of the investigation conducted by its staff, the Commission believes that there is no evidence to support the claim that President Kennedy was struck by a bullet fired from either the grassy knoll or any other position to his front, right front or right side, and that the motions of the President’s head and body, following the shot that struck him in the head, are fully consistent with that shot having come from a point to his rear, above him and slightly to his right."
-- Page 264 of the Rockefeller Commission Final Report

"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has been discredited by these documents [released by the ARRB]. If you read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson of the ARRB; October 10, 1998


You lied... you got *caught* lying... and you ran away when it became apparent that you couldn't spin the story anymore.

You're a gutless coward, David Von Pein.


Ben Holmes actually thinks THIS statement below is the Gospel truth....

"It [throat bullet] wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was
pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40
and 8:00pm."
-- B. Holmes

Holmes actually thinks that I am the liar by pointing out the FACT that the above statement about a bullet being "pulled out" of JFK's body at a "pre-autopsy autopsy" is nothing but a preposterous theory that CTers have merely made up out of thin air, with ZERO hard evidence to support such a fantastic notion.

Incredibly, though, since I pointed out Holmes' blatant falsehood which is contained within the above statement made by Holmes, somehow I am the one who is lying.

Holmes is a Pot/Kettle analogy come to life---time and time again.


As everyone can see, I cited not only contemporary newspaper accounts where a Parkland doctor was referenced as stating that they believed the bullet that struck the throat ranged downward, I also cited the testimony where the doctor said that as well.

The treatment in the emergency room WAS BASED ON THAT OPINION, but David won't tell you any of this evidence... he'll simply lie and label me a liar.

There *IS* evidence, I've both quoted and cited it.


So the liar is David... and David refuses to retract his despicable claim that I'm the liar on this issue.

That just goes to show his lack of character.


Ben, the walking Pot/Kettle, will now totally ignore the great number of times that Bud has schooled him on the issue of the Parkland doctors' "ASSUMPTIONS" regarding any bullet in JFK's body. (Such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.)

Ben thinks that something that Dr. Clark said MIGHT have happened trumps the actual autopsy of the President. In other words, Ben prefers weak ASSUMPTIONS and guesswork rather than relying on the AUTOPSY OF JFK AT BETHESDA, which, of course, revealed NO BULLETS anywhere in the President's whole body.

But these facts mean nothing to Ben Boy. He LIKES the idea of a "pre-autopsy autopsy" (LOL). And he LIKES the notion of some plotter digging into JFK's throat to dig out an unwanted bullet---even though everybody who is reasonable knows no such thing ever happened, nor could it possibly have happened, given the timeline for such things.

So, like the staunch and silly conspiracy nut that he has been for more than ten years now, Ben Holmes, by God, is going to declare (without qualification) that a "pre-autopsy autopsy" positively did occur and he'll declare (as if it were a bona fide FACT) that a "bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

Ben = Pathetic. (As if we didn't know that already.)

David Von Pein
January 22-24, 2017
January 25, 2017
January 28, 2017
January 28, 2017
January 29-31, 2017
February 1, 2017
February 3, 2017
February 11, 2017
February 14, 2017
February 16-17, 2017
February 27, 2017
March 6, 2017
March 7, 2017
March 13-14, 2017
March 17, 2017
March 17, 2017
March 24, 2017
June 26, 2017