(PART 1292)


Why would LHO switch fingers for his ring while posing?



The ring can be seen on Oswald's RIGHT ring finger in 133A and 133B. But on his LEFT ring finger in 133C.

Regarding 133C, look for the ring on the other hand to confirm the finding. It's not there.

This is yet one more discrepancy indicating the photos are fake.


"I was very nervous that day when I took the [backyard] pictures. 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." -- Marina Oswald; Early 1990s (Via Gerald Posner's book, "Case Closed", Page 106 [footnote])


From her HSCA testimony, it is painfully obvious that Marina didn't have the slightest idea how to use the Im­perial Reflex camera that supposedly took the backyard photos.


So what? Lee told her what to do and what button to press, and she did it. No big deal.


Hogwash! The Imperial Reflex was a view camera, meaning you had to hold it at roughly waist level and look down into the large, rectangular view finder to see the subject. Even then, the view was an inverted mirror image. Pretty unforgettable, but Marina testified she held it up to her eye.

If I took a picture with that weird camera of my wife with a pistol and holding a rifle and commie literature, I’d remember the camera. And so would you in a similar situation.


David Von Pein sez “the Warren Commission figured it all out!, There’s nothing to see here!”

It is more like “The CIA told her what to do and what button NOT to press, and she didn't. It’s a very big deal.”

I fixed it for you, David Von Pein!


Good job, Michael. Just keep ignoring what Marina herself said....

"...I took the pictures..."


Marina's HSCA testimony (re: the backyard photos)(audio)....


David, do you think that Marina held the camera up at eye level? Or at waist level?


Waist level (of course). She just didn't remember that detail about the camera when she was asked about it later on.


Right! Lol!


Surely, David Von Pein, in your vast archive you have collected all of Marina’s changes, contradictions along with the refutations of her claims, all in one place; and you are going to share that with us here, right? Right!


I believe that, when held upright, cameras take pictures in "landscape format." That is to say, the developed photo will be longer horizontally than vertically.

Yet the backyard photos are all in "portrait format." So Marina must have tilted the camera by 90 degrees in order to get those photos, right?


I don't know. I've never looked into it that deeply.


How about just using your brain to figure it out?


Okay, she might have tilted the camera 90 degrees. Again---no big deal. (It's only a "big deal" to conspiracy theorists who are bent on finding "conspiracy" around every corner and in every Neely Street backyard.)

The long and short of it is....

Seeing as how Marina didn't know the first thing about how to take a picture with Lee's Imperial Reflex camera, she did whatever Lee told her to do in order to get the pictures to come out correctly. And when she was asked to recall the specific details of how she held the camera and how many photos she took, she just flat-out forgot. Yes, she did remember some of the details about the Backyard Photos session---such as the detail about how silly and "crazy" she thought Lee looked that day in his all-black outfit with his guns....

"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." [1 H 15]

....But the details of how the camera worked and the exact number of pictures she took were things that obviously were not important enough to her at the time for her to make a mental note of such trivial things. And so, almost a year later when she was asked to recall such things, she was not able to do so. That's certainly not an unheard-of situation at all, IMO.



I think the Imperial reflex used 620 film and yielded a square negative. CE133A and CE 133B were commercial square prints. 133C is not square because the negative went missing and what we were left with were rectangular prints (taller than they are wide) made on the Dallas Police Departments enlarger (133C-Dees, and 133C-Stovall). There is also the rectangular enlargement given to de Mohrenschildt (133A-de Mohrenschildt) that was enlarged from the square negative.


You [Francois Carlier] let me know when you, like David Von Pein, are ready to have anything to say besides ... “but, but, but.... the Warren Commission sez....”.


Pay attention, please!

David Von Pein didn't quote the Warren Commission, he quoted Marina Oswald. The wife of the assassin. The very person who took the pictures. And who has maintained throughout the years that she indeed took those pictures. She remembers that. Well, she may not remember exactly how she was holding the camera (I mean, come on!), but she does remember taking the pictures. That's important!


So Marina remembered the CONTENT of the photos, but remembered nothing about how and when she took the photos.

Oddly, that is how all of us here would testify if we PRETENDED to have taken those photos. In other words, we all know the content of the photos, but not how and when they were taken. Just like Marina.


Given the manner in which Lee Harvey was dressed (including the two guns he was outfitted with that day in their backyard), I would say that Marina remembering the CONTENT of the pictures more so than the number of pics, the date, and the exact details of how the camera worked, was perfectly reasonable and understandable.

Naturally, though, the conspiracy theorists have to add in a dash of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" where none has ever existed. That's to be expected, of course.


If Marina never took any backyard pictures at all in late March of 1963, then where do you suppose she got ahold of the photo that she and Marguerite Oswald destroyed in their hotel room on 11/23/63? Do you think Marguerite was lying in her testimony too [at 1 H 152]? ....

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."



Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT)
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Hey Dave,

Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY [Back Yard] photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?


What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.

I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.

What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight. :)



I'll bet Marina testified to taking only one picture because only one was shown to her during her coaching session.


Marina's memory has always been fuzzy when it comes to the precise number of backyard pictures she took of her husband. She just simply could not remember how many she took, and she couldn't remember the exact date she took them. Big freaking deal!

Of course, had she stopped to think really hard about this subject just a little bit more, she would have realized that she had to have taken a minimum of two photos, because she and Marguerite destroyed one of the pictures on 11/23/63. So she could have easily figured out that she took at least two.


Hey that's right guys... where DID Marina get ahold of that photo that nobody ever saw??



So you DO think Marguerite Oswald was telling a big fat lie in her Warren Commission testimony. That's the very same Marguerite Oswald who hired Mark Lane as her lawyer and the very same Marguerite who was always speaking out about how her son was an agent of the U.S. Government, like in this 1964 interview:

(Should we now get bogged down into a silly conversation about "Imposter Marguerites"?)


We all know the photos are FAKES.

Jack White listed 15 things. I listed one. Ed Ledoux listed another. I believe Sandy Larsen listed problems. And, many others have pointed out things. What more do you want?

People like Von Pein and people like him will never accept that you are right. They have their beliefs and they are religiously applied.


In addition to Marina Oswald's decades-long insistence that she, herself, took the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, here's another good reason for "people like Von Pein" to disagree with the conspiracy theorists who continue to believe that the backyard photos are fakes:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

The full HSCA "Backyard Photographs" report begins here.

But, since the HSCA's "No Fakery" conclusion was reached by an official U.S. Government committee, it means that that conclusion will automatically be ignored by many conspiracy theorists. After all, those expert CTers know way more about the ins and outs of photographic interpretation than any of those 20 or so experts who were part of the HSCA's Photographic Panel, right?

Per the CTers, those 20 photo experts (as a unit) were all apparently either despicable liars or totally incompetent when it comes to their conclusions concerning not only the Backyard Photos, but they were also completely wrong when they said that President Kennedy's autopsy photos and X-rays "had not been altered in any manner". (The same goes for the "Handwriting Experts" panel as well. According to many conspiracists, those handwriting guys got everything wrong too. Go figure.)



Did the HSCA explain why it is Oswald's ring switched hands between shots? Oh yes, I know... no big deal, he simply moved the ring for no reason. Sure.

I did read the HSCA's (very lame) explanation for why the head-to-body proportion changed (quite noticeably) between shots. They claim that Oswald's posture changed, thus making his body and legs look smaller. But the head is rigid and therefore cannot change size. Right away -- after reading that explanation -- I knew that the photo experts were either corrupt or stupid. Or both.


And just think---there were TWENTY such "corrupt" and/or "stupid" so-called "photographic experts" working for the HSCA in 1978. That's a lot of corruption on just one panel. (And, remember, they were all "stupid"/"corrupt" when it comes to the autopsy pictures too.)

There was no end to the corruption (and/or stupidity) in the JFK case, was there Sandy? It extended all the way from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to lying witnesses like Marina and Marguerite, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA as well. Right?


David Von Pein,

There are things that I do not find credible. Among these are the Warren Commission, the conclusions of the HSCA, and Marina Oswald, the double or triple agent.

This happened on Main Street in the AMIPA film shot by Robert Yeargan. I'm sure you can explain this some way:


Explain what?

I haven't the slightest idea what you think it is that needs to be "explained" in this film clip.

Please enlighten me.


I have made some notes on a frame of the second back wound on Market [Main?] Street. I'm sure you will not understand or see what I am talking about. You won't or can't explain what's in the photo because it negates nearly everything you believe about how President Kennedy was assassinated.


Heaven help us! John Butler is actually suggesting (in his last post above) that John F. Kennedy was shot in the back and head while the President's car was on Main Street!

Any idea, John, why JFK kept on smiling and waving for several more minutes (on Main, Houston, and Elm) AFTER he was struck by multiple bullets?

John, can you possibly be serious when you speak about such a preposterous theory? Or are you just a few months late with an April Fools gag? Either way, such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other).


David Von Pein,

I see that you are finally getting the picture and beginning to understand what I am saying. Actually, I am not saying this but, the AMIPA film and Jackie Kennedy's statements are: [Click Here]


From a Jackie Kennedy Interview:

Jackie says:

“All I remember was a blue grey building up ahead; then turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out...”

Can you find for me that blue-grey building on Houston Street? On Elm Street?

You could find it in those days on Main Street just east of the Old Court House. That blue-grey building was torn down sometime later and a parking area was put there. This then changed into the Kennedy Monument.

Have you ever wondered why they put the Monument there?

You can make preposterous claims but, have you looked at the evidence?


I'll repeat what I said earlier, John....

"Such inane foolishness doesn't merit any attention at this forum (or any other)."


I would like to ask, since I started this thread:

What does an early back wound on something called the AMIPA film have to do with Oswald switching the ring from one hand to the other between poses for the BYP [Backyard Photos]?


Moreover, what do John's posts in this thread have to do with anything real (or even remotely possible) when it comes to the topic of the JFK assassination?

Even in the super-bizarre world of conspiracy theorists, John Butler's "JFK Was Shot On Main Street" theory would have to be considered "outer fringe" and worthless.

Does a single other person believe in your theory, John? Just curious.


The point is that the Main Street evidence in the AMIPA film is in stark contrast to the evidence we find on Houston Street and Elm Street in how the assassination occurred. Watch the AMIPA film. Go through a frame by frame analysis. You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame. If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment. You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence.

Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing.

The main point of these posts is nearly everything we see in the visual record about the Kennedy assassination is phony, including the BYP's. The first visual evidence that convinced the public that Oswald was guilty includes the BYP's. Other early evidence is the Zapruder film (parts of it first published), Mary Moorman's Polaroids, and Altgens 5, 6, and 7 are fake. All can be demonstrated to be phony. This gives context for the importance of understanding the BYP's are part of what hung Oswald in the court of public opinion.

If that is the case then what is the true story? The AMIPA film shows you the first part of the assassination. There are other parts on Houston Street and Main [Elm?] Street.

It is obvious that David Von Pein has not read Jackie Kennedy's testimony or watched the film in an analytic mode. His is a knee jerk reaction to something he finds totally alien to his thought processes.


This only goes to prove a very significant point....


A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President.

Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you.

David Von Pein
August 18-22, 2018




(PART 2)

Synchronizing The Truth:
How the acoustics evidence
killed the JFK conspiracy


I’m not sure how many ways it can be said or how many times I have to explain it, but there is nothing to the recent allegations that the acoustics evidence offered by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 as scientific proof of conspiracy is somehow valid — again.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) cut the legs out from underneath that horse a long time ago (I should know, I helped them) and continuing to beat that horse isn’t going to make it get up and gallop away.

Still, there are a few diehards working very hard to do just that, claiming that “skips” and “missing words” explain all of the anomalies that led the NAS to deep-six the HSCA’s acoustic evidence thirty-seven years ago. Allow me to help set them straight.

Straight up

There are no “skips” on the Channel One Dictabelt. There are no words “missing” from the Decker crosstalk. The Dictabelt recording is intact. Period.

If “skipping” were the case, the acoustics firm of Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) would never have been able to reach their conclusion (erroneous as it turned out) that the “impulse sounds” recorded during the approximate time-frame of the assassination were gunshots that synced up with the Zapruder film. Instead, BBN would have immediately alerted the HSCA that the “skipping” damage to the Dictabelt made it impossible to complete their study.

But that didn’t happen, did it?

Volatile evidence

Dictabelts are nothing more than thin, vinyl sleeves meant for simple one-time recordings, and not more than a few playbacks.

That’s because, each time the Dictabelt is played back using the Dictaphone machine, the thin vinyl sleeve becomes worn, increasing the possibility of introducing artifacts and skips or even rendering the Dictabelt unusable.

Shortly after the assassination, in order to preserve this volatile evidence, James Bowles, Communications Supervisor at the Dallas police headquarters, transferred the Dictabelt recording to reel-to-reel magnetic audio tape in order to preserve the recordings from repeated Dictaphone machine playback.

The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (NAS-CBA)—also known as the “Ramsey panel”—microscopically examined the original Dictabelt for artifacts such as scratches and re-recording. They found nothing during that examination that indicated re-recording or skipping. Nothing. Nada. Zip.


In 1981, I made a stereo copy of Channel One and Channel Two recordings on a single cassette tape, syncing the Channel One Decker crosstalk with the original Decker transmission on Channel Two. I found that they synchronized perfectly. I shared that information in a letter to Gary Mack, who then published my letter in an issue of Penn Jones' “The Continuing Inquiry.”

The fact that the two recordings synchronize proves that that are no “skips” or “missing words” as some ill-informed researchers contend.

Hearing is believing

Many people have a difficult time hearing the Decker crosstalk transmission in the background of the Channel One recording, due to the extraneous noise emanating from the motorcycle with the open microphone. That is certainly understandable. However, the Decker crosstalk is there in its entirety as voiceprints produced by the NAS-CBA established beyond any doubt.

There is something, however, that you can hear without special scientific equipment; a sound that was recorded within 4 seconds of the Decker transmission on both Channels One and Two. The sound was initially thought to be a “carillon bell,” but turned out to be radio frequency interference that was recorded simultaneously on both channels.

This is highly significant—and something often overlooked. The fact that the radio frequency interference (the “bell” sound) was recorded on both channels proves all by itself that the Channel One and Two recordings sync up perfectly, in relation to the Decker crosstalk.


Decker: "Have – um Station 5 to move all men available out of my department – back into the railroad yards there in an effort to try to determine – just what and where it happened down there and hold everything secure until the – homicide and other investigators can get there."

Dispatch: "10-4, Dallas One, Station 5 will be noti[fied 12]:31."

NOTE: The portion of the word “notified,” within the brackets, is accompanied by the radio frequency interference (“bell” sound).

Dictaphone machine mechanics

In 1989, while doing research for my booklet “Double Decker,” which was published by conspiracy author and researcher Robert Cutler, I spoke with a gentleman named Robert Killen of the American Dictaphone Co., who was responsible for maintaining and repairing Dictaphone machines.

HSCA chief counsel and staff director G. Robert Blakey, in an effort to resurrect the validity of the acoustic evidence following the NAS-CBA’s devasting conclusion, had suggested that a “jumping needle” could explain how the Decker crosstalk transmission came to overlap the BBN impulses (“gunshots”). In other words, according to Blakey, the Dictabelt machine’s needle inexplicably jumped backwards and recorded the Decker transmission over the top of the impulse sounds, blending the two together into a single audio recording.

I asked Mr. Killen about the possibility of the Dictabelt machine “skipping” during the recording process and was told that Dictabelt machines do not “skip”.

Mr. Killen stated that in order for such a thing to happen, the machine would have to receive “quite a thump,” due to the weight of the machine and the manner in which the mechanism holds the stylus in place during recording. And by “quite a thump,” Mr. Killen didn’t mean someone simply bumped the Dictaphone machine during recording. He meant, someone would have to have smacked it with a sledge-hammer!

Mr. Killen explained that the Dictabelt stylus is held in place by a worm drive (a threaded shaft) that keeps the stylus in place during recording and playback. The stylus is not loose (as one might encounter in a vinyl record turntable setup) or even capable of being moved in either direction because of the worm drive.

In short, from a mechanical stand point, the Dictabelt machine cannot “skip” in any direction, as proposed by Blakey and others seeking to undermine the NSA-CBA’s conclusions.

The claim that because not all of Decker’s words can be heard on the Channel One “crosstalk” recording is somehow evidence of “skipping” is equally lame and easily disproved.

When the Channel One recording is speed corrected (it recorded at a slightly different speed than its Channel Two counterpart) and laid side-by-side with the Channel Two recording, both recordings synchronize perfectly. This could only be possible if both recordings were made at the same time.

The result of that synchronization proves that the sound impulses, thought by BBN to be “gunshots,” appear in the recording at least one minute after the actual assassination is known to have occurred. And that’s the ballgame!

The evidence is clear

All of the head-standing, hoop-jumping and language-twisting by those who are genuinely ignorant of the facts or refuse to face the facts cannot overcome the reality of that simple truth.

The fact of the matter is there are no missing words and there is no missing time on the Dallas police Dictabelt recording — a recording that was relied upon by the HSCA to reach their conclusion of conspiracy and which, over the course of better than fifty years, has been the only hard, scientific evidence ever offered to support a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.

And anyone arguing that the HSCA’s acoustic evidence is alive and well doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Steve Barber
[Edited by Dale Myers]
August 11, 2018



(PART 1291)


[Quoting from Page 39 of Mark Lane's 1966 book, "Rush To Judgment"....]

"Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called before the Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Commission and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13 men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper was."

[End Mark Lane Quote]

The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane. They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.

This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't refute it.


Lane is outright lying here, lurkers. Let someone produce five of these witnesses who stated the shots came from the knoll.

Jean Davison blew this out of the water 6 years ago [in this May 31, 2012, Internet post]....

[Jean Davison Quote On:]

"Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper was." His footnote indicates he's talking about these six:

Potter and Bishop:

Johnson and Cowsert:

Austin Miller:

and Walter Winborn:

I challenge you to show that all six implicitly indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..." Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy slope."

Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence? Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running up the slope--does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??

I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm wrong, show me."

[Jean Davison Off]

Ben has been running from Jean's challenge for six years and counting, lurkers.

Everything Ben posts from Lane's book illustrates Lane's dishonesty, lurkers. His sole intent is to deceive the readers, and Ben is stupid enough to fall for it.


The reasoning behind concluding that the shots came from the TSBD is both solid and sound, retards like Lane and Ben just focus on the wrong things.


Supporters and regulars of Von Pissant's [DVP's] website will likely notice nothing suspicious about the way LNers just happen to get the last word in EVERY debate.


Why would you expect anything else at an LNer's website, "Boris"? You think I should let a CTer have the final word at my own site? Get real.

And you think it's any different at a CTer's site--like James DiEugenio's "Kennedys & King" website, for example? You think an LNer ever gets the "last word" in one of Jim's articles published at his site? Get real (again).


Von Trapped [again, the ever-so-clever "Boris" is talking about DVP here] demonstrates he's less concerned with evidence, and more concerned with staging a bias which supports his flawed position.


Good job at putting words (and motives) in my mouth (and mind) that don't exist at all. CTers are experts at doing this. For example: Just think about what CTers do to people like Captain Fritz and Dr. Humes and Robert Frazier and scads of other innocent people connected with the JFK case.


Well for one thing, DiEugenio is too busy dealing with EVIDENCE to post senseless ad-hominem squabbling posing as a refutation.


DiEugenio is actually too busy IGNORING all the evidence of Oswald's guilt to do anything else. Totally ignoring and/or skewing every last piece of evidence is, after all, Jimbo's full-time job. There's not much time left for anything else in the Anybody But Oswald world he inhabits.


Second, your tactic creates the illusion that LNers resolve every issue.


Untrue. Just because I always give myself the "last word" on my own webpages (which is only to be expected in a discussion in which I hold an opinion that I have chosen to archive at my very own website; Duh!), that doesn't mean I consider "every issue" to be fully "resolved" by LNers. Two examples being:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald's forever unknowable motive.

2. Why did many of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses say they saw something (a huge hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head) that definitely did not exist? (I'm still scratching my head about that "BOH" puzzler.)


Is DiEugenio making claims he's unwilling to back up in forums?

Post it here: __________


Here are 22 items (just for starters) that DiEugenio can't "back up" to save his life....

The Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes

Oh, Jim will always claim that he's "backed up" all twenty-two of those silly beliefs with solid evidence---but we all know what "solid evidence" really means when it comes from the mouth of a conspiracy theorist, don't we? It means: speculation, hearsay, bullets that don't exist, multi-gunmen theories about Oswald being a "patsy" that make no logical sense at all, and unsupported allegations of "evidence tampering" and "witness coercion", etc.

In other words, a CTer's "solid evidence" amounts to nothing but a pile of mush.

Lone Assassin believers like myself, however, actually do have "solid evidence" to back up their claims, despite the loud protests and the foot stomping of the conspiracists....


No, that's not the way we play this game.

Your website is off limits.

You'll QUOTE DiEugenio, and then cite where anyone else can find his quote, and then I'll be happy to either defend what he said, or state that he's wrong... or even state he's a liar should the evidence be there.

One statement at a time... pick your best example... I'm waiting...


Gosh, Ben, you just pushed me through the front door of my favorite candy store with a $100 bill in my hands. The selection is almost too overwhelming to pick just one thing!

Let's start with the second item of hanging fruit in the "DiEugenio Stupid 22" collection....

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

Direct quote from DiEugenio:

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio;
January 14, 2010 [Black Op Radio Internet broadcast; audio below (skip to 31:17)]

The real Tippit evidence is linked below (for any interested lurkers):

http://jfk-archives/The Murder Of J.D. Tippit


I think it's impossible for ANYONE to do as much research on the case as DiEugenio has and not get anything about it right. Truly, that's an absurd statement. I don't even say that about LNers.


Yeah, you would tend to think that, huh? It is rather amazing that a smart guy like that could get so much stuff 100% backward (and wrong). But Jimmy has managed to accomplish just such a feat (incredible though it may be). Just peruse "The DiEugenio 22" again for just a few (blatant) examples.

In my opinion, Jim DiEugenio is a victim of "The Snowball Effect" when it comes to the evidence he has studied regarding the JFK assassination case.

What I mean is....

DiEugenio has been "locked in" to a belief in a "JFK Conspiracy" for so long now (back to at least 1990 or 1991, probably even earlier), that whenever he is confronted with something that is relatively "new", he automatically examines that "new" evidence (regardless of what it might be) within the framework of his older "I Know It Was A Conspiracy" mindset, which (of course) leads him to even MORE wrong conclusions concerning the evidence.

A fairly recent example of this type of "Snowball" behavior is the way Jim now treats Howard Brennan with respect to the police line-up that Brennan attended on November 22, 1963. Well, DiEugenio has now said he actually believes Brennan never attended any line-up at all on Nov. 22nd! Which means Jim has now added several more LIARS to his Liars List when it comes to JUST that Brennan subject.

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio

Jim has probably read some crackpot conspiracy theorist's article (or book) concerning Brennan and the line-up, and has now decided to ADD that item to his list of "suspicious" activity engaged in by the DPD....instead of stepping back and looking at all the witness statements (including Brennan's!) that indicate DiEugenio is dead wrong about this subject.

But in Jim's "Everything's Part Of The Plot" mindset that has been festering in him for almost 30 years (or more), he won't properly or fairly evaluate the evidence (such as Brennan's direct testimony), and thusly this "new" Brennan theory gets rolled up into Jim's "Snowball" and gets added to his already absurdly lengthy list of things that he thinks are conspiratorial.

But to think, as Jim D. does, that SO MANY THINGS could lead straight to the guilt of one man (Lee Oswald) and yet still not have that one man be guilty of firing ANY shots at ANYBODY on 11/22/63, is a fantasy that only an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist could possibly believe. Ergo, Jim gets everything wrong about this case (as do so many other CTers just like him).

David Von Pein
August 8-9, 2018