(PART 1329)


The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is neither viable nor coherent.


I couldn't disagree more strongly....






Unconvincing, poorly reasoned tripe that doesn't do a single thing to counter a single assertion of fact that I made in my post. If you have points to make, make them, don't be lazy and just link to your own stuff, especially if it's as poorly thought out and unconvincing as these links are.


That's because you (like virtually all other Internet conspiracy theorists) insist upon totally ignoring the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt that exists in this case (which is, of course, a mile deep and six miles wide).

And you apparently also have a desire to totally ignore Oswald's very own incriminating movements and actions that occurred just before and just after the assassination, which are actions that are completely consistent with Oswald's (double) guilt.

In other words, if anyone really is searching for a truly unbiased and reasonable evaluation of the assassination evidence (as well as a reasonable interpretation of LHO's actions of November 21st and 22nd), the very last people on the planet anyone should be asking are the Internet conspiracy theorists. Because I learned a long time ago that those people have no interest whatsoever in a reasonable interpretation of anything with respect to the events that occurred in Dallas in November of 1963.


In my opinion, you're ceding every point of fact I made in my post and have, to this point, countered none of those facts.

You post outside links to your own poorly-reasoned writing and expect me to hunt for the responses to the points that I made, which I find to be arrogant and lazy.

I'll say it again: if you have a point to make or a fact to counter, make it or counter it. I'm not interested in links to your regurgitated, self-edited arguments.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is not viable because the bullet in JFK's back was a shallow wound that did not traverse the body. The anterior neck wound was one of entrance, not of exit. The idea that CE 399 traversed JFK's body was not a conclusion arrived at by medical professionals, but created by a junior lawyer with no medical experience, who examined neither the body nor the autopsy photos. Those are facts. You can't counter them. And the single bullet theory ends there.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is not coherent because, according to them it was one motiveless sane person that could or could not drive, that did or did not want to be caught, that wanted to become famous for a crime he planned to deny, that owned two (or maybe even three) wallets, who just got lucky, who ended up getting shot by another lone nut who also just got lucky... in a basement filled with police officers who were guarding the world's most important suspect. Just random events of nuts who got lucky. Oswald's "escape" route going toward Ruby's apartment? Just a coincidence. The detectives mis-identifying the rifle as a Mauser? Just a mistake. But still, LN's think the case against Oswald is simple and iron clad, when in reality it is built upon a foundation of luck, coincidence, and mistakes.

Aren't LN's ashamed that they put their faith in the Warren Commission, a group investigating the death of the President that didn't bother to call Admiral George Burkley to give testimony? Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda. Burkley directed the President's autopsy. How can you, or anyone, possibly defend the Warren Commission's investigation while knowing of this inexcusable omission? Why didn't the WC want Burkley to testify? Surely he wouldn't have possibly said something contrary to the official story, would he? After all, this is a very simple case that was closed before Kennedy's body was cold. How could Burkley possibly say something counter to the official story, if it actually went down the way LN's say it went down?


Because I learned a long time ago that those people have no interest whatsoever in a reasonable interpretation of anything with respect to the events that occurred in Dallas in November of 1963.


And yet you still insist upon "debating" them. Fascinating.


Yes. In order to put a reasonable interpretation of events on the table. And that's something you're sure as heck never going to get from an Internet conspiracy theorist, that's for sure.

And as we all already know, every single one of Denny Zartman's tired and worn-out red herrings and "coincidences" that he has itemized above has been explained numerous times over the years in reasonable, non-conspiratorial ways.

But Denny doesn't like any of those "non-conspiratorial" explanations (of course), so we're treated to the usual CTer junk lists that feature anti-SBT tripe about the throat wound being an entry (despite the Grand Canyon of illogic associated with such a belief----i.e., TWO entries and NO exits)....Oswald heading toward Ruby's apartment....Oswald's "three wallets" (as a CTer pretends once more that the one seen in the Ron Reiland film is really an "Oswald wallet", which it wasn't, of course; and that fact becomes blatantly obvious since we know that no police officer bothered to say ONE WORD about this alleged "Oswald wallet" in any of their follow-up police reports, even though it's supposedly OSWALD that those same cops are trying to frame!)....etc.

Internet conspiracy theorists are experts when it comes to producing arguments and theories that Go Nowhere Fast! (Just check Denny's last post for proof of that.)


David says my assertions have been explained numerous times in reasonable ways, but so far he hasn't explained or countered a single one. In my view, that's very telling.


Well, quite frankly, after doing this back-and-forth "CTer vs. LNer" thing at various forums for about 16 years now, it gets tiresome and repetitive to type in the same answers time and time again (year after year). Which is one of the main reasons I created my INDEX page at my "JFK Archives" website/blog, so that I can quickly access information about a particular assassination sub-topic being discussed (which is what I did in my first post above). It sure saves a lot of time (and typing).

But, quite obviously, Mr. Zartman didn't like any of my Lone Assassin arguments in those links at all. Oh well, such is life when talking to a conspiracy advocate.


David's interpretation of events is, in my opinion, not reasonable. He seems to be trying to convince us of the single bullet theory by using a simplistic and flawed logic based upon the fundamental refusal to believe that evidence could ever be suppressed, altered, or destroyed.


But CTers don't ever seem to want to admit that ANY non-SBT theory involves far more complications, implausibilities, and incredible coincidences than does the Single-Bullet Theory --- e.g., the perfect "lining up" of the bullet wounds on the two victims. CTers don't think it's a bit odd or incredible that THREE different bullets would have had to cause those three bullet wounds in Kennedy and Connally (and have the wounds line themselves up in a perfect "SBT"-like manner) if their conspiracy theory is correct about JFK's throat wound being a wound of entry.

And then there's the disappearing bullets that the conspiracy theorists say entered JFK's body but never exited---and then those bullets were never seen again.

I guess I'm supposed to think that those two incredible things I just mentioned are more believable and more reasonable than to just believe that one single bullet went through both victims simultaneously (which is, of course, precisely what the Zapruder Film shows, based upon the reactions of Kennedy and Connally seen in the film).


He [DVP] is also completely ignoring the experienced (at least in terms of Parkland) medical professionals who were there at the time and examined the President's wounds in person.

The doctors at Parkland knew the difference between a bullet entrance wound and a bullet exit wound; they had seen and treated them many times. In my opinion, it is arrogant to try and imply that they didn't know the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound and that your flawed and biased logic trumps their real world medical expertise. They saw an entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck. I'm not going to trust David's simplistic, immature, and what I view to be fundamentally flawed "logic" over the doctors who had experience in seeing that kind of wound in person and who all reported seeing a bullet entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck at Parkland.


Among the few doctors who actually saw the throat wound at Parkland Hospital before Dr. Malcolm Perry cut through it to start the tracheotomy, there were at least two physicians (Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico) who said that the throat wound could have been "either" an entrance or an exit wound.

Do CTers think that Perry and Carrico are lying to the Warren Commission here?:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."


MR. SPECTER -- "Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?"

DR. CARRICO -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "Or, did it look to be more one than the other?"

DR. CARRICO -- "No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck."


The doctors at the Bethesda autopsy examined the back wound and felt the end of it. It was a shallow wound. It did not traverse the body. The single bullet theory ends there. LN's have not and can not provide one piece of evidence that CE 399 did traverse JFK's body except with what I feel is immature "logic" that willfully rejects any notions that any evidence could be suppressed - even if there are multiple instances where evidence WAS suppressed in this case.


The fact that there was NO WHOLE BULLET IN PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ENTIRE BODY is strong evidence (all by itself) that the bullet went clean through his body.

Plus, there's the fact that the autopsy doctors knew that JFK had one bullet hole of entrance in his upper back and one bullet hole of either entrance or exit in his throat, with very little damage in-between those two cutaneous wounds.

Two bullet holes. No bullets in the body. No major damage in the body that would have caused a bullet to stop dead in its tracks. Hence, we got this conclusion from the autopsy surgeons (which is the only reasonable conclusion the autopsy physicians could have logically reached):

"The missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Warren Report; Page 543


And I am sure that my last post about Admiral George Burkley was going to go nowhere, because LN's can't explain it. I understand why they wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. If I were an LN, I would be ashamed to have to stand behind the Warren Report as well.

To recap for those just joining us, Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda, and Burkley directed the President's autopsy. Burkley was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission. And LN's think this failure of the WC to call Burkley to testify was entirely reasonable and that the WC did a thorough and fair investigation of JFK's murder.


There were several witnesses who could have been called by the Warren Commission to testify, but weren't. Dr. Burkley was one of them. Bill Newman was another. Gayle Newman another. Charles Brehm another. And James Chaney. And on and on.

But, in my opinion, none of the people I just mentioned are key "conspiracy" type witnesses at all. Not even Bill and Gayle Newman, who have been touted for decades by CTers as critical witnesses that prove a conspiracy in JFK's murder. But they actually don't prove any such thing.


Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the exact time when JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass the building and 5 minutes before the assassination, and he was also seen there in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:32 PM, calm, collected, not sweaty, possibly even holding a soda, two minutes after the assassination and seven minutes after he was last seen.


You're placing way too much faith in Carolyn Arnold....


Is it reasonable to assume that Oswald ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the 6th floor, politely forwent shooting JFK or Connally in their faces as they moved toward him on Houston, shot the president and Connally with the only rifle ammunition remaining in his possession, while his vision was obscured by tree branches, ran another maze of boxes to stash the rifle, ran back to the stairwell, ran down four flights while not being observed by others who were also descending the stairwell at the time, and arrived back in the same place, not appearing suspiciously sweaty or even breathing hard, all in seven minutes? Is that reasonable?

Or is it truly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of the explanation of why Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25 PM and seven minutes later at 12:32 PM was that he was in the lunchroom the whole time.

That kind of thought enrages Lone Nutters. Their proof that Oswald did all that running and shooting and running was the shooting itself. They know he did it because they know he did it. They know Oswald is guilty, so they know that anything suspicious that can't be explained in a non-conspiratorial way CAN be explained in a non-conspiratorial way, because they know that Oswald did it. It's this circular, fundamentally flawed logic Bugliosi relied upon.


Well, you're starting out with a false premise in the first place---Oswald being on the second floor at 12:25 PM (based on Carolyn Arnold's 1978 tale about having seen Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25, which is almost certainly a false story).

I'm not going to type out all this material yet again, so it's "Link Time" again. Click if you so desire. If not, so be it:





Why did Oswald go back to his boarding house for his revolver? Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have carried it into the TSBD with him when he went to work that morning, on the chance that he might have to shoot his way out afterward?


I touched on this issue almost exactly 9 years ago at The Education Forum:

--- Quote On: ---

"Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know).

I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking).

But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan.

Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate."
-- DVP; August 21, 2010

--- Quote Off ---

My 2010 comment about Oswald needing to take the revolver into the TSBD twice assumes, of course, that Oswald would not have wanted to leave his revolver somewhere inside the Book Depository overnight on November 21-22. But hiding the gun someplace overnight within the TSBD would certainly have been an option for Oswald had he brought the revolver to work with him on Thursday morning.


Why didn't Oswald go to the bus station, or take a taxi to an airport, or have any plan whatsoever after the assassination? According to the official story, Oswald gave up a taxi to a lady, and then boarded a bus that was heading back in the direction he came, and then took another taxi. I don't know if he boarded that first taxi, but that's TWO motor vehicles that he was able to get on, yet his very best plan for escaping after the crime of the century was to... go to the movies. Reasonable, right?


Well, Oswald didn't have a car of his own. So how else would you expect this Lone Assassin to get from Point A to Point B on November 22nd? He'd have to either walk, take a bus, or a taxicab, or hitch a ride with someone. And LHO did three of those four things right after the assassination. All three of which seem logical to me from the POV of Oswald as the lone killer who was trying his best to get away from the crime scene in Dealey Plaza as quickly as possible.

And his plan most certainly did not include going to the movies. He ducked into the movie theater merely because the theater was handy and nearby, and at that point in time he was desperately trying to avoid capture after killing Officer Tippit. And what better place than a dark movie theater to hide out and get off the sunny streets? Makes perfect sense to me. Which means, of course, it won't make a lick of sense to a JFK conspiracy theorist. (What's new there?)


Is it reasonable to assume Oswald planned out the assassination, but gave absolutely no thought at all to escape, especially since he had over $180 at his disposal and a demonstrated ability to leave the country?


As I've said in the past, I don't think Oswald really thought he would have a chance to shoot JFK from the Depository on November 22. He took his rifle to work that day, yes. (There's no question about that fact, IMO.) And he wanted to shoot Kennedy that day, yes. But he knew that the odds would probably be against him as far as being able to secure total privacy at the exact moment when JFK passed by the building. And it's my opinion that if LHO had not had the total privacy that he ended up having on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30 PM on 11/22, he would certainly not have attempted the assassination at all. And if Bonnie Ray Williams had not vacated the sixth floor when he did at about 12:20 PM that day, Oswald would have abandoned his assassination plan.


Is it reasonable for Louie Steven Witt to have had his first and only political protest of his entire life right next to a stranger with a handheld radio precisely in front of the president being assassinated? A specific type of protest/heckling that no one else seemed to have ever engaged in before, invoking Neville Chamberlain, a man whose visual trademark was using a closed umbrella not an open umbrella.

Is it reasonable to be suspicious of Witt when he claims to have had his vision blocked by the umbrella, when we can all clearly see with our own eyes that the umbrella was over his head at the time of the shooting? What is the reasonable explanation for his lie? When is being suspicious going to be appropriate?


Well, certainly not when we're talking about Umbrella Man. Because being "suspicious" of Umbrella Man means that I'm going to have to start believing in some really crazy conspiracy shit --- like poisoned darts coming from that umbrella in broad daylight and in front of hundreds of witnesses. Or: having the umbrella being used as some sort of signaling device to tell the shooters when it's okay to fire. And neither of those conspiracy theories comes close to measuring up on the "Reasonable" or "Believable" scales.


Oswald didn't want to be tied to the rifle, so he ordered it under an alias that ended up tying him to the rifle. More luck, in this case good luck for the LN's and bad luck for Oswald. Is it reasonable to wonder why Oswald didn't just go into any gun store in Texas and pay cash for a rifle if he truly didn't want to be associated with it? If he truly, truly didn't want to be associated with the rifle or take credit for JFK's assassination, why did he pose for a picture with it?

How many times had Oswald posed for photographs with his weapons before?

How many boarders had Ruth Paine ever taken in, before and after the assassination?


In my opinion, it was crazy for Lee Oswald to keep the rifle in his possession for seven months after he tried to kill somebody with it on April 10, 1963. But the fact remains: he did exactly that. He shot at General Edwin Walker in April, and he held on to that same Carcano rifle for seven more months and then killed John F. Kennedy with it in November.

I guess maybe my point here is: The mindset of an assassin is a hard thing to figure out.


I could go on and on, but the LN's hand wave it all away. Luck, coincidence, mistakes...


In a case the size and scope of the JFK/Tippit/Ruby case, there is bound to be quite a bit of all three of those things --- Luck, Coincidence, and Mistakes. And there are. No doubt about it.

But what I want to know is:

How much evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald are the conspiracy theorists willing to "hand wave" away?


The official position of the United States Government right this very moment is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This is based upon analysis of the police dictabelt recording. Anyone who says there isn't even one piece of convincing physical evidence indicating a conspiracy is just flat out wrong. The dictabelt is physical evidence that convinced the US government.


You should be ashamed of yourself, David.


And, as you already no doubt know, the Dictabelt evidence has been completely debunked. And it's been debunked in not just one way, but in multiple ways:

1. The "gunshots" on the Dictabelt audio weren't recorded at the time of the assassination.

2. There was no motorcycle located at the corner of Elm & Houston at the moment of the first gunshot, which was a prerequisite requirement in order for the HSCA's Dictabelt analysis to be accurate.

"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the place where he had to be, you would falsify [the acoustics evidence]." -- G. Robert Blakey

So anyone who continues to prop up the HSCA's Dictabelt evidence as "convincing physical evidence indicating a conspiracy" does so in (very) bad faith. What a joke.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Denny.


You reek of bad faith Von Pein. Show us how a multi-inch wad of clothing occupied the same physical space at the same time as the jacket collar -- or STFU.

The only proper response to your garbage is derision.


And after listening to your One Trick Pony act for many unbearable years, the only proper response to Cliff Varnell's non-stop barrage of Clothing Crap® is:


David, I'm curious. How does it feel to have written over six thousand posts, and to have convinced no one and earned so little respect from most of the members here?


"I'm not staying and posting here merely because I want my previous posts to remain available here at this site (I archive almost all of my EF discussions at my own website anyway)....but I'd like to stay here because I want to continue to add future discussions to my website archives too. I've been able to add several interesting new Education Forum discussions to my site in just the last two months. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the participation of this forum's members (both CTers and LNers alike). So, in short, I like this forum. I disagree with nearly everything that's uttered by the "CTers" in this place. (And I'm sure that comes as no big shock to you.) But, just the same, I like being able to post here and share my views." -- DVP; February 25, 2019


You should be ashamed of yourself.


Well, I'm not. So you might as well stop saying that now.


The sound experts for the HSCA identified at least Five or Six shots on the dictabelt. Blakey said he could only "sell" four.


What difference does it make how many alleged "shots" were found on the Dictabelt tape? The fact will always remain that the timing will always be off for any and all "shots" heard on the Dictabelt, because there was no motorcycle at the corner of Elm and Houston at the operative time when the HSCA said a cycle needed to be there. (Not to mention Steve Barber's 1979 "Hold everything secure" discovery.)

I guess the question that remains for me is:

How many wooden stakes through the heart does it take to kill the vampire known as "The Dictabelt Evidence"?



Wooden stakes and vampires don't fly. The Facts you and any other lone nutter Warren Omission single bullet conspiracy theorist can't change or hide behind is the Last Official Proclamation on JFK's Murder by our Government is that it Was a Conspiracy. Four Shots.


Keep clinging to that bad information, Ron. Conspiracists are good at doing that.


So David, you admit the HSCA final conclusion was wrong. Certainly I would expect you to admit it was a government investigation. Therefore, you admit a government investigation can be wrong. Yes or no?

So, would you admit that the Warren Commission—a government investigation—could be wrong? Yes or no?

Logically, in any aspect, could you admit that there was even a 1% chance on some WC finding [that] was wrong? Or, in your opinion, is there a zero percent chance that the WC was wrong on any of its findings?


In my opinion, there's virtually no possibility that the Warren Commission was wrong when it comes to their basic bottom-line conclusions, which were:

However, there is at least one mistake to be found in the Warren Commission's Final Report. (And there are probably several other errors in the Report too, which wouldn't surprise or shock me at all. Finding a few relatively minor errors in a report that's nearly 900 pages in length is, I would think, perfectly normal and to be expected.)

The WC mistake I had in mind today can be found on Page 166 of the Warren Report, where there's an error concerning Domingo Benavides and the J.D. Tippit murder. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Benavides who had made the citizen's call on Tippit's police radio ("We've had a shooting out here"). But it was later learned that it was really another witness, T.F. Bowley, who made that radio call, which was done only after Benavides had been pumping (or mashing) the microphone for about ninety seconds. [See the quote below from Dale Myers' book, "With Malice".]

"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (1998 Edition)

The Warren Commission was apparently relying on a truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of Commission Exhibit No. 1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes).

The Commission, therefore, in trying to pinpoint the precise time of Officer Tippit's shooting, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.

So the actual time when Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed had to be sometime prior to 1:16 PM, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16.

If you give me a few more hours (or days....or maybe weeks 😁), I can probably find a few more things that the Warren Commission got "wrong" in their 888-page Final Report. But none of the errors I am liable to find in the Report could possibly be substantive enough to dismantle or demolish this conclusion reached by the Commission:

"The Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy."

And the main reason I can be so confident that the above WC conclusion can never be debunked is because the evidence and Oswald's own actions prove that LHO killed JFK and J.D. Tippit. And that evidence was in existence for a full week before a Government entity known as "The Warren Commission" was even created.


Do you know enough about his actions, per the WC alone, to conclude with 100% certainty that he acted alone?


No, of course not. The possibility that someone might have aided Oswald on 11/22/63 is something that can never be disproven with absolute "100% certainty". I've admitted that fact myself many times in the past.


"Oswald's very own actions on those two critical days (November 21-22) speak much, much louder than any conspiracy theorist when confronted with the all-important question of: WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD PERFORMING A SOLO MURDER ACT IN DEALEY PLAZA? Just follow all of Oswald's movements and actions on both of those days, and you'll get the most reasonable answer to that question." -- DVP; May 2008



The second floor lunch room encounter never happened and was created by Fritz to ascertain Oswald's guilt as to killing Kennedy.

In the picture above, Oswald is seen drinking his coke which he got for his lunch.


And therefore you must believe that Oswald, within seconds of that photo (film) being taken, decided to go back inside the building and climb up to the second floor and wander around the offices for a little while so that he could be noticed with a Coke in his hand by Mrs. Reid.

Any idea why Lee Harvey Oswald would do something like that---since you say he already had his Coke with him while he was out on the TSBD steps?

Or have you added Mrs. Reid to your list of liars (alongside Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Captain Fritz)?

Or --- do you want to pretend that there were actually two different "Oswalds" roaming around in the Book Depository on 11/22/63, and that it was really HARVEY and not LEE (or vice versa) who was seen by Mrs. Reid in the second-floor offices within two minutes of the assassination?


Neither my darling David.

If you had paid some attention to what I have researched and presented these past three to four years you would understand that the second floor lunch room encounter never happened.......but somehow that keeps eluding you.

Do not attempt to argue the same horse manure again and again dear David, as you end up leaving the thread with yer tail between your legs and it has happened so many times already that it is becoming boring.


The truly "boring" people are those who continue to fool themselves into believing that they have proven that the "second floor lunch room encounter never happened".

The arrogance of many Internet conspiracy theorists is staggering when it comes to the things these amateur sleuths like to pretend they've "proven". They live in a world of fantasy-filled dreams all their own. Just amazing.

For a dose of much-needed reality and non-conspiratorial fresh air pertaining to "The Lunchroom Encounter", click the logo below:


The ignore function on this forum is just not enough is it?

I mean if FB [Facebook] can have a full-on block function, why can it not be here as well? This forum would be such a breeze to plough thru.


Yeah, I can see why conspiracy fantasists like Bart Kamp would, indeed, have a desire to "ignore" or "block" common-sense arguments like the ones presented above concerning the lunchroom encounter. That way, they never have to see what complete fools they make of themselves each and every time they say something ridiculous (and wholly untrue) like this:

"The second floor lunch room encounter never happened and was created by Fritz to ascertain Oswald's guilt as to killing Kennedy."

David Von Pein
August 19-22, 2019



I had no idea that Bowley worked as a doorman at the Vegas Club and that his wife, Joyce, was also a barmaid there.


Steve, the 1:19 radio call you highlighted in this post wasn't made by Benavides or Bowley. It's Ted Callaway's radio call.


That is really interesting about Bowley working for Ruby.


So coincidences CAN happen in the JFK case without "conspiracy" entering into it. Right, Jim?


Did I say anything to you?


So what? I was merely making a valid point (unsolicited).

And I think if you try real hard, Jim, you could manage to be a little snottier.

David Von Pein
August 22-23, 2019