(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