(PART 1285)


I think there’s doubt he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had the revolver in his possession.


So, Paul, do you therefore think Captain Fritz lied through his teeth when he wrote these things in his report?....

"I asked him [Oswald] where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show. I asked him why he carried his pistol, and he remarked, "You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it." "
-- Warren Report, Page 601 [DVP's emphasis]


Well, seeing as there is no transcript or recording, something I still cannot fathom, the answer is yes I believe Fritz lied. And without transcript or recording, we are left with two possibilities instead of one incontrovertible fact.


Exactly. That's definitely the common sense view instead of believing and assuming (without study) literally everything that is said to have occurred officially. It's challenging digging for the facts and piecing it all together to make sense, a complex mosaic as Bugliosi said (one of my favorite sayings from him actually), the way a complex conspiracy would have to be solved.


OK. Fine.

In addition to accusing just Captain John Will Fritz of the DPD of being a liar when it comes to this topic of "Did Oswald Carry A Pistol On 11/22/63?", here are three more people who said Oswald was carrying a gun that day --- James Hosty of the FBI, James Bookhout of the FBI, and civilian shoe store manager Johnny Brewer. Do you now want to call all three of these people liars too, including the civilian witness (Brewer)?....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him..." -- Via this 11/22/63 Hosty/Bookhout FD-302 FBI Report

"...he [Oswald] reached under his shirt and pulled out a revolver." -- Johnny C. Brewer; July 1986 [5:40 in the video below]


Thanks for posting. He [Johnny Brewer] seems believable. Did anyone in Oswald’s life prior to that day ever see him with a revolver?


Yes. Marina Oswald saw Lee's pistol on more than one occasion. Here's what Marina said about the revolver in her Warren Commission testimony (and also take note of her comments about how she took the famous Backyard Photos, plus her remarks about how Lee would go out "practicing" with his rifle, which is something that most conspiracy theorists are always telling me never once happened, despite this testimony given by Marina Oswald)....


MARINA OSWALD -- ...he also had a gun, a revolver.

J. LEE RANKIN -- Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?

MRS. OSWALD -- He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice---once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.

MR. RANKIN -- What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?

MRS. OSWALD -- I can't say.

MR. RANKIN -- When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?


MR. RANKIN -- Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?

MRS. OSWALD -- I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.

MR. RANKIN -- Would that be at the airport---Love Field?

MRS. OSWALD -- Love Field.

MR. RANKIN -- So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?


MR. RANKIN -- Do you recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it?

MRS. OSWALD -- I hadn't paid any attention initially. I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention. I hope you understand. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that.

MR. RANKIN -- Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?

MRS. OSWALD -- Of course.

MR. RANKIN -- What did he say to that?

MRS. OSWALD -- That for a man to have a rifle---since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life.

MR. RANKIN -- Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?

MRS. OSWALD -- Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business---it was man's business. If I had known these were such dangerous toys of course---you understand that I thought that Lee had changed in that direction, and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him, just playing around.

MR. RANKIN -- Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?

MRS. OSWALD -- I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me---if someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.

MR. RANKIN -- Was it on a day off that you took the picture?

MRS. OSWALD -- It was on a Sunday.

MR. RANKIN -- How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?

MRS. OSWALD -- I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

MR. RANKIN -- And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?



Also See:




Davey is up to his old tricks again. He never gets tired of this routine, does he?

The following is from Weisberg's Whitewash 2, Chapter 1. That chapter is largely from the first Secret Service interview with Marina by Charles Kunkel.

The FBI advised her "It would be better for me if I were to help them....If I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to help in his matter...."

"She said that she saw the rifle but she has never seen a pistol on Lee or in his possession or in the house."

Geez Davey, think there is some relationship between the FBI threat and the difference between her first interview and her WC testimony?

Well, gee whitakers, it sure as heck looks like it eh?

And BTW, that rifle she recalled, it did not have a scope. But recall what she said when she was presented with the rifle before the WC, "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald."

Kind of interesting eh? In addition to the threat, let us never forget Tex-Italia Films out in LA.


David - this is the problem. I decided long ago to dismiss Marina’s testimony because there was no way to know what was true and what wasn’t. She was not a reliable witness.



And do you have any idea why Marina still, to this day, is saying she took the backyard pictures (despite the fact that she now thinks Lee was innocent and was framed as the patsy for JFK's murder)? Is she still afraid of being deported?....

"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina told author Gerald Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Page 106 of Gerald Posner's "Case Closed"


On November 30, 2000, Marina told author Vincent Bugliosi that she took the backyard photos and she also re-confirmed for Bugliosi that Lee Oswald had taken a shot at General Edwin Walker:

"Although...I did not come to interrogate Marina about the facts of the case, since this had already been done ad nauseam, a few references to factual matters were made. When she insisted on Oswald's innocence, 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 [Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] 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." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi


I’ve followed the case for 52 years. I work backwards from the Zapruder film. Knowing that Oswald could not have fired the fatal headshot leads inevitably to conclude conspiracy, and from there all bets are off. All evidence, all witness statements, have to be weighed against that central fact. I appreciate your efforts and contributions.


And so, Paul, would I be correct in assuming then that you do NOT think that President Kennedy's head is moving initially FORWARD at the instant he was struck by the head shot? And would you agree that a movement of the President's head FORWARD at the critical moment of impact would, indeed, tend to indicate that the bullet that caused that forward movement was likely fired from BEHIND the President?

And can I also assume, Paul, based on your last comment quoted above, that you are also of the opinion that the autopsy photo of JFK's head below is a fake and has been altered in some manner (despite the conclusion reached by the HSCA on this matter [at Page 41 of HSCA Vol. 7])?


Who was it that originally pointed out that the head first went forward before snapping back? He has since come to the conclusion that it was an illusion caused by camera movement, and said by looking at the background you can spot the forward movement illusion.


Yeah....anything to avoid the obvious, I guess. (Just like my 2015 discussion with Education Forum members re: the SBT.)


The whole thing about the 1-2 frame forward movement was misrepresented by DVP and Ayton in their book. [DiEugenio is, as usual, dead wrong here. This topic was not "misrepresented" by Mel Ayton or myself in our book at all. Jimmy just doesn't want to believe the ITEK Corporation's findings, that's all.]

[Josiah] Thompson was the first guy to write about it. But he was not the first guy to point it out. That was Ray Marcus, and Thompson would admit that as the case. In other words, it was the critics who first pointed out that almost undetectable forward bob.


Jim is hilarious.

To think that the forward motion of JFK's head at Z313 is only being caused by the "blur" in the film is another example of "Ultimate CTer Denial In Action" --- especially since we know (and can SEE) that the President is being hit in the head WITH A BULLET at that exact moment in time on the Zapruder Film.

And yet, even though we know a high-speed bullet is definitely crashing into his skull at that EXACT instant, I'm supposed to believe that the ONLY thing that is causing the apparent "forward movement" of Kennedy's head is the "blur"???

Jim and Josiah are too funny for words!


Von Pein and Ayton misrepresented this issue in two ways.

First, they tried to insinuate that this bob forward was somehow ignored by the critical community. What a bunch of malarkey. Thompson's book was on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post. It had a large impact and sold well. Second, they ignored Thompson's later discoveries with physicist Art Snyder about the smear on the film. I don't know if Davey is deliberately ignoring this, or if he just does not understand it. I actually think it's both.



Just keep looking at this super-slo-mo clip over and over a few times. And then try to convince yourself that the obvious forward motion of President Kennedy's head that you are seeing is being caused ONLY by a "smear" in the film. Good luck in convincing yourself of that fairy tale.


Davey, is this supposed to be something we have never seen before?

Are you serious? Or is it too late back in Hoosier country and you fell asleep watching Gene Hackman win the championship with Dennis Hopper?


Hey, that's a fine film. (One of my favorites.) And featured on my
Classic Movies Website as well....


You have not countered anything I said, or Thompson has said or Art Snyder said. In fact, I do not even think you understand the arguments. And there is also something else: it's Darrell Weatherly who worked out a mathematical equation about the smear which was in Livingstone's book.

Let me know when you try and counter it.

(Sound of crickets in the night. E mail to McAdams. Nothing. E mail to Davison, "Who is Weatherly?" Email to Reitzes. "Hey man, what is a smear?")


Nah. I don't need to e-mail anybody on this. I like my last post aimed at you much better....

"Just keep looking at this super-slo-mo clip over and over a few times. And then try to convince yourself that the obvious forward motion of President Kennedy's head that you are seeing is being caused ONLY by a "smear" in the film. Good luck in convincing yourself of that fairy tale." -- DVP

Only a "smear"!!??? LOL. What a crock. 

P.S. to Jim --- Please learn how to spell the word it's. Do you ever spell it correctly (using the apostrophe)? I can't count the number of times I've had to add the proper punctuation to your posts when I'm transferring them to my site in order to maintain This Complete Archive Of The Conspiracy-Related Fantasies Of One James DiEugenio Of Los Angeles, California, USA.

Thank you.

David Von Pein
May 25-29, 2018