Click on each picture for biographical
information on each family member:















(PART 1293)


DVP predictably hangs on to a test [Neutron Activation Analysis] that he knows has been discredited beyond recognition. But that is DVP. It is what we expect from him.



You can't possibly deny the common sense that resides within my three articles below. Oh, yes, you can try and pretend that my common-sense observations regarding the 5 bullet specimens examined by Dr. Vincent Guinn are pure bunk and not worth a hoot, but any reasonable person (which automatically eliminates retired schoolteacher James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California) who looks at the "5 bullet specimens" information will have no choice but to acknowledge that my comments on this matter make a lot of (common) sense....





Whatever caused President Kennedy to bring his fists up to his throat was NOT the shot of a high-powered rifle from the 6th floor window.

Look at my post [here] and specifically at the crowd in the Altgens photo right in front of the TSBD. Those people would not be smiling anymore if the 135 db pain-inducing shock wave of a supersonic bullet had just passed only a few meters above their heads.


Some discussions re: "startle reactions" --- HERE and HERE.


Have you never wondered why the first shot was described different than the others? Or why Bonnie Ray Williams thought it came from outside the building (the backfire of a motorcycle)?


I'll repeat this question that I asked LNer Ed Bauer in a 2014 Facebook discussion (which went unanswered)....

"But who in all of Dealey Plaza could be considered to be exhibiting "startle" reactions at ANY time during the whole shooting timeline as seen in Zapruder's home movie? Anyone at all? If so, please point them out, because I sure haven't seen any definitive signs of any startle reactions by anybody. And we KNOW that loud rifle shots WERE being fired at the President. Ergo, in my opinion, a lack of startle reactions throughout the ENTIRE film [or in any of the still photos] really proves....nothing." -- DVP; August 28, 2014


So the jiggles in the film at the same time as the shots... that's not Zapruder being "startled" by the shots?


Yes, it probably is (although we could engage in a two-hour debate on the subject of "jiggle analysis" as well). But I wasn't counting Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF when tallying up the number of witnesses who exhibited startle reactions in Dealey Plaza. I was only thinking about the physical reactions we could actually see on the people whom Zapruder was filming.


When JFK abruptly turns his head in a single frame 157, with reactions from Rosemary Willis, Hickey and Connally.


I could go on... and on... so please DVP - with all your righteous indignation - sell the Brooklyn bridge to some other forum's members.


We're talking about two different things, David. I'm looking for true "startle" reactions in the Dealey Plaza witnesses that we see in the Z-Film and the photos ---- not merely REACTIONS. I'm looking for sharp, jerky, "flinch"-like reactions. There's nothing "jerky" from the witnesses in the Z-Film at all that I can detect---except, of course, for John Connally's flinching and grimacing and hat-flipping and mouth-opening and lapel-bulging at Z224—Z226, which is when Lee Oswald's SBT bullet was crashing through his body (which is a shot that Connally did not HEAR at all; he only FELT it; so now we're talking about yet a third different type of "reaction", one that does not include the sense of hearing at all).

But Rosemary Willis' reaction is not a "startle" reaction at all. Not even close. And Hickey's, Landis', and Ready's reactions aren't "startle" reactions either. They are simply "reactions"---period. They heard a shot (or shots) and are reacting to the source of the noise(s)---which was, of course, the TSBD, the building the SS agents are staring directly at at circa Z255. But apparently the fact those agents are turned and looking right at the front door of the Depository means nothing to many CTers, who seem to now want to believe that NO shots had been fired from that building by Z255, which is quite a bizarre stance, IMO.


Hey, Dave, can you explain why, in Altgens6, Connally is turning to his right, as he said, after the first shot which hit JFK? Would he be able to do this if he had already been hit in the back and wrist?


Of course. Why not?

Connally was certainly still able to pivot around in his seat as late as the Z270s and Z280s (see Z275 here), and you surely aren't going to suggest to me (as some CTers have done) that Governor Connally hasn't yet been hit in his back with a bullet even as late as Z275....are you? (And also please take note of the fact that Mr. Connally is still holding his Stetson hat in Zapruder Frame #275 as well, debunking yet another long-standing myth endorsed by conspiracy theorists.)


What was Jack Ruby's motive?


There was no motive. He simply acted on impulse as his personal history (acts of violence against people at his club) shows he was want to do. He then spent much time trying to explain his irrational action in a rational way.


On impulse?

Is that why he was there on Friday night and corrected Wade?

Is that why he was there carrying sandwiches on Saturday?

Is that why he was scouting the place on Sunday morning? And is that why Patrick Dean flunked his polygraph test, even though he wrote the questions!!!!!

Is this why Hoover rigged Ruby's polygraph in every single way the FBI could??? And then Bugliosi deliberately covered up how they did it!!

Please, please, please.

You are giving me a headache.


So typical of you!

How in the world can't you see that your examples have no bearing on the issue?

Can't you conceive of the fact that it is perfectly possible that a man carries sandwiches somewhere one day and throws a tantrum somewhere else the next day? There could multiple reasons.

When Ruby shot Oswald, it was a spur-of-the moment thing. Ruby's actions on the previous days are something else. I mean, granted, he was there, he was concerned, he followed the action and everything. He was upset. OK.

But as W. Tracy Parnell wrote, he simply acted on impulse on Sunday. It that so hard to conceive?

You, Mister DiEugenio, if you were an investigator on a crime scene and a man had killed his wife (see the Forensic files, for instance), you would be saying: "It can't be him: they went to the restaurant yesterday."

As if it mattered a bit...
You always miss the critical and essential facts.

As for the rest of your post, may I ask you two questions:

1. In your opinion, is there anything, anything at all, that was not rigged in the investigation?

2. In your opinion, is there anything, anything at all, that Bugliosi did not try to cover up?

(I'd love to know)


Jack Ruby's known movements and actions before he shot Oswald on the morning of 11/24/63 leave absolutely no room for "pre-planned conspiracy". None whatsoever. Anyone who says Ruby's actions do indicate conspiracy are merely engaging in a whole lot of wishful thinking. Ruby Did Ruby Shoot Oswald?


LOL! :)

Ruby shooting Oswald as a mission is actually one of the strongest parts of our case today.


Which indicates how truly lousy your case for a JFK conspiracy really is here in the year 2018. Because given the way things transpired in Dallas on 11/24/63, the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby just reeks of "Last Minute Effort" and "Spur Of The Moment". And I don't see how any reasonable person can deny that fact. Ruby And Karen Carlin


I asked Fred [Litwin] on September 16 [2018] about how he as a LN defender assimilated into his LN theory the reports of several witnesses seeing people and/or puffs of smoke on [the] Grassy Knoll during the shooting.

In my view, the witness reports of Jean Hill, S.M. Holland, Lee Bowers, Bill and Gayle Newman, J.C. Price, and Ed Hoffman (my list is not complete) cannot be dismissed. [The] Newmans only heard bullets being fired from their right and behind, they did not see any shooters, but they were clear about shots arriving from the Grassy Knoll. How does the LN theory fare with these data? Fred did not answer. And so I still do not know what a LN theorist thinks about data which so clearly disprove the LN view.



Bill & Gayle Newman are hardly the rock-solid "conspiracy" witnesses that CTers have made them out to be for over 50 years....

Jean Hill, as everybody should know, changed her story completely in later years....

And when we examine all of Lee Bowers' statements (instead of just the stuff that Mark Lane would like to have us look at), it's pretty clear that Bowers' observations don't really bolster the "conspiracy" scenario very much (if at all)....

And Ed Hoffman's account is pretty ludicrous....


I stopped clicking through to DVP's site when I found out he was still using the CBLA [NAA] test to prop up the WC BS.

When he knows that it's been discredited. Which is sort of like saying, "I don't have a case, so I have to cheat; if not I am stuck with that ridiculous CE 399."

If you want to learn about Leave it to Beaver and fifties TV, he does have a good site.

PS And a good old time radio site with Jack Benny etc.


I've been on self-imposed hiatus for almost 6 months. I suppose it's comforting in a way to see that absolutely nothing has changed. Same old, same old.

My intellectual trajectory has been the same as Fred Litwin's, but for somewhat different reasons. For those who don't know who I am, I've been a lawyer for 35+ years (now retired), with most of my practice devoted to researching and writing complex motions and appellate briefs.

I was 13 when JFK was assassinated. I started buying conspiracy books in the early 1970's and for the next 35 years devoured them like an addict. For me it was not an issue as to whether there had been a conspiracy but merely which of the seemingly plausible theories was correct. At one time I actually thought David Lifton made sense. I even gobbled up Harvey and Lee.

My disillusionment began not with the JFK case itself. I was deeply involved with many other areas where conspiracy theories abound - notably ufology, but also many other areas which I lump into the broad category of Weirdness. This broader exposure caused me to become intimately familiar with the conspiracy mindset, way of thinking and way of analyzing evidence.

I gradually came to realize how truly bizarre the conspiracy mindset is, to such an extent that I became more interested in questions such as "Why do seemingly sane and intelligent people believe such patently goofy things?" than in, for example, what actually happened at Roswell in July of 1947. The conspiracy mindset carries across all fields in which conspiracies abound, and it's always the same. Every discrepancy in the testimony or evidence becomes evidence of a conspiracy; every undeniable fact receives a conspiracy spin; when speculation and inference are necessary, they inevitably tilt in the direction of conspiracy; the best evidence is deemphasized while every minor piece that can be used to support a conspiracy looms huge; anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or disinformation agent.

In essence, conspiracy theories are self-fulfilling prophecies. If you start with a conspiracy mindset, you're always going to find a conspiracy and no one will ever talk you out of it. To account for all the facts, your conspiracy may have to become so ornate and convoluted that it's comical to someone who doesn't share the conspiracy mindset, but you'll continue to love and nurture it with an almost religious zeal.

The conspiracy theorists in the JFK assassination community may laugh at the conspiracy theorists in ufology (and vice versa), and one JFK conspiracy theorist may laugh at another JFK conspiracy theorist's theory, but no conspiracy theorist ever sees the silliness in his own position. It's all deadly serious and very important, which is why posts like Fred Litwin's generate such over-the-top responses. The psychology of all this remains something of a mystery to me, but it's very real.

The one thing that really struck me was how conspiracy theorists seem to be sadly lacking in logic, common sense and real-world perspective. Conspiracy theorists can never see that their theories simply don't make sense, that no real-world conspiracy ever could or would operate the way they theorize. They become so bogged down in details and tangents that they can no longer see the forest for the trees.

When I stepped back and took a hard look at the various JFK assassination theories, I could see that none of them really made any sense at all. Yes, a diversity of powerful people and organizations hated JFK and would have welcomed his death. A conspiracy to assassinate him would have been entirely plausible. But none of those powerful people and organizations would have conspired to assassinate JFK in the absurdly elaborate, clumsy way that conspiracy theorists suggest.

I suppose it was Harvey and Lee that finally pushed me over the edge and caused me to dive deeply for the first time into the Lone Nut literature and the specifics of Oswald's life and psychology. Once I was as deeply steeped in that area as in the conspiracy literature, I could see that it had what the conspiracy theories lacked: logic, common sense, plausibility. I don't need to promote my ideas here, which would just stir up a hornet's nest anyway, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the assassination is entirely consistent with who LHO actually was during the week of the assassination. Yes, there are many loose ends; there always are. Yes, there are facts that might point toward a conspiracy of some sort; this is inevitable when the victim is despised by as many powerful people and organizations as JFK was. But as someone who has made his living dealing with testimony, evidence and inferences, I believe like Fred Litwin that the Lone Nut explanation is the one that best squares with the most solid evidence, logic, common sense and real-world perspective.

The Lone Nut explanation is no fun. You can't build a rollicking discussion forum around the Lone Nut explanation. It isn't emotionally satisfying either, especially for those who more or less worship JFK. It would be fascinating to me if the assassination were the product of an elaborate, multi-faceted conspiracy involving everyone from LBJ to grunts on the DPD, just as it would be fascinating if an alien craft actually did crash at Roswell. But being pretty thoroughly steeped in both the conspiracy and Lone Nut literature and having given the subject a great deal of thought, I, like Fred Litwin, have evolved from Conspiracy Freak to Lone Nutter through a process of nothing more complicated than serious study, intellectual honesty and a refusal to be sucked into a conspiracy mindset.


A complete intellectual resignation by Lance, who explains why he wishes to live in a state of limbo.


Reaching a different conclusion than you after an extensive, decades-long survey of the evidence equates to "complete intellectual resignation" and living in a "state of limbo"? I'm not even sure what these phrases are supposed to mean. They strike me as typical knee-jerk conspiracy theorist mud-slinging.

I continue to be engaged with the JFK community to the extent I can stand it. I recently bought Greg Parker's books on Oswald in the hope that there might be something substantive and new. I just watched Doug Horne's five-part video presentation and was simply agog, but not for the reasons Mr. Horne would have hoped. In response to some of the above threads, I spent a half-day revisiting the issue of Ruby's route into the garage. If ever a genuinely compelling body of evidence surfaces that forces me to reconsider the Lone Nut position, I will enthusiastically do so. But I'm not holding my breath.

The Lone Nut conclusion has been reached by innumerable sane and intelligent individuals who have thoroughly reviewed the evidence, often in an official capacity. Most of them, like me, have no vested interest in whether there was or wasn't a conspiracy. The one thing they "lack," I believe, is the conspiracy mindset. This isn't something I invented; it's a well-documented psychological state. I'm not suggesting it's a pathological state or that conspiracy theorists are stupid or delusional. They simply are prone to embracing fantastical explanations where others are satisfied with more mundane ones.


In comparison, saying that President Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy is NOT an extraordinary claim. In fact, throughout history we've seen numerous examples of political conspiracies to kill heads of state. Think of Caesar, Lincoln, the Austrian Archduke etc.


To an extent, I agree with you! It's actually the Lone Nut explanation that is extraordinary. Because so many powerful people and groups despised JFK, it's a simple matter to weave plausible conspiracy theories. The Mafia! No, wait, LBJ and Hoover … the Soviets … the CIA and Military Intelligence … General Walker and Dallas right-wingers … pro-Castro zealots … anti-Castro zealots. No, wait, all of them, or at least some combination of at least five of them!

The conspiracy theories aren't extraordinary at all in terms of superficial plausibility. The fact that a minimum-wage loser like Oswald pulled this off with his clunky mail-order rifle does indeed boggle the mind - and is emotionally unsatisfying to boot.

All the conspiracy theories stumble over one reality: Lee Harvey Oswald. No matter how ornate and elaborate the conspiracy, it must account for LHO. In virtually every one, LHO becomes a cardboard cut-out who is simply inserted into the corners of the conspiracy without regard to who LHO actually was. The 24-year-old assassin who would most accurately be described as an Angry, Bitter, Mixed-Up Kid With Delusions of Grandeur becomes an International Man of Mystery, the Most Interesting Man In the World. The real LHO fits into the typical conspiracy theory about as well as Daffy Duck.

Admittedly, the fact that LHO was a 15-year-old with an interest in Marxism, a Marine who served at a U-2 base, and a defector to the USSR who returned with a Russian wife does make him somewhat easier to fit into the various conspiracy scenarios than if he had merely been a fry cook. But to make him into an International Man of Mystery, the conspiracy theorists are forced to stand the actual man on his ear. He was not just a mixed-up defector who came crawling back after getting a dose of reality as a factory worker in Minsk. No, he was the "Oswald Project," a false defector, a CIA operative, an important cog in the Cold War machinery who returned with a wife who was herself a KGB operative. Uh-huh. (I had an amusing dose of this myself on these forums. I mentioned in an offhand way that my late grandmother had been socially acquainted with the Dulles family and that a distant relative, Lorenzo Dow Baker, was one of the founders of the mysterious United Fruit Company. Next thing I knew, little old me was a "CIA disinformation plant" who would never again be trusted on these forums. What a hoot.)

Yes, let's examine other assassinations and conspiracies throughout history. Try to find one that even vaguely resembles the absurdly elaborate and convoluted mass of persons, organizations and events that constitutes the typical JFK conspiracy theory. This is simply not how conspiracies work or ever could work in the real world. What the typical conspiracy theorist pictures happening on the day of the assassination and the aftermath simply defies logic and common sense. The forest of Reality is lost in the trees of conspiracy minutiae.

Try reading the Prayer Man thread if it's still around - this was such a damned weird conspiracy that the conspirators didn't even care if the designated patsy was standing on the front steps of the TBSD at the time of the assassination! They were such inept dolts that they blasted JFK from the front at ground level but had the patsy stationed six floors up behind him, thereby necessitating body alterations, film alternations, autopsy photo alternations - and leaving hundreds of "obvious" clues in the process! Can you truly not see that this is lunatic fringe stuff? (To answer my own question: No, you can't, if you have the conspiracy mindset. This is why, to me, the more interesting question is "Why do some sane and intelligent people think this way?")

As we see throughout this forum, the Conspiracy Theory Game is a constant exercise in "Oh, yeah, well what about THIS?" Anyone who engages with the conspiracy community just has to accept that he or she will forever be playing Whac-A-Mole: Every time one conspiracy theory is shot down, another will pop up to take its place. Every time one piece of ostensible conspiracy evidence is refuted, the chorus will shift to "Oh, yeah, well what about THIS?" Those with the conspiracy mindset will never be satisfied that there wasn't a conspiracy, even if the theory must expand to the point that everyone in America except Lee Harvey Oswald was part of it. Nothing that I have seen, read or heard forces me to look beyond an Angry, Bitter, Mixed-Up Kid With Delusions of Grandeur.


Thanks, Lance, for explaining your mental set again. To explain the mental set of a conspiracy thinker: nothing, even seemingly the most simple and trivial aspect of the assassination case, adds up. We see reflections of what really happened back then mixed with multiple versions of the same. Those multiple versions were often produced by the law enforcement agencies during the assassination weekend or later, by genuine researchers who discovered something palpable, by genuine researchers committing honest errors, or by frauds.

It is very difficult to find the truth, and it requires considerable investment of own time and intellectual resources to get a clearer picture. A conspiracy theorist is not satisfied with how the case has been solved and keeps searching.

Conspiracy theorists are not waiting for someone to discover something on their behalf, rather they focus on some aspect of the case and try to get to the bottom of it. Sometimes, an aspect can be quite essential - for instance, where was Lee Harvey Oswald during the shooting.

A conspiracy thinker has not resigned from investigating the case to disclose, however slim the chance is, maybe new facts or information. If there is anything out there which will completely turn the table, conspiracy researchers but none of lone-nut researchers will find it because these are not searching. Reading JFK assassination books or watching videos is important but not enough. I look forward to having you back in our rows sometimes soon.


The involvement of other gunmen is NOT speculation.


Yes, it most certainly is "speculation". No CTer has, to date, unearthed a single piece of physical evidence to suggest that more than one Carcano-wielding gunman was firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And that's a fact. Like it or not.


We have you, David!

You correctly described "a little bit" of JFK's jacket bunched up on Elm St.

And you're right!

There's a 1/8" discrepancy between the bullet defect in the jacket and the bullet defect in the shirt -- 1/8" is the very definition of "a little bit."

Thank you for your contribution, David.

No further questions.


The JFK Assassination Scam is the untold story of the last 55 years.

95% of everything said or written about the case is bullshed.


"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." The Godfather

"The prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy." Casablanca


"I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi


Somewhere in Reclaiming [History], Bugliosi acknowledged that JFK had a sweating problem.

David, do you remember that passage?


No. But what's your point?


I remember picking it up in the book store and randomly opened it to that passage.

As an expert on the book, I just wondered if you were familiar with it.

Since you and I have nothing more to debate, I thought I'd just ask a friendly question.


Oh, okay, Cliff. I thought perhaps you were creating a new "shirt & jacket" theory---one where JFK's perspiring habits somehow would have made it impossible for the Single-Bullet Theory to be true. :)


That was the first argument I made back in 1997 on the newsgroups. My golden oldie!

But the fact is that shirts invariably move a fraction of an inch when you casually move around.

It doesn't matter if you're sweating or not.

It doesn't matter if your shirt is tucked in, or if you wear a back brace, or if you wear tailored shirts or buy them off the rack.

It's an iron-clad physical law of clothing design that casual body movement makes a fraction of an inch of fabric ease.

This is the most readily verifiable fact in existence.

The evidence is literally under your nose.


~sigh~ (It's always about "the clothes". Nothing else matters to Cliff Varnell.)

Reprise #1....

JFK's "bunched up" clothing....

Reprise #2.....

The Ultimate In SBT Denial....


The physical evidence in a homicide case is the sun around which all other evidence revolves.

Any citizen investigating a homicide who doesn't first examine the evidence found with the body should do the world a favor and find another hobby.

You acknowledge the jacket was elevated "a little bit"!

It's over, David.


The arrogance of certain Internet conspiracy theorists simply staggers the senses.


"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy”


Oh, how true that is, Vince.


He [Michael Yardley] altered the rifle. He also raised the time limit from the WC six seconds.


The conspiracy theorists never get tired of repeating this worn-out myth, do they James?

The fact is, however, that the Warren Commission never said that Oswald had only "six seconds" to get off his three rifle shots (or 5.6 seconds, which is the common fallacy uttered constantly by CTers). Read Page 117 of the Warren Report. The WC allows for the possibility of Oswald having up to 7.9 seconds for the three shots that he fired. But CTers will always ignore Page 117. I wonder why....


Conspiracy theorists specialize in finding "flaws" in the undeniable evidence and "gaps" that they fill in with conspiracy-oriented speculation, but they never manage to produce any hard, compelling, no-question-about-it evidence of their own. Isn't that rather telling?


Indeed it is, Lance, particularly since almost all Internet conspiracy theorists possess the very same like-mindedness of having gunmen firing shots at JFK from BOTH the front and the rear.

And yet, after all that blasting away at the President from both the front and the rear, what are we left with (ballistically-speaking) after the dust had settled in Dealey Plaza?

Answer --- We're left with bullets and bullet fragments that most certainly do not prove the multi-gun conspiracy that CTers insist upon believing. Instead, we're left with tiny little fragments that can't be tied to any one particular gun and we're left with three large pieces of bullet (including one whole bullet) that we know for a fact came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. (And we're also left with those three spent cartridge cases—from Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle—littering the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD.)

Boy, did those frontal shooters on the Knoll get lucky or what?!

I say: the "frontal" shooters didn't get lucky at all. They were simply never there in the first place. And the physical (bullet) evidence clearly backs me up in that belief.


I should also deal with DVP here and his 'well, it may not be six seconds' mantra.

The WC specified this because they said it may be the case in case the first shot missed.


Or if the THIRD shot missed. You failed to acknowledge that the Warren Commission (again on that pesky Page #117 that CTers like James D. love to ignore so much) refused to be pinned down on WHICH of the three shots missed.

But, Jim, keep pretending the Warren Commission was a worthless and crappy "cover-up" investigation....even though it wasn't anything of the kind.


Davey, do you know how to count?

Going with your scenario of three shots:

No one will ever say that the shot in the back was the third shot. Not with that scenario.

Now when Tague heard the first shot, which he says he did, that is the shot he heard.

Which leaves Z 313 as the third shot. 

As you can see above, 5.6 seconds is their time span with the Tague hit included. Something Hoover did not want to admit at all. And the WC did not want to include either. Until they just could not cover it up anymore.

BTW, in that WC excerpt that Davey posts, is it not incredible that those cover up artists do not refer to the Z film at all? In fact, if I recall correctly, they do not mention the film in the 888 page report. .... But when you time this out with the Z film, that is you figure in their idea of the oak tree obstruction, then you divide the elapsed frames until the head shot, you come out with 5.6 seconds.

I do not believe any of that BS myself, but I am just working in the confines of the Single Bullet Fantasy. Which traps them every time.



Yes, the Warren Commission mentions the oak tree obstruction. But even with the oak tree in Oswald's way for a brief period of time, the Commission still allowed for the possibility that Oswald squeezed off his first shot before the President's car disappeared behind the oak tree, thereby increasing the amount of time he would have had to get off his three shots (again see WCR, Page 117).

And you must be joking when you say "they do not mention the film in the 888 page report."

Good gosh, Jim, nothing could be further from the truth! The Zapruder Film is, in fact, referred to dozens of times within the 888-page Warren Report....many times on Page 98 alone. Plus, there are all those still photos from the Zapruder Film printed in the WCR too (beginning on Page 100).

So when you say, "if I recall correctly, they do not mention the film in the 888 page report", it makes me wonder what kind of oddball version of the Warren Commission Report you possess. (Maybe you've got an "altered" version of the Report that was planted in your house by an evil Government cover-up agent in order to make you look silly. Ya think?)


Sorry about that one about the Z film, that is what I recalled Bugliosi saying.

You and the WC can do all you can to say, "but if", "well maybe", "it could be" etc etc.

But Tague said he heard the first shot. We all know what JFK looks like coming out from behind the sign. He was obviously hit. Tague heard that hit. Then comes Z 313.

That is your evidence. You and the WC can make up all kinds of conditionals and improbabilities, but that is what is on the film. If you say the film is genuine, and you do, you are stuck with it. Are you really going to say that JFK was hit at 167 and he did not register a reaction until he is behind the sign?

That is baloney. And you know it.


No, I'm simply going to say that James Tague was probably not 100% accurate when it comes to his timeline for the shooting event in Dealey Plaza. Tague was, IMO, very likely struck by a fragment from the first (missed) shot. But he could possibly have been hit by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) instead. I'm not so stubborn to insist that it HAD to be the first shot that struck Tague on the cheek. Maybe it was a fragment from the third shot. The angle from Oswald's window to Tague's position near the Underpass is certainly a better angle for the third shot than it was for the first.

But you, Jim, seem to think that I (and the Warren Commission) are forced to believe that Tague was struck by the second shot and the first shot definitely hit JFK in the back. But I'm not going to box myself into those restrictions. A lot of people were wrong (IMO) when they said they thought Kennedy was struck by the first bullet. But after examining the totality of the evidence (and the statements made by the other victim in the limousine, John B. Connally), it's quite clear to me that JFK was not hit by the first shot. He and Connally were hit by the second bullet.


A major problem for the other side has always been that 6 second time frame. The WC itself used it for both sets of tests they ran. Which means they knew that was the time frame. Realizing what a problem it would pose when other people read the report, they stuck that page in it that DVP uses. Knowing that the Z film would wreck that qualification, but gambling that no one would go to DC to watch it. Because when you watch it, and when you understand what Tague said, the time frame is six seconds.

And it gets even worse when you use the actual rifle--which as we know, is the wrong one.


And you've been presented a perfectly logical and rational explanation for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy in the rifle, haven't you Jim? Yes, you have, because I presented it to you (at the link below). You just refuse to budge an inch in your pathetic year-round efforts to take that Carcano rifle out of the hands of the person who so obviously ordered it---Lee H. Oswald.


That guy [Francois Carlier] is so out of it he is up to over eight seconds.


So am I. 8.36 to be precise. And almost all "LNers" are in the same "approx. 8 seconds" boat. But Jim D., for some reason, doesn't seem to even realize that millions of people (i.e., the "LNers" of the universe) believe that Lee Oswald had more than 8 seconds to shoot at JFK in Dealey Plaza. I wonder why such a thing comes as such a shock to him?? It's been a common belief among LNers for decades now.

Along similar lines....

In the past, Jim has also suggested to me the ludicrous idea that "The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks" [James DiEugenio; 4/15/2010].

So, according to Jim, I guess Tom Hanks alone makes up the 30% of the people who said that JFK was killed by "one man" in this 2013 Gallup poll.

After all, per DiEugenio, the "only person" who was convinced by Bugliosi's book "was Tom Hanks".


David, if he [Oswald] had all that time, why not take another shot?

Assuming he knew the first missed, he may or may not have known the second hit Kennedy--with everything happening so fast.

I know that when I shoot, if I can get another quick shot off, I do to ensure the target is hit.

I mean if your objective is to kill a target, you keep shooting until you are compromised or sure the target is dead, right?

So nothing was blocking him, no one was shooting back, the car was not speeding up to get away or zig zagging, so, David, why did he not take the fourth shot to make sure he hit his target?

Certainly a highly trained marine would have done that, right?

Just a thought, I would like to hear someone answer who believes LHO did it alone.


The explosive force of the Z313 head shot was probably a pretty good sign to Oswald that he had hit (and killed) his target. There was no need to fire a 4th shot at all. So he didn't. (He chambered the fourth bullet, but decided he didn't need to kill the dead man again.) [IMHO]


Why didn't LHO load the MC clip full? It holds 6 rounds and there was evidence of only 4 in the TSBD.


Nobody can answer that question, Rick. Oswald took that info with him to his grave.

My guess is --- LHO was down to his last 4 bullets on 11/22/63. So he loaded his clip with as many bullets as he had available---four rounds.


It's quite possible that when Oswald went to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday night (11/21), he might have thought he had more than 4 bullets stored somewhere in Ruth Paine's garage (with the rifle). It could be that he only realized after he got to Ruth's house on Thursday night that he had only four bullets left. And by that time, it was too late to go out on his own and purchase some more. Unless he were to leave Ruth's house on foot or via a cab or bus in order to go out to a store to try and purchase a few more bullets.


What sort of conspiracy trusts its success to (1) whether Frazier agrees to give the patsy a ride home on Thursday or perhaps has other plans; (2) whether Ruth or Marina refuses him admittance when he shows up unannounced; (3) whether Ruth or Marina sees him getting the rifle from the garage or leaving with it on Friday morning; (4) how many bullets he has on hand; (5) whether Frazier's car starts in the morning or has an accident or breakdown on the way; (6) whether Frazier decides to pick up the package himself and inspect it; (7) whether the patsy makes it in and through the TSBD with no one stopping him and inspecting the package; (8) whether the patsy is able to assemble the weapon without being seen and to occupy a plausible sniper's nest without being seen? What sort of conspiracy equips the patsy with such an implausible weapon? Is that how Presidential assassination conspiracies work?


It's all part of that ever-present "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" mindset exhibited by conspiracy theorists since 1963.

None of the evidence is really what it appears to be on the surface, according to most CTers.

Per CTers, even though all of the physical evidence (and most of the circumstantial evidence too) SEEMS to point only to Oswald, it's really just a massive ruse (cover-up), so that a "patsy" could be framed for two murders.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single piece of evidence in the JFK/Tippit case that CTers accept as a genuine, valid piece of evidence. And the reason for such wholesale CTer skepticism is, of course, because all of that evidence points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no other reason, and everybody here knows it.

A murder case is usually solved by an examination and evaluation of the EVIDENCE associated with that murder case. But in the JFK case, if you're a conspiracist, it's that very EVIDENCE associated with the Kennedy and Tippit murders that is ALL considered to be worthless and unreliable. (Kind of funny, isn't it?)

So, the CTers are left to try and "solve" a double-murder case which has ZERO pieces of credible or usable evidence associated with it.

A question I've asked many times over the years is....

What are the odds that ALL of the evidence against Oswald was really and truly "fake/manufactured/planted" by a band of patsy-framing conspirators/plotters?

What an incredible (and virtually impossible) feat that would have been, indeed, for the Patsy-Framing Team in November of 1963 (and for their cohorts in crime, the Post-Assassination Cover-Up Team, helmed by Mr. Hoover of the FBI, which was a Cover-Up Team that, incredibly, per CTers, possessed the exact same desire to frame a supposedly innocent man named Lee Oswald for two murders he never committed). That was sure one lucky Patsy-Framing Team, wasn't it?


So if JFK was as you stated the target, then do you concede that LHO, assuming he did the shooting, had no other target in the vehicle other than JFK, because if he did, he would have more than likely fired that fourth shot, correct? Why do you think that is? Why not take out another person, perhaps Jackie or the Governor? Would that not have further given him the historical glory some suggest he wanted?


I think that Oswald likely would have thought that killing the POTUS was enough. Additional killings would have been superfluous.


So he [Lee Oswald] was not a psychopath killer on a rampage, just looking to shoot JFK and get into history. JFK was enough then.


But please don't forget the fact that Oswald was, in essence, already a murderer seven months before 11/22/63. He became, in effect, a "killer" (or certainly a person who WANTED to kill another human being) when he shot at General Walker on 4/10/63. That's a very BIG part of Oswald's overall "profile", would you not agree?


Ok, so then when he allegedly shot Tippit, why did he clearly commit OVERKILL? Clearly he knew Tippit was dead, he shot him at close range multiple times. Why finish it with overkill?


The Tippit shooting was obviously something Oswald could not have foreseen in advance. And I'm sure he did want to make certain Tippit was dead before he fled that crime scene. He didn't want to start running toward Patton Avenue and then find that Tippit was still alive and able to shoot back at him as he ran. So, Oswald finished him off. (And yet this is the type of cold-blooded killer that many conspiracy theorists feel compelled to try and defend. That's very sad, IMO.)


Overkill means he would have shot Connally, Jackie, etc.

He does not do it, though, with the JFK limo. Instead, he allegedly hurries up, hides the weapon, and runs down the stairs to get his soda of choice.

But with Tippit, no, he makes sure there is overkill. Then leaves. I don't think psychologically this fits the pattern then.


But, again, the Tippit killing was not PLANNED in advance by Oswald. It occurred due to the circumstances that Oswald found himself in---i.e., out on the street 45 minutes after he had just killed the President, and then being confronted by a police officer.

In my opinion, Oswald's actions on Tenth Street when he encountered J.D. Tippit perfectly fit the "pattern" of events in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.


I think it is a huge problem for LHO did it alone when you factor the various witnesses to the Tippit shooting.


I couldn't disagree more strongly. If there was ever a murder case that was solved (without a doubt) on the day it occurred, it's the Tippit murder case. The various witnesses, plus the ballistics (bullet shell) evidence forever will prove the "Guilty" status of Lee Harvey Oswald in the murder of Officer Tippit.

The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following totally bizarre (and impossible) situation occurred:

Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier.


How anyone can write down what Payette did above about LHO getting to work that day and completely ignore the fact that they had a dress rehearsal in Chicago three weeks previous to the one that worked is simply and utterly amazing.


Ah, yes, The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago! How could I forget [slaps forehead]??? Should we include The Dress Rehearsal With Gen. Walker also - where, oddly enough, LHO left a note addressing the possibility that he might not survive, just as he did by leaving his cash and wedding ring with Marina on the morning of the assassination? Oh, wait, The Dress Rehearsal With Gen. Walker never happened and the note was a forgery by Ruth Paine - have I got that right? This conspiracy stuff is just soooo complicated that it takes a more agile mind than mine to keep track of it.

But, whoa, let's slow down here: How would The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago have any bearing on whether, in Dallas, the conspirators would arrange the events so the patsy would be exposed to all the unnecessary risks outlined in Mr. Payette's simple-minded post? Did The Dress Rehearsal in Chicago eliminate all of those unnecessary risks by some sort of osmosis? Why did it make sense for LHO to go to Ruth Paine's at all on Thursday evening - EXCEPT TO GET HIS RIFLE BECAUSE THE IDEA OF AN ASSASSINATION HAD JUST OCCURRED TO HIM? Why raise all the red flags (and run all the risks) that the visit to Ruth's did? Just provide the patsy with an untraceable rifle that he could have easily bought with the $170 he obviously had (since he left it with Marina) and keep him in Dallas. Geez, it's a good thing for you conspiracy theorists that Mr. Payette was only 13 at the time of the assassination - if he'd planned it, instead of those clucks at the CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence and Mafia, you poor souls would probably still be in the dark.

And how does The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago have any bearing on the fact that the patsy was supplied with a pretty implausible assassination weapon (albeit one that got the job done)? Why raise all the red flags that this unlikely weapon has raised? As I said, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a Weaver scope for $75 in 1976. Our patsy certainly had that much money. And I guarantee you that in Texas in 1963 he could have bought such a weapon out of the newspaper classifieds with no paperwork whatsoever and no names exchanged, just as I did in Arizona when I was in my gun phase. Why go through the charade of having him order the goofy rifle by mail order and raise all those red flags? (It was a charade, right - or is that only the Harvey and Lee wing of the conspiracy fringe? This conspiracy stuff is just soooo hard to keep straight.)

Quoting ABC News: "Right-wing radical and Kennedy denouncer Thomas Vallee had arranged to be off work for JFK's visit; Vallee, an expert marksman, was arrested with an M1 rifle, a handgun and 3,000 rounds of ammo." Uh-huh, that sounds like A Dress Rehearsal For Dallas - in the world of Conspiracy Logic, I guess. The fact that JFK was despised by so many people and organizations is precisely why numerous entirely different assassination theories have superficial plausibility. Indeed, one of the theories is that two or more of these were shooting at JFK in Dallas, unbeknownst to each other - the multiple shooters were multiple assassination conspiracies!


Like DVP, [Lance Payette] is simply stirring things up all over again. DVP has already admitted that he does not have a life. Payette is retired. He apparently needs something to do.

If just once, either of these guys would bring in something new from the declassified files, that would be one thing.

They don't. I have little doubt that they do not read one single page.

So how interested can they be in this subject, really.

Like I said, I hope Payette takes up handball. With DVP, hopefully he unretires and goes back to KFC. I mean he did not make a lot of money from his book.


I need to get a life??? I've been pretty much retired since 2012. I have 297 posts in 3+ years. You have 4,900. The question "Do these people have any life apart from the JFK assassination?" has occurred to me more than once in regard to several of the regulars here. Alas, I have an active life and a diversity of interests that detract from my ability to turn the JFK assassination into a consuming obsession. I thought it was rather heroic of me to wade through Walt Brown's entire JFK chronology on Kindle - how many True Believers have done THAT?

Has anyone noticed that you are playing the Conspiracy Game precisely as I have described it? You cannot answer the substance or logic of my posts, so you shift to a rather bizarre version of "Oh, yeah, well what about THIS?"

"Oh, yeah, well has Payette brought in ANYTHING NEW FROM THE DECLASSIFIED FILES?" I did notice the one memo on CIA letterhead that referred to The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago having gone awry and something about the need to "activate" agent Oswald in Dallas if he still had his Italian weapon of mass destruction, but I didn't see it as directly relevant to the Lone Nut explanation.

Handball? No need, thanks. I've been an avid golfer for 55 years and could kick your butt 101 times out of 100.


Dammit, Lance! You're a golfer. I was hoping you were a baseball player (like I used to be as a youth). If you and I had that "baseball connection" too, then more people could start claiming that "Lance is really DVP in disguise". That's a fun "alias" game that the conspiracy theorists like to play quite often.

(Did you ever play first base, Lance?)


Cool! Even though I was born in Tucson, I was a Milwaukee Braves LUNATIC in my youth. I can still quote you chapter and verse on the players of that era - did you know Joe Adcock once hit four home runs and a double off the centerfield wall in the same game?


That would have been this game, played on July 31, 1954, at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. And Eddie Mathews added two homers of his own in that same game.


My next-door neighbor for the first 18 years of my life was Pat Darcy, who gave up THE home run to Carlton Fisk in the '76 World Series that you see replayed on TV every year.


Well, I'll be darned! That's an interesting "brush with history".

Small correction, though, Lance --- Carlton Fisk's famous game-winning foul-pole homer was in the 1975 World Series (not '76). My Reds won the Series in both of those years, though. I remember those two seasons well.


The last time I saw him [Pat Darcy], he said "God, you could throw it hard." I have a wonderful right arm but terrible vision (Ryne Duran, anyone?) and no other talent. I never pursued baseball but still throw fastballs into my golf net just for the hell of it. I'm waiting for some Super Senior League talent scout to discover me.


Same here. But my one minute of baseball video from 1973 hasn't yet attracted a single scout. I'm beginning to wonder if it's part of a widespread conspiracy plot to keep me out of the big leagues forever. (Maybe I should ask John Armstrong about that.) :)


The fact that the WC never explored this [very silly "umbrella"] angle at all, at least as far as I know, tells you what they were doing. Not much.


Incredible! A WC investigation that was probably the most thorough and detailed in the history of murder investigations is considered to be "Not much" by the Jim DiEugenios of the world.



"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi


Bonus Quote (one of my favorites)....

"If there is a suspicious fire, the [conspiracy-happy] kooks would investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of gasoline." -- Bud [an LNer who posts on the Usenet newsgroups]; November 22, 2007


He [Lance Payette] does not even acknowledge that the DPD did not ever consider LHO a suspect in the Walker shooting the entire time they investigated the case.


How could they? They had nothing but a single bullet in (physical) evidence. They had nothing else solid to go on when the crime originally occurred in April '63. So, tell us Jim, HOW on Earth COULD the DPD have possibly figured out that Mr. Lee H. Oswald was the person who shot at Edwin A. Walker? Tea leaves perhaps?


Davey, you cannot be serious about the DPD and the Walker shooting.

You know they had a witness, right? Kirk Coleman. And the reason you want to dismiss him is that he said there were two people in on the attack. And they both left in two separate cars, one was a Ford and one a Chevy. He then described the color of the cars. Right there, since you are stuck with the WR, that eliminates LHO. He did not have a car and did not drive.

Later, when the FBI entered the case, they showed him pics of Oswald and he said no it was not him. But further, he said he had never seen someone who looked like LHO in the area. Robert Surrey said he had seen two men casing Walker's home two nights before and they left in a Ford.

The suspect the DPD focused on was Duff.

BTW, the FBI was really impressed with Coleman. They wanted to pursue the case with him because of his detailed memory. But since it led away from Oswald, Hoover nixed it.

Now if it's the wrong bullet and the eyewitness says no it isn't him, and the suspects both drive in cars that Oswald never was seen in, then yes there were genuine leads. But they did not go toward LHO.

IMO, the Walker case could have been solved and the two agents working it thought they could do it. They just met a brick wall since the powers that be did not like what they were doing. BTW, Coleman was not called before the WC. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, 56-58)

Do you think you and Payette can figure out why he was not called? You should be able to figure it out from the info above. Think really hard.


And YOU cannot possibly be serious when you try to defend Oswald for still another crime he committed in 1963---the Walker shooting. Can you, Jim?

Yes, amazingly, you are indeed serious, despite Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1in Oswald's own [Russian] handwriting—staring you in the face.

Tell me, Jimmy, who was it who faked all that Russian writing that we find in CE1? Any idea?

Or, alternatively, if you actually think that CE1 hasn't been "faked" (gasp! that'd be incredible, wouldn't it?!), then what do you think Oswald was referring to when he said all those things he said in that note to Marina---such as "If I am alive and taken prisoner", etc.?

Are those the kind of things that an INNOCENT person would write to his wife?



Mister DiEugenio, you have just admitted that you believe that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

Thank you for your honesty.



Jim DiEugenio doesn't think that just three shots were fired. There's no way he believes that. He, like all CTers, thinks that at least 4 shots were fired (probably even five or six, or maybe more).

DiEugenio [in this post] was merely attempting (lamely) to explain what he thinks the Warren Commission was boxed into accepting in 1964, based on James Tague's testimony --- as if Tague's testimony was the BE-ALL & END-ALL of the whole case, which it is not, of course, because many witnesses were wrong on some things regarding the "timeline" of the shooting. But Jim likes Tague's statements about the timeline, therefore (per Jimmy) Tague CANNOT BE MISTAKEN about ANYTHING.

But, as usual, Jim has once again totally ignored Page 117 of the Warren Report, in which the Warren Commission specifically says this about James T. Tague....

"Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague's testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities. The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."

I wonder how many more things Mr. DiEugenio can ignore (or mangle) when it comes to page number 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report? Let's just wait and see.


So according to your view, the bullet entered the head low down at the back, travelled upwards and blew the top of the President's head off and then continued to strike the curb in front of Tague.


No, the bullet entered the UPPER part of JFK's head, just exactly as this autopsy photo proves....


Wanna buy a bridge?


Wanna look at a picture? ....


I'm curious how two identical FMJ rounds can behave so differently.


That's another red herring that CTers like to use. But it's been proven that Carcano bullets can (and will) behave just like the two bullets behaved on 11/22/63. If the bullet is slowed down enough (like the SBT bullet through JFK and Connally), it can come out looking very good. But if that same FMJ bullet strikes something very hard FIRST (like JFK's skull), it can (and will) break apart. The tests done by Dr. Alfred Olivier and (later) by Dr. John Lattimer prove this.

From Dr. Lattimer's book:

"This bullet [a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano missile] can penetrate four feet of solid wood or three pine telephone poles side by side and come out looking completely undeformed. On the other hand, if it is fired into the thick bone of the back of a human skull, the jacket and core of the bullet will separate, releasing a myriad of additional fragments of many different sizes." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 277 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (1980) [Illustration from the book below.]


He [Lee Harvey Oswald] joined the Marines because that is precisely how his siblings had escaped from the Mother From Hell - Pic to the Coast Guard, Robert to the Marines. His experience in the Marines, especially his time in the brig, exacerbated his dissatisfaction with America. He gobbled up Russian propaganda intended for Americans, such as "Soviet Life," and it all helped crystalize his vision of a Soviet utopia. You pretty much have to buy into something like Harvey and Lee to take the position that Oswald didn't have genuine Marxist sympathies.

I don't know how many people here actually know anything about Marx, but he prided himself on being difficult to understand - try finishing Das Capital if you haven't. But certainly Oswald understood that "Marx is for the common working man, the American system isn't." If he was "being paid by the U.S. government" other than his time in the Marines and the State Department loan he repaid, that needs to be established by hard evidence.


Could you look into that and get back to us only when you're done?

That is, find that hard evidence. It must be hard though, no soft evidence.


Why not go straight to the horse's mouth? Lee Oswald, himself, can give us a pretty good glimpse into his thoughts about Soviet Russia and Marxism by reading his "Historic Diary" (Commission Exhibit No. 24).

Excerpt from Page 1:

"I must leave country tonight at 8:00 P.M. as visa expires. I am shocked!! My dreams! I retire to my room. I have $100 left. I have waited for 2 years to be accepted. My fondest dreams are shattered because of a petty official." -- Lee Harvey Oswald; October 21, 1959

I wonder what conspiracy theorists think Oswald meant when he said in his diary that his "fondest dreams" had been "shattered" shortly after he arrived in Russia in October of 1959?

David Von Pein
September 27—October 12, 2018