(PART 1236)


I said that Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, lied and that the WC accepted his word and did not investigate. If you are going to pretend to quote me, then quote the entire sentence.


Is it truly possible for someone to really not have the slightest idea what he has written just HOURS earlier? Anthony Marsh must suffer from such a strange affliction, because he definitely said the Warren Commission "lied" regarding the chrome matter. Marsh wasn't talking about just Chief Rowley in the quote shown below. He said "it lied" ("it" = the Warren Commission).

"You continued to defend the WC while it lied and said the dent was always there." -- Tony Marsh; 4/2/12; 11:44 AM EDT

Of course, as I proved earlier via Page 77 of the Warren Report, the WC didn't lie about a damn thing regarding this matter, with the Commission saying that the chrome was possibly damaged during the assassination on 11/22/63, which is exactly the opposite of what Marsh insisted the WC said, with Marsh saying the Commission said the dent was "always there". Why did you say that, Tony? The Warren Commission never said any such thing, and Page 77 of the WCR proves it.

BTW, I have yet to come across a single lie told by the WC or its staff. Not one. The Warren Commission Report is, in its totality, a remarkably accurate and forthright document. If something wasn't proven with 100% certainty (such as the exact time when the SBT occurred), the WC said so, by providing a range of frames (Z210-225) for the likelihood of the SBT occurring, instead of pinning themselves down to just a single frame.

I do happen to think that a definitive Zapruder Film frame for the SBT can be pinned down--it's almost certainly Z224--but the WC didn't box itself into such a narrow belief, which I greatly admire. They couldn't tell exactly what frame it was, so they said so and gave a range of frames instead. That's not evasion or playing fast and loose with the facts. That's called being honest and forthright. And the Commission did the same thing regarding other matters too. When the evidence wasn't strong enough to put a definitive label of truth on something, the Warren Commission said so--time and time again.

A great example of this can be found on Page 117 of the Warren Report (my favorite conspiracy-bashing page in the whole Report), where the Commission completely defeats a popular notion made by the conspiracy kooks (the one about how the WC had no choice but to adopt the Single-Bullet Theory, because without it, the kooks say, the WC couldn't possibly have said that Oswald acted alone).

But on Page 117, that theory goes down the tubes forever when the Commission fully acknowledges the possibility of the Main Street curb damage being caused by a fragment from the head shot (vs. the Commission saying that the curb was chipped and James Tague peppered in the face by Oswald's first shot).

And conspiracy myth #2 that gets flushed down the toilet (where it belongs) on that same Page #117 is the myth about the WC being boxed in to a 5.6-second timeline for the shooting. But we can see on Page 117 that the Commission was acknowledging the distinct possibility of a 7.9-second shooting timeline for the three shots. The Commission wouldn't even say with any finality which of Oswald's three shots they thought was the shot that missed.

So when I continue to hear conspiracy theorists talk about the Warren Commission and its staff in a purely derogatory manner, as if Earl Warren and his team of Commissioners were the equivalent of a band of outlaws who should have been thrown in jail and never let out again, I know those CTers who speak in those terms are nothing but kooks of the first order. And I know they're kooks by merely reading various pages of the excellent report that those CTers love to spit on. And a very good place to start is Page number one hundred seventeen. (And Page 195 is very good too.)

David Von Pein
April 3, 2012