(PART 1337)


The lunchroom encounter story was contrived.

Mr Oswald, we now know, actually told Captain Fritz he had visited the second-floor lunchroom for a coke before the assassination and then went back down to the first floor to eat his lunch... and then 'went outside to watch P. parade'. Captain Fritz & co. kept these explosive claims a secret----------and the truth only came out very recently....when Agent Hosty's notes were unearthed!


The recent "Hosty's Notes" revelation doesn't come close to erasing the Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter or exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's murder. And if Oswald had actually been "outside to watch P. Parade" when JFK was shot, then please tell me why I don't have this statement coming directly from Oswald's own lips in my extensive JFK assassination audio/video collection (which is a statement that all sensible people know most certainly would have been uttered by the accused assassin in front of the live television cameras and microphones on either November 22nd or November 23rd if that accused assassin had really been standing on the front stoop of the Book Depository at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63)....

"I can't possibly be the killer the police are looking for! I was standing outside drinking a Coke with my fellow employees Buell Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady when the President passed by my building! So how could I be the assassin?! This is nuts!!" -- Lee H. Oswald; Nov. 22 or 23, 1963

More on Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22, 1963....


Officer Baker encountered Mr Oswald at the front entrance to the building. He needed to know if Mr Oswald was an employee so he could show him the way to the stairs. Mr Truly then intervened and offered to escort Officer Baker.

There may have been no 'man walking away from the stairway' on the 'third or fourth floor'------------Officer Baker may have been told 'We have the assassin, he worked in the building, we need you to add him to your story'.

And then----------while Officer Baker is giving his affidavit statement based on a suspect description handed to him----------who is brought in past him? Only the guy he ran into at the front door!!

Does Officer Baker's affidavit note that the man in handcuffs was the man on the third or fourth floor? No.

Does Officer Baker identify Mr Oswald in a subsequent lineup as the man on the third or fourth floor? No.

Most likely Officer Baker agreed to invent an encounter with an employee by the back stairs up a few floors, but----------when he found out that the employee being accused of shooting JFK was an employee who couldn't possibly have been up on the sixth floor at the time-----------he was stunned. It would explain why he took so long to put his name to the official story!

But! If Officer Baker really did encounter a man walking away from the stairway a few floors up, it was someone involved in the assassination. Which raises the question: Why did Mr Truly vouch for him as an employee?


All of the above is pure crap, of course.

It's intriguing to watch the Internet conspiracy theorists---decade after decade---invent their made-up scenarios so they can continue to pretend---year after year---that Oswald didn't fire a shot at anybody in Dallas on November 22nd. A very strange hobby, indeed.

Lots more on the Lunchroom Encounter: HERE, HERE, and HERE.


...please tell me why I don't have this statement coming directly from Oswald's own lips in my extensive JFK assassination audio/video collection...


Because, Mr von Pein [sic], the interrogations weren't recorded!


Mr. Ford,

Oh, for Pete's sake! I wasn't talking about the "interrogations" of Oswald. As I clearly said, I was talking about the "live television cameras and microphones" that were being stuck in Oswald's face on multiple occasions on both Nov. 22nd and 23rd.

If Lee Harvey Oswald had really been located on the TSBD front steps when the assassination occurred, then no conspiracy theorist can possibly explain (in a reasonable fashion) why Oswald didn't shout out to the many reporters in the DPD hallways, "I was on the steps at 12:30, so I can't be JFK's killer!"

And the fact that Lee Oswald didn't make such a statement to the press in the corridors of the Dallas Police Department (when he obviously could have very easily done so, and the DPD wouldn't have been able to stop him) is one of the main reasons we can know, with nearly 100% certainty, that Lee Harvey Oswald is not "Prayer Man".


Mr von Pein [sic], you believe the second-floor lunchroom incident involving Officer Baker and Mr Oswald and Mr Truly took place, yes?

Well, let's run with that, shall we?

What a stroke of luck for the assassin, Mr Oswald! He gets spotted just after the shooting, way way way down on the second floor.

Why didn't he shout out to the many reporters in the DPD hallways, "I was in the second-floor lunchroom the whole time, ask the cop and my boss------they saw me there right after the shooting!"?


Nice attempt at dodging the point I was making.

The point (again) being:

If Lee Oswald WAS REALLY INNOCENT of shooting the President, and if Oswald had REALLY BEEN located out on the front steps of the Book Depository Building at the exact moment when JFK was getting shot (as many Internet conspiracists firmly believes is true), then it's virtually impossible to believe that Oswald would have remainded DEAD SILENT about his FACTUAL ALIBI when those live television cameras were staring him in the face on both November 22nd and 23rd.

And the fact that Oswald actually told reporters that he was located inside the TSBD building at the time of the assassination eliminates the idea that LHO was standing outside on the front steps when JFK was being shot (unless some inventive conspiracy theorist can come up with a plausible reason for an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald to want to LIE to the press when he said he was INSIDE even though he was really OUTSIDE)....

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."
REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"
OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."


Because Captain Fritz was managing his perception of what was happening to him.

He may simply have told him, 'Look, we know you were out front at the time, that's been corroborated, but we're charging you because we can tie you to the rifle used in the shooting'.

------> Risk of Mr Oswald blurting out his alibi to the cameras? Zilcho!


More made-up garbage (of course).


What you need to explain, Mr von Pein [sic], is why Mr Oswald's claim to have gone 'outside to watch P. parade' was hushed up.


It wasn't. CTers just can't properly evaluate the evidence, that's all. For example....Click Here.

David Von Pein
October 24, 2019

(PART 1336)


Fetzer finally gets what's coming to him. I hope all the parents sue....



Excellent news! More power to Mr. Pozner!!

Now we need to convince Ruth Paine to start up her series of defamation lawsuits against a whole host of silly JFK conspiracy theorists who continue to say stupid things like this....

"Who can believe these people [Ruth and Michael Paine]? Both of them as phony as three dollar bills. .... I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book." -- James DiEugenio; April 13-14, 2013



Recorded on November 19 of this year and just uploaded:


Somewhat sad, really. Ruth is like Sinatra in his last years, just stumbling around and forgetting her lines. Now it was Marina and not Odum who asked for the ring.

She probably spends most of her time envying the mysteriously dead, who died in their primes with all their faculties intact. That Jada! She knew how to live and she knew how to die, getting hit by a bus while riding her motorcycle. That's the way to go, not lingering around for years in a Friends hospice, watching movies of folk dances and gumming down the oatmeal. Very sad indeed.


I think what you just said about Ruth Paine is ridiculous.

IMO, for a lady in her late 80s now, I think she is still very lucid and coherent, and she always gives a great interview. I love her. Always have, always will.

You should apologize to Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine. And a lot of other people (i.e., conspiracy theorists) should too. (IMHO.)

David Von Pein
October 17, 2019
December 14, 2019

(PART 1335)


I've always said that belief in a JFK assassination conspiracy is a mile wide and an inch deep. The AVERAGE person--who perhaps has read Crossfire and saw the movie JFK and heard the dad of one of his friends who was in the Marines say that the shots were impossible--can be convinced Oswald acted alone if they read both sides of the argument.

However, the hardcore hobbyist/buff--Anthony Marsh at this board being the prime example--will NEVER be convinced that a large conspiracy didn't kill JFK. Marsh will take it to his grave that a large conspiracy killed JFK, as did Mark Lane and tens of thousands of lesser known buffs.

Anecdotally, I do believe minds have been changing, at least regarding those who participate in online discussions about the case. It is true that the older buffs are retiring from the hobby or passing on, but among the younger buffs without a connection to the 60s, there is at least a willingness to read both sides of the debate and be more objective about it. I participate at a Facebook JFK board which is over 50% CT, and it's remarkable how often these same people who join the group, after perhaps trotting out out a cherished factoid about the assassination that is quickly and convincingly rebutted, announce at some point that they've "converted" to the Oswald Alone viewpoint. It seems that many of these casual buffs have one or two sticking points, and when the sticking point is "unstuck", their mind is free to accept the obvious: Oswald alone, no known help. There's just too much evidence pointing directly to Oswald.

This willingness to convert to the Oswald alone camp can in part be chalked up to the larger number of folks who believe there WAS a conspiracy, but nonetheless I do not see people who read in their HS history book that Oswald killed JFK then going online to this board or watching ABC's Beyond Conspiracy on YouTube, etc. and suddenly becoming a JFK buff.

I'm an example of a converted "buff" who spent my teen years in the 70s believing Oswald killed JFK but that there was foreknowledge and some additional connections. I stumbled upon John's [McAdams] website in the early 2000s and read it for five minutes and all of the CT silliness fell away from me. It turns out that the internet--which is great at spreading fake news--is also pretty powerful in combating it.


It's nice to hear that there are at least some people who post on Internet forums who are willing to accept the evidence in the JFK case as valid evidence, instead of trying to pretend (as most Internet conspiracy theorists do) that all (or most) of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was fake, planted, or manufactured from whole cloth.

Here are some recent quotes I saw at The Education Forum from a CTer named Rich Pope:

"I don't think LBJ did it, I know he did! .... Anyone who claims Jack Ruby wasn't connected to Carlos Marcello is a fool. .... Anyone who doesn't think LBJ was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK is laughable."

Now, we all know as surely as night follows day and as surely as a thunderstorm follows a car wash that Rich Pope has absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever to back up his claims about LBJ, Ruby, and Marcello. Mr. Pope is doing nothing more than talking through his hat (as all JFK CTers have been doing since 1963).

But despite a total lack of evidence for their claims, the JFK conspiracy theorists continue to spout their unsupportable and outlandish claims year after year (such as Pope's rant that I quoted above). But no matter how dedicated the CTers of the world remain, the true FACTS of Lee Oswald's lone guilt in John Kennedy's murder will never fade into cyberspace.

Here's an exchange I had just a couple of days ago at Duncan MacRae's JFK forum. (For some reason, though, Duncan decided to delete this whole thread entirely, which has me perplexed. So I'm glad I copied these posts before they disappeared.) ....


All reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy.


Does this mean that I have to agree with your opinion to be deemed to be reasonable?


Yes. Of course.


Or could it be you are in fact the unreasonable one by considering your opinion to be superior to those of people who disagree with you?


No. And for one simple (and blatantly obvious) reason:

The evidence (overwhelmingly) shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of two 1963 murders.

Therefore, the opinion of a person who thinks Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22/63 cannot possibly be a "reasonable" opinion. .... The evidence shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that all this stuff was faked.

David Von Pein
October 8, 2019

(PART 1334)


During Mr Oswald's nighttime press conference, a lot of loud chair noise was heard going on in the background in the audio.

Someone in authority then yells, "At ease!"

The chair noises then cease and Oswald continues his answers to the press. As Oswald was stating "No, no one has said that to me yet", someone loudly interrupts him and states, "Nobody said what! Nobody said what!"

Oswald then looks straight toward the general position that Jack Ruby was standing in and then Oswald tightens and purses his lips.

Has anyone ever heard anything at all about who that may have been making all that racket with the metal chairs and who it may have been who stated loudly "Nobody said what! Nobody said what!"..?

The reason I ask is because if it was Jack Ruby himself who was the one making all of the racket with the metal folding chairs, who then was told to stop, and if it was Jack Ruby himself who was the one who interrupted Oswald by saying "Nobody said what", then we could have all been witnessing a major witness intimidation episode on live national TV during that nighttime press conference.

Jack Ruby of course is the one who finally did shut Oswald up for good one and a half days later on that fateful Sunday morning of that very same weekend.

If anyone ever runs across a reference in their reading material or could ask around to their colleagues as to who that may have been, could you please post it here in this thread and thank you in advance.


http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1221#Nobody Said What?

Also See:

http://jfk-archives/Oswald's Midnight Press Conference


In my opinion, Oswald tightens and purses his lips upon hearing Chief Curry say "Okay men. Okay." To me, this is obvious. Curry was calling for an end to the press conference and Oswald was not ready for it to be over just yet.


"The major reaction that I see from Oswald at his famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. Poor Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed from that room right after his brief press conference.

Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being officially charged with the President's murder.

Knowing that he assassinated Kennedy AND that he had left a popcorn trail of physical evidence behind on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building AND that he had been arrested earlier in the day on a charge of murdering a policeman, Oswald therefore couldn't possibly have thought that he WOULDN'T eventually be officially charged with the President's murder too.

Unless Oswald was completely retarded (which he certainly wasn't), he had to realize that Presidential assassins aren't normally given just a light slap on the wrist and a $10 fine for having assassinated a U.S. President.

Given these undeniable facts regarding Oswald's guilt, there's no way that Lee Harvey could have been shocked very much (if at all) when the reporter told him he had already been charged with JFK's assassination.

Here's my guess (and I fully admit this is just a wild guess, and I certainly could be wrong about this)---

Oswald looked a little bit surprised possibly due to the fact that a NEWS REPORTER was breaking the news to him that he was being charged with the death of the President.

This was probably a very unusual case where the prisoner (being held in a police station, with policemen and detectives all around him for ten hours!) first learned of a murder charge against him from a news reporter, instead of first learning of that murder charge from the police themselves. This possibly startled and surprised Oswald a little bit, to hear that news FIRST from a newsman, vs. the cops who were surrounding him.

Again, that's just a pure guess on my part. But there's no way in Hades that Oswald truly thought he WOULDN'T be charged with JFK's murder, in light of the massive amount of evidence he conveniently left behind (not to mention the circumstantial stuff, such as the many lies he told the police in those first ten hours of interrogation).

I'll also add this -- It's quite possible that Oswald didn't even hear the reporter say the words "You have been charged". There was quite a bit of noise in that room at that particular time, so maybe Oswald didn't even hear the reporter. On the videotape version of the midnight press conference, the reporter's words "You have been charged" are, indeed, quite audible and clear. But from where Oswald was standing, I'm wondering if he heard those words as clearly as we do on the videotape? We can never know this for certain, of course.

But if, in fact, Oswald didn't even hear the reporter, it puts a whole new light on any "reaction" that we see on LHO's face, because under those conditions, it would obviously mean that Oswald's reaction wasn't one of "surprise" at all."

-- DVP; March 1, 2010


"...since all reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy..." [-- DVP]

Does this mean that I have to agree with your opinion to be deemed to be reasonable?


Yes. Of course.


Or could it be you are in fact the unreasonable one by considering your opinion to be superior to those of people who disagree with you?


No. And for one simple (and blatantly obvious) reason:

The evidence (overwhelmingly) shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of two 1963 murders.

Therefore, the opinion of a person who thinks Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22/63 cannot possibly be a "reasonable" opinion.

~~Mark VII~~


Yawn...Everyone knows by now that Mr Von Pein's brain is ceaselessly and irrevocably super glued to the Warren Report. 😏


The evidence shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that all this stuff was faked.

~reciprocal yawn~

David Von Pein
October 5-6, 2019 [This forum link is no longer available.]

(PART 1333)


Two weapons ...Ordered a month apart...yet conveniently arrive on the very same exact day?


I think it's fairly clear from the Seaport records that Oswald didn't mail the order form for the pistol in January. The Seaport order coupon says "January 27", yes. But that doesn't mean it was put in a mailbox on Jan. 27. He probably mailed the order forms for both the revolver and the rifle on the same day (March 12). Otherwise there would be an inexplicably long (month-and-a-half) delay in processing the Seaport revolver order, which does not seem likely at all.


The pistol came COD? [not available anymore these days] So where are the Post Office records of the $10 advance payment and the $19.95 pickup payment?


Re: the initial ten-dollar payment....

Why would there be any "Post Office record" of that $10 cash payment that Oswald mailed directly to Seaport Traders?

Please explain why you think the post office would have even SEEN that $10 CASH payment sent by LHO. It was inside an envelope all the way from Dallas to Los Angeles.


Good question. Supposedly, Oswald was a believer in money orders. Why didn't Hidell/Oswald just send $30 for the pistol and be done with it? Why would a Hidell/Oswald individual then allegedly buy the money order to order the rifle [which was cheaper than the revolver if we can believe this to be any quality of a rifle]? I mean just stuff $22 in the order envelope and be done with it.


I will say this about David Von Pein [if I haven't before]...We certainly don't agree on the conclusions of the REPORT, but his work compiling his abundant JFK assassination materials is exemplary.

That stated...can he supply the links pertaining to the revolver order as requested above?


Pistol Talk....





There’s either evidence of this alleged COD payment or there is not.


There is. CTers, of course, will forever ignore it, but there is evidence that the COD balance of $19.95 was paid to Seaport. It's in Heinz Michaelis' Warren Commission testimony [7 H 378-379]....

JOE BALL -- Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?

HEINZ MICHAELIS -- The fact that the exhibit number...was attached to the red copy of the invoice...indicates that the money was received.

Plus, the word "Paid" is written right on the Seaport invoice too (Michaelis Exhibit No. 2). But I guess CTers must think the word "PAID" means exactly the opposite and that Seaport never received the $19.95 balance at all, huh? ~shrug~


Prove that the control number above the serial number was an actual Klein's control number, then you have a minute chance of keeping your fantasy alive.

Good luck!


Waldman Exhibit No. 4 proves that Klein's assigned the Control Number of VC-836 to the exact rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald, Serial Number C2766.

And the VC-836 / C2766 match is confirmed by Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman in his Warren Commission testimony (at 7 H 364)....

DAVID BELIN -- Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.

WILLIAM WALDMAN -- This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.

MR. BELIN -- Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?

MR. WALDMAN -- That's correct.

MR. BELIN -- Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C2766?


MR. BELIN -- And what is your control number for that?

MR. WALDMAN -- Our control number for that is VC-836.


Am I supposed to now believe that the document marked as Waldman Exhibit No. #4 is a fake document too? And am I therefore also supposed to believe that William Waldman was lying through his teeth in his above testimony?

I'll repeat here something I asked the stubborn batch of conspiracy theorists at The Education Forum a few years ago....

How many things that appear to be kosher does it take to make an item cross over into the category of "Real and Legitimate"? Or is that a stupid question to ask a conspiracy believer?

David Von Pein
October 1-4, 2019