Part 1385 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of February 1—28, 2025. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
On December 11, 1960, just one month and three days after John F. Kennedy was elected President, a 73-year-old man named Richard Paul Pavlick was planning to assassinate the President-Elect in Florida. Here's a Boston newspaper from late December of 1960, featuring articles about Pavlick (click to enlarge):
David Von Pein
February 1, 2025
================================
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The shrugging Secret Service agent in the 11/22/63 Love Field television footage is positively Donald Lawton.
Lawton was never assigned to be part of the motorcade drive through Dallas. His assignment was "to remain at the airport to effect security for the President's departure" (a direct quote from Lawton's 11/30/63 report, via Commission Exhibit No. 2554).
DON JEFFRIES SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Where do you think Henry Rybka is located in the photo below, Don? I think Rybka is the shorter agent wearing sunglasses stationed at the very rear of JFK's car. Lawton is the other SS agent wearing sunglasses in this picture:
And when we look at Rybka's report in Commission Exhibit 2554, we can see that the location of the shorter agent in sunglasses in the above photograph is the SS agent who most closely matches the position of the agent who wrote the words seen below:
"Upon arrival at Love Field...I [proceeded] to the follow-up car 679-X and stationed myself at the right front fender of 679-X and the rear of 100-X. There I stopped everyone from going in between the cars. Once the motorcade began to move, I moved along with it, until the motorcade picked up speed." -- Henry Rybka [Via CE2554]
David Von Pein
February 1, 2025
================================
JONATHAN COHEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Jonathan Cohen's post above wins this honor:
David Von Pein
February 1, 2025
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"As time goes on, there are more and more conspiracy believers who seem to want to smear just about everyone connected with the Kennedy assassination except the person to whom all of the evidence leads---Lee H. Oswald. Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J.D. Tippit, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Gerald Hill, Captain Westbrook, and many others are branded with the label of "suspicious" by many CTers. While Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the owner of both of the 11/22/63 murder weapons (which is a provable fact no matter what any conspiracy theorist today wants to believe), is considered by many to be merely an innocent "patsy" in BOTH of those Nov. 22 murders, despite the pile of evidence that exists against him. The logic of such thinking completely escapes me." -- DVP; July 14, 2022
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
On February 2, 2025, I watched this video featuring Fred Litwin interviewing researcher Bill Brown, and I very much enjoyed it. So much detailed information in there. And the graphics and the added video that was recorded in Oak Cliff are excellent....and very helpful. Kudos to both Fred and Bill.
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
The only thing that Bill's "reconstruction" proves is that you can make any timeline "work" if you make a whole bunch of non-evidence-based assumptions that are specifically designed to make it work.
But "it's not absolutely impossible" does not equal "happened".
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
As a retired lawyer, I would point out the distinction between "non-evidence-based assumptions" (i.e., pure speculation) and "reasonable inferences" from the actual evidence. In regard to the Tippit shooting, there is a mountain of actual evidence from which inferences can be drawn. Reasonable inferences, IMO, point decisively toward Oswald.
This doesn't mean there are no discrepancies or loose ends - there almost always are, in every crminal case. IMO, however, there are no discrepancies or loose ends that point decisively away from Oswald, or from which reasonable inferences pointing decisively away from Oswald can be drawn.
I'm always kind of amused at the extent to which conspiracy theorists seem to feel compelled to play the role of defense counsel for Oswald. In my life as a lawyer, I used to always say that defense counsel (including some of my best friends) seem to live in some alternate universe where unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are vastly preferred to actual evidence and reasonable inferences.
Your statement ("But 'it's not absolutely impossible' does not equal 'happened'") reflects the defense counsel mentality: "If my unreasonable inferences and raw speculation are not absolutely impossible, you must acquit my client."
Uh, no. If the actual evidence and reasonable inferences point decisively to Oswald, we are free to reject the alternate universe of his innocence.
JOHN IACOLETTI SAID:
Lance, I am equally amused at the extent to which the LN-faithful seem to feel compelled to play the role of prosecuting counsel for Oswald instead of objectively looking at the evidence.
Reliable inferences cannot be made from unreliable evidence, or (the vast majority of the arguments in this case) pure speculation. It's not about "acquitting" anybody. It's about "just the facts, ma'am".
The only thing "decisive" here is the wishful thinking of the faithful and their chosen scapegoat.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And, of course, John Iacoletti gets to decide if the evidence qualifies as "reliable" or not.
And, naturally, he has decided that ALL of the evidence against Oswald should be labeled "unreliable" because....well....because....well....he gets to decide such things. Naturally.
David Von Pein
February 3-6, 2025
================================
ROBERT MORROW SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Is it your contention, Robert, that the evidence that exists in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases does not point in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald being the killer of both of those men?
Is that what you truly believe, Bob?
If so, I think you are badly mistaken.
Or, alternatively, is it your sincere belief that all (or most) of the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases has been forged or planted or wholly manufactured by some unknown entity....and that's the only reason all of it points squarely at the feet of Lee Oswald?
ROBERT MORROW SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Same old tired wholly-unproven declarations and illogical reasoning coming from Mr. Morrow. (No surprise there, of course.)
The "1:06" timestamp for the Tippit shooting that conspiracy theorists love so much is one huge example of the "illogical reasoning" being exhibited by Robert Morrow.
Because if Officer Tippit had actually been shot as early as 1:06 PM, we'd have to believe that witness Domingo Benavides waited for TEN FULL MINUTES to get on Tippit's car radio in his (failed) attempt to notify the DPD dispatcher about the shooting. To believe such a lengthy TEN-minute delay occurred is simply ludicrous. There's no way Benavides waited that long (or even half that long) to run to Tippit's car and grab the microphone.
Here's an excerpt from Dale Myers' book:
"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" (1998 Edition)
---------------------
Plus, as Bill Brown pointed out in his recent interview with Fred Litwin, there were at least two witnesses near the Tippit murder site who said they "immediately" called the Dallas Police Department by telephone right after they heard the gunshots coming from Tenth Street. But we know that DPD dispatcher Murray Jackson was unaware of the shooting on 10th Street as late as 1:17 PM, because when T.F. Bowley's successful radio call from Tippit's patrol car reached the ears of Jackson at 1:17, he (Jackson) didn't seem to know anything about any shooting on Tenth Street.
But if the shooting had occurred at 1:06, and if multiple witnesses had called the police right away (as they said they did), then Jackson would most certainly have already known about the shooting by 1:17. That's an 11-minute gap in time. That practically eliminates 1:06 as a possible shooting time right there (IMO).
And we know for a fact that anyone saying J.D. Tippit was "DOA" at Methodist at 1:15 PM was simply wrong. Because we know the ambulance didn't even arrive at Tenth & Patton to pick up Tippit until about 1:19 PM. And if witnesses had called the police "immediately" after a 1:06 shooting event on Tenth Street (or even a 1:10 PM shooting event, according to T.F. Bowley's time estimate), then that ambulance would have almost certainly been on its way to the murder scene several minutes prior to 1:18.
Do conspiracists really want to believe that the Dallas Police radio logs AND the Hughes ambulance records are wrong (or fake)? Dudley Hughes filled out the ambulance call slip before the ambulance left for 10th Street, and the slip was stamped "1:18 PM". (See Dale Myers' book, With Malice [1998 edition]; page 101.)
A related discussion about the Tippit murder is HERE.
ROBERT MORROW SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Regardless of which way the pendulum of public opinion is currently swinging, the overwhelming evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt in the two 11/22/63 murders he was officially charged with committing in Dallas is still going to be staring everybody in the face---year after year and decade after decade.
And the persistent whines and whimpers that are constantly emanating from conspiracy theorists about how all (or most) of that overwhelming evidence has been faked, planted, and/or manufactured from whole cloth by the evil authorities only serves to demonstrate the desperate nature of the arguments being put forth by the conspiracy faithful.
When will conspiracy believers begin to realize the facts that exist within the two paragraphs I just wrote above?
ROBERT MORROW SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you never did directly answer my earlier question, Bob. Why is that?
Here's that question again (click to enlarge)....
[Note -- The above question was, once again, completely ignored by conspiracy theorist Robert Morrow.]
David Von Pein
February 4-6, 2025
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
How about this for a nice surprise? ....
As of February 6th, 2025, the average customer rating at Amazon.com for the book that I co-authored with Mel Ayton, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", is an impressive 4.5 out of 5, which is exactly the same as the current rating for Gerald Posner's "Case Closed". That's amazingly high for any "Lone Assassin" JFK book.
And it's an average Amazon rating that currently trails Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" by only one-tenth of a rating point.
So, it would appear as though the "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion isn't doing too badly when it comes to public opinion after all. At least at Amazon.com anyhow. 🙂
David Von Pein
February 6, 2025
================================
TOM MAHON SAID:
Why did Oswald kill JFK?
JIM HAWTHORN SAID:
If he [Oswald] wanted to "show them who he was" or give "a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt", why the hell would he flatly deny having shot anyone and shout out that he was just "the patsy"?
RICHARD SMITH SAID:
That's obvious. Oswald didn't know that he was going to be killed within 48 hours of the assassination. He thought he had months or even years to play this game and bargain his confession to avoid the death penalty. Admitting his guilt was the one card he still had to play in the legal context. It is also consistent with his malcontent personality.
Oswald was a pathological liar during his life. He probably got a kick out of making the police "figure it out". He wasn't going to help them. Oswald wanted historical credit for the assassination, but he wasn't going to help the police send him to the electric chair. He knew he had assassinated the president. That alone made him a person of significance whether he confessed or not.
He also knew that the police had the evidence to link him to the crime. So he could milk this for attention. Play the victim. Once he confessed, he would be thrown in a cage and no longer be of as much interest.
Had Oswald lived, he likely would have gone the James Earl Ray direction of trading his confession to avoid the death penalty and then spending the rest of his life suggesting there was something more to the story to con gullible conspiracy theorists into paying attention to him.
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
I believe it is explainable as a perfect storm of factors.
It's clear from Oswald's own writings and statements to Marina that he had an exalted view of himself. Yet he found himself a complete nobody in the USSR (to his great surprise) and a complete nobody upon his return to the US (to his great surprise), now working at a demeaning, dead-end, temporary, minimum-wage job in the TSBD. At every turn, his life had been failure upon failure.
I believe his last hope was what he expressed to Marina: He would be a hero to Castro and the Cuban people in the "Marxist utopia" of Cuba. All of his activities in the months preceding the assassination suggest a concerted effort to establish his Marxist credentials for presentation to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Alas, his trip to Mexico City was yet another failure.
To top it all off, his marriage was failing and Marina rebuffed his attempt at reconciliation. Had Marina given him another chance that Thursday evening, I don't believe the assassination would have occurred.
I believe the Thursday visit was a last-ditch attempt at a normal life, and Marina's rejection was the last straw. When Oswald saw the route of JFK's motorcade, and realized it would pass right in front of the building where he happened to be working, it must have seemed that Fate was speaking to him, but I believe it was Marina's rejection that sealed the deal.
It is not at all difficult to believe that he would have viewed the assassination of JFK as his ticket to Cuba or at least as validating his authenticity as a genuine Marxist revolutionary.
My guess is that he expected the assassination to be the proverbial "suicide by cop" and was astounded to find himself surviving the lunch room encounter and boarding a bus outside the TSBD.
Nothing in the immediate pre- or post-assassination events suggests serious, careful planning. Finding himself outside the TSBD must have seemed almost too good to be true, and I believe his objective was probably to get back to the Cuban consulate in MC.
His silence after his arrest demands an explanation. He was quite politically savvy, and having survived the assassination I believe his objective was to maximize the theatrical aspect.
He realized that by denying everything he would ensure a lengthy, high-publicity trial in which his Marxist political genius (in his own mind, anyway) could be expressed for all the world to see. Hence his hope for John Abt to represent him.
I don't completely discount any possibility of a conspiracy. If there was one, however, it would have related to events in Mexico City. Someone may have promised safe passage if he made it across the border or even safe haven in Cuba.
Any such conspiracy would have been so small and ill-defined as to scarcely qualify as a conspiracy — certainly nothing that would satisfy the conspiracy theorists who demand an elaborate, high-level conspiracy involving numerous agencies, organizations and individuals. In every conspiracy scenario I've studied, Oswald is a cardboard figure who bears no resemblance to the real Oswald of history.
Oswald's "patsy" statement is surely the most misused statement in history. If he'd been suggesting he was an innocent patsy in someone else's conspiracy, he would've blabbed his head off to anyone who would listen, including the press. His actual statement that he was a patsy of the DPD, arrested only because he had lived in the USSR, does not even vaguely suggest an assassination conspiracy and fits perfectly with what I believe to have been his actual objective of turning the future trial into Marxist theater.
I'd be fascinated — I'd love it — if the JFKA was the product of a massive conspiracy involving LBJ, the CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence, DPD, Mafia, et al., but I believe it's pure fantasy.
[Oswald's] infatuation with the "real Marxism" of Castro and his hope to finally achieve his destiny in Cuba were genuine. The failure of his trip to MC, the collapse of his marriage, and his dead-end job at the TSBD left him in near-desperation. Then Fate seemed to hand him a golden opportunity in the form of JFK's motorcade route.
He went to Ruth Paine's on Thursday as a last-ditch effort at reconciliation with Marina. When she rebuffed him, this confirmed that Fate was indeed speaking and his destiny was confirmed. He carried out a near spur-of-the-moment assassination with an unlikely weapon that just happened to be highly successful. I see no reason to make things more complicated than this.
LANCE PAYETTE LATER SAID:
EVERY attempt to explain the JFKA requires putting oneself inside Oswald's head. There is no escaping this reality. The events from Thursday to Sunday don't fit tidily into any narrative. The tidiest of them, I believe, does involve a major shift in Oswald's thinking when he surprisingly found himself alive after the assassination.
The "theater" of the FPCC episode in New Orleans is a good indication that he was perfectly capable of thinking in "theatrical" terms. It makes entire sense that after the assassination he would have realized "Fate has handed me yet another golden opportunity. I'm going to connect with John Abt, be the central figure in the trial of the century, and enter into history as a major Marxist hero."
The problem with elaborate conspiracy theories is that they require being inside the head of someone who bears little or no resemblance to the actual Oswald.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'll toss my 2 cents into this discussion by quoting from an Internet post concerning this topic that I wrote exactly ten years ago this week:
-----------------
"All we can do is guess. And I think the best guess is that Lee Harvey Oswald probably killed JFK because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).
But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963. But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives. And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.
As far as the JFK murder, I've said in the past that it's my belief that Oswald simply took advantage of a golden opportunity to do something on a "grand scale" when that perfect opportunity was presented to him on a platter on November 22, 1963.
He realized that with very little effort and preparation on his part, he could easily be in the right place at the right time when JFK passed by the building where he worked. And if conditions were such so that he could secrete himself in a corner of that warehouse known as the School Book Depository without anyone in the building being aware of his presence in that corner, he might have a chance to change history and make up for the fact he was unsuccessful in his earlier attempt in April to kill another political figure. I think it's quite possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in effect, daring himself to take those shots at President Kennedy from his sixth-floor sniper's perch that Friday in Dallas.
However, I also think Oswald's mind was very muddled on November 21st...and I think Marina's account of the events at Ruth Paine's house on the night of Nov. 21 indicates that Lee would have likely been happy to go out and search for a new apartment "tomorrow" (the word Marina said Lee used on 11/21/63) had Marina agreed to get back together with Lee right away.
So unless Lee was just putting on a little "act" for Marina's benefit (or to throw people off), it would seem as if Lee Oswald, as of the night of November 21st, had every intention of hunting for lodgings for himself and his family on November 22nd rather than take his rifle to work and shoot the President.
And I doubt he could have been silly enough to think he could have performed BOTH of those tasks on 11/22/63. Lee Oswald was a very strange character with a twisted mind, yes, but I doubt very much that even his warped mind could have possessed the following thoughts in tandem with each other --- I'll shoot at President Kennedy at around noontime; I'll then leave the building and go search for that apartment, just as I promised Marina I would do last night. I doubt I'll be missed at work because of all the commotion that will follow the assassination attempt that I am also planning for tomorrow.
I think Oswald definitely had a MOTIVE--whatever that might have been--for shooting President Kennedy PRIOR to ever visiting Marina on Thursday night, November 21st. (That's obvious to me because of the "curtain rods" lie he told to Buell Wesley Frazier on Thursday morning.) But his plans to shoot at the President were not fixed in stone as of Thursday night--not until after he talked to Marina.
That scenario might sound way too simplistic (and, frankly, crazy) to many conspiracy theorists (especially those who don't think Oswald ever fired a shot at JFK), but it's what I think is the truth nonetheless.
Can I prove any of the above? No, of course I can't. But, conversely, no conspiracist can prove that Lee Oswald had NO MOTIVE at all for wanting to shoot John F. Kennedy either. The "motive" vs. "no motive" argument is endless--and it goes nowhere. The only one who could possibly answer the "motive" question is Lee Harvey Oswald. And he can't say very much now." -- DVP; February 2015
JIM HAWTHORN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Every single thing I said in this post resides squarely in the "Reasonable Inferences" category, and all sensible people know it.
I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists are so afraid of facing up to reasonable inferences?
And why are Internet CTers so anxious to have LHO completely innocent of doing any shooting on 11/22/63?
Very curious indeed.
For many more reasonable inferences, GO HERE.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
David, are you the one who decides what inference is "reasonable"?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Each person, of course, decides for himself what he thinks qualifies as "reasonable".
Most conspiracy theorists, naturally, think all (or most) of my "reasonable inferences" are unreasonable. Just as I think all (or most) of a CTer's inferences are unreasonable (with many of them being downright preposterous and silly).
And the JFK Assassination merry-go-round continues to spin. And it always will.
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men."
-- John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961
David Von Pein
February 6-8, 2025
================================
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
If I had planned the conspiracy...
I’m always struck by the extent to which, in every JFKA [JFK Assassination] conspiracy theory, the conspirators seem to have been Diabolical Geniuses half the time and Bumbling Stooges the other half. The Stooges, fortunately for the CT community, left the hundreds or thousands of supposed “clues” that are the lifeblood of their theories.
Couldn’t little old me have done better, I sometimes wonder? Instead of debating the Magic Bullet for the 900th time, I like to try to picture what a plausible conspiracy involving LHO might have looked like. What if I had been in charge?
I simply reject as implausible a massive conspiracy extending over a long period and involving umpteen individuals, agencies and organizations, including a cardboard LHO as The Most Interesting Man Who Ever Lived. This isn’t what a real-world conspiracy looks like, especially a Presidential one where being caught would be a guarantee of execution. In any event, my focus as the would-be assassination planner is simply on how a realistic LHO-as-patsy scheme might have worked.
A conspiracy with LHO as the designated patsy seemingly must have been implemented not long before 11-22. LHO, as a Russian defector and pro-Castro agitator, might have been on our anti-Castro radar screens as a potential patsy in the summer, but him getting the job at the TSBD on October 16th, together with the route of JFK’s motorcade becoming known on November 19th, must have seemed like an answer to prayer. As if by magic, our patsy was right where he needed to be!
We’ll assume we’ve previously established a relationship with LHO as fellow Castro supporters, albeit bogus ones. So now we leap into action. Critical elements, it seems to me, would be:
1. Keep this as simple as possible. JFK dies and all signs point to our patsy. Mission accomplished, neat and clean. Nobody gets executed.
2. Our patsy must be under complete control shortly before and at the time of the assassination.
3. A plausible assassination weapon must be easily connected to our patsy.
4. If the actual assassination weapon is a different one, it must be of the same type and caliber.
5. The ammunition must be a common type and easily obtainable. Nothing exotic. No Bruno Magli shoes, if you get my drift.
6. From wherever the fatal shot is fired, the trajectory must not be wildly different from a shot fired from the patsy’s location.
7. Our patsy cannot survive the assassination.
This all seems obvious, just Assassination 101 sort of stuff. Violate any of these basics and you’re practically asking to get caught. We’re better than that.
We don’t want shooters in front of JFK, for crying out loud. That would pretty much blow the entire patsy thing and exponentially increase the complexity and risk of the assassination. Let’s keep in mind that this a Presidential assassination – we’re all going to die if this goes awry.
We simply need a single sniper at a location consistent with the 6th floor of the TSBD (which we have shrewdly identified as the preferred location). Perhaps the TSBD itself, the Dal-Tex building, or some other elevated location to the rear of the Presidential limousine. But no triple overpass, picket fence or manhole cover – we’re not that stupid; if we were going to shoot JFK from the front, we don’t need a patsy in the TSBD at all. What do you think we’re going to do, gentlemen – alter the body, bribe autopsy doctors, fake X-rays and steal the brain? We're not trying to write science fiction here, people.
No, we need only one reasonably well-dressed sniper who can blend into the woodwork at the selected location. This will be no problem at either the TSBD or Dal-Tex building. How lucky are we that JFK is going to be going down Elm during the lunch hour? It’s perfect, I tell ya!
No, we don’t need spotters with umbrellas and walkie-talkies and other nonsense – our assassin is a pro, and this shot is a piece of cake. Do professional hits require a 12-man support team? Perhaps our guy will flub a shot or two just to add to the plausibility of LHO as the gunman – yes, I like it, somebody write that down.
We know that LHO owns a Carcano, but we aren’t trusting the assassination to that clunker and all the red flags it would raise. No, we have LHO fondle a plausible assassination weapon identical to the sniper’s a day or two before the assassination and stash a bill of sale dated the same day among his papers at his room while he’s at work on Friday morning. Someone can pose as a city inspector or potential tenant to get the stashing done. I'm thinking potential tenant, but whatever.
Since the TSBD is pretty much wide-open, we stash the rifle and some empty shells on Thursday night. Oh, wait, this would run the risk they'll be discovered before the assassination, particularly since we know an entire crew is laying flooring up there. Hmmm.
Let’s re-think that. Our well-dressed sniper will enter the TSBD at 12:10 or so on Friday, posing as a customer of one of the publishing companies if asked, and will ascend to the 6th floor with two disassembled rifles, one covered with LHO’s fingerprints and one to be used for the assassination. Yes, we like this better.
LHO can’t be going to Ruth Paine’s on Thursday evening. Whoever came up with this idea is hereby demoted to Junior Assassin Trainee. No, LHO needs to be in his room as usual and be called to the telephone for two or three calls from us. Nothing related to the assassination, of course, just get him to the phone to talk about the weather or Cuba or something so everyone who overhears the calls will recall this after the assassination. A nice touch, no?
We do still have the problem of controlling LHO. Obviously, the patsy thing goes poof if he’s seen within the TSBD at the time of the assassination or, worse yet, seen and photographed out on the steps. What if the idiot actually admires JFK and runs down the sidewalk waving at him? Can’t happen, people.
On top of that, we don’t know how he’s going to react to the assassination. What if he just joins in the excitement with everyone else and shows no concern until “his” rifle is discovered? What if the end result is that his alibi is accepted by the those who count? We simply can’t have that.
This would seem to be our biggest challenge, gentlemen. LHO has to be seen at the location of the rifle in reasonable time-proximity to the shooting and not be seen anywhere else at the time of the shooting. How do we even guarantee that location will be vacant at the time of the shooting? How do we have both LHO and our sniper in place in time for the whole charade to play out? What if some of the workers decide to watch the motorcade from the 6th floor – huh?
Damn, this is a serious problem. We could have a couple of well-dressed thugs – even dressed as cops, perhaps – inside the TSBD to restrain and muzzle LHO for ten minutes before and after the assassination, but how do we assure this activity isn’t observed? Even if they were dressed as cops and even if they shot LHO after the assassination, how would we guarantee this activity wasn’t observed? Somehow, we absolutely have to have LHO and our sniper alone on the 6th floor by themselves when the assassination occurs.
Put your brains to work, my fellow conspirators. Someone suggests we make sure the elevators are stuck? OK, good, as long as everyone else goes down and only LHO, a thug or two and our sniper remain. How do we guarantee that? Hypnosis, maybe? Just thinking outside the box here.
What if LHO somehow exits the TSBD, someone asks? No, that simply cannot be allowed to happen. We’re not idiots here – he is not going to exit the TSBD. There simply has to be someone dressed as a cop on the stairwell who shoots him as a last resort. Bugsy, that will be you. If you aren’t needed, just blend in and walk out.
Wow, I really am an amateur at this. Even the cleanest conspiracy I can think of has a frightening number of loose ends. And this is the problem I see with absolutely every conspiracy theory. They are all overly complicated, unrealistic Rube Goldberg contraptions that no Presidential assassin worth his salt would ever have bought into. They all start with a conspiracy as though it were axiomatic and work backwards to try to fit LHO into it.
Well, hell, what does this patsy nonsense add to our plan anyway, except unacceptable complexity and risk? Forget LHO. Let’s just flood Dealey Plaza with kill teams, leave a bunch of pro-Castro leaflets and other clues laying around, and create so much confusion no one can ever figure out what happened or why! Genius, no?
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
What I actually want you to do is to simply provide a conclusive case that shows Oswald was indeed a lone gunman.
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
Oh, dear, I have run into one of those.
Your repeated use of the term "conclusive" tips your hand. .... What, pray tell, is a "conclusive" case? .... There will never be a "conclusive" case. You know this as well as I. There will simply be the verdict of history.
If CTers want to change the verdict of history, they need to mount a case that, while it's never going to be conclusive, causes professional historians to change their opinions. CTers won't accomplish that by publishing fringe books for gee-whiz True Believers and pissing over each other on internet forums.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Wow, so, in your mind, non-conclusive evidence still justifies a conclusion of absolute guilt? Did I get that right?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt will never ever be "conclusive" to rabid conspiracy believers. And that's because those CTers will always insist that at least some of the evidence could have conceivably been planted or faked or manufactured by the forever-unknown "patsy plotters".
And even if all of the Klein's rifle-purchasing documents were "original" first-generation documents (instead of merely copies from the Klein's microfilmed records), why would that fact make the rabid CTers stop crying "It's Fake!"? It very likely wouldn't.
Because it's still physically possible for even an "original" document to be a forged/fake document. And I'm fairly certain that many CTers over the years have indeed claimed that various original documents/films/photos are phony items of evidence (despite the fact that no CTer on Earth has ever come close to proving that ANY piece of official evidence associated with the JFK and Tippit murders is fake or phony).
But, as we all know by now, the mere belief and/or possibility that some (or all) of the JFK/Tippit evidence is phony is more than enough to satisfy the suspicions of a rabid conspiracy theorist. And to hell with all those "reasonable LN inferences".
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
To demand that anybody, CT or not, prove that a document is not authentic, when the original of that same document is either buried deep in the National Archives or simply does not exist, and thus is not available for scrutiny, is not only disingenuous but also utterly dishonest.
Secondly, to flip the coin, given that the original evidence is not available for examination, why is it that any LN can claim it's authentic without having been able to examine it? You demand proof from a CT but you accept without question that any authenticity claim of a LN is genuine. Could this be the "true believers" cult at work?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, it's merely an attempt to put all the "rifle" evidence together.
I'm utilizing the only evidence that has EVER been available to researchers or the FBI or the Warren Commission for the rifle-purchasing records.
You know full well that Klein's didn't save the ORIGINAL documents for any of the orders it filled in 1963. When they received an order, all of the paperwork connected with that order was transferred to microfilm for easy compact storage. (You surely don't think the idea of storing orders on microfilm is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion, do you?)
And since I've never belonged to that popular CTer fraternity known as the "All The Evidence Looks Suspicious To Me And Therefore I Get To Believe It Was Probably Tampered With" club, and since those Klein's records for the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase were found just exactly where they were supposed to be found—among the Klein's internal files in Chicago, Illinois—I, therefore, have absolutely no valid reason to think that those microfilmed records are anything but legitimate documents relating to the sale of one Carcano rifle by Klein's Sporting Goods to Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell).
The logical "reasonable inference" here is this one....
The rifle we see Oswald holding in the 3/31/63 backyard photographs and the rifle with the serial number C2766 stamped on it that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 is the same rifle that Klein's shipped to Oswald on March 20, 1963 (which is the exact same "C2766" rifle referred to in the Klein's documents).
Any other "inference" is just plain silly and far-fetched.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
It's just too bad that Oswald's ownership of the rifle found at the TSBD is only assumed and most certainly not proven.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It would be very difficult to have a stronger batch of evidence with which to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's ownership of Rifle No. C2766 than the batch that exists in this case. E.G.:
.... There's the various documents that were retained (on microfilm) by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. (But apparently conspiracy theorists have decided it would be wise to disregard all of those "microfilm" records because they are only photographs of the original pieces of paper; and therefore everybody is supposed to swallow the notion that all of those microfilmed records that were retained by Klein's in Chicago are fake and fraudulent documents that were created by a band of conspirators for the sole purpose of attempting to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Oswald for the murder of the American President. Yeah, right.)
.... There's Lee Oswald's own handwriting on three of the documents connected with the rifle purchase, including the Postal Money Order. (And, BTW, that money order which was declared by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts to have the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald on it, was not just a microfilmed copy of the Postal Money Order. It was the original money order. Which is something that CTers tend to just ignore completely in their desire to claim that all of the rifle evidence is fraudulent. Lots more "Money Order" discussion HERE.)
.... There's a palmprint of Oswald's on the C2766 rifle. (More about that controversy HERE.)
.... There's the backyard photos which depict Oswald holding a rifle. And the rifle seen in those backyard photographs was determined by the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel to be the very same rifle that LHO is holding in the backyard pictures:
"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66
And that same HSCA Photographic Panel also said the following:
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146
But even with all of the above things piled up against the door which prove beyond all reasonable and sensible doubt that Lee Oswald purchased, possessed, and handled Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963, many conspiracy theorists still insist upon making the absurd claim that Oswald never owned and never even touched that rifle.
That, folks, is called Serious Denial!
David Von Pein
February 11-17, 2025
================================
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Pray tell, how does Oswald leaving his wedding ring in a cup, after Marina basically left him with the impression that his marriage was over, become direct evidence with a causality to a murder?
Or even worse, how can getting off a bus or not being chatty with a taxi driver reasonably be connected to a murder that has already happened?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.
Martin Weidmann must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]
For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.
When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens. Most conspiracy theorists know this already, of course. They just don't want to admit what such a simple act of "addition" actually reveals.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
What unusual movements and actions are you talking about?
Oswald only drove to Irving with Buell Frazier a couple of times [DVP: not true]. A week earlier he did not go at all. Why isn't that an unusual movement but going on a Thursday is?
Since when is it unusual not to talk with a taxi driver or leave a wedding ring behind when you believe your marriage is over?
I could of course be wrong, but isn't it simply that you consider some movements and actions unusual just because you want them to be just that?
A circumstantial case that's based on weak individual pieces of evidence doesn't get any stronger by adding on more weak pieces of evidence!
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.
The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted. Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.
As DVP suggests, it's the context that's important.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed he had come to make up and get back together with Marina.
Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse. Would you discuss marital problems with a 19 year old kid?
And as far as the rifle goes: what evidence do you have that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Or are you simply assuming that there was one?
With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
Sorry, I've humored you [Martin Weidmann] past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
~~ big sigh ~~
If only JFK conspiracists could learn to put ALL of Lee Harvey Oswald's
11/21/63 & 11/22/63 actions and movements TOGETHER .... and then have those conspiracy theorists properly and fairly evaluate those actions in light
of THE TWO MURDER CHARGES that confronted Oswald on the night of November 22nd.
If only.
~~ another frustrated sigh ~~
David Von Pein
February 14, 2025
================================
LANCE PAYETTE SAID:
Why is Ruth Paine still alive?
[...]
Despite being one of the primary monsters in any number of conspiracy theories, there she still sits. Poor Lee Bowers and umpteen others were rubbed out because they knew too much and simply could not be allowed to live, but there sits Ruth.
And doesn’t just sit, mind you. This woman has participated in mock trials and TV programs and given interviews to the point of being accused of being a bit of a publicity hound.
JOHN MYTTON SAID:
The whole "Ruth Paine was involved or a secret agent" is beyond ridiculous. Ruth was a humanitarian who took in Marina because Ruth was a kind soul.
If Ruth wanted to screw over Oswald, she was possibly the best witness to do so.
Ruth could have said Oswald hated Kennedy.
Ruth could have said Oswald kept his rifle in the garage.
Ruth could have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd.
But she said none of that!
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
How could she do that, when she claimed she didn't even know there was a rifle in her garage?
[And...]
How could she ["have said she saw Oswald carrying a large package to work on the 22nd"]...when she said she didn't see Oswald leave on 11/22/63?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.
And if Ruth Paine had been on a "Frame Oswald" mission throughout November of 1963 (as many CTers seem to believe), why wouldn't Ruth have wanted to pad her many alleged post-assassination lies with two more that would certainly have helped "Frame The Patsy" a good deal?
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
True, except for the fact that Oswald was still alive on Day 1 and she had no way of knowing what would happen if he had lived and there was a trial.
[...]
But I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator, regardless how useful she may have been in some instances.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Martin's comment above ("I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator") is a breath of fresh air after having argued with conspiracy theorists for years in an effort to demonstrate how utterly preposterous it is to believe that Mrs. Paine was part of some kind of plot against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963:
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The thing you and other LNs have never understood is that I am not a CT.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.
David Von Pein
February 19, 2025
