(PART 789)


On this very Forum, you have stipulated to the following facts:

1) The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

2) The Dealey Plaza photos show no appreciable "bunch up" of JFK's jacket.

That you have the power to deny the significance of these stipulations doesn't change the fact you've debunked the SBT with your own observations.


Regardless of what I may have said to you in our previous forum conversations regarding photos taken PRIOR to the turn onto Elm Street, this photo below is the KEY picture with respect to JFK's "bunched up" jacket. And it's a picture that was snapped just seconds before Lee Oswald's second shot went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And no reasonable person with even one functioning eyeball could possibly even begin to deny that there is most certainly some "bunching" of the jacket going on in this Robert Croft photograph:


So when the limo turned onto Elm St., JFK's shirt and jacket spontaneously jumped several inches up his back? .... Your claim is idiotic on its face.

And anyone with a functioning eyeball can clearly see a normal amount JFK's shirt collar exposed -- which means the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck.

You now want to claim that JFK's clothing was hiked up above the base of his neck -- without pushing up on the jacket collar!

Demonstrate that for us, David. How does 6+ inches of clothing get pushed up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar?

Obviously impossible.


If you can't tell that Mr. Kennedy's jacket is hiked up a bit in the Croft photo, pity on you, Cliff. Because the "bunching" or "hiked up" nature of JFK's jacket in that particular picture couldn't be any more obvious.

Cliff, you'd probably be better off jumping on the "Photo is fake" bandwagon regarding the Croft picture, rather than sticking to this odd stance:

"...the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck [in the Croft photo]." -- C. Varnell; 8/30/14

Related "Bunching" Note.....

Just a few minutes (maybe less) before JFK entered Dealey Plaza, a man named Andre Leche took a home movie of the President's car on Main Street (his film wasn't discovered until November 2013), and President Kennedy's "bunched up" jacket is clearly visible in his film too (and in George Jefferies' film as well).

Frame from Leche's film:


That shirt collar couldn't be visible unless the jacket collar was in a normal position.


Not true at all. The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible. Why you think such a thing is a complete impossibility only shows how desperate you are to trash the totally reasonable (and feasible) Single-Bullet Conclusion.

Plus: Why is it not possible in your world to have the collar portion of a person's jacket hiked up just SLIGHTLY and (at the same time) also have a different (lower) portion of that same person's jacket hiked up (or "bunched up") more than just SLIGHTLY?

In the world of Cliff "Everything In The Whole JFK Case Revolves Around Kennedy's Clothing" Varnell, the above scenario of having President Kennedy's COLLAR only raised (or "hiked") a little bit but a lower portion of his suit coat hiked up a bit MORE than "just slightly" is something that couldn't happen in a million years -- even though several photos taken of JFK in the Dallas motorcade PROVE beyond all doubt that that very thing I just described regarding JFK's jacket WAS occurring when Mr. Kennedy was riding in his limousine through the streets of Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.


Your observations destroy the SBT, David!


You couldn't be any sillier if you tried, Clifford.

David Von Pein
August 30, 2014

(PART 788)


David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which "side" are you on David?


I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.

And I'm on the side where all of the physical evidence resides too -- the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" side.

You, Robert Harris, have added in a bunch of gunshots that only exist in your conspiracy-oriented mind, and nowhere else.

But at the end of the day you're still left having to explain the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, which is physical evidence that does NOT support "conspiracy" in the JFK murder case.

The physical evidence--all of it--conclusively supports the following conclusion:

Lee Harvey Oswald took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three shots from that gun at John F. Kennedy, killing the President with the third shot.


Your theory about a shooter in the Dal-Tex Building AND another shooter in front of JFK's car doesn't make any logical sense at all, especially your theory that has a series of SILENCED shots coming from the Dal-Tex.

Here's why your theory is illogical from the get-go (no matter which way you choose to go with respect to the question of: "Was Lee Harvey Oswald just a patsy?"):

1.) If Oswald was being framed as a lone patsy for President Kennedy's assassination, then your theory involving at least two other gunmen (besides Oswald) falls to pieces right off the bat -- because there's no way in the world that any sane and rational "plotters" are going to risk shooting at JFK from at least THREE directions (using at least THREE different guns, of course) and then expect all of the evidence to lead back to JUST THE PATSY named Oswald in the Book Depository. That idea is nuts on its face. (And somebody should go inform Oliver Stone of this fact asap, too.)

2.) And if Oswald wasn't being "set up" to take the lone fall for JFK's murder, then there would be absolutely no reason under the moon for any of the Dealey Plaza shooters to be using SILENCERS on their weapons. (Silencers, as you rightly point out in your video, can cause serious problems with the guns they are attached to, often resulting in the target being missed entirely.)

As a further reminder to Bob Harris and all other conspiracy theorists, I offer up the following two images, which are images that (in tandem) tell an important and often-overlooked story with respect to where the evidence leads in the murder case of John F. Kennedy:

Maybe it's time to face facts, Robert -- your theories about the way John Kennedy died simply do not mesh with the hard facts and evidence connected to the President's assassination.

How many more years will you keep pretending that your subjective theories are a legitimate substitute for the real facts and evidence in the JFK case?

David Von Pein
December 7-8, 2009

(PART 787)


There’s no consensus, even among LNers, on when the first shot was fired. Respectfully, here are my “Seven reasons why the first shot did not occur at or near Zapruder frame Z160.”

Reason One: The Zapruder Film Itself.

Do you remember your reaction the first time you heard a live rifle round being fired? You flinched. Some of you jumped right out of your skin. You were startled at how unexpectedly loud it was, even if you were prepared for it.

There are at least 63 people in Z160, not including anyone in the motorcade or escort. They were not expecting any such explosion. Nearly all would have flinched in unison. Many would have instinctively turned toward the source of the rifle fire, the sixth floor of the TSBD. Everyone lining Elm Street, most evidently the women in the foreground, would have reacted.

If Gov. Connally and Rosemary Willis responded to a rifle blast, why did no one else in these frames as much as bat an eye? The faster Connally turned to his right, the more certain others would have also shown startle movements. Yet there were none.

The Governor turned to his right to look at the crowd for the hundredth time during the motorcade, and 10-year-old Rosemary Willis turned in response to being called by her father, Phil.


But an important point to consider regarding the first shot is this ---

A large percentage of the witnesses thought the first sound they heard (which was undoubtedly the first GUNSHOT) sounded more like a firecracker than a gunshot and didn't sound as loud as a gunshot.

So, should a "firecracker"-like sound have resulted in all of the witnesses jumping out of their skins (in unison)? I wouldn't expect to see anything like that.

Plus: Can you show me any distinct "startle reactions" from anyone in the limousine or anywhere in Dealey Plaza at any point in time in the Zapruder Film? The closest you can possibly get would be Roy Kellerman's lurching forward right after the head shot at Z313. But even that reaction wouldn't be what I'd call a typical "startle" type reaction (with a startle reaction invariably being an involuntary "flinch" or "jerky" motion of the shoulders).

Kellerman is reacting just after Z313, yes. But he's ducking down, IMO. He's not exhibiting a typical "flinch" type of startle reaction. (Plus, he's also undoubtedly hearing the bullet fragments from the head shot clanking against the chrome and windshield, which is probably resulting in Kellerman's accentuated "ducking" movements.)

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

I think the weight of the overall testimony indicates the first shot (which was the shot that missed everyone in the Presidential limousine) occurred at just about Zapruder frame number 160.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Shot That Missed


It's amazing that Virgie Rachley, who was right beneath the sniper's window, never thought that the shots came from right above her.

In [an] interview in the TSBD with newsman Kent Biffle, she says one of the shots sounded like a firecracker. I'll have to check if she says first shot.

[FBI interview with Rachley.]


Both Bill and Gayle Newman, in every interview they ever gave after the assassination that I have ever heard or seen, said the FIRST shot sounded like a "firecracker", including their WFAA-TV interview on 11/22/63 [below], which took place just 20 to 25 minutes after the shooting.

Pierce Allman, another Dealey Plaza witness, also thought the FIRST shot was a firecracker:

And many witnesses also claimed the first shot sounded like a motorcycle backfire, Mal Couch included:

Has anybody done any studies on whether a "firecracker" and/or a "motorcycle backfire" sound should result in witnesses jumping out of their skins when they hear such sounds? ~shrug~

Of course, the LOCATION of both the witness and the source of the sound would play a big part in whether a witness would exhibit any startle reaction or not.


Here's an interesting little item. I'm not claiming it proves anything, of course.

From Henry S. Bloomgarden, THE GUN: A “BIOGRAPHY” OF THE GUN THAT KILLED JOHN F. KENNEDY (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1975), pp. 5-7:


Sandy Richardson . . . lay on the Italian hillside thinking he was dead, then gradually realized he was only wounded. His helmet had been taken off and his scalp creased by a German sniper’s bullet. His head bleeding, he was running down the slope, seeking safety, and had kicked a land mine with his foot. It had tossed him in the air with its explosive force. It should have blown him to shreds. If he hadn’t been stumbling downhill, falling forward, it might have. Instead, he had a broken back and a broken leg.

Unable to move, he lay there while another GI kept calling for a medic. At last, after eight hours, some “very beautiful guys” came along with a jeep, placed him on a stretcher, lifted him off the hillside to the hood, and took him to a field hospital.

During some of the eight long hours, Private Sandy Richardson heard the sound of German 88s, 120 mortars, American M1s, and Mannlicher-Carcanos. The Carcano was used by Italian partisans fighting there, alongside the Americans, in the mountains near Pian d’Ontani, in the province of Pistoia, far north of Rome. This was the third time Richardson had been conscious of the peculiar sound of these rifles.

Weeks earlier he had seen other partisans unearth a cache of Carcanos and decide that day to settle old scores. Collaborators were taken from their homes and shot.

Then there was the time the partisans, armed with Carcanos, accompanied Richardson’s outfit on patrol, early one morning, before first light. Richardson heard the sound of the M1s shooting at the Germans, “. . . a loud ‘chunk,’ solid, definitely there.” In contrast, the Carcano, with its smaller bore and seemingly underpowered cartridges, sounded “much like a firecracker. . . . I couldn’t believe they were serious. . . . I thought the bullets would poop out and drop harmlessly . . . no trajectory . . . it sounded like the Fourth of July.”

Three times, then, he had heard the Carcanos. The day the collaborators were shot. The morning on patrol with the partisans. And the day -- April 9, 1945 -- he was shot and blown up and lay on the hillside while the battle went on. Fifteen and more years later he still could hear the firecracker sound.

On November 22, 1963, Sandy Richardson, then vice-president of a publishing company, was having lunch with Richard Johnston, executive editor of Sports Illustrated, in the restaurant atop the Time-Life Building in New York City. The waiter came to the table, quietly, almost apologetically, very unsure: “Mr. Johnston, I beg your pardon. The President has been assassinated.”


“In Dallas.”

They left the table and went to Johnston’s office. In the hours that followed, Richardson was stunned not just by the news, but by reports from people on the scene. Some believed the shots had been automobile backfire. Some said they had sounded like firecrackers. And Richardson, hearing this, remembered, and thought the shots must have come from a Mannlicher-Carcano, “It was the first thing that came into my mind . . . across all the years . . . a Carcano.”



That's a very interesting book excerpt, Dave.



I don't see why anyone would claim that the observation about Oswald having to alter his shooting posture between the shots positively means that Oswald could NOT have accomplished the assassination on his own from that sixth-floor sniper's perch.

Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point. Plus the huge percentage of witnesses who heard exactly THREE SHOTS fired during the assassination.


Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position would not have been necessary.


That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect. But it would have been a mighty risky thing for Oswald to do---firing one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope. He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was to kill the President.

At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1 with a wild, stray shot. :)

But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as fact, Ed. I certainly can't disprove it, however. And I doubt anyone else can either.


Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody reacted.


Wait a second, Ed. Please clarify something for me....

Are you actually suggesting that Oswald possibly fired his first "zeroing in" shot BEFORE the President's car even entered Dealey Plaza? ("Ten minutes"?) It kind of sounds like you are advocating that possibility.

If so, I think that would have been way too "risky" for Oswald to do. It would have been crazy, in fact. He would have been advertising the fact that a person with a gun was in the TSBD many minutes before JFK ever even entered the kill zone. Plenty of time for someone to get up there to the sixth floor to investigate and to prevent the assassination.

Is that really what you think might have happened, Ed? Or did I misinterpret your "could have been 10 minutes" remark?

But even your "less than ten seconds" comment is not reasonable, IMO. Oswald wouldn't have had time to re-adjust the scope settings if he had fired a "zeroing in" shot after JFK's car had turned onto Elm Street. How could he possibly have thought he would have had time to adjust the scope in such a short space of time?


If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way....

Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313).

The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me.


David, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comment.

No, I don't believe he zeroed his firearm 10 minutes before. That was just my way of pointing out that no security personnel ever reacted to the first shot. Oswald's timing was good enough if not perfect. He fired the first shot just as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm or in the process of completing its turn. This is when career-trained witnesses said it was fired (13 of whom are quoted in The Final Truth).

More importantly, it's also where the FBI spliced the 7 frames from the Towner film, which is exactly, to the frame, when a jiggle would have occurred--a jiggle which would disprove the FBI's contention of a late first shot. (It took almost ten years for this splice to be noticed.) The time to the second shot is 9.5 seconds, time enough.

I like your ideas about Oswald using the iron sights for shots 2 and 3 (and I agree with your timing), but IMO he used the not-yet-damaged scope for all three shots.


Okay, Ed. Thanks for the clarification.

David Von Pein
August 28, 2014
June 13, 2015
June 17-20, 2015


(PART 74)


http://jfkfacts.org/Lee Harvey Oswald & The Commission

http://educationforum.com/President Kennedy's Jacket

http://educationforum.com/Flip-Flopping Witnesses




http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Vincent Bugliosi And Mexico City



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/Reclaiming History Excerpt





(PART 786)



ABC newsman Bob Clark saw JFK’s limousine come to a stop on Elm Street, reported it on ABC TV....

This is a companion piece to my journal entry about Walter Cronkite’s reporting of the “car stop” written two days ago, on August 20th [2014].

Today, Washington attorney and JFK assassination independent researcher Dan Alcorn found more compelling evidence on YouTube that the Kennedy limousine did indeed come to a brief stop on Elm Street during the assassination of the 35th President on November 22, 1963.

Dan forwarded me this link to a YouTube segment titled “The JFK Assassination, As It Happened, Part 1″:

JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com/ABC-TV Coverage

This two hour and two minute segment is ABC TV’s 11/22/63 television coverage from the day of the assassination, literally as it was broadcast.

Over one hour and nineteen minutes into the two-hour YouTube segment (you can easily fast forward to that location using the tool bar after you click on the link), at time 1:19:36, Bob Clark (who is speaking to the nationwide ABC TV audience via a telephone) reports that he was riding in the open press car [a short distance behind LBJ's vehicle] and that during the assassination, the President’s limousine “came to an immediate stop.”

In my journal entry two days ago I provided a link to live CBS coverage in which Walter Cronkite intoned “…the car stopped momentarily” during the assassination. The difference here is that Cronkite was reporting hearsay provided to him by reporters at the scene who had either interviewed eyewitnesses, or perhaps seen the car stop themselves. Cronkite found the report credible—he had no reason not to—but he was reporting the observations of others.

Bob Clark, in this ABC TV video footage from over 50 years ago, IS REPORTING WHAT HE SAW HIMSELF.


To show that there’s more than just one side to the “Limo Stopped” story, here is an interview with assassination eyewitness Pierce Allman, a WFAA newsman, who said —— “The car kept going; the car did not stop.”

Also note Allman’s account of the spacing of the "THREE" shots he heard —— “The shots didn’t seem rapid at all. They were three well-spaced, reverberating shots.”

This interview with Allman was aired live on WFAA-Radio in Dallas less than 90 minutes after President Kennedy was shot:

Of course, the whole "Limo Stopped" topic that is constantly being dredged up by conspiracy theorists is ridiculous in the first place, because everybody agrees (and the films confirm this too) that the President's car was moving at a snail's pace the entire time it was on Elm Street. It was only moving at about 11 MPH even BEFORE the first shot was fired. That's incredibly slow to begin with.

So I guess it must be the contention of the conspiracists that driver William Greer was deliberately driving at a super-slow speed all along Elm Street, and he then (per the CTers) completely stopped the car in order for the kill shot to be achieved with greater accuracy (even though the Nix and Zapruder films prove the car did not completely stop).

Such accusations against SS agent Greer are despicable, of course. And the theory about the Zapruder Film being altered to "remove" the alleged limo stop is equally as ludicrous, because such a theory requires Orville Nix's film to be altered in the exact same manner. And as the following video demonstrates, the Zapruder and Nix films are in perfect "The limo slowed down and almost came to a stop, but it did not come to a complete stop" harmony:

David Von Pein
August 25, 2014
August 28, 2014


Subject: ABC News: JFK Limo Stopped
Date: 8/28/2014 11:02:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

Nice summary but there are a few more things you need to know. First, there’s no way to know when Allman’s TSBD report saying the car didn’t stop actually aired, but it was definitely within the first ten minutes or so, and here’s why:

After running to the Newmans and then to the knoll fence, he went to the TSBD and called WFAA radio where he was program director. He spoke to newsman John Allen, who put him on the air immediately. My estimate is ten minutes or less after the shooting.

Unfortunately, WFAA didn’t start recording its broadcasts until later, but Pierce’s report was recorded as it aired live. That recording was saved and played back later and that is what survives today. The original WFAA tapes are part of the [Sixth Floor] Museum’s collection and I noticed the replay years ago when the tapes first arrived.

As for [Doug] Horne, he never explains when, where and how all four films of the head shot were altered to perfectly match each other when the documentation is clear that could not have happened. Zapruder’s film is well documented, Nix’ film wasn’t even processed until December 1, Muchmore’s film went directly from her camera to the lab on November 25 and then flown to New York where it was shown on local TV the next night, and the Bronson film was processed on 11/24 and kept in his possession from that day until 1978 when reporter Earl Golz and I watched it in his house and took it back to Dallas.

Nor has Horne bothered to view the Zapruder film frames in stereo pairs, a test that always – repeat, always – reveals alterations to motion pictures. For that matter, he ignores the Secret Service copies that were made in Washington immediately upon receiving one of the three Zapruder copies the night of the assassination. One of those Washington prints is probably what Dino Brugioni saw that weekend.

An easy way to understand what Greer did and why is to drive the actual route (as I have) which folks will be able to do within a few weeks when Houston Street returns to its two-way status of 1963. Once out of the intersection, the street slopes down and away so drivers briefly cannot see the road. Then it quickly makes an S-turn to the left and then the right, so since Greer had never driven the road before he had to have been very surprised and a bit confused as to where to go.

Greer had to process all that information while keeping an eye on Curry a hundred feet ahead or so and also, once he recognized the pops were gunshots, he had to decide what to do and where to go. How many seconds does that take? Five, ten, more, less? Who can say?



Subject: Re: JFK Limo Stopped & Pierce Allman
Date: 8/28/2014 2:12:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack



Thanks (as always) for all the great information.

One clarification, however, regarding Pierce Allman's reports.....

The on-the-air (and in-the-studio) report provided by WFAA's Pierce Allman that is heard at this link is most definitely NOT the same "from the TSBD" report that Pierce phoned in just a few minutes after the shooting.

The report linked above was aired live on WFAA-Radio about 80 to 90 minutes after the assassination took place and about half-an-hour or so after JFK was officially pronounced dead. The timing of his report becomes obvious when Allman talks about the fact that the President had, in fact, died. So it cannot be a taped replay of Allman's first report from the Book Depository.



Subject: RE: JFK Limo Stopped & Pierce Allman
Date: 8/28/2014 2:48:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Got it, I assumed you were referring to that first report. After listening to the correct one, it’s clear the Allman report you referenced aired between 1:48 and 2pm for there’s a time reference and a report that Oswald was on his way to the police station. That information, and the lack of a 2pm station identification reference (a legal requirement of all radio stations), establishes the earliest and latest times.



Subject: Re: JFK Limo Stopped & Pierce Allman
Date: 8/28/2014 3:00:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack


Right. That's where I got my estimate of "80 to 90 minutes after the assassination".

Does this mean there is a second report by Allman (the one from the TSBD) where he says the car did not stop? Or were you just confused about the one and only "surviving" Allman report?



[EDIT/ADDENDUM (AUGUST 27, 2015) --- Pierce Allman's live report from the Book Depository has survived and can be heard here. But nowhere within that brief radio report does Allman say anything about whether or not the President's car stopped. All he says is that the car "sped away".]


Subject: RE: JFK Limo Stopped & Pierce Allman
Date: 8/28/2014 3:14:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


I was just confused....but I’ll add this. It’s really important to bear in mind where reporters were when the shots were fired. The White House pool car with Merriman Smith (UPI), Bob Clark (ABC) and others was IN the Elm-Houston intersection. They could not have seen much, if anything, of the JFK limo at that moment and would have had no direct knowledge whether it stopped or for how long. All they knew for sure was whether or not their car stopped. And we know from the Bronson film that LBJ was far behind JFK’s SS car at the head shot (it was even with the first of the three road signs).

All the other reporters were either on Houston or Main when the shots were fired, and there was no way they could see the limo because of the line of sight problem: the limo was much lower than the cars that were on Houston and also there were people on the side of the street between the limo and the press cars. Also, the buses were just starting to turn off Main onto Houston, so their view was completely blocked.

All this means is that the few reporter/news people actually in Dealey Plaza are the sole source of information other than the well-known witnesses, most of whom were behind the limo and the four or more cars immediately following it. Those vehicles either blocked or obscured their view of JFK, and any of them could have briefly slowed down such that the witnesses thought – while trying to see a vehicle moving directly away from them – the car actually stopped. It didn’t, and all films of the limo at the crucial moment show that.




FWIW, it's pretty clear to me the limo slowed almost to a stop, and that three of the motorcycles came to a complete stop. So why did this happen? Well, two non-suspicious possibilities occur to me.

1) Greer heard sounds but wasn't sure what they were, turned around to see if everything was OK, and took his foot off the gas as he did so. This seems reasonable but avoids that he almost certainly applied the brakes as well.

2) Greer heard sounds but wasn't sure what they were and where they came from, saw all the people up on the bridge in front of him, was momentarily concerned he was driving into an ambush, and tapped the brakes as he looked back to see what was going on. This makes the most sense, IMO.


Limousine driver William Greer to Jackie Kennedy at Parkland Hospital:

"Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it, I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time."

Many witnesses also saw the limo swerve to the left, although the Zapruder film shows no such thing.

Think Greer was on LSD that day, too, Dave?


Why is this topic even debatable? ALL of the films--from Zapruder to Nix to Bronson--prove that the witnesses who said the limousine stopped were mistaken. The car almost came to a stop, but it didn't come to a full stop. Simple as that. And the car didn't swerve or zig-zag either.

Are there really conspiracy theorists out there who think ALL of those home movies were altered?

What a job that was for the Film Fakers Society Of America, Inc.

The JFK CTers are a hilarious lot. Even when there's FILMED proof (multiplied by THREE films, no less), the conspiracy crowd still isn't convinced. Not even close to being convinced, in fact. Hilarious.

It's similar to what I've said in the past concerning Oswald's guilt -- the more evidence there is against the real killer (Oswald), the more innocent he seems to become in the minds of many conspiracy theorists. Now if that's not convoluted logic, I don't know what is.


Just a correction, David.

There are FOUR films showing the Limo slowing down with no stop.


Yes, you're right, Duncan. I forgot about Marie Muchmore's film. Thanks.

In fact, after I just now looked again at a slow motion version of Muchmore's footage [below], that particular film probably is the BEST film to illustrate the fact that the President's car did not come to a complete stop. The angle is just right to measure some degree of FORWARD MOVEMENT of JFK's limousine throughout the key point in time in Muchmore's film. And there is always forward movement. The car does not completely stop, making Muchmore's film perfectly consistent with all three of the other films (Zapruder, Nix, and Bronson):


Quote by Pierce Allman:

"A very dramatic thing, I can't forget it at all, I keep hearing the shots. And on the third one the President then, instead of slumping forward it looked like he was, he he jerked back or was thrown back a little bit. And Mrs. Kennedy then was halfway out of the seat and a Secret Service man--I presume he was a Secret Service man--was then over Mrs. Kennedy. And the car had stopped only momentarily and then immediately sped away at top speed."



“The car kept going; the car did not stop.” -- Pierce Allman; 11/22/63 @ approx. 2 PM CST

So, who should we believe here -- Pierce Allman in 1963 or Pierce Allman in 2013?




Clint Hill said he saw a large hole in the back of JFK's head when he testified to the Warren Commission in 1964. Should we believe Clint Hill in 1964, or Clint Hill in 2014?



Jean Hill said "I didn't see any person fire the weapon, I only heard it" on November 22, 1963. She later said she saw a gunman on the Knoll firing a rifle at President Kennedy.

Should we believe Jean Hill in 1963, or Jean Hill post-Oliver Stone's movie?

This is fun. Your turn, Bob. Use a Parkland "BOH" witness this time. Carrico would be a good one. He decided to completely change his tune in later years about the huge hole in JFK's cranium (changing from a "back of the head" witness to a "side of the head" one).

I get to use Domingo Benavides for my next "wishy-washy" witness. He first says he couldn't possibly identify Tippit's killer. Then, more than three years later on CBS-TV, he's absolutely positive that Oswald killed Tippit. (Go figure witnesses.)


Charles Brehm, in 1986, also said the car "took off in a zig-zag motion". Several people said they saw things that never happened that day. And the FOUR films prove those people never saw the things they said they saw regarding JFK's car.



You know what I love about Lame Nuts? It's like playing Whack-a-Mole; you bust one head and three more pop up with more stupid arguments.


Name the last three "stupid Lame Nut arguments", Bob.

If any one of them tops the "Multi-Gunmen, Lone Patsy" plot endorsed by almost all Internet conspiracy theorists on the "stupid" scale, I'll gleefully give back my entire CIA Disinfo salary for 2014.

Good luck.



Lame Nut Argument #1:

A goodly number of witnesses all mistakenly saw the limo come to a stop, and a goodly number of that group mistakenly saw the limo swerve to the left.

Mass hallucination and mass hypnosis theories belong in a comic book, Dave, not a serious discussion about the JFK assassination.


Lame Conspiracy Argument #1:

ALL FOUR of these home movies have been "faked" or "altered" to remove a full limo stop and/or a swerve of the car: The Zapruder Film, the Nix Film, the Muchmore Film, and the Bronson Film.

Mass "impossible fakery" belongs in a Twilight Zone episode (or a loony bin), not in a realistic debate concerning the events that took place on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

What's Argument #2, Bob?

David Von Pein
August 29, 2014




Senator Ralph Yarborough and Jacqueline Kennedy [said] that the motorcade slowed and very nearly came to a stop during the shooting. I want to point out that that is not the kind of thing a person would likely be mistaken about. It's easy to see how the direction of a gunshot is something that people could be mistaken about, depending on other noise, their location, and the direction that they were facing. But Senator Yarborough was in the car right behind Kennedy. If he said it slowed to a near stop, he would know. You can't be confused about that. So, either he's lying or he's telling the truth, and no one in either camp has accused Senator Yarborough of lying.

So, what do WC apologists say about it? They don't say anything. They just shrug. They just go on to something else. If they can't deal with it, they don't deal with it. But, it is a big deal, and you can't shrug it off.


Since you brought up Senator Ralph Yarborough, let's take a closer look at a few of the things he said (in an affidavit he filled out on July 10, 1964, linked HERE):

"The motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). .... I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear." -- Ralph W. Yarborough; 07/10/64

So, as we can see, Senator Yarborough heard exactly THREE SHOTS ("and no more"), and the Senator was of the impression that all of the shots came from his "right rear" (i.e., in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building).

Yeah, he's some great conspiracy witness, isn't he?


I guess Cinque must think he lied his ass off in his July '64 affidavit when Yarborough said "THREE SHOTS" and "RIGHT REAR".


No, I do not think that Yarborough lied about three shots and right rear. But I also don't think he lied when he said the car stopped.


Everybody knows the limo almost stopped. The Nix film proves that fact very easily. And so does the Zapruder film.

So what? What's that fact supposed to prove?

(Awaiting Cinque's theory about how driver William Greer deliberately slowed the limo to make the kill shot easier for the assassins. Don't disappoint me now, Ralphie my boy.)


Let's turn it over to AssassinationResearch.com:

Deadly delay on Elm Street....

Sixty witnesses (ten police officers, seven Secret Service agents, thirty-eight spectators, two Presidential aides, Senator Ralph Yarborough, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy) and the Zapruder film document Secret Service agent William R. Greer's deceleration of the presidential limousine, as well as his two separate looks back at JFK during the assassination (Greer denied all of this to the Warren Commission).

By decelerating from an already slow 11.2 mph, Greer greatly endangered the President's life, and, as even Gerald Posner admitted, Greer contributed greatly to the success of the assassination. When we consider that Greer disobeyed a direct order from his superior, Roy Kellerman, to get out of line before the fatal shot struck the President's head, it is hard to give Agent Greer the benefit of the doubt.

As ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman said: "Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn't believe me." Clearly, Greer was responsible, at fault, and felt remorse. In short, Greer had survivor's guilt.


I already admitted that I think the car almost stopped.

I'll ask again:

So what?


That's during the shooting that the car almost stopped. You speed up when shots go off, that is, if your goal is to save human life. Do I really have to explain that to you?

Besides, now that you have admitted that "the car almost stopped", show me in the Zapruder film where the car almost stops. Why don't we see it? It's all one steady, continuous motion until the car accelerates at the end. They took out the stopping. That's what they doctored. There may be other things they doctored, but they definitely doctored that.


The "limo slow down" is noticeable in the Zapruder Film. Granted, it is more difficult to detect the limo's slowing down in the Z-Film, as opposed to the Nix Film, because the limo takes up Mr. Zapruder's entire frame, left to right (not counting the sprocket holes in the "widescreen" versions of the film, that is), but the slowing down of the car is definitely noticeable. It's not my fault you can't see it.

Here, try again, with this slow-motion version of the Zapruder Film.

Note--this version below has been slowed down slightly. It's not in "real time" here, but the slowing of the limo around the time of the head shot can still be discerned.

And since this is a "widescreen" version, with the images between the sprocket holes visible, you can even see the police motorcycle start to OVERTAKE the limousine on the far left side of the film frame, which is perfectly consistent with what we see in the Nix Film and is perfectly consistent with the limousine slowing down, allowing the police motorcycle to CATCH UP to the limo right around the time of the head shot:


No freaking' way! That car was moving along steadily throughout. Yarborough said it came to a "complete stop" or at least a "near-stop". Nothing close to that occurs in the Zapruder film you sent. Why don't you watch it again, and this time notice that not during the head shot nor at any other time does the car come to a "complete stop" or "near stop."


You're wrong, Ralph. I can detect the limo slowing down. And the motorcycle is overtaking the limo.

You must think the cycle is speeding up, instead of the limo slowing down, right?


The key question is; Why did the car slow down when shots were being fired at the president? Yes, as Ralph stated, it was certainly so that the shooters could take better aim at the president. It is a difficult thing to hit a moving target, and not so difficult to hit a target that is barely moving.


He [William Greer] waited for the headshot to come in from the Grassy Knoll before he moved on. Based on his behavior, anyone could deduce that he was aware that there was a gunman in [on?] the Knoll. The fact that Agent Greer waited for the headshot is clear and evident in the [Zapruder] film.

You asked: so what? How idiotic is that of a question! The "so what" is so that the president could be murdered. I consider that "so what" extremely significant. Don't you?


So, Orlando, let me get this straight....

You actually think that Secret Service agent William Greer was one of the KEY CONSPIRATORS in the President's assassination. Is that correct?

[Orlando never answered the above question. But as this post of Orlando's demonstrates, his answer to my last question can only be a very firm "Yes". Unbelievable.]

David Von Pein
July 2010

(PART 785)


The only way to “link” a fired bullet to any firearm is to match the marks on the bullet (from the lands and grooves of the rifling) to the rifling on the barrel of the weapon…and saying fragments were “consistent with having come from that gun” means nothing at all. I’d guess that the manufacturer of the ammunition was Norma...they made sporting/hunting loads for most all WWII rifles, and were about the only ones who did. So a fragment being “consistent” with the type of bullet that a 6.5 Italian rifle would fire would also be consistent to ANY Norma made Bullet…even one for a 30-06, a 8m/m, a 7.7 etc...the actual caliber would not even matter.


The fact still remains that there isn't ONE bullet or bullet fragment in this case that can be said to have positively NOT come from Oswald's rifle. Period. All bullets and fragments in this case either definitely came from MC rifle #C2766 or were consistent with having come from that gun.

And the FBI's firearms expert Robert Frazier did, indeed, testify that the smaller bullet fragments in evidence in this case were "consistent with" bullets that are known to have come from the Carcano rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. Here's just one example of such testimony from Frazier (at 5 H 72):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842 [a metal fragment removed from the wrist of Governor Connally], will you describe that fragment for us, please?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet."

MR. SPECTER -- "Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from Commission Exhibit 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."

MR. SPECTER -- "Are they consistent with that fragment identified as Commission Exhibit No. 842, as having come from fragment identified as Commission Exhibit 567 [one of the front-seat bullet fragments fired from Oswald's rifle]? ....

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."

MR. SPECTER -- "Were the characteristics of the fragment identified as Commission Exhibit 842 consistent with having come from the fragment heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 569 [the other front-seat bullet fragment fired from Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle]?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."


So, we can see via the above expert testimony from Bob Frazier that the largest Connally wrist fragment was considered to be "consistent with" other bullets and fragments that were positively fired from Lee Oswald's rifle.

And just how likely would it be for fragments from OTHER non-Oswald guns to have shown up in the evidence pile in this murder case, and yet have ONLY TINY FRAGMENTS from those "other" guns show up (vs. any fragments that were large enough to be compared with test bullets from LHO's gun in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as a candidate for having fired all of the bullets that struck any of the limo occupants in Dealey Plaza)?

What do you suppose the odds were of those "other" assassins getting THAT LUCKY?


I seriously doubt that any fragments would make a sound audible over the surrounding noise of the motorcade. Even a bullet making a direct hit on the metal body of the car would not have come even close to the description of a sonic boom.


Don't conspiracy theorists find the following terminology utilized by Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman interesting? Doesn't this testimony sound a lot like the explanation I was talking about earlier concerning Kellerman hearing the CE567 and CE569 bullet fragments from the head shot striking the limo's interior?:

"A flurry of shells come [sic] into the car."

Yes, it's true that Kellerman only used the term "flurry of shells" one time during his Warren Commission testimony (vs. "flurry of shots" on other occasions during his testimony).

But when you come to think of it, those two words ("shells" vs. "shots") are certainly not consistent with each other. A "shell" coming "into the car" is not the same thing as hearing a "flurry of shots".

Yes, you can attack me for possibly nitpicking this issue to death regarding "shells" vs. "shots", but Mr. Kellerman's precise words are quite interesting, IMO, in the sense that it would seem as though Mr. Kellerman actually HEARD the physical "shells" (i.e., bullet fragments) coming "INTO THE CAR" (which were his exact words).

And what OTHER "shells" (bullet fragments) could he possibly have been talking about if not CE567 and CE569 (the two largest bullet fragments from Oswald's gun that were found very near Kellerman's seat in the limousine)?

YMMV. But for my money (and considering the sum total of all the evidence), Roy H. Kellerman heard CE567/569 striking the limousine when he said "a flurry of shells come into the car".

David Von Pein
December 6, 2009

(PART 784)


Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman said he heard a "flurry of SHELLS" coming "into the car". That "flurry" was most certainly CE567 and CE569 striking the limousine's interior.

The reason I'm so sure of this is -- IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE (based on the evidence that POSITIVELY EXISTS in the case, vs. evidence that only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists who are desperate to increase the number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza to a number above 3).


That's utter nonsense.


It's not nonsense at all, Robert. In fact, as I pointed out, it's the one single explanation that makes THE MOST SENSE when taking into account the totality of all the evidence in this case.


1.) Lee Oswald fired 3 shots from his Sniper's Nest in the Book Depository.

2.) 90%+ of the earwitnesses heard 3 shots or fewer.

3.) 3 spent bullet shells were found in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.

4.) Oswald was the only shooter seen on November 22 (which is remarkable if the Oliver Stone-like theory of THREE gunmen is supposed to be believed, with one of those shooters standing practically right out in the open on the Grassy Knoll).

5.) Every single bullet or bullet fragment that was discovered and placed into evidence following the assassination was either positively linked to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle or was consistent with having come from that gun (which would have been the miracle of the ages if bullets from a variety of weapons had struck the two victims in the limousine).

In short -- The sum total of evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person firing any bullets at the President's car in Dealey Plaza on November the 22nd, 1963.*

* A conspiracy theorist's desire for a conspiracy notwithstanding, of course.

David Von Pein
December 6, 2009

(PART 783)


The bag was 40 inches long. The longest part of the broken down MC was 38 inches. It fit the bag.


That's not quite right. The paper bag was 38 inches long, and the lengthiest part of Oswald's C2766 MC rifle was 34.8 inches [Warren Report; Page 133].

Conspiracy theorists must hate the above picture, because it demonstrably illustrates that Lee Oswald's rifle (when broken down) was certainly capable of fitting inside the brown paper bag that was found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

Which is probably why the Anybody But Oswald CTers (such as James DiEugenio) have to try so hard to pretend that the paper bag in evidence [CE142] is a fake bag, with DiEugenio coming up with a new twist on that theory recently, as Jim D. now apparently wants to pretend that Oswald didn't carry ANY BAG AT ALL into the Book Depository on 11/22/63.

The lengths to which conspiracy theorists will go in order to avoid the evidence (and the facts) are simply amazing.

David Von Pein
December 5, 2009

(PART 782)


David, you cannot accept as valid evidence ANYTHING that the perps had control over.


And, of course, Mr. Robert Harris gets to decide who the "perps" [aka: plotters/conspirators] were. Right, Bob?


The other shooter on the sixth floor may have been using the same kind of rifle, which required the same ammunition.


Of course, there was only one shooter on the sixth floor, which makes your above comment kinda moot and meaningless, doesn't it Bob?

Bob Harris, though, has decided for HIMSELF that there were TWO gunmen on the sixth floor of the Depository. And Bob has made that determination without a single scrap of reliable/useful/provable evidence to support such an assertion. But will that stop him from purporting such a fantasy about 2 TSBD shooters? Take a guess.


Of the three shells, one of them was probably in the chamber before the attack and was ejected in the depository.


Notice how Bob attempts to maneuver the known evidence to suit his needs. Those needs (in this instance) being an attempt to support this theory: Lee Oswald only fired ONE single shot from the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, with that shot being a DELIBERATE MISS at precisely Z-Film frame #285, a shot that Harris claims sailed 15 feet over the top of the limousine and struck a manhole cover on Elm Street.

Such fantasies (sans one single ounce of proof) are worthy of Aesop, but are not worthy of serious consideration when discussing the JFK murder case.


And Oswald might have had a shell or two in his pocket and decided that if he was stopped and searched, it would incriminate him. So, he tossed them on the floor before he left.


Did I just read what I think I did?!

This one's a howl, Bob!

So, per this theory, Oswald was carrying around ("in his pocket") some spent bullet shells, eh?

We're not talking about NEW/UNFIRED/WHOLE BULLETS. We're talking about SPENT shells that had positively already been fired in and ejected from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano weapon!

Why on Earth would Lee Oswald have been carrying around USED, SPENT, AND WORTHLESS bullet shells "in his pocket" on the morning of November 22, 1963 (the very same day that he was planning to shoot the President with the gun that could be linked to those shells)?!

You see, this is what happens whenever a conspiracy kook tries to put forth a bunch of nonsensical, piecemeal theories concerning the way John Kennedy died in Dealey Plaza -- we are invariably treated to silliness like the above ridiculous theory purported by Bob Harris about Oswald carrying around spent bullet hulls in his pocket for no reason whatsoever.

But when conspiracists are cornered with hard evidence that they don't like at all (i.e., evidence which doesn't fit their individual conspiracy theories regarding the JFK case, such as the evidence I pointed out to Mr. Harris in a recent Internet message, repeated below), those conspiracists are then inevitably forced to twist logic into a big Mister Salty pretzel (just as Harris has done via his theory about Oswald possibly carrying around useless spent rifle cartridges in his pocket on the day of the assassination).

"So, as usual, Robert Harris' subjective theories fall flat, especially when weighed against the BEST PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the JFK case -- i.e., THREE spent bullet shells FROM OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE being found in the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY (not in the Dal-Tex Building), coupled with the important corroborating "THREE SHOTS" fact that more than NINETY PERCENT of the earwitnesses heard THREE SHOTS OR FEWER during the assassination in Dallas' Dealey Plaza." -- DVP; 11/30/09


Or they [the 3 bullet shells in the TSBD] might have been placed there by the other shooter, hoping to make it appear that Oswald fired all the shots.


Yeah, it's always a good idea to ignore the "ordinary" and most-likely version of events (i.e., Oswald fired three shots at JFK and that's why three shells from his gun were found in the Sniper's Nest) and instead invent an "extraordinary" version of events to explain the evidence away (i.e., Bob's make-believe "other shooter" in the Depository, who planted the shells in the Sniper's Nest).

William of Occam would just love Bob Harris (and all other JFK conspiracy nuts). Not!


But whatever happened, it cannot trump the conclusive evidence which proves that shots were too close together to have all come from Oswald and that early shots from his rifle could not have gone unnoticed at the time they were fired.


Here we are treated to another distinctive trait of conspiracy theorists -- they get to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES exactly what certain people would (or should) have done at a particular point in time. In this instance, Bob has decided that the Dealey Plaza witnesses would have had NO CHOICE but to have reacted quite noticeably to Oswald's "early shots" (shots prior to Z285).

Bob evidently thinks that all of those witnesses were standing right next to Lee Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD (vs. those witnesses being located a considerable distance, relatively speaking, from the muzzle of Oswald's Carcano rifle).

In any event, Bob insists that the witnesses HAD to react in a certain way after hearing the concussion of Lee Harvey Oswald's "early" pre-Z285 rifle blasts.

In short, folks, Bob Harris is nuts to think such a thing. Simple as that.

But, we must remember that we're dealing with a conspiracy monger who could also be labelled: "The King Of Subjective Thinking".

And when you've got that badge pinned to your chest, then ANYTHING is possible when it comes to evaluating the events that occurred in Dallas on November 22, 1963.


I'm sorry this makes you go into another ad hominem tirade, totally misrepresenting my position. This is NOT how reasonable men figure things out David.


"Mr. Subjective" now considers himself to be a "reasonable" man when it comes to his analysis of the JFK assassination.

Unbelievable, isn't it?


But it says a LOT about how you came to believe as you do. :-)


It does? How so?


I will say this -- Bob Harris, in just the last several days alone, has provided more laughs and more totally subjective and unprovable analysis regarding John F. Kennedy's assassination than I have seen around these parts from one single person in quite a long time.

I even e-mailed Vincent Bugliosi's secretary about Harris' recent barrage of conspiracy-flavored silliness (knowing full well that Vince's secretary, Rosemary, would fax my e-mail to Mr. Bugliosi, so that Vince, too, could get as big a chuckle out of Mr. Harris' subjectivism as I have been getting recently).

And, sure enough, Rosemary faxed my e-mail to VB. The mail (reprinted below) contains some stuff about Vincent Palamara too, in addition to the recent kooky stuff concerning Robert Harris):

Subject: JFK Articles
Date: 12/2/2009 3:37:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi Rosemary,

How are you, my friend?

I'm writing today in order to provide you links to a couple of recent online articles I've written concerning the never-ending battle with the conspiracy kooks concerning JFK's murder.

These are articles that I thought Vince Bugliosi (and you) might enjoy reading (as I attempt to destroy a particular conspiracy theorist's crazy theories; the theorist's name is Robert Harris, who has been posting conspiracy-oriented junk online for many years).

In one of the articles I mention Vincent Palamara's name. It seems that Palamara has now decided to stab Mr. Bugliosi in the gut (so to speak) via his admission that he still believes in a conspiracy in the JFK case (despite his apparent total switch to "LNism" in 2007 after reading Mr. Bugliosi's book).

To tell you the truth, Rosemary, I always knew that Palamara wasn't really ever completely "converted" into a lone-assassin believer. This became obvious to me when I saw that Palamara was continuing to write 5-star reviews at Amazon.com for pro-conspiracy books many months after he went on record endorsing Bugliosi's book (such as Palamara's glowing review in 2008 of Jim Douglass' book).

It's just a shame that Mr. Bugliosi placed so much faith in Palamara's supposed "turnaround" into an LNer. I winced when I saw Palamara's positive review for "Reclaiming History" appear in VB's 2008 follow up volume, "Four Days In November". Because now, as of late 2009, that pro-LN blurb for "RH" appears to be totally phony.

I've known for several years now that Palamara (in my own opinion) appears to be a person who seemingly doesn't know which side of the JFK fence he wants to reside on. His #1 goal, it seems, is to have his name show up in as many JFK books as possible. And I fear that was his main motivation for vigorously supporting Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" in 2007. That's kind of sad, but probably true.

Again, that's just my own personal opinion about Mr. Palamara's possible motivations. I admit, I could be 100% wrong about that. But that's the feeling I get from reading his non-stop self-promoting articles and blurbs that appear at many Internet locations.

Anyway, I just wanted to share these articles with you and Vince B. (as I recall, you told me a couple of years ago that Vince B. wanted me to "keep him informed" on anything new that might come up on the JFK-related Internet forums, so I'm doing that now).

Thanks. And Happy Holidays to both you and Mr. B.

Here are the links:



Best wishes,
David Von Pein

P.S. -- One more link....this is a blog I recently created, devoted exclusively to Vincent Bugliosi's June 2007 radio debate with Dr. Cyril Wecht:




Subject: JFK
Date: 12/2/2009 4:24:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

It was great hearing from you again. I faxed Vince your e-mail which I'm sure he'll find interesting. Vince, as you may know has been busy with the documentary that has been made of his latest book. It's due out sometime in February. I'm sure there'll be a great debate, pro and con, regarding the subject matter.

Please keep in touch and have a great holiday season (even though the mood of the country seems to be Bah Humbug).

Regards, Rosemary


David Von Pein
December 4, 2009

(PART 73)

https://alt.assassination.jfk/Photo Gallery Pages

http://dvp-video-audio-archive/The Warren Report (1964)
http://dvp-video-audio-archive/The Warren Report (1967)

http://jfkfacts.org/Did The Limousine Come To A Stop?
http://jfkfacts.org/Pierce Allman's Observations











(PART 781)


I'm sure you know that there were NOT twelve witnesses to the [Tippit] shooting...


And I never said there were 12 witnesses to the Tippit shooting. Here's what I really said (in case anybody cares):

"Gil J. Jesus, as all conspiracy theorists do, will sound like an absolute nut when he attempts to perform the above-mentioned task (which will include virtually every last piece of evidence connected to Oswald's murder of Officer J.D. Tippit as well, including Gil's pathetic attempt at discrediting ALL TWELVE WITNESSES who positively identified Mr. Oswald as either Tippit's murderer or the one and only person who fled the scene of the Tippit shooting with gun in hand)."
-- DVP; 10/30/09


But I'm happy that you exposed yourself as a liar once again.


No lie up there in that quote, idiot. Just the complete truth. Maybe you should learn to read.


Only TWO people ...."TWO"!!...actually saw the shooting.


Wrong. Four people saw it.

Try again.


Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides....That's it!!



1.) Helen Markham
2.) Domingo Benavides
3.) William Scoggins
4.) Jack Tatum

BTW, conspiracy kooks who don't include Scoggins as a witness who literally "saw" the shooting of J.D. Tippit are complete idiots.


You do have the ability to count to two, don't you?


Sure. But it seems you cannot count to four. Or twelve.


Helen Markham was hysterical and unreliable at the police line up.


And yet she picked out your favorite patsy as the person who she saw shoot the policeman, didn't she Mr. Kook?


...and Domingo Benavides was NEVER called to view a police line up.


And that's logical, since Domingo told the police he probably wouldn't be able to positively identify the shooter.



Benavides was without any doubt the MOST RELIABLE and CREDIBLE person who could have identified Oswald if Oswald had been the killer. He was only 15 feet away from the killer and the killer was facing him when Tippit was shot.


It's nice to be able to decide who is "without any doubt the MOST RELIABLE and CREDIBLE person" in any given situation, isn't it Walt? That's one of your self-written "kook rules".


There's no doubt that Benevides [sic] KNEW that Oswald was NOT the killer.



How would this be possible, Walter, since everyone with an ounce of sense knows that Oswald WAS J.D. Tippit's killer?


Why is it that the one most credible witness to the Tippit murder was never called to view a line up nor asked for a written affidavit???


Walt is digging into his "Rule Book For Kooks" again, I see. He gets to decide who the "most credible witness" is regarding Tippit's murder....even though Benavides said this to the Warren Commission:

DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me...and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. .... I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have."


It's obvious to anybody with an IQ greater than a common garden slug that the cops avoided Benavides because he told them that Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen shoot Tippit.


Even if Benavides did say that to the police (which he didn't, of course), we still know Oswald was the murderer of J.D. Tippit via other evidence.

But to a nut like Walt, it doesn't make a bit of difference that the Tippit murder weapon was FOUND ON OSWALD just 35 minutes after Tippit was slain.

That type of solid and irrefutable evidence, as always, is considered to be useless garbage in the eyes of an Anybody-But-Oswald joke like Walter Cakebread.

David Von Pein
October 31, 2009