DVP's JFK ARCHIVES

INDEX / TABLE OF CONTENTS

2012-02-29T23:59:00.000-08:00

THIS WEBSITE'S
INDEX AND
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

---------------------------

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(CBS-TV COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(NBC-TV COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(ABC-TV COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(KLIF-RADIO COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(WBAP-RADIO COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(KRLD-RADIO COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(WFAA-RADIO COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(WLW-RADIO COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(KILT-RADIO COVERAGE)

JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(WCCO-RADIO COVERAGE)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD
HAS BEEN SHOT!

JFK ASSASSINATION AFTERMATH
(VIDEO & AUDIO FROM
NOVEMBER 23-27, 1963)

JFK ASSASSINATION
RADIO BULLETINS

"JFK: 3 SHOTS THAT
CHANGED AMERICA"
(2009 DOCUMENTARY)

"JOHN F. KENNEDY:
YEARS OF LIGHTNING, DAY OF DRUMS"

DAVID L. WOLPER'S
"FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER"
(1964)

"THE LAST TWO DAYS"

"THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WAS SHOT"
(ABC-RADIO SPECIAL PROGRAM)

"FOUR DAYS THAT SHOCKED THE WORLD: NOVEMBER 22-25, 1963"

JFK IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS,
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963

JFK ARRIVES IN DALLAS, TEXAS,
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963

"PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN TEXAS"
(1963 WBAP-TV SPECIAL)

INTERVIEWS WITH
THE GENERAL PUBLIC
FOLLOWING JFK'S ASSASSINATION
(NOVEMBER 22-24, 1963)

PRE-ASSASSINATION
RADIO NEWSCASTS
FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963

"A YEAR AGO TODAY"
(1964 WFAA-TV SPECIAL)

"WHO WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD?"
(1993 PBS-TV DOCUMENTARY)

"A CBS NEWS EXTRA:
NOV. 22ND AND THE WARREN REPORT"
(1964 CBS-TV SPECIAL)

"A CBS NEWS INQUIRY:
THE WARREN REPORT"
(1967 CBS-TV SPECIAL)

"THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION:
BEYOND CONSPIRACY"
(2003 ABC-TV DOCUMENTARY)

"THE WARREN COMMISSION"
(1999 DOCUMENTARY)

PRESS CONFERENCES WITH DALLAS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY HENRY WADE

SIX INTERVIEWS WITH DALLAS
POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY
(NOVEMBER 22 & 23, 1963)

COMMENTARY BY PAUL HARVEY ON
NOVEMBER 22 & NOVEMBER 26, 1963

THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS SHOWN ON
TELEVISION FOR THE FIRST TIME
(MARCH 6, 1975)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD
ON THE RADIO

2009 INTERVIEW WITH
DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND

INTERVIEW WITH DR. PIERRE FINCK
(MARCH 12, 1978)

IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW
WITH MARY MOORMAN
(MAY 24, 2011)

JOHN & NELLIE CONNALLY

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER

S.M. HOLLAND

JAMES ALTGENS

CLAY SHAW & DEAN ANDREWS

VIDEO PLAYLIST:
JFK ASSASSINATION WITNESSES

RADIO PROGRAM WITH THREE WARREN
COMMISSION COUNSEL MEMBERS
(NOVEMBER 7, 1966)

TWO CONSPIRACY MYTHS DEBUNKED
IN UNDER THREE MINUTES

1963 SECRET SERVICE RECONSTRUCTION FILM

AIRCRAFT RADIO TRANSMISSIONS
FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963
(INCLUDING COMPLETE
2-HOUR, 22-MINUTE VERSION)

DALLAS POLICE RADIO TAPES
FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963

JOHN F. KENNEDY
TELEPHONE CALLS
AND AUDIO RECORDINGS

LYNDON B. JOHNSON PHONE CALLS
(1963-1964)

JIM GARRISON VS. JOHNNY CARSON
(JANUARY 31, 1968)

INTERVIEWS AND DEBATES
WITH MARK LANE

MARK LANE'S "RUSH TO JUDGMENT"
(1967)

"THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
(1977 TV MOVIE)

"RUBY AND OSWALD"
(1978 TV MOVIE)

RADIO DEBATES FEATURING
JOHN McADAMS

MORE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATES
AND DISCUSSION

"THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT:
THE PRESS CONFERENCES OF JFK"

ALL 64 OF JFK'S PRESIDENTIAL
PRESS CONFERENCES

"THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1960"
(1963 DAVID L. WOLPER FILM)

"JFK: IN HIS OWN WORDS"
(1988 DOCUMENTARY)

"NBC WHITE PAPER:
THE AGE OF KENNEDY"
(1966 NBC-TV DOCUMENTARY)

"THE LIFE AND TIMES OF
JOHN F. KENNEDY"
(1964 DOCUMENTARY)

"KENNEDYS DON'T CRY"
(1975 DOCUMENTARY)

"THE END OF CAMELOT"
(1993 DOCUMENTARY)

"THE KENNEDY MYSTIQUE:
CREATING CAMELOT"
(2004 DOCUMENTARY)

"THE DEATH OF JFK AND
THE WARREN REPORT"
(1994 DOCUMENTARY)

"JFK IN IRELAND"
(1993 DOCUMENTARY)

NBC NEWS TIME CAPSULE
FEATURING JOHN F. KENNEDY
(INCLUDES JFK'S OLDEST SURVIVING
TELEVISION INTERVIEW, FROM 1951)

JFK ON "MEET THE PRESS"
(OCTOBER 1960)

THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS

A TOUR OF THE WHITE HOUSE
WITH MRS. JOHN F. KENNEDY

JFK'S "HEALTH CARE" SPEECH FROM MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
(MAY 20, 1962)

"AFTER TWO YEARS"
(1962 INTERVIEW WITH JFK)

1963 INTERVIEWS WITH
PRESIDENT KENNEDY

KENNEDY PHOTO ALBUM

ORAL HISTORY
INTERVIEW EXCERPTS

JFK AUDIO/VIDEO SPOTLIGHT PAGE

ALSO CHECK OUT THESE
AUDIO/VIDEO WEBSITES:

------------------------------

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:
POINT-BY-POINT

SIX THINGS MADE TO ORDER FOR
LEE HARVEY OSWALD

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MOTIVE

NOVEMBER 22, 1963:
A LEE HARVEY OSWALD "TIMELINE"
(PART 1)

NOVEMBER 22, 1963:
A LEE HARVEY OSWALD "TIMELINE"
(PART 2)

RECONSTRUCTING THE STEPS OF
A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN

THESE TWO THINGS PROVE
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT

SOLID VALIDATION THAT
LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS
IN THE SNIPER'S NEST

IN LEE OSWALD'S ROOM ON
NOVEMBER 22, 1963

EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!"

"WHO WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD?"
(1993 PBS-TV DOCUMENTARY)

OSWALD IMPERSONATORS,
SYLVIA ODIO, & MEXICO CITY

IF OSWALD HAD ACCOMPLICES,
WHERE WERE THEY WHEN HE
NEEDED THEM THE MOST?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS A LIAR (PART 1)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS A LIAR (PART 2)

MORE OSWALD LIES (VIA HIS BOOK DEPOSITORY WORK APPLICATION)

LEE OSWALD, HIS CO-WORKERS, AND THE DEPOSITORY ELEVATORS

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COCA-COLA

DR. PEPPER TALK

WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD
"DOORWAY MAN"?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD IN
NEW ORLEANS IN AUGUST 1963
(A LOOK AT COMMISSION EXHIBIT 826)

PROSECUTING LEE HARVEY OSWALD (PART 1)

PROSECUTING LEE HARVEY OSWALD (PART 2)

EXAMINING LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S
"I'M JUST A PATSY" STATEMENT

THE "PATSY PLOT" SILLINESS
(PART 1)

THE "PATSY PLOT" SILLINESS
(PART 2)

THE "PATSY PLOT" SILLINESS
(PART 3)

HOW TO FRAME A LONE PATSY
FOR JFK'S MURDER -- AND HOW
NOT TO DO IT

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S
EVER-CHANGING ALIBI

"WELL, THEY SAY IT JUST
TAKES A SECOND TO DIE"

WAS LEE OSWALD "PLACED" IN THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BY PLOTTERS?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD
ON THE RADIO

------------------------------

THE WARREN COMMISSION
GOT IT RIGHT (PART 1)

THE WARREN COMMISSION
GOT IT RIGHT (PART 2)

THE WARREN COMMISSION'S OBJECTIVES

THE SHOOTING TIMELINE AND THE
"5.6 SECONDS" CONSPIRACY MYTH

------------------------------

A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY

THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION (PART 1)

THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION (PART 2)

WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?

MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED)

GERALD FORD AND THE SBT: DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?

THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT 903

CE903 (PART 2)

CE903 (PART 3)

DVP VS. A CONSPIRACY THEORIST (THE TOPIC: THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY)

AND STILL MORE SINGLE-BULLET DISCUSSION

VINCE BUGLIOSI, DALE MYERS,
3-D DIAGRAMS, AND THE
SINGLE-BULLET THEORY

DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
(PART 1)

DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
(PART 2)

------------------------------

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S
MANNLICHER-CARCANO

OSWALD'S RIFLE
(PART 2)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S REVOLVER

OSWALD'S RIFLE -- STOLEN BY PLOTTERS? OR USED BY
OSWALD TO KILL JFK?

THE "BACKYARD PHOTOS"
(PART 1)

THE "BACKYARD PHOTOS"
(PART 2)

NOW, ABOUT THOSE "CURTAIN RODS" OF OSWALD'S

OSWALD'S POST OFFICE BOX APPLICATIONS

TAKING IT TO THE "2 BULLETS" BANK

THE FRONT-SEAT BULLET FRAGMENTS
(CE567 AND CE569)

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER,
LINNIE MAE RANDLE,
AND THE PAPER BAG

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, HIS RIFLE,
AND THE PAPER BAG

DOCTORED EVIDENCE?
OR ORDINARY HUMAN ERRORS?

DEBUNKING THE ACOUSTICS EVIDENCE

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WALLETS
(PART 1)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WALLETS
(PART 2)

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S WALLETS
(PART 3)

THE HEAD SHOT, THE BULLET FRAGMENTS, AND
DR. VINCENT GUINN'S "NAA" ANALYSIS

MORE ABOUT DR. GUINN AND THE NAA BULLET-FRAGMENT TESTS

DID THE POLICE FAKE THE EVIDENCE
IN THE SNIPER'S NEST?

DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE (AGAIN)

------------------------------

JACK RUBY:
THE SECOND "LONE NUT"
ASSASSIN IN DALLAS

HOW DID JACK RUBY GET INTO THE DALLAS POLICE BASEMENT?

------------------------------

THE MURDER OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT
(PART 1)

THE MURDER OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT
(PART 2)

THE TIPPIT MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS DEFENSE OF
LEE HARVEY OSWALD

TIPPIT TIMELINES

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S REVOLVER

DALE MYERS, DON THOMAS, AND THE MURDER OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT

------------------------------

THE MINDSET OF
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

ISOLATING THE EVIDENCE:
A CONSPIRACIST'S FORTE

HOW FAR WILL CONSPIRACY KOOKS GO IN TRYING TO EXONERATE OSWALD?

THERE'S NO ROOM FOR OCCAM IN A CONSPIRACY THEORIST'S WORLD

JFK CONSPIRACY THEORIES GALORE

FOR JFK CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, THE DUST NEVER SETTLES IN DEALEY PLAZA

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE
THIS CRAZY THEORY?

HAROLD WEISBERG

JOSIAH THOMPSON

ROBERT GRODEN

JESSE VENTURA

ORLANDO MARTIN
(PART 1)

ORLANDO MARTIN
(PART 2)

THE RIDICULOUS AND IMPOSSIBLE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF
DOUGLAS P. HORNE (PART 1)

DOUG HORNE'S NONSENSE
(PART 2)

DOUG HORNE'S EXCURSION
INTO DELIRIUM
(PART 3)

------------------------------

THE ILLOGIC OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS (IF YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST LIKE
DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND, THAT IS)

A VERY IMPORTANT AUTOPSY X-RAY

THE BACK-OF-THE-HEAD WOUND ("BOH") WITNESSES VS. THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS -- WHO'S RIGHT?

"BOH" TALK (PART 2)

"BOH" TALK (PART 3)

"BOH" TALK (PART 4)

"BOH" TALK (PART 5)

"BOH" TALK (PART 6)

"BOH" TALK (PART 7)

"BOH" TALK (PART 8)

"BOH" TALK (PART 9)

"BOH" TALK (PART 10)

"BOH" TALK (PART 11)

"BOH" TALK (PART 12)

"BOH" TALK (PART 13)

"BOH" TALK (PART 14)

"BOH" TALK (PART 15)

"BOH" TALK (PART 16)

"BOH" TALK (PART 17)

"BOH" TALK (PART 18)

"BOH" TALK (PART 19)

"BOH" TALK (PART 20)

------------------------------

WITNESS AFFIDAVITS

JAMES TAGUE (PART 1)

JAMES TAGUE (PART 2)

JAMES TAGUE (PART 3)

HOWARD BRENNAN (PART 1)

HOWARD BRENNAN (PART 2)

HAROLD NORMAN (PART 1)

HAROLD NORMAN (PART 2)

BILL AND GAYLE NEWMAN

CHARLES BREHM

LEE BOWERS

JEAN HILL

JULIA ANN MERCER

JUDYTH VARY BAKER

MARINA OSWALD

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF MARGUERITE OSWALD

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM WHALEY

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF
BARBARA DAVIS

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF
JACK DOUGHERTY

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF
ROBERT FRAZIER

EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF
DR. CHARLES PETTY

JACQUELINE KENNEDY'S TESTIMONY -- A MISSED OPPORTUNITY?

THE STRANGE TALES OF PAUL O'CONNOR

JERRY BELKNAP

DAVID FERRIE

JAMES FILES

"BLACK DOG MAN"

THE DEALEY PLAZA EARWITNESSES

THE 11/22/63 PARKLAND HOSPITAL PRESS CONFERENCE WITH DR. MALCOLM PERRY AND DR. KEMP CLARK

THE PARKLAND DOCTORS AND THEIR 1988 "NOVA" PBS-TV APPEARANCE

WALTER CRONKITE

------------------------------

THE ZAPRUDER FILM AND
THE FATAL HEAD SHOT

WFAA-TV INTERVIEW WITH ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, PLUS A STABILIZED VERSION OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM, AND MORE

------------------------------

INTERVIEW WITH DR. PIERRE FINCK
(MARCH 12, 1978)

2009 INTERVIEW WITH
DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND

AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER
FBI AGENT JAMES W. SIBERT
(JUNE 30, 2005)

INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENTS CLINT HILL
AND GERALD BLAINE

JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE:
MARK LANE VS. JOSEPH BALL
(DECEMBER 4, 1964)

RADIO DEBATES FEATURING
JOHN McADAMS

INTERVIEWS WITH JOHN McADAMS

JAMES DiEUGENIO RADIO INTERVIEWS

MORE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATES
AND DISCUSSION

DEBATING THE JFK CASE
(A 60-PART SERIES)

------------------------------

MARK LANE, VINCENT BUGLIOSI,
HELEN MARKHAM, AND THE
WARREN COMMISSION

INTERVIEWS AND DEBATES
WITH MARK LANE

------------------------------

JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG
(PART 1)

JIM GARRISON WAS WRONG
(PART 2)

JIM GARRISON VS. JOHNNY CARSON
(JANUARY 31, 1968)

JIM GARRISON AND HIS
1967 NBC-TV "REBUTTAL"

------------------------------

OSWALD'S SHOOTING PERFORMANCE AND OLIVER STONE'S BLUNDER

THE BRAINWASHING OF AMERICA
(A LA OLIVER STONE)

MORE OLIVER STONE DISCUSSION

AND STILL MORE TALK ABOUT OLIVER STONE (AND JIM GARRISON TOO)

------------------------------

WAS CE399 A "PLANTED" BULLET?
(PART 1)

WAS CE399 A "PLANTED" BULLET?
(PART 2)

WAS CE399 A "PLANTED" BULLET?
(PART 3)

A LETTER FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI (CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY
OF CE399 IN A COURT OF LAW)

TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY

DARRELL TOMLINSON AND CE399
(PART 1)

DARRELL TOMLINSON AND CE399
(PART 2)

------------------------------

THE DECEMBER 9, 1963, FBI REPORT
ON THE ASSASSINATION

THE FBI'S EARLY MISTAKES

J. EDGAR HOOVER, THE FBI,
AND LEE HARVEY OSWALD

THE HOSTY NOTE

------------------------------

DAVID VON PEIN VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(PART 1)

DAVID VON PEIN VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(PART 2)

DAVID VON PEIN VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(PART 3)

DAVID VON PEIN VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(PART 4)

DAVID VON PEIN VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(PART 5)

DAVID VON PEIN VS. JAMES DiEUGENIO
(THE COMPLETE SERIES)(77 PARTS)

------------------------------

"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986 TELEVISION DOCU-TRIAL, FEATURING VINCENT BUGLIOSI
AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY)

JULY 2007 TELEVISION INTERVIEW WITH VINCE BUGLIOSI

REFUTING DAVID LIFTON'S ALLEGATION THAT VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S "RECLAIMING HISTORY" WAS GHOSTWRITTEN BY SEVERAL
DIFFERENT AUTHORS

SETTING THE RECORD A LITTLE STRAIGHTER -- CORRECTING A FEW "RECLAIMING HISTORY" ERRORS

"RECLAIMING HISTORY" ERRORS
(PART 2)

16 "SMOKING GUNS"?
OR 16 MISFIRES?

------------------------------

"RECLAIMING HISTORY"
BY VINCENT BUGLIOSI

"FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER"
BY VINCENT BUGLIOSI

"WITH MALICE"
BY DALE MYERS

"THE JFK MYTHS"
BY LARRY STURDIVAN

"CASE CLOSED"
BY GERALD POSNER

"THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT"
BY WILLIAM MANCHESTER

"THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT"
BY JIM BISHOP

"NATIONAL NIGHTMARE
ON SIX FEET OF FILM"
BY RICHARD TRASK

"THAT DAY IN DALLAS"
BY RICHARD TRASK

"OSWALD'S GAME"
BY JEAN DAVISON

"CONSPIRACY OF ONE"
BY JIM MOORE

"KENNEDY AND LINCOLN"
BY DR. JOHN K. LATTIMER

"NOVEMBER 22, 1963:
YOU ARE THE JURY"
BY DAVID BELIN

"A SIMPLE ACT OF MURDER"
BY MARK FUHRMAN

"THE MEMORIES--JFK--1961-1963"

"WHEN THE NEWS WENT LIVE:
DALLAS 1963"
BY BOB HUFFAKER, BILL MERCER,
GEORGE PHENIX, & WES WISE

"BEST EVIDENCE"
BY DAVID LIFTON

"THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT"
BY ROBERT GRODEN

DAVID L. WOLPER'S
"FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER"
(1964)

OLIVER STONE'S "JFK"
(1991)

MARK LANE'S "RUSH TO JUDGMENT"
(1967)

"EXECUTIVE ACTION"
(1973)

"OSWALD'S GHOST"
(2007)(PBS-TV)

"THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION: BEYOND CONSPIRACY" (2003)(ABC-TV)

"PRIMARY" (1960)(A DOCUMENTARY FILM BY ROBERT DREW)

"CRISIS" (1963)(A DOCUMENTARY FILM BY ROBERT DREW)

"NBC WHITE PAPER:
THE AGE OF KENNEDY"
(1966 NBC-TV DOCUMENTARY)

"THE MURDER OF JFK:
A REVISIONIST HISTORY"
(1999 DOCUMENTARY)

"JFK: A PRESIDENCY REVEALED"
(2003 DOCUMENTARY FROM
THE HISTORY CHANNEL)

"JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET"
(2004)(THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL)

"KENNEDY"
(1983 TELEVISION MINI-SERIES)

1963 SECRET SERVICE RECONSTRUCTION FILM

"JACQUELINE KENNEDY ONASSIS REMEMBERED" (CBS-TV)

"FOUR DAYS THAT SHOCKED THE WORLD: NOVEMBER 22-25, 1963"
(AUDIO CD)

"EVIDENCE OF REVISION"

------------------------------

ASSORTED ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(MORE THAN 1,000 POSTS)

IF ONLY....

PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND:
WHERE EXACTLY WAS IT LOCATED?

REMOVING PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BODY FROM DALLAS

JFK'S ARM-RAISING: WAS IT "THORBURN'S POSITION"?
OR DOES IT MATTER?

WHAT ARE THE ODDS...?

ARE THESE SO-CALLED "MYSTERY DEATHS" REALLY SO MYSTERIOUS?

"JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR"
(PART 1)

"JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR"
(PART 2)

"JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR"
(PART 3)

"JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR"
(PART 4)

"JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR"
(PART 5)

------------------------------

MISCELLANEOUS JFK ASSASSINATION POSTS AND ARTICLES
(MORE THAN 3,000 PARTS)

QUOTING COMMON SENSE

LET'S BE REASONABLE
(PART 1)

LET'S BE REASONABLE
(PART 2)

WHAT DID GOVERNOR CONNALLY SEE ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?
AND WHAT DIDN'T HE SEE?

A SHORTCUT TO BECOMING A LONE-ASSASSIN BELIEVER: WATCH THE 11/22/63 TELEVISION COVERAGE

THE "MISSED SHOT" CONTROVERSY

WAS JFK'S MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?

HENRY RYBKA, DON LAWTON, AND SECRET SERVICE CONFUSION
AT LOVE FIELD

FAKE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS
IN DEALEY PLAZA?

HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY?
(PART 1)

HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY?
(PART 2)

HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY?
(PART 3)

JFK PRESS CONFERENCES

------------------------------

RELATED LINKS:

------------------------------

------------------------------

E-Mail:
davevonpein@aol.com

"THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1977 TV MOVIE)

2012-02-13T23:52:00.000-08:00

CLICK HERE
TO WATCH THE COMPLETE
3-HOUR FILM

===========================

===========================

MORE
LEE HARVEY OSWALD
STUFF:

20th CENTURY WITH MIKE WALLACE: "THE DEATH OF JFK AND THE WARREN REPORT" (1994 DOCUMENTARY)

2012-02-13T22:31:00.000-08:00

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 145)

2012-02-13T12:05:00.000-08:00

BOB HARRIS SAID:

>>> "Where did [Lee Harvey Oswald] get the money for his extensive travels? He later claimed he had saved over $1,000 while in the Marines, but records show he had only $200 in his bank account. So, tell me.
How did he make that trip, including all the amenities on his last $200, David?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And if I can't tell you exactly where and how Lee Oswald obtained the
money to travel to Russia (by way of Europe) in 1959, then you get to
believe in crazy, kooky pro-conspiracy stuff -- right Bob?

And then I'm supposed to follow suit and start believing that all of
the "Lone Assassin" evidence that's currently in existence that tells
a reasonable person that Oswald did, in fact, act alone on 11/22/63 is
all wrong, faked, planted, manipulated, or what-have-you? Is that
about it, Robert?

Oswald's extra cash in 1959 (FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSASSINATION)
somehow equals "A CIA-Backed Conspiracy To Murder John Kennedy In
November 1963"?

Is that about the size of the situation, Bob?

Sorry, Bob, I'm not going down that road. You can travel down that
murky avenue by yourself (and with the other conspiracy kooks like
you).

>>> "Bugliosi is just another lame apologist and his claims are not grounded in reality." <<<

Yeah, sure. But Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, and their ilk ARE "grounded
in reality". Right Bob?

(Geez.)

>>> "Yes, they [the CIA] were supposed to maintain high security and keep secrets, but NOT from their own government." <<<

Says who? You?

Is that your own CIA rule, Bob?

Americans aren't supposed to shoot their own Presidents either. But
American Oswald did just that.

(Not the perfect analogy. But it's getting late in the day, so it'll have
to do for now.) ;)

>>> "David, can you think of a single case in which the CIA withheld information from all other govt. agencies unless they WERE up to no good? Take your time, David." <<<

Why don't you, Bob, go about the task of PROVING that anything that
was "withheld" by the CIA from Government agencies surrounding the JFK
murder was important and critical information that was absolutely
needed in order to answer the $64,000 inquiry -- "Did LHO Act Alone?"

Can you do that, Bob?

>>> "I thought you said you saw that documentary ["Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"], David." <<<

I have seen it. Multiple times. I just interpret things a little
differently than you....such as [Silvia] Duran's comments, which mean zilch
when it comes to proving that Oswald was involved with the CIA or was
part of a multi-person plot to kill JFK in '63.

But if you want to make that large-sized leap of faith -- feel free to
make that jump. (But watch out for the hard landing.)

>>> "But claiming that it's perfectly normal for the CIA to coverup evidence about a Presidential assassin is just an insult to our
intelligence." <<<

And what things did the CIA "cover up" about Lee Harvey Oswald that,
if fully revealed to the Warren Commission in 1963-1964, would have
completely changed the Commission's "Lone Assassin" conclusion?

Take your time, Bob.

>>> "LHO was a fanatical ANTI-communist, David." <<<

Oh goodie! Another example of a conspiracy kook turning the evidence
upside-down and inside-out!

IOW -- It's the good ol' "NOTHING AND NOBODY ARE EVER WHAT IT/THEY
SEEM TO BE" motto coming to the forefront once again.

E.G.:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald, by all accounts, certainly seems to be a
Communist sympathizer. So, per Mr. Harris, he's actually exactly the
opposite.

2.) Oswald acted like a lone assassin in every single respect both
before and after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 (and the physical/ballistics
evidence bears out this fact as well).

So, per most CTers, exactly the opposite is true (i.e., Oswald was
either a completely innocent patsy or he was working in concert with
other assassins/conspirators).

3.) Jack Ruby's actions on 11/24/63 were obviously the actions of a
man who was not "stalking" his prey (Oswald) and were the actions of
a man who shot LHO on the spur of the moment, being aided by nothing
except garden-variety happenstance, sheer luck, and impeccable
basement-entering timing.

But, per most CTers, exactly the opposite is true, with Ruby working
for the Mob or the DPD in order to silence the patsy.

4.) All of the physical and ballistics and medical evidence in the case shows
(undeniably) that President Kennedy was shot ONLY FROM BEHIND (and by
only TWO bullets).

But the CTers believe something else again....with the conspiracists
saying that JFK had holes in his head and body that totally contradict
the autopsy findings AND the authenticated photographs.

(Go figure.)

Has there EVER been another murder case in the history of mankind
where virtually EVERY single thing and every single hunk of official,
verified evidence has been second-guessed and turned on its head by a
crowd of conspiracy-seekers?

The O.J. Simpson trial might come to mind. But even that trial's evidence
hasn't been mangled as badly as the proven-to-be-factual (and LN-leaning)
evidence that has been misrepresented by conspiracy lovers in the JFK
murder case (and the J.D. Tippit case as well, which has had its evidence
completely skewed by conspiracy-happy morons too, without a doubt).

LET'S ALL NOW BASK IN ROBERT HARRIS' POST-ENDING SALVO OF ABSURDITIES REGARDING LEE H. OSWALD (PLEASE HOLD ALL LAUGHTER UNTIL BOB FINISHES SPOUTING HIS TRIPE):

>>> "After [Lee Harvey Oswald] left Russia, he used his phony [Communist sympathizer] legend like a wrecking ball, trying to do in the FBI's most despised enemies. I think he used that same tactic to kill two birds with one stone, David -- get that pinko Kennedy and make everybody think Castro was behind it, so that we finally give Fidel his comeupance [sic]. He intended to martyr himself and he did. He just didn't count on LBJ wimping out over fears about WWIII. But he didn't do it alone, David. Perhaps he could have, but he didn't, though he was very likely the one who fired the fatal shot." <<<

Okay, we've all held it in long enough --- let the laughter commence.

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 20, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 144)

2012-02-13T11:45:00.001-08:00

BOB HARRIS SAID:

>>> "David, you should spend some time watching the PBS documentary on Oswald." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have. Several times. The 1993 "WHO WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD?"
documentary is very good indeed.

>>> "1. Oswald had nowhere near enough money to pay for his trip to Russia." <<<

You are quite obviously dead wrong about this, since Oswald paid
$220.75 for a one-way trip to Russia on September 17, 1959. [See CE2673.]

Oswald was a frugal penny-pinching miser (by all accounts). There's no
reason whatsoever why he couldn't have saved up $220.75 during his
three-year Marine hitch. And, obviously, he did just that.

>>> "2. The CIA lied (and continues to lie) about debriefing Oswald when he returned." <<<

S.O.P. for Central Intelligence, it would appear. Vince Bugliosi
possibly sums up the CIA best in the Endnotes for his JFK book:

"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst enemy." -- VB in "Reclaiming History"

>>> "3. The CIA lied, claiming that they retained no photos of Oswald in Mexico City." <<<

The following VB quote probably doesn't apply to this point, but I'll
repeat it again anyway:

"The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst enemy." -- VB

>>> "4. The CIA lied, claiming that they retained no wiretap recordings of Oswald when he was in Mexico City." <<< The following VB quote probably doesn't apply to this point, but I'll repeat it again anyway: "The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst enemy." -- VB

>>> "Didn't you ever wonder why Oswald almost broke into tears when he was told he couldn't have a 4-day visa to Cuba, while on his way to Russia? Do you think he was just broken-hearted about not getting to play tourist?" <<<

Yeah, prob'ly.

Anyway, any explanation for this supposed 'crying jag' of Oswald's put
forth by Bob Harris will undoubtedly be filled with pure speculation
and conjecture and ZERO pieces of hard evidence to back it up.

So, what difference does it really make? You'd never believe any kind
of ordinary or innocuous explanation for ANYTHING Oswald (or the CIA)
did from 1959 through 1963 anyway.

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 19, 2008)

=================================

RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:

THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED (WBAP-RADIO COVERAGE)

2012-02-11T15:00:00.000-08:00

4.5 HOURS OF 11/22/63 COVERAGE,
BEGINNING AT 7:00 AM CST:

------------------------------------------------

ASSASSINATION BULLETINS:

------------------------------------------------

THE SHOOTING TIMELINE AND THE "5.6 SECONDS" MYTH

2012-02-11T14:34:00.000-08:00

PAT SPEER SAID [HERE]:

Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter [during the 1967 assassination re-enactments conducted by CBS News] was able to hit the target twice in less than 5.6 seconds.

Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times.

[...]

If the Warren Commission had conducted similar tests, they would almost certainly have concluded that Oswald needed more than 5.6 seconds to fire the shots, and that either the first shot or last shot missed. But this was not to be.

DVP SAID:

That's a very easy one to figure out --- Lee Harvey Oswald very likely had more than 8 seconds to get the job accomplished:

Shot 1 (Missed shot) --- Z160 (approx.), per the best evidence, IMO.
Shot 2 (SBT shot) ------ Z224.
Shot 3 (Head shot) ----- Z313.

Total time --- 8.36 seconds. Plenty of time to fire three shots, and only ONE with deadly (head) accuracy. And Oswald actually, per this timeline, had MORE time between shots 2 and 3 than he did between shots 1 and 2 (an important factor). Which means that he had almost FIVE full seconds to work the bolt and re-aim again for Shot #3 after the SBT shot.

On a related note -- I enjoyed this video:

The above video is merely from a comedy program, yes, but it gets its "Oswald Could Do It" points across pretty well, IMO (especially considering the video clip lasts less than three minutes).

Also, let me add this very important point concerning Pat Speer's presentation (and his MISrepresentation of the WR/WC).....

Pat said this:

"If the Warren Commission had conducted similar tests, they would almost certainly have concluded that Oswald needed more than 5.6 seconds to fire the shots, and that either the first shot or last shot missed. But this was not to be."

But the above paragraph is dead-wrong and totally misrepresents the bottom-line conclusions reached by the Warren Commission with respect to the "timeline of the gunshots" issue.

And all a person needs to do to know that Pat has skewed the facts in this regard is to turn to page #117 of the Warren Report, and you'll find these exact words printed there:

"Based on the evidence analyzed...the Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

"Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."

-- Warren Commission Report; Page 117

In short -- the nutty "5.6 seconds" timeline theory is a conspiracy-flavored myth that (for some reason) refuses to die.

David Von Pein
September 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (SEPTEMBER 17, 2007)

MARK LANE INTERVIEWS AND DEBATES

2012-02-11T13:51:00.000-08:00

INTERVIEW WITH MARK LANE (OCTOBER 2011):
video platform video management video solutions video player

====================================

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 143)

2012-02-10T21:34:00.000-08:00

CONSPIRACY KOOK ROBERT CAPRIO:

>>> "I love how the day [Lee Harvey Oswald] allegedly brings a rifle to work the President passes right below his window. How convenient for a would-be assassin who can't drive." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN:

Yeah, imagine Oswald actually having planned out something like that--i.e., actually knowing that he'd need a rifle (or some such similar weapon) with
which to shoot the President as he drove by the building on Friday.

Versus the fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants type of assassination plan
which would have had Oswald utilizing an apple from somebody's lunch
box and an empty Dr. Pepper bottle with which to try and kill the
President.*

* = Via this "OOPS, I FORGOT MY RIFLE, BUT I STILL WANT TO TRY AND
MURDER THE PRESIDENT" haphazard type of plan, Oswald (using the
aforementioned apple and/or soda-pop bottle) would perform a wind-up,
like a baseball pitcher, and fire his best fastball in the direction of JFK's
limousine as it passed by the building....in the hopes of striking the
President a fatal blow to the head (or other bodily part that got in the
way of Oswald's deadly apple blast).

Tell us again, Rob, why it was unusual for assassin Lee Harvey Oswald
to have toted a rifle into the Depository on the day he knew the
President was going to be driving by the building?

Should Oz have waited until the following MONDAY, perhaps, to carry
his rifle to work--instead of taking it there on the day he was going
to need it to murder his prey?

(I seem to be short a "DUH!" icon here. And, man-baby, I really need
one of those things now!)

>>> "[Bonnie Ray] Williams did NOT vacate [the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository] until 12:20 and testified he saw NO one when he left, so the earliest LHO could have come back was 12:21 or 12:22 p.m." <<<

Once more, we have a conspiracy-loving kook placing more exactitude on
"times" than can actually be placed on such things. Williams' "12:20"
statement was an "estimate"....a mere "approximation"....and everybody
knows it. Even Williams, himself, knew it was only an approximated
time estimate...and he even said so, in just those words:

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was."

JOSEPH BALL -- "Approximately what time was it?"

WILLIAMS -- "Approximately 12:20, maybe."

==========

Worth an instant replay:

"Approximately 12:20, maybe." -- Bonnie Ray Williams

Williams even added a "maybe" in there too...which additionally makes
Williams' timeline testimony fall into the "estimated" category all
the more.

But to CTers, the "12:20" is rooted in fact, as if the precise moment
when Bonnie Ray Williams vacated the sixth floor on 11/22/63 had been
noted by the Naval Observatory or NORAD or something.

Ridiculous.

REPRISE:

>>> "Williams did NOT vacate [the TSBD's 6th Floor] until 12:20 and testified he saw NO one when he left, so the earliest LHO could have come back was 12:21 or 12:22 p.m." <<<

Oswald was probably already hiding in the Sniper's Nest the entire
time that Williams was on the sixth floor. Williams, as I verified via
his testimony linked previously (and re-posted below), said he could
not see the eastern part of the 6th Floor, due to the high stacks of
boxes that blocked his line of sight.

So Oswald could very well have already been hiding in his makeshift
"Nest", and almost certainly was hiding there, while Williams ate his
"chicken-on-the-bone sandwich" [proverbial LOL]. .....

"Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building." -- Bonnie Ray Williams

>>> "The FBI said it took 6-7 minutes to assemble the rifle, so we are looking at one minute or two tops to sight the scope, oh sorry it was hanging off, and get ready for the limo. Very unlikely." <<<

Read my Timeline post again. You skipped a few things. There was
enough time for Oswald to assemble his rifle in private, without
Williams (or Givens) having to get in the way of Ozzie's task.

And, again, you're placing way too much importance on the approximate
times given by witnesses. None of the times stated by any witnesses
that we've been talking about today are firmly rooted in concrete, and
that's very important to always keep in mind. (But CTers, as usual, never
seem to want to keep it in mind.)

~shrug~

>>> "How did the shells get in a neat little row?" <<<

They were never ever in a "neat little row". That's Liar "7.65" Craig
talking. And (naturally) you believe Roger Craig over this documented
photograph of the shells in the Sniper's Nest:

Another of the many "fake" pictures connected to this case, right Rob?

Any chance of you proving that the above picture does NOT represent
the three cartridge cases as they were when first discovered in the
Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63?

Didn't think you could.

>>> "What happened to the bag, because the man who discovered the nest, Officer Mooney, did not see it as he never mentions it in his report or inventory log?" <<<

So? Other officers who were ALSO there at approximately the same time
DID see the empty paper bag in the Sniper's Nest (J.C. Day and Robert
Studebaker [and L.D. Montgomery]). Are they [all] liars, while Mooney is
the truth-teller?

And why wasn't Mooney told to lie his way out of this "bag" situation,
btw? Apparently Day and Studebaker [and Montgomery] got the "WE'RE
ALL FRAMING OSWALD TODAY" memo on November 22nd.

I wonder why the sheriff's deputies (like Mooney and Weitzman and
Craig) were left out of the Police Liar's Club, and were left to tell the
whole truth of what happened that day?

Kinda strange, wasn't it?

>>> "[Lee Harvey Oswald] was a master wiper, as there were NO prints left on the rifle." <<<

Lookie, ma! The kook's dead-wrong again!

>>> "The [Tippit] shooting occured between 1:06 and 1:10 p.m. Witness testimony shows it could not have been later, but the WC will just decide to change the timeline to fit their needs." <<<

Seeing as how we KNOW beyond every single shred of a doubt that Lee
Oswald was Tippit's killer, the timeline witnesses are meaningless,
regardless of what time they said the shooting occurred.

Incredibly, CT-Kooks like Rob are willing to let Ozzie go free based
on a measly 240 seconds in real time. We're only talking about a four-
minute differential here (between Bowley's 1:10 timeline and 1:14,
which is the moment when the shooting most likely occurred, based on
the DPD Radio logs and Dale Myers' extensive research on the Tippit
murder).

If you'll look at the testimony and affidavits of various Dealey Plaza
witnesses, I think you'll find that some witnesses said that President
Kennedy was shot at a time other than when we know the assassination
took place (which was precisely 12:30).

Do those slight timeline discrepancies mean that JFK was REALLY shot
at a time other than 12:30 PM?

Answer -- of course not.

That's not a perfect parallel to the Oswald/Tippit scenario over on
Tenth Street, but the main point here is that people generally do not
judge EXACT times very well. There are almost always discrepancies in
such testimony.

And there are so many varying factors and potential "timeline"
differences that could enter into the scenario surrounding Oswald's
activities following the assassination at 12:30.

Such as:

We can't possibly know with 100% certainty how fast or slow Oswald was
walking and/or running at ANY point in time after he departed the TSBD
at approx. 12:33 PM on November 22. All times regarding LHO's
movements are, therefore, just approximations. There is no way around
this fact.

And we can't know with 100% certainty just exactly how long it took
cab driver William W. Whaley to transport Oswald from the bus station
to Neely & Beckley in Oak Cliff that Friday.

Whaley estimated his run, and he re-enacted it on multiple occasions
(for the FBI/WC and for the United Artists "Four Days In November"
movie-making crew in 1964), but it's still not possible to know how
many minutes (exactly) it took Whaley to make that trip on 11/22/63.
It's an estimate. Period.

And we also have to rely on the testimony of just ONE single witness
(Earlene Roberts) when it comes to the timeline issue of when Oswald
entered his roominghouse on Beckley on the afternoon of the assassination
(and the issue of how long LHO stayed in his crackerbox-sized room after entering that residence on Beckley Avenue, which I maintain was an amount
of time that was much less than Mrs. Roberts' stated "3 to 4 minutes").

ANY of the above timeline issues, when utilizing an ordinary amount of
common sense plus the proverbial and always-present "plus-or-minus"
factor, could easily accommodate the "OSWALD KILLED J.D. TIPPIT"
scenario.

And, based on the fact we do know Oswald killed Tippit via all kinds
of witness and ballistics proof, it's fairly obvious that mere
timeline discrepancies alone cannot and will not exonerate Mr.
Oswald. Period.

>>> "No one said it was LHO based on his face." <<<

Oh yeah, that's right! All of those Tippit witnesses (approx. a dozen
in total) positively identified the man they saw as Lee Harvey Oswald
based on looking at the killer's shoes and socks. I forgot about that.
Thanks for reminding me, Robert.

Thank God we have Robert Caprio to straighten these things out for us
weak-minded LNers.

>>> "[Johnny Calvin] Brewer sounds like a LNer, as he can tell who is an assassin by "funny" and "scared" looks." <<<

Brewer didn't know for sure whether or not Oswald was an "assassin" when he observed LHO on Jefferson Boulevard on November 22nd. Why you're jumping to this conclusion must be another hint as to why you're the ABO [Anybody But Oswald] Mega-Kook you currently are (or are pretending to be, at any rate).

Brewer had his suspicions about the man who appeared in his storefront looking "scared" and "running" and "funny", yes. His suspicions turned out to be spot-on accurate ones too.

So, I suppose you'd now like to label Mr. Brewer (a true unsung hero
on 11/22/63 if you want my opinion about him) as one of the
"conspirators" in your make-believe assassination plot too...huh Rob?

Why not? After all, per CTers, it would seem that the vast majority of
the population of Dallas, New Orleans, and Washington were out to nail
this schnook named Oswald....so why not shoe salesman Johnny Brewer
too? Throw in theater cashier Julia Postal too while you're at it. It
was her phone call which directly led to LHO's capture, so she surely
can't be any ol' innocent bystander. Right?

Don't disappoint me. Show me your true Kook Stripes here, Rob. I'm due
for my daily belly-laugh.

[Excising remainder of Rob's normal pro-conspiracy mush. My stomach
can only handle so much poppycock from Robby in a single session. And
my Kook Kapacity has been reached for this post. Thanks Robby. And
keep searching for those make-believe assassins. In the year 2525--"if
man is still alive"--perhaps one of your future relatives will finally
unearth one of the real culprits.]

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 18, 2008)

=================================

RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 142)

2012-02-10T21:15:00.000-08:00

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "Yes, the shells were undoubtedly fired from the MC [Mannlicher-Carcano]. But you cannot prove they were fired during the attack." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Robert Harris can't figure out the super-SUPER-easy ones (like this
one). But he can somehow figure out that a shot was fired at exactly
Z285 by examining the silent Zapruder Film.

A-ma-zing.

REPRISE:

>>> "Yes, the shells were undoubtedly fired from the MC. But you cannot prove they were fired during the attack." <<<

Yeah, this one's a real toughie, Bob. It took me a whole 25 seconds
(approximately) to figure it out:

1.) Three shells from Oswald's gun found in Sniper's Nest where Oswald
himself was seen firing a rifle.

2.) Two fragments from Oswald's gun found in limo.

3.) A whole bullet from Oswald's gun found in hospital where the limo
victims were transported. (Spare me the "planted" conjecture...just
this ONCE. That'd be refreshing...for once. Ten-Four?)

4.) Oswald's gun found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (with Ozzie's
print on it).

1 thru 4 = Bullets from Oswald's gun were positively fired "during the
attack" on President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

>>> "Of course CE399 was fired from the [C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano] rifle, but NOT during the attack." <<<

Oh goodie! Planted stuff!

(I wasn't spared for very long, was I?)

Question -- Where would a conspiracy theorist be without a bunch of
planted stuff?!

Answer -- In the Lone Assassin camp.

>>> "And since I have stated on countless occasions that the 312 shot probably WAS fired by Oswald, the fact that one agent expressed an opinion that a bullet came from Oswald's rifle is not exactly Earth-shaking." <<<

But it would have been a whole lot better if the Warren Commission had
called 175 more FBI agents and ballistics experts to testify that CE567/569
came from Oz's gun...right?

>>> "[The FBI's Robert A.] Frazier was simply full of shit." <<<

Oh goodie! Another CTer who thinks that a person is "full of shit" who provided
evidence and testimony that seriously damages the make-believe fantasies
of all conspiracy-loving theorists.

What should we expect next -- a CTer who thinks that the whole Warren
Commission Report is "full of shit" too?

That'd be a real shocker, huh?

>>> "Yes, I was incorrect in stating that the FBI did not *claim* that the frags matched Oswald's rifle. See David. I didn't drop dead and the universe did not stop running, when I admitted I was wrong." <<<

And your theories about the case aren't getting any truer either.

Go figure the irony.

>>> "David, if you are patient enough and wait long enough, I will undoubtedly make another error someday. Never mind the fact that you posted more false claims this week than I have since 1994." <<<

That must mean Mr. V.T. Bugliosi owns the record for "Most False
Claims In A 2,800-Page Publication". Right, Bob?

You'd THINK that VB (or I) would be able to get SOMETHING right after
all that time that has been used up looking into the case, wouldn't ya?

But, per CTers like Bob Harris and many others, it would appear that
all LNers are 0-for-907,684 (approximately).

Heck, we silly LNers still possess the outrageous gall and temerity to
think that the bullets that were found in the limo and in the hospital
were actually fired "during the attack" on the President on November
22, 1963.

We dumbbell LNers should be wiser and smarter than that. Shouldn't we,
Bob?

After all, when a bullet or fragment or shell COULD have conceivably
been planted by evil-doers, it must mean it WAS planted by evil-doers
(despite ZERO pieces of verification for any such planting; like, say,
somebody actually PHYSICALLY being SEEN doing some of this "planting").

In other words -- Why resort to relying on the ordinary when the
extraordinary is also available for the choosing?

Right, Bob?

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 17, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATES AND DISCUSSION

2012-02-10T06:38:00.000-08:00

==================================

==================================

==================================

MORE RELATED STUFF:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 141)

2012-02-09T22:13:00.000-08:00

BOB HARRIS SAID:

>>> "[Jim Garrison] did more than anyone to discover evidence of conspiracy and the connection to [David] Ferrie and [Guy] Banister and perhaps [Clay] Shaw." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Except for the fact that none of those men (Ferrie, Banister, Shaw) was involved in any way in any plot to murder John Kennedy. And you'll never be able to prove any of them were guilty of such conspiratorial plotting.

Will you now, Robert?

>>> "He [King Kook Garrison] was also wrong about some things, which we know now, with benefit of hindsight." <<<

Yeah, like thinking that Ferrie, Banister, and Shaw were part of some devious plot to kill JFK.

>>> "But the bottom line here is that you have NO--that is ZERO--justification for dismissing the possibility of a shot from the storm drain. Correct David?" <<<

Except for the things I mentioned previously:

1.) Not a single person in Dealey Plaza ran up to a cop or anyone else and claimed to hear a shot from any storm drain. Nor did any witness (that I'm aware of) say anything about the possibility of any "storm drain sniper" in their Warren Commission testimony, or any affidavit.

2.) Nobody but Oswald and Oswald's bullets hit any victims.

3.) Placing a killer in the storm drain within a pre-arranged "Let's Frame LHO" plot is just...well...idiotic. Period.

And let's face it -- most of the kooks around here believe that Oswald was indeed being "set up" well in advance of Nov. 22. Don't you, Bob? If so, you can't possibly believe that any Grand Poobah of Frame-Ups would be stupid enough to put ANY shooters to the FRONT of the President while attempting to frame ONLY Oswald from behind the limo.

You're left with naked speculation and guesswork, Bob. (As always.)

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 17, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 140)

2012-02-09T21:38:00.000-08:00

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "You absolutely CANNOT link a single bullet to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all others." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're an idiot.

>>> "Sorry David. Neither the FBI nor Guinn even CLAIMED that they proved those frags [CE567 & CE569] connected to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others. YOU (and Bugliosi I suspect:-) are the ONLY one making that claim - NOT the people who studied the frags." <<<

Is it truly possible for Bob Harris (a veteran JFK "researcher" by all suspected accounts) to NOT know about the following sworn Warren Commission testimony?

Via 3 H 434-435:

JOHN McCLOY - As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle [CE139; LHO's Carcano]?

ROBERT A. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

MR. McCLOY - And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?

MR. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

MR. McCLOY - And the fragment 567---

MR. FRAZIER - 567, the one we have just finished.

MR. McCLOY - Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?

MR. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

MR. McCLOY - You have no doubt about any of those?

MR. FRAZIER - None whatsoever.

~~~~~~~~

MELVIN EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? .... Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?

MR. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

MR. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?

MR. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.

MR. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?

MR. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

====================

Bob, would you like to now amend this ridiculous assertion that you made a little bit ago?:

"Neither the FBI nor Guinn even CLAIMED that they proved those frags connected to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others. YOU (and Bugliosi I suspect) are the ONLY one making that claim - NOT the people who studied the frags."

>>> "I prove my statements David." <<<

Oh, you mean like these statements below (which I just shredded via one witness' testimony)?:

"Neither the FBI nor Guinn even CLAIMED that they proved those frags connected to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others. YOU (and Bugliosi I suspect) are the ONLY one making that claim - NOT the people who studied the frags." -- Robert Harris

"You absolutely CANNOT link a single bullet to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all others." -- Robert Harris

INSTANT REPLAY:

>>> "I prove my statements David." <<<

LOL. Like hell you do. Like all conspiracy kooks, you utilize the following mantra:

"ACCUSE AND THEORIZE NOW; PROVE NEVER."

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 15, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 139)

2012-02-08T19:21:00.001-08:00

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "So, David VP, you're saying that your and Vincent Bugliosi's amateur interpretations of the autopsy photos trumps the "expert" opinions of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel? How does that make you two any better than the looniest conspiracy theorist?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In this particular narrow-based instance, I will readily admit that it doesn't make me "any better than the looniest conspiracy theorist", due to the fact that I am doing what almost all conspiracy-happy people love to do with virtually ALL of the evidence in the case -- I'm completely ignoring the official conclusion of the HSCA's Forensic Panel in this particular "height of the wounds" regard.

(I'll bet Pat was glad to hear that admission from an LNer.) ;)

But when referring specifically to Vincent Bugliosi's thoughts on this matter, you can't really say that Vince and I think alike on this issue (at least when based on Pages 423 and 424 of VB's JFK book)....and that's because, based on the text found on those two pages, Vince says that he totally accepts the HSCA's findings as being true regarding the wound locations AND he also asserts that he does not accept the HSCA's conclusions (via his comments on page 424 at any rate).

But, to summarize, the HSCA's FPP was and is definitely DEAD WRONG when it comes to their conclusion that the back wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound. And even Dr. James J. Humes, JFK's leading autopsy doctor, has said so -- i.e., Humes himself said, in 1964 to the Warren Commission, that JFK's throat wound was "physically lower" than the wound located in Kennedy's upper back (2 H 368).

RELATED ADDENDUM (from my "Reclaiming History" book review):

"Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that "the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear], sir."

Now, I can only logically assume that Dr. Humes, when he made the above comment to the WC about the location of JFK's back and neck wounds, was referring to John Kennedy's body being in an "anatomical" (upright) position with respect to those comments about the wounds (although Humes didn't specifically use the word "anatomical" in his testimony).

But since JFK was lying flat on his back on a table during the autopsy, what other posture (other than the "anatomical position") could Dr. Humes possibly have been referring to when he said what he said in 1964? Humes, in that quote above, surely wasn't suggesting that Kennedy's neck (throat) wound was "physically lower" than the back wound only if the President's body was tilted or leaning in some strange fashion.

And yet, in total opposition to Humes' quote cited above (which is a quote that VB cites in this book as well), and directly contradicting Bugliosi's stance regarding the wound locations as depicted in the autopsy photograph previously mentioned and linked, we find Vince saying this on Page 423 -- "The...bullet track, which is going downward through the president's body, is traveling upward anatomically."

I can only shrug my shoulders and softly mumble three words: Curious, curious, curious." -- DVP; 2007

>>> "And, why, if, as you assert, these imminent pathologists are TOO FREAKIN' INCOMPETENT to figure out the anatomical location of a back wound on a photo, should we trust anything they say, including that there is evidence for but two gunshots on Kennedy's body, both fired from behind?" <<<

I wouldn't compare the two things as being on equal levels. In one instance, the HSCA was attempting to determine how many bullet holes John Kennedy had in his body (and from what directions those shots were fired).

But the other instance is quite different (and a bit more subjective in nature, given the fact they had no photo to work with that showed BOTH Kennedy's throat wound and his upper-back wound in the same photo for direct "relative height" comparison) -- i.e., the HSCA was trying to answer the "lower or higher?" question regarding those wounds by utilizing the autopsy photographs and the written record and the testimony of the autopsists (testimony taken 15 years after the assassination).

And that's just exactly what other people have tried to do as well, using the very same pictures and documented testimony. And the HSCA, for some reason I'll never be able to fathom, came to the cockeyed determination that the two photos shown below (when viewed IN TANDEM and when using each of them to compare to the other) depict the upper-back wound as being located anatomically LOWER than the wound in the front of JFK's neck, which is a wound that is fully visible in the right-hand photo. And this is the type of photo comparison test that I can only ASSUME that the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel DID perform with regard to these two critical autopsy photographs:

But as anyone with just one good eye can see (when comparing the individual wounds seen in each of the above photos), the bullet hole in JFK's upper back (which was determined by the HSCA to be the TOP SPOT [or "artifact"] in the top photo above) is not even close to being located anatomically LOWER on Kennedy's body when compared to the wound in the throat.

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 15, 2008)

=================================

RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 138)

2012-02-08T18:43:00.000-08:00

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "You cannot link even ONE bullet to Oswald's rifle. The closest you can come is CE399." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Great. Now CE567 and CE569 don't count as "Oswald bullets" either. Is
that it, Bob?

Those two front-seat fragments, which were linked beyond all doubt to
Oswald's rifle, are suddenly NOT to be considered ballistics evidence
from Rifle C2766?

And I guess the three empty cartridge cases on the sixth floor somehow
got there as a result of the three bullets that were once housed inside
those cartridges NOT being fired from that sniper's-nest window on
November 22, 1963.

Is that your position, Mr. Harris? If so, go back to the drawing board,
because your position needs to be erased due to built-in silliness.

>>> "This is pathetic, David." <<<

Yeah, I thought the first quote from you in this post was pretty
pathetic myself.

>>> "That's just a lie [re: all 7 bullet shells connected with the JFK and
J.D. Tippit murder cases being positively linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's weapons]." <<<

Great (again). Now I'm telling a "lie" when I conclude that all seven
of the bullet shells (3 in the TSBD and 4 littering 10th St. and Patton
Ave.) were positively ejected from the two guns owned by Lee Oswald.

Where do you get your evidence, Bob? From Jim Fetzer's bathroom wall?
And an even better question (as Vincent Bug. is wont to ask on
occasion) -- Where do you BUY guts like this?

>>> "David, you need to stand back, take a deep breath and look at what you are trying to pass off as evidence." <<<

LOL. Yeah, imagine a person actually having the GALL to rely on the
KNOWN, VERIFIED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case (which all, of course,
leads to some guy named Lee Harvey)?

That's kinda like arriving at the conclusion that the sun is hot by way of
standing in the middle of the Mojave Desert on a cloudless August
afternoon. And what kind of idiot would arrive at a silly, knee-jerk reaction
like THAT about the sun based on that "Mojave" evidence?

If it was Robert Harris standing there in the Mojave, he'd want a
whole lot more evidence to arrive at the "hot" conclusion. He wouldn't
be able to rely on the best evidence. He'd want to investigate further
and obfuscate the situation and mangle the obvious until the logical
conclusion about the sun being hot is suddenly in serious doubt.

Maybe it only FEELS hot to us? I'd look into that situation if I were
you, Bob. Maybe make a trip to that big bright star at the center of
our solar system. (And as the joke goes -- just make sure you go at
night, so you won't be burned to a cinder. Then again, maybe it's
really very COLD there, so you won't need to take the tongue-in-cheek
"night" precaution.) ;)

>>> "Suppose there was a shooting in your neighborhood and you told the police when they arrived that you saw one of the shooters. Would you expect them to then jump to the conclusion that there were no others involved? Well, that's EXACTLY what you are doing, David, and with absolutely no justification to exclude the other snipers." <<<

LOL time once more.

I'm trying to figure out WHY in the world any policeman would be
compelled to root around in the Elm St. sewers searching for a gunman,
even though ZERO people in Dealey Plaza approached a police officer
and exclaimed the following: "Hey! You'd better look inside that storm
drain there! I heard a shot from there! And I think I saw a gun
sticking out!"

BACK TO THE FACTS----

The two main potential sources of gunfire where witnesses initially
said they heard gunshots (the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence
area) were fully searched immediately after the assassination.

And what did the police find when they searched the Knoll and
surrounding parking-lot area (which was searched immediately after the
shooting)?

Answer -- Nothing. No shooter. No signs of any shooter. Nothing.

Were the cops supposed to PRETEND that the civilian witnesses (or the
policemen THEMSELVES who were in Dealey Plaza and HEARD THE SHOTS
THEMSELVES!) claimed to have heard shots coming from the sewers, or
the Dal-Tex, or the Records Building, or the top of the Overpass?

Should the police have abandoned the two areas (TSBD & Grassy Knoll
area) that the witnesses did point to as possible sources of gunfire
and, instead, proceed on a "wild assassin chase" and start scouring
the storm drains, sewers, and all other buildings WHICH NO WITNESSES
SPECIFICALLY POINTED TO AS SOURCES FOR THE GUNSHOTS?

Well, Bob? Should the cops have performed the above searches given
these parameters that existed on November 22nd, 1963?

Addendum.....

Bob,

If you truly believe, after 45 years of CTers finding no hard or valid
or substantive evidence of "other snipers" in Dealey Plaza, that I
have "absolutely no justification" when I and others conclude that
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone -- then you probably shouldn't even
be walking around (or typing your silliness into your computer).

The "justification" for arriving at a "1 Shooter Named Oswald"
conclusion isn't ONLY based on what witnesses told the authorities
after the shooting (although, of course, that's part of it). But
there's also the BODY of John Kennedy (and his wounds and where they
were located), plus the wounds to John Connally and their locations,
plus the ballistics evidence (which is totally separate from any
witness statements about what they saw or heard), and Oswald's own
actions (and many lies) before and after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.

All of this stuff (i.e., the SUM TOTAL of everything on the table, not
just what witnesses said occurred) can lead to only one reasonable
conclusion -- and it's not a multi-gun conspiracy plot. It's one man
taking his own gun into his own workplace on the day when that one man
knew the President would be passing right in front of that workplace,
with that one man (Oswald) getting lucky enough to find himself all
alone on the sixth floor of his workplace and getting off three shots in
8.4 seconds....ending John F. Kennedy's life.

Any other scenario apart from the one described above resides in the
file drawer reserved for UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN CONSPIRACY-TINGED
SPECULATION.

Unfortunately, that file drawer is jam-packed with junk....and it's
becoming more jam-packed all the time by conspiracy kooks. Here's just
one recent (hilarious) example.

>>> "You remember Ferrie, don't you David? He worked for Carlos Marcello..." <<<

Which MUST mean, of course, that Ferrie was involved in JFK's murder.
Right, Bob?

Maybe if you look hard enough, Bob, you can find some tangential type
of shady associations relating to Mr. Ferrie, so you can then blame
Ferrie for the Stock Market crash in '29, the Korean War, and the
death of Malcolm X too.

How about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? You can surely stretch
things a bit and blame somebody for a natural disaster like that too,
right Bob? Ferrie wasn't born yet, but a crack investigator like you
can surely come up with at least a short list of probable "suspects".
An earthquake can be MADE to happen, you know. I'd check into that if
I were you, Bob.

>>> "You need to change your schtick, David." <<<

Why on Earth would I want to do something silly like that? My LN
version of events fits absolutely perfectly with all of the evidence
(always has; always will).

And my overall LN "schtick" was certainly good enough for the DPD, the
FBI, the USSS, the WC, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission,
Emmy Award-winner Dale Myers, and veteran lawyer Vincent Bugliosi (who
certainly recognizes an empty "conspiracy" vessel when he sees one--
and he definitely sees one when it comes to the JFK case).

So why would I have any desire to abandon the actual evidence in the
case? And it's evidence that, in its aggregate and SUM TOTAL, adds up
to one undeniable conclusion -- Lee Harvey Oswald fired the only
gunshots in Dealey Plaza that hit any victims and he very likely had
no co-conspirators aiding him while doing so on 11/22/63.

Denying the above reasonable inference (based on that pesky sum total
of evidence that Robert loves to avoid--or ignore or skew) is just silly.

But, then too, most conspiracy theorists fall into the "unreasonable"
and "silly" categories.

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 14, 2008)

CECIL McWATTERS

2012-02-08T14:24:00.001-08:00

JAMES LEAVELLE

2012-02-08T11:19:00.001-08:00

JFK ASSASSINATION RADIO BULLETINS

2012-02-07T16:04:00.000-08:00

OSWALD'S "I'M JUST A PATSY" LIE

2012-02-06T21:44:00.000-08:00

When Lee Harvey Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement (which was uttered by Oswald at approx. 7:55 PM on 11/22/63, per reporter Seth Kantor's notes) isn't broken up into smaller sections (which it usually is, so that people don't get to hear Oswald's incredibly silly lie about being "taken in" because of his once having lived in Russia), it becomes fairly clear that the Patsy statement is nothing more than a whitewash/lie being spoken by Lee Harvey in an obvious attempt to divert suspicion away from the man (LHO) who really did kill two people in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

But when you stop and think about Oswald's "Soviet Union" lie, it was actually a rather lousy attempt on LHO's part to steer himself away from the finger of guilt, because even a teenaged stringer on any newspaper in the country would have been able to easily investigate Oswald's claim about being arrested due to his previous Soviet Union residency and discover in a heartbeat that the DPD couldn't possibly have known anything about Oswald's having lived in the USSR by the time of his arrest at approximately 1:50 PM on November 22nd.

Not to mention the fact that the organization whom Oswald was pointing his finger at in the 'They're-Making-Me-The-Patsy-In-This-Thing' regard (the Dallas Police Department) didn't even have the slightest idea who Lee Harvey Oswald was as of the time of his arrest.

The police didn't officially know LHO's true identity until after they got him to the police station. They were confused due to all of the fake I.D. cards Oswald had on him. For all the DPD knew as of 2:00 PM on 11/22, Oswald could very well have turned out to really be Mr. Alek James Hidell.

WORTH A REPLAY:

The full "Patsy" declaration from LHO:

"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" -- Lee Harvey Oswald

Now, does any person alive today actually believe that Lee Oswald was "taken in" by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63 due to the fact that LHO had lived in Russia from late 1959 to June 1962?

And does any person alive today actually believe Oswald was telling the truth when he said that it was, in effect, the DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT that was turning him into the "patsy" for the murders he was accused of committing?

After all, when taking into account the ENTIRE hallway statement made by Oswald (and not just the last four words of it), if we're to take Sweet Lee at his LITERAL word when he said "I'm just a patsy", it could only mean that members of the DPD (not the Mob or David Ferrie or Clay Shaw or Santo Trafficante or Wilma Flintstone) were the people that Oswald said were framing him (i.e., making him the "patsy").

Lee Oswald was quite obviously telling a lie when he said that he had been taken in because of previously residing in the USSR (and I know of nobody who even disputes that fact, not even a hardline conspiracy believer)....which is a lie that SHOULD make people all the more suspicious about the four words that came out of the SAME MAN'S mouth just one second later ("I'm just a patsy").

But instead of making certain conspiracy-loving kooks suspicious, many CTers decided it was wise to hop aboard the "I'm Just A Patsy" bandwagon and declare Oswald to be a truth-teller with respect to those four now-famous words he uttered, despite the fact that even the kookiest of "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists certainly must recognize the fact that Oswald's "Soviet Union" statement was an obvious and provable lie.

=======================================================

The whole "Patsy" remark has been completely skewed and twisted and removed from its proper context by CTers in the first place. Oswald told the provable lie of "They've taken me in because I lived in the Soviet Union" just one single SECOND prior to saying "I'm just a patsy".

Now, when putting those two tail-gating statements together (which CT-Kooks never do, they always separate them) -- it's clear that Oswald isn't accusing Shaw, Ferrie, or the Boogie Man (or some other unknown outside entity) of setting him up as "The Patsy". Oz is pointing the "Patsy" finger of blame squarely at the DPD, due to the perceived (and clearly wrong) idea that Oswald spouted about the DPD "taking him in" due to his defection to Russia.

Which is also, quite obviously, the reason that Oswald went NO FURTHER than just his 4-word lie "I'm just a patsy". He COULDN'T start naming names, because he's aiming his remark at the whole DPD in general....not somebody who "placed" him in the Depository ahead of time for the purpose of making him take the lone blame for JFK's demise.

And we know that Oswald's "Soviet Union" line of bullshit is a lie -- because Oz was told in the police car on 11/22 why he was "taken in".

And even if he had NOT been specifically told why he was "taken in" until after Oz's "Patsy" whitewash, Oswald's "Soviet Union" excuse would still be a provable lie. Why? Because there's absolutely NO DOUBT under the moon that Oswald killed J.D. Tippit. Therefore, Oswald himself knew he had killed Tippit and that the cops would be swarming Oak Cliff shortly, even if very few other people did know it at the time. So, any way you look at it, Oswald positively had to KNOW the real reason he was "taken in" by the police on 11/22.

But, in fact, Oswald was told the reason he had been taken in. Officer C.T. Walker, in Walker's WC testimony, says that Oswald had been told point-blank by DPD officers that he had been arrested on suspicion of killing a police officer:

"Oswald said, 'What is this all about?'; he was relating this all the time. He said, 'I know my rights'. And we told him that he was under arrest because he was suspected in the murder of a police officer. And he said, 'Police officer been killed?'; and nobody said nothing. He said, 'I hear they burn for murder'. And I said, 'You might find out'. And he said, 'Well, they say it just takes a second to die'." -- DPD Officer C.T. Walker; 4/8/64

Oswald's comment about just taking a second to die reeks with guilt as well. Would a truly INNOCENT person have conceivably said those words after just seconds earlier being told they might find out what it's like to "burn for murder" (a murder which that person, per the kooks, supposedly NEVER COMMITTED)??

Lee Harvey Oswald practically confessed to killing Officer J.D. Tippit via the above-referenced quote alone.

David Von Pein
August 7, 2006
June 8, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 137)

2012-02-06T11:29:00.001-08:00

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed they heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have NO business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists, until you are able to prove that they weren't." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Robert, you are in your own little dream world, entitled --- "I BELIEVE THAT A GUNSHOT OCCURRED AT Z285 AND I'M GOING TO STICK BY THAT THEORY FOREVER, DESPITE THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEING THE LIMO OCCUPANTS' MOVEMENTS ON A SILENT PIECE OF MOVIE FILM THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE EVALUATE IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE GUNSHOTS WERE OCCURRING IN DEALEY PLAZA."

In short -- There is NOTHING concrete or definitive or absolute about any of the movements of the people in that limousine that could possibly make any reasonable person want to declare--with finality--that a gunshot positively occurred at exactly frame #285 of Abraham Zapruder's home movie.

But Robert wants to believe that his subjective analyses of the peoples' reactions (i.e., movements) within the car are PROOF of a gunshot at exactly Z285.

Quite obviously, however, Robert Harris is only fooling himself -- for there are certainly no definitive signs of a PROOF-POSITIVE gunshot occurring at Z285 within that silent motion picture.

Bob will probably next claim that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth when I claim that Oswald's first shot occurred at approx. Z160 on the same silent home movie (which is, indeed, what I think occurred).

But there is one significant difference there -- and that is the fact that we can KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that Governor Connally was not struck by a bullet until a few seconds AFTER the first shot was fired.

John Connally's own testimony after the shooting tells us this fact, and it's something that isn't merely subjective on a researcher's part. It's evidence being based on a VICTIM'S first-hand account of WHEN he was hit (i.e., per Connally: "The first shot did not hit me; I had time to think; I had time to react [to the first gunshot]; then I was hit").

Connally is really sort of two witnesses in one (in a way), due to the fact that he had the unique ability to time the first shot in his own mind by way of comparing the sound of it to when he, himself, felt the impact of the bullet that hit him in the upper back.

And since the overwhelming evidence (including all of the non-Zapruder Film evidence, of course) indicates that only three shots were fired and that ALL three shots came from the Book Depository's 6th-Floor Sniper's Nest (and from Oswald's own rifle), it's then fairly easy to piece together a reasonable timeline of the three shots when looking just at the Zapruder Film.

And via the above type of evidence-based starting point before ever even looking at the Zapruder Film (utilizing the entire SUM TOTAL of the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists in this case, plus throwing in some common sense for good measure), there simply is no room for a gunshot at Z-Film frame #285.

Based on the sum total of evidence, a shot at Z285 could not and did not occur (Robert Harris' subjective analysis of the film notwithstanding).

Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:

"To be cruel to the [conspiracy] buffs, THEY SIMPLY RAN OUT OF BULLETS FOR THEIR SECOND-GUN THEORY. There was no other bullet flying through the air that could have ONLY hit Connally. To accept the position of the conspiracy theorists, one would have to reject the physical evidence (only three cartridge casings), but accept the hearing acuity of 3.5 percent of the people in Dealey Plaza over that of around 75 percent of the witnesses. Actually, the percentage of people the theorists would have to thumb their noses at would be 85 percent, since 10 percent of the witnesses in the HSCA study only heard two shots." [Emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- Page 464 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

Of course, Vince goes into even greater detail in other parts of the book (plus on page 464 too) to support the fact that THREE and only THREE gunshots were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And such fact-based "Only Three Shots Were Fired" analysis only helps to support and reinforce the logical and common-sense nature of Mr. Bugliosi's "THEY RAN OUT OF BULLETS" quote all the more.

>>> "I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, David. I WANT to believe that folks like you are, at the very least, sincere in your belief that the crime was carried out by a single attacker." <<<

Gee, that's mighty kind of you.

I'm now trying to think of a single thing that matters less to me than whether or not a conspiracy-happy individual is willing to give me the "benefit of the doubt" regarding the sincerity of my lone-assassin beliefs.

As I ponder that quandary, only one other thing comes close to mattering less with respect to the overall topic of John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination --- and that would be a CTer's subjective and unsupportable opinions that guide that particular CTer to the notion that a conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, and/or that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy" that day in Dallas.

So, Bob.....

1.) Would you like to now dance another time 'round the mulberry bush with respect to this wholly-subjective "Z285" crap that you've locked yourself into?

2.) Or would you rather admit that your analysis regarding this subject is, as mentioned, WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE and is YOUR THEORY ALONE...without any HARD PROOF to support it (other than your own hardheadedness)?

(Which will Bob choose -- #1 or #2? I think everyone knows already.)

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 10, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 136)

2012-02-06T10:55:00.001-08:00

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "David...you admit [Vincent Bugliosi] is totally clueless about the back wound, when he agrees with Baden that it was below the throat wound. When he turns around and embraces that an autopsy photo studied by Baden and the HSCA FPP shows it to be above the throat wound, however, you assert he saw the light, even though this finding is in opposition to the findings of the HSCA and those much more qualified than him to make reach such a conclusion." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Bugliosi positively goofed on "Reclaiming History" Pages 423 and 424 (regarding the anatomical location of JFK's upper-back wound in relation to the throat wound)....and I fully point out this error (in some depth) in my review of the book, RIGHT HERE.

But VB's error (or what I certainly THINK is an error by Vince regarding that sub-topic of JFK's back/neck wounds, unless I'm just stupid myself and unable to figure out the point VB was trying to put across) doesn't totally TRASH the remainder of the book's lone-assassin conclusions, for Pete sake.

A slight error or a piece of muddled writing doesn't suddenly ERASE the Mount Everest of evidence which hangs Lee Harvey Oswald as the only assassin.

I really have no idea what Vince was thinking (and still don't) when he, seemingly, argues in favor of BOTH a higher AND a lower "anatomical" back-wound location on JFK's back in relation to the throat wound. Pages 423 and 424 of "Reclaiming History" are still a mystery to me (and I've read them multiple times since receiving the book in May 2007).

As I said in my review, all I can really do is throw up my hands with respect to those particular pages and shrug my shoulders.

But one thing's for certain (and Bugliosi points it out as a kind of last salvo on Page 424 after probing the murky craziness of the HSCA's findings on Page 423) -- the two autopsy photos linked below (when looked at IN TANDEM) indicate that JFK's upper-back wound was positively and irrevocably located ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the wound in John Kennedy's throat. And anyone studying these two photos who comes to an opposite conclusion must be living on Mars (or someplace where up = down and higher = lower):

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 5, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 135)

2012-02-06T10:30:00.000-08:00

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "[Lee Harvey Oswald] was NEVER on the bus." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie! More baloney coming from a CTer whom I didn't think could sink
any deeper into his morass of invented kookshit.

So, Rob thinks that the cops (or somebody) must have PLANTED the bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket on 11/22/63 (complete with the accurate date and timestamping, plus Cecil McWatters' unique crescent-shaped hole punch on the paper transfer)....

And:

....Rob-Kook also must think that witness Mary E. Bledsoe was a liar when she positively identified Oswald as having been on McWatters' bus on November 22.

Wasn't it nice and convenient for the cops and (later) the Warren Commission to be able to come up with so many different witnesses who were willing to tell lie after lie when they said they saw Lee Oswald in various places and doing various things on 11/22 that kooks like Rob Caprio believe are not true at all?

E.G.:

1.) Bledsoe and the bus incident.

2.) Virginia & Barb Davis and the Tippit murder. (Plus Markham, Scoggins, Callaway, Tatum, and all the rest of the witnesses near 10th Street.)

3.) Howard Brennan and JFK's murder.

And:

Wasn't it also convenient for the assassination plotters (and for the CTers later on) to have so many other people tell a string of lies for years on end, in order to further the continuing "cover-up" that the CT-Kooks think is still being perpetuated to this day by some people?

E.G.:

1.) Humes, Finck, & Boswell and JFK's autopsy. Those three autopsy doctors ALL lied (per the CT-Kooks) when they ALL agreed that JFK was shot just TWICE, and both bullets hit the President from ABOVE and BEHIND.

2.) The various police officers who collected and handled the evidence in ways which the conspiracy kooks think was suspicious or mysterious in some manner...with those officers (all of them, save Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig) all testifying in ways that can lead to only one possible conclusion -- i.e., Lee Oswald fired three shots at JFK and four or five shots at J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.

3.) The Warren Commission (which was a panel full of nothing but "I WANT OSWALD TO BE GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT" clowns, per the CT-Kooks).

4.) The HSCA (which, per CTers, must have been an organization that was comprised of either complete idiots or WC-backing shills, to a large degree anyway, since the HSCA agreed with the WC regarding Oswald as the only gunman who hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza or on Tenth Street).

Apparently, per the rabid conspiracy theorists who will believe in anything in order to make Lee Oswald appear totally innocent of any wrong-doing in Dallas in Nov. 1963, there was an all-encompassing plot and cover-up in place after the assassination (save Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig), engaged in by many different agencies and organizations and investigative bodies, in order to pull the wool over the collective eyes of the general public and attempt to make that public believe that a COMPLETELY INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself, murdered not only President Kennedy, but also J.D. Tippit as well.

That type of blanket conspiratorial scenario, which is almost certainly accepted as FACT by many conspiracists worldwide, is just flat-out idiotic. And always has been. Simple as that.

CTers have their dreams. But LNers, thankfully, have an obviously guilty Lee Harvey Oswald (not to mention all of the bullets and all of the other physical evidence, to boot).

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 4, 2008)

=================================

RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 134)

2012-02-06T08:54:00.000-08:00

A CONSPIRACY KOOK NAMED DAVID JOHNSON SAID:

>>> "I found that Bugliosi was not an accurate reporter of events." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Like what?

>>> "One example, among thousands, would be his mention of shooting eyewitness Hugh Betzner. Betzner said in his sworn statement on November 22, 1963: "I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car." Bugliosi never mentions this, even when he is refuting the claim [that] Greer was the shooter." <<<

Why should Vince mention it? It's an idiotic theory to begin with (and that's a kind term to describe the "GREER DID IT" nonsense).

The Zapruder Film all by itself tells everybody that the theory about driver William Greer shooting President Kennedy in the head is nothing but malarkey (and "sunlight and glare").

The following clip from the Zapruder Film shows the "gun-shaped" GLARE on Roy Kellerman's head, but Bill Greer's LEFT HAND IS STILL NEAR THE STEERING WHEEL (i.e., his left hand is nowhere NEAR the so-called "gun")!.....

And here's a close-up view of the so-called "gun" that is so obviously merely sunlight bouncing off of Kellerman's head (note the location of driver Bill Greer's left hand [the "flesh" tones of his left hand are clearly evident]; his left hand isn't even close to being on the so-called "gun grip" near Kellerman's forehead):

For a larger view of the above photo, CLICK HERE.

Worth repeating:

Anyone who can possibly believe that William Greer of the United States Secret Service shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (a man whom Greer swore to protect with his own life) is a person who is living in a dream world all his own.

Also See:
JFKLancer.com/greer.html

David Von Pein
February 2008
February 2012

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 3, 2008)

LET'S BE REASONABLE (PART 1)

2012-02-05T18:16:00.000-08:00

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

I must take issue with those who like to declare Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History' book as the definitive work that ends all the theories. .... Bugliosi's book is a real disappointment. It solves nothing. .... Bugliosi alleges that many of the conspiracy writers 'cherry pick' their witnesses and statements to support their conclusions. On this, he is right on.

And then he proceeds to do exactly what he castigates others for, cherry picking those who saw the Oswald lone gunman theory and discounting everyone who saw something different for one reason or another.

I was and still am in disbelief that a writer as talented as Vincent Bugliosi fell into such a trap of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, Bugliosi's book solves nothing, despite the constant desire of many to have it do so. I wish it had.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Vince should have probably worked for another 20 years in order
to please every conspiracy-loving crackpot who walks the Earth, huh?

The fact is, of course, for all intents and purposes, the JFK case was
"solved" the very weekend it occurred in November of 1963. The Dallas
Police Department and the Secret Service had gathered so much evidence
against the one man connected to the two Dallas murders (including the
slaying of Officer Tippit) that it probably made District Attorney
Henry Wade salivate just thinking about it.

So, in actuality, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" doesn't
"solve" the case, nor was it Vincent's intention for his book to
"solve" the actual crimes. Because, based on the hard evidence (sans
the speculation injected by the conspiracy kooks), the murders of
President Kennedy and Officer Tippit were "solved" long, long
ago....certainly well before Vince Bugliosi put pencil to paper and
began writing "Reclaiming History" in 1986.

The things that VB's comprehensive book do accomplish are just what VB
said he wanted the book to accomplish -- To "educate" people about the
truth surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy; and to "expose"
the CTers and their ridiculous theories for the sham that they
are. .....

"The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate
everyday Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. ....
And two, to expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the
abject worthlessness of all their allegations. I believe this book has
achieved both of these goals." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1461 of
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (c.2007)

==========

Hence, "Reclaiming History" is designed to "reclaim history" from the
conspiracy-lovers of the world. Which, in my opinion, it does....and
does very well.

As for "cherry picking" the evidence, or distorting things, etc. ---
That allegation being aimed at VB is pure hogwash. Vince has discussed
all of the major (and many of the minor) conspiracy theories in "RH".
Offhand, I cannot think of any theory that VB has ignored.

If Vince hasn't dealt with a certain theory or assassination sub-topic
deeply enough to satisfy a particular CTer or group of CTers....I can
only say: You can never please everybody (especially those who have
invested decades of their own existence peddling unsupportable and
unprovable JFK conspiracy theories since 1963).

So, even though Vince touches on virtually every silly little theory
imaginable within the 2,800+ total pages of "Reclaiming History"
(including the CD endnotes and source notes), many hard-boiled
CTers will never ever be satisfied. Because satisfying a rabid
conspiracy-hungry person cannot be done by anyone. Not by Vincent
Bugliosi, Jesus Christ, or anyone in-between.

But to a REASONABLE person turning the fact-filled pages of
"Reclaiming History", Vince Bugliosi's book does a very nice job of
knocking down the major conspiracy theories that have mushroomed
out of virtual nothingness since 11/22/63.

And many of those unsupportable theories which Vince destroys in "RH"
have been embraced as the unvarnished truth by many people around the
world, despite a complete lack of hard evidence to support such conspiracy-
flavored conjecture. John Armstrong's idiotic "Harvey And Lee" double-
Oswald theory being an excellent example. Armstrong's craziness is
demolished with heavy doses of common sense over the course of 15
endnote pages in "RH".

As far as Vince ignoring or "discounting" witnesses who claimed they
saw something that opposes the general lone-assassin scenario, I'll
have to disagree with that assessment of VB as well.

Bugliosi lays the opposing viewpoints out there, like the observations
of the Parkland doctors and S.M. Holland and Jean Hill and Gordon
Arnold and Ed Hoffman, etc.

But what Vince then does is to evaluate those witness observations
in the proper context (i.e., in the context of the SUM TOTAL of evidence
in the case). Plus, a whole lot of common sense is utilized when
evaluating this "sum total", and then Vince arrives at a conclusion
based on that sum total (with common sense inexorably attached,
which is very important too).

Yes, Vince always arrives at a "Lone Assassin" conclusion at the end
of such "sum total evaluation", but there's a very good reason for
that....and anyone who has examined the SUM TOTAL of this evidence
should know why that is the case.

An excellent example is this one:

The Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said they saw a large gaping
wound in the back of JFK's head vs. The Sum Total of Evidence.

The "Sum Total" in the above example (specifically) has to include, of
course, many other things besides just the "BOH" (back-of-the-head)
witnesses.

The "Where Was The Head Wound?" sum total of evidence includes all
of this stuff:

1.) The observations of the witnesses who saw JFK at Parkland Memorial
Hospital in Dallas (witnesses who were NOT, of course, responsible for
performing an autopsy on the dead President; nor were any of these
Parkland witnesses responsible for probing JFK's bullet wounds in
order to decide which ones were "entry" wounds and which ones served
as "exits").

2.) The observations of everyone at Bethesda Naval Hospital in
Maryland during JFK's autopsy.

3.) The autopsy photographs (verified as "authentic and unaltered" by
the HSCA in 1978).

4.) The autopsy X-rays (verified as "authentic and unaltered" by the
HSCA in 1978).

5.) The official autopsy report (signed by all three autopsists -- Humes,
Finck, and Boswell), which is a report that verifies the fact that President
Kennedy was killed as a result of "two perforating gunshot wounds" that
had originated "from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the
deceased".

6.) As an extension of #2 above, the extensive and very detailed
testimony of the three autopsy doctors needs to be evaluated
(including the testimony given by these doctors at various times over
the years -- including testimony or depositions given to the Warren
Commission, the HSCA, the ARRB, and at the Clay Shaw Trial in New
Orleans in 1969).

This testimony from the autopsists, in its entirety, certainly does
nothing to discredit or undermine the following paragraph which
appears in JFK's 1963 autopsy report -- "It is our opinion that the
deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted
by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased."

7.) The Zapruder Film. .... Studying the silent 26-second Z-Film can,
of course, be an exercise in subjectivism. But it's my opinion, and
obviously the opinion of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi as well, that Zapruder's
home movie shows nothing that would refute or disprove the overall
"lone assassin" conclusion with respect to John Kennedy's and John
Connally's injuries sustained on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

There are, of course, multiple "lone assassin"-favoring points on
Mr. Zapruder's famous color film, including grisly (but crucial) Frame
313, which depicts the President's head being pushed FORWARD at
the critical moment of the bullet's impact, indicating a shot from the
REAR, not from the front:

When a reasonable person evaluates all seven of the items above, is it
more reasonable to reach the conclusion that ONLY the people who
comprise #1 (and a few within my #2 item as well) were correct with
respect to JFK's head injuries?

If that IS the most reasonable conclusion to reach, then the people
who have reached such a conclusion must also think it's quite
reasonable to accuse many people of telling a series of lies for
decades on end regarding JFK's head injuries.

And if "#1" is the only way to go, then on top of the lies being told
by Humes, Finck, and Boswell (et al), I guess it would also be
"reasonable" to think that ALL of the various autopsy materials
(photos, X-rays, and the Final "two perforating gunshot wounds...fired
from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased"
Autopsy Report) were fake, phony, altered, or whatever.

Which then also means, if we're to believe the last paragraph I just
wrote is the "reasonable" way to go, we've got to place a lot more
people into the "liars" bin -- e.g., the four doctors who examined the
autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel in 1968....and all of
the experts on the photographic panel who examined the photos and X-
ray for the HSCA in the 1970s, with those HSCA experts arriving at the
following conclusion regarding those materials:

"The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and
X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's
consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations.
The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were
authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy
personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the
medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; 7 HSCA 39

==========

Via Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", the following words can be
found on the subject of photo fakery (and the logical common-sense
conclusion about the "BOH" witnesses is displayed by Bugliosi in the
last paragraph below):

"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president.

"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- VB; Pages 223-224 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes on CD)(c.2007)

==========

Another of my favorite passages from the pages of "Reclaiming
History":

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; ...treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB; Page xliii
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

==========

IN CLOSING:

If anyone chooses to disregard items #3 through #6 listed above, and
go with #1 and (partially) #2 as the definitive truth with respect to
President Kennedy's head wounds, I'd suggest taking another gander at
the logical pages of a book called "RECLAIMING HISTORY". It should set
you straight. (If you're "reasonable", that is.)

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 8, 2007)

LET'S BE REASONABLE (PART 2)

2012-02-05T18:15:00.000-08:00

ARE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS REASONABLE WHEN IT COMES TO THE SUM TOTAL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://Amazon.com/Let's Be Reasonable

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

>>> "Dear David, You are entitled to your opinions." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you. And isn't it funny how my "opinions" regarding Lee Harvey
Oswald's guilt are identical to the conclusions reached by BOTH of the
official investigations conducted by the U.S. Government?

Even the HSCA, a sham in some ways of course, knew that Oswald was
the only gunman to hit a victim in Dealey Plaza with a rifle bullet on
November 22, 1963. At least they got that bottom-line conclusion
right, and that's because they relied on the SUM TOTAL of the hard
evidence to determine that impossible-to-avoid conclusion.

It's just too bad that the HSCA didn't have a larger budget and a
little more time to work on the silly Dictabelt/4th Shot snafu. If they
had had more time to work on that problem (instead of rushing to
the opinion that the Dictabelt recording almost certainly did contain
the impulse sounds of four gunshots), then there's virtually no doubt
about what the final HSCA conclusion regarding the assassination would
have been -- it would have been a conclusion identical to that of the
Warren Commission's.

But, I guess we should merely disregard all of those many WC and HSCA
experts who were of the "opinion" that a CTer's favorite "patsy" (Lee
H. Oswald) was, indeed, the only person who shot John Kennedy, John
Connally, and J.D. Tippit in 1963.

Is that a "reasonable" thing to do (to ignore BOTH the Warren
Commission and the HSCA in this critical "Only Oswald's Bullets Hit
Any Victims" respect)?

If that is truly "reasonable", I can't help but shrug my shoulders
incessantly and ask the proverbial one-word question: Why?

>>> "Calling the very vivid descriptions of both the Parkland doctors and eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza to the head wound "slip of the tongue" is unconvincing." <<<

I never said that, of course. You're misrepresenting that Vince Bugliosi
quote from my last post. I inserted that quote at the end of my previous
message merely as a "bonus" VB hunk of brilliance. But that quote is
one where Vince is speaking in general terms about the conspiracy
kooks who have mangled virtually every last piece of evidence connected
with JFK's murder (and, incredibly, J.D. Tippit's murder too).

I was never implying that VB's "slip of the tongue" quote related
directly to the Parkland witnesses. I would have thought that would
have been obvious. But, I guess not.

>>> "If it was just one piece of evidence supporting the head wound from the front and several other supporting the rear headshot theory, I could understand the majority ruling the minority mistaken. But the fact is that a totality of the evidence vastly favors a frontal headshot." <<<

You evidently must have completely bypassed (or ignored) my "Sum Total
Of Evidence" section that I wrote regarding the "totality" of evidence
pertaining to the President's head wounds. Because I believe I covered
it all here.

The autopsy report clearly indicates that the President was positively
hit just ONE time in the head, and that bullet entered the President's
head FROM BEHIND, with the larger exit wound affecting "chiefly the
parietal bone" (right side/top of head).

Conspiracy theorists, therefore, have no choice -- they simply MUST
call Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck rotten, scheming liars when it
comes to JFK's final autopsy report, which can be read here (and it
forever dooms the theory of John F. Kennedy being hit by ANY bullets
from the front).

So, unless all three autopsists were telling quite a few lies in 1963
(and forever afterward too), then the CTers who favor a "frontal head
shot" are up a creek without a paddle. And almost all CTers do,
indeed, favor such a theory. (There's a desperate need for paddles in
the CT world, it would seem.)

With respect to the autopsy of President Kennedy and the Bethesda
doctors:

I don't really care if the three autopsy doctors had NEVER performed
an autopsy involving a gunshot victim in their collective lives prior
to 11/22/63....which is not true, of course, but even if had been
true, the bullet wounds that John Kennedy had in his head when he was
lying on that table at Bethesda were so obvious to figure out that a
third-grader in a grade school in Montana could have easily discerned
how many bullets hit JFK in the head and which wound was an entry
wound and which was an exit.

It really galls me when conspiracy promoters speak with what they
seemingly think is absolute AUTHORITY about President Kennedy's bullet
wounds, with those conspiracists boldly claiming (with no hard support
for doing so, of course) that JFK was positively struck in the head by
at least one bullet from the front (Grassy Knoll).

Such pure speculation flies in the face of the HARDEST EVIDENCE OF ALL
-- President Kennedy's official autopsy report, which was hand-signed
by three professional pathologists who physically had their hands on
the deceased President for several hours on 11/22/63.

To think that all three of those doctors would place their signatures
of approval on an ultra-important document like the autopsy report of
the President of the United States, all the while knowing that the
report they were each signing was nothing but a pack of lies, is just
too much to swallow. At least for me it's too much to swallow.

A whole bunch of conspiracy theorists worldwide have no trouble
believing that those doctors were all liars though. I wonder why that
is? It's the built-in "I Need A Conspiracy" mindset that infests many
people's brains, I would surmise....even though the autopsy report
that those CTers say is nothing but one big lie and fabrication is
BACKED UP by the autopsy pictures and X-rays too!

So the CTers now have no choice but to go even further down
the avenue marked "CT Absurdity" and insist that not only are
the three autopsists all liars and/or cover-up agents for the
evil U.S. Government, but the CTers now have to claim that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays are phony or fake or manipulated
as well.

It's either that, or those CTers have to climb into bed with a certain
Mr. David S. Lifton, who apparently is still clinging to the notion that
President Kennedy's dead body was stolen by a band of always-unknown
and forever-unnamed conspirators prior to the Bethesda autopsy, with
JFK's wounds miraculously getting themselves surgically altered by an
amazing team of very talented covert surgeons (also unnamed by Lifton,
of course, with the location of this delicate work also remaining
undisclosed), in order to hide the fact that JFK was shot from the front.

And just think...all of this underhanded cloak-and-dagger stuff could
have been avoided by merely having an assassin shoot the President
from the place where their so-called "patsy" (Mr. Oswald) was supposed
to be firing from (the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository).

Instead, the conspirators, per Lifton's 747 pages of utter nonsense,
decided to shoot JFK from the FRONT, which then makes it necessary to
alter the body of the President afterward, so that a lone patsy who
was located BEHIND the limousine can be blamed for the murder.

I doubt that The Cartoon Network would want to touch such a crazy
theory. But Lifton's book was a best-seller. Go figure the (il)logic
of that.

Back to the autopsy doctors for a moment longer:

Here's a quote from JFK's lead autopsist, Dr. James Joseph Humes (and
I guess, per many conspiracists, Humes was still maintaining his rotten
lie 28 years after the autopsy):

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing on Earth will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until the day I die.

"This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics...and it is foolproof -- absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy crowd have totally ignored this central scientific fact...and everything else is hogwash." -- James J. Humes; October 1991

>>> "Eyewitness after eyewitness testified to the head being blown backwards and the headshot coinciding with a shot from the grassy
knoll." <<<

I challenge you to name one single witness who said (on the weekend of
the assassination in November 1963) that they saw JFK's head move
physically BACKWARD immediately after the fatal shot. I doubt you'll
be able to find any such witnesses who specifically said that, even
via post-1963 interviews.

Now, I'm not saying that Kennedy's head DIDN'T really move "back and
to the left" (as Oliver Stone loves to say). The Zapruder Film, of course,
proves that the head of the President did move in such a manner just
after the fatal gunshot.

But I don't think that any witnesses (circa '63) stated their opinion
about the movement of JFK's head one way or the other. Not that I can
recall anyway.

In any event, any witness observations about the direction in which
the President's head moved are totally irrelevant anyway....because,
as mentioned, the Zapruder Film confirms this head movement for all
time on celluloid; so we certainly don't have to rely on witness
testimony to prove this fact.

But the key is the slow-motion clip from the Zapruder Film shown below,
which depicts the moment of the bullet's impact with JFK's head. The
President's head goes FORWARD at IMPACT, not rearward. This certainly
does not favor the bullet entering President Kennedy's skull from the
FRONT (or Grassy Knoll area):

And, of course, there's the evidence that trumps any and all
eyewitnesses -- the AUTOPSY REPORT, which confirms the fact
that John F. Kennedy was NOT SHOT IN THE HEAD FROM THE
FRONT. Period. [See Page 543 of the Warren Commission Report,
a portion of which is depicted below.]

>>> "To LNs, these [frontal head shot] witnesses were merely
mistaken." <<<

They were mistaken. It's either that (reasonable) conclusion, or
latching onto to the (unreasonable) conclusion that all three
autopsists were bald-faced liars who covered up the truth about the
death of an American President, plus the added extra (unreasonable)
belief that all of the autopsy pictures and X-rays are phony; which,
in turn, means you would need to go one step deeper into the CT
quicksand and also believe in the (unreasonable) conclusion that all
of the photographic experts who examined the autopsy pics and X-rays
for the Clark Panel and the House Select Committee were also liars and
cover-up agents of some ilk.

See how this snowballs into one unreasonable assertion after another?

Not to mention the additional unbelievable and unreasonable theory
that conspiracy kooks have no choice but to endorse....that being: all
of the unwanted bullets and bullet fragments from every "frontal"
gunshot that hit JFK and John Connally magically and immediately
DISAPPEARED off the face of the Earth after the assassination, leaving
behind only bullets and fragments large enough to be traced directly
to Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

Was this merely unbelievable (and unreasonable-to-expect) luck on the
part of the assassins? Or is it a conspiracy theory that's just plain silly?

I'll choose that latter option.

>>> "Other eyewitnesses had physical contact with the brain fragment itself. The two motorcycle cops riding behind the car were sprayed with brain fragment." <<<

Easily explained without resorting to the overall batch of unreasonableness
that most CTers love to resort to with glee. Police Officers Hargis and
Martin merely DROVE THROUGH the blood/brain cloud which was thrown
quite high into the air after Oswald's bullet struck President Kennedy's
head.

Plus: the wind was also blowing in such a manner that any such blood
cloud thrown into the air would most likely have blown such head
debris straight into the area where the two motorcycle officers were
located (which was to the left-rear bumper of JFK's limousine).

>>> "And Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the back of the car to grab a piece of his head." <<<

That's Conspiracy Myth #44, I believe. Jackie never even recalled
going to the trunk of the car after the horrible fatal shot hit her
husband. And the notion that Mrs. Kennedy would have had any DESIRE
whatsoever to climb out onto that trunk lid and grab a piece of grisly
brain tissue is just incredibly silly, IMO.

Jackie did turn over a piece of the President's brain to Dr. Pepper
Jenkins after arriving at Parkland Hospital, yes. But we know that
Jackie was also cradling JFK's head in her lap during the drive to the
hospital. And we also know that the First Lady was physically trying
to "hold his hair on".

It's very likely that Mrs. Kennedy acquired the piece of skull that she
handed to Jenkins during the ride to Parkland as she was physically
handling JFK's head in the back seat of the limousine.

In fact, Jackie's handling of JFK's head is part of the reason that I
believe the Parkland witnesses were mistaken about the true location
of the President's head wounds.

A probable (or at least possible) explanation for the observations of
the Parkland witnesses is that those witnesses were fooled by the
pooling of blood and gore, which was all (naturally) pooling at the
BACK of Kennedy's head as he was lying flat on his back in the
Emergency Room.

And it's also possible that Mrs. Kennedy's actions in the limo
resulted in the Parkland Hospital witnesses not seeing the hole in
the RIGHT-FRONT part of the President's head.

Jacqueline Kennedy testified that she was literally "trying to hold
his hair on and his skull on". It's quite possible, therefore, that
Jackie had placed the "hinged" flap of scalp (visible in the autopsy
photos shown below) back in its proper place on her husband's head
before the limousine arrived at Parkland, which is a possible reason
for why nobody at the hospital saw the actual exit wound in John
Kennedy's head.

In any event, no matter how you want to evaluate the witnesses, there
is absolutely no question at all as to how many times JFK was shot in
the head -- it was ONCE, and from behind. And via the BEST evidence
available (the autopsy report, the photographs and X-rays of JFK, and
the testimony of the three autopsy doctors), there is also no doubt at
all as to where on Kennedy's head the entrance and exit wounds were
located (a small entry wound in the back of the head and a large exit
wound above JFK's right ear).

No matter how many witnesses say otherwise, the above paragraph is the
OFFICIAL TRUTH of the matter concerning President John F. Kennedy's
fatal head wound.

>>> "So much for the brain fragment all going forward. To LNs, these witnesses were merely mistaken." <<<

Hargis and Martin weren't "mistaken" at all. They and their bikes
were, indeed, splattered with JFK's brains and blood. No question
about it. But that fact certainly doesn't ELIMINATE the best evidence
regarding JFK's wounds--that ever-present autopsy report that CTers
have no choice but to toss in the nearest trash bin whenever they
discuss the subject of the President's wounds, plus the autopsy photos
and X-rays (which are still more things that CTers think are not to be
believed).

And Mrs. Kennedy never even remembered going to the trunk of the
car at all [see the testimony below]. So how in the world a CTer can
use Jackie's "on the trunk" excursion to prop up any kind of "conspiracy"
at all is beyond me:

"There were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all." .... [Later in her testimony, Jackie repeats this:] ....
"I don't recall climbing out on the back of the car." -- Jacqueline Kennedy;
June 5, 1964 [5 H 180 and 5 H 181]

>>> "Numerous witnesses testified to a frontal shooting from the grassy knoll. To LNs, these witnesses were merely mistaken." <<<

Those witnesses almost certainly were mistaken, yes. And the key (IMO)
to knowing that they were, indeed, "mistaken" is the fact that virtually
all of those several "frontal shot" witnesses said that they heard ALL
of the gunshots coming from only ONE distinct location (the front)....
which, of course, is just flat-out wrong.

Because even CTers will acknowledge the fact that at least SOME shots
did come from the REAR. And there's no way that both Kennedy and
Connally got shot in their UPPER BACKS without at least one shot
coming from BEHIND the President's vehicle.

So, when we evaluate the earwitnesses in their "Sum Total", what do we
find? We find an amazingly low percentage of witnesses who said they
heard gunshots coming from MORE THAN JUST ONE SINGLE DIRECTION
(be it front or rear).

This indicates the high likelihood that the acoustical environment of
Dealey Plaza was playing some tricks on many of the witnesses' ears,
with Oswald's three Depository shots being perceived by some witnesses
as having ALL come from a point further WEST down Elm Street.

The excellent charts pictured below, authored by John McAdams,
demonstrate things quite nicely....and these charts do not add up to a
MULTI-DIRECTIONAL assassination in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

And the "Number Of Shots Heard" chart certainly doesn't do Oliver
Stone's 6-shot theory any favors, to be sure, with the huge majority of
witnesses favoring a "3 Shot" shooting event, which is quite strange,
indeed, if many of the CTers are correct about there being far more
than just three shots fired that day:

>>> "[Lee] Bowers saw two uniformed men and one speaking into a radio. .... IMO, Bowers' observations are supported by the fact that he is religiously misquoted by LNs." <<<

Lee Bowers has been treated as a rock-solid "pro-conspiracy" witness
by CTers for decades. But was he really and truly a good "conspiracy"
witness at all? The answer to that question, when evaluating this
particular Bowers-related "Sum Total" of the evidence, is: No.

Here's why.

I'll interject a few words from the logical mind of "Reclaiming
History" author Vincent Bugliosi here:

"With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a matter of a few moments.

"When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses were focusing their attention on the President of the United States driving by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination scene....it's remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought they saw and heard.

"Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the bullets which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front." -- Vince Bugliosi; July 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"

>>> "Numerous medical personnel at Parkland Hospital saw...one-third of the back of [JFK's] head blown out. They wrote vivid reports that day and detailed descriptions in their WC testimony. To LNs, these witnesses were merely mistaken. All coincidentally mistaken in the exact same way." <<<

See my previous remarks above. Or, go to THIS WEBPAGE (and also
check the "Blog Archive" on that page for lots more "BOH" talk, via
additional articles in my multi-part series entitled "The Back Of
President Kennedy's Head").

>>> "The Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds. The Bethesda doctors had NONE whatsoever." <<<

But Dr. Pierre Finck of the U.S. Army Medical Corps was called in to
be the third man at the autopsy for the specific reason that he was
more experienced with gunshot wounds.

So, to say that all of the doctors who attended JFK's post-mortem exam
at Bethesda had no experience with gunshot victims is just flat-out
incorrect. (But you might have been referring there to only the two
"Bethesda"-employed pathologists, Humes and Boswell.)

But, as mentioned previously, it doesn't really matter (to a large
degree) if the doctors at Bethesda had performed a large number of
autopsies on gunshot victims or not (IMO), because they were all
trained pathologists who could certainly tell the difference between a
(small) bullet entry hole and a (larger) exit wound in JFK's head.

And with Dr. Finck being called in to participate and observe the
majority of the autopsy, we can know for sure that there WAS, indeed,
at least one trained pathologist at that autopsy table who had ample
experience with bullet wounds and would instantly recognize the
differences between an exit wound for a bullet and an entrance wound.

And Dr. Finck signed that autopsy report too, remember. Here again is
a look at his signature, right next to the signatures of Dr. Humes and
Dr. Boswell (CE387; WCR, Pg. 543):

>>> "The Zapruder film clearly shows his head being blown backwards. Of course to LNs, this [is] merely an "optical illusion" and his head is blown forward." <<<

Huh?? Name one single "LNer" who doesn't think that JFK's head is
driven backward after the fatal head shot. You won't find a single
one, because no such LNer exists.

As talked about earlier in this book-length Internet message,
everybody (including all LNers) can SEE the President's head go
backward violently just after the head shot (AFTER the head moves
initially FORWARD a few inches, that is).

But, in the final analysis, President Kennedy's head could have spun
around 25 times after the fatal shot and it still wouldn't have made a
bit of difference....because the autopsy report and those pesky
pictures would still stand as the definitive and final word regarding
the President's injuries.

>>> "Interestingly, LNs have been claiming for years that yes, the head is blown backward but it is not due to a gunshot. It is due to the car speeding up." <<<

I thought you said just a second ago that LNers were of the opinion
that the backward head movement was merely an "optical illusion". Now
you're saying that LNers claim something different?? (Curious.)

Anyway....the car doesn't start to speed up until approximately a
couple of seconds after the fatal head shot. The limousine was in a
slow-down mode at the time of the fatal shot (possibly, but not
provably, due to driver William Greer's hesitation to want to continue
toward the highly-populated Triple Underpass bridge, which the car was
approaching).

But, again, the direction in which JFK's head moves is pretty much a
moot point altogether when the "Sum Total" of evidence in the "head
shot" regard is assessed logically and reasonably. (Which is a "sum
total" that is, of course, normally ignored or disregarded or
misrepresented by the majority of JFK conspiracy theorists.)

>>> "We are now presented with a major paradox -- the Parkland doctors saw one-third of the head blown out; the Bethesda doctors saw a 1-cm. hole. David Lifton's 'Best Evidence' is one of the most thorough investigations into this paradox." <<<

And the craziest, too. Don't forget to add that word ("crazy") into the
mix. Anyone who could even BEGIN to believe in Lifton's "body-altering"
insanity is ready for a rubber room.

More about David Lifton's bizarre fantasy HERE.

>>> "The conclusion I have come to is that the Bethesda doctors
lied." <<<

Being firmly rooted in "Conspiracy-ville", you have pretty much no
choice but to believe that all three of those pathologists were liars.
(Unless you want to be laughed at even more by joining Mr. Lifton's
merry band of followers.)

The only problem with your "They Were All Liars" theory is that it is
just not "Reasonable". Simple as that. It's not reasonable to think
that all of those people deliberately told one lie after another about
the most important autopsy any of them would ever perform in their
lives.

Plus: You've now got to go down the "Autopsy Photos Are Fake" path
too. And then, after travelling down that dark and murky path, you've
got to proceed down yet another conspiracy-tinged road, marked "The
HSCA Photo Experts Were All Rotten Liars Too".

So, with those last two theories (which are essential for you to
believe or else your first theory about the autopsy doctors all being
liars crumbles into a pile of dust), you've two more extraordinary and
wholly unreasonable things to embrace in order for John F. Kennedy to
have been shot from the Grassy Knoll.

See how incredibly silly-sounding this "frontal-shot conspiracy" gets
after a little while?

>>> "The strange circumstances surrounding the Bethesda autopsy also seem to point toward conspiracy." <<<

Huh??

>>> "...The illegal removal of the body from Dallas..." <<<

Interestingly, though, the Dallas D.A. Henry Wade had no problem at
all with allowing the body to go to Washington for the autopsy. Wade
even told Dallas Medical Examiner Earl Rose to let the President's
party take the body to Washington.

Wade didn't care. I wonder why so many CTers care about this? Probably
because it seems "shady", huh? But unless you're in bed with Lifton,
what difference does it really make WHERE the autopsy was performed?

Plus: In order to promote the idea that JFK's body was spirited away
from Dallas as part of a secretive and covert plot of some kind, you've
pretty much got no choice but to include the President's widow as one
of the main conspirators. Because Jackie is the person who made the
final decision to have the autopsy done at Bethesda.

Plus: JFK's good friend and aide Ken O'Donnell must also have a finger
of "covert" guilt pointed directly at him by CTers too....because
Kenny is the one who ultimately made the decision to remove JFK's body
from Dallas and to bulldoze the casket out of Parkland:

"Go fuck yourself! We're leaving! .... We're getting out of here. We don't give a damn what these laws say. We're not staying here three hours or three minutes!" -- Kenneth P. O'Donnell; At Parkland Hospital; 11/22/63

>>> "...The casket switching on Air Force One..." <<<

Only a total moron could begin to believe such a thing actually
happened. These words spoken by Dave Powers in 1987 are words that
(all by themselves) destroy Lifton's idiotic theory (I guess you'll
have to add Mr. Powers to your growing list of "liars"):

"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell went with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow [Lifton] said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." -- David F. Powers; June 1987

>>> "...And its later destruction." <<<

I guess you're talking about the Dallas casket's "destruction", correct?
Well, yes, that casket was destroyed (in a fashion)...it was dumped at
sea MORE THAN TWO YEARS after the assassination.

Is the disposal at sea of the Dallas coffin TWO-PLUS YEARS after the
assassination supposed to be "suspicious" in some way? If so, please
let me know HOW?

BTW, there are some interesting facts about that casket's watery
demise in "Reclaiming History" (on page 612 of the CD's endnotes).
Here's what that page reveals:

"On February 17, 1966, 42 holes were drilled through the casket, 3 sandbags weighing 80 pounds each were placed inside the casket, the lid was locked into place, and the casket was bound with metal banding tape.

"The casket was turned over to Department of Defense representatives early on the morning of February 18. .... At 10:00 a.m. that same day, the casket was dropped from a height of 500 feet from a C-130E cargo plane into the Atlantic Ocean in an isolated area off the coast near...the Maryland-Delaware border [into] 9,000 feet of water."

>>> "The circumstances surrounding the alleged autopsy photos also point toward alteration." <<<

Are you referring to body alteration or photo alteration? Well, either
way you're sunk. You're sunk by the more "reasonable" conclusions
regarding both the photos and the President's body itself, which are
conclusions that do not include the President's body being stolen off
of Air Force One or the photos of the dead President being altered in
some fishy fashion by picture-faking conspirators.

But, being entrenched deeply in CT-Land, you have little choice. You
MUST believe in all kinds of extraordinary and UNreasonable things in
order to support the notion that JFK was shot from multiple directions.

And if you wish to also believe that the "alleged" (LOL break) autopsy
photos have been faked in some way, as I mentioned previously, you've
got to totally ignore these words from the HSCA:

"The committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel." -- Volume VII; HSCA Report

>>> "The WC did not mark them [the autopsy photographs] as
evidence." <<<

Which was fully explained. Earl Warren and the rest of the Warren
Commission agreed that all exhibits that were marked would be
published in the supporting 26 volumes. But out of deference to the
Kennedy family, the Commission decided they did not wish to enter
the photos into evidence.

I've long said that this was a silly decision by the Commission.
Because some kind of middle ground could surely have been reached
regarding this key matter of the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

I don't know why the WC couldn't have looked at the photos (at their
leisure), with the simple stipulation that the pictures would not be
published for all the world to see. A forthright explanation could
easily have been placed in the text of the Warren Report, to the
effect:

"We, the Warren Commission and its counsel and staff, have had full and unrestricted access to President Kennedy's autopsy photographs and X-rays, and have studied these materials at length, but for reasons of good taste and due to restrictions placed on these autopsy materials imposed by the Kennedy family, the Commission has not published the autopsy photographs and X-rays in its final report or in any of the 26 supporting volumes of exhibits."

Why something like the above couldn't have been done is a total mystery
to me. ~shrug~

But, even without the autopsy pictures as part of the public record in
the Warren Commission volumes, where is this argument supposed to
go for CTers? Do conspiracy theorists think that if the Warren Commission
HAD published the pictures, those published photos would be DIFFERENT
from the ones we can find online right now? ~another shrug~

>>> "A shooting homicide investigation excluding the very autopsy photos is no investigation at all." <<<

I agree that the autopsy pictures should have definitely been made
available to the Warren Commission and its staff and counsel members.
I think it was crazy to use the Rydberg drawings in lieu of the real
photos.

But, even so, we DO now have the autopsy photos to examine....and
those pictures FULLY CORROBORATE the WC's final conclusions regarding
President Kennedy's wounds (i.e., only two bullets hit JFK, with both
of those shots coming from behind the President).

So, even though the WC didn't have full access to those autopsy
materials, it's really a moot point (in retrospect), because nothing
would have been different even if the Warren Commission had been given
access to those pictures. And the HSCA's conclusions regarding the
wounds sustained by John F. Kennedy PROVE that fact beyond all doubt.

How?

Because the HSCA DID look at the actual autopsy photos themselves, and
what did the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel conclude? -- Just like
the Warren Commission 15 years earlier, the HSCA's panel of physicians
concluded that "President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired
from behind him" (quote from the HSCA's Final Report; Page 3).

>>> "Dr. Cyril Wecht notes the hypocrisy of HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel in not dealing with the missing medical evidence. [Quoting Dr. Wecht:] "Somewhere between April of '65 and the end of October '66, these things were literally taken illegally--stolen--removed from the National Archives. But in this [JFK] case, the government hasn't been concerned. And my colleagues in forensic pathology were not concerned. And yet there's not one of them who would ever tolerate that kind of abhorrent, unacceptable, unethical, and immoral illegal procedure or policy in his own office. But in this case it just rolls off their back along with the acceptance of the single bullet theory and all the other things"." <<<

Dr. Wecht, of course, was talking there about how the brain of JFK
(among a few other things that had, like Kennedy's brain, already
fully served their purpose) disappeared from the Archives in 1965.

But Dr. Wecht also no doubt fully knows the very-likely-to-be-true
story behind the "Missing Brain". The President's brother, Robert F.
Kennedy, probably ordered the brain to be destroyed (along with some
archived tissue samples of JFK) in April of 1965, almost a year-and-a-
half after the assassination.

RFK probably did this to avoid the embarrassing situation from
cropping up in the future of having some gung-ho photographer or
reporter gaining access to his brother's brain (and tissue samples)
and taking pictures of those materials and then plastering them on
the front page of The National Enquirer (or some similar tabloid
newspaper).

What I'd like for a CTer to explain is this -- How is the destruction
of JFK's brain to be considered a truly sinister or conspiratorial act
of some kind when its disappearance occurred over a year AFTER that
brain had fully served its purpose to investigators and pathologists,
inasmuch as it was examined by the autopsy doctors, with every part of
that examination being duly noted within JFK's "Supplementary Autopsy
Report" (CE391)?

In other words, what additional post-autopsy function was the brain of
the dead President supposed to serve following that Supplementary
Autopsy Exam in 1963?

The CTers no doubt think that the brain would have revealed some dark,
conspiracy-favoring secret of some kind....and that's why it was
destroyed by RFK (or by somebody). But if that's the case, WHY WAIT
UNTIL APRIL OF 1965 to get rid of it?

Didn't the "plotters" who knew the brain held the "key" to the conspiracy
give a damn about having that brain available for further examination
between November 1963 and April 1965?

I guess that must have been the same careless and bumbling mindset
that was being exhibited by the plotters (per some CTers anyway) with
respect to the many witnesses that conspiracists think were "bumped
off" by the plotters after the assassination.

The henchmen in charge of "Getting Rid Of Pro-Conspiracy Witnesses"
sometimes waited many YEARS before getting around to knocking off
their prey, and many times only AFTER the witness had already talked
on the record about certain things that CTers think the "Mystery Death
Goon Squad" would have wanted kept quiet. But why kill a person only
AFTER they had already spilled any beans they had to spill?

Lee Bowers being a perfect example of this idiocy. Many CTers think
Bowers was bumped off in a 1966 car crash by the Death Squad. But
Bowers had not only talked to the Warren Commission by the time of his
1966 death, he had also talked to Mark Lane for Lane's book "Rush To
Judgment"; and Bowers had even been FILMED by Lane talking about what
he saw on the day of JFK's assassination!

Did the Goon Squad think that Mark Lane's filmed interview with Lee
Bowers would somehow suddenly disappear when they killed Bowers?

>>> "All of your posts cite John McAdams. However...McAdams is such a compulsive liar, it is impossible to tell where the truth begins at all." <<<

Oh goodie! Somebody else for a conspiracy kook to label as a "liar".
Wonderful. (The Pope is probably the next person to be added to the
ever-growing Liars List by conspiracy theorists.)

>>> "It is dangerous to put too much stock in any one author, because if he has been misleading, you will find yourself very lost." <<<

You'd better stop listening to a man named Lifton then. Because if
there was ever a "lost" man...it's probably him.

>>> "Hear a multitude of arguments, but trust no one. No LN or CT (including me). Do your own thinking and form your own conclusions based on facts you have researched yourself." <<<

I've done that. And the conspiracy-oriented arguments (and the many
pro-conspiracy authors) cannot hold a candle to Vincent T. Bugliosi and
"Reclaiming History".

And yes, I do, indeed, "trust" Mr. Bugliosi. Call me a fool for actually
trusting somebody, but that's the way it is. ;)

It's that "SUM TOTAL" of evidence that gets lost (or ignored) by
conspiracy theorists, in my opinion. Too bad too, because that "sum
total" is not spelling out "multi-gun conspiracy".

Instead, it's spelling out exactly what the physical evidence shows --
Lee Harvey Oswald (probably alone) murdered President John F. Kennedy
with Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on November 22, 1963.

=====================================================

I'll conclude this lengthy message with an appropriate "Bugliosi Blast"
(with all of these VB quotes coming from the 36-page "Introduction" that
can be found in Mr. Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History"):

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.

"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.

"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VB

~~~~~~~~

"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting theories." -- VB

~~~~~~~~

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- VB

~~~~~~~~

"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion.

"But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the official version is wrong." -- VB

=====================================================

David Von Pein
December 2007
July 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 10, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 133)

2012-02-04T23:59:00.000-08:00

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "A New Perspective on the Shots That Killed The President. .... Shot #1. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 188. Hit Kennedy in back around 190, fell out in limousine. (Possibly a hand-loaded bullet.) From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above scenario totally ignores the fact that the oak tree was
obscuring the view of any assassin in the 6th-Floor southeast corner
window at precisely Z188. (And I assume that Mr. Speer is talking
about the "Sniper's Nest" window above when he says "sixth floor
window of the TSBD", and not a different window on the 6th Floor of
that building.)

Among other things, the oak tree snafu is one of the main reasons I
disagree strongly with the HSCA's conclusion that JFK and John
Connally were struck by the SBT shot at approx. Z-Film frame 190.

The Warren Commission's May 1964 exacting tests and reconstructions of
the shooting and the trajectory from Oswald's sixth-floor window
indicated (and are so noted in plain English on Page 98 of the WCR)
that the oak tree totally blocked a shooter's view of the passing
limousine at Z188 and all following Z-Film frames until Z210, with the
exception of Z186 (which is why author Mark Fuhrman uses that exact
frame for his version of the first shot fired by Oswald, via his
incorrect anti-SBT/Lone Assassin scenario purported in his 2006 book,
"A Simple Act Of Murder").

Z188, according to the only official report available on this precise
timeline issue (the Warren Report), was not a viable shooting frame
for Oswald (or anyone else whom a CTer wants to invent as having fired
the shots from the TSBD in lieu of the man who so obviously did fire
them--Lee Harvey Oswald).

You should have sided with Mr. Fuhrman's timeline, Pat, and used Z186.
It would have been better for your theory. Unless you want to think
that a gunman just went ahead and fired through the tree at Z188
anyway, and got lucky (somehow) when the passing bullet went right
through the tree branches and managed to hit the target of JFK's body
anyhow, despite the foliage being in the bullet's path.

Although, to be fair, Mr. Speer does say, per his above-referenced
article, that he thinks Z188 was the "approximate firing time" for
shot #1. And since Z186 is only two-eighteenths of a second away from
Z188, I guess he can always fall back on that word, "approximate".

And, to be honest, I've fallen back on that same word on several
occasions too when discussing various aspects of the JFK case --
aspects that can only be reasonably assessed by prefacing the
discussion with that word "approximate", since certain variables will
forever be unknowns as far as being able to nail down some things to
the Nth degree or to the exact square inch; e.g., the precise
positioning of victims John Kennedy and John Connally in the limousine
at the exact instant each man was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald's single
bullet (CE399).

>>> "Shot or shots #2. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 222. Hit Kennedy in hairline at frame 224, exited his throat. Connally wounded in his chest, wrist, and thigh. Wounds seem instantaneous, but most probably came from separate bullets fired from an automatic weapon. From: most likely the upper floors of the Dal-Tex Building." <<<

Of course the above is nothing but pure outright conjecture coming
from a conspiracy theorist bent on trashing the official version (ANY
"official" version) of how the two victims were really wounded on
November 22, 1963.

The above silliness authored by Patrick (involving a make-believe
bullet that struck President Kennedy at the "hairline") totally
ignores, of course, Page #117 of the Warren Commission Report and
Page #43 of the HSCA Report and the Autopsy Report signed by all
three autopsists, which all declare that JFK was struck by ONLY TWO
BULLETS. Not three and not any other number except TWO.

But CTers who like to invent their own brand of "evidence" and
disappearing bullets and made-up-from-whole-cloth wounds on President
Kennedy's body will, naturally, not have a desire to stick with the
facts that were arrived at by such uninformed, fly-by-night people and
organizations such as the Warren Commission, the House Select
Committee on Assassinations, and the three autopsy doctors who had
their hands on the dead President in November 1963.

Right, Patrick?

>>> "Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311. Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core may have continued on to cause the wound to Tague around 319. From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD." <<<

This is a new one! A CTer has the fatal head shot coming from the
correct place (Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window in the Book Depository),
but the CTer has the bullet (somehow) striking President Kennedy "near
the temple", instead of the entry point for the bullet being where it
positively was located--in the BACK of JFK's head!

Now THAT sure sounds like a "magic" head-shot bullet to me.

>>> "Sound or Shot #4. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 320-327. Missed or possibly not even a shot. Quite possibly a loud firecracker used as a diversion device. From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards." <<<

More pure CTer speculation, being based on the reactions of a few
(very few) confused and terrified witnesses in Dealey Plaza.

The sum total of all the evidence is that Shot #3 from Lee Harvey
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (the fatal head shot) was the last
gunshot fired or the last loud gunshot-like noise heard by the vast
majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

Even the HSCA's since-destroyed "4th Shot" scenario based on the
Dictabelt police radio tape has the head shot being the last shot
fired (among the 4 shots included in that now-debunked two-assassin
theory).

>>> "Harold Norman's statements, so often used to prove that Oswald was the lone assassin, not only reflected that Kennedy was hit by the
first shot, but that only two shells dropped to the floor in the firing sequence." <<<

Via Harold Norman's session on the witness stand in London, England, in
1986, during the television docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald",
Mr. Norman can be heard saying the following things:

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"

HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired directly above you?"

NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming from directly above you?"

NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"

NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle being pushed back and forward."

BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"

NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"

NORMAN -- "Cartridges."

BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"

NORMAN -- "Three."

BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"

NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of the assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book Depository Building?"

NORMAN -- "No sir."

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 3, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 132)

2012-02-04T23:22:00.000-08:00

http://Amazon.com

http://PatSpeer.com

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "Guaranteed fact: Vincent Bugliosi will never debate me on this stuff. He's been challenged elsewhere and said he was too busy writing a new book to discuss the case any further. I call that cutting-and-running." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I would call it not wanting to waste one's time on some conspiracy theorist's unsupportable anti-SBT theory.

Another "guaranteed fact":

The conspiracy theorists will never ever come up with a scenario that comes anywhere close to matching the Single-Bullet Theory in every important category (if you can even get a CTer to spell out their theory on a bullet-by-bullet basis, that is, which rarely occurs, because when it does, the conspiracist is laughed out of town, due to the absurdity of their miraculous bullet-disappearing conspiracy-slanted conjecture that has multiple bullets behaving in ways that so closely mimicked Mannlicher-Carcano Bullet #CE399 that every official U.S. Government investigation was fooled into thinking these multiple bullets that riddled the victims full of holes could be reconciled into the SBT).

But instead of accepting the obvious (i.e., the SBT) as a fact, CTers like Pat Speer will go to great lengths and write thousands upon thousands of words on Internet websites attempting to discredit a rock-solid fact (the SBT).

Go figure.

VB Instant Replay (deservedly so):

"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

==========================

Bonus VB-isms:

"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet [CE399] was found on, Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found on Connally's stretcher." -- Page 431 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

~~~~~~

"We can have all the confidence in the world, by an examination of the physical evidence and the utilization of common sense, that [a single bullet wounded both JFK and Governor Connally]. When you can establish the single-bullet theory by reference to evidence other than the [Zapruder] film, you necessarily know that the film itself cannot, by definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before we even look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise." -- Pages 457-458 of "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein
February 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (FEBRUARY 1, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 131)

2012-02-04T00:51:00.000-08:00

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I love getting conspiracy theorist Rob Caprio all wound up. It's fun seeing the kookshit streaming from his keyboard like water over Niagara.

Let me just highlight the choice tidbits of utter insanity written by Robert Caprio, culled from this Usenet newsgroup message dated January 30th, 2008. These tidbits should be sent to Ripley's Museum, to be placed in the display case marked "Did that kook actually have the gonads to utter this shit?":

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "You have NO evidence or proof." <<<

DVP SAID:

LOL right off the bat. I'm sure Rob will only get funnier. Let's see.

>>> "Prove it. .... You have NO proof or evidence. I have to keep reminding all the readers out there of this simple fact." <<<

Yep. Even funnier indeed.

>>> "Your long-winded posts NEVER have ANY real evidence in
them!" <<<

And as we all know by now, only people who believe in a JFK "conspiracy" have any "real evidence". Right, Robert C.?

>>> "Prove it was [Lee Harvey Oswald's] gun! I have seen NO proof from you or the WC." <<<

That's probably because you're an "Anybody But Oswald" idiot. (Ya think?)

>>> "IF [Oswald] ordered a rifle at all, and this is highly suspect, it was a 36-inch rifle, yet they found a 40.2-inch rifle!!" <<<

I think it's quite possible that Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago didn't always mail the EXACT rifle that was ordered via their various magazine ads to the customer. It's quite possible that on occasion they had to substitute slightly-different models for the ones pictured in the advertisements.

I believe this might have been the case with Lee Harvey Oswald's order for his "Italian Carbine". The ad said one dimension for the rifle, but Klein's sent a slightly-different version of the gun.

If I recall correctly, I also think that other researchers looking into this matter have said that Klein's was, indeed, running low on their stock of 36-inch Carcanos at about the time of Oswald's order in March.

So it seems reasonable to think that it's quite possible that Klein's just simply ran out of the 36-inch version of the weapon and sent LHO a 40-inch model instead. Klein's definitely did carry and sell BOTH a 36-inch Carcano rifle and a 40-inch MC variant during the calendar year of 1963.

In any case, it's quite obvious that Lee Oswald (using his alias "A. Hidell") WAS indeed shipped a Model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano Italian carbine (i.e., rifle) in March of '63 by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois.

But, evidently, to a suspicious "ABO" kook like Robby, this slight 4-inch discrepancy in the rifle length MUST mean that Oswald received NO RIFLE AT ALL from Klein's in March 1963.

Go figure kooks.

>>> "Why NO prints of [Oswald's] on the rifle?" <<<

There were prints of Ozzie's on the rifle. But you just want to dismiss this evidence. Like always.

But the fact that you dismiss the LHO palmprint doesn't mean it wasn't found by J.C. Day and appropriately preserved...because it was. Your denials regarding this evidence couldn't possibly matter less.

>>> "There is NO proof LHO ever owned [Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766]." <<<

There's tons of proof that LHO owned Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766. Your denials regarding this evidence couldn't possibly matter less.

>>> "The ID of LHO for the J.D. Tippit murder was a joke." <<<

Yeah, we LNers could only prove LHO guilty of that murder if there had been 14 different witnesses in the area. Instead, we LNers have only got 13 (or pert-near that number, counting the Patton Ave. people).

Damn! One shy of the kook requirement!

And Oswald's guilt could only be proven (ballistically) if we had FIVE bullet shells linked conclusively to LHO's revolver. Instead, we've only got four (sad to say).

Again, one item short of the "LHO Did It" Promised Land!

>>> "You've got nothing." <<<

Don't you ever get tired of revealing your ignorance in public? You'd think you would, especially after three-plus months of your kind of tripe. But, I guess not. Continue, kook....

>>> "You LNers amaze me each day with your naiveness." <<<

CTers are amazed by the strangest things, aren't they?

>>> "[David Von Pein] believes in sending people to the gas chamber with NO proof; and [per DVP's spot-on accurate appraisal] I'm the kook. Go figure." <<<

I would have preferred the hangman's noose or the firing squad for Oswald. Gas would have been too dignified for his double-murdering ass.

>>> "I'm well aware of the evidence. The killer used an automatic pistol [to plug J.D. Tippit]. He then pulled out a standard revolver and made a show of throwing shell casings out into the air to be seen." <<<

Another LOL moment here I see. Don't ya just love it when a kook decides ON HIS OWN what the real evidence in a murder case is going to be? Pa-thet-ic.

>>> "The problem for the WC, and clueless people like you, is the [Tippit] shells were from a standard .38 pistol, yet LHO's was refitted and was .38 special." <<<

More ignorance (or lies) from Robby-boy here. None of the four shells found at 10th and Patton on 11/22/63 were "Standard" shells. They were all clearly marked "38 Special". [See 7 HSCA 408, Figure 36C.]

Why you think otherwise is a mystery. But, then too, most CTers like you have a unique way of mangling the verified evidence so that it appears to be exactly the opposite from the truth.

Your "pathetic" stature grows with each passing lie/misrepresentation that comes out of your mouth.

>>> "Neither [Barbara Davis nor Virginia Davis] ID'd LHO." <<<

Right on cue. Another outright falsity. In fact, this might be your most blatant lie to date.

Back to the actual facts now:

BOTH Davis girls (Barbara and Virginia) positively identified the man they saw dumping bullet shells in their yard as Lee Harvey Oswald....and any halfwit knows this.

But somehow Rob doesn't seem to be aware of this most basic of facts.

~shrug~

>>> "The key here is they [Barbara and Virginia Davis] saw a "man", they never said LHO." <<<

More lies--or ignorance--from our resident nuthatch. I wonder why Robert just doesn't read the Warren Commission witness transcripts of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis to see what they each said?

Even though he'll toss every last sentence within those transcripts out the window (because a kook can never take the WC and its witnesses at face value), Rob can prove to himself that his last idiotic declaration ("THEY NEVER SAID LHO") is a bald-face lie.

Even the 11/22/63 affidavits filled out and signed under oath by Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis indicate it was Oswald, for Pete sake. (Both affidavits say "the #2 man" in the police line-up, that is. And who was that "#2 man" in the line-up? Lee Harvey Oswald. That's who.)

And then there's this from Virginia Davis' 1964 Warren Commission session:

VIRGINIA DAVIS -- "The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit."

And this via Barbara Davis' WC testimony:

JOE BALL -- "Did you recognize anyone in that room?"

BARBARA DAVIS -- "Yes, sir. I recognized number 2. .... I thought number 2 was the man that I saw." ....

BALL -- "By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?"

DAVIS -- "Unloading the gun."

BALL -- "And going across your yard?"

DAVIS -- "Yes, sir."

>>> "Where do they say LHO was the "man" they saw? I must have missed it." <<<

You miss a lot of things. (I think your brain is in Tulsa someplace. Better check the lost-and-found there.)

>>> "Only one person [Helen Markham] would testify she ID'd LHO [as Tippit's killer]." <<<

Only if you want to toss out (because you're a kook) the positive "Oswald IDs" made by Scoggins, Davis, Davis, Callaway, Guinyard, Patterson, and Brock [among others].

Any particular reason why those seven positive IDs of LHO need to be trashed (other than the fact you're a freakin' moron and an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy clown)?

>>> "None beyond Markham ever say under oath it was LHO they
saw." <<<

Bullshit. I'll again remind the kook of these words spoken by Virginia Davis (via her under-oath WC testimony) --- "The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit".

Let me guess -- Virginia doesn't count. Right, kook?

>>> "In fact, several say they don't remember Markham being there at the time of the shooting!!" <<<

Great. Now the kook is going to try to argue that Helen Markham wasn't even AT the Tippit murder scene.

Lovely. But typical Kook Think.

>>> "NOT one witness positively ID'd LHO as the shooter of JDT,
period." <<<

I love it when a kook gives me several openings within the very same forum post with which to expose his astounding idiocy concerning the basic facts of the case:

"The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit." -- Virginia Davis; Warren Commission Testimony; April 2, 1964

Let me guess -- Virginia's testimony doesn't count. Right, Robby? She didn't actually SEE Oswald pulling the trigger and killing Officer Tippit; therefore, I suppose (per your basic rules of insanity/conspiracy), we're forced to think that Oswald really DIDN'T shoot Tippit; he was merely in the area with a gun and was unloading that gun immediately after somebody ELSE murdered the policeman. Right, Mr. Kook?

>>> "NO ONE counts entrance and exit wounds as separate wounds, Einstein." <<<

Roy Kellerman did, Einstein. That's obvious.

Why is it obvious?

Because John F. Kennedy DID, indeed, have just "four wounds" (i.e., bullet holes) in his body. And two of those holes were determined at autopsy to positively be EXIT holes for the bullets that entered on the other side of those exits.

REPLAY (JUST FOR THE LAUGHS):

>>> "NO ONE counts entrance and exit wounds as separate wounds." <<<

So, do you now want to purport that Kennedy was hit by FOUR bullets? Is that it, Einstein? And zero of these four missiles exited his body at all? No "exit" holes were present on JFK's body whatsoever? Is that correct?

Or do you want to believe that JFK had many additional holes in his body from these four bullets that hit him? But, somehow, these extra holes just didn't show up in the photographs and were never reported (or were just missed) by the three autopsists at Bethesda?

Maybe the X-rays of JFK somehow managed to completely miss the FOUR bullets that went into President Kennedy and failed to exit, huh?

Or maybe the X-rays were all fakes?

Or maybe Humes, et al, were all liars?

(Go with those latter two choices, Rob. Being a kook, you no doubt shall.)

>>> "A phony call went out over the police radio calling everyone to the Marsalis library for a possible suspect." <<<

Oh goodie! Something else that's considered "phony" by a conspiracy nut.

As my very able and astute LN cohort Bud likes to say on occasion (paraphrasing here) --- What could possibly matter less than the unsupportable opinions of a conspiracy-loving kook?

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 31, 2008)

THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

2012-02-02T23:20:00.000-08:00

CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT THE EVIDENCE IS SCREAMING THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome
was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.

A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical
evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
murderer of America's 35th President.

And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
opposite conclusion (as many conspiracy theorists have done with
respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
logic and reasoned thinking.

Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation
leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.

I was thinking recently about the following quote by
author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
variety).....

"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent
of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi

.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
personal "reasonable doubt")......

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
contents of this package to a co-worker.*

* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:

A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination.

B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
PM on the afternoon of the assassination.

A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63.

Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
a doubt.**

** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
Oswald's guilt.)

Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing
out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).

But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
can do or say to change that basic of all facts.

The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
pro-conspiracy arguments become.

David Von Pein
January 2006

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (APRIL 25, 2006)

SIX INTERVIEWS WITH DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY ON NOVEMBER 22 & 23, 1963

2012-02-02T13:49:00.000-08:00

DALLAS POLICE RADIO TAPES FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963

2012-02-02T00:54:00.000-08:00

AIRCRAFT RADIO TRANSMISSIONS FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (2.5-HOUR VERSION NOW AVAILABLE)

2012-02-01T00:03:00.000-08:00

EXCERPTS:

===============================

RELATED MATERIAL:

WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD "DOORWAY MAN"?

2012-02-01T00:02:00.000-08:00

JAMES H. FETZER SAID:

David Von Pein is well-known to students of JFK as a zealous defender of the "lone nut" theory, which has been debunked on virtually every count. Since [Dallas Police Captain J. Will] Fritz' notes show that Oswald told him he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", where Fritz was the homicide detective who was interrogating him, we know that the suggestions we are receiving from other sources are less reliable and highly misleading. .... What becomes important in sorting out what happened to JFK is not the enormous quantity of "proof" that supports the "official account" of the assassination, but the evidence, like Fritz' notes, that undermine it. .... That Pein [sic] is here shows their efforts to subvert the truth endure to this day.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The fact that Jim Fetzer is silly enough to resurrect the long-ago debunked "Oswald Was On The Steps" hogwash should be enough, all by itself, to indicate to any reasonable person that Professor Fetzer will latch onto ANY theory in order to perpetuate the myth that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of assassinating President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

And it doesn't seem to matter what theory it is either. Even a theory such as the stale and thoroughly defeated "Oswald Was Doorway Man" theory isn't TOO stale or TOO defeated for the likes of Professor Fetzer. Just as long as Jim can find a way to keep Saint Oswald's skirts clean and tidy, he's willing to do it.

And Mr. Fetzer is apparently silly enough to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF (the innocent "patsy", according to Fetzer) would lie to the press
in the corridors of Dallas City Hall concerning his exact whereabouts at the time of JFK's murder. Because just a few seconds before uttering his famous
"I'm just a patsy" lie, Oswald told the press that he was INSIDE the Texas School Book Depository Building--not outside on the steps--at the exact time JFK was being murdered on Elm Street:

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

The above statement made to the press by Lee Oswald ("Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir"), all by itself, pretty much destroys the theory that Oswald was standing on the Depository steps at 12:30 PM on November 22nd.

I guess Jim Fetzer must think that Oswald really meant to say: "No sir, I wasn't inside the building at 12:30; I was standing on the steps in front of the building with a lot of my fellow Depository employees, including Buell Wesley Frazier, when JFK was shot."

Plus, on numerous other occasions on November 22 and 23, Oswald had the perfect opportunity to shout these words to the world -- "I WAS STANDING IN THE DEPOSITORY DOORWAY AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING!"

Several times during that weekend, Oswald had a microphone shoved in his face by the press. He could have shouted out the above words to the waiting world--on live television--if he had wanted to do so, and the Dallas Police couldn't have done anything to stop him.

So the common belief among conspiracy theorists that the Dallas Police Department wasn't being completely truthful about the things Lee Oswald told them behind closed doors won't fly in this particular instance, because Oswald had plenty of chances to shout out anything he wanted to say to the reporters in the hallway that weekend. And yet he never once told the press that he had an ironclad alibi (standing on the TSBD steps) when JFK was being killed.

Maybe Professor Fetzer thinks Oswald was framing HIMSELF for President Kennedy's murder when he remained totally silent about his foolproof "I WAS ON THE STEPS" alibi.

Regarding Will Fritz' Notes:

Jim Fetzer and other conspiracy theorists have attempted to utilize the sketchy notes of DPD Captain J. Will Fritz to suggest that the words "out with Bill Shelley in front", which appear on Page 1 of Captain Fritz' original handwritten notes (see link below), mean that Oswald told Fritz that he was standing on the steps of the Book Depository at the time JFK was being assassinated.

But those notes don't mean any such thing. What the notes very likely mean is that Oswald told Fritz that he (Oswald) went outside AFTER the assassination had already taken place and had seen Bill Shelley "in front" of the building at that time.

How can we know that the above scenario is likely the correct one regarding Fritz' notes? Because of the chronology of the notes themselves. The "out with Bill Shelley in front" note comes AFTER Fritz had already written these other notes:

"claims 2nd floor Coke when off [Officer Marrion Baker] came in" and "to 1st floor had lunch".

And then, the very next thing Fritz wrote is: "out with Bill Shelley in front".

It seems pretty clear that Captain Fritz was generally following a chronological pattern in those notes when it came to the portions of the notes that refer to the time of the assassination itself and the moments just before and just after the assassination. Fritz made a note about Oswald seeing Officer Baker BEFORE he ever mentions anything about "lunch" or "out with Bill Shelley in front".

So, in my opinion, it's reasonable to conclude that the reference in Captain Fritz' notes to "out with Bill Shelley in front" is referring to a point in time AFTER the assassination occurred--not the exact time of the assassination itself.

Fritz' Notes:
http://JFKLancer.com/Fritz

Also:

Book Depository employee Billy Lovelady must have been a liar, per James Fetzer, because during Lovelady's testimony in front of the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964, Lovelady drew an arrow, pointing to himself, in Commission Exhibit No. 369 (pictured below).

Therefore, Lovelady himself--the very person who was on the TSBD steps and whom Fetzer wants to believe is really Lee Harvey Oswald--told the world "That's me [Lovelady] on those steps in the James Altgens picture; therefore, it can't be Lee Harvey Oswald."

The above isn't a direct quote from Lovelady's lips, quite obviously, but it might just as well be, because when Lovelady drew that arrow to himself in CE369, he was also, in essence, uttering the words I just put in quotation marks above.

And there is also Buell Wesley Frazier's "testimony" during the 1986 television docu-trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", when Frazier verified that "Doorway Man" was Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald. (Go to 8:25 in the video below.)

Conspiracists like James H. Fetzer, who never met up with a conspiracy theory they didn't fall in love with (especially in the JFK case), are an embarrassment to any serious student of the JFK assassination.

Here's yet another example (among hundreds) to illustrate just how big a kook Professor Fetzer has become when it comes to the JFK case:

Jim Fetzer actually had the gonads to say (without a lick of supporting physical evidence to back this up, of course) that President Kennedy was struck by FOUR separate bullets on 11/22/63 and that Governor Connally was hit by as many as THREE additional different bullets.

That's SEVEN separate bullets that Fetzer thinks hit the two victims in the Presidential limousine on November 22, 1963. Seven!

That's the kind of over-the-top, unsupportable disinformation and pure conjecture that James H. Fetzer wants people to believe is the truth relating to John F. Kennedy's murder.

And those seven bullets don't even take into account the number of shots/bullets that Fetzer thinks totally missed JFK's car. Pretty soon Jim will probably be challenging Robert Groden's 15-shot record.

And, speaking of Mr. Groden, it's very likely that Groden will be able to convince the easily-duped Mr. Fetzer into believing that Oswald was really on the second floor of the Depository, getting money for a Coke, when JFK was being killed (which is apparently a claim that Groden is going to make in his next proposed book, "JFK: Absolute Proof").

But, like Fetzer and other conspiracists, I doubt that Groden has ever even wondered why Oswald never shouted to the world on live television the fact that he was on the second floor, right next to a woman who could have been used as his ironclad alibi, at the time when shots were being fired at John F. Kennedy.

And to think that Mr. Fetzer had the pot-kettle gall to say this to me in 2010:

"None of this is rocket science, but it requires applied intelligence and serious study to work though the "smoke and mirrors" that those like Arlen Specter and Dave Von Pein have been trading in for all of these years. What disturbs me is not that they are willing to place politics before truth but that so many students of JFK continue to be willing to contemplate the possibility of a "magic bullet" or that the backyard photographs are genuine or that the Zapruder film is authentic--even to this very day!" -- James H. Fetzer; November 26, 2010

Unbelievable.

Jim Fetzer, a person who has simply invented from whole cloth FIVE additional bullets that he claims struck John Kennedy and John Connally (above and beyond the total number of 2 bullets that really did hit those men in Dealey Plaza), is accusing me of utilizing "smoke and mirrors" when I discuss the evidence in the JFK assassination. Incredible.

When reading the tripe penned by Professor James H. Fetzer, I don't know whether to laugh or vomit. It's a tough choice.

David Von Pein
January 29, 2012

==================================

ADDENDUMS:

Excerpt From The Warren Commission Report:

"In evaluating the evidence that [Lee Harvey] Oswald was at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, the Commission has considered the allegation that Oswald was photographed standing in front of the building when the shots were fired.

The picture which gave rise to these allegations was taken by Associated Press Photographer James W. Altgens, who was standing on the south side of Elm Street between the Triple Underpass and the Depository Building.

As the motorcade started its descent down Elm Street, Altgens snapped a picture of the Presidential limousine with the entrance to the Depository Building in the background. Just before snapping the picture Altgens heard a noise which sounded like the popping of a firecracker. Investigation has established that Altgens’ picture was taken approximately 2 seconds after the firing of the shot which entered the back of the President’s neck.

In the background of this picture were several employees watching the parade from the steps of the Depository Building. One of these employees was alleged to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Commission has determined that the employee was in fact Billy Nolan Lovelady, who identified himself in the picture [see 6 H 338 and 6 H 339]. Standing alongside him were Buell Wesley Frazier and William Shelley, who also identified Lovelady. The Commission is satisfied that Oswald does not appear in this photograph. (See Commission Exhibit No. 900, p. 113.)"

-- Warren Commission Report; Page 147 and Page 149

---------------------------------------------

Excerpt From The HSCA Final Report:

"Lovelady or Oswald? -- It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the President's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the depository. Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President.

The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. Critics have challenged that conclusion, charging that Commission members did not personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission.

The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day.

Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady.

Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady. The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph."

-- House Select Committee on Assassinations Final Report; Page 58

---------------------------------------------

==================================

LEE HARVEY OSWALD HAS BEEN SHOT!

2012-02-01T00:01:00.000-08:00

Television and radio coverage of the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald
in Dallas, Texas, on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963:

IKE PAPPAS' AMAZING LIVE COVERAGE
OF OSWALD'S MURDER FOR NEW YORK
RADIO STATION WNEW:

KRLD-TV'S RAW FOOTAGE OF LEE OSWALD BEING SHOT BY JACK RUBY:

THE BACK OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD (PART 20)

2012-01-31T23:58:00.027-08:00

CHRIS SAID:

>>> "You mention the BOH. What do you think is the case in autopsy photo BE2 (top of head), which also shows the BOH with brains hanging down over it? Are the large glob of brains coming out of a tiny 1/4-inch hole? Or what?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't be serious with this crap, can you Chris?

The "BE2" autopsy photo (below) doesn't show the right-rear ("BOH") area of JFK's head at all. It shows the very TOP of JFK's head. That's not the "BOH".

President Kennedy is literally lying on the right-rear of his head in that picture, and the occipital (right-rear) is not even in the camera's view in BE2:

The brain tissue that we see on the TOP of JFK's head got there by way of its coming out of the one and only big wound in his head, which was, of course, located at the right-front-top portion of the head (just as the pictures show and just as the autopsy says).

And this additional autopsy photo shows a little bit better the relationship between the location of the right-frontal exit wound in JFK's head and the location on his head/hair which has a lot of brain tissue adhering to it.

In this picture, it's not difficult at all to visualize how that brain tissue got on top of JFK's head (and from what wound the brain tissue extruded from) -- it got there after coming out of the large wound located at the right-front-top part of his head.

Plus -- Why on Earth would any brains that would have been ejected from a wound in the right-rear of his head be showing up at the VERY TOP of his head, which is where we see the brains in BE2?

Any brain tissue that would have been ejected from your make-believe wound at the far right-rear of the head would have been brain tissue that Mr. Kennedy would have been literally LYING ON in BE2. Either that, or somehow a bunch of brain tissue (which you say exited from the right-rear) managed to take a sharp turn UPWARD and adhere itself all over the TOP of Kennedy's head and hair. Do you want to suggest a new theory, Chris -- the MSBTT (the "Magic Swerving Brain Tissue Theory")?

What obviously happened is that brain tissue was exuded from the large RIGHT-FRONTAL-TOP wound in Mr. Kennedy's cranium, with some of this brain tissue then adhering to his thick hair at the very top of his head. And that's exactly what we see in the BE2 autopsy photograph.

So there's no need to postulate a huge gaping hole at the right-rear of JFK's head to explain and reconcile that BE2 photo. My above explanation reconciles that photo very nicely, thank you. While your theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. And you are, indeed, making the exact same orientation mistake that many people believe the Parkland witnesses apparently also made when they saw JFK in Trauma Room #1 on 11/22/63 (Jim Moore being one such researcher and author who promotes this point-of-view; although I, myself, do not agree with Moore on this point) -- i.e., you seem to be implying that a certain part of President Kennedy's head is visible in a certain picture, when (in reality) the portion of the head you claim to be viewing is really not in the picture at all.

Another way to look at this mistake that I think you are making is by looking at this composite photo I created for two of the autopsy photos:

When looking at the above two pictures in conjunction with each other, do you, Chris, really think that the photo on the left depicts the area of JFK's head where you say a large wound was located (the right-rear-occipital area of the head)?

It's fairly clear from the angles at which the two pictures were taken that NONE of the "occipital" area of Kennedy's head can be seen in the picture on the left. The President's hair is obscuring any portion of his head in that photo which could be considered "occipital" or "right-rear".

In order for Mr. Stringer (the photographer at JFK's autopsy at Bethesda) to have captured any part of the "right-rear" or "occipital" areas of JFK's head, he would need to photograph the President from the SIDE (as was done in the photo on the right, which does depict a portion of the "left-rear" or "left occipital" area of the head).

Or, if not from the side, Stringer would have needed to photograph JFK from directly UNDERNEATH the autopsy table (and also would have needed to remove that metal headrest on which the President's head is lying, in order to get a complete and unobstructed view of the right-rear area of Kennedy's head that so many people think contained a great-big gaping hole).

Or, Kennedy's body could have been rolled over and his head lifted, so that Stringer could get that unobstructed view of the right-rear of the head. And, of course, we have a series of pictures taken by Stringer that do depict that very thing--an unobstructed view of the right-rear of JFK's head (the three pictures below). And these three photos are showing a "right-rear" portion of the head that is completely INTACT and WOUND-FREE:

In short -- Chris has totally misrepresented what can be seen in Autopsy Photo #BE2.

>>> "Humes said: "And the exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and side - right side of the President's head." [End Humes' quote] No witness had described it there." <<<

And yet the large wound is there anyway -- in the autopsy photographs, and in the autopsy X-rays, and in the Zapruder Film too.

Go figure that.

>>> "Then take a look at this next photo from the autopsy and tell me how you figure that little red spot is a bullet hole. Don't you think it would be almost black, like dried blood or black like a hole? Naah. There's nothing there. No bullet hole. Just the back of the scalp flap with a tiny little red irritated area." <<<

Which is a "tiny little red irritated area" that was determined by BOTH the Clark Panel and the HSCA to be a bullet (entry) hole. Let's have as gander at what they had to say about it:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the
hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." -- Clark Panel Report

"We, as the [FPP] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick." -- Dr. Michael Baden

Chris should also listen to this HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck. Some interesting observations about the location of the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head are discussed in that interview.

IN SUMMARY:

Chris accuses me of ignoring a bunch of witnesses. But what does Chris do? He totally ignores (or brushes aside) BOTH of the above investigative panels--the Clark Panel from 1968 and the House Select Committee from ten years later.

And the Clark and HSCA panels were examining THE BEST EVIDENCE in the whole case for determining where the wounds were located in President Kennedy's body (other than having JFK's body right there in the same room with them in 1968 and 1978) -- the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Bottom Line (again) -- The autopsy pictures and X-rays do not support the Parkland witnesses. Anyone saying the pictures and X-rays DO corroborate the Parkland people must be snorting some funny white stuff. Or they are currently residing in Rod Serling's eerie "Zone".

David Von Pein
January 31, 2012

THE BACK OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD (PART 19)

2012-01-31T23:58:00.021-08:00

CHRIS SAID:

>>> "It's really a shame that you are unable to use the photos that so closely match the drawings and the descriptions of the medical personnel at both facilities. If you had a problem with the match, why not discuss it and let us together determine where the problem lies for you in not seeing the same thing as me. Name a particular statement or picture and tell me, and I'll look it over and between us we might be able to figure out why you disagree with everyone on the large hole in the right-rear. .... It may be something entirely different and I'm not aware of what you're seeing.
Give it a try and maybe we can resolve at least this one element of the case." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In a nutshell, Chris, I simply do not see the type of damage in ANY of the autopsy photos or X-rays that I believe needs to be present in those pictures and X-rays in order for the Parkland "BOH" witnesses to be correct. It's really as simple as that.

Plus: The autopsy report is pretty clear on where the large wound was really located -- it was "chiefly parietal" -- not "chiefly occipital". Seems pretty clear to me.

Moreover, those THREE THINGS (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the autopsy report) CORROBORATE EACH OTHER. They fit together like bread and butter, like a hand and a glove, or like Dave Healy and his crackpipe.

The pictures, X-rays, and autopsy report are the things that positively refute the notion that JFK had a big hole in the back of his head.

Plus there are the things I didn't even mention on the "Big Three" list:

There's the Zapruder Film, which is a film that also corroborates what I'm seeing in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And the film also perfectly corroborates what the autopsy report says about the big wound being "chiefly parietal", which is just exactly where we see the wound in the Zapruder Film.

And there are also the many statements and testimony given by the three autopsy surgeons (Humes, Finck, and Boswell). None of those doctors ever claimed that there was a great-big hole at the back of JFK's head. They always maintained that the large exit wound was toward the RIGHT-FRONT of the head.

I'd like for you to find just ONE quote from any of those three autopsy doctors which has any of them saying something akin to this:

"I was wrong and the autopsy report I signed in 1963 was wrong. The large exit wound in President Kennedy's head was really located in the right-rear portion of his head, just as the many Parkland witnesses claimed. The large wound was not located 'chiefly parietal', which is what we stated in our 1963 autopsy report. I'm sorry, I was mistaken for all these years when I have said the big hole in JFK's head was located to the 'right-front' part of his head. It was really not even close to that right-front location. It was at the far-right-rear of the head. I hope God can forgive my ignorance (and lies) regarding this key issue."

But instead of finding something like the above comments coming from any of the autopsy physicians, what do we find? We find this:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967

David Von Pein
January 30, 2012

================================

CHRIS SAID:

>>> "The man [Dr. J. Thornton Boswell] tells you clearly that the wound was uncovered by pulling the flap backward, and then the wound is hidden by pulling the scalp forward." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dr. Boswell wasn't talking about pulling the scalp forward to cover a hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head, you goof. He was obviously talking about the possibility of pulling the scalp forward to cover the ONE AND ONLY large exit wound in JFK's head, which was (of course) located just where all of the autopsy doctors said it was located -- above the right ear of JFK (i.e., the right-frontal-top "chiefly parietal" portion of JFK's cranium).

Notice in that quote how Boswell twice says the word "wound" (singular). Now, given the fact that the autopsy report clearly indicates that the large singular "wound" of exit was "chiefly" in the "parietal" (right-front) region of the head, why in the world would anyone think Boswell was talking about a big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head when he said this to the Assassination Records Review Board on February 26, 1996?:

"The scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."

Chris, you REALLY think the "wound" (singular) that Boswell was talking about there was a "wound" in the right-rear-occipital area of Kennedy's head (even though we find this description of the large head wound on page 3 of the autopsy report [Warren Report; Page 540])?:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Yes, the autopsy report does say the wound extended "somewhat into the occipital" area of the head. But that language is very vague and non-specific. But it's quite clear from that same paragraph in the autopsy report that the wound would certainly NOT be considered to be a hole in the far-right-REAR of Kennedy's skull. Not even close.

And also take note of the fact that that same paragraph of the autopsy report says that there is an "absence of scalp" in the area of the large "chiefly parietal" wound. Which I think is, indeed, significant language there, because it pretty much eliminates the "McClelland Theory", which is a theory that has INTACT scalp (in the very same right-rear area of JFK's head!) being pulled up over a big hole in the right-rear of the head.

But how would that scenario be remotely possible, given the language I just quoted from the official autopsy report, which clearly indicates that in the area of the big hole in JFK's head there was "an actual absence of scalp", which most certainly indicates a condition that is not seen at all in the scalp at the back of Kennedy's head.

Let me re-emphasize a little bit more of that section of the autopsy report:
The report says that the large wound that was present in the head of President Kennedy had an "absence of scalp and bone". So, a certain amount of BOTH scalp AND bone were absent (i.e., missing, gone, blown away, not there) in the region of JFK's head where the large wound was located.

Therefore, given the fact that we know there was an "absence of scalp and bone" in the area where the large head wound was located, can anyone tell me how in the world that type of description can possibly apply to the RIGHT-REAR portion of JFK's head (as seen in the autopsy photo and X-ray shown below)?

Answer -- It's impossible. Because ALL of the scalp and bone at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head is STILL THERE, present and accounted for, in these two autopsy pictures:

Plus: Dr. Boswell, as far as I know, has NEVER once explicitly said that the big hole in JFK's head was located anywhere on the head other than where it is said to be in the November 1963 autopsy report -- "chiefly parietal" (which is NOT in the right-rear of the head).

You can play around with Boswell's later ARRB statements all you want to (which are statements that are quite ambiguous and unclear in many respects, in my opinion), but Dr. Boswell never came out and said to ANYONE that President Kennedy had a big hole in the right-rear of his head.

If Boswell ever did make such a crystal-clear statement about there being a big hole in the BACK of the President's head (instead of being chiefly located in the right-frontal part of the head), it would mean that he would have been admitting, in essence, that the autopsy report he signed on 11/24/63 was a total fraud and a lie with respect to the location of JFK's large head wound. And Dr. Boswell, as far as I am aware, has always stood by the integrity and the basic truth that resides in that autopsy report.

David Von Pein
January 30, 2012

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 130)

2012-01-31T23:58:00.020-08:00

http://Amazon.com

DAVID JOHNSON SAID:

>>> "Kennedy had an entrance wound on the front of his neck..." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No he didn't.

That's just the continued wishful-thinking of conspiracy theorists.
Nothing more.

In order for the bullet wound in the front of JFK's throat to have
been an ENTRY wound, you're going to have to check your common sense
at the door. Because in order for the throat wound to be an entry, it
would mean that not just one, but TWO, bullets simply stopped dead
inside John Kennedy's neck and upper back on 11/22/63, without either
of these bullets causing any significant damage at all.

Plus: Both of these bullets that would have gone into JFK without
exiting the other side would have had to disappear off the planet
prior to the autopsy, without any non-"plotter" seeing a trace of
either missile in question.

Simply impossible.

Why do so many conspiracy promoters always totally ignore the above
common-sense observations regarding the proposed "Frontal Throat Shot"
argument?

Given the evidence, Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the
upper back and in the throat by separate bullets. To believe that such
a thing did occur is to believe in stuff that's far more implausible
and improbable than the Single-Bullet Theory.

But the SBT, however, explains EVERYTHING -- including:

1.) The lack of damage in Kennedy's neck/back regions (which is to be
expected if just one bullet sailed right through him).

2.) No "missing" bullets to account for. CE399 is the one and only
bullet that needs to be accounted for via the SBT....and it is
accounted for (right down to the NAA analysis, which, while not 100%
foolproof and definitive, gives any reasonable person a pretty good
idea as to what the source bullet was for the small fragments that
were recovered by Dr. Gregory from the right wrist of Governor
Connally).

3.) The reactions of Kennedy and Connally as seen on the Zapruder
Film. Yes, the Z-Film can be a very subjective viewing experience,
depending on who's doing the viewing; but when looking at the
toggling clips shown below, it can't be any more obvious that both
JFK and Connally are reacting at the EXACT SAME TIME to some kind of
external stimulus.

And since that "stimulus" is probably a rifle bullet (seeing as how
rifle bullets were being fired at the car during the few seconds in
question here), it's quite likely that both mens' "reactions" seen
below are due to THE SAME BULLET PIERCING BOTH VICTIMS:

4.) The "lining up" of the wounds on the two different victims (which
pretty much perfectly matches the way the two men were seated in the
limousine, in relation to one another), with both men being hit in the
BACK with a bullet....and Kennedy having a bullet hole in his throat
AND NO BULLETS LEFT INSIDE HIM AT AUTOPSY.

If one bullet didn't hit both men, then I think it's safe to say that
the THREE DIFFERENT GUNMEN who would have had to be involved in
peppering the two victims with THREE different bullets at virtually
the exact same time were THE LUCKIEST ASSASSINS ever to shoot at a
President. Especially when the widely-believed "Oswald Was Being Set
Up As The Lone Patsy" plot that is favored by many conspiracy kooks is
factored into this equation as well --

I.E.,

The THREE shooters* just got lucky when their three bullets hit JFK
and JBC in all the right places, so that at a later date in 1964 the
Warren Commission can determine that just ONE bullet very likely
struck the victims, rather than the three that actually did hit them
(per this insane anti-SBT theory that many CTers place their faith
in). It's just plain idiotic. No other way to look at it.

* = And the anti-SBT brigade definitely needs THREE different gunmen
to accomplish what CE399 did, too. That's because of the tight
timeline shown on the Zapruder Film. Two guns just aren't enough to
get this anti-SBT job done. No way. You'd need two separate shooters
in the rear (to account for Kennedy's separate back wound and
Connally's separate back wound); and a frontal shooter to account for
JFK's throat wound.

And some CTers like to increase the absurdity of their own make-
believe anti-SBT theories by claiming that Connally was really hit by
TWO bullets, instead of by just the one (CE399) that any reasonable
person would determine he was hit with.

That latter "Connally Was Hit Twice" option ups the total of anti-SBT
bullets to four (all of which vanish into thin air immediately after
the shooting, per most CTers, since most CTers like to cling to the
idea that CE399 was a "planted" or "substitute" bullet and actually
hit nobody at all on 11/22/63).

Such anti-SBT scenarios involving three or four bullets in lieu of
CE399 are scenarios that belong in the file marked "Totally Ridiculous
And Impossible JFK Conspiracy Theories".

>>> "[Kennedy had] an entrance wound on his right temple at the hairline..." <<<

Says who? Certainly not the three different autopsists at Bethesda who
examined the body of President Kennedy first-hand.

But a rabid conspiracy promoter ALWAYS knows more than Doctors Humes,
Boswell, and Finck. Right?

Via JFK's Official Autopsy Report:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." -- Signed: Drs. Humes, Boswell, & Finck

Conspiracy theorists are forced to actually believe that the above
autopsy summary is nothing but a pack of lies. And the theorists who
love to tout imaginary "frontal shots" that hit JFK in the head (or
elsewhere) also have to actually believe the fairy tale that includes
ALL THREE autopsists continuing to tell lies for decades on end
whenever they have discussed the autopsy with members of the media or
during the various follow-up Government investigations (such as the
HSCA and ARRB hearings).

And then there's the 1967 TV appearance of Dr. James J. Humes. CTers
must believe that Dr. Humes, who was certainly not being forced at
gunpoint to appear on television, VOLUNTEERED--on his own!--to go on
CBS-TV in June of 1967 and tell the following blatant falsehoods:

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. JAMES HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull; and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence. Is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."

Logical follow-up question: WHY would Dr. Humes volunteer to appear in
front of the CBS cameras and utter the above remarks if the above
remarks weren't the absolute truth as Humes saw them?

If Humes had been a rotten, deceitful liar from the get-go in November
1963 (as many CTers believe him to be), he would never have appeared
on CBS-TV in 1967 and made the above-quoted comments. Simple as that.
To believe otherwise is just dumb.

>>> "[Kennedy had] an exit wound on the right rear of his head." <<<

And this X-ray (pictured below) proves beyond all possible doubt that
the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who claimed that JFK had a gaping
wound in the back of his head were all 100% wrong.

The back portions of President Kennedy's head are completely intact.
There is no hole in the right-rear of the skull whatsoever. Just look:

Is the above X-ray a "fake" too? The conspiracy crowd has no choice
but to believe that it is a fake or a fraud (if they want to promote
the idea that a large hole was located at the right-rear of Kennedy's
skull).

Which, in turn, of course, means that those CTers now must travel even
further down Conspiracy Avenue and also must accuse every single
member of the HSCA's Photographic Panel of being either liars or
incompetent boobs, because that panel (which consisted of about 20 or
21 people) declared the following in 1978 with respect to the autopsy
photos and X-rays (including, of course, the X-ray pictured above, which
shows no hole present at the back of JFK's skull at all):

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA; Vol. 7; Pg. 41

It's readily apparent how silly the position of conspiracy theorists
truly is when we start factoring in all of the various "layers" of
conspirators and after-the-fact "cover-up" agents and rotten liars
that the CTers need to have firmly (and forever) in place in order for
any of their theories to work out properly.

Per CTers, the Warren Commission was filled with nothing but rotten
liars and cover-up agents....and evidently so was the HSCA for the
most part (since they came to the same identical "OSWALD WAS THE ONLY
GUNMAN WHO HIT ANY VICTIMS" conclusion that the WC came to).

In addition, according to many conspiracists, the DPD, the USSS, the
FBI, the CIA, LBJ, and the autopsists were also "in" on either a plot
to kill Kennedy or a plot to cover up the truth afterward. Plus God
knows how many other fringe participants that the CTers think were
also involved in the massive decades-long and still-continuing cover-
up and/or plot to kill JFK.

See how stupid all of this "JFK Conspiracy" stuff sounds when you say
it out loud (or write it out in longhand)?

It's just laughable (at best).

>>> "When you line up those [make-believe] shots, they HAD to have come from inside the car." <<<

Only three letters required here (so that's all I'll use):

L.O.L.

>>> "It even seems possible that the driver shot Connally. At the very moment he was shot in the back, Connally was actually turned to the rear of the car looking at Kennedy and with his back turned to the driver." <<<

I wonder what Mr. Connally is doing in the Z-Film clip below then (if
not showing involuntary signs of reacting to a bullet that has just
struck his body)?

Maybe the Governor just had an uncontrollable desire to jerk his soon-
to-be-injured right arm upward really quick at this exact moment in
time. Ya think?:

>>> "A shot from the driver could have entered [Connally's] back and made the wounds he experienced." <<<

And there's a giant Martian, who is wearing a grass skirt and selling
Avon products, standing on your front porch right this very minute.
(That's just about as likely to be true as Connally being shot by
William Greer anyway.)

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 29, 2008)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 129)

2012-01-31T23:58:00.019-08:00

http://Amazon.com

BOYCE HART SAID:

>>> "Today, no one will go near that book [Gerald Posner's excellent 1993 JFK book, "Case Closed"]." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not true at all. I certainly go near it:

http://Amazon.com/DVP Review

http://Amazon.com/DVP Review

Mr. Posner's book is outstanding. It has flaws, yes. But it's a very
good overall study of the case and, more importantly, a good overall
study of JFK's assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" goes far beyond
Posner's book in scope and comprehensive content (which is to be
expected, due to Vincent's 21-year-long research effort and the
resulting 2,800+ pages of content contained within "Reclaiming
History", content which trashes every conspiracy theory and conspiracy
kook author imaginable, and rightly so).

It's time for conspiracy theorists to wake up from their 44-year sleep
and realize that there's no credible evidence of anyone having shot
and killed President Kennedy and Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit
except a screwball named Lee Harvey Oswald, a 24-year-old nuthatch who
was lucky enough (from his warped point-of-view) to have these six
things all align themselves into perfect harmony on November 22, 1963:

1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives.

2.) Oswald owned and had ready access to a rifle in November '63.

3.) Oswald worked in a building which just happened to overlook the
last portion of JFK's motorcade route through Dallas on 11/22/63.

4.) It stopped raining prior to 12:00 noon on 11/22/63 (hence, the
bubbletop roof was left off of JFK's limousine for the motorcade drive
through Dallas). The bubbletop roof was not bulletproof at all, but
it's quite possible that Oswald wouldn't have known that fact on
November 22nd. Seeing the roof in place that day, if it continued to
rain, just might have made Oswald think twice about firing those
gunshots at the limo.

5.) Oswald was lucky enough to have President Kennedy visit Dallas on
a Friday (i.e., a regular workday for Lee Oswald and the other Book
Depository employees), instead of, say, a Saturday or a Sunday.

6.) Another small item that relates to #5 above is something that
could well have played a very big factor in Oswald pulling off the
shooting that Friday -- and that is the fact that not only did
Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday),
but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building
RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were
on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day (and would have
been even if Kennedy had not been scheduled to drive by the building
at noontime).

The normal time for the warehouse employees to break for lunch at the
Depository was from 12:00 Noon to 12:45 PM, just exactly the time
period when President Kennedy was scheduled to drive through Dealey
Plaza on Friday, November 22nd. That information was confirmed via the
Warren Commission testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier (the 19-year-old
who drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination):

WESLEY FRAZIER -- "12 o'clock is when we always eat lunch."
JOSEPH BALL -- "12 to 12:45?"
FRAZIER -- "Right."

This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors (i.e.,
the "warehouse" floors, which were floors 5, 6, and 7), with those
employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the
second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the
President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require
a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President
during this Friday lunch period.

For Oswald, the above combination of things was simply a made-to-order
combination of factors that just fell into his lap on November 22nd,
1963, including item numbers 4, 5, and 6 mentioned above, which are
things that Oswald HIMSELF could not possibly have had any control
over whatsoever. And even #3 as well, to the extent that Oswald was
hired at the TSBD on October 15, 1963, which was a full month prior to
anyone officially announcing the details of JFK's final motorcade
route through Dallas (which included the turn onto Elm Street in front
of the Depository).

Happenstance (and a kook named Lee Harvey) got John F. Kennedy
killed. Not conspiracy.

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 27, 2008)

=================================

RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:

QUOTING COMMON SENSE

2012-01-31T23:58:00.017-08:00