JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 806)

THREE SHOTS
AND
THREE SHELLS

DILLON RANKINE SAID:

Virtually all witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day, even those who heard only 3 and thought they came from the TSBD, said that the last 2 shots were ALMOST SIMULTANEOUS, one right after the other.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

With respect to the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who said they heard THREE shots exactly (and that number of witnesses is extremely large, as the chart below illustrates), the factor that most conspiracy theorists will ignore (or they'll just pretend this evidence was fake or planted) is that there were THREE bullet shell casings found under the window where we know the assassin of President Kennedy was located. THREE shells exactly....which aligns itself perfectly with that huge number of "Three Shots" witnesses. That's pretty good corroboration.








When combined together, those two things (THREE shells in the Sniper's Nest + THREE shots being heard by the vast majority of all witnesses in Dealey Plaza) form the basis of a fairly decent conclusion of: ALL the shots that were fired at JFK on 11/22/63 came from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Therefore, given the above two powerful "Only Three Shots Were Fired" factors, the following very good argument could also be made by any lawyer who might have been prosecuting Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of John Kennedy (had Oswald lived long enough to hear this argument being made in a U.S. courtroom):

[Courtroom Simulation On:]

And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as we can see from the witness statistics I have just shown you....which are statistics that perfectly and seamlessly blend and mesh with the number of empty cartridge cases that were found by the police in that sixth-floor sniper's perch very shortly after the assassination of the President...it doesn't really matter if some of the witnesses testified that they thought the last two gunshots were spaced very closely together--bang, bang!

And the reason that such testimony cannot be accurate and reliable is because many of those very same witnesses ALSO said they heard exactly THREE 'bangs'. Not four. Not five. But THREE. And that's the number of bullet shells that just happened to have been discovered by the police under the assassin's window on the Depository's sixth floor.

Now, I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that just a miraculous COINCIDENCE? And were there really four or more shots fired at President Kennedy, even though, as we have seen in this courtroom, the vast majority of witnesses heard precisely THREE shots fired---and we have THREE shells found in the precise place where we KNOW President Kennedy's murderer was located when the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza?

I submit to you, members of this jury, that any reasonable person evaluating the evidence in this case has no choice but to conclude that exactly THREE shots--and three shots only!--were fired at the President's car on November 22, 1963....and those THREE shots all came from the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And this is so despite the witnesses who claimed to hear the last two shots being fired in BANG, BANG fashion--one right on top of the other.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, given these facts, it's quite obvious that someone DID fire three shots at JFK's car that day from the Depository. That fact can pretty well be determined by the fact that we have those three shells up there on the sixth floor. And all three of those bullet shell casings came from the SAME GUN--Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766--we know that from the firearms experts.

Therefore, the person who fired those three bullets from that Carcano rifle--whether it be Lee Oswald or ANYONE else you'd care to name--positively WAS able to fire those three bullets at the President's car during the period of time when shots were being fired at the car in Dealey Plaza.

So somebody DID fire three shots in WHATEVER amount of time you'd care to estimate they were fired in. We KNOW that happened. And those three shells in the Sniper's Nest prove that happened. And this is so regardless of any "three shots" witness who might have taken that witness stand to tell this jury that they thought that the last two of those THREE shots were fired almost simultaneously.

The facts on this are pretty clear, ladies and gentlemen -- Lee Harvey Oswald's gun positively fired THREE rifle shots at President Kennedy in Dallas on November the 22nd. And the overwhelmingly huge majority of witnesses said they heard THREE shots fired that day. And that would include several witnesses who were in a position to immediately report what they heard to the world -- such as Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Mal Couch, Jay Watson, Jerry Haynes, and some others too.

A reasonable person is compelled to conclude, therefore, that three shots--and only three shots--were fired at President John F. Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

[/Courtroom Simulation Off.]

David Von Pein
October 1, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 805)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

On December 17, 2009, conspiracy advocate Dr. David Mantik made an appearance on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio".

During that radio appearance, Dr. Mantik tells the audience that there's something fishy about the fact that President Kennedy's lead autopsy surgeon, Dr. James Humes, had told Dr. Pierre Finck that a set of X-rays had already been taken of JFK prior to Humes' phone call to Finck on 11/22/63, with Mantik saying this:

"This means only one thing--and it's inescapable. The body must have been there BEFORE 8:00, or these X-rays could not have been taken so that Humes could make his call [to Dr. Finck] a few minutes after eight [o'clock]."

Now, apparently Dr. Mantik has never bothered to read Dr. James Humes' Warren Commission testimony (or maybe Mantik has merely chosen to ignore it), which has Humes saying this to Arlen Specter and the Commission:


DR. HUMES -- "The President's body was received at 25 minutes before 8, and the autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that evening. You must include the fact that certain X-rays and other examinations were made before the actual beginning of the routine type autopsy examination."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Precisely what X-rays or photographs were taken before the dissection started?"

DR. HUMES -- "Some of these X-rays were taken before and some during the examination which, also maintains for the photographs, which were made as the need became apparent to make such."


These words (repeated below) spoken by Dr. Humes during his Warren Commission session on 3/16/64 (less than four months after the President's autopsy) totally destroy David Mantik's theory about something suspicious going on with regard to JFK's body at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of Kennedy's autopsy:

"The President's body was received at 25 minutes before 8." -- James J. Humes; March 16, 1964 [at 2 H 349]

Does Dr. Mantik think that Dr. Humes was lying through his teeth when he told the Warren Commission that JFK's body arrived at 7:35 PM (vs. the 8:00 figure that Mantik seems to want to believe)?

Once again, it appears that the simplest of tasks (i.e., looking up Dr. Humes' testimony) is able to thoroughly debunk a conspiracy theorist's imaginative speculation surrounding certain elements of the JFK assassination.

BTW, Dr. Humes said exactly the same thing to the HSCA in 1978 when it comes to the topic of "When did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?"

Here's what Humes said in '78 to the HSCA (which perfectly aligns with his Warren Commission testimony from fourteen years earlier):

DR. HUMES -- "The President's body, as I recall, arrived about 7:30 or 7:35."

David Von Pein
December 19, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 804)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

For today's laugh we turn to yet another conspiracy theorist--this time a fellow named Ed Souza, a former Los Angeles policeman who has authored a new JFK book, "Undeniable Truths: The Clear And Simple Facts Surrounding The Murder Of President John F. Kennedy", which came out in August 2014.

By merely glancing at a few random pages of Souza's book via Amazon.com's "Look Inside" tool, I found dozens of pieces of misinformation and outright falsehoods -- such as the old conspiracy-flavored myth about how Lee Harvey Oswald was drinking a Coke in the lunchroom during his encounter with policeman Marrion Baker; and the one about how it was "impossible" (Souza's word) for Oswald to have pulled off the shooting with his Carcano rifle; and an outright lie about there being "verified" proof that Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom at the moment of the assassination; and another whopper of a tale when Souza claims--get this--that Bonnie Ray Williams ate his lunch in the "exact window" from where the shots were fired. (What a brazen lie that is.)

If I had taken the time to read three more pages, my list of "whoppers" would easily have reached triple digits in number. Try it yourself and see how many incorrect myths you can find in Souza's book of pure bunk.

And, of course, Vince Palamara is Johnny-on-the-spot with a 5-Star Amazon review for Souza's book of distortions and lies. (What a surprise, huh?)


PATRICK COLLINS SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Patrick, for dismantling several of the distortions of fact that Mr. Souza has put in his book.

My only question now is why on Earth you gave this book full of falsehoods TWO STARS? What could possibly have kept this awful publication from earning the lowest possible ranking?

~shrug~


ED SOUZA SAID:

Dear Mr. David Von Pein,

My first question to you sir is have you read the book? And how much research have you done on this subject?

My 2nd point is even if you do not agree with the premise of the book I can understand that, but to insult me by stating that it was an awful publication clearly points to your lack of intelligence and understanding of not just this case, but what a piece of researched and documented academic writing looks like.

Although Mr. Collins was indeed critical of some of my points in the book, he did not insult my book as you did, which is why you received this response.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Souza,

You have taken great liberties with the evidence in the JFK case. You have stated certain things to be "impossible" that have been proven to be quite possible via subsequent tests -- Oswald's trip from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second floor for one; and Oswald's shooting performance with his Carcano rifle for another.

The evidence isn't something to be crafted and molded to your liking. It is what it is. And any rational person examining the sum total of that evidence can only conclude that Lee Oswald was not the innocent Depository employee you make him out to be. Far from it.


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Ed,

In your note to David von Pein [sic], you ask of David, "how much research have you done on this subject?"

Well, you will have the JFK assassination community laughing off their chairs with that one and in doing so clearly demonstrate that your background research on the case must have been rather limited.

That is a bit like meeting Jack Nicklaus and asking him if he ever played golf.........

Dave is probably far too modest to let you know, but I can reliably inform you, he is one of the leading and perhaps the foremost JFK assassination researcher and expert on our little blue planet. (forgive me Dave, I could not resist this).

You have to laugh, is that what you call a faux pass...?


ED SOUZA SAID:

I am sure even you [DVP] would admit that the thousands of points made in my book cannot all be explained away--true?? I would hope you would agree with that point.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Ed, since I've been in the "Oswald Did It Alone" camp for many years now (and I was never really what you'd call a "conspiracy theorist" at any time in my life), then quite obviously I disagree with your position of "Oswald Not Shooting JFK At All".

Ergo, I most certainly DO think that the "thousands of points" that you claim lead to Oswald's innocence and a conspiracy in the JFK murder case CAN and, more importantly, ALREADY HAVE been "explained" (and I'll leave off the word "away" in the phrase "explained away", because in my opinion that is a term best left to describe the many many conspiracy theorists who currently reside in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity; because it is those people, the "CTers", who try to "explain away" ALL of the evidence that points unwaveringly to the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the TWO murders he was charged with on 11/22/63).

You're utilizing Carolyn Arnold as a rock-solid witness who couldn't possibly be wrong about the VARIOUS times she gave to the authorities regarding when and where she saw Lee Oswald in the Depository Building on November 22nd. But it's fairly clear to me that even if she did see Oswald somewhere on the first or second floors of the TSBD shortly before the assassination, Oswald could still have (conceivably) been in the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest at precisely 12:30 PM. Carolyn does NOT provide Lee Oswald with an alibi for the exact time of the shooting.

Plus, Carolyn Arnold must be treated the same as all other similar "timeline" witnesses--i.e., you don't place such ESTIMATED times in granite or stone. She wasn't punching a time clock when she (allegedly) saw Lee Oswald on Nov. 22. But to hear many "CTers" tell it, Carolyn Arnold ALONE is the "proof" that Oswald was innocent of shooting the President. But in light of all that OTHER "Lee Oswald Was Here" stuff we find up on the sixth floor, such utilization of a single "timeline" witness is an illogical thing to do.

The conspiracists do the same thing with Helen Markham. Now, granted, I haven't read your whole book, Ed. (I just read a few selected pages via Amazon's free "Look Inside" tool.) But if I were a betting man, I'd wager a large sum that you have utilized Mrs. Markham's and T.F. Bowley's "1:06" and "1:10" times, respectively, for when Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed on Tenth Street. (If I am wrong in this assumption, I apologize to you.)

But most CTers love the estimated timelines of both Markham and Bowley. Those conspiracists feel that those times are forever sealed in concrete and therefore their testimony and statements prove beyond all doubt that Oswald did not shoot Officer Tippit.

But such nearly total reliance on "timing" witnesses, as I said before, is just not the way to solve a crime. It's the SUM TOTAL of the evidence that paints the big picture of a crime (as I'm sure you yourself, Ed, being a former Los Angeles police officer, would agree).

And what is the "Sum Total" of the evidence that is on the table in the murders of both JFK and J.D. Tippit? Well, in my opinion, that sum total is clearly spelling out the name of BOTH John Kennedy's killer and J.D. Tippit's murderer -- and it sure as heck ain't "Malcolm Wallace" or "E. Howard Hunt" or "James Files". The totality of evidence is screaming the name Lee H. Oswald.

For Pete sake, Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the theater when he was arrested just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot with THAT SAME GUN. You can practically call that being caught "red-handed". And there's no way that ALL FOUR of those bullet shells that littered the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue were all "planted" or "faked" in some manner. And all conspiracy theorists who make such unwarranted claims about those shells should know why those claims are dead wrong.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / The Murder Of J.D. Tippit

You say you have "thousands of points" in your book that you claim lead toward a conspiracy. That's a pretty big claim, Ed. (Even for a conspiracy theorist.) But I'd be willing to say, without too much fear of being proven incorrect, that approximately 99.5% of your "thousands of points" have been satisfactorily addressed by people such as myself, or Patrick Collins, or John McAdams, or Vincent Bugliosi, or Jean Davison, or Gerald Posner, or Dale Myers, or Mel Ayton, or Dr. John Lattimer, or Larry Sturdivan, or the Warren Commission, or the HSCA, or the National Academy of Sciences, or any number of other individuals and/or organizations and committees that have looked into every crevice of the huge morass known as "The JFK Assassination", with those people producing logical, sound, and rational NON-conspiratorial answers for nearly every anomaly, discrepancy, troubling document, and alleged "conspiracy" witness that exists in the JFK case.

Some things will forever remain a mystery to me, however. Such as the #1 thing that has troubled me for many years now (although a fairly reasonable explanation for even this discrepancy has been put forth by many researchers over the years too), which is the fact that so many Parkland witnesses (and even some Bethesda witnesses too) said they saw a huge hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head---even though, via the authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, we KNOW there was no large wound in the back (occipital) portion of JFK's cranium. That's a very strange "discrepancy" indeed.

But when confronted with a large discrepancy or contradictory piece of evidence like those Parkland witnesses, we must rely on the BEST evidence to try and solve the discrepancy or contradiction. And the "best evidence" in that instance would be--of course--the actual photographs and X-rays of the President's body. Would you not agree, Ed?

And those photos and X-rays are showing no large blasted-out hole in the back part of JFK's head. They show the large wound to be just where the Zapruder Film shows it to be--in the right/top/frontal portion of the head. And that's just exactly where four of the closest witnesses said the wound was too. Those witnesses being: Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, William Newman, and Gayle Newman. (Three of the four pictured below. Click the photos to enlarge them.)




JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / JFK's Head Wounds


Thank you, Ed, for your friendly and conciliatory messages aimed at me in this Amazon.com discussion. I totally disagree with your views on the JFK assassination, but you have also been a rare breath of fresh air for me when dealing with conspiracy believers in general. You've been pleasant when speaking to someone who called your JFK book "awful".

I still, however, think that word aptly applies to the book "Undeniable Truths", because based on just the limited number of pages of the book that I read, many of the things that author Ed Souza refers to as "undeniable truths" are, in reality, the same foundation of UNprovable mush and murkiness that conspiracy theorists have been recycling and peddling to the book-buying public for fifty years now.

But, unfortunately, I have discovered over the years that it doesn't seem to matter how many times the various conspiracy myths are debunked and proven to be just that--myths--there will always be somebody, somewhere, who will be willing to resurrect those long-discredited myths and prop them up again in a book, or on an Internet website, as if those myths were the gospel truth and had never once been properly dealt with by anyone on the "lone assassin" side of the fence.

An excellent example of what I was just talking about is illustrated at my webpage HERE.

David Von Pein
September 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 803)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The following is a 2009 radio debate about the JFK assassination, with lone-assassin advocate John McAdams of Marquette University squaring off against conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio:





DAVID CARPENTER SAID:

This [the above debate] is essentially unlistenable. I had to give up around the 15-minute mark.

Although Mr. McAdams at least speaks coherently, Mr. DiEugenio does not provide useful information here. He spews out factoid after factoid, rapid-fire, without giving enough context to help you focus on any one.

He is not necessarily wrong in any given bit of information. Maybe every little thing he says is absolutely true, but he rushes along, not providing adequate context to help you figure out what that actually means.

I am starting to see that seems to be a somewhat common problem among the conspiracy people. It does not mean they are wrong, but they do not help themselves by doing it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I agree. DiEugenio's rambling is, indeed, almost unlistenable. Just terrible. But even a conspiracy clown like Jimbo D. should have his say. This is America, after all.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes


AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID:

Awful, just plain awful. The "host", a mindless conspiracy nut, and Mr. "All my Convenient Evidence" McAdams. Just another infuriating JFK pissing contest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I totally agree with your comment about the host. That's Len Osanic. And you couldn't possibly find a worse radio show host if you looked for 500 years.

But as for the debate, CLICK HERE.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

Who is telling the truth? You judge…

Roger Craig [see this video].

Seymour Weitzman’s affidavit.

“From a glance” can you guess at the rifle caliber? Especially since most Mauser calibers were 8mm and not 7.65 mm? From a glance can you know the power of the scope?

Seymour Weitzman interview---watch his body language/eye contact:



Who’s lying?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an easy one to answer, Brian. The liar is Roger D. Craig. Without a doubt. And here's the proof (in Craig's own words even).


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

If you can answer me this question, maybe I'll start rethinking this: where is this "article" from? It's not sourced, it appears in a blog. How do I know it's real? Also, why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser? Why?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You need to look at my three-page PDF file which shows more of the 3/1/68 edition of the "Los Angeles Free Press" newspaper with the Roger Craig interview. Here it is....

ROGER CRAIG -- MARCH 1, 1968

As for "Why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser?" -- Well, I cannot answer that, because I can't get inside Craig's mind. But the facts are pretty clear that he DID lie in the Mark Lane film "Two Men In Dallas" when he said he saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle that we see being taken off of the floor by Lt. J.C. Day in Tom Alyea's news film. And Craig's OWN WORDS in that 1968 newspaper article provide the proof that Craig later lied to Lane in the 1970s.

As for the L.A. Free Press being a "real" publication, there's this link about that newspaper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Free_Press

But, then again, maybe Wikipedia (or its contributors) are part of a "JFK Assassination" plot too. (I'm sure some conspiracy theorists might think so. You aren't one of them, though, are you Brian?)


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

I'M NOT SHOUTING WITH CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M MERELY DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN YOUR WORDS AND MINE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ MY RESPONSE:

WHEN I STUDIED POLITICAL SCIENCE FOR MY UNDERGRADUATE WORK AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN GRAD SCHOOL, WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE BECAUSE IT'S AN OPEN SOURCE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT ISN'T A TRUSTED SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN ACADEMIA, SO WHY SHOULD I TRUST IT NOW? IS NOT TAKING AN OPEN SOURCE ENCYCLOPEDIA AS GOSPEL SOMEHOW INAPPROPRIATE EVEN THOUGH ACADEMICS WON'T DO IT EITHER?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Brian, I can fully agree with you about Wikipedia not always being a great source of information. But I have found it to be quite useful for quickly gathering information on some things I need to know. And within that Wikipedia article about the L.A. Free Press are OTHER sources of useful info on the given subject matter, such as the item linked below, which is a page about the "Los Angeles Free Press" that comes from the Library Of Congress website. Would you call this site trustworthy?....

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/79008348


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

John McAdams already lost all credibility in the first five minutes [of the 2009 debate against DiEugenio] talking about the Mannlicher Carcano vs the Mauser.

Mr. McAdams, I would love to debate you on this one issue.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is FILMED PROOF that a Carcano, not a Mauser, was found in the Book Depository on 11/22/63. Here's the proof.

Let's now see the silly CTers claim that the Alyea Film has been faked.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

What does that prove? We're talking about a cover up. How did Weitzman mistakenly identify the brand of rifle because he "glanced" at it, but he was able to identify the caliber as 7.65mm? How do you glance at the caliber? This is especially interesting because most Mausers were 8mm and not 7.65mm.

Once more, how did he identify the magnification of the scope (4x18) by––again––merely glancing at it? I'm a gun enthusiast, and I don't find his claim reasonable.

Weitzman swore on a notarized affidavit that it was a 7.65mm Mauser with a 4/18 scope. How do you do that merely glancing at the gun? Especially when Weitzman used to own a store where he sold guns?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Weitzman's detailed affidavit IS, indeed, very strange. I cannot deny its strangeness.

But do you REALLY think Weitzman was lying in my "Mauser Or Carcano?" video? He admits he was mistaken about the rifle type. And, btw, Eugene Boone, who was the very first police officer to see the rifle in the Book Depository on 11/22/63, also admitted later that he was mistaken when he too originally said he thought the rifle was a "Mauser". [See Boone's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-trial of Oswald, below.]



Plus, also see Tom Alyea's Film, which many gun experts have analyzed and have determined from the markings on the rifle that Lt. Day and Captain Fritz are handling a Mannlicher-Carcano weapon in the Alyea footage, not a German-made Mauser weapon. [See the link below for more info on this topic.]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/alyea-film.html


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

So what time did the camera roll on the sixth floor? 1:22 PM? Or sometime after that? Did the press follow the police upstairs and tag along as they went over the crime scene???


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Brian, that is exactly what happened. Two newsmen (Kent Biffle and WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea) got into the Depository before the police had sealed it off, and for some idiotic reason, Alyea was permitted to go up to the sixth floor and start filming everything that was going on.

Some job of a "cover-up" there by Will Fritz and his DPD police force, huh? They just let a TV news cameraman take a film of all of the (alleged) conspiratorial and sinister activity that the Dallas Police were engaging in right after the President's assassination. (At least there are many conspiracy theorists who think the cops were up there on the sixth floor tampering with all the evidence.)


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

I don't think you're getting my point. We have two "lies" going on here. One that involves a discrepancy between a sworn––signed––and notarized affidavit and a CBS interview where Weitzman appeared under duress, and a second "lie" where Roger Craig is said to have lied by corroborating Weitzman's original testimony, although he appears completely comfortable when delivering his account of what happened.

In the first discrepancy I have given you facts that can't be refuted that call Weitzman's changed account of the rifle first found into question (i.e. 7.65 vs 8mm Mauser & scope magnification). The only thing you've given me to support Weitzman's CHANGED testimony––where he couldn't even look the interviewer in the eye when asked when he first saw the rifle––is what you said about the film and the newspaper article.

The problem with the former deals with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because the footage was taken after the rifle was found doesn't mean it's the rifle which shot JFK. The problem with the newspaper article wouldn't be so much of an issue if we were talking about a low level crime, but when we're talking about a successful cover up of the assassination of a president, and the forces that have been at work for half a century to cover it up, a poorly scanned article with no name of its author doesn't quite satisfy my curiosity. I don't care if the Library of Congress can somehow substantiate a now defunct "news" publication, especially when Operation Mockingbird is a matter of record.

So we're back to my original inquiry. Does it seem reasonable that Seymour Weitzman is telling the truth when he contradicts his sworn affidavit? The answer is no because I have reasonably demonstrated that he couldn't have possibly identified certain characteristics at a "glance".

If he mistook the Carcano for a Mauser, and if he didn't see 7.65 as stated by Roger Craig, then why would he provide 7.65 in his affidavit when Mausers sold in the U.S. and Germany were 8mm? Why would he provide such additional specificity like the 4/18 power objective lens of the scope? Neither of those things could have possibly been seen at a glance, yet they were stated in the affidavit.

I know guns, and I defy anyone to show me how that kind of mistake could happen, especially when another police officer is corroborating what was said in the affidavit. What are the chances? It's not like Roger Craig made up some hairbrained BS account of what they found, it's backed up by Weitzman's affidavit, and Weitzman clearly looks nervous as heck on video compared to the calm and cool policeman of the year Roger Craig. Wouldn't you agree? 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is filmed proof that the rifle being lifted up by Lt. Day is a Carcano, not a Mauser. Isn't that enough?

Or do you think there were TWO rifles placed in the TSBD that day in order to frame LHO? (Not very smart of the plotters to do that, was it?)

A Mauser looks like a Carcano. No question about it. Both Boone & Weitzman later said they were mistaken. The Alyea film shows a Carcano, not a Mauser. Lt. Day took ONE rifle from the building on 11/22/63 -- a Carcano. The HSCA examined the photos of Day carrying the rifle and determined that CE139 (Oswald's Carcano) was the same weapon being taken out of the building by Lt. Carl Day of the DPD.

Captain Fritz never mentioned a SECOND rifle being found in the Depository either. Nor did ANYONE else who was there.

So, what does the sum total of evidence tell a reasonable person, Brian? Does that sum total add up to both a Mauser and a Carcano being found in the TSBD (which would mean we've got many more lying police officers other than just Seymour Weitzman)?

Or does the sum total add up to a Mannlicher-Carcano ONLY being found in the building, with a few policemen being mistaken about the exact make and model of the gun?

Guess which option I'm going to choose.

Also....

You should have read that first Google Newsgroup link I gave you a little more closely, because in that link I provided another link to Page #1 of the L.A. Free Press newspaper for March 1, 1968, including the name of the person who wrote the article featuring Roger Craig and Penn Jones. Her name is Jeanne Morgan. Here's the link again.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

AGAIN, MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS:

WAS ROGER CRAIG IN THE [Alyea] VIDEO? I NOTICED YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT TIME THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN. I'VE ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT YOU KEEP SKIRTING MINE. I MENTIONED 1:22PM, THAT WAS THE TIME ON THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WEITZMAN SAID THEY FOUND THE GUN. WAS THE CAMERA CREW UP THERE FIVE MINUTES LATER? TEN? 20? 1/2 HOUR? AN HOUR?

[...]

I AGREE. AT A "GLANCE" THEY [a Carcano and a Mauser] DO LOOK SIMILAR. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION HOWEVER, A GUY WHO USED TO OWN A SPORTING GOODS STORE WOULD KNOW. HE'D ALSO LOOK CLOSE ENOUGH AT THE WEAPON THAT KILLED THE PRESIDENT TO KNOW IT WAS A 7.65 MAUSER WITH A 4X18 SCOPE. HE WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, KNOW THAT IF HE ONLY GLANCED AT THE RIFLE.

A GUY INTERESTED IN SPORTING ARMS WOULD HAVE WANTED TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THAT GUN, AND THE SPECIFICITY IN THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTS THAT, AND IT ALSO SUPPORTS ROGER CRAIG. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SUPPORT LOOKING AT THE WEAPON AND MISIDENTIFYING IT AT A GLANCE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no idea why Weitzman thought the Carcano was a Mauser of exactly "7.65 mm". But, as you correctly pointed out earlier, Deputy Weitzman WAS a gun buff who had a sporting goods store. Ergo, he would be JUST the type of informed and knowledgeable "gun enthusiast" to KNOW that there were not just "8 mm" Mausers, but also "7.65 mm" Mausers too.

As for why he chose to place in his affidavit the detail about 7.65 Mauser, I cannot hazard a guess---other than to speculate that his familiarity with guns afforded him the luxury of GUESSING as to the exact "7.65 mm" size of the weapon that he assumed was a Mauser (but it wasn't). Couldn't that be a possible explanation, Brian?

As for the remainder of the details in Weitzman's affidavit -- Well, those things are accurate as far as OSWALD'S 6.5-millimeter Carcano are concerned. It DID have a 4-power scope on it, and it DID have a "thick leather sling" attached to it. So there's no problem there that I can see. Weitzman merely observed the correct scope and sling details....but he guessed wrong on the make and model.

As for when Tom Alyea took his film of the rifle being lifted from its hiding place by Lt. Day --- No, of course it wasn't as early as 1:22 PM. The gun wasn't even first discovered until that exact minute--1:22 PM CST. So, obviously, Alyea filmed the rifle a little bit later, probably about ten or fifteen minutes later, I would guess, because J.C. Day and Will Fritz had not yet arrived on the sixth floor as of 1:22. So it took them a little while to get up there after the gun was found.

But what difference does it really make WHEN Alyea filmed his footage? We know he did film it, and he then had to toss the undeveloped film out of a Depository window in order to get it to a co-worker on the street so it could then be quickly processed and put on the air in a "wet" form on WFAA-TV a short time later. (See my WFAA-TV video series if you want to see the initial airing of Alyea's film on the afternoon of 11/22/63.)


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM TO CONTEND WITH. I SUBMIT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ULTIMATELY COERCE WEITZMAN TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY.

THEY WEREN'T, HOWEVER, ABLE TO CHANGE THE MIND OF ONE OF DALLAS' FINEST (LITERALLY). AND THAT IS WHAT BROUGHT US TO THIS DISCUSSION. EVERYTHING ROGER CRAIG SAID ABOUT THE WEAPON ITSELF IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH WEITZMAN AND BOONE'S ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS. BOTH MEN MADE THE MISTAKE?

AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE IDENTIFIED THE WEAPON AS AN OBSCURE 7.65 MAUSER, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN BOTH BOONE AND CRAIG MET WITH AN UNTIMELY DEATH. 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The way I see it, Brian, you have an even bigger problem to contend with when it comes to the subject of the identification of the rifle. Because you've got to believe that not only were Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone liars when they each later said they were mistaken about their initial remarks about the TSBD rifle being a Mauser --- but you've got to ALSO believe that several other police officers also lied their eyes out in their official reports and in their subsequent testimony in front of the Warren Commission, including Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz and Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD's Identification Bureau.

Neither Capt. Fritz nor Lt. Day ever said a word about there being TWO rifles seen in the Book Depository. Many conspiracy theorists like to use Captain Fritz, however, to bolster their claims that a Mauser really was found in the building, because according to those conspiracy theorists, Fritz made a comment shortly after seeing the rifle to the effect that he too thought it looked like a Mauser.

As for Boone and Weitzman both saying the rifle was a "7.65" Mauser, my guess on that would be that one of those officers simply heard the other officer casually mention that he thought it looked like a "7.65 Mauser", and therefore the second officer agreed and started referring to it by that exact (inaccurate) description himself. A follow-the-leader type of thinking.

And Roger Craig--who was a proven liar, as I demonstrated previously via his 1968 newspaper interview--had plenty of time (about TEN YEARS) to rearrange his tall tale about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the gun. By the time Craig told his bald-faced lie in Mark Lane's film in the early 1970s, he undoubtedly had studied the affidavit of Seymour Weitzman carefully, and therefore he crafted a large part of his "7.65 Mauser" lie around Weitzman's 11/23/63 affidavit.

Ergo, Craig's story in the 1970s is not really corroborative of Weitzman's affidavit in the slightest---particularly since we have Craig's own words from the 1968 L.A. Free Press article, where he says these words about the rifle that was found between boxes on the sixth floor of the Book Depository --- "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

There were several mistakes made by various people (including police officers and the news media) immediately after President Kennedy's assassination, and one of the most widespread, and somewhat diverse, errors that spread throughout the world on television and radio on 11/22/63 was the topic we're discussing now---i.e., the question of "What kind of rifle was found in the Depository?"



And the errors regarding the rifle's identification weren't limited to just "German Mauser" either. As you can see in the above video, there were a lot of other erroneous reports concerning the make and model of the rifle, with some reporters referring to it as a gun made in Japan or Argentina or in Great Britain. The identifications were all over the map on Day 1. But they can't ALL be correct, can they? And somebody must have been supplying the news media with all of those false reports.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

FRITZ ALSO DENIED THAT ROGER CRAIG WAS AT THE STATION WHEN THEY INTERROGATED OSWALD, BUT A PICTURE LATER EMERGED THAT SHOWED HE WAS THERE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the photos of Roger Craig don't show him inside Captain Fritz' office. Craig (or someone who looks like Craig) is seen in the outer office of the Homicide & Robbery Bureau. Big difference. Oswald was being interrogated INSIDE Fritz' private inner office. There is no corroboration of Craig having been in that inner office where Lee Oswald was.

And, again, the best evidence (by far) for the rifle being a Carcano is Tom Alyea's film, which you evidently want to pretend was taken at some much LATER time, even though we can see Carl Day picking the rifle up off the floor in the film.

In other words, the rifle had not been touched by anyone prior to Alyea shooting that section of his film. If you want to think otherwise, have at it. But don't expect to drag me down that murky "Everything's Fake And Phony" rabbit hole with you.

I guess you must believe Bob Groden's tale about Alyea filming a "re-creation" of the rifle being found--after the rifles were switched, right?

So that means more fakery, and more collusion, and more covering up. Heaps of alleged plotters, but no proof by any of the conspiracy theorists of the world. Merely unsupportable speculation. Like always.

In the final analysis, there is just too much evidence (including the important Alyea Film) which indicates that just ONE rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, and that gun was a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.

David Von Pein
September 2014

MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 76)

50 YEARS AGO TODAY...ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1964:
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/327229350770889


THE WARREN COMMISSION AND THE EVIDENCE:
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/326778504149307


"THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT: A GRAPHIC INVESTIGATION":
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/framing-warren-commission


UTTER SILLINESS:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/EKQkUv-5ihI/umUflQTqAwAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/EKQkUv-5ihI/kf2RhhS-BAAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/EKQkUv-5ihI/ptVGDqAoBQAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/EKQkUv-5ihI/j3tm5MOeAAAJ


WHERE WAS THE HEAD WOUND?:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/XfBBmeBtc5Y/kw-46Fy0fEoJ


ARNOLD ROWLAND:
http://educationforum.com/index.php#entry290110


A LIAR NAMED OSWALD:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/z-n51tPDD7A/UUQURs6iNccJ


OSWALD'S VIEW FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST:
https://blogspot.com/Photograph/TSBD-Sniper-View.jpg


OSWALD'S TELEVISION AND (SHORTWAVE) RADIO HABITS:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Fugitive, Radio Havana, & LHO


THAT "SINGLE BULLET" (YET AGAIN):
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/588823851245082


DOUG HORNE:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/QVVSM7uSO6s/BCtm_wSbVywJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/QVVSM7uSO6s/Fup3d0T8P4QJ


NEWSMAN RECALLS THE JFK ASSASSINATION:
http://news.wbfo.org/post/Newsman Remembers 11/22/63


MORE MISCELLANEOUS STUFF:
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/753586618021662
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/586773691450098
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/Os1eZVdhvZQ/Nf5BzdT1jMAJ
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/Eqwn9oF9Mhk/s-iJfteobYwJ


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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 802)

DUNCAN MacRAE SAID:

[When posting messages to jfkassassinationforum.com]...Do not add links to forums where only the CT side or only the LN side of the JFK Assassination argument is allowed to be discussed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above rule would therefore apply to the following four "forums" only (at least these are the only 4 current online "forums" I have encountered that have totally shut off the "LN" voice entirely; and there are zero "LN Only" forums, as far as I am aware)....

1.) Deep Politics Forum

2.) Greg Parker's "Re-Open Kennedy Case" forum

3.) Wim Dankbaar's "JFK Murder Solved" forum

4.) Greg Burnham's new forum

I've never seen a single "LNer" post anything at any of the forums listed above.

Am I missing any others? I don't think I am. And I visit all JFK forums on a daily basis.

EDIT -- Addendum....

Another "forum" that probably has never accepted an "LN" member is Len Osanic's Black Op Radio forum. (Although I haven't been to that forum in a long time. It was infected with a virus a while back, and I've been afraid to go there ever since.)


HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

I have posted dissenting opinions on the Deep Politics Forum. If this cite [sic] were for either CT or LN opinions only, then my posts would have vanished. However, these dissenting opinions are still on the board.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So?

Sure, differing opinions among the "CTer" ranks is permitted. But Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014:

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time."
-- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14





Ergo, my previous comment is still 100% true:

"I've never seen a single "LNer" post anything at any of the forums listed above."

And the last time I checked, Herbert Blenner was most certainly not an "LNer".


HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

You are color blind.

I am a Coverup Theorist who acknowledges the absence of credible evidence of conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you think Oswald acted alone, do you Herb?

"Like it or not, the medical evidence documents and independently discusses two wounds of the back." -- Herbert Blenner

Do you think Oswald caused BOTH of the JFK back wounds you talk about in the above quote, Herbert? (Including the one non-existent back wound you invented in your own mind.)

Anyway, no matter, a "Cover-up Theorist" is also a "Conspiracy Theorist". Just a different name being placed on it. And a "cover-up theorist" would certainly still be welcomed with open arms by the fantasists running the DPF.


HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

I did not invent a back wound. The medical panels described a 7 mm by 10 mm wound with its longer axis nearly perpendicular to the long axis of the body. However, Commander Humes and his autopsy report discussed a 7 mm by 4 mm back wound with its longer axis approximately parallel to the same long axis of the body.

The artists, Rydberg and Dox, illustrated the conflicting directions of the longer axes of these wounds.

Fox-5 shows two distinct objects with relative dimensions and orientations of their longer axes that match the conflicting descriptions of the back wounds.

See the following link for details.

http://hdblenner.com/coldfusion.htm


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You DID invent a second back wound, Herb. And you know it. There is not ONE piece of documentation in the official record that even SUGGESTS the existence on John Kennedy's body of a SECOND bullet hole in his back. YOU, yourself, have interpreted the measurements and testimony in a way that YOU want to interpret those things.

But the official record is crystal clear---from the autopsy report, to Clark's Panel, to the Warren Commission, to the Rockefeller Commission, to the HSCA---and that is: JFK had ONE wound in his upper back. Not two.

You're not only a "Cover-up Theorist", Herbert, you're a "Wound Revisionist Theorist" as well.

And since Herbert "acknowledges the absence of credible evidence of conspiracy", it makes me wonder WHY there was any need whatsoever for a bunch of people to start "covering up" a lot of things relating to JFK's murder?

If there's no "credible evidence of conspiracy" to begin with, why the "cover-up", Herb?


REPLAY:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never seen a single "LNer" post anything at any of the forums listed above.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Maybe they have, but you don't know their aliases.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh sure, Tony. And nobody at the DPF forum or the other "CT" forums would possibly be able to figure out that the person using the "alias" was REALLY an "LNer" because of the alias, right?

IOW, the person's COMMENTS about Oswald doing it alone wouldn't be any kind of a hint to Dawn Meredith and the other fantasists at the all-CT forums merely because the poster was using a fake name.



You're too funny, Tony.

(Does Tony ever sort things out in his mind before posting? I often wonder---like now.)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I know of one guy named David Von Pein who only allows pro-WC articles on his Web site/blog.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be because David Von Pein is an "LNer" and he is the only author permitted to post at his sites/blogs? (Which is precisely the way DVP wants it and always will.)

Can you imagine the misery I'd have if I permitted "CT" authors to have the ability to arbitrarily post their junk on MY sites? Yikes! Why would ANY blog owner ever do that? I sure won't.

In fact, I'm not sure I know of any blog owner who actually allows other people (other than the blog owner/creator) to post new articles on his/her blog. If you know of any blog owner who allows such multi-person posting, please provide the link. I'd like to see that.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Some of the people here are too lame to figure it out.

I have my own Web site. I have put articles on it from WC defenders. It's called OPEN RESEARCH. Something you've never heard of. All you know is bias. Jeff Morley allows WC defenders to say stupid things on his blog.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tony,

I've linked to many pro-conspiracy articles on my sites. And I've copied and pasted many additional CT arguments from Internet forums into my webpages (my "Assorted JFK Arguments" series is up to almost 1200 parts now).

So I've given the "Conspiracy" side a voice. Plenty of voice, in fact. So maybe you should investigate things a little better before shooting off your mouth with silly comments like this one --

"It's called OPEN RESEARCH. Something you've never heard of. All you know is bias." -- W. Anthony Marsh


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

And McAdams has cited some of my articles, but only when they are not blatantly conspiratorial. And he loves to quote anything I say which criticizes another conspiracy believer. The old Divide and Conquer strategy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm now kinda sad that Marsh has been quoted in the book that Mel Ayton and I have coming out very soon. (Believe me, that was Mel's idea to quote Mr. Marsh in the book, not mine.)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Say it ain't so, Joe. I hope he quotes me calling you a liar. I doubt he'll quote my article proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Wouldn't want the general public to know about that, eh?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can't even remember right now what the topic was, Tony. But I do remembering cringing a little bit when I saw that Mel had quoted Anthony Marsh for our lone-assassin book. I didn't much like that idea at all (and I still don't). But, I'm just the second author. Mel is the main author, so I don't have complete control of the book's contents. But fortunately I was able to convince Mel to leave out a couple of other things that also made me cringe even worse than your quote.

David Von Pein
September 22, 2014

WAS ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE PLANTED TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I like to occasionally ask conspiracy theorists this question, which is a question they can never answer without claiming that all of the Dallas cops were crooked and part of a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for two murders he never actually committed:

Did the Dallas Police Department normally have a habit of officially charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against that suspect at all? (And many conspiracists seem to think the police had no real evidence at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)

But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.

In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that important fact mean just a little something to the conspiracy theorists of the world?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually all conspiracy believers that I have encountered on the Internet think that every single scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner, including each of the following items:

1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.

4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).

5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.

7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to William Scoggins, etc., etc.

8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed President Kennedy.

9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.

11. The Walker bullet.

12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some conspiracists, are phony too. They say the cops planted those five bullets on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to exonerate a guilty double-murderer.

About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists might say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest.

But, naturally, the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy believers would never in a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the Presidential assassin also must have handled (and I guess the "real" Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those boxes on November 22, 1963).

And just because shells from Oswald's gun were found right there in the Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were planted in the Book Depository too.

Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter, that's pretty much the only reason.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" could have possibly been done is enough to convince those conspiracy believers (particularly "Internet CTers") that all of the evidence that incriminates Oswald was, in fact, tampered with.

Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, no defendant who was on trial for any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence could have conceivably been tampered with.

And how can the jury possibly know with 100% certainty if any (or all) of the evidence really had or had not been tampered with? They can't possibly know such a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every last piece of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of custody" trail be faked too? Obviously, it could be faked.

Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom due to the mere possibility of such underhanded shenanigans on the part of the authorities.

For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth, all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.

But the allegation of evidence-tampering is a far cry from proving that the evidence really was tampered with.

And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth possess that would verify and prove that even one piece of evidence in the JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?

I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is --- There is no such proof. And there never has been.

David Von Pein
September 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 801)

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

I was reading the Wikipedia article about Jack ruby and something bothers me a lot.

From Wikipedia:

"District Attorney Henry Wade briefed reporters at the press conference telling them that Lee Oswald was a member of the anti-Castro Free Cuba Committee [sic; actually, Wade's exact words were "Free Cuba Movement"]. Ruby was one of several people there who spoke up to correct Wade, saying: "Henry, that's the Fair Play for Cuba Committee," a pro-Castro organization."

Since both groups were active at that time, how did Ruby know the correct group Oswald was a member of?


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

The correct name had been brought up earlier when Ruby was present.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

See the links HERE and HERE.

Also keep in mind that other people (reporters) besides just Jack Ruby shouted out the name "Fair Play For Cuba" at the same time Ruby did during Henry Wade's press conference [which can be seen HERE].

So why don't conspiracy theorists ask "Where did those OTHER people get their FPCC info?"


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

We have overwhelming evidence Oswald was guilty. You don't need to frame a guilty man. We have no credible evidence Oswald and Ruby knew each other prior to the assassination. Got any? We do have credible evidence that the correct name of the organization Oswald belonged to had been brought up earlier.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Of course you need to frame a guilty man. Where ya been? Every cop knew instantly that OJ Simpson killed his wife. But they had no evidence, so they had to plant blood evidence to help convict him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just exactly WHY did those cops know Simpson was guilty? Was it just a gut feeling they all had?

And you actually believe the cops would start planting evidence (i.e., the bloody glove) on Simpson's estate at a time when they could not possibly know if he had a foolproof alibi?

What if it turned out Simpson was in another state at the time of the murders? That would have been a nice sticky wicket for Fuhrman and Company, wouldn't it?

To segue this into a "JFK" topic, I like to ask CTers this question occasionally (which no CTer can reasonably answer without resorting to the old "The Cops Were Crooked" standby).....

Did the Dallas Police normally have a habit of officially charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against that suspect at all? (And many CTers seem to think the police had NO REAL EVIDENCE at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)

But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.

In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that important fact mean just a little something to the conspiracy theorists of the world?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually ALL Internet conspiracy believers that I have encountered think that every single scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner, including each of the following items:

1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.

4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).

5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.

7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to William Scoggins, etc., etc.

8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed President Kennedy.

9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.

11. The Walker bullet (CE573).

12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some conspiracists, are phony too. Some CTers say the cops PLANTED those five bullets on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to exonerate a guilty double-murderer.

About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists MIGHT say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest.

But, naturally, the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers would never in a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN ALSO MUST HAVE HANDLED (and I guess the "real" Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those boxes on November 22, 1963).

And just because shells from OSWALD'S gun were found right there in the Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were planted in the Book Depository too.

Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter, that's pretty much the ONLY reason.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" COULD have possibly been done is enough to convince those CTers (particularly "Internet CTers") that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Oswald WAS, in fact, tampered with.

Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, NO defendant who was on trial for any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence COULD have conceivably been tampered with.

And how can the jury possibly KNOW with 100% certainty if any (or all) of the evidence really had or had not been tampered with? They can't possibly KNOW such a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every last piece of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of custody" trail be faked too? Obviously, it COULD be faked.

Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom due to the mere possibility of such underhanded shenanigans on the part of the authorities.

For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth, all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.

But the ALLEGATION of evidence-tampering is a far cry from PROVING that the evidence really was tampered with. Isn't it, Tony?

And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth (including the all-knowing W. Anthony Marsh) possess that would verify and prove that even ONE piece of evidence in the JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?

I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is --- There is no such PROOF. And there never has been.

David Von Pein
September 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 800)

VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

Yes, I'm baaaaaaaaaaack, DVP (please read)....

Man, I know why you are known as "O.J." Von Pein: your comments cut like a knife LOL :O)

Yes, it is true that a) I was a fervent believer in a conspiracy in JFK's death from approx. 1978 to early 2007 and b) that I changed my mind via Vincent Bugliosi's MASTERPIECE, "Reclaiming History", THE best Oswald-did-it book---and one of the best books ever---on the JFK assassination (although I DID still believe there WERE conspiracies [plural] to kill Kennedy...just that Oswald beat them all to the punch and, as Vince Bugliosi even acknowledges, the Secret Service were grossly negligent).

Why people care so much about my opinion is both flattering and bemusing---WHO GIVES A ^%^$$#!!!!! It is a free country and everyone is entitled to one (and you know what they say about opinions LOL...).

That said, for the record: I am back to believing there was a conspiracy, thanks largely to Douglas Horne's amazing new books [again, PLURAL]!

FANTASTIC ANALOGY THAT I REALLY LIKE AND ALOT OF PEOPLE CAN RELATE TO (50-60% divorce rate...and I, myself, am twice divorced LOL):

My first marriage = belief in conspiracy...

My second marriage = change of heart.

Now, didn't I (and millions of once married people) love their wife once upon a time? Wasn't it legit? Does anything that transpires AFTER negate the sincerity of those feelings for the time? Of course not. When I and millions of other second-timers married again, THOSE feelings were sincere and legit, as well; everything--and everyone---lives in the context of the times (pre-June 1994: O.J. Simpson was just a great football player, pre-November 2009, Tiger Woods was an untainted Golf star..get it? LOL).

Now, when I got divorced again, along came...

New girlfriend = back to belief in conspiracy, albeit somewhat different view.

DVP WROTE:

"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)."

[End DVP Quote.]

----HUH? THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY. ONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE THEIR MIND????? I HAVE ENORMOUS RESPECT FOR VINCE BUGLIOSI AND HIS BOOK (S). USING THE ANALOGY ABOVE, NO ONE IS PERMITED [sic] TO MARRY AGAIN---HEY, YOU SWORE A BLOOD OATH TO THE FIRST ONE. LOL.

"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)." -- DVP

JIM DOUGLASS WROTE A GREAT BOOK. GEEZ, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SOVIET-INSPIRED DOCTRINE TO FOLLOW NOW??? :o)

"It's just a shame that Mr. Bugliosi placed so much faith in Palamara's supposed "turnaround" into an LNer." -- DVP

I SINCERELY DOUBT HE DID. CIRCA EARLY 2007, MY BOOK BLURB WAS 100% (NOT EVEN 99%) SINCERE...USING MY OJ ANALOGY, THIS WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO SAYING "VINCE, YOU'RE A REAL JERK: I HAVE THIS *1993* ARTICLE OF YOURS WHEREIN YOU STATE WHAT A WONDERFUL PERSON OJ IS--YOU CREEP!!" AGAIN, CONTEXT/ CONVICTION OF---AND AT---THE TIME :o)

"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." -- DVP

NOPE---SEE ABOVE.

"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." -- DVP

HMMM: AS OF 2005-2007ISH, GUILTY AS CHARGED---I WAS RIPE FOR THE TAKING WHEN VINCE'S MASTERFUL BOOK CAME OUT [YES, YOU *CAN* HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT. I KNOW LOTS OF PRO-CONSPIRACY PEOPLE WHO LOVE RICHARD TRASK'S BOOKS...AND HE IS A LONE NUTTER ALL THE
WAY...SO? :o) ]

"His #1 goal, it seems, is to have his name show up in as many JFK books as possible." -- DVP

WELL, NOT #1, BUT IT IS KINDA COOL LOL :o)

"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." -- DVP

100% FALSE.

"Again, that's just my own personal opinion about Mr. Palamara's possible motivations. I admit, I could be 100% wrong about that." -- DVP

YOU ARE. :o)

"But that's the feeling I get from reading his non-stop self-promoting articles and blurbs that appear at many Internet locations." -- DVP

NOPE, THAT'S JUST MY EGO GETTING IN THE WAY. LOL. WHEN PEOPLE MEET ME IN PERSON, THEY ALWAYS SAY "GEE, YOU DON'T SEEM ANYWHERE NEAR AS EGOTISTICAL AS YOU DO ONLINE". LOL :o) :o) LIFE IS SHORT---HISTORY BELONGS TO THOSE WHO WRITE IT...AND YOU MUST PUBLICIZE YOUR OWN GOOD WORKS THESE DAYS.

Vince Palamara :O)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gee, what a convoluted mess Vincent Palamara's post above is, as he attempts to HAVE IT BOTH WAYS -- he wants to believe that Vince Bugliosi's JFK book is a "masterpiece", but at the very same time he is now "back to believing there was a conspiracy, thanks largely to Douglas Horne's amazing new books" [V. Palamara; 12/15/09].

Talk about contradictory thinking....Mr. Palamara's got it.

In order to believe in ANY of the conspiracy-tinged nonsense that Douglas Horne believes in, a person must AUTOMATICALLY disbelieve the things that Vincent T. Bugliosi believes in.

And Mr. Palamara's "marriage" analogy is simply a howl. Marriage isn't akin to the JFK assassination situation at all. Not even close.

Either Lee Oswald killed Kennedy alone (as Bugliosi posits) or he didn't (as Horne posits). You cannot believe that BOTH Bugliosi's and Horne's versions of the JFK story are true. They are like water and oil. They cannot co-exist.

It makes me wonder if Vince Palamara will soon give some credence to Brian David Andersen's conspiracy theory about how JFK faked his own death. Only time will tell. It depends on which direction the wind is blowing on any particular day, it would seem.

In short, it appears that Vince Palamara's opinions regarding the John F. Kennedy murder case are about as steady as the colors of a chameleon.

David Von Pein
December 16, 2009


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

VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEW:



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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 799)

A KOOK NAMED "VIDEOJOHN" AT IMDB.COM SAID:

>>> "All of the (so called) "evidence" is circumstantial and much [of it is] fake as well." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Every single thing ejaculated by "VideoJohn" ["VJ"] is 100% bogus (and just plain stupid, to boot).

But, naturally, a conspiracy clown like "VJ" doesn't mind looking like a clown (and an illiterate one at that). He appears to relish and savor the role.


>>> "1) SBT invented by altering autopsy wound locations." <<<

#1 on "VJ's" list is disproven by taking just one look at CE903 (which is a Commission Exhibit that all conspiracy believers always totally ignore, probably due to the fact that that one exhibit ALONE disproves the popular myth that the Warren Commission needed to "raise" JFK's back wound up into the neck in order for the SBT to be plausible.




>>> "2) Purchase/ownership of the Carcano was never proven that of LHO." <<<

#2 -- Disproven in many ways, via the documents in OSWALD'S HANDWRITING that positively prove he ordered the JFK murder weapon in March 1963. Conspiracy clowns like "VJ", quite naturally, ignore the handwriting evidence in favor of their unsupportable pro-conspiracy assertions.


>>> "3) Third shell casing added, only two (2) rounds were fired from TSBD." <<<

#3 -- Disproven by CE510 (DPD picture showing three shells in the Nest). And disproven in various other ways too, including the testimony of multiple DPD and Sheriff's officers who testified to THREE shells being found in the Sniper's Nest.



But a kook wants to cite only the one report that says the DPD turned over two shells to the FBI on Nov. 22, which is true. But there were three shells removed from the TSBD, with shell #3 being retained in Dallas by Captain Fritz.

All of this is easily proven, but conspiracy theorists like their "Two Shells Found" option much better, despite its foundation of mush.


>>> "4) The 'backyard photo' is a fake." <<<

#4 -- Proven inaccurate by the HSCA and the Warren Commission. One of the backyard photos was positively linked to Oswald's very own camera (via the negative that exists for that photograph, proving it was taken with that Imperial-Reflex camera).

And if ONE of the backyard pictures was taken with Lee Oswald's own camera, then ALL OF THEM WERE (regardless of how many there were).

How can we know this?

Simple common sense. Because each photo shows the EXACT SAME THING (except for LHO's precise pose).



Conspiracists like the "faked photos" option much better than the truth, however. So, by God, to them those backyard pics are frauds, regardless of the fact that the negative to one of the photos could have come from only one single camera on Planet Earth -- Lee Harvey Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera.


>>> "5) [Of] The two (2) rifles found, one is gone (knowone [LOL] knows nuttin) and the other is never tested for discharge, in the field or in a Lab." <<<

#5 -- Only one rifle was found in the TSBD, and all reasonable people know it. The mix-up in the brand name of the weapon is easily understandable, since a Mannlicher-Carcano is, essentially, an ITALIAN MAUSER. "Mauser" being the generic type term for "bolt-action rifle", which Oswald's Carcano was.

Kooks like Bob Groden (et al), however, enjoy pretending that a SECOND rifle was actually found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

But within the context of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot, how much sense does the "Two Rifles" theory make anyway? Was Oswald The Patsy supposed to be able to fire TWO rifles at the President at the same time or something?

Those plotters were brainless idiots, weren't they?




>>> "6) After proof of LHO being on the lower floors, the WC then claims he could have "ran down the stairs"." <<<

#6 -- Oswald could definitely have run (or walked) down 4 floors in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom. That fact was proven on several occasions, with the WC doing time tests to prove it. And it was done at a "normal walking pace" by Joe Howlett of the Secret Service in just 78 seconds.

But the conspiracy lovers like to pretend that it was humanly impossible for anybody (Oswald or otherwise) to travel down four flights of stairs in approximately 90 seconds.

Such is the way with conspiracy fools -- they'll ignore the facts till a cow shows up on the front porch.


>>> "7) The only evidence of the Carcano being the murder weapon, CE-399, is highly suspect. Bullets don't "fall out" and land in front of government agents." <<<

#7 -- A double dose of factoids and myths here. The kook named "VJ" thinks that the ONLY thing that ties Oswald's rifle to the murder of JFK is CE399. How stupid is that assertion? Pretty stupid, considering he's also got CE567, CE569, and the three bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest staring him in his face too.

But let's just ignore the fact that bullet fragments FROM OSWALD'S GUN were found in the front seat of the car that JFK was murdered in, right VJ? Those were probably planted there too, right?

CTers like that word "planted". Without it, they've got nothing to hang their withered hat on.

#7b -- Since when did CE399 "fall out and land in front of [a] Government agent"? Was Darrell Tomlinson supposedly working as a "Government agent"?

Mr. "VJ" is plain nuts. (But, then too, that was obvious after #1 above.)


>>> "8) The Warren Commission never proofread their own report and issued it in such "disarray" (without Index) so the public couldn't read it." <<<

#8 -- Is just plain stupid. Even without a complete index, the material IS STILL THERE--IN PRINT for everybody to see if they so desire. This is just another convenient excuse for CTer VJ to ignore what's IN the Warren Report. (And he will ignore it, all day long. It's what conspiracy theorists do best--ignore the evidence.)


>>> "9) Afterward (assembled with Index) the conclusions were beyond belief." <<<

#9 -- Another really stupid item here. VJ evidently thinks that by adding a more detailed index to the Warren Report, a conspiracy can firmly be established. (Oh, my weak bladder!)


>>> "10) Political 'Commissions' can't determine the guilt or innocence of anyone, or any group and [that is] why they [are] 'appointed'. "Do nothings" to do nothing." <<<

#10 -- VJ closes out with another gut-busting piece of silliness. So, the Warren Commission can't reach a conclusion on who killed the President, eh?

Gee, I wonder why the Commission was even formed in the first place then? Just to waste some of the taxpayers' money, ya think?

Oh, that's right! It was formed to nail Oswald to the wall from the get-go--regardless of the evidence. Right, VJ?

It's just too bad that you can't come within a hundred miles of proving #10. (Or numbers 1 through 9 either.)

But I'm sure that you're accustomed to batting a solid .000 whenever you debate an LNer on the JFK assassination. I doubt you could even foul a pitch off.

David Von Pein
December 14, 2009